Anchorage G, Hampton Flats (Naval Explosives Anchorage) Hampton Roads, VA, 10438-10440 [E7-4111]

Download as PDF 10438 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules school without coordinating with HQ USAFA/RR. § 903.7 Reassignment of Cadet Candidates who Graduate from the Preparatory School with an Appointment to U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA). The following conditions apply to USAFA Cadet Enrollment for Cadet Candidates who graduate from the Preparatory School with an appointment to the USAFA: (a) The Air Force releases cadet candidates entering the USAFA from active duty and reassigns them to active duty as Air Force Academy cadets, effective on their date of entry into the USAFA in accordance with one of these authorities: (1) The Department of Air Force letter entitled Members of the Armed Forces Appointed to a Service Academy, 8 July 1957. (2) Title 10, United States Code, Sections 516 and 523. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36–3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen. (b) The Air Force discharges active Reserve cadet candidates who enlisted for the purpose of attending the HQ USAFA/PL in accordance with AFI 36– 3208 and reassigns them to active duty as Air Force Academy cadets, effective on their date of entry into the USAFA. pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS § 903.8 Cadet Candidate Disenrollment. (a) In accordance with AFI 36–3208, the Commander, HQ USAFA/PL, may disenroll a student who: (1) Fails to meet and maintain HQ USAFA/PL educational, military, character, or physical fitness standards. (2) Fails to demonstrate adaptability and suitability for participation in USAFA educational, military, character, or physical training programs. (3) Displays unsatisfactory conduct. (4) Fails to meet statutory requirements for admission to the USAFA, for example: (i) Marriage or acquiring legal dependents. (ii) Medical disqualification. (iii) Refusal to serve as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Armed Forces. (5) Requests disenrollment. (b) The HQ USAFA/PL commander may also disenroll a student when it is determined that the student’s retention is not in the best interest of the Government. (c) The military personnel flight (10 MSS/DPM) processes Regular Air Force members for reassignment if: (1) They are disenrolled from the HQ USAFA/PL. (2) They fail to obtain or accept an appointment to a U.S. Service Academy. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:51 Mar 07, 2007 Jkt 211001 (d) The Air Force reassigns Air Force Reserve cadet candidates who are disenrolled from the HQ USAFA/PL or who fail to obtain or accept an appointment to an U.S. Service Academy in either of two ways under AFI 36–3208: (1) Discharges them from the United States Air Force without any further military obligation if they were called to active duty solely to attend the HQ USAFA/PL. (2) Releases them from active duty and reassigns them to the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center if they were released from Reserve units to attend the HQ USAFA/PL. (e) The National Guard (Army or Air Force) releases cadet candidates from active duty and reassigns them to their State Adjutant General. (f) The Air Force reassigns Regular and Reserve personnel from other Services back to their unit of origin to complete any prior service obligation if: (1) They are disenrolled from the HQ USAFA/PL. (2) They fail to obtain or accept an appointment to the USAFA. § 903.9 Cadet Records and Reassignment Forms. (a) Headquarters USAFA Cadet Personnel (HQ USAFA/DPY) maintains records of cadet candidates who enter the USAFA until they are commissioned or disenrolled. (b) 10 MSS/DPM will send records of Regular Air Force personnel who enter one of the other Service Academies to HQ Air Force Personnel Center (HQ AFPC) for processing. Bao-Anh Trinh, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E7–4129 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–05–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [CGD05–06–074] RIN 1625–AA01 Anchorage G, Hampton Flats (Naval Explosives Anchorage) Hampton Roads, VA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes changing the boundaries of Hampton Roads Explosive Anchorage Golf in response to a widening of the Norfolk PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Entrance Reach by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) undertaken to improve deep draft vessel traffic maneuverability, and to remove the shallow water area in the Hampton Bar Flats from the boundaries of this deepwater anchorage. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpw), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Room 100, Portsmouth, VA 23704–5004. The telephone number is (757) 398–6360. You may Email your comments to Albert.L.Grimes@uscg.mil. Commander (dpw), Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Albert Grimes, Fifth Coast Guard District Prevention and Waterways, (757) 398–6360, E-mail: Albert.L.Grimes@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05–06–074), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address listed under ADDRESSES explaining 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. E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules Background and Purpose On Thursday, 20 April 2006, the Coast Guard was informed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of its intention to widen the Norfolk Entrance Reach project in the vicinity of Hampton Roads Golf Anchorage to better facilitate the safe passage of deep draft vessel traffic in and out of the Port of Hampton Roads. USACE studies found that deep draft ships routinely exited the federal navigation project when turning into or out of the Elizabeth River and Norfolk Entrance Reach. USACE widened the turn area ensuring project depths are available to ships while maneuvering through this turn. As a result of this channel widening a small portion of Golf Anchorage will be lost. During the Coast Guard’s subsequent review of the boundaries of Golf Anchorage, it was also determined that a significant portion of shallow water in the Hampton Bar Flats area was included as a part of this anchorage area. The Coast Guard believes that this shallow water area is not required to serve the needs of deep draft vessels that Golf Anchorage was designed for and therefore should be removed from the boundaries of the Golf Anchorage. pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS Discussion of Proposed Rule The USACE widening of the Norfolk Harbor Reach federal navigation channel necessitates a change in the size and boundaries of Anchorage Golf. This change is necessary to facilitate the safe passage of inbound and outbound deep draft vessels. Removal of the shallow water area in Hampton Bar Flats was included in this proposed change to the anchorage as the Coast Guard determined that this area is not required to serve the needs of the deep draft vessels the anchorage was designed to serve. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The effect of this proposed action merely makes minor changes to the boundaries of the existing anchorage area. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:51 Mar 07, 2007 Jkt 211001 10439 whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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. The area removed includes unusable shallow areas and is so small it would not otherwise impact the ability of vessels to use the anchorage. It would in fact create additional opportunities for the numerous small commercial fishing and recreational vessels to access a greater portion of the Hampton Bar Flats without impacting the regulated anchorage area. 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. have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Assistance for Small Entities Protection of Children 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 so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 address listed under ADDRESSES. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 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. 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.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. 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. 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1 10440 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide 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 there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. The rule deals with reducing the size of an existing anchorage area. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2–1, paragraph 34(f) of the Instruction, and ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. For the reasons discussed in the preamble the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:51 Mar 07, 2007 Jkt 211001 PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05– 1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Revise part 110.168 to read as follows: 110.168 Hampton Roads, Virginia and adjacent waters (Datum: NAD 83). (a) Anchorage Grounds. (a)(3)(iii) Anchorage G, Hampton Flats (Naval Explosives Anchorage). The waters bounded by a line connecting the following points: Latitude 36°58′50.9″ 36°58′50.3″ 36°58′19.3″ 36°58′16.5″ 36°58′07.3″ 36°57′42.0″ 36°57′35.2″ 36°57′31.8″ 36°58′07.6″ 36°58′47.2″ 36°59′17.0″ 36°59′25.0″ N N N N N N N N N N N N Longitude ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 76°19′33.7″ 76°19′39.4″ 76°20′18.2″ 76°20′18.6″ 76°20′31.3″ 76°21′06.3″ 76°21′25.6″ 76°22′00.6″ 76°22′01.7″ 76°21′04.7″ 76°20′20.7″ 76°20′05.4″ W W W W W W W W W W W W Dated: February 14, 2007. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7–4111 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [CGD05–06–064] RIN 1625–AA01 Anchorage Grounds, Hampton Roads, VA Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes updating the coordinates of the boundaries of the anchorages listed below from the former North American Datum 1927 (NAD 27) standard to the current North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83) standard. These changes will not affect the locations or size of the anchorages on the NOAA charts as published by NOAA. The proposed change simply updates the anchorage positions in 33 CFR part 110 to match PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 the current datum in use on the applicable charts, which are NAD 83. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpw), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Room 100, Portsmouth, VA 23704–5004. The telephone number is (757) 398–6360. You may e-mail your comments to Albert.L.Grimes@uscg.mil. Commander (dpw), Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at (dpw) between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Albert Grimes, Fifth Coast Guard District Prevention and Waterways, (757) 398–6360, e-mail: Albert.L.Grimes@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05–06–064), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address listed under ADDRESSES explaining 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. Background and Purpose On May 25, 2005, the Coast Guard published a final rule (70 FR 29953) that provided changes and improvements to many of the anchorages in the Hampton E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM 08MRP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10438-10440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4111]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[CGD05-06-074]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage G, Hampton Flats (Naval Explosives Anchorage) Hampton 
Roads, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes changing the boundaries of Hampton 
Roads Explosive Anchorage Golf in response to a widening of the Norfolk 
Entrance Reach by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) undertaken 
to improve deep draft vessel traffic maneuverability, and to remove the 
shallow water area in the Hampton Bar Flats from the boundaries of this 
deepwater anchorage.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before April 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpw), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Room 100, 
Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The telephone number is (757) 398-6360. You 
may Email your comments to Albert.L.Grimes@uscg.mil. Commander (dpw), 
Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this 
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, 
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or 
copying at between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Albert Grimes, Fifth Coast Guard 
District Prevention and Waterways, (757) 398-6360, E-mail: 
Albert.L.Grimes@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name 
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-06-
074), indicate the specific section of this document to which each 
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit 
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if 
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during 
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a 
request for a meeting by writing to the address listed under ADDRESSES 
explaining 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.

[[Page 10439]]

Background and Purpose

    On Thursday, 20 April 2006, the Coast Guard was informed by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of its intention to widen the Norfolk 
Entrance Reach project in the vicinity of Hampton Roads Golf Anchorage 
to better facilitate the safe passage of deep draft vessel traffic in 
and out of the Port of Hampton Roads. USACE studies found that deep 
draft ships routinely exited the federal navigation project when 
turning into or out of the Elizabeth River and Norfolk Entrance Reach. 
USACE widened the turn area ensuring project depths are available to 
ships while maneuvering through this turn. As a result of this channel 
widening a small portion of Golf Anchorage will be lost. During the 
Coast Guard's subsequent review of the boundaries of Golf Anchorage, it 
was also determined that a significant portion of shallow water in the 
Hampton Bar Flats area was included as a part of this anchorage area. 
The Coast Guard believes that this shallow water area is not required 
to serve the needs of deep draft vessels that Golf Anchorage was 
designed for and therefore should be removed from the boundaries of the 
Golf Anchorage.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The USACE widening of the Norfolk Harbor Reach federal navigation 
channel necessitates a change in the size and boundaries of Anchorage 
Golf. This change is necessary to facilitate the safe passage of 
inbound and outbound deep draft vessels. Removal of the shallow water 
area in Hampton Bar Flats was included in this proposed change to the 
anchorage as the Coast Guard determined that this area is not required 
to serve the needs of the deep draft vessels the anchorage was designed 
to serve.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so 
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The effect of 
this proposed action merely makes minor changes to the boundaries of 
the existing anchorage area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have 
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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. The area removed includes unusable shallow 
areas and is so small it would not otherwise impact the ability of 
vessels to use the anchorage. It would in fact create additional 
opportunities for the numerous small commercial fishing and 
recreational vessels to access a greater portion of the Hampton Bar 
Flats without impacting the regulated anchorage area.
    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.

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 so that they can better 
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 address listed under 
ADDRESSES. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities 
that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of 
the Coast Guard.

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.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local 
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial 
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule 
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications 
for federalism.

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 or more in any 
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such 
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

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.

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.

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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant 
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not

[[Page 10440]]

likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a 
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement 
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why 
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or 
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management 
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we 
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which 
guide 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 there are no factors in this case that 
would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of 
the Instruction. The rule deals with reducing the size of an existing 
anchorage area. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be 
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the 
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-
1, paragraph 34(f) of the Instruction, and ``Environmental Analysis 
Check List'' is not required for this rule. Comments on this section 
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this 
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental 
review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

    1. The authority for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, and 
2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation 
No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise part 110.168 to read as follows:

110.168 Hampton Roads, Virginia and adjacent waters (Datum: NAD 83).

    (a) Anchorage Grounds. (a)(3)(iii) Anchorage G, Hampton Flats 
(Naval Explosives Anchorage). The waters bounded by a line connecting 
the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36[deg]58'50.9'' N........................  76[deg]19'33.7'' W
36[deg]58'50.3'' N........................  76[deg]19'39.4'' W
36[deg]58'19.3'' N........................  76[deg]20'18.2'' W
36[deg]58'16.5'' N........................  76[deg]20'18.6'' W
36[deg]58'07.3'' N........................  76[deg]20'31.3'' W
36[deg]57'42.0'' N........................  76[deg]21'06.3'' W
36[deg]57'35.2'' N........................  76[deg]21'25.6'' W
36[deg]57'31.8'' N........................  76[deg]22'00.6'' W
36[deg]58'07.6'' N........................  76[deg]22'01.7'' W
36[deg]58'47.2'' N........................  76[deg]21'04.7'' W
36[deg]59'17.0'' N........................  76[deg]20'20.7'' W
36[deg]59'25.0'' N........................  76[deg]20'05.4'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: February 14, 2007.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E7-4111 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P