Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58053

Scheduling matters are not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget pursuant to provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(d)(1).

Executive Order 12988 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil 

Justice Reform. 

Executive Order 13132 

This final rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this rule will not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

federalism assessment. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $114,000,000 or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under provisions of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by Section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

■ Under the authority vested in the 

Attorney General by Section 201(a) of the 

CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(a)), and delegated to 

the Administrator of the DEA by the 

Department of Justice regulations (28 

CFR 0.100) and re-delegated to the 

Deputy Administrator pursuant to 28 

CFR 0.104, the Deputy Administrator 

amends 21 CFR Part 1308 as follows:

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 1308 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b) 

unless otherwise noted.

■ 2. Section 1308.11 is amended by:

■ A. Redesignating existing paragraphs 

(d)(15) through (d)(32) as paragraphs 

(d)(16) through (d)(33),

■ B. Adding a new paragraph (d)(15),

■ C. Further redesignating paragraphs 

(d)(19) through (d)(33) as paragraphs 

(d)(20) through (d)(34),

■ D. Adding a new paragraph (d)(19),

■ E. Removing paragraphs (g)(3) and 

(g)(4) to read as follows:

§ 1308.11 Schedule I.

* * * * *

(d) * * * 

(15) Alpha-methyltryptamine (other 

name: AMT)—7432.

* * * * *

(19) 5-methoxy-N,Ndiisopropyltryptamine (other name: 5-

MeO-DIPT) —7439.

* * * * *

Dated: September 23, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–21755 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[CGD13–04–039] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations for Marine 

Events, Strait Thunder Hydroplane 

Races, Port Angeles, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing temporary special local 

regulations for the Strait Thunder 

Hydroplane Races held on the waters of 

Port Angeles Harbor, Port Angeles, 

Washington. These special local 

regulations limit the movement of nonparticipating vessels in the regulated 

race area and provide for a viewing area 

for spectator craft. This rule is needed 

to provide for the safety of life on 

navigable waters during the event.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. 

on October 1, 2004 through 5 p.m. on 

October 3, 2004 Pacific Daylight Time.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are port of docket CGD13–04–

039 and are available for inspection or 

copying at the U.S. Coast Guard Marine 

Safety Office Puget Sound, 1519 

Alaskan Way South, Building 1, Seattle, 

Washington 98134 between 8 a.m. and 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Junior Grade Jessica Hagen at 

(206) 217–6231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the 

Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 

for not publishing an NPRM. The 

hydroplane race poses several dangers 

to the public including excessive noise, 

objects falling from any accidents, and 

hydroplanes racing at high speeds in 

proximity to other vessels. Accordingly, 

prompt regulatory action is needed in 

order to provide for the safety of 

spectators and participants during the 

event. If normal notice and comment 

procedures were followed, this rule 

would not become effective until after 

the date of the event. The Coast Guard 

finds that good cause exists for not 

publishing an NPRM, because doing so 

would be contrary to the interests of 

public safety because immediate action 

is necessary to protect the public. 

Under 5 U.S.C.(d)(3), for the same 

reasons cited above, the Coast Guard 

finds that good cause exists for making 

this rule effective in less than 30 days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Discussion of Rule 

This rule will create two regulated 

areas, a race area and a viewing area. 

These regulated areas restrict the 

movement of spectator, non-participant, 

vessels during hydroplane races. These 

regulated areas assist in minimizing the 

inherent dangers associated with 

hydroplane races. These dangers 

include, but are not limited to, excessive 

noise, race craft traveling at high speed 

in close proximity to one another and to 

spectator craft, and the risk of airborne 

objects from any accidents associated 

with hydroplanes. In the event that 

hydroplanes require emergency 

assistance, rescuers must have 

immediate and unencumbered access to 

the craft. The Coast Guard, through this 

action, intends to promote the safety of 

personnel, vessels, and facilities in the 

area. Due to these concerns, public 

safety requires these regulations to 

58054 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

provide for the safety of life on the 

navigable waters. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This 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 rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is 

based on the fact that the regulated area 

established by this rule encompasses an 

area near Port Angeles Harbor, not 

frequented by commercial navigation. 

The regulation is established for the 

benefit and safety of the recreational 

boating public, and any negative 

recreational boating impact is offset by 

the benefits of allowing the hydroplanes 

to race. This rule is effective from 9 a.m. 

on October 1, 2004 through 5 p.m. on 

October 3, 2004 Pacific Daylight Time. 

For the above reasons, the Coast Guard 

does not anticipate any significant 

economic impact. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Coast Guard 

considered whether this 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. This 

rule will affect the following entities, 

some of which may be small entities: 

The owners or operators of vessels 

intending to transit this portion of Port 

Angeles Harbor during the time this 

regulation is in effect. The zone will not 

have a significant economic impact due 

to its short duration and small area. The 

only vessels likely to be impacted will 

be recreational boaters and small 

passenger vessel operators. The event is 

held for the benefit and entertainment of 

those above categories. Because the 

impacts of this proposal are expected to 

be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies 

under 605(b) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that 

this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

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 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 person 

listed in the (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT) section. Small businesses may 

send comments on the actions of 

Federal employees who enforce, or 

otherwise determine compliance with, 

Federal regulations to the Small 

Business and Agriculture Regulatory 

Enforcement Ombudsman and the 

Regional Small Business Regulatory 

Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman 

evaluates these actions annually and 

rates each agency’s responsiveness to 

small business. If you wish to comment 

on actions by employees of the Coast 

Guard, call 1–888-REG-FAIR (1–888–

734–3247). 

Collection of Information 

This 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 rule under Executive Order 13132 

and have determined that this rule does 

not have implications for federalism 

under that Order. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs 

the issuance of Federal regulations that 

require unfunded mandates. An 

unfunded mandate is a regulation that 

requires a State, local, or tribal 

government or the private sector to 

incur direct costs without the Federal 

Government’s having first provided the 

funds to pay those costs. This rule 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate. 

Taking of Private Property 

This 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 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 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 concern an environmental risk 

to health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian tribal governments, because 

it does 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 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. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58055

(NEPA) (42U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are not 

factors in this case that would limit the 

use of a categorical exclusion under 

section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. 

Therefore, this rule is 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, and ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are not 

required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Waterways.

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 100, as follows:

PART 100—MARINE EVENTS 

[AMENDED]

■ 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. From 9 a.m. on October 1 through 

5 p.m. on October 3, 2004, add temporary 

§ 100.T13–002 to read as follows:

§ 100.T13–002 Special Local Regulations, 

Strait Thunder Hydroplane Races, Port 

Angeles, WA. 

(a) Regulated areas. (1) The race area

encompasses all waters located inside of 

a line connecting the following points 

located near Port Angeles, Washington: 

Point 1: 48°07′24′′ N, 123°25′32′′ W; 

Point 2: 48°07′26′′ N, 123°24′35′′ W; 

Point 3: 48°07′12′′ N, 123°25′31′′ W; 

Point 4: 48°07′ 15′′ N, 123°24′34′′ W. 

[Datum: NAD 1983].

(2) The spectator area encompasses 

all waters located within a box bounded 

by the following points located near 

Port Angeles, Washington: Point 1: 

48°07′32′′ N, 123°25′33′′ W; Point 2: 

48°07′29′′ N, 123°24′36′′ W; Point 3: 

48°07′24′′ N, 123°25′32′′ W, Point 4: 

48°07′26′′ N, 123°24′35′′ W. [Datum: 

NAD 1983]. 

(b) Definitions. (1) For the purposes of 

this section, Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the Coast 

Guard who has been designated by the 

Commander, Coast Guard Group Port 

Angeles. The Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander is empowered to control 

the movement of vessels in the 

regulated area. 

(2) For the purposes of this section, 

Patrol Vessel means any Coast Guard 

vessel, Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, or 

other federal, state or local law 

enforcement vessel. 

(c) Special Local Regulations. (1) 

From 9 a.m. on October 1, 2004 through 

5 p.m. on October 3, 2004, nonparticipant vessels are prohibited from 

entering the race area unless authorized 

by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. 

(2) Spectator craft may remain in the 

designated spectator area but must 

follow the directions of the Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander. Spectator craft 

entering, exiting or moving within the 

spectator area must operate at speeds 

that will create a minimum wake, and 

not exceed seven knots. The maximum 

speed may be reduced at the discretion 

of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. 

(3) A succession of sharp, short 

signals by whistle or horn from a Patrol 

Vessel will serve as a signal to stop. 

Vessels signaled must stop and comply 

with the orders of the Patrol Vessel. 

Failure to do so may result in expulsion 

from the area, citation for failure to 

comply, or both. 

(4) The Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander may be assisted by other 

federal, state and local law enforcement 

agencies in enforcing this regulation.

Dated: September 22, 2004. 

J.M. Garrett, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Thirteenth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–21846 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 219 

National Forest System Land and 

Resource Management Planning; Use 

of Best Available Science in 

Implementing Land Management Plans

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; Interpretation.

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture is adopting this 

interpretative rule to clarify the intent of 

the transition section of the planning 

regulations regarding the consideration 

and use of the best available science to 

inform project decision making that 

implements a land management plan 

and, as appropriate, plan amendments.

DATES: This interpretative rule is 

effective September 29, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Written inquiries about this 

interpretative rule may be sent to the 

Director, Ecosystem Management 

Coordination Staff, USDA Forest 

Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., 

Mailstop Code 1104, Washington, DC 

20250–1104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Barone, Planning Specialist, 

Ecosystem Management Coordination 

Staff, Forest Service, USDA, (202) 205–

1019; Fax (202) 205–1012.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Department of Agriculture is clarifying 

the effect of the transition provisions of 

the National Forest System land and 

resource management planning 

regulation at 36 CFR part 219 (65 FR 

67514) adopted on November 9, 2000 

(2000 planning rule). The transition 

provisions govern National Forest 

System planning during the transition 

period originally set forth in the 2000 

planning rule and amended by interim 

final rules promulgated on May 17, 2001 

(66 FR 27552), and May 20, 2002 (67 FR 

35431). 

Section 219.35(a) of the transition 

provisions requires the responsible 

official, during the transition period, to 

consider the best available science in 

implementing and, if appropriate, in 

amending existing plans. Section 

219.35(b) currently allows the 

responsible official, during this period, 

to elect to prepare plan amendments 

and revisions using the provisions of the 

1982 planning rule. Section 219.35(d) 

currently exempts projects 

implementing land and resource 

management plans from compliance 

with the substantive provisions of the 

2000 planning regulation during the 

transition period. 

The transition period began on 

November 9, 2000. The May 17, 2001 

and May 20, 2002 interim final rules 

amended the 2000 planning rule to 

extend the transition period until final 

adoption of the proposed revision to the 

2000 planning rule published on 

December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72770). During 

this period, while the substantive 

provisions of the 2000 rule are not 

binding, the transition provisions 

remain in effect. 

Considerable uncertainty has arisen 

regarding the impact of the 2000 

planning rule and the transition 

provisions. Some courts have properly 

determined the 1982 planning rule is no 

longer in effect. Others, however, have 

enforced its provisions. See, e.g., Forest 

Watch v. United States Forest Service, 

322 F.Supp. 2d 522 (D. Vt. 2004) 

(‘‘Applicable regulations require the 

Forest Service to ‘‘consider the best 

available science’’ when implementing 

the forest plan,’’ citing 36 CFR 

219.35(a)); Clinch Coalition v. Damon, 

316 F.Supp. 2d 364, 381 (W.D.Va. 2004) 

(suggesting that the 1982 planning rule 

could not be applied to a 2001 decision,