[Federal Register: May 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 100)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30042-30044]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25my05-43]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army
33 CFR Part 207
RIN 0710-AA62
Navigation Regulations
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 establish a
procedure for modifying scheduled operational hours at the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, Hiram M. Chittenden Locks in Seattle,
Washington. This procedure would allow the district engineer to change
the scheduled operational hours of the locks after issuing a public
notice and providing a 30-day comment period for any proposed change.
Corrections are also made to two citations.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Attn: CENWS-OD-TS-PS (Robert M. Rawson), P.O. Box 3755,
Seattle, Washington 98124-3755, or by e-mail to
robert.m.rawson@usace.army.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Post, Operations Manager,
Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, at (206) 789-2622, Ms. Patricia Graesser,
Public Affairs Office, (206) 764-3760, or Mr. Michael Kidby, Operations
and Regulatory Community of Practice, Directorate of Civil Works, at
(202) 761-0250.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This regulation has not been revised in over
40 years. Corrections need to be made to reflect current situation and
changes to referenced regulations. Furthermore, there is a need to have
a public notice and comment process in place to allow for changes in
scheduled operation. The proposed change does not change the present
operation but adds a process to allow for a change in schedule similar
to that on the Columbia River. Note that the addition of this proposed
schedule provision does not negate or limit the Corps' existing
authority to restrict or reduce lockage operations.
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
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.). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to, or for, a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
Since the proposed rule does not involve any 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), an
agency 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.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires an agency 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 this regulation 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
[[Page 30043]]
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-for-profit
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), Pub.
L. 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 cost-
benefit 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 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.
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).
[[Page 30044]]
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), Vessels, Water transportation.
Dated: May 19, 2005.
Michael B. White,
Chief, Operations, Directorate of Civil Works.
For the reasons stated above, 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: 33 U.S.C. 1.
2. Amend Sec. 207.750 by revising paragraph (b)(4) and the note to
(b)(5)(i), and adding (b)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 207.750 Lake Washington Ship Canal; use, administration and
navigation.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Traffic signal lights. In addition to the lock signal lights
described in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section, a red light, and a
green light are installed on the west side of the Ballard Bridge, on
the east side of the Fremont Bridge, 1,000 feet west of the Montlake
Bridge, and 1,000 feet east of the Montlake Bridge, for the guidance of
vessels approaching the sections of the canal between Salmon Bay and
Lake Union and between Lake Union and Lake Washington, respectively.
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
Note: The term ``long blasts'' means blasts of four seconds
duration, and the term ``short blasts'' means blasts of one second
duration. Signals for the opening of drawbridges are prescribed in
46 CFR Part 117. * * *
(6) * * *
(7) Schedule. The district engineer may, after issuing a public
notice and providing a 30-day opportunity for public comment, set
(issue) a schedule for the daily lockage of recreational and commercial
vessels. Recreational vessels are pleasure boats such as a row, sail,
or motorboats used for recreational purposes. Commercial vessels
include cargo ships; fishing vessels; and licensed commercial passenger
vessels operating on a published schedule or regularly operating in the
``for hire'' trade. Each schedule and any changes to the schedule will
be issued at least 30 days prior to implementation. Prior to issuing
any schedule, or any change to the schedule, the district engineer will
consider all public comments and will evaluate operational
efficiencies, commercial needs, the water situation, recreational use
of the locks, and other public interests to determine the need for a
change in schedule. The district engineer's representative at the locks
shall be the Operations Manager, who shall issue orders and
instructions to the lockmaster in charge of the locks. Hereinafter, the
term ``lockmaster'' shall be used to designate the person in immediate
charge of the locks at any given time. In case of emergency, and on all
routine work in connection with the operation of the locks, the
lockmaster shall have authority to take action without waiting for
instructions from the Operations Manager.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-10432 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-92-P