Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 183 / Friday, September 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54315 

Note 5: Pharmacological formulations 

containing nitrogen mustards and certain 

reference standards for these drugs are not 

considered to be chemical agents and are 

licensed by the Department of Commerce 

when: 

(1) The drug is in the form of a final 

medical product; or 

(2) The reference standard contains salts of 

HN2 [bis(2-chloroethyl) methylamine], the 

quantity to be shipped is 150 milligrams or 

less, and individual shipments do not exceed 

twelve per calendar year per end user. 

Technical data for the production of HN1 

[bis(2-chloroethyl)ethylamine]; HN2 [bis(2- 

chloroethyl)methylamine], HN3 [tris(2- 

chloroethyl)amine]; or salts of these, such as 

tris (2-chloroethyl)amine hydrochloride, 

remains controlled under this Category. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 3, 2008. 

Frank J. Ruggiero, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for PoliticalMilitary Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E8–21832 Filed 9–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0915] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Temporary Safety Zone; Wreckage of 

the M/V NEW CARISSA, Pacific Ocean 

3 Nautical Miles North of the Entrance 

to Coos Bay, OR 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the waters of the Pacific Ocean 

encompassed in the 1,000 yard radius 

surrounding the wreckage of the M/V 

NEW CARISSA located 3 nautical miles 

north of the entrance to Coos Bay, 

Oregon. The Captain of the Port 

Portland is taking this action to 

safeguard individuals and vessels 

involved in a salvage operation 

involving the M/V NEW CARISSA. 

Entry into this safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port or his designated representative. 

DATES: This regulation is effective from 

12:01 p.m. August 31, 2008, to 12 p.m. 

September 30, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2008– 

0915 and are available online at 

www.regulations.gov. They are also 

available for inspection or copying at 

two locations: the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays, 

and Coast Guard Sector Portland, 6767 

N. Basin Ave., Portland, OR 97217, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call MST1 Jaime Sayers, 

Waterways Management, at (503) 240– 

9311. If you have questions on viewing 

the docket, call Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency, for good 

cause, finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because 

immediate action is necessary to protect 

human safety of those involved in the 

salvage operations of the NEW 

CARISSA. Such action will be taken by 

limiting public access to the salvage 

area. For those same reasons under 5 

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

that good cause exists for making this 

rule effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

This rule is related to the safety zone 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36433). In that rule 

the Coast Guard established a temporary 

safety zone on the waters of the Pacific 

Ocean encompassed in the 1,000 yard 

radius surrounding the wreckage of the 

M/V NEW CARISSA located 3 nautical 

miles north of the entrance to Coos Bay, 

Oregon. The Captain of the Port 

Portland took that action to safeguard 

individuals and vessels involved in a 

salvage operation involving the wreck of 

the M/V NEW CARISSA. 

With this rule, for the same reasons as 

stated above, the Coast Guard is 

establishing a safety zone in the same 

area because individuals involved in the 

salvage operation of the NEW CARISSA 

have not completed their task. 

Entry into this safety zone is 

prohibited from 12:01 p.m. August 31, 

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

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port or his designated representative. 

This safety zone will be enforced by 

representatives of the Captain of the 

Port Portland. The Captain of the Port 

may be assisted by other federal, state, 

and local agencies. 

Discussion of Rule 

This rule, for safety concerns, will 

control vessels, personnel, and 

individual movements on the waters of 

the Pacific Ocean encompassed in the 

1,000 yard radius surrounding the 

wreckage of the M/V NEW CARISSA 

located 3 nautical miles north of the 

entrance to Coos Bay, Oregon. Entry into 

this safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

his designated representative. Coast 

Guard Personnel and local law 

enforcement will enforce this safety 

zone. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

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. Although this regulation restricts 

access to the safety zone, the effect of 

this rule will not be significant because: 

(i) The safety zone will be in effect for 

a limited duration; (ii) the safety zone is 

of limited size; and (iii) the Coast Guard 

will make notifications via maritime 

advisories so mariners can adjust their 

plans accordingly. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 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. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
54316 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 183 / Friday, September 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

The 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 small area 

of the Pacific Ocean along the Oregon 

Coast encompassed in the 1,000 yard 

radius surrounding the wreckage of the 

M/V NEW CARISSA located 3 nautical 

miles north of the entrance to Coos Bay, 

Oregon. This safety zone will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons: the safety zone 

applies to a small portion of the Pacific 

Ocean, entities wishing to transit in the 

vicinity may pass outside of the safety 

zone to continue their transit. We will 

issue a broadcast notice to mariners on 

the affected portion of the Pacific 

Ocean. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they may 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking process. If 

this 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). 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 

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.lD 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1, which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4370f), and have concluded that under 

the instruction 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 because it establishes a 

safety zone. 

A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ will be 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR parts 165 as follows: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
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