National Cemeteries, Demonstration, Special Event, 53383-53386 [2013-21060]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
§ 627.3
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Final Design. Any design activities
following preliminary design and
expressly includes the preparation of
final construction plans and detailed
specifications for the performance of
construction work.
*
*
*
*
*
Total Project Costs. The estimated
costs of all work to be conducted on a
project including the environment,
design, right-of-way, utilities and
construction phases.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 627.5 by:
■ a. Amend paragraph (a) by adding the
words ‘‘prior to authorizing the project
for construction (as specified in 23 CFR
630.205)’’ at the end of the sentence.
■ b. Revise paragraphs (b) introductory
text, (b)(1), (2) and (3),
■ c. Amend paragraph (b)(4) by
removing the words ‘‘for which’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘where’’, and by
adding the word ‘‘construction’’
between the words ‘‘the letting’’.
■ d. Amend paragraph (b)(5) by
removing the words ‘‘Federal-aid’’ and
‘‘the’’ and adding the words ‘‘that
utilizes Federal-aid highway program
funding’’ to the end of the sentence.
■ e. Revise paragraph (c).
■ f. Amend paragraph (d) by removing
the words ‘‘any additional VE analysis’’
and adding in its place ‘‘additional VE
analyses’’ and by adding the words
‘‘where there is a high potential for the
project to benefit from a VE analysis’’ at
the end of the sentence.
■ g. Revise paragraph (e) to read.
■ h. Add paragraph (f).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 627.5
Applicable projects.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Applicable projects requiring a VE
analysis shall include the following:
(1) Each project located on the
National Highway System (NHS) (as
specified in 23 U.S.C. 103) with an
estimated total project cost of $50
million or more that utilizes Federal-aid
highway funding;
(2) Each bridge project located on the
NHS with an estimated total project cost
of $40 million or more that utilizes
Federal-aid highway funding;
(3) Any major project (as defined in
23 U.S.C. 106(h)), located on or off of
the NHS, that utilizes Federal-aid
highway funding in any contract or
phase comprising the major project;
*
*
*
*
*
(c) An additional VE analysis is not
required if, after conducting a VE
analysis required under this part, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
project is subsequently split into smaller
projects in the design phase or the
project is programmed to be completed
by the letting of multiple construction
projects. However, the STA may not
avoid the requirement to conduct a VE
analysis on an applicable project by
splitting the project into smaller
projects, or multiple design or
construction projects.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) A VE analysis is not required for
projects delivered using the design
build method of construction. While not
required, FHWA encourages STAs and
local public authorities to conduct a VE
analysis on design build projects that
meet the requirements identified in
subsection (b) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) A VE analysis is required on
projects delivered using the
Construction Manager/General
Contractor (CM/GC) method of
contracting, if the project meets the
requirements identified in subsection
(b) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 627.7
[Amended]
5. Amend § 627.7 by:
a. Amending paragraph (a) by
removing the phrase ‘‘conducted for all
applicable projects’’ and inserting the
phrase ‘‘identified, conducted and
approved VE recommendations
implemented on all applicable projects
(as defined in 627.5 of this part)’’.
■ b. Amending paragraph (b) by adding
the words ‘‘prior to the project being
authorized for construction (as specified
in 23 CFR 630.205).’’ to the end of the
sentence.
■ 6. Amend § 627.9 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (c).
■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e),
(f), (g) and (h) as paragraphs (e), (f), (g),
(h) and (i) respectively.
■ c. Adding a new paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 627.9
Conducting a VE analysis.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) When a STA or local public agency
chooses to conduct a VE analysis for a
project utilizing the design-build project
delivery method the VE analysis must
be performed prior to the release of the
final Request for Proposals or other
applicable solicitation documents.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) For projects delivered using the
CM/GC contracting method, a VE
analysis is not required prior to the
preparation and release of the RFP for
the CM/GC contract.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53383
The VE analysis is required to be
completed and approved
recommendations incorporated into the
project plans prior to requesting a
construction price proposal from the
CM/GC contractor.
[FR Doc. 2013–20315 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 12
[NPS–WASO–REGS–13553; PXXVPAD0515]
RIN 1024–AE01
National Cemeteries, Demonstration,
Special Event
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Park Service is
proposing to revise the definition of the
terms demonstration and special event,
applicable to the national cemeteries
administered by the National Park
Service.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received by
October 28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments, identified by Regulation
Identifier Number (RIN) 1024–AE01, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail to: A.J. North, Regulations
Program, National Park Service, 1849 C
Street NW., MS–2355, Washington, DC
20240.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and RIN
for this rulemaking. All comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. For
additional information, see the Public
Participation heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
A.J.
North, National Park Service
Regulations Program, by telephone:
202–513–7742 or email: waso_
regulations@nps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The National Park Service (NPS) is
responsible for protecting and managing
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53384
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
fourteen national cemeteries, which are
administered as integral parts of larger
NPS historical units. A list of the
national cemeteries managed by the
NPS may be viewed at https://
www.cem.va.gov/cem/cems/doi.asp.
The national cemeteries administered
by the NPS were established as national
shrines in tribute to the gallant dead
who have served in the Armed Forces
of the United States. These cemeteries
are to be protected, managed, and
administered as suitable and dignified
burial grounds and as significant
cultural resources. In 1986, the NPS
comprehensively revised the Part 12
rules that govern the NPS administered
national cemeteries to comply with
Federal statutory law and to update and
standardize procedures for the operation
of national cemeteries (51 FR 8976,
March 14, 1986). As part of this
revision, § 12.2 was amended to prohibit
‘‘conducting special events and
demonstrations, except for official
commemorative events on Memorial
Day, Veterans Day, and other dates
designated by the superintendent as
having special historic and
commemorative significance for the
particular national cemetery.’’ As more
extensively detailed at 51 FR 8977
(March 14, 1986), this is because these
national cemeteries are intended to have
a protected atmosphere of peace, calm,
tranquility, and reverence where there is
‘‘a substantial governmental interest that
exists in maintaining this protected
atmosphere where individuals can
quietly contemplate and reflect upon
the significance of the contributions
made to the nation by those interred.’’
The term demonstration was added to
§ 12.3 and defined to mean ‘‘a
demonstration, picketing,
speechmaking, marching, holding a vigil
or religious service or any other like
form of conduct that involves the
communication or expression of views
or grievances, whether engaged in by
one or more persons, that has the intent,
effect or likelihood to attract a crowd or
onlookers. This term does not include
casual park use by persons that does not
have an intent or likelihood to attract a
crowd or onlookers.’’
The term special event was also added
and defined as ‘‘a sports event, pageant,
celebration, historical reenactment,
entertainment, exhibition, parade, fair,
festival or similar activity that is not a
demonstration, whether engaged in by
one or more persons, that has the intent,
effect or likelihood to attract a crowd or
onlookers. This term does not include
casual park use by persons that does not
have an intent or likelihood to attract a
crowd or onlookers.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Concerns Over the Definition of the
Term ‘‘Demonstration’’
In Boardley v. Department of the
Interior, 605 F.Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2009),
the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia noted that the
NPS’s definition of the term
demonstration in 36 CFR 2.51(a) and
7.96(g)(1)(i) could pose a problem on the
scope of the agency’s discretion, insofar
as it could be construed to allow NPS
officials to restrict speech based on their
determination that a person intended to
draw a crowd with their conduct. The
NPS had not applied, nor intended to
apply, its regulations in an
impermissible manner. Nevertheless, to
address the District Court’s concerns in
Boardley, the NPS narrowed the
definition of demonstration in an
interim general rule governing
demonstration and the sale and
distribution of printed matter for most
of the National Park System (75 FR
64148, Oct. 19, 2010). This rule was
amended and finalized on June 24, 2013
(78 FR 37713). In response to Boardley,
the NPS also issued a final rule that
narrowed the NPS’s National Capital
Region definition of demonstration at
§ 7.96 (78 FR 14673, March 7, 2013).
The new definition of demonstration
in 36 CFR 2.51 and 7.96 provided a
‘‘reasonably likely’’ standard—rather
than an ‘‘effect, intent or propensity’’
standard—to ensure the necessary
objectivity in the regulatory process,
while negating the possibility of a
permit being granted or rejected on
impermissible grounds. The NPS also
determined that the ‘‘reasonably likely’’
standard is easily and consistently
understood.
Proposed Rule
The national cemeteries administered
by the NPS have been set aside as
resting places for members of the
fighting forces of the United States.
Many activities and events that may be
appropriate in other park areas are
inappropriate in a national cemetery
because of its protected atmosphere of
peace, calm, tranquility, and reverence.
The NPS continues to maintain its
substantial interest in maintaining this
protected atmosphere in its national
cemeteries, where individuals can
quietly visit, contemplate, and reflect
upon the significance of the
contributions made to the nation by
those who have been interred there.
The NPS also desires to maintain
consistency in the regulations governing
demonstrations and special events in
park units, including national
cemeteries. Accordingly, the proposed
amended definition of the term
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
demonstration in § 12.3 would mirror
the language now used 36 CFR 2.51 and
7.96. The proposed amended definition
of the term special event in § 12.3 would
also contain nearly identical language.
To avoid the possibility of a decision
based on impermissible grounds, the
proposed rule would revise the § 12.3
definitions of demonstration and special
event by eliminating the terms ‘‘intent,
effect, or likelihood’’ and replacing
them with the term ‘‘reasonably likely to
draw a crowd or onlookers.’’ While
these proposed revisions would not
substantively alter the § 12.4 prohibition
of special events and demonstrations
within national cemeteries, it would
more clearly and consistently define
these terms.
Compliance With Other Laws,
Executive Orders, and Department
Policy
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563).
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget will review all
significant rules. OIRA has determined
that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of Executive Order 12866
while calling for improvements in the
nation’s regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes further that regulations
must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process
must allow for public participation and
an open exchange of ideas. We have
developed this rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
This rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities under the RFA (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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
(UMRA)
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. It
addresses public use of national park
lands, and imposes no requirements on
other agencies or governments. A
statement containing the information
required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) is not required.
Takings (Executive Order 12630).
This rule does not affect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630. A takings implication
assessment is not required.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
Under the criteria in section 1 of
Executive Order 13132, the rule does
not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism summary impact
statement. This proposed rule only
affects use of NPS administered lands
and waters. It has no outside effects on
other areas. A Federalism summary
impact statement is not required.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order
12988)
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
This rule complies with the
requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a)
requiring that all regulations be
reviewed to eliminate errors and
ambiguity and be written to minimize
litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2)
requiring that all regulations be written
in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes
(Executive Order 13175 and Department
Policy)
The Department of the Interior strives
to strengthen its government-togovernment relationship with Indian
tribes through a commitment to
consultation with Indian tribes and
recognition of their right to selfgovernance and tribal sovereignty. We
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
have evaluated this rule under the
Department’s consultation policy and
under the criteria in Executive Order
13175 and have determined that it has
no substantial direct effects on federally
recognized Indian tribes and that
consultation under the Department’s
tribal consultation policy is not
required.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements,
and a submission to the Office of
Management and Budget under the PRA
is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
This rule does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. A
detailed statement under the NEPA of
1969 is not required because we have
determined the rule is categorically
excluded under 43 CFR 46.210(i)
because it is administrative, legal, and
technical in nature. We have also
determined that the rule does not
involve any of the extraordinary
circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215
that would require further analysis
under NEPA.
Effects on the Energy Supply
(Executive Order 13211)
This rule is not a significant energy
action under the definition in Executive
Order 13211. A Statement of Energy
Effects in not required.
Clarity of This Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 (section 1(b)(12)) and 12988
(section 3(b)(1)(B)) 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 you find
unclear, which sections or sentences are
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53385
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Drafting Information: The primary
author of this regulation was C. Rose
Wilkinson, National Park Service,
Regulations and Special Park Uses,
Washington, DC.
Public Participation
It is the policy of the Department of
the Interior, whenever practicable, to
afford the public an opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking process.
Accordingly, interested persons may
submit written comments regarding this
proposed rule by one of the methods
listed in the ADDRESSES section. All
comments must be received by midnight
of the close of the comment period. Bulk
comments in any format (hard copy or
electronic) submitted on behalf of others
will not be accepted.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, email 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.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 12
Cemeteries, Military personnel,
National parks, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
In consideration of the foregoing, the
National Park Service proposes to
amend 36 CFR Part 12 as follows:
PART 12—NATIONAL CEMETERIES
1. The authority citation for Part 12
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, and 462(k);
E.O. 6166, 6228, and 8428.
2. Revise the part heading as set forth
above.
■ 3. Amend § 12.3 by revising
definitions of ‘‘Demonstration’’ and
‘‘Special event’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 12.3
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Demonstration means a
demonstration, picketing,
speechmaking, marching, holding a vigil
or religious service, or any other like
form of conduct that involves the
communication or expression of views
or grievances, engaged in by one or
more persons, the conduct of which is
reasonably likely to attract a crowd or
onlookers. This term does not include
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
53386
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
casual park use by persons that is not
reasonably likely to attract a crowd or
onlookers.
*
*
*
*
*
Special event means a sports event,
pageant, celebration, historical
reenactment, entertainment, exhibition,
parade, fair, festival, or similar activity
that is not a demonstration, engaged in
by one or more persons, the conduct of
which is reasonably likely to attract a
crowd or onlookers. This term does not
include casual park use by persons that
is not reasonably likely to attract a
crowd or onlookers.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 6, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013–21060 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–EJ–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2013–0482; FRL 9900–40Region 7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri; St. Louis Area
Transportation Conformity
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the state of
Missouri on March 17, 2011. This
revision proposes to amend the rule to
provide more specificity to the
interagency consultation process
requirements and responsibilities. The
revision to Missouri’s rule does not add
any additional requirements to the
existing rule but merely adds language
that better clarifies specific roles and
responsibilities including the
consultation groups’ processes. Further,
these revisions do not have an adverse
affect on air quality. EPA’s approval of
this SIP revision is being done in
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments on this proposed
action must be received in writing by
September 30, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2013–0482, by mail to: Steven
Brown, Environmental Protection
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may
also be submitted electronically or
through hand delivery/courier by
following the detailed instructions in
the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this
Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Brown at (913) 551–7718, or by
email at brown.steven@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state’s
SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
revision amendment and anticipates no
relevant adverse comments to this
action. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments
are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated in
relation to this action. If EPA receives
relevant adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so
at this time. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on part of
this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may
adopt as final those parts of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment. For additional information,
see the direct final rule which is located
in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: August 1, 2013.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2013–20915 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0095]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This document denies a
rulemaking petition submitted by BMW
Group, BMW of North America, LLC, to
amend the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard on occupant crash protection
to permit optional certification using a
seat belt interlock for front seat
occupants as an alternative to the
unbelted crash test requirements. The
agency is denying the petition because
the supporting material provided by the
petitioner is not sufficient for the agency
to fully evaluate the safety need,
benefits, effectiveness, and acceptability
of seat belt interlock systems.
Furthermore, in 2012, the agency
initiated the development of a research
program on seat belt interlocks in light
of its newly-acquired statutory authority
to allow consideration of seat belt
interlocks as a compliance option. The
agency believes that making a
determination to amend its performance
standards prior to the completion of its
research is premature.
SUMMARY:
For
Non-Legal Issues: Ms. Carla Rush, Office
of Crashworthiness Standards, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:
(202) 366–4583, Facsimile: (202) 493–
2739.
For Legal Issues: Mr. William Shakely,
Office of Chief Counsel, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:
(202) 366–2992, Facsimile: (202) 366–
3820.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
NHTSA’s mission is to save lives,
prevent injuries, and reduce economic
losses resulting from motor vehicle
crashes. Increasing seat belt use is one
of the agency’s highest priorities for
carrying out this mission. For each
percentage point gain in national seat
belt usage, we estimate that 200 lives are
saved each year. In 2012, the
nationwide seat belt use reached a high
of 86 percent for drivers and front seat
passengers. To achieve this rate, we
have relied on an array of agency
initiatives, such as regulating and
promoting the use of in-vehicle
technologies, the Click It or Ticket
program 1 and State primary
enforcement laws, to encourage seat belt
usage. Notwithstanding impressive
gains in seat belt usage, data from the
2011 Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) indicates that 52 percent of all
1 https://www.nhtsa.gov/ciot.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53383-53386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21060]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 12
[NPS-WASO-REGS-13553; PXXVPAD0515]
RIN 1024-AE01
National Cemeteries, Demonstration, Special Event
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service is proposing to revise the
definition of the terms demonstration and special event, applicable to
the national cemeteries administered by the National Park Service.
DATES: Comments must be received by October 28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments, identified by Regulation
Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE01, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail to: A.J. North, Regulations Program, National Park
Service, 1849 C Street NW., MS-2355, Washington, DC 20240.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. For additional information, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.J. North, National Park Service
Regulations Program, by telephone: 202-513-7742 or email: waso_regulations@nps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for protecting and
managing
[[Page 53384]]
fourteen national cemeteries, which are administered as integral parts
of larger NPS historical units. A list of the national cemeteries
managed by the NPS may be viewed at https://www.cem.va.gov/cem/cems/doi.asp.
The national cemeteries administered by the NPS were established as
national shrines in tribute to the gallant dead who have served in the
Armed Forces of the United States. These cemeteries are to be
protected, managed, and administered as suitable and dignified burial
grounds and as significant cultural resources. In 1986, the NPS
comprehensively revised the Part 12 rules that govern the NPS
administered national cemeteries to comply with Federal statutory law
and to update and standardize procedures for the operation of national
cemeteries (51 FR 8976, March 14, 1986). As part of this revision,
Sec. 12.2 was amended to prohibit ``conducting special events and
demonstrations, except for official commemorative events on Memorial
Day, Veterans Day, and other dates designated by the superintendent as
having special historic and commemorative significance for the
particular national cemetery.'' As more extensively detailed at 51 FR
8977 (March 14, 1986), this is because these national cemeteries are
intended to have a protected atmosphere of peace, calm, tranquility,
and reverence where there is ``a substantial governmental interest that
exists in maintaining this protected atmosphere where individuals can
quietly contemplate and reflect upon the significance of the
contributions made to the nation by those interred.''
The term demonstration was added to Sec. 12.3 and defined to mean
``a demonstration, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding a vigil
or religious service or any other like form of conduct that involves
the communication or expression of views or grievances, whether engaged
in by one or more persons, that has the intent, effect or likelihood to
attract a crowd or onlookers. This term does not include casual park
use by persons that does not have an intent or likelihood to attract a
crowd or onlookers.''
The term special event was also added and defined as ``a sports
event, pageant, celebration, historical reenactment, entertainment,
exhibition, parade, fair, festival or similar activity that is not a
demonstration, whether engaged in by one or more persons, that has the
intent, effect or likelihood to attract a crowd or onlookers. This term
does not include casual park use by persons that does not have an
intent or likelihood to attract a crowd or onlookers.''
Concerns Over the Definition of the Term ``Demonstration''
In Boardley v. Department of the Interior, 605 F.Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C.
2009), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
noted that the NPS's definition of the term demonstration in 36 CFR
2.51(a) and 7.96(g)(1)(i) could pose a problem on the scope of the
agency's discretion, insofar as it could be construed to allow NPS
officials to restrict speech based on their determination that a person
intended to draw a crowd with their conduct. The NPS had not applied,
nor intended to apply, its regulations in an impermissible manner.
Nevertheless, to address the District Court's concerns in Boardley, the
NPS narrowed the definition of demonstration in an interim general rule
governing demonstration and the sale and distribution of printed matter
for most of the National Park System (75 FR 64148, Oct. 19, 2010). This
rule was amended and finalized on June 24, 2013 (78 FR 37713). In
response to Boardley, the NPS also issued a final rule that narrowed
the NPS's National Capital Region definition of demonstration at Sec.
7.96 (78 FR 14673, March 7, 2013).
The new definition of demonstration in 36 CFR 2.51 and 7.96
provided a ``reasonably likely'' standard--rather than an ``effect,
intent or propensity'' standard--to ensure the necessary objectivity in
the regulatory process, while negating the possibility of a permit
being granted or rejected on impermissible grounds. The NPS also
determined that the ``reasonably likely'' standard is easily and
consistently understood.
Proposed Rule
The national cemeteries administered by the NPS have been set aside
as resting places for members of the fighting forces of the United
States. Many activities and events that may be appropriate in other
park areas are inappropriate in a national cemetery because of its
protected atmosphere of peace, calm, tranquility, and reverence. The
NPS continues to maintain its substantial interest in maintaining this
protected atmosphere in its national cemeteries, where individuals can
quietly visit, contemplate, and reflect upon the significance of the
contributions made to the nation by those who have been interred there.
The NPS also desires to maintain consistency in the regulations
governing demonstrations and special events in park units, including
national cemeteries. Accordingly, the proposed amended definition of
the term demonstration in Sec. 12.3 would mirror the language now used
36 CFR 2.51 and 7.96. The proposed amended definition of the term
special event in Sec. 12.3 would also contain nearly identical
language. To avoid the possibility of a decision based on impermissible
grounds, the proposed rule would revise the Sec. 12.3 definitions of
demonstration and special event by eliminating the terms ``intent,
effect, or likelihood'' and replacing them with the term ``reasonably
likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.'' While these proposed revisions
would not substantively alter the Sec. 12.4 prohibition of special
events and demonstrations within national cemeteries, it would more
clearly and consistently define these terms.
Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563).
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order
12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible,
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this
rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA.
This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers,
[[Page 53385]]
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 (UMRA)
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. It addresses public
use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other
agencies or governments. A statement containing the information
required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
Takings (Executive Order 12630).
This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings
implication assessment is not required.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This proposed
rule only affects use of NPS administered lands and waters. It has no
outside effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement
is not required.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department
Policy)
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its
government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a
commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their
right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this
rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria
in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial
direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that
consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not
required.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the PRA is
not required.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement
under the NEPA of 1969 is not required because we have determined the
rule is categorically excluded under 43 CFR 46.210(i) because it is
administrative, legal, and technical in nature. We have also determined
that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances
listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition
in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects in not
required.
Clarity of This Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)) and
12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)) 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 you find unclear, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful,
etc.
Drafting Information: The primary author of this regulation was C.
Rose Wilkinson, National Park Service, Regulations and Special Park
Uses, Washington, DC.
Public Participation
It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever
practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written
comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
the ADDRESSES section. All comments must be received by midnight of the
close of the comment period. Bulk comments in any format (hard copy or
electronic) submitted on behalf of others will not be accepted.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, email 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.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 12
Cemeteries, Military personnel, National parks, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service
proposes to amend 36 CFR Part 12 as follows:
PART 12--NATIONAL CEMETERIES
0
1. The authority citation for Part 12 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, and 462(k); E.O. 6166, 6228, and
8428.
0
2. Revise the part heading as set forth above.
0
3. Amend Sec. 12.3 by revising definitions of ``Demonstration'' and
``Special event'' to read as follows:
Sec. 12.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Demonstration means a demonstration, picketing, speechmaking,
marching, holding a vigil or religious service, or any other like form
of conduct that involves the communication or expression of views or
grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is
reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers. This term does not
include
[[Page 53386]]
casual park use by persons that is not reasonably likely to attract a
crowd or onlookers.
* * * * *
Special event means a sports event, pageant, celebration,
historical reenactment, entertainment, exhibition, parade, fair,
festival, or similar activity that is not a demonstration, engaged in
by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to
attract a crowd or onlookers. This term does not include casual park
use by persons that is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or
onlookers.
* * * * *
Dated: August 6, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-21060 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-EJ-P
