Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3933 

paid in States that are paid by Medicare 

and TRICARE under a waiver that 

exempts them from Medicare’s inpatient 

prospective payment system or the 

CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system, 

respectively. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 20, 2015. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01242 Filed 1–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0483] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Chincoteague Channel, Chincoteague, 

VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the operating schedule that 

governs the SR 175 Bridge across Lewis 

Channel and Black Narrows, mile 3.5 at 

Chincoteague, VA. The proposed change 

would eliminate the need for the current 

special operating schedule and return 

the bridge to open on demand. The 

proposed change does not include the 

last consecutive Wednesday and 

Thursday in July for the annual Pony 

swim. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

March 12, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2014–0483 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. Deliveries 

accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except federal 

holidays. The telephone number is 202– 

366–9329. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. To avoid duplication, please 

use only one of these methods. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Ms. Kashanda Booker, 

Bridge Specialist; telephone 757–398– 

6227; email Kashanda.l.booker@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Acronyms 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

§ Section Symbol 

U.S.C. United States Code 

A. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this proposed rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

1. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

proposed rulemaking (USCG–2014– 

0483), indicate the specific section of 

this document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (http://

www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http://

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an email address, 

or a phone number in the body of your 

document so that we can contact you if 

we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, type the 

docket number [USCG–2014–0483] in 

the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit a 

Comment’’ on the line associated with 

this rulemaking. If you submit your 

comments by mail or hand delivery, 

submit them in an unbound format, no 

larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit them by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

2. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, type the 

docket number (USCG–2014–0483) in 

the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rulemaking. You may also visit the 

Docket Management Facility in Room 

W12–140 on the ground floor of the 

Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

3. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

4. Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. You may submit a request for 

one using one of the methods specified 

under ADDRESSES. Please explain why 

one would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register . 

B. Regulatory History and Information 

On July 14, 2014 the Coast Guard 

published a test deviation with request 

for comments, entitled ‘‘Drawbridge 

Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch, VA’’. 

79 FR 40638. The bridge operated under 

this NPRM’s proposed schedule from 

August 4, 2014 to November 3, 2014. No 

comments were received. 

C. Basis and Purpose 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

(VDOT), who owns and operates SR 175 

Bridge across Lewis Channel and Black 

Narrows, mile 3.5, at Chincoteague, VA 

has requested to change the existing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3934 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

bridge regulations, set out at 33 CFR 

117.1005. In 2011, the new single-leaf 

bascule bridge was constructed on a 

new alignment replacing the former 

swing-type bridge that was located 

downstream from the Chincoteague 

maritime community. The new bridge 

alignment resulted in boaters having an 

improved channel access and the 

number of necessary bridge openings 

reduced. 

The vertical clearance of the new 

single-span bascule bridge is 15 feet 

above mean high water in the closed 

position and unlimited in the open. The 

horizontal clearance is 60 feet between 

fender systems. 

The current operating schedule allows 

the draw to open on demand from 

midnight to 6 a.m., and every one and 

a half hours from 6 a.m. to midnight (at 

6 a.m., 7:30 a.m., 9 a.m., 10:30 a.m., 12 

p.m., 1:30 p.m., 3 p.m., 4:30 p.m., 6 

p.m., 7:30 p.m., 9 p.m., 10:30 p.m., and 

midnight); except from 7 a.m., to 5 p.m. 

on the last consecutive Wednesday and 

Thursday in July, the draw need not be 

opened. This has been the regular 

operating schedule since November, 16, 

2006. 

Based on the decrease amount of 

vessel openings, the Chincoteague 

maritime community and the Accomack 

County Board of Supervisors favored a 

less restrictive opening schedule by 

proposing a test deviation from 

scheduled openings to an ‘‘on demand’’ 

schedule while still balancing the needs 

of marine and vehicular traffic. The 

monthly vessel openings at the SR 175 

Bridge submitted by VDOT are as 

follows: 

BRIDGE OPENING COUNTS

APR 

2013 

MAY 

2013 

JUNE 

2013 

JUL 

2013 

AUG 

2013 

SEPT 

2013 

OCT 

2013 

NOV 

2013 

DEC 

2013 

JAN 

2014 

FEB 

2014 

MAR 

2014 

APR 

2014 

1 4 7 7 7 6 7 3 2 0 0 0 3 

The bridge logs revealed that from 

April 2013 to April 2014, the SR 175 

Bridge had experienced only 47 total 

vessel openings. 

The SR 175 Bridge is the only 

vehicular connection between the 

mainland and Eastern Shore of Virginia 

and Chincoteague Island. Tourism is a 

dominant industry of Chincoteague 

Island with activities taking place in the 

Town of Chincoteague, Chincoteague 

Island and Assateague Island. 

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed change in the rule will 

allow for a less restrictive operating 

schedule while still balancing the needs 

of the marine and vehicular traffic. The 

draw of the SR 175 Bridge will open on 

demand except: from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 

the last consecutive Wednesday and 

Thursday in July, the draw need not be 

opened for the annual Pony swim. 

From August 4, 2014, to November 3, 

2014, the draw of the SR 175 Bridge, 

mile 3.5, at Chincoteague, opened on 

signal in accordance with the general 

operating regulations set out at 33 CFR 

117.5. During this test deviation, VDOT 

gathered data on vessel openings in 

hopes of eliminating the current 

operating schedule for vessel passage. 

The monthly vessel openings at the 

SR 175 Bridge submitted by VDOT are 

as follows: 

BRIDGE OPENING COUNTS

September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 

3 5 1 

E. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on these statutes or executive 

orders. 

1. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, and does not require 

an assessment of potential costs and 

benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 

12866 or under section 1 of Executive 

Order 13563. The Office of Management 

and Budget has not reviewed it under 

those Orders. 

The proposed change is expected to 

have minimal impact on mariners due 

to the limited number of requests 

requiring openings for the past two 

years and no anticipated change to 

vessel traffic. 

2. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 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. 

This proposed rule will not affect or 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

for the following reasons. There have 

been only 47 openings in the past two 

years. Vessels that can safely transit 

under the bridge (with a mast height 

less than 15 feet) may do so at any time. 

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 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

3. Assistance for Small Entities 

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, above. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3935 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

4. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

5. Federalism 

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 does 

not have implications for federalism. 

6. 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. 

7. 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 will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this proposed rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

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. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. 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 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 117.1005 to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.1005 Chincoteague Channel. 

The draw of the SR 175 Bridge, mile 

3.5, at Chincoteague shall open on 

demand; except from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 

the last consecutive Wednesday and 

Thursday in July the bridge need not 

open. 

Dated: January 8, 2015. 

Stephen P. Metruck, 

Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01333 Filed 1–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0033; FRL–9921–78– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of New 

Mexico; Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan; General 

Definitions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) related to the 

General Definitions section of the New 

Mexico SIP that were submitted by the 

State of New Mexico on June 11, 2009. 

EPA has evaluated the SIP revisions for 

New Mexico and determined these 

revisions are consistent with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act 

or CAA). EPA is proposing approval 

under section 110 of the Act. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before February 25, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Ms. Tracie Donaldson, Air Permits 

Section (6PD–R), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS