42030 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves establishing a temporary 

safety zone. This rule is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the 

Commandant Instruction. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination and a 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

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: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T11–578 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T11–578 Safety zone; San Diego 

Bayfair; Mission Bay, San Diego, CA. 

(a) Location. The limits of the safety 

zone will be the navigable waters of 

Mission Bay bound by the following 

coordinates; 32°47′32′′ N, 117°13′25′′ W 

to 32°47′32′′ N, 117°13′00′′ W to 

32°47′20′′ N, 117°13′00′′ W then west to 

32°46′45′′ N, 117°14′09′′ W to 32°46′11′′ 

N, 117°14′01′′ W. 

(b) Enforcement Period. This section 

will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

on September 13, 14, and 15, 2013. 

Before the effective period, the Coast 

Guard will publish a Local Notice to 

Mariners (LNM). If the event concludes 

prior to the scheduled termination time, 

the Captain of the Port will cease 

enforcement of this safety zone and will 

announce that fact via Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners. 

(c) Definitions. The following 

definition applies to this section: 

Designated representative, means any 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

of the Coast Guard on board Coast 

Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and 

local, state, and federal law enforcement 

vessels who have been authorized to act 

on the behalf of the Captain of the Port. 

(d) Regulations. 

(1) Entry into, transit through or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port of San Diego or his 

designated representative. 

(2) Mariners can request permission to 

transit through the safety zone from the 

Patrol Commander. The Patrol 

Commander can be contacted on VHF– 

FM channels 16 and 23. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative. 

(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other federal, state, or local agencies. 

Dated: June 27, 2013. 

S.M. Mahoney, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16806 Filed 7–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 207 

Reservoirs at Headwaters of the 

Mississippi River; Use and 

Administration 

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers is proposing to amend the 

rules regarding use and administration 

of the reservoirs at the headwaters of the 

Mississippi River by deleting from the 

Code of Federal Regulations all 

references to minimum discharges and 

to operating limits for the reservoirs. 

Following extensive public input and 

environmental review, the St. Paul 

District of the Corps of Engineers 

recently adopted an updated operating 

plan for the Mississippi River 

Headwaters reservoirs containing 

minimum flow values that differ from 

those currently codified in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. Deleting all 

references to minimum flows in the 

regulations will eliminate the current 

discrepancy between the regulations 

and the approved operating plan for the 

reservoirs. The operating limits are also 

contained in the operating plan for the 

reservoirs, and eliminating both the 

minimum flow values and the operating 

limits from the rule will make it 

unnecessary to amend the regulations 

each time the values are modified in the 

operating plan in the future. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

September 13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number COE– 

2013–0008, by any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Email: Jerry.W.Webb@usace.army.mil 

and Chandra.S.Pathak@usace.army.mil. 

Include the docket number, COE–2013– 

0008 in the subject line of the message. 

Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Attn: CECW–CE (Chandra S. Pathak), 

441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 

20314–1000. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to 

security requirements, we cannot 

receive comments by hand delivery or 

courier. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket number COE–2013–0008. All 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the commenter indicates that the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI, or otherwise 

protected, through regulations.gov or 

email. The regulations.gov Web site is 

an anonymous access system, which 

means we will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email directly to the 

Corps without going through 

regulations.gov, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the comment that is placed in 

the public docket and made available on 

the Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, we recommend that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If we cannot read your 

comment because of technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, we may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic 

comments should avoid the use of any 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 42031 

comments received, go to 

regulations.gov. All documents in the 

docket are listed. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, such as CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jerry W. Webb, Headquarters, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Engineering and 

Construction Community of Practice, 

Washington, DC at 202–761–0673; Mr. 

Chandra S. Pathak, Headquarters, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering 

and Construction Community of 

Practice, Washington, DC at 202–761– 

4668; or Mr. Kenton Spading, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, at 

651–290–5623. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

The purpose of this action is to amend 

the current rule regarding minimum 

discharges and minimum operating 

limits of the reservoirs at the headwaters 

of the Mississippi River to ensure that 

the regulations do not conflict with the 

current operating plan for those 

reservoirs. 

The Corps’ authority to amend the 

minimum flow values and minimum 

operating limits for the reservoirs of the 

headwaters of the Mississippi River is 

Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 

of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and 

Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (84 Stat. 1830; 33 U.S.C. 549a). 

Background 

The Rivers and Harbors Acts of June 

14, 1880, and August 2, 1882, 

authorized the construction of dams at 

each of the six Mississippi River 

Headwaters lakes for the purpose of 

augmenting Mississippi River flow for 

navigation. The lakes affected by these 

acts are Winnibigoshish, Leech, 

Pokegama, Sandy, Cross (Pine River), 

and Gull. Following authorization of the 

reservoirs, the Secretary of War 

prescribed regulations governing 

operation of the reservoirs on February 

11, 1931, which were codified at 33 CFR 

207.340. The current regulations list 

minimum discharges for each reservoir 

at 33 CFR 207.340(d)(2). The current 

regulations also list minimum operating 

limits, or the lowest level at which the 

Corps may operate each reservoir, at 33 

CFR 207.340(d)(7). 

The Corps’ procedure adopting and 

publishing regulations related to 

reservoirs has changed since the 

aforementioned regulations were 

originally codified in 1931. The presentday practice is to include minimum 

flow values, operating limits and other 

related information in Water Control 

Manuals that are adopted following an 

extensive public and environmental 

review process, as outlined in Engineer 

Regulation (ER) 1110–2–240. Moreover, 

the operating limits in the Water Control 

Manuals prescribe not only the 

minimum level at which a reservoir may 

operate but also the absolute upper limit 

on reservoir operations, effectively 

providing a band within which the 

Corps may operate a reservoir. 

As a precursor to updating the Water 

Control Manuals for the Mississippi 

River Headwaters reservoirs in 2009, we 

completed a study known as the 

Mississippi River Headwaters Reservoir 

Operating Plan Evaluation (ROPE). The 

primary purpose of the ROPE was to 

evaluate alternative operating plans for 

the Headwaters reservoirs in an attempt 

to improve the operation of the system 

while balancing tribal trust obligations, 

flood risk reduction, environmental 

concerns, water quality, water supply, 

recreation, navigation, hydropower, and 

other public interests. 

On January 19, 2010, after thoroughly 

assessing potential environmental 

impacts and involving the public in the 

process, the District Engineer for the St. 

Paul District signed a Record of 

Decision approving the ROPE’s 

recommended operating plan for the 

Headwaters reservoirs. The ROPE’s 

recommended plan adopts minimum 

discharges that were scientifically 

developed using a habitat in-stream 

flow analysis (Tenant 1976), as 

described in the ROPE. The minimum 

discharges in the ROPE’s recommended 

plan differ from the minimum 

discharges listed in 33 CFR 207.340 as 

it is currently written. We are in the 

process of updating the Water Control 

Manuals for the Headwaters reservoirs 

to implement the recommendations 

from the 2009 ROPE. Once the Water 

Control Manuals are revised, the 

minimum discharge values in the 

revised Water Control Manuals will also 

be in conflict with 33 CFR 207.340 if the 

regulation is not amended. 

Table No. 1 illustrates the differences 

between the current regulations and the 

2009 ROPE study minimum flows. 

TABLE 1—MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATER RESERVOIR SYSTEM OPERATING LIMITS AND CFR VERSUS ROPE MINIMUM

DISCHARGES

Winni-bigoshish Leech Pokegama Sandy Cross L. 

Pine R. Gull 

Total Operating Limit .................... 1294.94– 

1303.14.

1292.70– 

1297.94.

1270.42– 

1278.42.

1214.31– 

1221.31.

1225.32– 

1235.30.

1192.75– 

1194.75 

Minimum Flow: 33 CFR 207.340 150 cfs ............. 70 cfs ............... 200 cfs ............. 80 cfs ............... 90 cfs ............... 30 cfs 

Minimum Flow: 2009 ROPE ......... ≥1294.94 .........

100 cfs .............

≥1292.70 .........

120 cfs .............

≥1273.17 .........

200 cfs .............

≥1214.31 .........

20 cfs ...............

≥1225.32 .........

30 cfs ...............

≥1192.75 

20 cfs 

<1294.94 .........

50 cfs ...............

<1292.70 .........

60 cfs ...............

<1273.17 .........

Sum of Flow 

From Winnibigoshish 

plus Leech.

<1214.31 .........

10 cfs ...............

<1225.32 .........

15 cfs ...............

<1192.75 

10 cfs 

We are proposing to amend the 

regulations to delete all references to 

minimum flows to eliminate any 

conflict between the regulations and the 

Water Control Manuals that guide 

operations at the Mississippi River 

Headwaters reservoirs. We further 

propose to remove the minimum 

operating limits from the regulations. 

Any future changes to the minimum 

flows or the operating limits of the 

Headwaters reservoirs will be handled 

through revisions to the Water Control 

Manuals, which will be accomplished 

in accordance with the guidance 

provided in ER 1110–2–240 after public 

input and any necessary environmental 

reviews. The proposed change to the 

rule will eliminate the necessity of 

amending the Code of Federal 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42032 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Regulations each time a Water Control 

Manual is updated. 

Administrative Requirements 

Plain Language 

In compliance with the principles in 

the President’s Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, (63 FR 31855) regarding plain 

language, this preamble is written using 

plain language. The use of ‘‘we’’ in this 

notice refers to the Corps. We have also 

used the active voice, short sentences, 

and common everyday terms except for 

necessary technical terms. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action will not impose 

any new information collection burden 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Production Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The proposed modification would 

eliminate minimum flow values and 

operating limits from the rule. Since the 

proposed rule does not involve any 

additional collection of information 

from the public, this action is not 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Corps must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to 

review by OMB and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Executive 

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, we have determined that 

the proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ because it does not 

meet any of these four criteria. The 

proposed rule modifies the regulations 

to be consistent with an approved, 

updated operating plan for the 

Mississippi River Headwaters 

reservoirs. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the Corps to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ The phrase ‘‘policies that 

have Federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects 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.’’ 

The proposed rule does not have 

Federalism implications. We do not 

believe that amending the regulation to 

eliminate references to minimum flow 

values and operating limits for the 

Mississippi River Headwaters reservoirs 

will have substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the Federal government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed rule 

does not impose new substantive 

requirements. In addition, the proposed 

changes will not impose any additional 

substantive obligations on State or local 

governments. Therefore, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

proposed rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

a small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business based on Small Business 

Administration size standards; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; or (3) a 

small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of the proposed rule on small 

entities, we believe that this action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed rule is consistent 

with current agency practice, does not 

impose new substantive requirements, 

and therefore would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, 

the agencies generally must prepare a 

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Before promulgating a rule for which a 

written statement is needed, Section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires the 

agencies to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows an agency 

to adopt an alternative other than the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the agency 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. Before an agency 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed, 

under Section 203 of the UMRA, a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of regulatory proposals 

with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

We have determined that the 

proposed rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and Tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. The proposed rule is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 42033 

consistent with current agency practice, 

does not impose new substantive 

requirements and therefore does not 

contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. 

Therefore, the proposed rule is not 

subject to the requirements of Sections 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same 

reasons, we have determined that the 

proposed rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, the proposed rule is not 

subject to the requirements of Section 

203 of UMRA. 

Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the proposed 

rule on children, and explain why the 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. 

The proposed rule is not subject to 

this Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866. In addition, it 

does not concern an environmental or 

safety risk that we have reason to 

believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. 

Executive Order 13175 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires 

agencies to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications.’’ The phrase 

‘‘policies that have tribal implications’’ 

is defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

the Indian tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between 

the Federal government and Indian 

tribes.’’ 

The proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

the Indian tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between 

the Federal government and Indian 

tribes. It is generally consistent with 

current agency practice and does not 

impose new substantive requirements. 

Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this proposed rule. 

Environmental Documentation 

The purpose of this proposed 

rulemaking is to make the Code of 

Federal Regulations consistent with the 

current operating plan for the 

Mississippi River Headwaters 

Reservoirs. This action is solely 

administrative in nature. There is no 

intended change in the use or operation 

of the reservoirs as a result of this 

action. The substantive change in 

reservoir operations has already 

occurred as a consequence of the 

adoption of an updated operating plan, 

as approved in the Record of Decision 

for Mississippi River Headwaters 

Reservoir Operating Plan Evaluation 

dated January 19, 2010. The potential 

environmental impacts of the updated 

operating plan were thoroughly assessed 

in the Final Integrated Reservoir 

Operating Plan Evaluation and 

Environmental Impact Statement dated 

September 2009. Because the present 

action is merely administrative and an 

environmental analysis was completed 

at the time the substantive changes to 

the operating plan were adopted, no 

additional environmental 

documentation will be required at this 

time. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. We will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. The proposed rule is 

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Executive Order 12898 

Executive Order 12898 requires that, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, each Federal agency 

must make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission. Executive 

Order 12898 provides that each Federal 

agency conduct its programs, policies, 

and activities that substantially affect 

human health or the environment in a 

manner that ensures that such programs, 

policies, and activities do not have the 

effect of excluding persons (including 

populations) from participation in, 

denying persons (including 

populations) the benefits of, or 

subjecting persons (including 

populations) to discrimination under 

such programs, policies, and activities 

because of their race, color, or national 

origin. 

The proposed rule is not expected to 

negatively impact any community, and 

therefore is not expected to cause any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to minority or low-income 

communities. 

Executive Order 13211 

The proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

The proposed rule is consistent with 

current agency practice, does not 

impose new substantive requirements 

and therefore will not have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 207 

Navigation (water), Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

Dated: July 3, 2013. 

Approved By: 

James R. Hannon, 

Chief of Operations. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 

33 CFR part 207 as follows: 

PART 207—NAVIGATION 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 207 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1). 

■ 2. Revise § 207.340 to read as follows: 

§ 207.340 Reservoirs at headwaters of the 

Mississippi River; use and administration. 

(a) Description. These reservoirs 

include Winnibigoshish, Leech Lake, 

Pokegama, Sandy Lake, Pine River and 

Gull Lake. 

(b) Penalties. The River and Harbor 

Act approved August 11, 1888 (25 Stat. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42034 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

419, 33 U.S.C. 601) includes the 

following provisions as to the 

administration of the headwater 

reservoirs: 

And it shall be the duty of the 

Secretary of War to prescribe such rules 

and regulations in respect to the use and 

administration of said reservoirs as, in 

his judgment, the public interest and 

necessity may require; which rules and 

regulations shall be posted in some 

conspicuous place or places for the 

information of the public. And any 

person knowingly and willfully 

violating such rules and regulations 

shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 

five hundred dollars, or imprisonment 

not exceeding six months, the same to 

be enforced by prosecution in any 

district court of the United States within 

whose territorial jurisdiction such 

offense may have been committed. 

(c) Previous regulations now revoked. 

In accordance with the above act, the 

Secretary of War prescribed regulations 

for the use and administration of the 

reservoirs at the headwaters of the 

Mississippi River under date of 

February 11, 1931, which together with 

all subsequent amendments are hereby 

revoked and the following substituted 

therefor. 

(d) Authority of officer in charge of 

the reservoirs. The accumulation of 

water in, and discharge of water from 

the reservoirs, including that from one 

reservoir to another, shall be under the 

direction of the U.S. District Engineer, 

St. Paul, Minnesota, and of his 

authorized agents subject to the 

following restrictions and 

considerations: 

(1) Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, the discharge 

from any reservoir may be varied at any 

time as required to permit inspection of, 

or repairs to, the dams, dikes or their 

appurtenances, or to prevent damage to 

lands or structures above or below the 

dams. 

(2) During the season of navigation on 

the upper Mississippi River, the volume 

of water discharged from the reservoirs 

shall be so regulated by the officer in 

charge as to maintain as nearly as 

practicable, until navigation closes, a 

sufficient stage of water in the navigable 

reaches of the upper Mississippi and in 

those of any tributary thereto that may 

be navigated and on which a reservoir 

is located. 

(e) Passage of logs and other floating 

bodies. Logs and other floating bodies 

may be sluiced or locked through the 

dams, but prior authority for the 

sluicing of logs must be obtained from 

the District Engineer when this 

operation necessitates a material change 

in discharge. 

(f) Obstructions to flow of water. No 

person shall place floating bodies in a 

stream or pond above or below a 

reservoir dam when, in the opinion of 

the officer in charge, such act would 

prevent the necessary flow of water to 

or from such dam, or in any way injure 

the dam and its appurtenances, its dikes 

and embankments; and should floating 

bodies lying above or below a dam 

constitute at any time an obstruction or 

menace as beforesaid, the owners of said 

floating bodies will be required to 

remove them immediately. 

(g) Trespass. No one shall trespass on 

any reservoir dam, dike, embankment or 

upon any property pertaining thereto. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16877 Filed 7–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 12–375; DA 13–1445] 

More Data Sought on Extra Fees 

Levied on Inmate Calling Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

seeks additional comment on certain 

fees related to inmate calling services 

(ICS). The record to date indicates that 

ICS providers may charge ICS account 

holders fees that appear ancillary to 

making calls, such as account setup 

fees, account replenishment fees, 

account refund fees, and account 

inactivity fees. 

DATES: Comments due on or before July 

17, 2013; reply comments due on or 

before July 24, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 12–375, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Commercial overnight mail 

(other than U.S. Postal Service Express 

Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 

9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol 

Heights, MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Haledjian, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy 

Division, (202) 418–1520 or 

gregory.haledjian@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Public 

Notice, WC Docket No. 12–375; DA 13– 

1445, released June 26, 2013. The 

complete text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington DC 20554. The 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

The Bureau requests that parties 

provide data and information about 

such fees. Specifically, we request that 

parties identify any ancillary ICS fees 

that ICS providers charge in connection 

with the provision of interstate ICS, the 

level of each fee, the total amount of 

revenue received from each fee, and the 

cost of providing the service for which 

the fee recovers. We also request that 

parties identify any portion of ancillary 

service costs that are shared or common 

to the provision of other services, and 

explain how these costs, and recovery of 

them, are apportioned among the 

services to which they are shared or 

common. To evaluate how costs 

associated with providing ancillary 

services relate to ICS providers’ overall 

costs, we request that costs that are 

shared or common to the provision of 

ancillary ICS services be identified, and 

that parties explain how such costs are 

apportioned to and recovered by ICS 

rates. Providers submitting joint and 

common costs are requested to provide 

both per-minute rates and fixed charges 

associated with interstate ICS and 

intrastate ICS and information on the 

costs of providing ICS, including but not 

limited to Customer Premise Equipment 

or CPE, installation, specific security 

enhancements (such as monitoring and 

call blocking), labor, maintenance, 

interconnection fees, and any other cost 

recovered by ICS rates. In addition to 

per-minute or incremental costs, we 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS