Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ, 25526-25528 [E6-6518]

Download as PDF 25526 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05–06–037] RIN 1625–AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations for ‘‘Thunder over the Boardwalk Airshow’’, an aerial demonstration to be held over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This proposed action would restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey during the aerial demonstration. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704–5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax them to (757) 398–6203. The Coast Guard Inspections and Investigations Branch, 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 the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at (757) 398– 6204. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:26 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 208001 this rulemaking (CGD05–06–037), 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 now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to 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 On August 23, 2006, the Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce will sponsor the ‘‘Thunder over the Boardwalk Airshow’’. The event will consist of high performance jet aircraft performing low altitude aerial maneuvers over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather nearby to view the aerial demonstration. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. The regulated area includes a section of the Atlantic Ocean approximately 2.5 miles long, running from Pennsylvania Avenue to Columbia Avenue, and extending approximately 900 yards out from the shoreline. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 23, 2006, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the aerial demonstration. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 this proposed regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Atlantic Ocean during the event. This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 23, 2006. Affected waterway users can pass safely around the regulated area. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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 E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. 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 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 an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:26 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 208001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 25527 not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that 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)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an ‘‘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 to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add a temporary section, § 100.35T–05–037 to read as follows: § 100.35T–05–037 City, NJ. Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic (a) Regulated area. The regulated area is established for the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn between the following points: Southeasterly from a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W, thence to latitude 39°21′08″ N, longitude 074°24′48″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°20′16″ N, longitude 074°27′17″ W, thence northwesterly to a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°20′44″ N, longitude 074°27′31″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983. (b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1 25528 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay. (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign. (c) Special local regulations: (1) Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must: (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol. (ii) Proceed as directed by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol. (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 23, 2006. Dated: April 21, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6–6518 Filed 4–28–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Chapter 1 Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL ACTION: Notice of third meeting. Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, section 10), of the third meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. DATES: The Committee will meet on Monday, May 15, 2006 at the Officers’s Club at 1 Fort Mason in upper Fort Mason, in San Francisco. The meeting will begin at 3 p.m. This, and any subsequent meetings, will be held to assist the National Park Service in potentially developing a special regulation for dogwalking at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The proposed agenda for this meeting of the Committee may contain the following items; however, the Committee may modify its agenda during the course of its work. The VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:26 Apr 28, 2006 Jkt 208001 Committee will provide for a public comment period during the meeting. 1. Agenda review 2. Approval of April 18 meeting summary 3. Updates since previous meeting 4. No Action Alternative for Dog Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 5. Data inventory 6. Information needs for Negotiated Rulemaking process 7. Decision-making criteria 8. Public comment 9. Adjourn To request a sign language interpreter for a meeting, please call the park TDD line (415) 556–2766, at least a week in advance of the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Go to the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) Web site, http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/goga and select Negotiated Rulemaking for Dog Management at GGNRA or call the Dog Management Information Line at 415–561–4728. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings are open to the public. The Committee was established pursuant to the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 561–570). The purpose of the Committee is to consider developing a special regulation for dogwalking at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Interested persons may provide brief oral/written comments to the Committee during the Public Comment period of the meeting or file written comments with the GGNRA Superintendent. Dated: April 18, 2006. Loran Fraser, Chief, Office of Policy. [FR Doc. E6–6486 Filed 4–28–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 242 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 100 RIN 1018–AU70 Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart A; Makhnati Island Area AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would revise the jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence Management Program by adding submerged lands and waters in the area of Makhnati Island, near Sitka, Alaska. This would then allow Federal subsistence users to harvest marine resources in this area under seasons, harvest limits, and methods specified in Federal Subsistence Management regulations. We must receive your written public comments on this proposed rule no later than June 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence Management; (907) 786– 3888. For questions specific to National Forest System lands, contact Steve Kessler, Regional Subsistence Program Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region, (907) 786–3888. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: Background In Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126), Congress found that ‘‘the situation in Alaska is unique in that, in most cases, no practical alternative means are available to replace the food supplies and other items gathered from fish and wildlife which supply rural residents dependent on subsistence uses * * *’’ and that ‘‘continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses of resources on public and other lands in Alaska is threatened * * *.’’ As a result, Title VIII requires, among other things, that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) implement a program to provide for rural Alaska residents a priority for the taking for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources on public lands in Alaska, unless the State of Alaska enacts and implements laws of general applicability that are consistent with ANILCA and that provide for the subsistence definition, priority, and participation specified in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA. The State implemented a program that the Department of the Interior previously found to be consistent with ANILCA. However, in December 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. State of Alaska that the rural priority in the State subsistence statute violated the Alaska Constitution. The Court’s ruling in McDowell caused the State to delete the rural priority from the subsistence statute which therefore E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25526-25528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6518]



[[Page 25526]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD05-06-037]
RIN 1625-AA08


Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, 
Atlantic City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local 
regulations for ``Thunder over the Boardwalk Airshow'', an aerial 
demonstration to be held over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent 
to Atlantic City, New Jersey. These special local regulations are 
necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during 
the event. This proposed action would restrict vessel traffic in 
portions of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey 
during the aerial demonstration.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or 
before May 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, 
Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 at the same address 
between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays, or fax them to (757) 398-6203. The Coast Guard Inspections 
and Investigations Branch, 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 the above address between 9 a.m. 
and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Fifth 
Coast Guard District, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at (757) 
398-6204.

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-
037), 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 
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 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 August 23, 2006, the Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce will 
sponsor the ``Thunder over the Boardwalk Airshow''. The event will 
consist of high performance jet aircraft performing low altitude aerial 
maneuvers over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic 
City, New Jersey. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather 
nearby to view the aerial demonstration. Due to the need for vessel 
control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted 
to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local 
regulations on specified waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to 
Atlantic City, New Jersey. The regulated area includes a section of the 
Atlantic Ocean approximately 2.5 miles long, running from Pennsylvania 
Avenue to Columbia Avenue, and extending approximately 900 yards out 
from the shoreline. The temporary special local regulations will be 
enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 23, 2006, and will 
restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the aerial 
demonstration. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast 
Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the 
regulated area during the enforcement period.

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 this proposed regulation prevents traffic from transiting 
a portion of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey 
during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant 
due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect 
and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the 
maritime community via marine information broadcasts and area 
newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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. This rule will affect the following entities, 
some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels 
intending to transit this section of the Atlantic Ocean during the 
event.
    This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This 
rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 10:30 a.m. to 3 
p.m. on August 23, 2006. Affected waterway users can pass safely around 
the regulated area. Before the enforcement period, we will issue 
maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
    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

[[Page 25527]]

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 an 
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 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.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have made a preliminary determination that 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)(h), of the 
Instruction, from further environmental documentation.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an 
``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 to categorically exclude this rule from further 
environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes 
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

    1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add a temporary section, Sec.  100.35T-05-037 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  100.35T-05-037  Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulated area is established for the 
waters of the Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey, 
bounded by a line drawn between the following points: Southeasterly 
from a point along the shoreline at latitude 39[deg]21'31'' N, 
longitude 074[deg]25'04'' W, thence to latitude 39[deg]21'08'' N, 
longitude 074[deg]24'48'' W, thence southwesterly to latitude 
39[deg]20'16'' N, longitude 074[deg]27'17'' W, thence northwesterly to 
a point along the shoreline at latitude 39[deg]20'44'' N, longitude 
074[deg]27'31'' W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to latitude 
39[deg]21'31'' N, longitude 074[deg]25'04'' W. All coordinates 
reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions:
    (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or

[[Page 25528]]

petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the 
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay.
    (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by 
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay with a commissioned, 
warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    (c) Special local regulations:
    (1) Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard 
Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the 
regulated area.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by the Coast 
Guard Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or any 
Official Patrol.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 10:30 
a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 23, 2006.

    Dated: April 21, 2006.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-6518 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P