Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 183 / Friday, September 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54317 

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, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 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. A temporary section in 165.T13– 

067 is added to read as follows: 

§ 165.T13–067 Safety Zone; Wreckage of 

the M/V NEW CARISSA, Pacific Ocean 3 

Nautical Miles North of the Entrance to 

Coos Bay, Oregon. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: The waters of the Pacific 

Ocean encompassed by a 1000 yard 

radius surrounding the wreckage of the 

M/V NEW CARISSA located 3 NM north 

of the entrance to Coos Bay, Oregon. 

(b) Enforcement period. This rule will 

be in effect from 12 p.m. September 2, 

2008, to 12 p.m. September 30, 2008. 

(c) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in Section 

165.23 of this part, entry into this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port or his designated 

representative. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

F.G. Myer, 

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

Port Portland. 

[FR Doc. E8–21886 Filed 9–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 7 

RIN 1024–AD53 

Special Regulation: Areas of the 

National Park System 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule provides for 

the protection of the Western Snowy 

Plover (Charadrius alexandruinus 

nivosus), a species listed as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

Western Snowy Plovers spend 

approximately 10 months of the year 

within Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area (GGNRA), both at Crissy Field and 

Ocean Beach. This rulemaking will 

provide temporary protection for 

plovers in those two areas until a 

permanent determination is made 

through the planning process for the 

entire park. The park is developing a 

Dog Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) and special 

regulations for dog management, which 

are expected to be completed by winter 

2010. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

20, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian O’Neill, General Superintendent, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 

Fort Mason, (415) 561–4728. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In November 2006 and July 2007, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

(GGNRA) adopted emergency regulatory 

provisions under 36 CFR 1.5, requiring 

all dogs to be on-leash when plovers are 

present on a portion of Crissy Field 

designated as the Wildlife Protection 

Area (WPA) and on a portion of Ocean 

Beach designated as the Snowy Plover 

Protection Area (SPPA). Emergency 

restrictions in these two areas were 

established for the protection of the 

federally listed Western Snowy Plover. 

These emergency restrictions are 

temporary and necessary until the 

completion of this rulemaking. 

Habitat degradation caused by human 

disturbance, urban development, 

introduced beachgrass (Ammophila 

spp.), and expanding predator 

populations has resulted in a decline in 

active nesting areas and in the size of 

the breeding and wintering populations. 

(Source: Recovery Plan for the Pacific 

Coast Population of the Western Snowy 

Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus), Volume 1: Recovery Plan, 

8/13/2007.) 

The plover’s threatened status affords 

it protection from harassment. The 

regulations that implement the Act 

define ‘‘harass’’ as ‘‘an intentional or 

negligent act or omission which creates 

the likelihood of injury to wildlife by 

annoying it to such an extent as to 

significantly disrupt normal behavior 

patterns which include, but are not 

limited to, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering.’’ 

On November 20, 2007, the NPS 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule (72 FR 65278) to provide 

for the protection of the Western Snowy 

Plover (Charadrius alexandruinus 

nivosus), a species listed as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act. A 

60-day public comment period closed 

on January 22, 2008. The National Park 

Service (NPS) received 1,574 comments 

on the proposed rule. 

Summary of Comments 

Enforcement (This topic was the subject 

of the greatest number of comments.) 

1. Comment: Stiff fines are essential 

and a stronger presence of park law 

enforcement personnel is both necessary 

and appropriate. Increased enforcement 

of current rules would be insufficient to 

protect the Western Snowy Plover 

(hereafter referred to as plover). 

Commenters also cited a lack of 

enforcement action by park rangers. 

Some commenters supporting the 

proposed rule believed that strong 

enforcement of a clearly understood rule 

would be the best protection measure 

for the plover. 

Recommendations offered regarding 

improved enforcement included: 

• Focusing on enforcement of existing 

rules for wildlife harassment rather than 

creating new rules, 

• Developing an adequate 

enforcement plan and obtaining 

necessary funding, and 

• Increasing park ranger presence at 

the two sites and issuing citations to 

those visitors whose dogs actually chase 

and harass plovers. 

Response: The park will implement 

several measures to support 

enforcement of regulations to protect the 

plovers. A Plover Docent Program for 

education and outreach was established 

in March 2008. Seasonal staff will be 

added to allow increased enforcement 

throughout the park, including plover 

areas. Additionally, the final rule has 

specific starting and ending dates for the 

annual restriction which will aid both 

public understanding and enforcement. 

Fines for violations of park regulations 

are determined by the Federal Court and 

are not within the purview of the NPS. 

Fences/Enclosures 

2. Comment: Some commenters felt 

fences or other enclosures were a 

problem and others felt they were a 

possible solution for accommodating 

off-leash dog recreation. Those who 

opposed fencing/enclosures either felt 

they would be too confining for dogs 

and their owners or that there were 

already too many fences in the park/ 

city/world. Those who proposed the 

idea believed fences/enclosures would 

be a good compromise that would still 

allow dogs a space to play. 

Response: This rule was developed to 

protect the snowy plover in the interim 

while the park completes the Dog 

Management Plan/EIS. The possibility 

of using fencing or barriers to separate 

dogs from the plover protection areas 

will be analyzed in the Dog 

Management EIS currently being 

developed by the NPS. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
54318 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 183 / Friday, September 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Education 

3. Comment: There is a need for more 

signs and education as part of the 

solution. Commenters stated that they 

believe educating visitors and dog 

owners about the need to protect the 

plover and its habitat would be 

sufficient to keep their dogs away from 

plovers. 

Response: The park will implement 

several educational measures as well as 

increase enforcement of regulations to 

protect the plovers, as the NPS believes 

that enhanced education and outreach 

by itself would not be sufficient to 

protect plovers. The NPS feels that 

setting specific start and end dates for 

the restrictions in this final rule will 

increase public understanding and 

compliance of the restrictions. The park 

also instituted a Plover Docent Program 

that will provide on site education and 

outreach; education will be improved by 

the addition of interpretive signs. 

Duration of Restriction 

4. Comment: Seasonal closures would 

complicate enforcement during open 

periods when the plover is present. 

Commenters expressed concern that the 

proposed restriction would not be in 

force year-round and stated that the rule 

was ambiguously worded and created 

confusion since it identified two 

different dates (July 1 to May 1 or when 

the plover is no longer present) for 

lifting the seasonal restriction. 

Response: To clarify the seasonal 

restriction, a firm ending date of May 15 

replaced language that removed the 

restriction when monitoring determined 

that the species was no longer present. 

Long term NPS monitoring data shows 

the last plovers having departed from 

both plover protection areas by May 15. 

Therefore, using May 15 as the date the 

restriction terminates will still enable 

the NPS to protect the plovers. The final 

rule will clearly state that this annual 

restriction starts on July 1 and ends on 

May 15. All signs and public 

information will be updated to clearly 

reflect these dates. 

Habitat Concerns 

5. Comment: If the proposed rule were 

not implemented there would be a 

resulting loss of plover habitat. 

Commenters also stated that in an urban 

setting it was necessary to maintain 

spaces where a species could live in 

order to support its survival and to 

provide enjoyment for area residents. 

Other comments characterized the 

proposed rule as a response to the oil 

spill that took place within the San 

Francisco Bay several months earlier. 

Commenters also stated that there were 

plenty of locations outside of the park 

where the plover could live. 

Response: The plover is listed as a 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and 

protection for plovers is required in NPS 

areas used as habitat for plovers. This 

rule is in response to this requirement 

of the ESA rather than to any particular 

event such as the oil spill. 

Plovers continue to be threatened by 

degradation and loss of breeding and 

wintering habitat caused by expanding 

beachfront development, encroachment 

of introduced European beach grass and 

intense recreational use of beaches. The 

Ocean Beach and Crissy Field sites are 

areas consistently used by plovers. 

Protection 

6. Comment: Protection of both plover 

habitat and the species itself is an 

important consideration because dogs 

pose a risk to plovers and their longterm survivability. Commenters stated 

that it was necessary to protect or ‘‘Save 

the Plover.’’ Recommendations made by 

those that favored increased protection 

for the plover included: 

• Changing the rule from temporary 

to permanent, 

• Closing the Ocean Beach Plover 

Protection Area (SPPA) to dogs 

(extending from Stairwell 21 to Sloat 

Boulevard), 

• Closing the Crissy Field Wildlife 

Protection Area (WPA) year-round to all 

public access, and 

• Establishing a permanent ban on 

dogs at both Ocean Beach and Crissy 

Field. 

Response: This rulemaking will 

provide temporary protection for 

plovers in these two areas until a 

permanent determination is made 

through the Dog Management Plan/EIS 

and a special regulation for dog 

management at GGNRA, which is 

expected to be completed by early 2010. 

The EIS will analyze a range of options 

and some of these recommendations 

may be included in the EIS. 

Park as Recreation Area 

7. Comment: It is incumbent on 

GGNRA to consider human recreation 

needs first and foremost. GGNRA does 

not have designated wilderness nor is it 

a nature preserve and the park’s 

enabling legislation and park purpose 

are aimed at meeting the recreational 

needs of an urban area. 

Response: The park’s enabling 

legislation (Pub. L. 92–589) states that 

GGNRA ‘‘shall utilize the resources in a 

manner which will provide for 

recreation and educational 

opportunities consistent with sound 

principles of land use planning and 

management. In carrying out the 

provisions of this Act, the [Secretary] 

shall preserve the recreation area, as far 

as possible, in its natural setting, and 

protect it from development and uses 

which would destroy the scenic beauty 

and natural character of the area.’’ 

Courts have decided that the GGNRA 

Act, together with the National Park 

Service Organic Act, impose an 

overriding conservation mandate on the 

NPS. The NPS believes that this rule is 

in keeping with the goals of GGNRA’s 

enabling legislation and the National 

Park Service Organic Act. 

Inadequate Size of Closure Area 

8. Comment: The proposed rule does 

not include the entire beach at Crissy 

Field and Ocean Beach. The ‘‘imaginary 

boundaries’’ developed for the closure 

areas do not coincide with a visitor’s 

typical understanding of GGNRA 

boundaries, which would lead to 

confusion and a lack of compliance 

Response: The areas restricted by this 

rule are those sites used by plovers 

while they are in the park. Plovers are 

particular in their habitat choices; 

within the park, they select wide, flat 

open beaches for foraging and resting 

where they can see potential predators 

approaching. These conditions are 

found in the Crissy Field Wildlife 

Protection Area and the Ocean Beach 

Plover Protection Area. In addition, the 

NPS will develop new signage and 

outreach materials to educate the public 

about the rule. These efforts will help to 

minimize any public confusion about 

the geographic areas in which the 

restriction applies. 

Feces 

9. Comment: The presence of feces 

left by dogs and the associated human 

health risks are a concern as well as the 

potential presence of pathogens, 

coupled with the lack of courtesy, 

makes the current management of dogs 

in the park unacceptable. 

Response: This topic is not within the 

purview of this rule, but will be 

addressed in the Dog Management Plan/ 

EIS currently being developed by NPS 

staff. 

Off-Leash Dogs 

10. Comment: Off-leash dogs and their 

effects on the safety of visitors, other 

dogs and other wildlife are a concern. 

Off-leash dogs should not be allowed in 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

without safeguards such as enclosures. 

Response: This topic is not within the 

purview of this rule, but will be 

addressed in the Dog Management Plan/ 

EIS currently being developed by the 

NPS. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 183 / Friday, September 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54319 

Dogs Unwelcome/Uninvited Jumping on 

Visitors 

11. Comment: Uncontrolled off-leash 

dogs will run at and jump on beach 

users. Some commenters stated they no 

longer go to the park because of the 

perceived threat of attack or being 

knocked down by dogs, especially older 

persons or the parents of young 

children. 

Response: This rule requires dogs to 

be kept on a leash not exceeding six feet 

in length while they are in the plover 

protection areas between July 1 and May 

15. The Dog Management Plan/EIS will 

address visitor safety in dogwalking 

areas parkwide. 

Lack of Consensus 

12. Comment: The science used in 

developing the proposed rule is 

inadequate. The science the NPS relied 

upon is flawed or simply wrong, 

including the studies that the NPS 

conducted themselves. There is a lack of 

consensus within the scientific 

community about the impacts to plovers 

from human activities, and in particular, 

off-leash dogs. Commenters identified 

and submitted other studies that 

concluded that there are no impacts to 

plovers from off-leash dogs. 

Response: The decision to publish a 

final rule was guided by section 2.1.2 of 

the NPS Management Policies 2006: 

‘‘Decision-makers and planners will use 

the best available scientific and 

technical information and scholarly 

analysis to identify appropriate 

management actions for protection and 

use of park resources’’. In addition to 

information provided by NPS 

monitoring and studies, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) 2007 final 

Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast 

Population of the Western Snowy Plover 

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) 

identifies disturbance from off-leash 

dogs as a threat to the survivorship and 

fecundity of individual plovers, which 

could affect the species at the 

population level. The FWS recommends 

that land managers should prohibit pets 

on beaches where plovers traditionally 

nest or winter because non-compliance 

with leash laws can cause serious 

adverse impacts to plovers. If pets are 

not prohibited, they should be leashed 

and under control at all times. 

Laws and Regulations 

13. Comment: The NPS is required to 

follow laws, regulations, and policies 

that relate to environmental protection, 

including the Organic Act of 1916, the 

Endangered Species Act, and NPS 

Management Policies 2006. Some 

commenters were confused about the 

jurisdiction of the subject lands and the 

corresponding legal and policy 

requirements, but expressed strong 

support for environmental safeguards 

and action. 

Response: This final rule meets the 

requirements of the Organic Act, the 

Endangered Species Act, the park’s 

enabling legislation (Pub. L. 92–589) 

and NPS Management Policies 2006. 

The final rule will augment existing 

regulations which prohibit the 

harassment of wildlife. 

City-Federal Agreement 

14. Comment: GGNRA is violating the 

terms and intent of the ‘‘City-Federal 

agreement’’. The agreement required 

these two sites be used for recreation 

and not as a nature preserve. 

Response: A letter of agreement 

between the City and County of San 

Francisco and the National Park Service, 

dated April 29, 1975, states that ‘‘The 

National Park Service, acting through 

the General Superintendent, agrees to 

utilize the resources of GGNRA in a 

manner which will provide for 

recreational and educational 

opportunities consistent with sound 

principles of land use, planning and 

management, to preserve GGNRA in its 

natural setting and protect it from 

development and uses which would 

destroy the scenic beauty and natural 

character of the area, and to maintain 

the transferred premises in a good and 

sightly condition; * * *’’ The deed 

granted to the federal government stated 

that the NPS is ‘‘To hold only so long 

as said real property is reserved and 

used for recreation or park purposes 

* * *’’ The final rule is in keeping with 

the terms of the agreement—the area is 

being used for recreation purposes 

while protecting its natural setting and 

character. 

Stewardship 

15. Comment: As a preservation-based 

agency, the NPS must act as stewards of 

the land and resources under its 

management, and when faced with a 

decision involving recreation and 

preservation of resources, the NPS 

should err on the side of resource 

preservation. 

Response: The final rule allows the 

NPS to meet its obligations under the 

ESA and the Organic Act of 1916. The 

rule also follows management direction 

provided in NPS Management Policies 

2006, section 1.5 which states: ‘‘When 

proposed park uses and the protection 

of park resources and values come into 

conflict, the protection of resources and 

values must be predominant.’’ 

Harassment and Flushing 

16. Comment: Dogs have been seen 

chasing plovers and there is concern 

about effects of this activity on the 

species, including behavioral changes 

and breeding success. Other 

commenters have stated that they have 

not seen evidence of dogs impacting the 

plovers and that the proposed rule was 

not based on sound science, but rather 

was being used by the park to arbitrarily 

place limits on dogs and their owners. 

Response: According to the USFWS 

Snowy Plover Recovery Plan dogs on 

beaches can pose a serious threat to 

western snowy plovers during both the 

breeding and non-breeding seasons. 

Unleashed pets, primarily dogs, 

sometimes chase plovers and destroy 

nests. Repeated disturbances by dogs 

can interrupt brooding, incubating, and 

foraging behavior of adult plovers and 

can cause chicks to become separated 

from their parents. At wintering sites 

such as Ocean Beach in San Francisco, 

California, off-leash dogs have caused 

frequent disturbance and flushing of 

plovers and other shorebirds. Off-leash 

dogs chase wintering plovers at this 

beach and have been observed to 

regularly disturb and harass birds (P. 

Baye, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

pers. comm. 1997). When shorebirds are 

flushed, they must spend more energy 

on vigilance and avoidance behaviors at 

the expense of foraging and resting 

activity (Burger 1993, Hatch 1997). 

Disruption of foraging and roosting may 

result in decreased accumulation of 

energy reserves necessary for shorebirds 

to complete the migration cycle and 

successfully breed (Burger 1986, Pfister 

et al. 1992). Dog disturbance at 

wintering and staging sites, therefore, 

may adversely affect individual 

survivorship and fecundity, thereby 

affecting the species at the population 

level (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2007. Recovery Plan for the Pacific 

Coast Population of the Western Snowy 

Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus). In 2 volumes. Sacramento, 

California. xiv + 751 pages). In addition, 

NPS monitoring data over the last 

several years have documented 

instances of dogs disturbing plovers. 

The NPS believes there is adequate 

scientific support for this final rule. 

Protected Species Listing 

17. Comment: GGNRA, as a federal 

agency, has a responsibility to protect 

the plover, a protected species listed 

under the ESA, according to the 

requirements of the law and for the 

values that protected species represent 

to society. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
54320 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 183 / Friday, September 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: The Western Snowy 

Plover’s threatened status under the 

ESA requires the NPS to proactively 

conserve it and prevent detrimental 

effects on the species. This rulemaking 

will provide temporary protection for 

two areas until a permanent 

determination is made through the Dog 

Management/EIS for the entire park. As 

stated in NPS Management Policies 

2006, section 4.4.2.3: ‘‘The Service will 

fully meet its obligations under the NPS 

Organic Act and the Endangered 

Species Act to both proactively conserve 

listed species and prevent detrimental 

effects on these species.’’ 

Off-Leash Exercise Opportunities 

18. Comments: GGNRA is one of the 

few areas available to provide off-leash 

opportunities; dog owners need these 

park areas to exercise their dogs. 

Commenters stated that dogs had 

‘‘rights’’ and watching them run in the 

surf and on the beaches give both the 

dogs and their owners great pleasure. 

Those opposed to off-leash exercising 

felt there are plenty of other areas for 

dogs to run or exercise off-leash. 

Response: The final rule does not 

eliminate the opportunity for off-leash 

dog walking at Ocean Beach and Crissy 

Field outside of the designated plover 

protection areas. Outside of the 

protected areas 0.99 miles of beach at 

Crissy Field, as well as the Crissy Field 

airfield and promenade, are available for 

off-leash dog walking. At Ocean Beach 

and Fort Funston 2.4 miles of beach are 

available for off-leash dog walking. 

Other areas that provide additional offleash dog opportunities also exist both 

within GGNRA and outside of the park. 

Public Access 

19. Comment: Park visitors have a 

right to use all recreation sites as offleash areas. Other commenters felt that 

dog owners had a responsibility to keep 

their dogs under control and did not 

have special rights or access privileges. 

Response: As stated in section 1.5 of 

the NPS Management Policies 2006: 

‘‘An ‘appropriate use’ is a use that is 

suitable, proper, or fitting for a 

particular park, or to a particular 

location within a park. Not all uses are 

appropriate or allowable in units of the 

national park system, and what is 

appropriate may vary from one park to 

another and from one location to 

another within a park * * *. When 

proposed park uses and the protection 

of park resources and values come into 

conflict, the protection of resources and 

values must be predominant.’’ The NPS 

believes that the plover protection areas 

are not appropriate for off-leash dog 

recreation when the plover is present. 

Changes to the Final Rule 

After examining all public comments 

received and additional monitoring 

data, the NPS is amending the final rule 

to set firm dates for both the start and 

end of the annual restrictions (July 1 to 

May 15) to clarify the seasonal 

restriction and improve compliance 

with the regulation. In the proposed rule 

the annual end date would have been 

determined by monitoring the departure 

of plover from these areas. The firm 

ending date of May 15 replaced 

language that removed the restriction 

when monitoring determined that the 

species was no longer present. Long 

term NPS monitoring data show the last 

plovers having departed from both 

plover protection areas by May 15. 

Therefore, using May 15 as the date the 

restriction terminates will still enable 

the NPS to protect the plovers. The final 

rule will clearly state that this annual 

restriction starts on July 1 and ends on 

May 15. 

Compliance With Other Laws 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

This document is not a significant 

rule and is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866. 

(1) This rule will not have an effect of 

$100 million or more on the economy. 

It will not adversely affect in a material 

way the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or state, local, or 

tribal governments or communities. 

Most of the areas proposed to be 

restricted through this rulemaking have 

been closed or restricted for the same 

activity through the park’s compendium 

in the past, although those closures or 

restrictions were not published in the 

Federal Register. Since this is not a new 

closure or restriction, and because 

opportunities for off-leash dogwalking 

still exist in these areas, the proposed 

rule will not significantly affect the 

existing patterns of park users. 

(2) This rule will not create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency. GGNRA has received 

letters of concurrence for the emergency 

restrictions in these areas, and has 

begun informal consultation with U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. This rule 

does not alter the budgetary effects of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights or obligations of 

their recipients. 

(3) This rule does not raise novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this document will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The economic effects 

of this rule are local in nature and 

negligible in scope. The primary 

purpose of this rule is to provide 

protection for a threatened species. The 

rule will require dogwalkers to leash 

their dogs when in specified areas. 

There will be no economic effect of this 

additional required action. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: 

a. Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

This rule will only affect those who 

choose to walk their dogs in two 

designated areas. 

b. Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, federal, state, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. There will be no 

costs associated with the requirement to 

leash dogs in these two designated 

areas. 

c. Does not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

The primary purpose of this regulation 

is to provide additional protection for a 

threatened species. This rule will not 

change the ability of United States based 

enterprises to compete in any way. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

rule does not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

restrictions under this regulation do not 

have a significant effect or impose an 

unfunded mandate on any agency or on 

the private sector. This rule applies only 

to Federal parkland administered by the 

National Park Service in GGNRA, and 

no costs will be incurred by any parties. 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the rule does not have significant 

takings implications. This rule does not 

apply to private property, or cause a 

compensable taking, there are no takings 

implications. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 183 / Friday, September 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54321 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

This regulation will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The rule 

addresses dog walking in two areas of 

the Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area. The affected lands are under the 

administrative jurisdiction of the 

National Park Service. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

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

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This regulation does not require an 

information collection from 10 or more 

parties and a submission under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act is not 

required. An OMB form 83–I is not 

required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Handbook for NPS Director’s 

Order 12 contains a listing of 

Categorical Exclusions. Section 3.4 D(2) 

of the Director’s Order 12 Handbook 

provides that ‘‘minor changes in 

programs and regulations pertaining to 

visitor activities’’ may be categorically 

excluded under NEPA. The proposed 

regulations for Ocean Beach and Crissy 

Field are actions that would result in 

minor changes to regulated visitor 

activities in these areas (transitioning 

seasonally from unleashed to leashed 

dog recreation). GGNRA has prepared 

all the appropriate Categorical 

Exclusion screening forms. These forms 

disclose that the adoption of these 

regulations would result in no 

measurable adverse environmental 

effects. Furthermore, no exceptional 

circumstances or conditions exist that 

would make use of a Categorical 

Exclusion inappropriate. As such, a 

Categorical Exclusion under NEPA is 

the appropriate form of NEPA 

compliance for these regulatory actions. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government to Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512 

DM 2, we have evaluated potential 

effects on federally recognized Indian 

tribes and have determined that there 

are no potential effects. 

Clarity of Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

Drafting Information: The primary 

authors of this rule are: Marybeth 

McFarland, Law Enforcement Specialist; 

Christine Powell, Public Affairs 

Specialist, Shirwin Smith, Management 

Analyst, Barbara Goodyear, Solicitor, 

PWRO; and Jerry Case, Regulations 

Program Manager, NPS, Washington, 

DC. 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 

National Parks, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the National Park Service amends 36 

CFR part 7 as follows: 

PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, 

AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority for part 7 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 

462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 

8–137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981). 

■ 2. Add new paragraph (d) to § 7.97 to 

read as follows: 

§ 7.97 Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area. 

* * * * * 

(d) Dogs—Crissy Field and Ocean 

Beach Snowy Plover Areas. (1) Dogs 

must be restrained on a leash not more 

than six feet in length starting July 1 and 

ending May 15, in the following areas: 

(i) Crissy Field Wildlife Protection 

Area (WPA): Dog walking restricted to 

on-leash only in the area encompassing 

the shoreline and beach north of the 

Crissy Field Promenade (excluding the 

paved parking area, sidewalks and grass 

lawn of the former Coast Guard Station 

complex) that stretches east from the 

Torpedo Wharf to approximately 700 

feet east of the former Coast Guard 

station, and all tidelands and submerged 

lands to 100 yards offshore. 

(ii) Ocean Beach Snowy Plover 

Protection Area (SPPA): Dog walking 

restricted to on-leash only in the area 

which encompasses the shoreline and 

beach area west of the GGNRA 

boundary, between Stairwell 21 to Sloat 

Boulevard, including all tidelands and 

submerged lands to 1,000 feet offshore. 

(2) Notice of these annual restrictions 

will be provided through the posting of 

signs at the sites, on maps identifying 

the restricted areas on the park’s official 

website and through maps made 

available at other places convenient to 

the public. 

Dated: September 5, 2008. 

Lyle Laverty, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–21943 Filed 9–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 65 

Changes in Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are 

finalized for the communities listed 

below. These modified BFEs will be 

used to calculate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

their contents. 

DATES: The effective dates for these 

modified BFEs are indicated on the 

following table and revise the Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect 

for the listed communities prior to this 

date. 

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering 

Management Branch, Mitigation 

Directorate, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) makes the final determinations 

listed below of the modified BFEs for 

each community listed. These modified 

BFEs have been published in 

newspapers of local circulation and 

ninety (90) days have elapsed since that 

publication. The Mitigation Division 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES