80 FR 38417 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Centerton, NJ

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 128 (July 6, 2015)

Page Range		38417-38419
FR Document		2015-16518

The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation that governs the operation of the SR#38 Bridge in Centerton (Burlington County Route 635) over Rancocas Creek, mile 7.8, at Mt. Laurel, Westampton and Willingboro Townships in Burlington County, NJ. The proposed rule intends to change the current operating regulation and allow the bridge to remain in the closed position for the passage of vessels. There have been no requests for openings since the early 1990's. This proposed rule will also reflect a name change.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38417-38419]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0423]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Centerton, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation that governs
the operation of the SR#38 Bridge in Centerton (Burlington County Route
635) over Rancocas Creek, mile 7.8, at Mt. Laurel, Westampton and
Willingboro Townships in Burlington County, NJ. The proposed rule
intends to change the current operating regulation and allow the bridge
to remain in the closed position for the passage of vessels. There have
been no requests for openings since the early 1990's. This proposed
rule will also reflect a name change.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before September 4, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received
by the Coast Guard on or before August 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0423 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
three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Fifth Coast Guard District Bridge
Administration Division, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6557, email:
james.l.rousseau2@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
Sec. 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-2015-0423), 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

[[Page 38418]]

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-2015-0423] 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 8\1/2\ 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-2015-0423 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 plan to hold a public meeting but you may submit a
request for one that reaches the Coast Guard on or before August 5,
2015 using one of the four 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. Basis and Purpose

The current operating schedule for the SR#38 bridge is set out in
33 CFR 117.745 (b) which allows the SR#38 Bridge to operate as follows:
From April 1 through October 31 open on signal from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.
From November 1 through March 31 from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. open on signal
if at least 24 hours notice is given. Year round from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
need not open for the passage of vessels.
The bridge owner, County of Burlington, NJ requested a change in
the operation regulation for the SR#38 Bridge, mile 7.8, across
Rancocas Creek in Mt. Laurel, NJ and that its name is changed to what
it is known locally. The County of Burlington provided information to
the Coast Guard about the lack of any openings of the draw spans dating
back to the early 1990's. The bridge is currently closed to navigation
and vehicular traffic due to emergency repairs and emergency
inspections since May 2015. The last requested opening was in the early
1990's as an emergency request. There have been monthly openings as per
maintenance requirements.
In the closed-to-navigation position, the SR#38 Bridge has vertical
clearances of six feet above mean high water. Typical waterway users
include very small recreational vessels including canoes and kayaks.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

In order to align the operating schedule of the SR#38 bridge with
observed marine traffic the proposed change amends the regulation by
adding a paragraph (c) to state ``that the bridge need not open.'' The
lack of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge for over 20
years illustrates that the vessels that use this waterway can safely
navigate while the bridge is in the closed-to-navigation position. The
current regulation also incorrectly identifies the bridge as the SR#38
Bridge. This proposed change will change the name to the Centerton
County Route 635 Bridge. All language in existing paragraph (b) will
remain the same except for the removal of the SR#38 bridge reference.
While this proposed rule will allow the bridge to remain closed to
navigation, it does not alleviate the bridge owner of his
responsibility under 33 CFR 117.7.

D. 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. Based on County of Burlington
bridge tender logs, there will not be any vessels impacted by this
proposed change. No bridge openings have been requested in over 20
years.

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 action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons: There have been no requests for the bridge
to open since the early 1990's, and the bridge has been unable to open
since May of 2015.
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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in

[[Page 38419]]

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
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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this 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 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 simply 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

0
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.

0
2. In Sec. 117.745, revise paragraph (b) introductory text and add
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 117.745 Rancocas Creek

* * * * *
(b) The drawspan for the Riverside-Delanco/SR#543 Drawbridge, mile
1.3 at Riverside must operate as follows:
* * * * *
(c) The draw of the Centerton County Route 635 Bridge, mile 7.8, at
Mt. Laurel, need not open for the passage of vessels.

Dated: June 11, 2015.
Robert J. Tarantino,
Captain, United States Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2015-16518 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 38417

in a manner satisfactory to the (iii) Any additional expenses incurred meetings must be received by the Coast
Commissioner (or within such further as a result of the mortgagee’s failure to Guard on or before August 5, 2015.
time as the Commissioner may approve comply with the timeframe. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
in writing), the interest allowance in (3)(i) Regardless of the review type, if identified by docket number USCG–
such cash payment shall be reduced by FHA determines that the mortgagee’s 2015–0423 using any one of the
the amount determined, based on a pro claim included expenses incurred after following methods:
rata calculation of interest by day, to the expiration of a timeframe listed in (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
have been incurred as a result of the paragraph (u)(1) of this section, FHA http://www.regulations.gov.
failure of the mortgagee to comply with may, in its discretion: (2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
the specified time period. (A) Reduce the amount of insurance (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket
* * * * * benefits paid to the mortgagee; or Management Facility (M–30), U.S.
(u) Disallowance of expenses due to (B) Demand for repayment of all Department of Transportation, West
mortgagee failure to meet timelines. expenses that were not curtailed by the Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Notwithstanding any other provision of mortgagee. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
this section, FHA may deny payment of (ii) FHA may offset any future claims Washington, DC 20590–0001. Deliveries
any amount claimed for any expenses, made by a mortgagee if the mortgagee accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
such as taxes, special assessments, does not satisfy any demand for Monday through Friday, except federal
hazard insurance, forced placed repayment under paragraph (u)(3)(i)(B) holidays. The telephone number is 202–
insurance, flood insurance, homeowner of this section within 30 days of the date 366–9329.
FHA issues the demand for repayment. See the ‘‘Public Participation and
association (HOA)/condominium
■ 6. Revise the heading of § 203.474 to Request for Comments’’ portion of the
association (COA) fees or dues, utilities,
read as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
inspections, debris removal, and any
property preservation and protection below for instructions on submitting
§ 203.474 Additional limitation on claim comments. To avoid duplication, please
expenses, that were paid or incurred by submission for rehabilitation loans secured
or on behalf of the mortgagee during any use only one of these three methods.
by other than a first mortgage.
period of delay or as a result of any FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
* * * * * you have questions on this proposed
delay by the mortgagee in taking any
Dated: May 11, 2015. rule, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau,
required actions prior to the expiration
of the time periods set forth in Edward L. Golding, Fifth Coast Guard District Bridge
paragraph (u)(1) of this section. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration Division, Coast Guard;
(1) If a mortgagee fails to comply with Housing. telephone 757–398–6557, email:
any of the timeframes established by the [FR Doc. 2015–16479 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am] james.l.rousseau2@uscg.mil. If you have
Secretary for actions set forth in this BILLING CODE 4210–67–P questions on viewing or submitting
paragraph, the mortgagee must curtail material to the docket, call Cheryl
all claim expenses in accordance with Collins, Program Manager, Docket
paragraph (u)(2) of this section: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SECURITY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(i) The timeframe for taking of First
Legal Action to commence foreclosure; Coast Guard Table of Acronyms
(ii) The reasonable diligence CFR Code of Federal Regulations
timeframes established by the state in 33 CFR Part 117 DHS Department of Homeland Security
which the property is located; FR Federal Register
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0423]
(iii) The timeframe to convey a NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
property after obtaining title and RIN 1625–AA09 § Section Symbol
possession; U.S.C. United States Code
(iv) The timeframe for marketing a Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Rancocas Creek, Centerton, NJ A. Public Participation and Request for
property; or Comments
(v) Any other timeframe established AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. We encourage you to participate in
under this subpart that is applicable to ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. this proposed rulemaking by submitting
the mortgagee’s filing of a claim for
comments and related materials. All
insurance benefits. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to comments received will be posted,
(2) For a mortgagee that does not meet change the regulation that governs the without change to http://
one or more of the deadlines in operation of the SR#38 Bridge in www.regulations.gov and will include
paragraph (u)(1) of this section, the Centerton (Burlington County Route any personal information you have
mortgagee must curtail on a prorated 635) over Rancocas Creek, mile 7.8, at provided.
basis: Mt. Laurel, Westampton and
(i) Expenses in paragraph (u) of this Willingboro Townships in Burlington 1. Submitting Comments
section incurred during or as a result of County, NJ. The proposed rule intends If you submit a comment, please
any failure by the mortgagee to act to change the current operating include the docket number for this
within the applicable time period; or regulation and allow the bridge to proposed rulemaking (USCG–2015–
remain in the closed position for the
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

(ii) Expenses that are reasonably 0423), indicate the specific section of
estimated to have been incurred during passage of vessels. There have been no this document to which each comment
or as a result of any failure by the requests for openings since the early applies, and provide a reason for each
mortgagee to act within the applicable 1990’s. This proposed rule will also suggestion or recommendation. You
time period if the amount of expenses reflect a name change. may submit your comments and
specifically incurred beyond the DATES: Comments and related material material online (http://
applicable deadline is unavailable or must reach the Coast Guard on or before www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or
not itemized; and September 4, 2015. Requests for public hand delivery, but please use only one

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Jul 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM 06JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 38419

understanding this proposed rule. If the 9. Civil Justice Reform required for this rule. We seek any
rule would affect your small business, This proposed rule meets applicable comments or information that may lead
organization, or governmental standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of to the discovery of a significant
jurisdiction and you have questions Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice environmental impact from this
concerning its provisions or options for Reform, to minimize litigation, proposed rule.
compliance, please contact the person eliminate ambiguity, and reduce List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION burden.
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will Bridges.
not retaliate against small entities that 10. Protection of Children For the reasons discussed in the
question or complain about this We have analyzed this proposed rule preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
proposed rule or any policy or action of under Executive Order 13045, amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
the Coast Guard. Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
4. Collection of Information Risks. This rule is not an economically OPERATION REGULATIONS
This proposed rule would call for no significant rule and would not create an
■ 1. The authority citation for part 117
environmental risk to health or risk to
new collection of information under the continues to read as follows:
safety that might disproportionately
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
affect children.
U.S.C. 3501–3520.). Department of Homeland Security Delegation
11. Indian Tribal Governments No. 0170.1.
5. Federalism
This proposed rule does not have ■ 2. In § 117.745, revise paragraph (b)
A rule has implications for federalism tribal implications under Executive introductory text and add paragraph (c)
under Executive Order 13132, Order 13175, Consultation and to read as follows:
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Coordination with Indian Tribal § 117.745 Rancocas Creek
effect on the States, on the relationship Governments, because it would not have
between the national government and a substantial direct effect on one or * * * * *
more Indian tribes, on the relationship (b) The drawspan for the Riverside-
the States, or on the distribution of
between the Federal Government and Delanco/SR#543 Drawbridge, mile 1.3 at
power and responsibilities among the Riverside must operate as follows:
various levels of government. We have Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
analyzed this proposed rule under that power and responsibilities between the * * * * *
Federal Government and Indian tribes. (c) The draw of the Centerton County
Order and have determined that it does
Route 635 Bridge, mile 7.8, at Mt.
not have implications for federalism. 12. Energy Effects Laurel, need not open for the passage of
6. Protest Activities This proposed rule is not a vessels.
‘‘significant energy action’’ under Dated: June 11, 2015.
The Coast Guard respects the First Executive Order 13211, Actions Robert J. Tarantino,
Amendment rights of protesters. Concerning Regulations That
Protesters are asked to contact the Captain, United States Coast Guard, Acting
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
person listed in the ‘‘For Further Distribution, or Use.
Information Contact’’ section to [FR Doc. 2015–16518 Filed 7–2–15; 8:45 am]
coordinate protest activities so that your 13. Technical Standards BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

message can be received without This proposed rule does not use
jeopardizing the safety or security of technical standards. Therefore, we did
people, places or vessels. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
not consider the use of voluntary
AGENCY
consensus standards.
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
14. Environment 40 CFR Part 52
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
We have analyzed this rule under [EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633; FRL–9929–06–
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Region 6]
Department of Homeland Security
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
Management Directive 023–01 and
their discretionary regulatory actions. In Approval and Promulgation of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
particular, the Act addresses actions Implementation Plans; Arkansas;
which guides the Coast Guard in
that may result in the expenditure by a Interstate Transport State
complying with the National
State, local, or tribal government, in the Implementation Plan To Address
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
aggregate, or by the private sector of Pollution Affecting Visibility
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
have made a preliminary determination AGENCY: Environmental Protection
more in any one year. Though this
that this action is one of a category of Agency (EPA).
proposed rule will not result in such
actions which do not individually or ACTION: Proposed rule.
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of cumulatively have a significant effect on
this rule elsewhere in this preamble. the human environment. This proposed SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
8. Taking of Private Property rule simply promulgates the operating Agency (EPA) is proposing to
Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

regulations or procedures for disapprove a revision to the Arkansas
This proposed rule would not cause a drawbridges. This rule is categorically State Implementation Plan (SIP)
taking of private property or otherwise excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph submitted by the State of Arkansas on
have taking implications under (32)(e), of the Instruction. September 16, 2009, for the purpose of
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of addressing the requirements of the
Actions and Interference with the Instruction, an environmental Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding
Constitutionally Protected Property analysis checklist and a categorical interference with other states’ programs
Rights. exclusion determination are not for visibility protection for the 2006

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Jul 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM 06JYP1

Document Created: 2015-12-15 13:17:31
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 13:17:31

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Dates		Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 4, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 5, 2015.
Contact		If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Fifth Coast Guard District Bridge Administration Division, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6557, email: [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
FR Citation		80 FR 38417
RIN Number		1625-AA09

80 FR 38417 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek, Centerton, NJ

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYCoast Guard

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 128 (July 6, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard