52308 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the drawbridge operation 

regulations for the Metropolitan Avenue 

Bridge, mile 3.4, across English Kills at 

New York City, New York. Under this 

temporary deviation the bridge may 

remain in the closed position from 

September 1, 2005 through September 

30, 2005. This temporary deviation is 

necessary to facilitate bridge 

maintenance. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

September 1, 2005 through September 

30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this 

document are available for inspection or 

copying at Commander (obr), First Coast 

Guard District, 1 South Street, Battery 

Park Building, New York, NY 10004 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The telephone number is 212–668–

7165. Commander (obr), First Coast 

Guard District, maintains the public 

docket for this temporary deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy 

Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast 

Guard District, at (212) 668–7195. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Metropolitan Avenue Bridge has a 

vertical clearance in the closed position 

of 10 feet at mean high water and 15 feet 

at mean low water. The existing 

drawbridge operation regulations are 

listed at 33 CFR 117.801(e). 

The owner of the bridge, New York 

City Department of Transportation 

(NYCDOT), requested a temporary 

deviation from the drawbridge operation 

regulations to facilitate rehabilitation 

repairs of the bridge. The bridge must 

remain in the closed position to perform 

these repairs. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

NYCDOT Metropolitan Avenue Bridge 

may remain in the closed position from 

September 1, 2005 through September 

30, 2005. 

This deviation from the operating 

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35, and will be performed with all 

due speed in order to return the bridge 

to normal operation as soon as possible. 

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 05–17511 Filed 9–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD13–05–027] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zones: Fireworks Displays in 

the Captain of the Port Portland Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule; change of 

effective period. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing 

the effective periods of the safety zones 

on the waters of the Columbia River, 

located in the Area of Responsibility 

(AOR) of the Captain of the Port, 

Portland, Oregon, during fireworks 

displays. The Captain of the Port, 

Portland, Oregon, is taking this action to 

safeguard watercraft and their occupants 

from safety hazards associated with 

these displays. Entry into these safety 

zones is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port. 

DATES: The new effective period of rule 

§ 165.T13–009 is from 9:30 p.m. to 11 

p.m. on August 27, 2005 and from 9:30 

p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 10, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket (CGD13–05–

027) and are available for inspection or 

copying at the U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave, Portland, 

Oregon 97217 between 7 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Petty Officer Charity Keuter, c/o Captain 

of the Port, Portland 6767 N. Basin 

Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97217, (503) 

240–9301. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 

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

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds 

that good cause exists for not publishing 

an NPRM and for making this rule 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Publishing a NPRM would be contrary 

to public interest since immediate 

action is necessary to ensure the safety 

of vessels and spectators gathering in 

the vicinity of the various fireworks 

launching barges and displays. These 

events were originally scheduled for 

dates that the sponsor deemed necessary 

to change and gave the Coast Guard 

short notice of the change and if normal 

notice and comment procedures were 

followed, this rule would not become 

effective until after the dates of the 

events. For this reason, following 

normal rulemaking procedures in this 

case would be impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest. 

Background and Purpose 

The Coast Guard is establishing 

temporary safety zones to allow for safe 

fireworks displays. All events occur 

within the Captain of the Port, Portland, 

OR, Area of Responsibility (AOR). These 

events may result in a number of vessels 

congregating near fireworks launching 

barges and sites. The safety zones are 

needed to protect watercraft and their 

occupants from safety hazards 

associated with fireworks displays. This 

safety zone will be enforced by 

representatives of the Captain of the 

Port, Portland, Oregon. The Captain of 

the Port may be assisted by other 

Federal and local agencies. 

Discussion of Rule 

This rule, for safety concerns, will 

control vessels, personnel and 

individual movements in a regulated 

area surrounding the fireworks event 

indicated in section 2 of this Temporary 

Final Rule. Entry into these zones is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Portland or his 

designated representative. Captain of 

the Port, Portland, Oregon, will enforce 

these safety zones. The Captain of the 

Port may be assisted by other Federal 

and local agencies. 

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 this rule under 

that Order. This rule is not ‘‘significant’’

under the regulatory policies and 

procedures of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast 

Guard expects the economic impact of 

this proposal to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 

10e of the regulatory policies and 

procedures act of DHS is unnecessary. 

This expectation is based on the fact 

that the regulated areas established by 

the proposed regulation will encompass 

small portions of the Columbia and 

Willamette Rivers in the Portland AOR 

on different dates, all in the evening 

when vessel traffic is low. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 52309 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have 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 Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will 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 a portion of 

the Willamette and Columbia Rivers 

during the times mentioned in section 

2(a)(1–4) at the conclusion of this rule. 

These safety zones will not have 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons. This rule will be 

in effect for only ninety minutes during 

the evenings when vessel traffic is low. 

Traffic will be allowed to pass through 

the zone with the permission of the 

Captain of the Port or his designated 

representatives on scene, if safe to do so. 

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 the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking process. If 

the rule will 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 calls 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 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 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not affect 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 create 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. It has not been designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 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 rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

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 

a 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. This rule establishes 

safety zones which have a duration of 

no more than two hours each. Due to the 

temporary safety zones being less than 

one week in duration, an Environmental 

Checklist and Categorical Exclusion is 

not required. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

52310 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR Part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Amend temporary § 165.T13–009 

by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and 

(a)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 165.T13–009 Safety Zones: Fireworks 

displays in the Captain of the Port Portland 

Zone. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(ii) Enforcement time and date. 9:30 

p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 27, 2005. 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(ii) Enforcement time and date. 9:30 

p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 10, 2005. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 23, 2005. 

Patrick G. Gerrity, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Portland, OR. 

[FR Doc. 05–17473 Filed 9–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT95 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Exclusion of U.S. CaptiveBred Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, 

and Dama Gazelle From Certain 

Prohibitions 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are amending 

the regulations promulgated under the 

Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) to add new regulations to 

govern certain activities with U.S. 

captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx 

dammah), addax (Addax 

nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle 

(Gazella dama), which have been listed 

as endangered. For U.S. captive-bred 

live wildlife, including embryos and 

gametes, and sport-hunted trophies of 

these three species, this rule authorizes 

certain otherwise prohibited activities 

that enhance the propagation or survival 

of the species. International trade in 

specimens of these species will 

continue to be subject to the Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES). We have also prepared a final 

Environmental Assessment with a 

Finding of No Significant Impact for this 

final rule under regulations 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). 

DATES: This rule is effective October 3, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: The complete supporting 

file for this rule is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the Division of 

Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Historically, the scimitar-horned oryx 

(Oryx dammah), addax (Addax 

nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle 

(Gazella dama) occupied the same 

general region of North Africa. Wild 

numbers of the three antelopes have 

declined drastically over the past 50 

years. The scimitar-horned oryx may 

now be extinct in the wild. The declines 

have resulted primarily from habitat 

loss, uncontrolled killing, and the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Of the three antelope species, the 

scimitar-horned oryx is the most 

threatened with extinction. By the mid1980s, it was estimated that only a few 

hundred were left in the wild, with the 

only viable populations known to be in 

Chad. However, no sightings of this 

species in the wild have been reported 

since the late 1980s, and the 2003 Red 

List of Threatened Species shows the 

status of the scimitar-horned oryx as 

‘‘extinct in the wild’’ (World 

Conservation Union [IUCN] 2003). 

Captive-bred specimens of this antelope 

have been placed into large fenced areas 

for breeding in Morocco and Tunisia. 

Once animals are reintroduced, 

continuous natural breeding is 

anticipated so that wild populations 

will be re-established. 

It is believed that the addax was 

extirpated from Tunisia during the 

1930s, and the last animals were killed 

in Libya and Algeria in 1966 and 1970, 

respectively. Remnant populations may 

still exist in the remote desert areas of 

Chad, Niger, and Mali, with occasional 

movements into Libya and Algeria 

during times of good rainfall. In the 

IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group’s 

Global Survey of Antelopes, the addax is 

considered to be ‘‘regionally extinct’’

(Mallon and Kingswood 2001). The 

addax is listed as critically endangered 

by IUCN (IUCN 2003) and probably 

numbers fewer than 600 in the wild 

(Noble 2002). 

The dama gazelle is able to utilize 

both semi-desert and desert habitats, 

and is smaller than the scimitar-horned 

oryx or addax. Of the three antelope 

species, the dama gazelle is the least 

susceptible to pressures from humans 

and livestock. The original cause of its 

decline was uncontrolled killing; 

however, habitat loss through human 

settlement and livestock grazing, in 

addition to civil unrest, has more 

recently contributed to the decline. It is 

estimated that only small numbers 

survive in most of the eight countries 

within its historical range. The dama 

gazelle has declined rapidly over the 

last 20 years, with recent estimates of 

fewer than 700 in the wild. Noble (2002) 

estimated that the wild population of 

addra gazelle (G. dama ruficollis) is 

fewer than 200 specimens, the wild 

population of dama gazelle (G. dama 

dama) is about 500 specimens, and the 

mhorr gazelle (G. dama mhorr) is 

extinct in the wild. The dama gazelle 

was previously extirpated from Senegal, 

but has since been reintroduced, and in 

1997, at least 25 animals existed there 

as part of a semi-captive breeding 

program (IUCN 2003). The IUCN lists all 

subspecies of dama gazelles as 

endangered. 

Captive breeding in the United States 

has enhanced the propagation or 

survival of the scimitar-horned oryx, 

addax, and dama gazelle worldwide by 

rescuing these species from near 

extinction and providing the founder 

stock necessary for reintroduction. The 

scimitar-horned oryx is possibly extinct 

in the wild; therefore, but for captive 

breeding, the species might be extinct. 

Addax and dama gazelle occur in very 

low numbers in the wild, and a 

significant percentage of remaining 

specimens survive only in captivity 

(71% and 48%, respectively). Captivebreeding programs operated by zoos and 

private ranches have effectively 

increased the numbers of these animals 

while genetically managing their herds 

(Mallon and Kingswood 2001). Threats 

that have reduced these species’

numbers to current levels in the wild 

continue throughout most of the historic 

range. As future opportunities arise for 

reintroduction in the antelope range 

countries, captive-breeding programs 

will be able to provide genetically