Regulated Navigation Area; Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers, Pittsburgh, PA, 31273-31277 [2019-13932]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
§ 7.27
c. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and
(d) as paragraphs (b) and (c),
respectively.
The revision reads as follows:
■
§ 5.38
Net Contents.
(a) Standards of fill. The net contents
of distilled spirits shall be stated in
metric measure. The equivalent
standard U.S. measure may also be
stated on the container in addition to
the metric measure. See § 5.47 of this
part for tolerances and for regulations
pertaining to unreasonable shortages.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 5.45 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (a);
■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph
(b); and
■ c. Removing the parenthetical phrase
at the end of the section containing the
reference OMB control number 1513–
0064.
The revision reads as follows:
§ 5.45
Application.
(a) No person engaged in business as
a distiller, rectifier, importer,
wholesaler, or warehouseman and
bottler, directly or indirectly, or through
an affiliate, shall sell or ship or deliver
for sale or shipment, or otherwise
introduce in interstate or foreign
commerce, or receive therein or remove
from customs custody any distilled
spirits in bottles unless such distilled
spirits are bottled and packed in
conformity with §§ 5.46 and 5.47.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 5.47
■
[Removed]
[Redesignated as § 5.47]
6. Section 5.47a is redesignated as
§ 5.47.
■ 7. In newly redesignated § 5.47, the
section heading and paragraph (a) is
revised and paragraph (d) is removed.
The revisions read as follows:
■
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 5.47
8. The authority citation for part 7
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
9. In § 7.27, paragraph (a) introductory
text is revised to read as follows:
Jkt 247001
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 81c; 26 U.S.C. 5001,
5007, 5008, 5010, 5041, 5051, 5061, 5111–
5114, 5121, 5122–5124, 5131–5132, 5207,
5232, 5271, 5275, 5301, 5314, 5555, 6001,
6109, 6301, 6302, 6804, 7101, 7102, 7651,
7652, 7805; 27 U.S.C. 203, 205; 31 U.S.C.
9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
§ 26.40
[Amended]
11. In § 26.40, paragraph (c) is
amended by removing the phrase
‘‘§ 5.47a,’’ and adding, in its place, the
phrase ‘‘§ 5.47’’.
■
§ 26.206
[Amended]
12. In § 26.206, paragraph (c) is
amended by removing the phrase
‘‘§ 5.47a,’’ and adding, in its place, the
phrase ‘‘§ 5.47’’.
■
§ 26.312
[Amended]
13. In § 26.312, the first sentence is
amended by removing the phrase ‘‘or
§ 5.47a’’.
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 19 U.S.C. 81c,
1202; 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5007, 5008, 5010, 5041,
5051, 5054, 5061, 5121, 5122–5124, 5201,
5205, 5207, 5232, 5273, 5301, 5313, 5382,
5555, 6109, 6302, 7805.
PART 7—LABELING AND
ADVERTISING OF MALT BEVERAGES
17:34 Jun 28, 2019
10. The authority citation for part 26
continues to read as follows:
■
14. The authority citation for part 27
continues to read as follows:
Standards of fill.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
PART 26—LIQUORS AND ARTICLES
FROM PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS
■
(a) Authorized standards of fill.
Subject to the tolerances allowed under
paragraph (b) of this section and the
headspace prescribed in § 5.46(b),
distilled spirits containers, other than
bulk, may not contain more than 3.785
liters or less than 50 milliliters.
*
*
*
*
*
■
(a) Net contents shall be stated in
standard U.S. measure as follows, and
the equivalent metric measure may also
be stated:
*
*
*
*
*
PART 27—IMPORTATION OF
DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINES, AND
BEER
5. Section 5.47 is removed.
§ 5.47a
Net contents.
§ 27.202
[Amended]
15. In § 27.202, the first sentence is
amended by removing the phrase
‘‘§ 5.47a’’ and adding, in its place, the
phrase ‘‘§ 5.47’’.
■
Signed: June 18, 2019.
Mary G. Ryan,
Acting Administrator.
Approved: June 20, 2019.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019–13767 Filed 6–28–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31273
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2019–0118]
RIN 1625–AA11
Regulated Navigation Area;
Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio
Rivers, Pittsburgh, PA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
establish a regulated navigation area for
certain waters of the Monongahela,
Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers near
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of
persons, vessels, and the marine
environment on these navigable waters
due to the high volume of vessels
navigating the area. This proposed
rulemaking would prohibit persons and
vessels from loitering, anchoring,
stopping, mooring, remaining, or
drifting more than 100 feet from any
river bank in the regulated navigation
area unless authorized in order to
reduce vessel congestion and provide
for safe passage of transiting vessels in
the center of the rivers. It would also
prohibit persons and vessels from
loitering, anchoring, stopping, mooring,
remaining, or drifting in any manner
that impedes the safe passage of another
vessel to any launching ramp, marine,
or fleeting area unless authorized. We
invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before July 31, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2019–0118 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: If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email LT Shawn
Simeral, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh,
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412–221–
0807, email Shawn.C.Simeral@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Marine Safety
Unit Pittsburgh
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
31274
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MSU Marine Safety Unit
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
The Coast Guard proposes to establish
a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) for
certain waters of the Monongahela,
Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers near
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The
confluence of these three rivers is a high
traffic area for both commercial and
recreational vessels. It is also a
destination for recreational vessels to
anchor and loiter during the summer
months due to the proximity of multiple
entertainment venues. The Coast Guard
is concerned about the potential for
collisions between commercial and
recreational vessels and the impact of
vessel congestion on maritime
commerce in this area. A Map/Chartlet
depicting the area, as well as images
depicting the severe vessel congestion
in this area, are included where
indicated in the docket under
ADDRESSES.
A. The Point of Pittsburgh
The Point of Pittsburgh is located at
the confluence of the Allegheny,
Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers, and is
surrounded by the city of Pittsburgh,
PA. The city of Pittsburgh is located in
the Emsworth pool, often referred to as
the ‘‘Pitt Pool,’’ which forms the 24-mile
pool around the city.1 The Emsworth
pool is the water area from upriver of
the Emsworth Locks and Dam on the
Ohio River, to Lock 2 on the Allegheny
River and to the Braddock Locks and
Dam on the Monongahela River. In
2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) ranked the Port of Pittsburgh
fourth among inland waterway ports
and 31st among ports in the United
States for tonnage traffic. The area
around the Point of Pittsburgh also
includes eight highway bridges. These
bridges create navigation limitations for
tows and passenger vessels due to piers
and overhead clearance.
In addition, the Port of Pittsburgh
contains 27 marinas and has 21 public
boat landings, and the Pitt Pool contains
12 marinas and three public boat
launches. Over the past three years, an
average of 7,860 recreational boats
transited through the three locks of the
Pitt Pool annually. The Point of
Pittsburgh area contains multiple
1 ‘‘Pool’’ is a term used to describe the area
between navigation dams of the rivers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Jun 28, 2019
Jkt 247001
entertainment venues near the riverfront
that include: A National Football League
stadium, Major League Baseball
stadium, casino, United Soccer League
stadium, amphitheater, state park,
science center, museums, convention
center, and various memorials,
monuments, trails, and restaurants.
B. The Marine Community Concerns
A wide variety of both commercial
and recreational traffic transit the rivers
around the Point, including: Barges and
tow boats in transit up bound on the
Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, and
down bound on the Ohio River, ferries
to the North Shore of the Ohio River for
events, passenger vessel cruises, and
recreational craft. Due to the heavy
concentration of entertainment
activities, the Point of Pittsburgh is a
destination for recreational craft to
moor, anchor, or drift in the area.
Recreational vessels will often raft off to
one another from the shore or from an
anchored vessel, creating congestion
and hazardous conditions for less
maneuverable vessels transiting the
river current.
During a Passenger Vessel Association
Rivers Region Meeting in November of
2016, participants notified Coast Guard
Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Pittsburgh of
navigation and safety issues involving
vessel congestion near the Point of
Pittsburgh during the summer months.
As a result, MSU Pittsburgh formed a
Congested Waterways Committee that
meets monthly to investigate the
congestion issue and discuss concerns
regarding use of the waterway. The
committee includes: Tow boat
operators, commercial passenger vessel
operators, port executives, safe boating
council members, industry
representatives, and members from local
recreational boat associations, along
with representatives of the Coast Guard
Auxiliary, USACE, and city and state
law enforcement officials.
MSU Pittsburgh learned that during
summer months, especially on
weekends, large numbers of recreational
vessels anchor or drift in the vicinity of
the Point of Pittsburgh, which created
an unsafe navigation situation for the
larger commercial vessels utilizing the
waterway. Some of the participants
discussed several near misses between
commercial and recreational vessels, but
currently there is no standard definition
of a near miss as it pertains to this issue,
nor has it been tracked. MSU Pittsburgh
received comments about the dangers of
recreational vessels anchoring or
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
drifting near the sailing line,2 and
conversely, about the dangers of
commercial vessels that seem to expect
vessels to give way as a matter of course.
The local ferries also expressed
concerns regarding vessels blocking the
approaches to their loading areas.
Several commercial vessel
representatives were frustrated that
recreational vessel users are not all
required to have knowledge of
navigation rules prior to operating a
vessel.3 They also stated that during
times of congestion, commercial vessels
will often halt transit of vessels or limit
passenger vessel cruise areas rather than
proceed into potentially unsafe transit
conditions. These events have a
negative impact on their businesses.
Industry representatives discussed their
vessel size, stopping limitations, limited
maneuverability, and proximity to
bridges as reasons they consider transit
during congestion as unsafe. They stated
that recreational vessels often maneuver
very close to their vessels or cross in
front as they transit. Everyone agreed
that the three rivers of Pittsburgh should
be able to be used by both commercial
and recreational vessels, and that the
safety of the waterways users should be
the top priority.
C. Special Local Regulations
During the summer of 2018, MSU
Pittsburgh was notified of two outdoor
concerts at Heinz Field. Due to the
proximity of the stadium to the Ohio
River, large concentrations of
recreational vessels were anticipated
throughout concert weekends. To
mitigate the navigational impact, MSU
Pittsburgh permitted these concerts as
marine events and established
temporary Special Local Regulations to
maintain a safe and clear navigation
area during the concert weekends.
On April 17, 2018, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local
Regulation; Monongahela (MM 0.22),
Allegheny (MM 0.8), and Ohio Rivers
(0.8), Pittsburgh, PA (83 FR 16808) for
the Luke Bryan concert. There, we
stated why we issued the NPRM, and
invited comments on our proposed
regulatory action related to the concert.
During the comment period that ended
on May 2, 2018, we received no
comments. On May 18, 2018, the Coast
Guard published a temporary final rule
2 The phrase ‘‘sailing line’’ is defined as the
middle of the river as marked on the USACE river
charts.
3 Pennsylvania law states any person born on or
after January 1, 1982, shall not operate, on the
waters of this Commonwealth, a motorboat without
first obtaining a certificate of boating safety
education.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
establishing the Special Local
Regulation (83 FR 23218).
On April 19, 2018, the Coast Guard
published an NPRM titled Special Local
Regulation; Monongahela, Allegheny,
and Ohio Rivers, Pittsburgh PA (83 FR
17333) for the Kenny Chesney concert.
There, we stated why we issued the
NPRM, and invited comments on our
proposed regulatory action related to the
concert. During the comment period
that ended May 4, 2018, we received no
comments. On May 18, 2018, the Coast
Guard published a temporary final rule
establishing the Special Local
Regulation (83 FR 23224).
Both temporary Special Local
Regulations prohibited persons and
vessels from loitering, anchoring,
stopping, or drifting more than 100 feet
from any riverbank or act in a manner
that impedes the passage of another
vessel to any launching ramp, marina,
or fleeting area. In advance of the
concert weekends, MSU Pittsburgh
conducted outreach/education. MSU
Pittsburgh provided flyers to the three
locks and dams of the Pitt Pool to be
given to boaters entering the pool
throughout the concert weekends. Coast
Guard and Coast Guard Auxiliary
patrols also provided flyers to boaters in
the Pitt Pool during the concerts. MSU
Pittsburgh personnel participated in
news media interviews with two local
TV stations and one local newspaper.
According to the USACE, 529
recreational and 133 commercial vessels
transited through the locks of the Pitt
Pool throughout the concert weekends.
Additionally, 316 passenger vessel trips
were conducted in close proximity to
Heinz Field. Despite the concentration
of vessels, both recreational and
commercial vessels were able to transit
safely throughout the weekend, and
positive feedback was received from
industry, other government agencies,
and recreational representatives.
This NPRM proposes to establish an
RNA using the same waterway controls
as were used in the previous Special
Local Regulations. While these Special
Local Regulations were effective in
mitigating the hazards of heavy
congestion in and around the Pitt Pool
during said events, a more permanent
solution is required to handle the
consistently heavy traffic throughout
peak boating season. The heavy
congestion conditions addressed by the
Special Local Regulations are present
throughout the summer months, and it
would be exceptionally laborious for
MSU Pittsburgh personnel to establish
individual Special Local Regulations to
mitigate every instance. The Coast
Guard feels that a permanent RNA is the
most effective solution for mitigating the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Jun 28, 2019
Jkt 247001
dangers of heavy congestion, using
proven methods, with minimal impacts
to vessel traffic operating under normal
waterway conditions.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure the safety of persons, vessels,
and the marine environment on the
navigable waters of the Monongahela,
Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers near
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The
Commander of the Eighth Coast Guard
District has determined that potential
hazards associated with the risk of
collision in this area would be a safety
concern for any vessel loitering,
anchoring, stopping, or drifting more
than 100 feet from a riverbank or in a
manner that impedes the passage of
another vessel to any launching ramp,
marina, or fleeting area. The Coast
Guard proposes this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041 (previously
33 U.S.C. 1231).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The District Commander proposes to
establish a regulated navigation area for
all navigable waters of the Allegheny,
Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers between
the Ninth Street Highway Bridge at mile
marker (MM) 0.8 of the Allegheny River,
Fort Pitt Highway Bridge at MM 0.22 of
the Monongahela River, and West EndNorth Side Highway Bridge at MM 0.8
of the Ohio River. This proposed rule
would apply to any vessel operating
within the area, including a naval or
public vessel, except a vessel engaged in
law enforcement, servicing aids to
navigation, or surveying, maintaining,
or improving waters within the
regulated area. No vessel would be
permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, moor,
remain or drift in any manner that
impedes safe passage of another vessel
to any launching ramp, marina, or
fleeting area unless authorized by the
COTP or a designated representative. In
addition, no vessel or person would be
permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, remain,
or drift more than 100 feet from any
riverbank unless authorized by the
COTP or a designated representative.
They may be contacted on VHF–FM
Channel 16.
On the other hand, this rule allows
vessels and people to loiter, anchor,
stop, remain, or drift within the
regulated area so long as they are within
100 feet of the shore or riverbank. By
requiring all vessels to loiter, anchor,
stop, remain, or drift only within 100
feet of the riverbanks, the center of the
rivers are less likely to be obstructed for
navigating vessels. The regulatory text
we are proposing appears at the end of
this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31275
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies
to control regulatory costs through a
budgeting process. This NPRM has not
been designated a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ under Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive
Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination
is based on the size, location, and
impact of the regulated navigation area.
The regulated navigation area uses
minimally intrusive guidelines for
vessel operation designed to improve
the safety of navigation on the waters of
the area. This regulated navigation area
does not meet any of the criteria for a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to consider
the potential impact of regulations on
small entities during rulemaking. The
term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the regulated
navigation area may be small entities,
for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above, this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
31276
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule. If the
rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of
the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for
a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this proposed rule under that
Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive
Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
If you believe this proposed rule has
implications for federalism or Indian
tribes, please contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Jun 28, 2019
Jkt 247001
more in any one year. Though this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this
action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule
involves a regulated navigation area that
prohibits loitering, anchoring, stopping,
mooring, remaining, or drifting in any
manner that impedes safe passage of
another vessel to any launching ramp,
marina, or fleeting area. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a)
of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01,
Rev. 01. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, visit https://
www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
website’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034; 46 U.S.C.
70051; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and
160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
■
2. Add § 165.823 to read as follows:
§ 165.823 Allegheny River, Monongahela
River, and Ohio River, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; Regulated Navigation Area
(a) Location. The following is a
regulated navigation area (RNA): The
waters of the Allegheny, Monongahela,
and Ohio Rivers between the Ninth
Street Highway Bridge at mile marker
(MM) 0.8 on the Allegheny River, Fort
Pitt Highway Bridge at MM 0.22 on the
Monongahela River, and West EndNorth Side Highway Bridge at MM 0.8
on the Ohio River.
(b) Applicability. This section applies
to any vessel operating within the RNA,
including a naval or public vessel,
except a vessel engaged in:
(1) Law enforcement;
(2) Servicing aids to navigation; or
(3) Surveying, maintaining, or
improving waters within the RNA.
(c) Regulations. (1) No vessel shall
loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain or
drift at any time more than 100 feet from
any river bank within the RNA without
permission of the Captain of the Port
(COTP), or any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
who has been designated by the COTP
to act on his or her behalf.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 126 / Monday, July 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(2) No vessel shall loiter, anchor, stop,
moor, remain or drift in any manner as
to impede safe passage of another vessel
to any launching ramp, marina, or
fleeting area.
Dated: June 11, 2019.
Paul F. Thomas,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019–13932 Filed 6–28–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3050
[Docket No. RM2019–6; Order No. 5133]
Periodic Reporting
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is
acknowledging a recent filing requesting
the Commission initiate a rulemaking
proceeding to consider changes to
analytical principles relating to periodic
reports (Proposal One). This document
informs the public of the filing, invites
public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: August 20,
2019.
SUMMARY:
Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
comments electronically should contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Proposal One
III. Notice and Comment
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Introduction
On June 21, 2019, the Postal Service
filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR
3050.11 requesting that the Commission
initiate a rulemaking proceeding to
consider changes to analytical
principles relating to periodic reports.1
The Petition identifies the proposed
1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for
the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed
Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal One),
June 21, 2019 (Petition).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Jun 28, 2019
Jkt 247001
analytical changes filed in this docket as
Proposal One.
II. Proposal One
Background. Proposal One relates to
the methodology used to calculate
attributable Special Purpose Route
(SPR) city carrier costs. Carriers on SPRs
‘‘deliver packages to addresses across a
designated geographic area and collect
mail from specified collection points.’’
Petition, Proposal One at 1. The SPR
carriers ‘‘perform some or all of a
number of different activities: Organize
their mail in the office, load their
vehicles, drive to the first delivery or
collection spot, drive between delivery
and collection spots, effect delivery or
collection while out of the office, return
to the office from the last delivery or
collection spot, and unload their
vehicles. These activities take place
within three operations[:] regular
Monday through Saturday delivery,
Sunday delivery, and collection.’’ Id.
The specific activities performed by
each carrier depend on the operation.
Id.
The current methodology used to
attribute the SPR city carrier costs is
based on a study that was presented by
the Postal Service in Docket No. R97–1.
Id. The Postal Service contends that the
Docket No. R97–1 study should be
updated because there have been
‘‘substantial changes’’ in the activities
performed by SPR carriers. Id.
Specifically, the Postal Service states
that ‘‘[a]s package volume has grown,
the focus on SPR activities has shifted
toward delivery and away from
collection.’’ Id. at 1–2. The Postal
Service comments that the
‘‘development of Sunday package
delivery has also shifted SPR activities
toward delivery.’’ Id. at 2. The Postal
Service contends that these changes
provide ‘‘motivation for an update and
refinement’’ of the Docket No. R97–1
study. Id. at 1.
Proposal. The Postal Service’s
proposal seeks to revise the
methodology used to attribute SPR city
carrier costs by replacing the study
currently used by the Postal Service’s
model with a proposed study that the
Postal Service believes more accurately
reflects SPR carrier activities and cost
drivers.2
The Postal Service’s proposed study
estimates separate variability models for
regular delivery, Sunday delivery, and
collection. Petition, Proposal One at 3.
It uses the total hours involved in each
activity as the dependent variables in
2 A New Study of Special Purpose Route Carrier
Costs, Professor Michael D. Bradley, June, 21, 2019
(Proposed Study).
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31277
these regressions to ensure that ‘‘any
connection [of these associated times] to
volume [is] incorporated into the
estimated variability.’’ Id.
The explanatory variables in the
proposed models include the cost
drivers and characteristic variables that
control for non-volume variations in
hours. Id. The Postal Service states that
a ‘‘number of different functional forms
are estimated, and a variety of different
econometric techniques are
investigated.’’ Id. at 3–4.
The proposed study calculates
separate cost pools for regular delivery,
Sunday delivery, and collection. Id. at 4.
The Postal Service states that ‘‘[e]ach
cost pool is based upon the hours
required to complete the included
activities and the wages associated with
the types of carrier accruing the hours’’.
Id.
Rationale and impact. The Postal
Service states that the ‘‘objective of this
proposal is to update and improve the
methodology for calculating attributable
Special Purpose Route (SPR) city carrier
costs.’’ Id. at 1. The Postal Service
contends that Proposal One would
improve the analysis of SPR costs ‘‘in a
number of ways.’’ Id. at 3.
First, the Postal Service avers that the
proposed study’s structure ‘‘reflects
current operational practice and
management.’’ Id. Second, the Postal
Service states that it ‘‘makes use of
ongoing operational databases’’ to gather
data from every SPR location, ‘‘greatly
expanding the scope of the analysis.’’ Id.
Third, the Postal Service claims that the
proposed study ‘‘explicitly accounts for
the December peak in package volumes
in determining product costs and allows
for other seasonal variation throughout
the year.’’ Id. Fourth, the Postal Service
states that the proposed study
‘‘incorporates the differences in wages
for different types of SPR carriers when
forming cost pools.’’ Id. Fifth, the Postal
Service asserts that the proposed study
‘‘explicitly models Sunday package
delivery costs based upon the actual
packages delivered.’’ Id.
In terms of impact, the Postal
Service’s proposed study produces a
higher overall variability than the
existing study. Id. at 4. The Postal
Service calculates the FY 2018
variability for SPRs as 56.3 percent. Id.
Under the proposed study, the overall
variability would rise to 61.4 percent.
Id. The Postal Service explains that this
increase is a result of a ‘‘higher regular
delivery variability offsetting a slightly
lower collection variability and the
estimation of an actual Sunday
variability in place of the assumption of
100 percent variability.’’ Id.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31273-31277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13932]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG-2019-0118]
RIN 1625-AA11
Regulated Navigation Area; Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio
Rivers, Pittsburgh, PA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a regulated navigation
area for certain waters of the Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers
near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these
navigable waters due to the high volume of vessels navigating the area.
This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from
loitering, anchoring, stopping, mooring, remaining, or drifting more
than 100 feet from any river bank in the regulated navigation area
unless authorized in order to reduce vessel congestion and provide for
safe passage of transiting vessels in the center of the rivers. It
would also prohibit persons and vessels from loitering, anchoring,
stopping, mooring, remaining, or drifting in any manner that impedes
the safe passage of another vessel to any launching ramp, marine, or
fleeting area unless authorized. We invite your comments on this
proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 31, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0118 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: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Shawn Simeral, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh
[[Page 31274]]
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MSU Marine Safety Unit
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec. Section
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a Regulated Navigation Area
(RNA) for certain waters of the Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers
near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The confluence of these three rivers is
a high traffic area for both commercial and recreational vessels. It is
also a destination for recreational vessels to anchor and loiter during
the summer months due to the proximity of multiple entertainment
venues. The Coast Guard is concerned about the potential for collisions
between commercial and recreational vessels and the impact of vessel
congestion on maritime commerce in this area. A Map/Chartlet depicting
the area, as well as images depicting the severe vessel congestion in
this area, are included where indicated in the docket under ADDRESSES.
A. The Point of Pittsburgh
The Point of Pittsburgh is located at the confluence of the
Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers, and is surrounded by the city
of Pittsburgh, PA. The city of Pittsburgh is located in the Emsworth
pool, often referred to as the ``Pitt Pool,'' which forms the 24-mile
pool around the city.\1\ The Emsworth pool is the water area from
upriver of the Emsworth Locks and Dam on the Ohio River, to Lock 2 on
the Allegheny River and to the Braddock Locks and Dam on the
Monongahela River. In 2016, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
ranked the Port of Pittsburgh fourth among inland waterway ports and
31st among ports in the United States for tonnage traffic. The area
around the Point of Pittsburgh also includes eight highway bridges.
These bridges create navigation limitations for tows and passenger
vessels due to piers and overhead clearance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Pool'' is a term used to describe the area between
navigation dams of the rivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Port of Pittsburgh contains 27 marinas and has 21
public boat landings, and the Pitt Pool contains 12 marinas and three
public boat launches. Over the past three years, an average of 7,860
recreational boats transited through the three locks of the Pitt Pool
annually. The Point of Pittsburgh area contains multiple entertainment
venues near the riverfront that include: A National Football League
stadium, Major League Baseball stadium, casino, United Soccer League
stadium, amphitheater, state park, science center, museums, convention
center, and various memorials, monuments, trails, and restaurants.
B. The Marine Community Concerns
A wide variety of both commercial and recreational traffic transit
the rivers around the Point, including: Barges and tow boats in transit
up bound on the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, and down bound on the
Ohio River, ferries to the North Shore of the Ohio River for events,
passenger vessel cruises, and recreational craft. Due to the heavy
concentration of entertainment activities, the Point of Pittsburgh is a
destination for recreational craft to moor, anchor, or drift in the
area. Recreational vessels will often raft off to one another from the
shore or from an anchored vessel, creating congestion and hazardous
conditions for less maneuverable vessels transiting the river current.
During a Passenger Vessel Association Rivers Region Meeting in
November of 2016, participants notified Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit
(MSU) Pittsburgh of navigation and safety issues involving vessel
congestion near the Point of Pittsburgh during the summer months. As a
result, MSU Pittsburgh formed a Congested Waterways Committee that
meets monthly to investigate the congestion issue and discuss concerns
regarding use of the waterway. The committee includes: Tow boat
operators, commercial passenger vessel operators, port executives, safe
boating council members, industry representatives, and members from
local recreational boat associations, along with representatives of the
Coast Guard Auxiliary, USACE, and city and state law enforcement
officials.
MSU Pittsburgh learned that during summer months, especially on
weekends, large numbers of recreational vessels anchor or drift in the
vicinity of the Point of Pittsburgh, which created an unsafe navigation
situation for the larger commercial vessels utilizing the waterway.
Some of the participants discussed several near misses between
commercial and recreational vessels, but currently there is no standard
definition of a near miss as it pertains to this issue, nor has it been
tracked. MSU Pittsburgh received comments about the dangers of
recreational vessels anchoring or drifting near the sailing line,\2\
and conversely, about the dangers of commercial vessels that seem to
expect vessels to give way as a matter of course. The local ferries
also expressed concerns regarding vessels blocking the approaches to
their loading areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The phrase ``sailing line'' is defined as the middle of the
river as marked on the USACE river charts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commercial vessel representatives were frustrated that
recreational vessel users are not all required to have knowledge of
navigation rules prior to operating a vessel.\3\ They also stated that
during times of congestion, commercial vessels will often halt transit
of vessels or limit passenger vessel cruise areas rather than proceed
into potentially unsafe transit conditions. These events have a
negative impact on their businesses. Industry representatives discussed
their vessel size, stopping limitations, limited maneuverability, and
proximity to bridges as reasons they consider transit during congestion
as unsafe. They stated that recreational vessels often maneuver very
close to their vessels or cross in front as they transit. Everyone
agreed that the three rivers of Pittsburgh should be able to be used by
both commercial and recreational vessels, and that the safety of the
waterways users should be the top priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pennsylvania law states any person born on or after January
1, 1982, shall not operate, on the waters of this Commonwealth, a
motorboat without first obtaining a certificate of boating safety
education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Special Local Regulations
During the summer of 2018, MSU Pittsburgh was notified of two
outdoor concerts at Heinz Field. Due to the proximity of the stadium to
the Ohio River, large concentrations of recreational vessels were
anticipated throughout concert weekends. To mitigate the navigational
impact, MSU Pittsburgh permitted these concerts as marine events and
established temporary Special Local Regulations to maintain a safe and
clear navigation area during the concert weekends.
On April 17, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulation; Monongahela (MM
0.22), Allegheny (MM 0.8), and Ohio Rivers (0.8), Pittsburgh, PA (83 FR
16808) for the Luke Bryan concert. There, we stated why we issued the
NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to
the concert. During the comment period that ended on May 2, 2018, we
received no comments. On May 18, 2018, the Coast Guard published a
temporary final rule
[[Page 31275]]
establishing the Special Local Regulation (83 FR 23218).
On April 19, 2018, the Coast Guard published an NPRM titled Special
Local Regulation; Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers, Pittsburgh
PA (83 FR 17333) for the Kenny Chesney concert. There, we stated why we
issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action
related to the concert. During the comment period that ended May 4,
2018, we received no comments. On May 18, 2018, the Coast Guard
published a temporary final rule establishing the Special Local
Regulation (83 FR 23224).
Both temporary Special Local Regulations prohibited persons and
vessels from loitering, anchoring, stopping, or drifting more than 100
feet from any riverbank or act in a manner that impedes the passage of
another vessel to any launching ramp, marina, or fleeting area. In
advance of the concert weekends, MSU Pittsburgh conducted outreach/
education. MSU Pittsburgh provided flyers to the three locks and dams
of the Pitt Pool to be given to boaters entering the pool throughout
the concert weekends. Coast Guard and Coast Guard Auxiliary patrols
also provided flyers to boaters in the Pitt Pool during the concerts.
MSU Pittsburgh personnel participated in news media interviews with two
local TV stations and one local newspaper. According to the USACE, 529
recreational and 133 commercial vessels transited through the locks of
the Pitt Pool throughout the concert weekends. Additionally, 316
passenger vessel trips were conducted in close proximity to Heinz
Field. Despite the concentration of vessels, both recreational and
commercial vessels were able to transit safely throughout the weekend,
and positive feedback was received from industry, other government
agencies, and recreational representatives.
This NPRM proposes to establish an RNA using the same waterway
controls as were used in the previous Special Local Regulations. While
these Special Local Regulations were effective in mitigating the
hazards of heavy congestion in and around the Pitt Pool during said
events, a more permanent solution is required to handle the
consistently heavy traffic throughout peak boating season. The heavy
congestion conditions addressed by the Special Local Regulations are
present throughout the summer months, and it would be exceptionally
laborious for MSU Pittsburgh personnel to establish individual Special
Local Regulations to mitigate every instance. The Coast Guard feels
that a permanent RNA is the most effective solution for mitigating the
dangers of heavy congestion, using proven methods, with minimal impacts
to vessel traffic operating under normal waterway conditions.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons,
vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the
Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Commander of the Eighth Coast Guard District has determined that
potential hazards associated with the risk of collision in this area
would be a safety concern for any vessel loitering, anchoring,
stopping, or drifting more than 100 feet from a riverbank or in a
manner that impedes the passage of another vessel to any launching
ramp, marina, or fleeting area. The Coast Guard proposes this
rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041 (previously 33 U.S.C.
1231).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The District Commander proposes to establish a regulated navigation
area for all navigable waters of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio
Rivers between the Ninth Street Highway Bridge at mile marker (MM) 0.8
of the Allegheny River, Fort Pitt Highway Bridge at MM 0.22 of the
Monongahela River, and West End-North Side Highway Bridge at MM 0.8 of
the Ohio River. This proposed rule would apply to any vessel operating
within the area, including a naval or public vessel, except a vessel
engaged in law enforcement, servicing aids to navigation, or surveying,
maintaining, or improving waters within the regulated area. No vessel
would be permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain or drift in
any manner that impedes safe passage of another vessel to any launching
ramp, marina, or fleeting area unless authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative. In addition, no vessel or person would be
permitted to loiter, anchor, stop, remain, or drift more than 100 feet
from any riverbank unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
On the other hand, this rule allows vessels and people to loiter,
anchor, stop, remain, or drift within the regulated area so long as
they are within 100 feet of the shore or riverbank. By requiring all
vessels to loiter, anchor, stop, remain, or drift only within 100 feet
of the riverbanks, the center of the rivers are less likely to be
obstructed for navigating vessels. The regulatory text we are proposing
appears at the end of this document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and impact of the regulated navigation area. The regulated
navigation area uses minimally intrusive guidelines for vessel
operation designed to improve the safety of navigation on the waters of
the area. This regulated navigation area does not meet any of the
criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated navigation area may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
[[Page 31276]]
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule involves a regulated navigation area
that prohibits loitering, anchoring, stopping, mooring, remaining, or
drifting in any manner that impedes safe passage of another vessel to
any launching ramp, marina, or fleeting area. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01.
We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034; 46 U.S.C. 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec. 165.823 to read as follows:
Sec. 165.823 Allegheny River, Monongahela River, and Ohio River,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Regulated Navigation Area
(a) Location. The following is a regulated navigation area (RNA):
The waters of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers between the
Ninth Street Highway Bridge at mile marker (MM) 0.8 on the Allegheny
River, Fort Pitt Highway Bridge at MM 0.22 on the Monongahela River,
and West End-North Side Highway Bridge at MM 0.8 on the Ohio River.
(b) Applicability. This section applies to any vessel operating
within the RNA, including a naval or public vessel, except a vessel
engaged in:
(1) Law enforcement;
(2) Servicing aids to navigation; or
(3) Surveying, maintaining, or improving waters within the RNA.
(c) Regulations. (1) No vessel shall loiter, anchor, stop, moor,
remain or drift at any time more than 100 feet from any river bank
within the RNA without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP), or
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the COTP to act on his or her behalf.
[[Page 31277]]
(2) No vessel shall loiter, anchor, stop, moor, remain or drift in
any manner as to impede safe passage of another vessel to any launching
ramp, marina, or fleeting area.
Dated: June 11, 2019.
Paul F. Thomas,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-13932 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
