Public Use Limit on Commercial Dog Walking; Revised Disposal Conditions, 69785-69788 [2012-28018]
Download as PDF
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules
alleviate some of the burden. For
example, the Commission recognizes
that companies already gather data and
report in Form No. 552, the Annual
Report of Natural Gas Transactions,
which requires reporting of information
on an annual, aggregated basis that is
similar to the information that the
Commission is now, in this Notice of
Inquiry, considering to require be
reported on a quarterly, transactionspecific basis. However, after several
years of receiving and analyzing annual,
aggregated information through Form
No. 552, the Commission believes that
it may be necessary for market
participants to report more granular
transaction-specific information on a
more frequent basis to increase natural
gas price transparency and to assist in
the Commission’s surveillance efforts.
Therefore, in order to alleviate any
additional burden to market
participants, the Commission is
considering discontinuing the existing
public data reporting requirements
through Form No. 552, after a full year
of individual transactions data are
reported to the Commission.
Additionally, the Commission is
considering instituting a de minimis
volume for which market participants
are required to report to the
Commission.
(1) What would the burden be on
market participants to adapt their
existing systems to be able to provide
the information in compliance with new
reporting requirements for market
participants engaged in sales of
wholesale physical natural gas in
interstate commerce above a de minimis
volume to report to the Commission
every natural gas trade within the
Commission’s NGA jurisdiction that
entails physical delivery for the next
day (i.e., next day gas) or for the next
month (i.e., next month gas)? Estimate
the incremental burden of reporting
such transactional data on a quarterly
basis given that much of the same
information is currently gathered for
and reported annually through Form
No. 552. Estimate the initial reporting
burdens (start up time and resources) as
well as the ongoing reporting burden
that would be necessary for market
participants to comply with the
reporting requirement being considered,
the percentage of those additional costs
compared with normal business
operation costs, and provide an
explanation and support for any
estimate. Is there an additional burden
for those market participants who do
not report to index publishers versus
those who do?
(2) If the Commission decides to
require transaction-specific reporting as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:09 Nov 20, 2012
Jkt 229001
it is considering in this Notice of
Inquiry, should the Commission
discontinue the existing public data
reporting requirements through Form
No. 552, initiated by Order No. 704,
after a full year of individual transaction
data are reported to the Commission?
What would be the benefits and
drawbacks with regard to market
transparency of collecting only one or
both data sets?
(3) Should the Commission establish
a threshold up to which market
participants with a de minimis market
presence would not be subject to the
reporting requirements? The Annual
Report of Natural Gas Transactions,
Form No. 552, collects information from
market participants that sold and
purchased 2.2 Bcf or more of physical
gas in the reporting year. Should the
Commission establish a similar
threshold for the reporting requirements
being considered in this NOI? If so,
what is a reasonable threshold and on
what basis should it be established (i.e.,
by total quarterly sales and purchases,
prior year’s annual sales and
purchases)?
III. Comment Procedures
21. The Commission invites interested
persons to submit comments on the
matters and issues proposed in this
notice to be adopted, including any
related matters or alternative proposals
that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due January 22, 2013.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM13–1–000, and must include the
commenter’s name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their
address in their comments.
22. The Commission encourages
comments to be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission’s
Web site at https://www.ferc.gov. The
Commission accepts most standard
word processing formats. Documents
created electronically using word
processing software should be filed in
native applications or print-to-PDF
format and not in a scanned format.
Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
23. Commenters that are not able to
file comments electronically must mail
or hand deliver an original and copy of
their comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
24. All comments will be placed in
the Commission’s public files and may
be viewed, printed, or downloaded
remotely as described in the Document
Availability section below. Commenters
on this proposal are not required to
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69785
serve copies of their comments on other
commenters.
IV. Document Availability
25. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through
FERC’s Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov)
and in FERC’s Public Reference Room
during normal business hours (8:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First
Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
26. From FERC’s Home Page on the
Internet, this information is available on
eLibrary. The full text of this document
is available on eLibrary in PDF and
Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access
this document in eLibrary, type the
docket number excluding the last three
digits of this document in the docket
number field.
27. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during
normal business hours from FERC
Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll
free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the
Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
By direction of the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–28228 Filed 11–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
THE PRESIDIO TRUST
36 CFR Part 1002
Public Use Limit on Commercial Dog
Walking; Revised Disposal Conditions
The Presidio Trust.
Proposed rule and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Presidio Trust (Trust) is
proposing a public use limit on persons
who are walking four or more dogs at
one time in Area B of the Presidio of
San Francisco (Presidio) for
consideration (Commercial Dog
Walkers). The limit will require any
person walking four or more dogs at one
time for consideration in Area B to
possess a valid Commercial Dog
Walking permit obtained from the City
and County of San Francisco (City).
Commercial Dog Walkers with four or
more dogs at one time in Area B will be
required to comply with the terms and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
69786
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules
conditions of the City permit as well as
those rules and regulations otherwise
applicable to Area B of the Presidio. The
Trust is also proposing that throughout
Area B, all pet walkers, whether or not
for consideration, shall remove pet
excrement and deposit it in refuse
containers. The Trust invites comments
on the proposals.
Public comment will be accepted
through January 25, 2013.
DATES:
Electronic comments may
be sent to jpelka@presidiotrust.gov.
Written comments may be mailed or
hand delivered to John Pelka, The
Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street,
P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA
94129. All written comments submitted
to the Trust will be considered, and
these proposals may be modified
accordingly. The final decision of the
Trust will be published in the Federal
Register.
Public Availability of Comments: If
individuals submitting comments
request that their address or other
contact information be withheld from
public disclosure, it will be honored to
the extent allowable by law. Such
requests must be stated prominently at
the beginning of the comments. The
Trust will make available for public
inspection all submissions from
organizations or businesses and from
persons identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations and businesses.
Anonymous comments may not be
considered.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Steinberger, 415.561.5300.
In
addition to a community of 8,000
people who live, work, or attend school
in the Presidio, many visitors use the
park daily for an array of recreational,
educational, cultural and stewardship
activities. The Trust’s responsibilities
for Area B include the avoidance of
conflicts among the many different
users of the Presidio, equitable
allocation and use of facilities, ensuring
public safety, and protecting resources.
A public use limit in Area B that is
based upon the possession of a valid
City permit, which sets basic insurance,
training, and safety standards and limits
the number of dogs a Commercial Dog
Walker may walk at once in City parks
and other designated areas, will assist in
implementing these responsibilities, as
will a requirement throughout Area B
that pet excrement be removed and
deposited in refuse containers.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:09 Nov 20, 2012
Jkt 229001
1. Limitation on Walking Dogs for
Consideration
Administrative jurisdiction over the
former U.S. Army base known as the
Presidio of San Francisco is divided
between the Trust and the National Park
Service (NPS). The Trust oversees the
interior 1100 acres, Area B, and the NPS
oversees 300 acres along the waterfront,
Area A, of the national park site. Under
36 CFR 1001.5, the Presidio Trust Board
of Directors (Board) may impose
reasonable public use limits in Area B,
given a determination that such action
is necessary to maintain public health
and safety, to protect environmental or
scenic values, to protect natural or
cultural resources, or to avoid conflict
among visitor use activities.
According to the City, approximately
110,000 households in San Francisco
own dogs, and an estimated one-third of
these households employ the services of
dog walkers to care for and exercise
their dogs. There are 70 dog walkers or
dog walking services on the City Animal
Care and Control Department’s dog
walking and professional services
referral list, and there also may be dog
walkers who provide their services for
consideration but do not have a
business license and are unlisted.
Although the Trust does not maintain
official statistics on the use of the
Presidio by dog walking businesses,
Trust staff frequently observe and
receive reports of dog walkers with four
or more dogs in a number of areas in
Area B, in particular along the corridor
adjoining West Pacific Avenue from the
Broadway Gate to the 14th Avenue Gate,
as well as the areas east of the Ecology
Trail in the Tennessee Hollow
Watershed. By both direct observation
and through reports from the public, the
Trust is aware that dogs brought into the
Presidio in these numbers have been
responsible for damage to resources,
threats to public safety, and visitor
conflict.
The City recently adopted an
ordinance to license and to regulate dog
walkers who conduct their business in
a multitude of areas within the
boundaries of the City and may begin
enforcing the ordinance as early as
January 1, 2013. San Francisco Health
Code Article 39: Commercial Dog
Walking. The City permit requirement
applies to any person walking four or
more dogs at any one time, for some sort
of payment on City park property
(broadly defined to include, among
other areas, all grounds and other
property under the management of the
Recreation and Park Commission) as
well as certain open spaces, certain
properties under the jurisdiction of the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
San Francisco Port Commission, and
designated properties under control of
the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
Under Article 39, among other
requirements Commercial Dog Walkers
must be trained or meet minimum
experience requirements, be free of
convictions related to animal cruelty
within the previous five years, carry $1
million in general liability insurance,
provide sufficient drinking water for the
dogs in their charge, transport dogs in
a safe manner, and have proper dog
walking safety equipment as specified
by the City’s Director of Public Works.
The Trust currently does not impose
restrictions specific to Commercial Dog
Walkers in Area B. Given the extremely
broad geographical reach (parks, open
spaces, Port lands, and PUC properties)
of the City’s ordinance, the Trust
reasonably anticipates a certain number
of Commercial Dog Walkers who would
otherwise fall under the City’s
ordinance will walk their dogs in Area
B in order to avoid the permit fees,
requirements, and limit on the number
of dogs they may walk on City lands
covered by the ordinance. This is
particularly to be expected because the
NPS is also considering restrictions on
commercial dog walking in Area A of
the Presidio. This increase in dogs in
Area B will inevitably affect the use and
enjoyment of the Presidio by other
users, will increase damages to
resources, and will increase the cost of
park maintenance and operations. The
Trust must provide for the safe
enjoyment of all park users, protect
resources, and control its operations and
maintenance costs, and is therefore
undertaking this public use limit in
response to the changing circumstances
in the surrounding area.
The Trust believes that no less
restrictive measures are reasonably
available to the Trust that would
achieve the same results—that is,
appropriate behavior to the benefit of
other dog walkers and other park users,
the protection of natural and cultural
resources, and the reduction of
expenditures for maintenance that
would otherwise be necessitated by
unlimited use by Commercial Dog
Walkers. Nor could any such less
restrictive measures, even if they were
to exist, take advantage of the
substantial amount of feedback from
diverse constituencies that went into
drafting and refining the City’s
ordinance. Honoring the City’s existing
permitting system is less restrictive than
creating a new system because it avoids
imposing additional administrative and
financial burdens on Commercial Dog
Walkers.
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Commercial Dog Walkers with four or
more dogs at one time in Area B will be
subject to the terms and conditions of
the City permits, including the
maximum number of dogs allowed at
one time. A Commercial Dog Walker
will be obliged to carry his or her permit
while walking four or more dogs at one
time and to produce the permit for
inspection upon request by an officer
with law enforcement authority in Area
B. Anyone violating the limitation could
face punishment as provided by law.
The limitation would go into effect
following the operative date of the City’s
Commercial Dog Walking ordinance.
Prior to implementation, the Trust will
conduct a public outreach and
education campaign to alert Commercial
Dog Walkers and others about the use
limitation. The Trust will also post signs
and provide handouts to notify park
users of the restriction in areas where
dog walking is a high-use activity.
In its draft Dog Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
which is currently being supplemented,
the NPS has proposed a permitting
system for commercial and private dog
walkers who walk four or more dogs at
one time in the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area (GGNRA). Draft EIS
Appendix F: Special Use Permit. The
NPS permitting system will not be
implemented until a rulemaking process
is completed and a comprehensive
special regulation for dog walking at
GGNRA is adopted. Upon the
completion of the NPS rulemaking, the
Trust may amend its own use limitation
for Commercial Dog Walkers to
recognize GGNRA permits as valid
within Area B among other permits, to
accept GGNRA permits exclusively, or
otherwise in response to new
circumstances.
In fulfilling its responsibilities and
exercising its independent jurisdiction
under the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C.
460bb appendix, the Trust intends to
monitor closely the City’s
implementation of its ordinance and
permit system. The Trust intends to
evaluate periodically whether honoring
Commercial Dog Walker permits issued
by the City continues to serve the
purpose of avoiding conflict among
visitor uses and enhancing health and
safety and resource protection, and the
Trust will take action to revise its
regulations in this regard should
changes be appropriate. Although the
Trust will honor City-issued permits,
the Trust retains its independent
authority to define the requirements for
Commercial Dog Walkers within Area B
of the Presidio.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:09 Nov 20, 2012
Jkt 229001
2. Requirement To Remove Pet
Excrement
Under 36 CFR 1002.15(a)(5), the
Board may establish pet excrement
disposal conditions. The Trust is
proposing a rule amendment that will
require all persons controlling pets to
remove pet excrement and deposit it in
a refuse container. This rule will apply
to all individuals whether or not they
are engaged in commercial activities or
meet the definition of Commercial Dog
Walker under the City ordinance and
permit system.
The Trust’s Interim Compendium
currently requires pet excrement to be
removed only in areas designated by
appropriate signage. Pet excrement is a
recognized health hazard, may deface or
damage cultural and natural resources,
and is widely considered to be a
deterrent to use of park facilities. The
Trust sees no benefit in limiting the
removal requirement to specific areas in
which signs are posted and believes that
its stewardship responsibilities would
be best served by extending the removal
requirement to the entirety of Area B.
Accordingly, in order to avoid conflict
among visitor uses, and enhance health
and safety and resource protection, the
Trust is proposing this rule.
Regulatory Impact: The proposed
amendments will not have an annual
effect of $100 million or more on the
economy nor adversely affect
productivity, competition, jobs, prices,
the environment, public health or
safety, or State or local governments.
The proposed rule will not interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency or raise new legal or
policy issues. In short, little or no effect
on the national economy will result
from adoption of the proposed rule.
Because the proposed rule is not
‘‘economically significant,’’ they are not
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 or Executive
Order 13536. The proposed rule is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ under the Congressional
review provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.
The Trust has determined and
certifies pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., that
the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Trust has determined and
certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et
seq., that this rule will not impose a cost
of $100 million or more in any given
year on local, State, or tribal
governments or private entities.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69787
Environmental Impact: The Trust’s
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Regulations contain categories
of actions that do not require an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement. 36
CFR part 1010. 36 CFR 1010.7(a)(31)
provides that ‘‘minor changes in
programs and regulations pertaining to
visitor activities’’ may be categorically
excluded under the NEPA. The
proposed rule will improve visitor and
dog safety and protect resources in Area
B. However, dog walking use in Area A
could slightly increase as those who
walk dogs for consideration, despite the
additional travel time and fees for
parking, may take their dogs to walk in
Crissy Field or other areas where
permits are not currently required by
the NPS. Any environmental impact
will be short-term, however, until such
time as the NPS permit provisions for
dog walkers in Area A are in place. No
extraordinary circumstances as listed in
§ 1010.7(b) are involved that may have
a significant environmental effect.
Therefore, the regulatory actions are
categorically excluded from further
NEPA review. The Trust has prepared a
Project Screening Form to determine
that the regulatory actions will have no
significant effect on the environment,
which is part of the administrative
record on this matter. The Project
Screening Form is available for public
inspection at the offices of the Presidio
Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, The
Presidio, San Francisco, CA 94129,
between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Other Authorities: The Trust has
drafted and reviewed the proposed rule
in light of Executive Order 12988 and
has determined that they meet the
applicable standards provided in secs.
3(a) and (b) of that Order.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1002
National parks, Natural resources,
Public lands, Recreation and recreation
areas.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, part 1002 of Title 36 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as set forth below:
PART 1002—RESOURCE
PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND
RECREATION
1. The authority citation for part 1002
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 104–333, 110 Stat. 4097
(16 U.S.C. 460bb note).
2. In § 1002.15, revise paragraph (a)(5)
and add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
69788
§ 1002.15
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Pets.
(a) * * *
(5) In all areas of the Presidio
administered by the Presidio Trust, pet
excrement shall be removed and
deposited in a refuse container by the
person(s) controlling the pet(s).
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The walking of four or more dogs
at one time by any one person for
consideration is prohibited within the
area administered by the Presidio Trust
unless:
(1) That person has been issued a
currently valid permit under Article 39
of the San Francisco Health Code.
(2) The walking of four or more dogs
is done pursuant to the terms and
conditions of that permit as well as in
compliance with all laws and
regulations in effect in the area
administered by the Presidio Trust; and
(3) The permit is produced for
inspection upon request by an officer
with law enforcement authority in the
area administered by the Presidio Trust.
Dated: November 13, 2012.
Karen A. Cook,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012–28018 Filed 11–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–4R–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R08–RCRA–2012–0396; FRL–9753–5]
Colorado: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The state of Colorado has
applied to the EPA for final
authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The EPA proposes to grant
final authorization to the hazardous
waste program changes submitted by the
state of Colorado. In the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register, the EPA is authorizing the
changes in a final rule. The EPA did not
propose the rule prior to issuing the
final rule because the Agency believes
this action is not controversial and does
not expect comments that oppose it. We
have explained the reasons for this
authorization in the preamble to the
final rule. Unless we receive written
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:09 Nov 20, 2012
Jkt 229001
comments that oppose this
authorization during the comment
period, the final rule will become
effective on the date it establishes, and
the EPA will not take further action on
this proposal. If the Agency receives
comments that oppose this action, the
EPA will publish a document in the
Federal Register withdrawing this rule
before it takes effect. The EPA will then
address public comments in a later,
final rule, based on this proposal. Any
parties interested in commenting on this
action must do so at this time. The EPA
may not provide further opportunity for
comment.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 21, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
RCRA–2012–0396, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: lin.moye@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6341.
• Mail: Send written comments to
Moye Lin, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Program, EPA Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–R 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, phone
number: (303) 312–6667.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
your comments to Moye Lin, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Program,
EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P–R, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. Deliveries are accepted
only during the Regional Office’s
normal hours of operation, 9:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The public is welcome to
view Docket ID No. EPA–R08–RCRA–
2012–0396 at the Region 8 EPA Library,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129 during the Library’s normal
hours of operation, Monday through
Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–RCRA–2012–
0396. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information, the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov, or email. The
federal web site https://
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
access’’ system, which means the EPA
will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you email
your comment directly to the EPA rather
than going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties, and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA
may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters or any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about the EPA’s public docket, visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at
https://www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information
may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Thursday at the EPA Region 8
Library at the address listed above, or
the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry
Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado
80222–1530, contact: Randy Perila,
phone number (303) 692–3364.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Moye Lin, (303) 312–6667,
Lin.Moye@epa.gov or Randy Perila,
(303) 692–3364,
randy.perila@state.co.us.
For
additional information, please see the
final rule published in the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: September 21, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012–28337 Filed 11–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\21NOP1.SGM
21NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69785-69788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28018]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PRESIDIO TRUST
36 CFR Part 1002
Public Use Limit on Commercial Dog Walking; Revised Disposal
Conditions
AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Presidio Trust (Trust) is proposing a public use limit on
persons who are walking four or more dogs at one time in Area B of the
Presidio of San Francisco (Presidio) for consideration (Commercial Dog
Walkers). The limit will require any person walking four or more dogs
at one time for consideration in Area B to possess a valid Commercial
Dog Walking permit obtained from the City and County of San Francisco
(City). Commercial Dog Walkers with four or more dogs at one time in
Area B will be required to comply with the terms and
[[Page 69786]]
conditions of the City permit as well as those rules and regulations
otherwise applicable to Area B of the Presidio. The Trust is also
proposing that throughout Area B, all pet walkers, whether or not for
consideration, shall remove pet excrement and deposit it in refuse
containers. The Trust invites comments on the proposals.
DATES: Public comment will be accepted through January 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Electronic comments may be sent to jpelka@presidiotrust.gov.
Written comments may be mailed or hand delivered to John Pelka, The
Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco,
CA 94129. All written comments submitted to the Trust will be
considered, and these proposals may be modified accordingly. The final
decision of the Trust will be published in the Federal Register.
Public Availability of Comments: If individuals submitting comments
request that their address or other contact information be withheld
from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by
law. Such requests must be stated prominently at the beginning of the
comments. The Trust will make available for public inspection all
submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
and businesses.
Anonymous comments may not be considered.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Steinberger, 415.561.5300.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to a community of 8,000 people
who live, work, or attend school in the Presidio, many visitors use the
park daily for an array of recreational, educational, cultural and
stewardship activities. The Trust's responsibilities for Area B include
the avoidance of conflicts among the many different users of the
Presidio, equitable allocation and use of facilities, ensuring public
safety, and protecting resources. A public use limit in Area B that is
based upon the possession of a valid City permit, which sets basic
insurance, training, and safety standards and limits the number of dogs
a Commercial Dog Walker may walk at once in City parks and other
designated areas, will assist in implementing these responsibilities,
as will a requirement throughout Area B that pet excrement be removed
and deposited in refuse containers.
1. Limitation on Walking Dogs for Consideration
Administrative jurisdiction over the former U.S. Army base known as
the Presidio of San Francisco is divided between the Trust and the
National Park Service (NPS). The Trust oversees the interior 1100
acres, Area B, and the NPS oversees 300 acres along the waterfront,
Area A, of the national park site. Under 36 CFR 1001.5, the Presidio
Trust Board of Directors (Board) may impose reasonable public use
limits in Area B, given a determination that such action is necessary
to maintain public health and safety, to protect environmental or
scenic values, to protect natural or cultural resources, or to avoid
conflict among visitor use activities.
According to the City, approximately 110,000 households in San
Francisco own dogs, and an estimated one-third of these households
employ the services of dog walkers to care for and exercise their dogs.
There are 70 dog walkers or dog walking services on the City Animal
Care and Control Department's dog walking and professional services
referral list, and there also may be dog walkers who provide their
services for consideration but do not have a business license and are
unlisted. Although the Trust does not maintain official statistics on
the use of the Presidio by dog walking businesses, Trust staff
frequently observe and receive reports of dog walkers with four or more
dogs in a number of areas in Area B, in particular along the corridor
adjoining West Pacific Avenue from the Broadway Gate to the 14th Avenue
Gate, as well as the areas east of the Ecology Trail in the Tennessee
Hollow Watershed. By both direct observation and through reports from
the public, the Trust is aware that dogs brought into the Presidio in
these numbers have been responsible for damage to resources, threats to
public safety, and visitor conflict.
The City recently adopted an ordinance to license and to regulate
dog walkers who conduct their business in a multitude of areas within
the boundaries of the City and may begin enforcing the ordinance as
early as January 1, 2013. San Francisco Health Code Article 39:
Commercial Dog Walking. The City permit requirement applies to any
person walking four or more dogs at any one time, for some sort of
payment on City park property (broadly defined to include, among other
areas, all grounds and other property under the management of the
Recreation and Park Commission) as well as certain open spaces, certain
properties under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission,
and designated properties under control of the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC). Under Article 39, among other requirements Commercial
Dog Walkers must be trained or meet minimum experience requirements, be
free of convictions related to animal cruelty within the previous five
years, carry $1 million in general liability insurance, provide
sufficient drinking water for the dogs in their charge, transport dogs
in a safe manner, and have proper dog walking safety equipment as
specified by the City's Director of Public Works.
The Trust currently does not impose restrictions specific to
Commercial Dog Walkers in Area B. Given the extremely broad
geographical reach (parks, open spaces, Port lands, and PUC properties)
of the City's ordinance, the Trust reasonably anticipates a certain
number of Commercial Dog Walkers who would otherwise fall under the
City's ordinance will walk their dogs in Area B in order to avoid the
permit fees, requirements, and limit on the number of dogs they may
walk on City lands covered by the ordinance. This is particularly to be
expected because the NPS is also considering restrictions on commercial
dog walking in Area A of the Presidio. This increase in dogs in Area B
will inevitably affect the use and enjoyment of the Presidio by other
users, will increase damages to resources, and will increase the cost
of park maintenance and operations. The Trust must provide for the safe
enjoyment of all park users, protect resources, and control its
operations and maintenance costs, and is therefore undertaking this
public use limit in response to the changing circumstances in the
surrounding area.
The Trust believes that no less restrictive measures are reasonably
available to the Trust that would achieve the same results--that is,
appropriate behavior to the benefit of other dog walkers and other park
users, the protection of natural and cultural resources, and the
reduction of expenditures for maintenance that would otherwise be
necessitated by unlimited use by Commercial Dog Walkers. Nor could any
such less restrictive measures, even if they were to exist, take
advantage of the substantial amount of feedback from diverse
constituencies that went into drafting and refining the City's
ordinance. Honoring the City's existing permitting system is less
restrictive than creating a new system because it avoids imposing
additional administrative and financial burdens on Commercial Dog
Walkers.
[[Page 69787]]
Commercial Dog Walkers with four or more dogs at one time in Area B
will be subject to the terms and conditions of the City permits,
including the maximum number of dogs allowed at one time. A Commercial
Dog Walker will be obliged to carry his or her permit while walking
four or more dogs at one time and to produce the permit for inspection
upon request by an officer with law enforcement authority in Area B.
Anyone violating the limitation could face punishment as provided by
law.
The limitation would go into effect following the operative date of
the City's Commercial Dog Walking ordinance. Prior to implementation,
the Trust will conduct a public outreach and education campaign to
alert Commercial Dog Walkers and others about the use limitation. The
Trust will also post signs and provide handouts to notify park users of
the restriction in areas where dog walking is a high-use activity.
In its draft Dog Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS), which is currently being supplemented, the NPS has proposed a
permitting system for commercial and private dog walkers who walk four
or more dogs at one time in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
(GGNRA). Draft EIS Appendix F: Special Use Permit. The NPS permitting
system will not be implemented until a rulemaking process is completed
and a comprehensive special regulation for dog walking at GGNRA is
adopted. Upon the completion of the NPS rulemaking, the Trust may amend
its own use limitation for Commercial Dog Walkers to recognize GGNRA
permits as valid within Area B among other permits, to accept GGNRA
permits exclusively, or otherwise in response to new circumstances.
In fulfilling its responsibilities and exercising its independent
jurisdiction under the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix,
the Trust intends to monitor closely the City's implementation of its
ordinance and permit system. The Trust intends to evaluate periodically
whether honoring Commercial Dog Walker permits issued by the City
continues to serve the purpose of avoiding conflict among visitor uses
and enhancing health and safety and resource protection, and the Trust
will take action to revise its regulations in this regard should
changes be appropriate. Although the Trust will honor City-issued
permits, the Trust retains its independent authority to define the
requirements for Commercial Dog Walkers within Area B of the Presidio.
2. Requirement To Remove Pet Excrement
Under 36 CFR 1002.15(a)(5), the Board may establish pet excrement
disposal conditions. The Trust is proposing a rule amendment that will
require all persons controlling pets to remove pet excrement and
deposit it in a refuse container. This rule will apply to all
individuals whether or not they are engaged in commercial activities or
meet the definition of Commercial Dog Walker under the City ordinance
and permit system.
The Trust's Interim Compendium currently requires pet excrement to
be removed only in areas designated by appropriate signage. Pet
excrement is a recognized health hazard, may deface or damage cultural
and natural resources, and is widely considered to be a deterrent to
use of park facilities. The Trust sees no benefit in limiting the
removal requirement to specific areas in which signs are posted and
believes that its stewardship responsibilities would be best served by
extending the removal requirement to the entirety of Area B.
Accordingly, in order to avoid conflict among visitor uses, and enhance
health and safety and resource protection, the Trust is proposing this
rule.
Regulatory Impact: The proposed amendments will not have an annual
effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely affect
productivity, competition, jobs, prices, the environment, public health
or safety, or State or local governments. The proposed rule will not
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency or raise
new legal or policy issues. In short, little or no effect on the
national economy will result from adoption of the proposed rule.
Because the proposed rule is not ``economically significant,'' they are
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13536. The proposed rule is
not a ``major rule'' under the Congressional review provisions of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.
The Trust has determined and certifies pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., that the proposed rule will not
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities.
The Trust has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rule will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local,
State, or tribal governments or private entities.
Environmental Impact: The Trust's National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Regulations contain categories of actions that do not require an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. 36 CFR part
1010. 36 CFR 1010.7(a)(31) provides that ``minor changes in programs
and regulations pertaining to visitor activities'' may be categorically
excluded under the NEPA. The proposed rule will improve visitor and dog
safety and protect resources in Area B. However, dog walking use in
Area A could slightly increase as those who walk dogs for
consideration, despite the additional travel time and fees for parking,
may take their dogs to walk in Crissy Field or other areas where
permits are not currently required by the NPS. Any environmental impact
will be short-term, however, until such time as the NPS permit
provisions for dog walkers in Area A are in place. No extraordinary
circumstances as listed in Sec. 1010.7(b) are involved that may have a
significant environmental effect. Therefore, the regulatory actions are
categorically excluded from further NEPA review. The Trust has prepared
a Project Screening Form to determine that the regulatory actions will
have no significant effect on the environment, which is part of the
administrative record on this matter. The Project Screening Form is
available for public inspection at the offices of the Presidio Trust,
103 Montgomery Street, The Presidio, San Francisco, CA 94129, between
the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Other Authorities: The Trust has drafted and reviewed the proposed
rule in light of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that they
meet the applicable standards provided in secs. 3(a) and (b) of that
Order.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1002
National parks, Natural resources, Public lands, Recreation and
recreation areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1002 of Title 36 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth
below:
PART 1002--RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION
1. The authority citation for part 1002 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4097 (16 U.S.C. 460bb
note).
2. In Sec. 1002.15, revise paragraph (a)(5) and add paragraph (f)
to read as follows:
[[Page 69788]]
Sec. 1002.15 Pets.
(a) * * *
(5) In all areas of the Presidio administered by the Presidio
Trust, pet excrement shall be removed and deposited in a refuse
container by the person(s) controlling the pet(s).
* * * * *
(f) The walking of four or more dogs at one time by any one person
for consideration is prohibited within the area administered by the
Presidio Trust unless:
(1) That person has been issued a currently valid permit under
Article 39 of the San Francisco Health Code.
(2) The walking of four or more dogs is done pursuant to the terms
and conditions of that permit as well as in compliance with all laws
and regulations in effect in the area administered by the Presidio
Trust; and
(3) The permit is produced for inspection upon request by an
officer with law enforcement authority in the area administered by the
Presidio Trust.
Dated: November 13, 2012.
Karen A. Cook,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-28018 Filed 11-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P