Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18929 

areas specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of 

this section to the extent the ASD(HA), 

or designee, determines necessary for 

the effective and efficient operation of 

the TRDP. These differences may 

include, but are not limited to, specific 

provisions for preauthorization of care, 

varying licensure and certification 

requirements for foreign providers, and 

other differences based on limitations in 

the availability and capabilities of the 

Uniformed Services overseas dental 

treatment facilities and a particular 

nation’s civilian sector providers in 

certain areas. The Director, TRICARE 

Management Activity shall issue 

guidance, as necessary, to implement 

the provisions of this paragraph. TRDP 

enrollees residing in overseas locations 

will be eligible for the same benefits as 

enrollees residing in the continental 

United States, although dental services 

may not be available or accessible in all 

locations. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 10, 2007. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. E7–7132 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 147 

[CGD08–07–004] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Outer Continental Shelf 

Facility in the Gulf of Mexico for 

Mississippi Canyon Block 920 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a 500 meter safety zone around 

the oil and natural gas production 

facility Independence Hub in 

Mississippi Canyon Block 920 of the 

Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of 

Mexico. This safety zone is needed to 

protect the crew of the Independence 

Hub and vessels operating in the 

vicinity of the facility. Vessels are 

prohibited from entering this proposed 

safety zone with the following 

exceptions: an attending vessel; a vessel 

under 100 feet in length overall not 

engaged in towing; or a vessel 

authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard 

District Commander. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

June 15, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District (dpw), Hale 

Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, 

New Orleans, LA 70130, or comments 

and related material may be delivered to 

Room 1230 at the same address between 

8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

telephone number is (504) 671–2107. 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 

District (dpw) 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 the location listed above 

during the noted time periods. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doug Blakemore, waterways 

management specialist for Eighth Coast 

Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs 

Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New 

Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 

671–2109. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Requests 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 [CGD08–07–004], 

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. 

Public Meeting 

We do not plan to hold a public 

meeting. However, you may submit a 

request for a meeting by writing to 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 

District (dpw) at the address under 

ADDRESSES explaining why one would 

be beneficial. If we determine that a 

public meeting 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 to establish 

a safety zone around the Independence 

Hub facility, an oil and natural gas 

production facility in the Gulf of Mexico 

in Mississippi Canyon Block 920, 

located at position 28.085° N, 87.986° 

W. The Independence Hub is an 

integrated development of nine gas 

fields and consists of a deepdraft, 

column-legged, semi-submersible 

production platform, a subsea 

production infrastructure, connecting 

flowlines and a trunk line terminating at 

a junction platform in Plaquemines 

Parish, Louisiana. Anadarko Petroleum 

Corporation (Anadarko), the lead 

operator of the Independence Hub, has 

requested that a safety zone be 

established 500 meters around the semisubmersible production platform. 

Navigation in the vicinity of the 

proposed safety zone consists of large 

commercial shipping vessels, fishing 

vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and 

the occasional recreational vessel. 

Significant amounts of vessel traffic 

occur in or near the various fairways in 

the deepwater area. Information 

provided by Anadarko to the Coast 

Guard indicates that the location, 

production levels, and personnel levels 

on board the facility make it highly 

likely that any allision with the facility 

or its mooring system could result in a 

catastrophic event. The proposed rule 

would reduce the threat of allisions, oil 

spills and natural gas releases and 

increase the safety of life, property, and 

the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed safety zone would 

encompass the area within 500 meters 

from each point on the Independence 

Hub’s structure outer edge. No vessel 

would be allowed to enter or remain in 

this proposed safety zone except the 

following: an attending vessel; a vessel 

under 100 feet in length overall not 

engaged in towing; or a vessel 

authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard 

District Commander. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 

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. The impacts on 

routine navigation are expected to be 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
18930 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

minimal because the proposed safety 

zone will not overlap any of the safety 

fairways within the Gulf of Mexico. 

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. Since the Independence Hub 

facility will be located far offshore, few 

privately owned fishing vessels and 

recreational boats/yachts operate in the 

area and alternate routes are available 

for those vessels. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard expects the impact of this 

proposed rule on small entities to be 

minimal. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies 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 (Public Law 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 Doug 

Blakemore, waterways management 

specialist for Eighth Coast Guard 

District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal 

Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, 

LA 70130, telephone (504) 671–2109. 

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 will not 

result in such expenditure, we discuss 

the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule will 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 does not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that may 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. 

We invite your comments on this 

proposed rule. This proposed rule might 

impact tribal governments, even though 

the impact may not constitute a tribal 

implication under the rule. 

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 proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.1D, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1 paragraph (34)(g), of the 

instruction, from further environmental 

documentation because this rule is not 

expected to result in any significant 

environmental impact as described in 

NEPA. 

A draft ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a draft ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 

will be considered before we make the 

final decision on whether the rule 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18931 

should be categorically excluded from 

further environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147 

Continental shelf, Marine safety, 

Water. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows: 

PART 147—SAFETY ZONES 

1. The authority citation for part 147 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 147.845 to read as follows: 

§ 147.845 Independence Hub safety zone. 

(a) Description. The Independence 

Hub, Mississippi Canyon Block 920, is 

located at position 28.08505611° N, 

87.98583917° W. The area within 500 

meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on 

the structure’s outer edge is a safety 

zone. These coordinates are based upon 

[NAD 83]. 

(b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or 

remain in this safety zone except the 

following: 

(1) An attending vessel; 

(2) A vessel under 100 feet in length 

overall not engaged in towing; or 

(3) A vessel authorized by the 

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard 

District. 

Dated: April 5, 2007. 

Richard G. Sullivan, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th 

Coast Guard District, Acting. 

[FR Doc. E7–7186 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD1–07–008] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone: Beverly Homecoming 

Fireworks, Beverly, MA. 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

establishing a temporary safety zone for 

the Town of Beverly Homecoming 

Fireworks in Beverly, Massachusetts 

currently scheduled to occur on August 

5, 2007 temporarily closing all navigable 

waters of Beverly Harbor within a five 

hundred (500) yard radius of the 

fireworks launch barge located at 

approximate position 42° 32.650 N, 070° 

51.980 W. The safety zone is needed to 

protect the maritime public from the 

potential hazards posed by a fireworks 

display. The safety zone will prohibit 

entry into or movement within this 

portion of Beverly Harbor during its 

effective period. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

May 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Sector Boston 

427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA. 

Sector Boston 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 Sector Boston, 427 

Commercial Street, Boston, MA between 

the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Petty Officer Joseph Yonker, Sector 

Boston, Waterways Management 

Division, at (617) 223–5007. 

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 (CGD01–07–008), 

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 materials in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know that your submission reached 

us, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We 

may change this proposed rule in view 

of them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. You may, however submit a 

request for a meeting by writing to 

Sector Boston 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 

This proposed rule establishes a 

safety zone on the navigable waters of 

Beverly Harbor within a five hundred 

(500) yard radius of the fireworks 

launch barge located at approximate 

position 42° 32.650 N, 070° 51.980 W. 

The safety zone would be in effect from 

8:30 p.m. EDT until 11:30 p.m. EDT on 

August 5, 2007. 

This safety zone would temporarily 

prohibit entry into or movement within 

the effected portion of Beverly Harbor 

and is needed to protect the maritime 

public from the potential dangers posed 

by a fireworks display. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes 

establishing a temporary safety zone in 

a portion of Beverly Harbor. The safety 

zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m. 

EDT until 11:30 p.m. EDT on August 5, 

2007. Marine traffic may transit safely 

outside of the safety zone during the 

event thereby allowing navigation of 

Beverly Harbor except for the portion 

delineated by this rule. This safety zone 

will control vessel traffic during the 

fireworks event to protect the safety of 

the maritime public. 

Due to the limited time frame of the 

firework display and because the zone 

leaves the majority of Beverly Harbor 

open for navigation, the Captain of the 

Port anticipates minimal negative 

impact on vessel traffic due to this 

event. Public notifications will be made 

prior to the effective period via local 

notice to mariners and marine 

information broadcasts. 

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 is 

unnecessary. 

Although this rule would prevent 

vessel traffic from transiting a portion of 

Beverly Harbor during the fireworks 

event, the effect of this regulation would 

not be significant for several reasons: 

vessels will be excluded from the 

proscribed area for only three hours, 

vessels will be able to operate in the 

majority of Beverly Harbor during this 

time period; and advance notifications 

will be made to the local maritime 

community by marine information 

broadcasts and Local Notice to 

Mariners. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS