Vehicles and Traffic Safety, 76987-76990 [E8-29892]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 244 / Thursday, December 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Order 7400.9S, signed October 3, 2008,
and effective October 31, 2008, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designation
listed in this document will be
published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1)
Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not
a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it
is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1,
Section 106, describes the authority for
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency’s
authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of the airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority as it establishes
additional controlled airspace at Reno/
Tahoe International Airport, Reno, NV.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to
amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
§ 71.1
[Amended]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9S,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed October 3, 2008, and
effective October 31, 2008, is amended
as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the earth.
*
*
*
AWP NV E5
*
*
Reno, NV [Modify]
Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV
(Lat. 39°29′57″ N., long. 119°46′06″ W.)
Mustang VORTAC
(Lat. 39°29′57″ N., long. 119°46′05″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface beginning at lat. 40°00′
20″ N., long. 120°00′04″ W., thence clockwise
via the 32.0-mile radius of the Reno/Tahoe
International Airport to lat. 40°01′31″ N.
long. 119°40′01″ W.; to lat. 39°49′35″ N. long.
119°34′05″ W.; thence clockwise via the 21.7mile radius to lat. 39°25′12″ N. long.
119°18′45″ W.; to lat. 39°13′00″ W. long.
119°47′04″ W.; to lat. 39°08′20″ N. long.
119°47′04″ W.; to lat. 39°10′20″ N. long.
120°00′04″ W., to the point of beginning.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200
feet above the surface within a 39.1-mile
radius of the Mustang VORTAC excluding
the area east of long. 119°00′04″ W., and west
of long. 120°19′04″ W., and that airspace
northwest of the Reno/Tahoe International
Airport extending from the 39.1-mile radius
bounded on the northeast by the southwest
edge of V–452 and on the west by long.
120°19′04″ W. That airspace extending
upward from 13,100 feet MSL beginning at
lat. 38°54′56″ N., long. 119°22′47″ W., thence
clockwise via the 39.1-mile radius to the
eastern edge of V–165, thence southbound
along the eastern edge of V–165 to the
northern edge of V–244, thence eastbound to
lat. 38°04′00″ N., long. 119°15′24″ W.; to the
point of beginning. That airspace extending
upward from 12,300 feet MSL beginning at
lat. 38°52′20″ N., long. 119°35′44″ W.; to lat.
38°52′20″ N., long. 119°47′54″ W.; to lat.
38°28′00″ N., long. 119°52′44″ W.; to lat.
38°01′30″ N., long. 119°51′34″ W.; to lat.
38°01′00″ N., long. 119°38′04″ W.; to lat.
38°27′30″ N., long. 119°33′44″ W., to the
point of beginning.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
part 71 continues to read as follows:
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on
December 1, 2008.
Kevin Nolan,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group,
Western Service Area.
[FR Doc. E8–30017 Filed 12–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:43 Dec 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
76987
Sfmt 4702
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 4
RIN 1024–AD72
Vehicles and Traffic Safety
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed Rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend
current regulations for designating
bicycle use on National Park Service
(NPS) lands. The proposed rule
authorizes park superintendents to open
existing trails to bicycle use within park
units in accordance with appropriate
park plans and compliance documents
under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic
Preservation Act, the NPS Organic Act,
and the park’s enabling legislation, and
other applicable law. The proposed rule
continues to require promulgation of a
special regulation to build a new trail
for bicycle use outside developed areas,
or to open an existing trail to bicycle use
if such action triggers one of the existing
regulatory criteria requiring rulemaking
in Section 1.5 of Title 36 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received by
February 17, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the number 1024–AD72,
by any of the following methods:
—Federal rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting
comments.
—Mail: National Park Service, Attn.
Regulations Program Manager, 1849
C St., NW., MS–3122, Washington,
DC 20240.
All submissions received must include
the agency name and RIN 1024–AD72.
For additional information see ‘‘Public
Participation’’ under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Philip Selleck, Regulations Program
Manager, 1849 C St., NW., Washington,
DC 20240, (202) 208–4206.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Current regulations provide for the
use of bicycles on park roads, parking
areas and routes designated for bicycle
use. A special regulation, specific to the
individual park, must be adopted if
bicycles are to be used in areas outside
developed areas and special use zones.
The NPS promulgated the current
bicycle use regulation in 1987 and
adopted the special regulation
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
76988
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 244 / Thursday, December 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
requirement as a way of ensuring
maximum public input on decisions to
allow bicycle use outside developed
areas.
Promulgation of special regulations
requires various types of analyses and
approval by the NPS Director and the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife
and Parks, a process that takes more
than two years on average. The
proposed rule achieves a primary
benefit of the special regulations
process, notice and public comment,
while eliminating the other steps of
rulemaking deemed unnecessary in
certain circumstances for designating
areas for bicycle use.
For existing trails, the proposed rule
provides for public notice and
participation but does not require the
promulgation of special regulations
unless the trail designation has the type
of significant effect that triggers
rulemaking under the NPS’ general
regulation governing public use in units
of the National Park System (see 36 CFR
1.5(b)). The NPS would continue to
require the promulgation of special
regulations for bicycle trails outside
developed areas involving new trail
construction.
As a general matter, the proposed rule
provides park superintendents with a
more efficient and effective way to
determine whether opening existing
trails to bicycles would be appropriate
in the park unit they manage. The NPS
Management Policies emphasize that
‘‘(t)he Service must ensure that [park]
uses are appropriate to the park in
which they occur,’’ and establish a
process for determining whether a
particular use is appropriate in a park
unit. See NPS Management Policies
2006, p. 97 and ¶ 8.1.2.
Whether or not bicycle use is an
appropriate activity in a unit of the
National Park System should be
considered through an individual park
planning process that involves
environmental compliance and input
from the public. In addition, any
particular trail use should be considered
as part of a comprehensive plan for trail
use in a park area. Parks that don’t
currently address bicycle use in existing
planning documents could accomplish
this comprehensive plan as either a
specific plan for bicycle use in the park
or as part of another plan, such as a
recreation use plan.
The planning process can help
determine, for example, if opportunities
for bicycling will offer the potential to
increase overall visitation, generate new
youth interest in parks, or expand
appreciation for our national parks.
Proper planning with public
participation also provides the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:43 Dec 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
opportunity to consider a range of
alternatives to avoid or minimize
impacts on natural, historic and cultural
resources and reduce conflicts with
other user groups. No matter what type
of planning is conducted, ‘‘(i)n its role
as steward of park resources, the
National Park Service must ensure that
park uses that are allowed would not
cause impairment of, or unacceptable
impacts on, park resources and values.’’
NPS Management Policies 2006 ¶ 1.5.
In addition to the park planning
activities described above, the intent of
the proposed rule is to take advantage
of the public outreach aspects of the
NEPA process. The proposed rule does
this by requiring, at a minimum,
preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for any decision to
open existing hiking or horse trails to
bicycles. In other words, the proposed
rule precludes use of any applicable
‘‘categorical exclusions’’ from NEPA
analysis for opening trails to bicycle
use. Further, the proposed rule requires
a minimum of 30 days for public
comment on EAs on bicycle use. The
proposed rule also requires that the
notice requesting public comment be
published in the Federal Register, in
addition to any other manner of notice
used by the park, consistent with the
public participation objectives set out in
the Management Policies. ‘‘Where there
is strong public interest in a particular
use, opportunities for civic engagement
and cooperative conservation should be
factored into the decision-making
process.’’ NPS Management Policies
2006 ¶ 1.4.3.1. By adopting these
requirements, the proposed rule would
meet the broad public participation
objectives of the NPS without the
requirement for a special regulation.
In addition, the proposed rule
requires Federal Register notice of the
superintendent’s determination that
bicycle use is consistent with the
protection of the park area’s natural,
scenic and aesthetic values, safety
considerations and management
objectives and will not disturb wildlife
or park resources. If the determination
itself is not published in full, then the
notice should include information on
where to view the determination, or
how to obtain a copy of the
determination. This Federal Register
notice must provide the public a 30-day
period to give the public an opportunity
to consider and comment on the
determination prior to action by the
park to open any trails for bicycle use.
This comment period would be
particularly important when there is a
period of time between the public
comment period for the EA or EIS and
the decision to designate a trail for
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
bicycle use. It would allow for public
comment on the decision to implement
the earlier planning process. However, if
there is significant change or new
information since the completion of the
planning and NEPA documents, then
the NPS will have to consider the need
to supplement or revise the documents.
An area of particular concern for park
managers involves the designation of
‘‘new trails’’ in park areas. In the 1987
rulemaking on bicycle use, NPS decided
to limit the authority of the
superintendent to designate bicycle use
without notice and comment
rulemaking to designations within
developed areas of the park, ‘‘which are
land management and use categories
established pursuant to a park area’s
Statement for Management and General
Management Plan. Developed areas
include lands within development and
historic zones; these areas are generally
impacted to a certain degree by
structures, facilities or other
improvements which reflect the fact the
primary purpose or management
objective for the use these lands is other
than the preservation of their natural
resources.’’ 52 FR 10670, 10681 (Apr. 2,
1987). There is a similar definition for
developed areas found in the NPS
general regulations at 36 CFR 1.4.
In contrast, the 1987 rulemaking
described the designation process
outside of developed areas:
The NPS has determined that the
designation of a bicycle route outside of such
developed areas, in areas whose primary
purpose and land uses are related more to the
preservation of natural resources and values,
would have a much greater potential to result
in adverse resource impacts or visitor use
conflicts. This paragraph therefore provides
for a much more stringent decision-making
process for such a proposal by requiring a
formal rulemaking. Such a process will
provide for a thorough review of all
environmental and visitor use considerations
and assure the superintendent of having had
the benefit of public review and comment
before making a decision on any proposed
designation. 52 FR at 10681.
The proposed rule continues this
approach for new trails designated
outside developed areas in any unit of
the National Park System, i.e. special
regulations would still be required for
the construction of new bicycle trails
outside developed areas.
The proposed rule would not affect
other existing statutory or regulatory
protections for the preservation and
enhancement of park resources and
visitor experiences. For example, the
proposed rule would not affect the
statutory ban on bicycles in wilderness
areas. In addition, special regulations
would still be required when an action
to open existing trails to bicycles would
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 244 / Thursday, December 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
result in the degree of change or
controversy described in 36 CFR 1.5(b).
A new section has been added to
address the issue of bicycle use on
administrative roads. The proposed rule
clarifies that administrative roads that
are closed to motor vehicle use by park
visitors are also closed to bicycle use
unless designated open by the
superintendent. The superintendent
may find it necessary to impose certain
limits or restrictions on the use in order
to provide for safety considerations, to
avoid visitor use conflicts, or to protect
park resources and values. The
proposed rule also clarifies that the
superintendent has authority to close
any area designated as open for bicycle
use, not just park roads and parking
areas.
Finally, the proposed rule eliminates
the term ‘‘special use zone’’ because this
term is no longer used in NPS planning
documents and as a result has created
confusion in interpreting its meaning
within the context of this regulation. For
purposes of park planning the term
‘‘special use zone’’ meant ‘‘non-federal
lands within the exterior boundaries of
a park area * * * used for non-park
purposes but over which the NPS exerts
some degree of administrative control.’’
52 FR at 10681. For example, the NPS
has authority to enter into a written
agreement with a landowner within the
boundaries of a park area to administer
the non-federal lands for public
recreation purposes. Because the NPS
no longer uses the term ‘‘special use
zones’’ for planning purposes, and NPS
regulations now make clear to which
lands its regulations apply (see 36 CFR
1.2), the proposed rule deletes the term
‘‘special use zones.’’
Compliance With Other Laws
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal
or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior
certifies that this document would 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.). This certification is
based on information contained in the
report titled, ‘‘Benefit-Cost/Unfunded
Mandates Act Analysis Small business
and Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis’’ (U.S. Department of the
Interior, Office of Policy Analysis,
Office of the Secretary).
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.
b. Would not cause a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions.
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.
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Order 12866)
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
This document is not a significant
rule and is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This rule would not have an effect
of $100 million or more on the
economy. It would 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.
(2) This rule would not create a
serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency.
(3) This rule does not alter the
budgetary effects of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights
or obligations of their recipients.
In accordance with Executive Order
12630, the rule does not have significant
takings implications.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:43 Dec 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, the rule does not require the
preparation of a federalism assessment.
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 Civil
Justice Reform.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation does not require an
information collection under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76989
National Environmental Policy Act
The NPS is performing the NEPA
analysis for this rule concurrently with
the process of accepting comments
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 This Regulation
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.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Public Participation
You may submit comments online at:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
You may also mail or hand deliver
comments to: Mail: National Park
Service, Attn. Regulations Program
Manager, 1849 C St., NW., MS–3122,
Washington, DC 20240.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
76990
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 244 / Thursday, December 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 4
National Parks.
For the reasons stated in the preamble
we propose to amend 36 CFR Part 4 as
follows:
PART 4—VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SAFETY
1. The authority for part 4 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. Section 4.30 is revised to read as
follows:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
§ 4.30
Bicycles
(a) Park roads. The use of a bicycle is
permitted on park roads and in parking
areas that are otherwise open for motor
vehicle use by the general public.
(b) Existing trails. Except when
rulemaking publication in the Federal
Register is required by § 1.5(b) of this
Chapter, a hiking or horse trail that
currently exists on the ground and does
not require any construction or
significant modification to
accommodate bicycles may be
designated for bicycle use only if:
(1) The park has or will complete a
park planning document addressing
bicycle use on existing trails in the park;
and
(2) The park has completed either an
environmental assessment (EA) or an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
evaluating bicycle use. In addition to
the requirements otherwise applicable
to the preparation of an EA or EIS, the
park will publish a notice in the Federal
Register providing the public at least
thirty (30) days for review and comment
on an EA issued under this section; and
(3) A written determination is signed
by the superintendent stating that the
addition of bicycle use on existing
hiking or horse trails is consistent with
the protection of the park area’s natural,
scenic and aesthetic values, safety
considerations and management
objectives and will not disturb wildlife
or park resources. The park will publish
in the Federal Register a notice of the
determination and provide at least thirty
(30) days for public review and
comment before implementing that
decision for bicycle use.
(c) New Trails. Trails that do not exist
on the ground, and therefore would
require trail construction activities
(such as clearing brush, cutting trees,
excavation, or surface treatment), may
be developed and designated for bicycle
use only after:
(1) The park has completed the
requirements set forth in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section; and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:43 Dec 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
(2)(i) For new trails located outside of
a park’s developed areas, as identified
in the relevant park plan, the park has
promulgated a special regulation
authorizing bicycle use; or
(ii) For new trails located within a
park’s developed areas, as identified in
the relevant park plan, the park has
completed the requirements set forth in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(d) Administrative roads.
Administrative roads closed to motor
vehicle use by the public, but open to
motor vehicles use for administrative
purposes, may be designated for bicycle
use by the superintendent pursuant to
the criteria and procedures of §§ 1.5 and
1.7 of this chapter.
(e) Closures. A superintendent may
close any park roads, parking areas,
administrative roads, existing trails, or
new trails to bicycle use pursuant to the
criteria and procedures of §§ 1.5 and 1.7
of this chapter.
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
ensure that our review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
feedback from the public regarding this
species.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct this review, we request that we
receive information on or before
February 17, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit
information by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R6–
ES–2008–0088; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all information provided to us
at https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Information Solicited section
below for more details).
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the Montana
Ecological Services Field Office, 585
Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601. Please
submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor,
Montana Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section),
telephone 406–449–5225. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to revise
the listing of the Canada lynx (Lynx
canadensis) as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), to include New Mexico.
We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that changing the
listing status of the contiguous United
States Distinct Population Segment of
Canada lynx to include New Mexico
may be warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are
initiating a further review in response to
the petition, and we will issue a 12month finding to determine if the
petitioned action is warranted. To
Information Solicited
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing a
species may be warranted, or in this
case, to revise the listing of a species,
we are required to promptly commence
further review. To ensure that the
review is complete and based on the
best available scientific and commercial
information, we are soliciting
information from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning the status
of the lynx. We are seeking information
regarding the species’ historical and
current status and distribution, its
Dated: December 9, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. E8–29892 Filed 12–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R6–ES–2008–0122; MO 9221050083–
B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To Change the Listing Status
of the Canada Lynx
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM
18DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 244 (Thursday, December 18, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76987-76990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29892]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 4
RIN 1024-AD72
Vehicles and Traffic Safety
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend current regulations for
designating bicycle use on National Park Service (NPS) lands. The
proposed rule authorizes park superintendents to open existing trails
to bicycle use within park units in accordance with appropriate park
plans and compliance documents under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, the NPS Organic
Act, and the park's enabling legislation, and other applicable law. The
proposed rule continues to require promulgation of a special regulation
to build a new trail for bicycle use outside developed areas, or to
open an existing trail to bicycle use if such action triggers one of
the existing regulatory criteria requiring rulemaking in Section 1.5 of
Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 17, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number 1024-AD72,
by any of the following methods:
--Federal rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
--Mail: National Park Service, Attn. Regulations Program Manager, 1849
C St., NW., MS-3122, Washington, DC 20240.
All submissions received must include the agency name and RIN 1024-
AD72. For additional information see ``Public Participation'' under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Selleck, Regulations Program
Manager, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, (202) 208-4206.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Current regulations provide for the use of bicycles on park roads,
parking areas and routes designated for bicycle use. A special
regulation, specific to the individual park, must be adopted if
bicycles are to be used in areas outside developed areas and special
use zones. The NPS promulgated the current bicycle use regulation in
1987 and adopted the special regulation
[[Page 76988]]
requirement as a way of ensuring maximum public input on decisions to
allow bicycle use outside developed areas.
Promulgation of special regulations requires various types of
analyses and approval by the NPS Director and the Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, a process that takes more than two
years on average. The proposed rule achieves a primary benefit of the
special regulations process, notice and public comment, while
eliminating the other steps of rulemaking deemed unnecessary in certain
circumstances for designating areas for bicycle use.
For existing trails, the proposed rule provides for public notice
and participation but does not require the promulgation of special
regulations unless the trail designation has the type of significant
effect that triggers rulemaking under the NPS' general regulation
governing public use in units of the National Park System (see 36 CFR
1.5(b)). The NPS would continue to require the promulgation of special
regulations for bicycle trails outside developed areas involving new
trail construction.
As a general matter, the proposed rule provides park
superintendents with a more efficient and effective way to determine
whether opening existing trails to bicycles would be appropriate in the
park unit they manage. The NPS Management Policies emphasize that
``(t)he Service must ensure that [park] uses are appropriate to the
park in which they occur,'' and establish a process for determining
whether a particular use is appropriate in a park unit. See NPS
Management Policies 2006, p. 97 and ] 8.1.2.
Whether or not bicycle use is an appropriate activity in a unit of
the National Park System should be considered through an individual
park planning process that involves environmental compliance and input
from the public. In addition, any particular trail use should be
considered as part of a comprehensive plan for trail use in a park
area. Parks that don't currently address bicycle use in existing
planning documents could accomplish this comprehensive plan as either a
specific plan for bicycle use in the park or as part of another plan,
such as a recreation use plan.
The planning process can help determine, for example, if
opportunities for bicycling will offer the potential to increase
overall visitation, generate new youth interest in parks, or expand
appreciation for our national parks. Proper planning with public
participation also provides the opportunity to consider a range of
alternatives to avoid or minimize impacts on natural, historic and
cultural resources and reduce conflicts with other user groups. No
matter what type of planning is conducted, ``(i)n its role as steward
of park resources, the National Park Service must ensure that park uses
that are allowed would not cause impairment of, or unacceptable impacts
on, park resources and values.'' NPS Management Policies 2006 ] 1.5.
In addition to the park planning activities described above, the
intent of the proposed rule is to take advantage of the public outreach
aspects of the NEPA process. The proposed rule does this by requiring,
at a minimum, preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for any
decision to open existing hiking or horse trails to bicycles. In other
words, the proposed rule precludes use of any applicable ``categorical
exclusions'' from NEPA analysis for opening trails to bicycle use.
Further, the proposed rule requires a minimum of 30 days for public
comment on EAs on bicycle use. The proposed rule also requires that the
notice requesting public comment be published in the Federal Register,
in addition to any other manner of notice used by the park, consistent
with the public participation objectives set out in the Management
Policies. ``Where there is strong public interest in a particular use,
opportunities for civic engagement and cooperative conservation should
be factored into the decision-making process.'' NPS Management Policies
2006 ] 1.4.3.1. By adopting these requirements, the proposed rule would
meet the broad public participation objectives of the NPS without the
requirement for a special regulation.
In addition, the proposed rule requires Federal Register notice of
the superintendent's determination that bicycle use is consistent with
the protection of the park area's natural, scenic and aesthetic values,
safety considerations and management objectives and will not disturb
wildlife or park resources. If the determination itself is not
published in full, then the notice should include information on where
to view the determination, or how to obtain a copy of the
determination. This Federal Register notice must provide the public a
30-day period to give the public an opportunity to consider and comment
on the determination prior to action by the park to open any trails for
bicycle use. This comment period would be particularly important when
there is a period of time between the public comment period for the EA
or EIS and the decision to designate a trail for bicycle use. It would
allow for public comment on the decision to implement the earlier
planning process. However, if there is significant change or new
information since the completion of the planning and NEPA documents,
then the NPS will have to consider the need to supplement or revise the
documents.
An area of particular concern for park managers involves the
designation of ``new trails'' in park areas. In the 1987 rulemaking on
bicycle use, NPS decided to limit the authority of the superintendent
to designate bicycle use without notice and comment rulemaking to
designations within developed areas of the park, ``which are land
management and use categories established pursuant to a park area's
Statement for Management and General Management Plan. Developed areas
include lands within development and historic zones; these areas are
generally impacted to a certain degree by structures, facilities or
other improvements which reflect the fact the primary purpose or
management objective for the use these lands is other than the
preservation of their natural resources.'' 52 FR 10670, 10681 (Apr. 2,
1987). There is a similar definition for developed areas found in the
NPS general regulations at 36 CFR 1.4.
In contrast, the 1987 rulemaking described the designation process
outside of developed areas:
The NPS has determined that the designation of a bicycle route
outside of such developed areas, in areas whose primary purpose and
land uses are related more to the preservation of natural resources
and values, would have a much greater potential to result in adverse
resource impacts or visitor use conflicts. This paragraph therefore
provides for a much more stringent decision-making process for such
a proposal by requiring a formal rulemaking. Such a process will
provide for a thorough review of all environmental and visitor use
considerations and assure the superintendent of having had the
benefit of public review and comment before making a decision on any
proposed designation. 52 FR at 10681.
The proposed rule continues this approach for new trails designated
outside developed areas in any unit of the National Park System, i.e.
special regulations would still be required for the construction of new
bicycle trails outside developed areas.
The proposed rule would not affect other existing statutory or
regulatory protections for the preservation and enhancement of park
resources and visitor experiences. For example, the proposed rule would
not affect the statutory ban on bicycles in wilderness areas. In
addition, special regulations would still be required when an action to
open existing trails to bicycles would
[[Page 76989]]
result in the degree of change or controversy described in 36 CFR
1.5(b).
A new section has been added to address the issue of bicycle use on
administrative roads. The proposed rule clarifies that administrative
roads that are closed to motor vehicle use by park visitors are also
closed to bicycle use unless designated open by the superintendent. The
superintendent may find it necessary to impose certain limits or
restrictions on the use in order to provide for safety considerations,
to avoid visitor use conflicts, or to protect park resources and
values. The proposed rule also clarifies that the superintendent has
authority to close any area designated as open for bicycle use, not
just park roads and parking areas.
Finally, the proposed rule eliminates the term ``special use zone''
because this term is no longer used in NPS planning documents and as a
result has created confusion in interpreting its meaning within the
context of this regulation. For purposes of park planning the term
``special use zone'' meant ``non-federal lands within the exterior
boundaries of a park area * * * used for non-park purposes but over
which the NPS exerts some degree of administrative control.'' 52 FR at
10681. For example, the NPS has authority to enter into a written
agreement with a landowner within the boundaries of a park area to
administer the non-federal lands for public recreation purposes.
Because the NPS no longer uses the term ``special use zones'' for
planning purposes, and NPS regulations now make clear to which lands
its regulations apply (see 36 CFR 1.2), the proposed rule deletes the
term ``special use zones.''
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 (OMB) under Executive
Order 12866.
(1) This rule would not have an effect of $100 million or more on
the economy. It would 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.
(2) This rule would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of
their recipients.
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this document would
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.).
This certification is based on information contained in the report
titled, ``Benefit-Cost/Unfunded Mandates Act Analysis Small business
and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis'' (U.S. Department of the
Interior, Office of Policy Analysis, Office of the Secretary).
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.
b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
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.
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.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not require
the preparation of a federalism assessment.
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 Civil Justice
Reform.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation does not require an information collection under
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
National Environmental Policy Act
The NPS is performing the NEPA analysis for this rule concurrently
with the process of accepting comments
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 This Regulation
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.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Public Participation
You may submit comments online at: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. You may also mail or
hand deliver comments to: Mail: National Park Service, Attn.
Regulations Program Manager, 1849 C St., NW., MS-3122, Washington, DC
20240.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
[[Page 76990]]
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 4
National Parks.
For the reasons stated in the preamble we propose to amend 36 CFR
Part 4 as follows:
PART 4--VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC SAFETY
1. The authority for part 4 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. Section 4.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4.30 Bicycles
(a) Park roads. The use of a bicycle is permitted on park roads and
in parking areas that are otherwise open for motor vehicle use by the
general public.
(b) Existing trails. Except when rulemaking publication in the
Federal Register is required by Sec. 1.5(b) of this Chapter, a hiking
or horse trail that currently exists on the ground and does not require
any construction or significant modification to accommodate bicycles
may be designated for bicycle use only if:
(1) The park has or will complete a park planning document
addressing bicycle use on existing trails in the park; and
(2) The park has completed either an environmental assessment (EA)
or an environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluating bicycle use. In
addition to the requirements otherwise applicable to the preparation of
an EA or EIS, the park will publish a notice in the Federal Register
providing the public at least thirty (30) days for review and comment
on an EA issued under this section; and
(3) A written determination is signed by the superintendent stating
that the addition of bicycle use on existing hiking or horse trails is
consistent with the protection of the park area's natural, scenic and
aesthetic values, safety considerations and management objectives and
will not disturb wildlife or park resources. The park will publish in
the Federal Register a notice of the determination and provide at least
thirty (30) days for public review and comment before implementing that
decision for bicycle use.
(c) New Trails. Trails that do not exist on the ground, and
therefore would require trail construction activities (such as clearing
brush, cutting trees, excavation, or surface treatment), may be
developed and designated for bicycle use only after:
(1) The park has completed the requirements set forth in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section; and
(2)(i) For new trails located outside of a park's developed areas,
as identified in the relevant park plan, the park has promulgated a
special regulation authorizing bicycle use; or
(ii) For new trails located within a park's developed areas, as
identified in the relevant park plan, the park has completed the
requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(d) Administrative roads. Administrative roads closed to motor
vehicle use by the public, but open to motor vehicles use for
administrative purposes, may be designated for bicycle use by the
superintendent pursuant to the criteria and procedures of Sec. Sec.
1.5 and 1.7 of this chapter.
(e) Closures. A superintendent may close any park roads, parking
areas, administrative roads, existing trails, or new trails to bicycle
use pursuant to the criteria and procedures of Sec. Sec. 1.5 and 1.7
of this chapter.
Dated: December 9, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E8-29892 Filed 12-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P