Port Access Route Study: The Atlantic Coast From Maine to Florida, 16510-16512 [2017-06738]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16510
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 401
Privacy and disclosure of official
records and information.
Nancy Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, we are amending subpart B of
part 401 of title 20 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 401—PRIVACY AND
DISCLOSURE OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
AND INFORMATION
Subpart B—[Amended].
1. The authority citation for subpart B
of part 401 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 205, 702(a)(5), 1106, and
1141 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
405, 902(a)(5), 1306, and 1320b–11); 5 U.S.C.
552 and 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1360; 26 U.S.C. 6103;
30 U.S.C. 923.
2. Amend § 401.85 by adding
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(F) to read as follows:
■
§ 401.85
Exempt systems.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(F) Anti-Harassment & Hostile Work
Environment Case Tracking and Records
System, SSA.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–06719 Filed 4–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0854]
Special Local Regulations and Safety
Zones; Recurring Marine Events and
Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth
Coast Guard District
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard will enforce
a safety zone for the National Cherry
Blossom Festival fireworks display
taking place over the Washington
Channel, Washington, DC, on April 15,
2017. The safety zone will include all
waters within a 100 yard radius of the
fireworks barge in approximate position
latitude 38°52′43.67″ N., longitude
077°01′28.39″ W. This date and location
is a change to those listed for the
annually scheduled event, as indicated
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Apr 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
in U.S. Coast Guard regulations, because
the event sponsor changed the
scheduled date and location of this
annual fireworks display. During the
enforcement period, vessels may not
enter, remain in, or transit through the
safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or designated Coast
Guard patrol personnel on scene. This
action is necessary to ensure safety of
life on navigable waters during the
event.
DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR
165.506, listed as event (b.) 1,
Washington Channel, Upper Potomac
River, Washington, DC; Safety Zone, in
the table to 33 CFR 165.506 will be
enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on
April 15, 2017; and in the case of
inclement weather enforcement will be
from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on April 16,
2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this notice of
enforcement, call or email Mr. Ron
Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Maryland-National Capital Region
(WWM Division); telephone 410–576–
2674, email Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
February 22, 2017, and March 8, 2017,
the Coast Guard was notified by the
National Cherry Blossom Festival
firework display sponsor that a change
of date and location was necessary to
those previously listed for the annually
scheduled event, as indicated in 33 CFR
165.506. The location of the annual
fireworks display is changed to
approximately 550 yards upstream and
its size is reduced, to include all waters
of the Washington Channel within 100
yards radius of the fireworks barge in
approximate position latitude
38°52′43.67″ N., longitude 077°01′28.39″
W., located in Washington, DC. The
Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in 33 CFR 165.506 from 7:30 p.m. until
9:30 p.m. on April 15, 2017, for the
National Cherry Blossom Festival
fireworks display. This action is being
taken to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during this event.
Our regulation for Recurring Marine
Events and Fireworks Displays within
the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 165.506,
specifies the location of the regulated
area for this safety zone as a circular
shaped area that includes all waters of
the Upper Potomac River, within 170
yard radius of the fireworks barge in
approximate position latitude
38°52′20.3″ N., longitude 077°01′17.5″
W., located within the Washington
Channel, at Washington Harbor, DC. As
specified in § 165.506(d), during the
enforcement period, vessels may not
enter, remain in, or transit through the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
safety zone unless authorized by the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP)
or designated Coast Guard patrol
personnel on scene. All persons and
vessels shall comply with the
instructions of the COTP, Coast Guard
Patrol Commander or the designated onscene-patrol personnel. Other Federal,
State and local agencies may assist these
personnel in the enforcement of the
safety zone. If the COTP or his
designated on-scene patrol personnel
determines the regulated area need not
be enforced for the full duration stated
in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners may be used to grant general
permission to enter the regulated area.
This notice of enforcement is issued
under authority of 33 CFR 165.506(d)
and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
notice of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide
notification of this enforcement period
via the Local Notice to Mariners and
marine information broadcasts.
Dated: March 30, 2017.
Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2017–06696 Filed 4–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 167
[USCG–2011–0351]
Port Access Route Study: The Atlantic
Coast From Maine to Florida
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard published a
document on March 14, 2016, that
announced the availability of the final
report issued by the Atlantic Coast Port
Access Route Study (ACPARS)
workgroup. In addition, the Coast Guard
requested comments concerning the
final report. After a review of the
comments received, the Coast Guard has
determined that it is not necessary to
revise the final report, and therefore
considers it to be complete as
published.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
April 5, 2017.
If
you have questions on this notification,
contact George Detweiler, Coast Guard,
telephone (202) 372–1566 or email
George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM
05APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Background and Purpose. The Coast
Guard commenced its work on the
Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study
by chartering a workgroup (WG) on May
11, 2011. The Coast Guard published
the WG’s Interim Report in the Federal
Register (77 FR 55781; Sep. 11, 2012),
which provided a status of efforts up to
that date. Subsequently, the Coast Guard
published a notification in the Federal
Register (81 FR 13307; Mar. 14, 2016)
that announced the availability of the
final report issued by the ACPARS WG.
This document discusses the comments
received and provides the Coast Guard’s
response to those comments. The final
report is available on the Federal
Register docket and also on the
ACPARS Web site at www.uscg.mil/
lantarea/acpars.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Discussion of Comments
Comments were submitted by
representatives of the maritime
community, wind energy developers,
non-government organizations, Federal
and State government agencies,
academic institutions and private
citizens.
Topics covered by the comments
included the Coast Guard’s role and
relationship with the Department of
Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), the Coast Guarddeveloped Marine Planning Guidelines
and navigation corridors, protection of
right whales and continued public
outreach.
Coast Guard Cooperation With
Stakeholders and the Marine Planning
Process
Some commenters urged the Coast
Guard to coordinate and consult more
closely with the other agencies
associated with the development of
offshore wind, particularly the BOEM to
finalize the ACPARS report, and to
utilize the Regional Planning Bodies to
obtain broad feedback in evaluating
navigation safety issues. We generally
agree with these comments, but must
state that throughout the ACPARS
process, we have worked closely with
BOEM in conducting this study and
developing the final report.
Additionally, broad stakeholder
consultation must still be conducted on
a case-by-case basis for each particular
project proposed, as each will present
unique circumstances and navigational
risks.
The Coast Guard has participated and
will continue to participate in a lead
permitting agency’s National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process as a subject matter expert for
navigation safety, maritime security,
maritime mobility (management of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Apr 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
maritime traffic, commerce, and
navigation), national defense, and
protection of the marine environment.
In the case of wind farms on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS), BOEM is the
NEPA lead permitting agency and is
responsible for the evaluation of
environmental impacts and preparation
of associated environmental
documentation. BOEM and the Coast
Guard have entered into a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) to identify their
respective roles and responsibilities as
members of BOEM/State Renewable
Energy Task Forces for Wind Energy
Area (WEA) identification, the issuance
of leases and approval of Site
Assessment Plans (SAPs), General
Activity Plans (GAPs) and Construction
and Operations Plans (COPs) for
offshore renewable energy installations
(OREIs). The Coast Guard will continue
to work closely with BOEM in support
of their Offshore Renewable Energy
Program.
U.K. Marine Guidance Note 371 and
Marine Planning Guidelines
Many commenters stated the Coast
Guard premised its Marine Planning
Guidelines (MP Guidelines) on Marine
Guidance Note (MGN) 371, a United
Kingdom (U.K.) publication that had
been superseded, and further
commented that the Coast Guard had
misapplied MGN 371 in developing the
MP Guidelines. Additionally, some of
these comments suggested that the Coast
Guard should revise the MP Guidelines
to be consistent with MGN 543, which
superseded MGN 371. As discussed
below, we disagree with these
comments.
The United Kingdom’s Maritime and
Coastguard Agency (MCA) published
MGN 371 in August of 2008, well before
we began the ACPARS process. Through
the study, we determined that there was
no single international standard for
establishing safe navigation distances
from permanent structures in the marine
environment. With the development of
European offshore wind farms, several
different standards or guidelines
evolved, and we considered each in
development of the Coast Guard’s MP
Guidelines. In particular, we considered
the guidance prepared by the Shipping
Advisory Board Northsea, which was
endorsed by the Confederation of
European Shipmasters’ Associations
and used a formulaic approach that
produces a 1.9 Nautical Mile (NM)
distance from the side of a Traffic
Separation Scheme (TSS) for a 400
meter vessel. The World Shipping
Council recommended a minimum 2
NM safe distance from side of a Traffic
Separation Scheme (TSS). We also
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16511
considered the guidance prepared by
the German Waterways and Shipping
Directorate North West and North,
which calls for a 2 NM setback to the
side of a TSS, plus a 500 meter safety
zone for each turbine. Last, we
considered MGN 371, which throughout
the study period reflected the current
guidance of the U.K.’s MCA. Under
MGN 371, the MCA considered a
navigation buffer of 1 NM to 2 NM from
the edge of a TSS to be medium risk,
and greater than 2 NM to be low risk.
In January of 2016, after our work on
the ACPARS was complete but before
we released our final report for
comment, the MCA published MGN
543, which superseded MGN 371.
Through MGN 543, the MCA intended
to simplify the Wind Farm Shipping
Route Template (table, p. 13), which
contained four columns and twelve
defined distances associated with
unique considerations (‘‘Factors’’) and
degrees of risk ranging from very high
to very low. The shipping route
template in MGN 543 (p. 21) essentially
consolidated the twelve safety distances
to three, with less than 0.5 NM being
‘‘intolerable’’ and a range from 0.5 NM
to 3.5 NM being ‘‘tolerable’’ if risks have
been mitigated to a point termed ‘‘as
low as reasonably possible’’ or ALARP.
Last, the MGN 543 template considers
distances beyond 3.5 NM to be ‘‘broadly
acceptable.’’
Although some commenters may view
MGN 543’s revised template to have
relaxed the recommended safe distances
in MGN 371, we do not agree. Through
MGN 543, the MCA sought to both
simplify the template, and also make
clear that generally there is a range of
possible safe setback distances, and that
a particular distance for any given wind
farm would be determined by the
unique circumstances of the project,
which must be evaluated on a case-bycase basis.
Similarly, our MP Guidelines state
that the Coast Guard will be a
cooperating agency in the NEPA process
wherein we will evaluate the Navigation
Safety Risk Assessment unique to each
proposed project, i.e., on a case-by-case
basis. After consideration of several
European guidelines, we determined
that a 2 NM setback from the side of a
TSS was the appropriate guidance for
offshore wind farm developers. This
distance is consistent with the MCA
371’s demarcation for low risk, it is in
the middle of MGN 543’s range for
‘‘tolerable if ALARP’’ and also
consistent with the other European
guidance we considered. As such, we do
not intend to revise the MP Guidelines
at this time.
E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM
05APR1
16512
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
It is important to note that the
distances set forth in MGN 371, MNG
543 and our MP Guidelines are not
standards, regulations or requirements
of any type, but rather are guidance for
developers to consider at the outset of
a proposal. For example, both MGN 371
and MGN 543 state ‘‘[t]his Guidance
Note, as the name implies, is intended
for the guidance of developers and
others.’’ See p. 3 of both Notes. In
similar language, the MP Guidelines
states on p. 1 ‘‘[t]hese guidelines are
provided to assist offshore developers
and marine planners with their
evaluation of the navigational impacts
of any projects with multiple permanent
fixed structures.’’ Furthermore, on p. 6
of the MP Guidelines, we state ‘‘[t]hese
recommendations are based on generic
deep draft vessel maneuvering
characteristics and are consistent with
existing European guidelines.’’
As discussed above, the Coast Guard
will evaluate each proposed project
based upon the actual risks identified in
the Navigation Safety Risk Assessment,
and not by rigidly applying
recommended distances from the MP
Guidelines or any other similar
guidance. Because our guidelines are
neither regulations nor standards that
must be applied, and because we view
MGN 543 as a simplification of its
predecessor, MGN 371, we do not
believe it is necessary or prudent to
revise our MP Guidelines at this time.
Navigation Corridors
Various comments were received
concerning navigation corridors. Some
commenters said the navigation
corridors were too large, or simply not
necessary, whereas others said they
were essential to preserve clear shipping
lanes. Prior to the advent of offshore
wind development, there was no need
for a coordinated routing system along
the entire Atlantic seaboard, and
existing traffic separation schemes at the
entrances to major ports were adequate
to manage collision risks for commercial
vessel traffic. As the potential for
conflicting uses of the Atlantic Ocean
has increased, the Coast Guard must
evaluate options to reduce associated
risks to navigation and the environment.
The ACPARS identified the routes
typically used by tug and barge traffic
and deep draft ocean-going vessels. The
identified navigation corridors in the
final report simply reflect areas
historically used by commercial vessels.
The ACPARS report recommends that
the navigation corridors should be
considered during marine planning
activities and incorporated into
Regional Ocean Plans to ensure
appropriate consideration is given to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Apr 04, 2017
Jkt 241001
shipping early in the project siting
process. Some commenters have also
suggested the Coast Guard apply the
data and recommendations from the
ACPARS to the marine planning
process, and we agree with those
comments.
The ACPARS report also
recommended that the Coast Guard use
the identified navigation corridors to
establish shipping safety fairways (areas
where permanent structures are not
permitted) or other appropriate ships’
routing measures. The Coast Guard is
considering these recommendations, but
has not yet determined if or how it may
move forward on such routing
measures. In the event the Coast Guard
determines that shipping safety fairways
or other routing measures must be
further explored, it will engage all
relevant stakeholders and ultimately
commence a formal rulemaking process
that will provide ample notice and
opportunity for public and other
stakeholder comment, and a thorough
environmental review.
Protection of Right Whales
The Coast Guard received comments
suggesting that offshore navigation
corridors for deep draft traffic could
endanger North Atlantic right whales if
the corridors divert vessel traffic around
wind farms into areas where these
endangered whales tend to migrate.
Although the offshore navigation
corridors identified simply reflect
existing vessel traffic patterns already in
use, the Coast Guard would consult
with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, interagency partners
and other stakeholders through the
NEPA and marine planning processes as
a necessary part of any action to
formally establish routing measures
associated with the ACPARS or
particular wind farm proposals.
Continued Public Outreach
Some commenters recommended that
the Coast Guard continue outreach
efforts with affected states and federal
agencies, the marine shipping industry,
the wind energy industry and the
general public, which could include
participation in stakeholder outreach
activities, public meetings, workshops
and industry meetings and conferences.
The Coast Guard concurs with the
recommendation and will continue its
outreach program through the Regional
Planning Bodies.
Summary
For the foregoing reasons, the Coast
Guard considers the ACPARS report to
be complete and will not make changes
to it at this time.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This notification is issued under
authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) and 5
U.S.C. 552.
Dated: March 31, 2017.
Michael D. Emerson,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems,
U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2017–06738 Filed 4–4–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 183
[Docket No. USCG–2016–1012]
RIN 1625–AC37
Recreational Boat Flotation
Standards—Update of Outboard
Engine Weight Test Requirements
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is issuing
this interim rule to update the table of
outboard engine weights used in
calculating safe loading capacities and
required amounts of flotation material.
The engine weight table was last
updated in 1984, and the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2015 requires that
we update the table to reflect a specific
standard.
DATES: This interim rule is effective on
June 1, 2018. Comments and related
material must be submitted to the online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov,
or reach the Docket Management
Facility, on or before July 5, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2016–1012 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information about this document call or
email Mr. Jeffrey Ludwig, Coast Guard;
telephone 202–372–1061, email
Jeffrey.A.Ludwig@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Abbreviations
II. Basis and Purpose
III. Regulatory History
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
E:\FR\FM\05APR1.SGM
05APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16510-16512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06738]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 167
[USCG-2011-0351]
Port Access Route Study: The Atlantic Coast From Maine to Florida
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a document on March 14, 2016, that
announced the availability of the final report issued by the Atlantic
Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS) workgroup. In addition, the
Coast Guard requested comments concerning the final report. After a
review of the comments received, the Coast Guard has determined that it
is not necessary to revise the final report, and therefore considers it
to be complete as published.
DATES: April 5, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
notification, contact George Detweiler, Coast Guard, telephone (202)
372-1566 or email George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 16511]]
Background and Purpose. The Coast Guard commenced its work on the
Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study by chartering a workgroup (WG)
on May 11, 2011. The Coast Guard published the WG's Interim Report in
the Federal Register (77 FR 55781; Sep. 11, 2012), which provided a
status of efforts up to that date. Subsequently, the Coast Guard
published a notification in the Federal Register (81 FR 13307; Mar. 14,
2016) that announced the availability of the final report issued by the
ACPARS WG. This document discusses the comments received and provides
the Coast Guard's response to those comments. The final report is
available on the Federal Register docket and also on the ACPARS Web
site at www.uscg.mil/lantarea/acpars.
Discussion of Comments
Comments were submitted by representatives of the maritime
community, wind energy developers, non-government organizations,
Federal and State government agencies, academic institutions and
private citizens.
Topics covered by the comments included the Coast Guard's role and
relationship with the Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), the Coast Guard-developed Marine Planning Guidelines
and navigation corridors, protection of right whales and continued
public outreach.
Coast Guard Cooperation With Stakeholders and the Marine Planning
Process
Some commenters urged the Coast Guard to coordinate and consult
more closely with the other agencies associated with the development of
offshore wind, particularly the BOEM to finalize the ACPARS report, and
to utilize the Regional Planning Bodies to obtain broad feedback in
evaluating navigation safety issues. We generally agree with these
comments, but must state that throughout the ACPARS process, we have
worked closely with BOEM in conducting this study and developing the
final report. Additionally, broad stakeholder consultation must still
be conducted on a case-by-case basis for each particular project
proposed, as each will present unique circumstances and navigational
risks.
The Coast Guard has participated and will continue to participate
in a lead permitting agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process as a subject matter expert for navigation safety, maritime
security, maritime mobility (management of maritime traffic, commerce,
and navigation), national defense, and protection of the marine
environment. In the case of wind farms on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS), BOEM is the NEPA lead permitting agency and is responsible for
the evaluation of environmental impacts and preparation of associated
environmental documentation. BOEM and the Coast Guard have entered into
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to identify their respective roles and
responsibilities as members of BOEM/State Renewable Energy Task Forces
for Wind Energy Area (WEA) identification, the issuance of leases and
approval of Site Assessment Plans (SAPs), General Activity Plans (GAPs)
and Construction and Operations Plans (COPs) for offshore renewable
energy installations (OREIs). The Coast Guard will continue to work
closely with BOEM in support of their Offshore Renewable Energy
Program.
U.K. Marine Guidance Note 371 and Marine Planning Guidelines
Many commenters stated the Coast Guard premised its Marine Planning
Guidelines (MP Guidelines) on Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 371, a United
Kingdom (U.K.) publication that had been superseded, and further
commented that the Coast Guard had misapplied MGN 371 in developing the
MP Guidelines. Additionally, some of these comments suggested that the
Coast Guard should revise the MP Guidelines to be consistent with MGN
543, which superseded MGN 371. As discussed below, we disagree with
these comments.
The United Kingdom's Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) published
MGN 371 in August of 2008, well before we began the ACPARS process.
Through the study, we determined that there was no single international
standard for establishing safe navigation distances from permanent
structures in the marine environment. With the development of European
offshore wind farms, several different standards or guidelines evolved,
and we considered each in development of the Coast Guard's MP
Guidelines. In particular, we considered the guidance prepared by the
Shipping Advisory Board Northsea, which was endorsed by the
Confederation of European Shipmasters' Associations and used a
formulaic approach that produces a 1.9 Nautical Mile (NM) distance from
the side of a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) for a 400 meter vessel.
The World Shipping Council recommended a minimum 2 NM safe distance
from side of a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS). We also considered the
guidance prepared by the German Waterways and Shipping Directorate
North West and North, which calls for a 2 NM setback to the side of a
TSS, plus a 500 meter safety zone for each turbine. Last, we considered
MGN 371, which throughout the study period reflected the current
guidance of the U.K.'s MCA. Under MGN 371, the MCA considered a
navigation buffer of 1 NM to 2 NM from the edge of a TSS to be medium
risk, and greater than 2 NM to be low risk.
In January of 2016, after our work on the ACPARS was complete but
before we released our final report for comment, the MCA published MGN
543, which superseded MGN 371. Through MGN 543, the MCA intended to
simplify the Wind Farm Shipping Route Template (table, p. 13), which
contained four columns and twelve defined distances associated with
unique considerations (``Factors'') and degrees of risk ranging from
very high to very low. The shipping route template in MGN 543 (p. 21)
essentially consolidated the twelve safety distances to three, with
less than 0.5 NM being ``intolerable'' and a range from 0.5 NM to 3.5
NM being ``tolerable'' if risks have been mitigated to a point termed
``as low as reasonably possible'' or ALARP. Last, the MGN 543 template
considers distances beyond 3.5 NM to be ``broadly acceptable.''
Although some commenters may view MGN 543's revised template to
have relaxed the recommended safe distances in MGN 371, we do not
agree. Through MGN 543, the MCA sought to both simplify the template,
and also make clear that generally there is a range of possible safe
setback distances, and that a particular distance for any given wind
farm would be determined by the unique circumstances of the project,
which must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Similarly, our MP Guidelines state that the Coast Guard will be a
cooperating agency in the NEPA process wherein we will evaluate the
Navigation Safety Risk Assessment unique to each proposed project,
i.e., on a case-by-case basis. After consideration of several European
guidelines, we determined that a 2 NM setback from the side of a TSS
was the appropriate guidance for offshore wind farm developers. This
distance is consistent with the MCA 371's demarcation for low risk, it
is in the middle of MGN 543's range for ``tolerable if ALARP'' and also
consistent with the other European guidance we considered. As such, we
do not intend to revise the MP Guidelines at this time.
[[Page 16512]]
It is important to note that the distances set forth in MGN 371,
MNG 543 and our MP Guidelines are not standards, regulations or
requirements of any type, but rather are guidance for developers to
consider at the outset of a proposal. For example, both MGN 371 and MGN
543 state ``[t]his Guidance Note, as the name implies, is intended for
the guidance of developers and others.'' See p. 3 of both Notes. In
similar language, the MP Guidelines states on p. 1 ``[t]hese guidelines
are provided to assist offshore developers and marine planners with
their evaluation of the navigational impacts of any projects with
multiple permanent fixed structures.'' Furthermore, on p. 6 of the MP
Guidelines, we state ``[t]hese recommendations are based on generic
deep draft vessel maneuvering characteristics and are consistent with
existing European guidelines.''
As discussed above, the Coast Guard will evaluate each proposed
project based upon the actual risks identified in the Navigation Safety
Risk Assessment, and not by rigidly applying recommended distances from
the MP Guidelines or any other similar guidance. Because our guidelines
are neither regulations nor standards that must be applied, and because
we view MGN 543 as a simplification of its predecessor, MGN 371, we do
not believe it is necessary or prudent to revise our MP Guidelines at
this time.
Navigation Corridors
Various comments were received concerning navigation corridors.
Some commenters said the navigation corridors were too large, or simply
not necessary, whereas others said they were essential to preserve
clear shipping lanes. Prior to the advent of offshore wind development,
there was no need for a coordinated routing system along the entire
Atlantic seaboard, and existing traffic separation schemes at the
entrances to major ports were adequate to manage collision risks for
commercial vessel traffic. As the potential for conflicting uses of the
Atlantic Ocean has increased, the Coast Guard must evaluate options to
reduce associated risks to navigation and the environment. The ACPARS
identified the routes typically used by tug and barge traffic and deep
draft ocean-going vessels. The identified navigation corridors in the
final report simply reflect areas historically used by commercial
vessels. The ACPARS report recommends that the navigation corridors
should be considered during marine planning activities and incorporated
into Regional Ocean Plans to ensure appropriate consideration is given
to shipping early in the project siting process. Some commenters have
also suggested the Coast Guard apply the data and recommendations from
the ACPARS to the marine planning process, and we agree with those
comments.
The ACPARS report also recommended that the Coast Guard use the
identified navigation corridors to establish shipping safety fairways
(areas where permanent structures are not permitted) or other
appropriate ships' routing measures. The Coast Guard is considering
these recommendations, but has not yet determined if or how it may move
forward on such routing measures. In the event the Coast Guard
determines that shipping safety fairways or other routing measures must
be further explored, it will engage all relevant stakeholders and
ultimately commence a formal rulemaking process that will provide ample
notice and opportunity for public and other stakeholder comment, and a
thorough environmental review.
Protection of Right Whales
The Coast Guard received comments suggesting that offshore
navigation corridors for deep draft traffic could endanger North
Atlantic right whales if the corridors divert vessel traffic around
wind farms into areas where these endangered whales tend to migrate.
Although the offshore navigation corridors identified simply reflect
existing vessel traffic patterns already in use, the Coast Guard would
consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
interagency partners and other stakeholders through the NEPA and marine
planning processes as a necessary part of any action to formally
establish routing measures associated with the ACPARS or particular
wind farm proposals.
Continued Public Outreach
Some commenters recommended that the Coast Guard continue outreach
efforts with affected states and federal agencies, the marine shipping
industry, the wind energy industry and the general public, which could
include participation in stakeholder outreach activities, public
meetings, workshops and industry meetings and conferences. The Coast
Guard concurs with the recommendation and will continue its outreach
program through the Regional Planning Bodies.
Summary
For the foregoing reasons, the Coast Guard considers the ACPARS
report to be complete and will not make changes to it at this time.
This notification is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c)
and 5 U.S.C. 552.
Dated: March 31, 2017.
Michael D. Emerson,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2017-06738 Filed 4-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
