Anchorage Grounds, Hampton Roads, VA, 10440-10443 [E7-4113]
Download as PDF
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
10441
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Roads area. Coordinates for anchorages
changed or improved as part of this final
rule were also updated from their
former NAD 27 position to a new NAD
83 position. Anchorages discussed in
this NPRM were listed as ‘‘No Change,’’
while in another section of the final rule
the reader was led to believe that the
positions of these ‘‘No Change’’
anchorages had also been changed from
NAD 27 to NAD 83. However, they are
in fact still listed in 33 CFR part 110.168
as NAD 27 positions. This proposed rule
will ensure that all of the Hampton
Roads Anchorages listed in 33 CFR part
110.168 are NAD 83 positions.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The anchorages that will be updated
to NAD 83 datum are on the following
table:
Current Anchorage [33 CFR 110.168(a)]
A—Cape Henry Naval Anchorage (1) ...................................................................................................................................
B—Chesapeake Bay, Thimble Shoals Channel Naval Anchorage (CBTSC [(2)(i)] .............................................................
C—CBTSC Naval Anchorage Naval [(2)(ii)] ..........................................................................................................................
D—CBTSC Naval Anchorage [(2)(iii)] ...................................................................................................................................
E—Commercial Explosive Anchorage [(2)(iv)] ......................................................................................................................
E–1—Explosives Handling Berth [(2)(v)(A)] ..........................................................................................................................
F—Hampton Bar [(3)(i)] .........................................................................................................................................................
F–1—[(3)(i)(A)] .......................................................................................................................................................................
G–1—Explosives Handling Berth [(3)(ii)(A)] ..........................................................................................................................
G–2—Explosives Handling Berth [(3)(ii)(B)] ..........................................................................................................................
H—Newport News Bar [(3)(iii)] ..............................................................................................................................................
I—Newport News [(4)(i)] ........................................................................................................................................................
I–1—Newport News [(4)(i)(A)] ...............................................................................................................................................
This proposed rule is necessary to
ensure all anchorages positions listed
under 33 CFR 110.168 reflect that they
are based on NAD 83 datum.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
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 under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary. The effect of this
proposed action merely modifies the
datum of the geographic positions that
define the boundaries of the existing
anchorages.
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 proposed changes only
make the boundary points of the
anchorages referenced herein consistent
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:51 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
with the current applicable NOAA
navigation charts.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
Change
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
NAD
83.
83.
83.
83.
83.
83.
83.
83.
83.
83.
83.
83.
83.
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
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
10442
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
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.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
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
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 there are no factors
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:51 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we
believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2–
1, paragraph (34)(i) of the Instruction,
from further environmental
documentation. Under figure 2–1,
paragraph 34(i) of the Instruction, an
‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ is
not required for this rule. Comments on
this section will be considered before
we make a 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
36°58′04.5″ N
76°09′58.8″ W
(iii) Anchorage D [Naval Anchorage].
The waters bounded by the shoreline
and a line connecting the following
points:
Latitude
36°55′49.5″
36°58′04.5″
36°57′31.7″
36°55′24.6″
N
N
N
N
Longitude
76°10′31.6″
76°10′00.9″
76°07′53.6″
76°08′27.6″
W
W
W
W
(iv) Anchorage E [Commercial
Explosives Anchorage]. The waters
bounded by a line connecting the
following points:
Latitude
36°59′59.2″
36°59′08.7″
36°58′13.5″
36°59′02.5″
N
N
N
N
Longitude
76°13′45.8″
76°10′32.6″
76°10′50.6″
76°14′04.9″
W
W
W
W
(v) Explosives Handling Berth E–1
[Explosives Anchorage Berth]. The
waters bounded by the arc of a circle
with a radius of 500 yards and the
center located at:
1. The authority for part 110 is revised
to read as follows:
Latitude
36°59′05.5″ N
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. Amend § 110.168 to revise
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i),
(a)(3)(ii), (a)(3)(iv), (a)(3)(v), (a)(3)(viii),
(a)(4) (i), and (a)(4)(ii), to read as
follows:
(3) Hampton Roads Anchorages. (i)
Anchorage F, Hampton Bar. The waters
bounded by a line connecting the
following points:
Latitude
36°59′52.1″
36°59′25.7″
36°58′49.6″
36°59′25.5″
N
N
N
N
Longitude
76°11′21.8″ W
Longitude
76°19′10.8″
76°18′47.3″
76°19′32.6″
76°20′05.8″
W
W
W
W
(ii) Anchorage Berth F–1. The waters
bounded by the arc of a circle with a
(a) Anchorage Grounds. (1) Anchorage radius of 500 yards and the center
located at:
A [Naval Anchorage]. The waters
bounded by the shoreline and a line
Latitude
Longitude
connecting the following points:
36°59′29.6″ N
76°19′13.9″ W
§ 110.168 Hampton Roads, Virginia and
adjacent waters (Datum: NAD 83).
Latitude
36°55′36.2″
36°57′03.3″
36°56′45.5″
36°55′55.7″
Longitude
76°02′46.3″
76°03′01.4″
76°01′28.8″
76°01′35.7″
N
N
N
N
*
W
W
W
W
(2) Chesapeake Bay, Thimble Shoals
Channel Anchorages. (i) Anchorage B
[Naval Anchorage]. The waters bounded
by a line connecting the following
points:
Latitude
36°57′58.5″
36°57′11.5″
36°55′49.3″
36°56′32.3″
36°57′04.5″
36°57′09.0″
Longitude
76°06′05.8″
76°03′00.9″
76°03′12.8″
76°06′05.8″
76°06′05.8″
76°06′23.3″
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
W
W
W
W
W
(ii) Anchorage C [Naval Anchorage].
The waters bounded by a line
connecting the following points:
Latitude
36°58′55.3″ N
36°58′19.3″ N
36°57′27.5″ N
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Longitude
76°09′40.3″ W
76°07′16.8″ W
76°07′36.3″ W
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
*
(iv) Explosives Handling Berth G–1.
The waters bounded by the arc of a
circle with a radius of 500 yards and the
center located at:
Latitude
36°57′50.5″ N
Longitude
76°21′35.8″ W
(v) Explosives Handling Berth G–2.
The waters bounded by the arc of a
circle with a radius of 500 yards and the
center located at:
Latitude
36°58′14.5″ N
Longitude
76°21′00.3″ W
*
*
*
*
*
(viii) Anchorage H, Newport News
Bar. The waters bounded by a line
connecting the following points:
Latitude
36°57′38.8″
36°57′52.3″
36°58′07.4″
36°57′31.6″
36°57′18.7″
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
N
N
N
N
N
08MRP1
Longitude
76°24′18.5″
76°22′29.7″
76°22′01.8″
76°22′00.6″
76°24′10.1″
W
W
W
W
W
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(4) James River Anchorages. (i)
Anchorage I, Newport News. The waters
bounded by a line connecting the
following points:
Latitude
36°57′07.2″
36°56′23.1″
36°57′54.2″
36°56′03.5″
36°58′23.5″
36°58′49.0″
36°58′35.9″
36°57′52.2″
36°57′31.1″
Longitude
76°24′43.1″
76°24′26.8″
76°26′40.3″
76°24′35.8″
76°27′09.8″
76°27′09.8″
76°26′37.2″
76°26′01.6″
76°25′33.3″
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
(ii) Anchorage Berth I–1. The waters
bounded by the arc of a circle with a
radius of 400 yards and the center
located at:
Latitude
36°57′09.0″ N
*
*
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 [COTP San Diego 07–
025], 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 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.
Dated: February 14, 2007.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7–4113 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP San Diego 07–025]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Fireworks, Lower
Colorado River, Laughlin, NV
Public Meeting
Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Chief Petty Officer Eric Carroll,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego, CA, at
telephone (619) 278–7277.
Longitude
76°25′20.4″ W
*
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes
establishing a temporary safety zone on
the navigable waters of the Lower
Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in
support of a fireworks display near the
AVI Resort and Casino. The safety zone
is necessary to provide for the safety of
the crew, spectators, participants of the
event, participating vessels and other
vessels and users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels will be prohibited
from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
April 30, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments
and related material to Marine Events,
Prevention Department, Coast Guard
Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Drive,
San Diego, CA 92101–1028. Marine
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Events, Prevention Department,
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
Coast Guard Sector San Diego between
8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
18:51 Mar 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But you may submit a request
for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard
Sector San Diego at the address 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
The Coast Guard proposes
establishing a temporary safety zone on
the navigable waters of the Lower
Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, in
support of a fireworks show in the
navigation channel of the Lower
Colorado River, Laughlin, NV. The
fireworks show is being sponsored by
AVI Resort and Casino. The safety zone
will be set at a 980-foot radius around
the anchored firing barge. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to
provide for the safety of the show’s
crew, spectators, participants of the
event, participating vessels, and other
vessels and users of the waterway.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10443
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The event involves one anchored
barge, which will be used as a platform
for launching of fireworks. The safety
zone is required because the barge’s
planned firing location is in the
navigation channel. This safety zone
would be enforced from 8 p.m. through
9:45 p.m. on May 27, 2007.
The limits of this temporary safety
zone include all areas within 980 feet of
the firing location adjacent to the AVI
Resort and Casino centered in the
navigational channel between Laughlin
Bridge and the northwest point of the
AVI Resort and Casino Cove in position:
35°00′45″ N., 114°38′16″ W. Persons and
vessels would be prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative.
U.S. Coast Guard personnel would
enforce this safety zone. Other Federal,
State, or local agencies may assist the
Coast Guard, including the Coast Guard
Auxiliary. Vessels or persons violating
this rule would be subject to both
criminal and civil penalties.
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. It is not
‘‘significant’’ under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
We expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be so minimal that
a full Regulatory Evaluation under the
regulatory policies and procedures of
DHS is unnecessary. Although the safety
zone will restrict boating traffic within
the navigable waters of the Lower
Colorado River, Laughlin, NV, the effect
of this regulation will not be significant
as the safety zone will encompass only
a small portion of the waterway and will
be very short in duration. The entities
most likely to be affected are pleasure
craft engaged in recreational activities
and sightseeing. As such, the Coast
Guard expects the economic impact of
this rule to be minimal.
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.
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10440-10443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4113]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[CGD05-06-064]
RIN 1625-AA01
Anchorage Grounds, Hampton Roads, VA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
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.
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
[[Page 10441]]
Roads area. Coordinates for anchorages changed or improved as part of
this final rule were also updated from their former NAD 27 position to
a new NAD 83 position. Anchorages discussed in this NPRM were listed as
``No Change,'' while in another section of the final rule the reader
was led to believe that the positions of these ``No Change'' anchorages
had also been changed from NAD 27 to NAD 83. However, they are in fact
still listed in 33 CFR part 110.168 as NAD 27 positions. This proposed
rule will ensure that all of the Hampton Roads Anchorages listed in 33
CFR part 110.168 are NAD 83 positions.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The anchorages that will be updated to NAD 83 datum are on the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Anchorage [33 CFR
110.168(a)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--Cape Henry Naval Anchorage (1).. Change to NAD 83.
B--Chesapeake Bay, Thimble Shoals Change to NAD 83.
Channel Naval Anchorage (CBTSC
[(2)(i)].
C--CBTSC Naval Anchorage Naval Change to NAD 83.
[(2)(ii)].
D--CBTSC Naval Anchorage [(2)(iii)] Change to NAD 83.
E--Commercial Explosive Anchorage Change to NAD 83.
[(2)(iv)].
E-1--Explosives Handling Berth Change to NAD 83.
[(2)(v)(A)].
F--Hampton Bar [(3)(i)]............ Change to NAD 83.
F-1--[(3)(i)(A)]................... Change to NAD 83.
G-1--Explosives Handling Berth Change to NAD 83.
[(3)(ii)(A)].
G-2--Explosives Handling Berth Change to NAD 83.
[(3)(ii)(B)].
H--Newport News Bar [(3)(iii)]..... Change to NAD 83.
I--Newport News [(4)(i)]........... Change to NAD 83.
I-1--Newport News [(4)(i)(A)]...... Change to NAD 83.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule is necessary to ensure all anchorages positions
listed under 33 CFR 110.168 reflect that they are based on NAD 83
datum.
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 under the regulatory policies
and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The effect of this proposed
action merely modifies the datum of the geographic positions that
define the boundaries of the existing anchorages.
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 proposed changes only make the boundary
points of the anchorages referenced herein consistent with the current
applicable NOAA navigation charts.
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
[[Page 10442]]
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 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
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 there are no factors in this case that
would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of
the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(i) of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-
1, paragraph 34(i) of the Instruction, an ``Environmental Analysis
Check List'' is not required for this rule. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make a 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 is revised 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. Amend Sec. 110.168 to revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
(a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(3)(iv), (a)(3)(v), (a)(3)(viii), (a)(4) (i),
and (a)(4)(ii), to read as follows:
Sec. 110.168 Hampton Roads, Virginia and adjacent waters (Datum: NAD
83).
(a) Anchorage Grounds. (1) Anchorage A [Naval Anchorage]. The
waters bounded by the shoreline and a line connecting the following
points:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]55'36.2'' N 76[deg]02'46.3'' W
36[deg]57'03.3'' N 76[deg]03'01.4'' W
36[deg]56'45.5'' N 76[deg]01'28.8'' W
36[deg]55'55.7'' N 76[deg]01'35.7'' W
(2) Chesapeake Bay, Thimble Shoals Channel Anchorages. (i)
Anchorage B [Naval Anchorage]. The waters bounded by a line connecting
the following points:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]57'58.5'' N 76[deg]06'05.8'' W
36[deg]57'11.5'' N 76[deg]03'00.9'' W
36[deg]55'49.3'' N 76[deg]03'12.8'' W
36[deg]56'32.3'' N 76[deg]06'05.8'' W
36[deg]57'04.5'' N 76[deg]06'05.8'' W
36[deg]57'09.0'' N 76[deg]06'23.3'' W
(ii) Anchorage C [Naval Anchorage]. The waters bounded by a line
connecting the following points:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]58'55.3'' N 76[deg]09'40.3'' W
36[deg]58'19.3'' N 76[deg]07'16.8'' W
36[deg]57'27.5'' N 76[deg]07'36.3'' W
36[deg]58'04.5'' N 76[deg]09'58.8'' W
(iii) Anchorage D [Naval Anchorage]. The waters bounded by the
shoreline and a line connecting the following points:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]55'49.5'' N 76[deg]10'31.6'' W
36[deg]58'04.5'' N 76[deg]10'00.9'' W
36[deg]57'31.7'' N 76[deg]07'53.6'' W
36[deg]55'24.6'' N 76[deg]08'27.6'' W
(iv) Anchorage E [Commercial Explosives Anchorage]. The waters
bounded by a line connecting the following points:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]59'59.2'' N 76[deg]13'45.8'' W
36[deg]59'08.7'' N 76[deg]10'32.6'' W
36[deg]58'13.5'' N 76[deg]10'50.6'' W
36[deg]59'02.5'' N 76[deg]14'04.9'' W
(v) Explosives Handling Berth E-1 [Explosives Anchorage Berth]. The
waters bounded by the arc of a circle with a radius of 500 yards and
the center located at:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]59'05.5'' N 76[deg]11'21.8'' W
(3) Hampton Roads Anchorages. (i) Anchorage F, Hampton Bar. The
waters bounded by a line connecting the following points:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]59'52.1'' N 76[deg]19'10.8'' W
36[deg]59'25.7'' N 76[deg]18'47.3'' W
36[deg]58'49.6'' N 76[deg]19'32.6'' W
36[deg]59'25.5'' N 76[deg]20'05.8'' W
(ii) Anchorage Berth F-1. The waters bounded by the arc of a circle
with a radius of 500 yards and the center located at:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]59'29.6'' N 76[deg]19'13.9'' W
* * * * *
(iv) Explosives Handling Berth G-1. The waters bounded by the arc
of a circle with a radius of 500 yards and the center located at:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]57'50.5'' N 76[deg]21'35.8'' W
(v) Explosives Handling Berth G-2. The waters bounded by the arc of
a circle with a radius of 500 yards and the center located at:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]58'14.5'' N 76[deg]21'00.3'' W
* * * * *
(viii) Anchorage H, Newport News Bar. The waters bounded by a line
connecting the following points:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]57'38.8'' N 76[deg]24'18.5'' W
36[deg]57'52.3'' N 76[deg]22'29.7'' W
36[deg]58'07.4'' N 76[deg]22'01.8'' W
36[deg]57'31.6'' N 76[deg]22'00.6'' W
36[deg]57'18.7'' N 76[deg]24'10.1'' W
[[Page 10443]]
(4) James River Anchorages. (i) Anchorage I, Newport News. The
waters bounded by a line connecting the following points:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]57'07.2'' N 76[deg]24'43.1'' W
36[deg]56'23.1'' N 76[deg]24'26.8'' W
36[deg]57'54.2'' N 76[deg]26'40.3'' W
36[deg]56'03.5'' N 76[deg]24'35.8'' W
36[deg]58'23.5'' N 76[deg]27'09.8'' W
36[deg]58'49.0'' N 76[deg]27'09.8'' W
36[deg]58'35.9'' N 76[deg]26'37.2'' W
36[deg]57'52.2'' N 76[deg]26'01.6'' W
36[deg]57'31.1'' N 76[deg]25'33.3'' W
(ii) Anchorage Berth I-1. The waters bounded by the arc of a circle
with a radius of 400 yards and the center located at:
Latitude Longitude
36[deg]57'09.0'' N 76[deg]25'20.4'' W
* * * * *
Dated: February 14, 2007.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-4113 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P