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. 

§ 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. 

(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 

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 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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
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 

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°58′50.9′′ N ............ 76°19′33.7′′ W 

36°58′50.3′′ N ............ 76°19′39.4′′ W 

36°58′19.3′′ N ............ 76°20′18.2′′ W 

36°58′16.5′′ N ............ 76°20′18.6′′ W 

36°58′07.3′′ N ............ 76°20′31.3′′ W 

36°57′42.0′′ N ............ 76°21′06.3′′ W 

36°57′35.2′′ N ............ 76°21′25.6′′ W 

36°57′31.8′′ N ............ 76°22′00.6′′ W 

36°58′07.6′′ N ............ 76°22′01.7′′ W 

36°58′47.2′′ N ............ 76°21′04.7′′ W 

36°59′17.0′′ N ............ 76°20′20.7′′ W 

36°59′25.0′′ N ............ 76°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 

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 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS