Establishment of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 8549-8551 [06-1529]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):
Docket No. FAA–2006–23936;
Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–215–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by March 20, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model
CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440)
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial
numbers (S/N) 7003 and subsequent.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report of
defective electrical relays affecting
emergency equipment. We are issuing this
AD to prevent the malfunction of emergency
equipment (the passenger oxygen system, the
thrust reverse control system, and the
auxiliary power unit (APU) fire detection,
warning, and extinguishing system) during
an emergency.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Service Bulletin References
(f) The term ‘‘service bulletin,’’ as used in
this AD, means the Accomplishment
Instructions of Parts A through E of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R–24–118,
Revision A, dated August 8, 2005.
Relay Inspection
(g) Within 5,500 flight hours or 36 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
is first: Do an inspection of the
manufacturer’s date code on the K4WQ,
K5WQ, K3QA, K4QA, K4WG, K1CN, and
K2CN electrical relays, in accordance with
the service bulletin, except as provided by
paragraph (h) of this AD.
Inspections and Replacements According to
Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(j) Inspecting and replacing the subject
electrical relays is also acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of
paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, as
applicable, if done before the effective date
of this AD in accordance with
Accomplishment Instructions of Parts A
through E of Bombardier Service Bulletin
601R–24–118, dated January 3, 2005.
Parts Installation
(k) As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may install a Leach TDH-series
K4WQ, K5WQ, K3QA, K4QA, K4WG, K1CN,
or K2CN relay with a manufacturer’s date
code specified in paragraph 1.A.,
‘‘Effectivity,’’ of the service bulletin on any
airplane.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(I)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Related Information
(m) Canadian airworthiness directive CF–
2005–35, dated September 1, 2005, also
addresses the subject of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
9, 2006.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–2319 Filed 2–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Alternative To Relay Inspection for Certain
Airplanes
National Park Service
(h) For airplanes having S/Ns 7003 through
7363 inclusive, and 7889 and subsequent,
which were not manufactured with the
subject Leach TDH-series relays installed: A
review of the airplane maintenance records is
acceptable in lieu of the inspection of the
manufacturer’s date code on the K4WQ,
K5WQ, K3QA, K4QA, K4WG, K1CN, and
K2CN electrical relays, if the manufacturer’s
date code can be conclusively determined
from that review.
36 CFR Chapter I
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Replacement of Identified Relays
(i) Prior to further flight: Replace any
electrical relay having a manufacturer’s date
code specified in paragraph 1.A.,
‘‘Effectivity,’’ of the service bulletin that is
identified during the inspection or
maintenance records review specified in
paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD with a
serviceable relay, in accordance with the
service bulletin.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:38 Feb 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
Establishment of Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee for
Dog Management at Golden Gate
National Recreation Area
ACTION:
Notice of establishment.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior
is establishing the Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee for
Dog Management to negotiate and
develop a special regulation for dog
management at Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, in accordance with the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5
U.S.C. 564.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian O’Neill, General Superintendent,
Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8549
Ft. Mason, Building 201, San Francisco,
California 94123, 415–561–4720.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Secretary has determined that
establishment of this Committee is in
the public interest and supports the
National Park Service in performing its
duties and responsibilities under the
NPS Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.; the
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.; and the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb et
seq.
In accordance with the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. 564,
a Notice of Intent to Establish a
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee was published in the
Federal Register on June 28, 2005,
providing a 30-day public comment
period which concluded July 28, 2005.
Three hundred thirty seven responses
were received during the comment
period.
Substantive Comments
Committee Additions
Comments suggested additions to the
Committee which can be grouped into
the following broad categories:
Volunteer restoration groups, general
park users not affiliated with any group,
representation of adjacent governmental
agencies, communities of color,
disabled, additional dogwalkers
associated with specific GGNRA sites
and additional recreational user groups
and advocates for narrowly-defined
outcomes.
Response
The National Park Service is aware
that a balanced Committee is necessary
in order for discussions to be
meaningful and fair. The Negotiated
Rulemaking Procedure Act (U.S.C. Title
5, Part I, Chapter 5, Subchapter III)
passed by Congress, states that a federal
agency considering negotiated
rulemaking must determine that there
are a limited number of identifiable
interests that will be significantly
affected by the rule and that there is a
reasonable likelihood that a committee
can be convened with a balanced
representation of persons who can
adequately represent the interests
identified. The Act also states that a
federal agency can use the services of a
‘‘convener’’ to determine the above.
NPS, working through the U.S. Institute
of Environmental Conflict Resolution,
hired the Center for Collaborative Policy
(CCP) in March, 2004, and they
subsequently assisted in identifying
interests significantly affected by a
proposed rule and representatives of
those interests.
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
8550
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
However, as a result of comments
received, NPS has proposed replacing
one of the two initially proposed
equestrian representatives, who both
belonged to groups in the north district
of the park, with a representative of
equestrian interests in the south district
of the park. The NPS, with the approval
of other Committee members, will work
to bring a broad range of input to the
Committee through membership on
subcommittees, by presentations to the
Committee and subcommittees and
through the public comment period at
each Committee meeting.
Committee Deletions
Comments were also received
suggesting that some proposed members
be removed. It was suggested the
following representative groups be
deleted: commercial dogwalkers, offleash advocates (over-representation),
representatives of those opposing any
off-leash use in the park and those who
are perceived as being unable to
negotiate in good faith. In addition, the
Presidio Trust has withdrawn from the
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee but
stated that they will participate in the
concurrent NEPA process.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Response
The Negotiated Rulemaking Act states
that interests must be willing to
negotiate in good faith to reach a
consensus on the proposed rule. Even
though recent activities surrounding
this issue have raised emotions, all
proposed committee members except
one have recently reaffirmed
willingness to move forward with the
process. The one off-leash dogwalking
representative who was unwilling to
agree to good faith standards has been
replaced by another off-leash
representative who had been previously
suggested for committee membership.
In the final, proposed committee
membership, commercial dogwalkers,
off-leash dogwalkers, and those
opposing off-leash uses are all interest
groups who use the park and are noted
in the Notice of Intent as interest groups
significantly affected by this issue and
thus, must be involved in any
meaningful discussions. Among the
interest groups supporting off-leash
dogwalking, there are a numerous
viewpoints; in addition, the proposed
committee membership has been
selected to provide a balance of groups
with shared interests. The proposed
membership balances those shared
interests of groups advocating voice
control, groups representing the
environment and representatives of
other park user groups.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:38 Feb 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
Committee Purpose and Process
Comments responded to a number of
factors surrounding the establishment
and scope of the Committee. Broadly
categorized, the comments addressed:
the NPS mandate to protect resources;
the scope and sideboards for the
Committee’s discussions; the validity
and effectiveness of the negotiated
rulemaking process itself and the recent
decision by Judge Alsup (U.S. vs.
Barley).
Response
The NPS has a responsibility to
protect resources under the NPS
Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq., the
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531
et. seq., and the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb et
seq. Concurrent to the Committee
discussions, NPS is initiating
preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to determine when and
where off-leash and on-leash
dogwalking can occur and under what
conditions. The scope and sideboards of
the Committee discussions were not
affected by Judge Alsup’s recent
decision (U.S. vs. Barley), which was
based on a procedural error and is in
effect until such time as the procedural
error is corrected or a new regulation is
adopted. The NPS feels that Negotiated
Rulemaking gives the best chance of
success for resolving this controversial
issue. The NOI states that the scope of
the Negotiated Rulemaking discussions
can include on-leash dogwalking, which
will be included in a dog management
plan for GGNRA.
Non-Substantive Comments
A number of comments were received
that did not address the establishment
or membership of the negotiated
rulemaking committee, but did address
the general issue of off-leash
dogwalking. Those comments addressed
the following categories: support or
opposition of establishing off-leash
dogwalking in GGNRA; options for
establishing and managing off-leash
dogwalking in GGNRA; the history of
off-leash dogwalking at GGNRA; the
mandate of GGNRA to protect the
resources for which it was established;
the existence of an NPS-wide leash
regulation; that GGNRA is not
responsible for providing off-leash
recreation; the need for dogs to be offleash; the impact, or lack of impact, of
off-leash dogs on natural resources; the
safety, or risk, that off-leash dogwalking
creates; that off-leash dogwalking has
restricted use of park areas by other user
groups and that all taxpayers are equally
entitled to use the park.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Response
The NPS will be preparing a
comprehensive dog management plan
and associated environmental impact
statement that will evaluate a full range
of reasonable alternatives for dog
management at GGNRA. The NPS will
take these comments into consideration
when preparing the plan.
Committee Membership
The Secretary has appointed the
following primary and alternate
members to the Committee:
1. The interests of the Department of
the Interior will be represented by:
National Park Service—Christine Powell
Alternate—Howard Levitt
2. The interests of organizations and
visitors advocating off-leash use will be
represented by:
a. Crissy Field Dog Group—Martha
Walters
Alternate—Cynthia Adams
b. Fort Funston Dog Walkers—Linda
McKay
Alternate—Karin Hu
c. CalDog—Gary Fergus
Alternate—Carol Copsey
d. Pacifica Dog Walkers—Jeri Flinn
Alternate—Anne Farrow
e. San Francisco Dog Owners Group—
Keith McAllister
Alternate—Carol Arnold
3. The interests of commercial dog
walking businesses will be represented
by:
ProDog—Joe Hague
Alternate—Donna Sproull
4. The interests of environmental
organizations will be represented by:
a. California Native Plant Society—Mark
Heath
Alternate—Jake Sigg
b. Center for Biological Diversity—Brent
Plater
Alternate—Jeff Miller
c. Birdwatchers—Arthur Feinstein
(Environmentalist)
Alternate—Elizabeth Murdock
(Golden Gate Audubon)
d. Marine Mammals—Erin Brodie
(Marine Mammal Center)
Alternate—Joanne Mohr (Farollones
Marine Sanctuary Association)
e. Sierra Club (Local Chapter)—Norman
LaForce
Alternate—Gorden Bennett
f. San Francisco League of Conservation
Voters—Steven Krefting
Alternate—Michelle Jesperson
5. The interests of other park user
groups will be represented by:
a. Coleman Advocates for Youth—David
Robinson
Alternate—Marybeth Wallace
b. Equestrian Groups—Judy Teichman
(Marinwatch)
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Alternate—Holly Prohaska (Mar Vista
Stables)
c. Seniors and Disabled—Bruce
Livingston (Senior Action Network)
Alternate—Bob Planthold (Senior
Action Network)
d. Marin Humane Society—Cindy
Machado
Alternate—Steve Hill
e. San Francisco SPCA—Daniel Crain
Alternate—Christine Rosenblat
f. Former member of GGNRA Citizens
Advisory Commission—Paul Jones
Alternate—Betsey Cutler
In accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.
Appendix, copies of the Committee’s
chapter will be filled with the
appropriate committees of Congress and
with the Library of Congress.
Certification: I hereby certify that the
administrative establishment of the
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for
dog management at Golden Gate
National Recreation Area is necessary
and in the public interest in connection
with the performance of duties imposed
on the Department of the Interior by the
Act of August 25, 1916, 16 U.S.C. 1 et
seq., and other statutes relating to the
administration of the National Park
System.
Dated: February 6, 2006.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 06–1529 Filed 2–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–FN–M
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
36 CFR Part 1206
RIN 3095–AB45
National Historical Publications and
Records Commission Grant Program
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NARA proposes to revise the
regulations relating to the National
Historical Publications and Records
Commission (NHPRC) grant program to
reflect changes in the operation of the
NHPRC and to clarify provisions.
Beginning in FY 2005, the NHPRC
began publishing online grant
announcements (linked to Grants.gov).
This proposed rule will affect State and
local government agencies; United
States nonprofit organizations and
institutions, including institutions of
higher education; Federally
acknowledged and State-recognized
American Indian tribes or groups; and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:25 Feb 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
United States citizens applying for
NHPRC grants as individuals.
DATES: Comments are due by April 18,
2006.
ADDRESSES: NARA invites interested
persons to submit comments on this
proposed rule. Please include ‘‘Attn:
RIN 3095–AB45’’ and your name and
mailing address in your comments.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
• E-mail: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: Submit comments by facsimile
transmission to 301–837–0319.
• Mail: Send comments to
Regulations Comments Desk (NPOL),
Room 4100, Policy and
Communications Staff, National
Archives and Records Administration,
8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD
20740–6001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
comments to 8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, MD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Allard at 301–837–1477 or fax
number 301–713–7270.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
NHPRC grants program regulations were
last updated in 2002. This proposed rule
makes the following substantive
changes to those regulations:
• Clarifying and expanding the scope
of eligible publications projects to
include electronic editions;
• Clarifying the NHPRC’s partnership
with the States, including specific
provisions for grant awards to the states
to support statewide archival- and
records-related services and regrants;
and
• Changing application instructions
to reflect the Government’s e-grant
initiatives, particularly the use of Webbased grant opportunity announcements
and Grants.gov as a way to prepare and
submit applications.
We have also removed or revised
outdated provisions and other specific
details of the application process that
are covered in the grant announcements.
This proposed rule is a not significant
regulatory action for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that
this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In fiscal year 2005 the NHPRC
made grants to only 88 organizations
and entities as defined in the Act, from
the 137 applications submitted. The
dollar value of all FY 2005 grants ranged
from $2,419 to $264,887.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8551
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1206
Archives and records, Grants,
Publications.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, NARA proposes to revise part
1206 of title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations, to read as follows:
Part 1206—NATIONAL HISTORICAL
PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS
COMMISSION
Subpart A—General
Sec.
1206.1 How are these Questions and
Answers formatted?
1206.2 What does this part cover?
1206.3 What terms have you defined?
1206.4 What is the purpose of the
Commission?
1206.5 Who serves on the Commission?
1206.6 How do you organize the grant
program?
1206.8 How do you operate the grant
program?
1206.10 How do you make grant
opportunities known?
1206.11 How may an applicant apply for an
NHPRC grant?
1206.12 What are my responsibilities once
I have received a grant?
Subpart B—Publications Grants
1206.20 What are the scope and purpose of
publications grants?
1206.22 What type of proposal is eligible
for a publications grant?
1206.24 What type of proposal is ineligible
for a publications grant?
Subpart C—Records Grants
1206.30 What is the scope and purpose of
records grants?
1206.32 What type of proposal is eligible
for a records grant?
1206.34 What type of proposal is ineligible
for a records grant?
Subpart D—State Records Program
1206.40 What is a State records program?
1206.41 What is a state historical records
advisory board and how is it constituted?
1206.42 What is a State Coordinator?
1206.43 What are the duties of the deputy
state coordinator?
1206.44 Who is eligible for subgrants?
1206.45 What rules govern subgrant
distribution, cost sharing, grant
administration, and reporting?
Subpart E—Applying for NHPRC Grants
1206.50 What types of funding and cost
sharing arrangements does the
Commission make?
1206.52 Does the Commission ever place
conditions on its grants?
1206.54 Who may apply for NHPRC grants?
1206.56 When are applications due?
1206.58 How do I apply for a grant?
1206.60 What must I provide as a formal
grant application?
1206.62 Who reviews and evaluates grant
proposals?
1206.64 What formal notification will I
receive, and will it contain other
information?
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8549-8551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1529]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Chapter I
Establishment of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog
Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area
ACTION: Notice of establishment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior is establishing the Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management to negotiate and
develop a special regulation for dog management at Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, in accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of
1990, 5 U.S.C. 564.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian O'Neill, General Superintendent,
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Ft. Mason, Building 201, San
Francisco, California 94123, 415-561-4720.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary has determined that
establishment of this Committee is in the public interest and supports
the National Park Service in performing its duties and responsibilities
under the NPS Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.; the Endangered Species
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; and the Golden Gate National Recreation
Area Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb et seq.
In accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C.
564, a Notice of Intent to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee was published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2005,
providing a 30-day public comment period which concluded July 28, 2005.
Three hundred thirty seven responses were received during the comment
period.
Substantive Comments
Committee Additions
Comments suggested additions to the Committee which can be grouped
into the following broad categories: Volunteer restoration groups,
general park users not affiliated with any group, representation of
adjacent governmental agencies, communities of color, disabled,
additional dogwalkers associated with specific GGNRA sites and
additional recreational user groups and advocates for narrowly-defined
outcomes.
Response
The National Park Service is aware that a balanced Committee is
necessary in order for discussions to be meaningful and fair. The
Negotiated Rulemaking Procedure Act (U.S.C. Title 5, Part I, Chapter 5,
Subchapter III) passed by Congress, states that a federal agency
considering negotiated rulemaking must determine that there are a
limited number of identifiable interests that will be significantly
affected by the rule and that there is a reasonable likelihood that a
committee can be convened with a balanced representation of persons who
can adequately represent the interests identified. The Act also states
that a federal agency can use the services of a ``convener'' to
determine the above. NPS, working through the U.S. Institute of
Environmental Conflict Resolution, hired the Center for Collaborative
Policy (CCP) in March, 2004, and they subsequently assisted in
identifying interests significantly affected by a proposed rule and
representatives of those interests.
[[Page 8550]]
However, as a result of comments received, NPS has proposed
replacing one of the two initially proposed equestrian representatives,
who both belonged to groups in the north district of the park, with a
representative of equestrian interests in the south district of the
park. The NPS, with the approval of other Committee members, will work
to bring a broad range of input to the Committee through membership on
subcommittees, by presentations to the Committee and subcommittees and
through the public comment period at each Committee meeting.
Committee Deletions
Comments were also received suggesting that some proposed members
be removed. It was suggested the following representative groups be
deleted: commercial dogwalkers, off-leash advocates (over-
representation), representatives of those opposing any off-leash use in
the park and those who are perceived as being unable to negotiate in
good faith. In addition, the Presidio Trust has withdrawn from the
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee but stated that they will participate
in the concurrent NEPA process.
Response
The Negotiated Rulemaking Act states that interests must be willing
to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus on the proposed rule.
Even though recent activities surrounding this issue have raised
emotions, all proposed committee members except one have recently
reaffirmed willingness to move forward with the process. The one off-
leash dogwalking representative who was unwilling to agree to good
faith standards has been replaced by another off-leash representative
who had been previously suggested for committee membership.
In the final, proposed committee membership, commercial dogwalkers,
off-leash dogwalkers, and those opposing off-leash uses are all
interest groups who use the park and are noted in the Notice of Intent
as interest groups significantly affected by this issue and thus, must
be involved in any meaningful discussions. Among the interest groups
supporting off-leash dogwalking, there are a numerous viewpoints; in
addition, the proposed committee membership has been selected to
provide a balance of groups with shared interests. The proposed
membership balances those shared interests of groups advocating voice
control, groups representing the environment and representatives of
other park user groups.
Committee Purpose and Process
Comments responded to a number of factors surrounding the
establishment and scope of the Committee. Broadly categorized, the
comments addressed: the NPS mandate to protect resources; the scope and
sideboards for the Committee's discussions; the validity and
effectiveness of the negotiated rulemaking process itself and the
recent decision by Judge Alsup (U.S. vs. Barley).
Response
The NPS has a responsibility to protect resources under the NPS
Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq., the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.
1531 et. seq., and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Act, 16
U.S.C. 460bb et seq. Concurrent to the Committee discussions, NPS is
initiating preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
determine when and where off-leash and on-leash dogwalking can occur
and under what conditions. The scope and sideboards of the Committee
discussions were not affected by Judge Alsup's recent decision (U.S.
vs. Barley), which was based on a procedural error and is in effect
until such time as the procedural error is corrected or a new
regulation is adopted. The NPS feels that Negotiated Rulemaking gives
the best chance of success for resolving this controversial issue. The
NOI states that the scope of the Negotiated Rulemaking discussions can
include on-leash dogwalking, which will be included in a dog management
plan for GGNRA.
Non-Substantive Comments
A number of comments were received that did not address the
establishment or membership of the negotiated rulemaking committee, but
did address the general issue of off-leash dogwalking. Those comments
addressed the following categories: support or opposition of
establishing off-leash dogwalking in GGNRA; options for establishing
and managing off-leash dogwalking in GGNRA; the history of off-leash
dogwalking at GGNRA; the mandate of GGNRA to protect the resources for
which it was established; the existence of an NPS-wide leash
regulation; that GGNRA is not responsible for providing off-leash
recreation; the need for dogs to be off-leash; the impact, or lack of
impact, of off-leash dogs on natural resources; the safety, or risk,
that off-leash dogwalking creates; that off-leash dogwalking has
restricted use of park areas by other user groups and that all
taxpayers are equally entitled to use the park.
Response
The NPS will be preparing a comprehensive dog management plan and
associated environmental impact statement that will evaluate a full
range of reasonable alternatives for dog management at GGNRA. The NPS
will take these comments into consideration when preparing the plan.
Committee Membership
The Secretary has appointed the following primary and alternate
members to the Committee:
1. The interests of the Department of the Interior will be
represented by:
National Park Service--Christine Powell
Alternate--Howard Levitt
2. The interests of organizations and visitors advocating off-leash
use will be represented by:
a. Crissy Field Dog Group--Martha Walters
Alternate--Cynthia Adams
b. Fort Funston Dog Walkers--Linda McKay
Alternate--Karin Hu
c. CalDog--Gary Fergus
Alternate--Carol Copsey
d. Pacifica Dog Walkers--Jeri Flinn
Alternate--Anne Farrow
e. San Francisco Dog Owners Group--Keith McAllister
Alternate--Carol Arnold
3. The interests of commercial dog walking businesses will be
represented by:
ProDog--Joe Hague
Alternate--Donna Sproull
4. The interests of environmental organizations will be represented
by:
a. California Native Plant Society--Mark Heath
Alternate--Jake Sigg
b. Center for Biological Diversity--Brent Plater
Alternate--Jeff Miller
c. Birdwatchers--Arthur Feinstein (Environmentalist)
Alternate--Elizabeth Murdock (Golden Gate Audubon)
d. Marine Mammals--Erin Brodie (Marine Mammal Center)
Alternate--Joanne Mohr (Farollones Marine Sanctuary Association)
e. Sierra Club (Local Chapter)--Norman LaForce
Alternate--Gorden Bennett
f. San Francisco League of Conservation Voters--Steven Krefting
Alternate--Michelle Jesperson
5. The interests of other park user groups will be represented by:
a. Coleman Advocates for Youth--David Robinson
Alternate--Marybeth Wallace
b. Equestrian Groups--Judy Teichman (Marinwatch)
[[Page 8551]]
Alternate--Holly Prohaska (Mar Vista Stables)
c. Seniors and Disabled--Bruce Livingston (Senior Action Network)
Alternate--Bob Planthold (Senior Action Network)
d. Marin Humane Society--Cindy Machado
Alternate--Steve Hill
e. San Francisco SPCA--Daniel Crain
Alternate--Christine Rosenblat
f. Former member of GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission--Paul Jones
Alternate--Betsey Cutler
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.
Appendix, copies of the Committee's chapter will be filled with the
appropriate committees of Congress and with the Library of Congress.
Certification: I hereby certify that the administrative
establishment of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for dog management
at Golden Gate National Recreation Area is necessary and in the public
interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the
Department of the Interior by the Act of August 25, 1916, 16 U.S.C. 1
et seq., and other statutes relating to the administration of the
National Park System.
Dated: February 6, 2006.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 06-1529 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-FN-M
