Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY, 47837-47839 [2023-15652]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 what is the timeline that the Department should consider for a State to make such changes? J. Federal UC Program Oversight and Audits The regulation currently requires State UC agencies to share confidential UC information with OIG for investigative purposes and permits disclosure of confidential UC information to OIG for the purposes of UC program oversight and audits. ETA is considering requiring States to disclose confidential UC information to OIG at regular intervals, as described in questions 42–44 above. In recent years, OIG has made requests for access to State confidential UC information to assist with its oversight and audits of the UC program. In response to these requests, ETA issued Training and Employment Notice (TEN) No. 05–22, which reminds States of OIG’s authority under the Inspector General Act (IG Act) to access information necessary for carrying out its duties and responsibilities under the IG Act and strongly encourages States to comply with data requests made by OIG. As noted, providing the requested data to OIG does not conflict with Federal regulations regarding the permissibility of disclosing confidential UC information for the purposes of UC program oversight and audits. 110. Are there currently any impediments to OIG getting access to confidential UC information for the purposes of UC program oversight and audits? This can include statutory, logistical, operational, financial, or any other impediments. 111. Should there be revisions to the regulation to explicitly address that written agreements are not required for disclosure to OIG, consistent with current guidance? If so, please explain why. 112. What, if any, safeguards should be in place for disclosures to OIG for purposes of UC program oversight and audits? 113. Under the current part 603, State UC agencies are permitted to disclose confidential UC information of the purposes of UC program oversight and audits. If State UC agencies were required to disclose confidential UC information to OIG for purposes of UC program oversight and audits, are there any considerations that the Department should be aware of? If so, please describe. 114. If the Department were to specify safeguards, security requirements, or agreement requirements associated with disclosure of confidential UC information to OIG for purposes of UC VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jul 24, 2023 Jkt 259001 47837 program oversight and audits, would there be any time burdens or other costs incurred by State UC agencies? 115. How often do States receive OIG requests for confidential UC information for purposes of UC program oversight and audits? DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY K. Miscellaneous RIN 1625–AA01 116. Are you aware of any access concerns related to State UC agency staff participation in Federal UC program oversight and audits (for example, participation in Benefit Accuracy Measurement, Benefits Timeliness and Quality, or other Federal reviews)? If so, please describe the concerns. 117. Are there any methods that the Department could utilize to quantify the reduction in risk associated with enhanced protections for confidential UC information? 118. When disclosing confidential UC information, do State UC agencies have established protocols for masking/ suppressing data to comply with part 603? If so, please generally describe. 119. To the extent that established protocols for masking/suppressing confidential UC data exist, are there methods the Department should consider to ease burden on State UC agencies while still protecting the underlying confidential UC information? 120. Are there industry-accepted best practices for suppressing or masking confidential UC information? 121. If the Department revises part 603, what penalties might State UC agencies incur associated with existing contracts? Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY VI. Conclusion The Department invites interested parties to submit comments, information, data, and supporting materials based on the questions provided in this RFI. The Department has provided the list of questions above as a framework for the scope of this RFI and invites any submission from interested stakeholders that addresses some or all of these questions or provides other useful information in addition to responses to these questions for the Department’s consideration. Brent Parton, Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor. [FR Doc. 2023–15631 Filed 7–24–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG–2016–0132] Coast Guard, DHS. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard is withdrawing the advance notice of proposed rulemaking titled ‘‘Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY’’ published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2016. After a review of comments, the Coast Guard suspended rulemaking action in 2017 to allow for further study and analysis of the need, impact, and appropriateness of the requested anchorage grounds. Among other reasons, while examining whether there was a need for a proposed rule, section 8437 of the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020 suspended the establishment of new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River between Yonkers, NY and Kingston, NY. Consequently, the Coast Guard currently lacks authority to establish new anchorages in this region. Accordingly, we have determined withdrawal of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking titled ‘‘Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY’’ published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2016, is appropriate at this time. The Coast Guard will continue to enforce current regulations and may undertake future rulemaking actions as required and authorized to protect the waterway, the users of the waterway, and the marine transportation system. DATES: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 9, 2016 (81 FR 37168) and the comment period extended on September 7, 2016, (81 FR 61639) are withdrawn as of July 25, 2023. ADDRESSES: The docket for the withdrawn advance notice of proposed rulemaking is available at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. Please search for docket number USCG–2016–0132. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this notice, call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, First Coast Guard District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard: telephone 617–603–8592, email craig.d.lapiejko@uscg.mil. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM 25JYP1 47838 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MSIB Marine Safety Information Bulletin NY New York PANYNJ Port Authority of New York and New Jersey PAWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background The Hudson River historically has been and will remain a vital corridor for maritime commerce. The river also serves as a source of drinking water, recreation, tourism, and economic prosperity. The Coast Guard’s role includes promoting navigational safety and protecting the environment. These are complementary objectives, as safer navigation inherently improves environmental protection. It is for these stewardship reasons that we published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in June 2016 to better understand the need for and potential locations of anchorages that could help improve navigation safety and environmental protection. In examining whether there is a need for a proposed rule, we selected the ANPRM from many possible tools because it provided public participation at the earliest possible opportunity. The Coast Guard published two documents related to the 2016 ANPRM. On June 9, 2016, the Coast Guard published the ANPRM itself, titled ‘‘Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY’’ in the Federal Register and then extended the comment period on September 7, 2016 (81 FR 61639). Again, the intent of the ANPRM was to initiate the early stage of a methodical and public rulemaking process to learn all possible navigational, environmental, terrestrial, and other effects of adding anchorages on the Hudson River. Establishing new anchorage grounds in the Hudson River from Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY, were being contemplated after we received a request suggesting that anchorage grounds may improve navigational safety along an extended portion of the Hudson River. When the ANPRM comment period closed on December 6, 2016, the Coast Guard had received 10,212 public submissions with comments on the subject from many diverse stakeholders. A memorandum summarizing the comments is included in this docket. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jul 24, 2023 Jkt 259001 After a review of the comments, the Coast Guard suspended future rulemaking decisions and directed a formal risk identification and evaluation of the Hudson River, known as a Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA). The results of this assessment process identifying major waterway safety hazards, estimated risk levels, existing risk mitigations, additional risk intervention strategies, and participant comments and observations are outlined in the report. The 2017 Hudson River PAWSA report is included in this docket. As recommended by the 2017 Hudson River PAWSA, and responding to other requests, to provide clarity on the term ‘‘Port of New York’’ we studied its usage within federal anchorage regulations, as well as its current and historic usage by the agencies charged with administering those regulations. At the time Coast Guard Sector New York released Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB)— (2015–014), which can be found in this docket, the ‘‘Port of New York’’ was viewed as synonymous with ‘‘Sector New York Captain of the Port Zone,’’ so the anchoring prohibition within the ‘‘Port of New York’’ was seen as applicable on the Hudson River to Albany, NY. We have now determined, based on historical research, that the term ‘‘Port of New York’’ encompasses the navigable waters within approximately a 25-mile radius from the Statue of the Liberty. Which is to say, the ‘‘Port of New York’’ only extends up the Hudson River to just south of the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge and not the entire Hudson River to Albany, NY. The specific boundary points for the ‘‘Port of New York’’ are the same as the ‘‘Port of New York District’’ created by a 1921 inter-state compact between New York and New Jersey and now referred to as the ‘‘Port of New York and New Jersey’’. Consequently, mariners operating outside the Port of New York are not subject to the anchoring prohibition cited in 33 CFR 110.155(l)(2), and must comply with the Inland Navigation Rules, which are codified in 33 CFR part 83, when anchoring in the Hudson River. The complete ‘‘Port of New York’’ report detailing the Coast Guards historical research supporting this determination is included in this docket. A provision related to the Hudson River was included in the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020, which is included in the National Defense Authorization Act for PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Fiscal Year 2021.1 In section 8437, Congress suspended the establishment of new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River between Yonkers, NY and Kingston, NY. Consequently, the Coast Guard has no legal authority to establish any new anchorages in this region without a change to current legislation. Additionally, section 8437(d), directed the Coast Guard, in consultation with the Hudson River Safety, Navigation, and Operations Committee (HRSNOC), to conduct a study of the Hudson River north of Tarrytown, New York. This study was to examine—(1) the nature of vessel traffic including vessel types, sizes, cargoes, and frequency of transits; (2) the risks and benefits of historic practices for commercial vessels anchoring; and (3) the risks and benefits of establishing anchorage grounds on the Hudson River. The Coast Guard’s report submitted to Congress on February 28, 2023, containing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations titled ‘‘Establishing Anchorage Grounds on the Hudson River’’ is available in this docket. III. Withdrawal The Coast Guard is withdrawing the ANPRM published on June 9, 2016. As discussed in the background section above, after reviewing the 10,212 comments provided during the 2016 ANPRM, after considering the results of the 2017 Hudson River PAWSA, after our research of the regulatory history of the Port of New York, after Congress suspended our legal authority to establish any new anchorage grounds in this region, and after conducting a study and providing a report to Congress, we no longer are considering creating 10 new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River from Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY. The Coast Guard’s role on the river will continue to include promoting navigational safety and protecting the environment. These are complementary objectives, as safer navigation inherently improves environmental protection. We will also continue to monitor the river and identify any regulatory gaps that allow unacceptable risk to the environment, the marine transportation system, or the users of the waterway. If regulatory gaps are identified, the Coast Guard is committed to engaging in an open, public process that allows all stakeholders to educate the agency and assist in developing the best regulatory solution possible. 1 Public Law 116–283; JAN. 1, 2021; 134 STAT. 3388, 4633. Sec. 8437 may be found at 134 Stat. 4736. E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM 25JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules As of publication of this notice, the ANPRM entitled ‘‘Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY’’ published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2016, will be withdrawn. This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: July 13, 2023. J.W. Mauger, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. Illinois chorus frog. Species Contact information [FR Doc. 2023–15652 Filed 7–24–23; 8:45 am] Venus flytrap ...... BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Two Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notification of findings. AGENCY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce findings that two species are not warranted for listing as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this time to list the Illinois chorus frog (Pseudacris illinoensis) and Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula). However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned above or their habitats. DATES: The findings in this document were made on July 25, 2023. ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the bases for these findings are available on the internet at https:// www.regulations.gov under the following docket numbers: ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 SUMMARY: Species Docket No. Illinois chorus frog. Venus flytrap ...... FWS–R3–ES–2023–0040 FWS–R4–ES–2023–0041 Those descriptions are also available by contacting the appropriate person as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jul 24, 2023 Jkt 259001 Kraig McPeak, Field Supervisor, Illinois and Iowa Ecological Services Field Office, kraig_ mcpeek@fws.gov, 309– 757–5800. Dale Suiter, Botanist, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, dale_ suiter@fws.gov, 919– 856–4520. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to make a finding on whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (hereafter a ‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded by other listing activity. We must publish a notification of these 12month findings in the Federal Register. Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). The Act defines ‘‘species’’ as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 47839 ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species’ continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects. We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the Act’s definition of an E:\FR\FM\25JYP1.SGM 25JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47837-47839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15652]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0132]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing the advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking titled ``Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to 
Kingston, NY'' published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2016. After 
a review of comments, the Coast Guard suspended rulemaking action in 
2017 to allow for further study and analysis of the need, impact, and 
appropriateness of the requested anchorage grounds. Among other 
reasons, while examining whether there was a need for a proposed rule, 
section 8437 of the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
2020 suspended the establishment of new anchorage grounds on the Hudson 
River between Yonkers, NY and Kingston, NY. Consequently, the Coast 
Guard currently lacks authority to establish new anchorages in this 
region. Accordingly, we have determined withdrawal of this advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking titled ``Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; 
Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY'' published in the Federal Register on June 
9, 2016, is appropriate at this time. The Coast Guard will continue to 
enforce current regulations and may undertake future rulemaking actions 
as required and authorized to protect the waterway, the users of the 
waterway, and the marine transportation system.

DATES: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 9, 
2016 (81 FR 37168) and the comment period extended on September 7, 
2016, (81 FR 61639) are withdrawn as of July 25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket for the withdrawn advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking is available at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Please search for docket number USCG-2016-0132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this 
notice, call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, First Coast Guard District 
(dpw), U.S. Coast Guard: telephone 617-603-8592, email 
[email protected].

[[Page 47838]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MSIB Marine Safety Information Bulletin
NY New York
PANYNJ Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
PAWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background

    The Hudson River historically has been and will remain a vital 
corridor for maritime commerce. The river also serves as a source of 
drinking water, recreation, tourism, and economic prosperity. The Coast 
Guard's role includes promoting navigational safety and protecting the 
environment. These are complementary objectives, as safer navigation 
inherently improves environmental protection. It is for these 
stewardship reasons that we published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in June 2016 to better understand the need for and 
potential locations of anchorages that could help improve navigation 
safety and environmental protection. In examining whether there is a 
need for a proposed rule, we selected the ANPRM from many possible 
tools because it provided public participation at the earliest possible 
opportunity.
    The Coast Guard published two documents related to the 2016 ANPRM. 
On June 9, 2016, the Coast Guard published the ANPRM itself, titled 
``Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY'' in the 
Federal Register and then extended the comment period on September 7, 
2016 (81 FR 61639). Again, the intent of the ANPRM was to initiate the 
early stage of a methodical and public rulemaking process to learn all 
possible navigational, environmental, terrestrial, and other effects of 
adding anchorages on the Hudson River. Establishing new anchorage 
grounds in the Hudson River from Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY, were 
being contemplated after we received a request suggesting that 
anchorage grounds may improve navigational safety along an extended 
portion of the Hudson River.
    When the ANPRM comment period closed on December 6, 2016, the Coast 
Guard had received 10,212 public submissions with comments on the 
subject from many diverse stakeholders. A memorandum summarizing the 
comments is included in this docket.
    After a review of the comments, the Coast Guard suspended future 
rulemaking decisions and directed a formal risk identification and 
evaluation of the Hudson River, known as a Ports and Waterways Safety 
Assessment (PAWSA). The results of this assessment process identifying 
major waterway safety hazards, estimated risk levels, existing risk 
mitigations, additional risk intervention strategies, and participant 
comments and observations are outlined in the report. The 2017 Hudson 
River PAWSA report is included in this docket.
    As recommended by the 2017 Hudson River PAWSA, and responding to 
other requests, to provide clarity on the term ``Port of New York'' we 
studied its usage within federal anchorage regulations, as well as its 
current and historic usage by the agencies charged with administering 
those regulations. At the time Coast Guard Sector New York released 
Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB)--(2015-014), which can be 
found in this docket, the ``Port of New York'' was viewed as synonymous 
with ``Sector New York Captain of the Port Zone,'' so the anchoring 
prohibition within the ``Port of New York'' was seen as applicable on 
the Hudson River to Albany, NY. We have now determined, based on 
historical research, that the term ``Port of New York'' encompasses the 
navigable waters within approximately a 25-mile radius from the Statue 
of the Liberty. Which is to say, the ``Port of New York'' only extends 
up the Hudson River to just south of the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge 
and not the entire Hudson River to Albany, NY. The specific boundary 
points for the ``Port of New York'' are the same as the ``Port of New 
York District'' created by a 1921 inter-state compact between New York 
and New Jersey and now referred to as the ``Port of New York and New 
Jersey''. Consequently, mariners operating outside the Port of New York 
are not subject to the anchoring prohibition cited in 33 CFR 
110.155(l)(2), and must comply with the Inland Navigation Rules, which 
are codified in 33 CFR part 83, when anchoring in the Hudson River. The 
complete ``Port of New York'' report detailing the Coast Guards 
historical research supporting this determination is included in this 
docket.
    A provision related to the Hudson River was included in the Elijah 
E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020, which is included in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.\1\ In 
section 8437, Congress suspended the establishment of new anchorage 
grounds on the Hudson River between Yonkers, NY and Kingston, NY. 
Consequently, the Coast Guard has no legal authority to establish any 
new anchorages in this region without a change to current legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 116-283; JAN. 1, 2021; 134 STAT. 3388, 4633. Sec. 
8437 may be found at 134 Stat. 4736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, section 8437(d), directed the Coast Guard, in 
consultation with the Hudson River Safety, Navigation, and Operations 
Committee (HRSNOC), to conduct a study of the Hudson River north of 
Tarrytown, New York. This study was to examine--(1) the nature of 
vessel traffic including vessel types, sizes, cargoes, and frequency of 
transits; (2) the risks and benefits of historic practices for 
commercial vessels anchoring; and (3) the risks and benefits of 
establishing anchorage grounds on the Hudson River. The Coast Guard's 
report submitted to Congress on February 28, 2023, containing the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations titled ``Establishing 
Anchorage Grounds on the Hudson River'' is available in this docket.

III. Withdrawal

    The Coast Guard is withdrawing the ANPRM published on June 9, 2016. 
As discussed in the background section above, after reviewing the 
10,212 comments provided during the 2016 ANPRM, after considering the 
results of the 2017 Hudson River PAWSA, after our research of the 
regulatory history of the Port of New York, after Congress suspended 
our legal authority to establish any new anchorage grounds in this 
region, and after conducting a study and providing a report to 
Congress, we no longer are considering creating 10 new anchorage 
grounds on the Hudson River from Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY.
    The Coast Guard's role on the river will continue to include 
promoting navigational safety and protecting the environment. These are 
complementary objectives, as safer navigation inherently improves 
environmental protection. We will also continue to monitor the river 
and identify any regulatory gaps that allow unacceptable risk to the 
environment, the marine transportation system, or the users of the 
waterway. If regulatory gaps are identified, the Coast Guard is 
committed to engaging in an open, public process that allows all 
stakeholders to educate the agency and assist in developing the best 
regulatory solution possible.

[[Page 47839]]

    As of publication of this notice, the ANPRM entitled ``Anchorage 
Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY'' published in the 
Federal Register on June 9, 2016, will be withdrawn.
    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: July 13, 2023.
J.W. Mauger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023-15652 Filed 7-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.