Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ, 25526-25528 [E6-6518]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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,
https://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
