Public Use Limit on Commercial Dog Walking, 15278-15281 [2014-06032]
Download as PDF
15278
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
14. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule
involves establishing a temporary safety
zone that will be enforced on
Wednesday, May 7, 2014, from 3:00
p.m. until 6:30 p.m.. This proposed rule
is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure
2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. We
seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Technical Demonstration will take place
in the area of the Westin Resort, at
approximate position 32 4′ 54.9″ N/081
5′ 9.1″ W. All coordinates are North
American Datum 1983.
(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated
representative’’ means Coast Guard
Patrol Commanders, including Coast
Guard coxswains, petty officers, and
other officers operating Coast Guard
vessels, and Federal, state, and local
officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Savannah in the
enforcement of the regulated area.
(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the regulated area
unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Savannah or a designated
representative.
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated area may
contact the Captain of the Port
Savannah by telephone at (912) 247–
0073, or a designated representative via
VHF radio on channel 16, to request
authorization. If authorization to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain
within the regulated area is granted by
the Captain of the Port Savannah or a
designated representative, all persons
and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Savannah or a
designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide
notice of the regulated area by Local
Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, and on-scene designated
representatives.
(d) Effective date. This rule will be
enforced on Wednesday, May 7, 2014,
from 3 p.m. until 6:30 p.m.
AGENCY:
consideration (Commercial Dog
Walkers). The limit would require any
such Commercial Dog Walker in Area B
to possess a valid commercial dog
walking permit obtained from the
National Park Service (NPS), Golden
Gate National Recreation Area
(GGNRA).
Commercial Dog Walkers would be
required to comply with the terms and
conditions of the GGNRA permit as well
as those rules and regulations otherwise
applicable to Area B of the Presidio. The
permit would allow a maximum of six
dogs per Commercial Dog Walker at any
one time. The GGNRA commercial dog
walking permit requirement is a
compendium amendment being
proposed for all GGNRA sites in San
Francisco and Marin County that allow
dog walking, and would be
implemented concurrently with the
Trust’s proposed rule. Both are interim
actions and would remain in effect until
the final special regulation for dog
walking in the GGNRA is promulgated
as anticipated in late 2015, at which
time the Trust expects that it will adopt
a final rule following public input and
comment.
DATES: Public comment on this proposal
will be accepted through May 5, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Electronic comments may
be sent to commercialdogwalking@
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 this proposed interim
rule 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.
ACTION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated: March 3, 2014.
J. B. Loring,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of
the Port Marine Safety Unit Savannah.
[FR Doc. 2014–05943 Filed 3–18–14; 8:45 am]
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0045 to
read as follows:
36 CFR Part 1002
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
■
§ 165.T07–0045 Safety Zone; International
Oil Spill Conference On-Water and Aerial
Technical Demonstration Savannah River,
Savannah, GA.
(a) Regulated area. The following
regulated area is a fixed safety zone: all
waters extending 1500 yards to either
side of the vessels in the display area,
near the Westin Resort in Savannah,
Georgia. The International Oil Spill
Conference On-Water and Aerial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:37 Mar 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
PRESIDIO TRUST
Public Use Limit on Commercial Dog
Walking
The Presidio Trust.
Proposed interim rule and
request for comments.
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Presidio Trust Office of External Affairs,
415.561.5300 or
commercialdogwalking@
presidiotrust.gov.
The 1,491acre former U.S. Army base known as
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the Presidio is part of and is at the
center of the GGNRA. Administrative
jurisdiction over the Presidio is divided
between the Trust and the NPS. The
Trust oversees the interior 1,100 acres,
Area B, and the NPS oversees
approximately 300 acres along the
waterfront, Area A, of the national park
site. Commercial Dog Walkers have been
regularly using the Presidio for at least
ten years. According to the most recent
estimates by the San Francisco
Professional Dog Walkers Association,
the City and County of San Francisco
(City) has roughly 300 Commercial Dog
Walkers. Trust staff estimates that
between ten and twenty of these
Commercial Dog Walkers walk their
dogs within Area B during any given
time of day, typically bringing between
four and ten dogs or more at a time.
Most often-used areas include 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.
To ensure that Commercial Dog
Walkers act responsibly, effective July 1,
2013, the City passed legislation that
requires Commercial Dog Walkers with
four or more dogs, limited to eight dogs
total, to carry a valid annually renewed
dog walking permit issued by the San
Francisco Department of Animal Care &
Control (see https://www.sfgov2.org/
index.aspx?page=3857). The law is
enforced on all City property under the
San Francisco Department of Recreation
and Parks, the Port of San Francisco,
and the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission, but does not apply to
federal property within the geographic
limits of the City, including Area B.
Currently, the Trust does not impose
restrictions specific to Commercial Dog
Walkers in Area B. Since last year, the
Trust has witnessed a number of
Commercial Dog Walkers who would
otherwise fall under the City’s
legislation, walking 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 City law.
Under 36 CFR 1001.5, the Trust 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:37 Mar 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
activities. On November 21, 2012, in
direct response to the City’s Commercial
Dog Walker regulations, the Trust
requested public comment on a
proposed public use limit on
Commercial Dog Walkers (77 FR 69785).
The limit would have required
Commercial Dog Walkers in Area B to
possess a valid dog walking permit
obtained from the City. Commercial Dog
Walkers would have needed to comply
with the terms and conditions of the
City permit as well as those rules and
regulations otherwise applicable to Area
B. In proposing the public use limit, the
Trust felt that 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, would have
assisted in implementing its
responsibilities, including the
avoidance of conflicts among the many
different users of the Presidio, equitable
allocation and use of facilities, ensuring
public safety, and protecting resources.
The initial 65-day comment period for
the proposed use limit was extended by
30 days to February 25, 2013 at the
request of the public. By the close of the
public comment period, the Trust had
received 257 individual comments,
including nine oral comments provided
at a public Trust Board of Directors
meeting on November 29, 2012. Roughly
one-half (51 percent) of the comments
received expressed support for the
public use limit, and roughly one-half
(49 percent) were opposed. Commenters
who opposed the proposed use limit,
including four conservation
organizations, were largely ‘‘dissatisfied
with the status quo’’ of the presence of
Commercial Dog Walkers in the Presidio
and wished to see the activity
prohibited. They recommended that the
Trust should not adopt the proposed use
limit until such time as GGNRA
published its own policies and
requirements on Commercial Dog
Walkers. They further requested the
Trust to work in partnership with
GGNRA and ‘‘come out together with
one system clearly defined.’’ They urged
that ‘‘a single, clear rule for federal park
properties that can be widely broadcast
to dog walkers in the area will allow for
more efficient administration, greater
compliance, and reduced impacts to
Trust resources.’’ One dog owner group
also supported deferring
implementation of the proposed rule
until such time as GGNRA adopted its
rule.
In its February 25, 2013 letter to the
Trust, the GGNRA stated its support for
the Trust’s public use limit. The
GGNRA disagreed, however, with the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15279
number of dogs allowed under the City
permit (up to eight), and argued that a
limit of six dogs is more reasonable, and
is consistent with the NPS’s
understanding of the standard practice
for the majority of local land
management agencies that regulate
commercial dog walking. In reaction to
the City’s program and the Trust’s
proposal, the GGNRA stated it would
consider enacting an interim
commercial dog walking permit system
this year, before completing its dog
management planning process and
rulemaking. Given the Trust’s and the
GGNRA’s shared management
responsibilities within the Presidio, the
GGNRA asked the Trust to consider
adopting its interim permit system
rather than that being implemented by
the City.
On May 30, 2013, the Trust
announced on its Web site that it
supported the GGNRA’s proposed
intention to move forward at this time
to create and implement an interim
permit system to regulate commercial
dog walking within the park. After
having examined all public comments
and considered the new information
provided by the GGNRA, the Trust
agreed to suspend its own decisions
regarding the regulation of commercial
dog walking. Before taking any action,
the Trust also offered to provide the
public with an additional opportunity to
comment.
On March 14, 2014, the GGNRA
provided 30-day public notice of its
intended interim change to its
compendium requiring that Commercial
Dog Walkers in all San Francisco and
Marin County sites of the GGNRA where
dog walking is allowed, including Area
A, obtain a permit from the park (see
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
commercialdogwalking). Permits would
allow a maximum of six dogs per
Commercial Dog Walker, and require a
business license and proof of liability
insurance and dog-handling training
through existing training courses, such
as those offered by Marin Humane or
San Francisco SPCA. Permit holders
must also abide by all NPS regulations.
The GGNRA action is an interim
compendium amendment (2014
Superintendent’s Compendium of
Designations, Closures, Permit
Requirements, and Other Restrictions
Imposed under Discretionary Authority)
and would remain in effect until late
2015, at which time the final special
regulation for dog walking in the
GGNRA, which will address commercial
dog walking, is promulgated. The
GGNRA involved the Trust throughout
the development of the interim
commercial permit requirement.
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15280
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Aligning with the City’s rather than
the GGNRA permit system could be
considered a less restrictive measure
reasonably available to the Trust due to
the City’s higher limit on the maximum
number of dogs allowed (eight), which
poses less of a financial burden on
Commercial Dog Walkers. In a local
newspaper article on the subject, the
author of the City’s legislation and City
supervisor said that it was preferable to
be less restrictive in light of the City’s
‘‘huge population of dog owners’’ and
the fact that ‘‘many of them don’t have
yards’’ (see https://www.sfchronicle.com/
bayarea/article/Commercial-dogwalkers-must-follow-new-law4665243.php). However, the NPS has
expressed concern that Commercial Dog
Walkers could not consistently control
more than six dogs under voice and
sight control. And while the City’s
Department of Animal Care & Control
enforces eight dogs as the limit for one
Commercial Dog Walker, in its
Commercial Dog Walker Informational
Pamphlet, it recommends six as a
maximum number (see https://
www.sfgov2.org/Modules/Show
Document.aspx?documentid=1419).
GGNRA research on the maximum
number reveals that the City’s regulation
allowing up to eight dogs is an outlier
among jurisdictions around the country.
As caretaker of the national park site
and while mindful of the importance of
equitably allocating facilities within the
park, the Trust must place a higher
priority on avoiding conflict among
visitor uses, protection of environmental
values, natural resources, and cultural
resources and maintaining health and
safety over a minor difference (six dogs
versus eight) in addressing City
residents’ particular needs in this area
and affecting the individual earnings of
Commercial Dog Walkers (or otherwise
having them choose to go elsewhere to
walk their dogs). In addition, adopting
the City’s less restrictive measure in lieu
of the GGNRA interim permit system
would engender public confusion given
the Presidio’s presence within the
boundaries of the GGNRA, the similar
visitor experience mandates of the Trust
and the NPS, and the adjacent
jurisdictions of the two land
management agencies with an
unmarked boundary within the
Presidio.
The Trust’s limitation would go into
effect on the operative date of the
GGNRA’s interim commercial dog
walking permit requirement, and is
anticipated to remain in effect until the
GGNRA’s interim action is supplanted
by a special regulation for dog walking
in the GGNRA, which will address
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:37 Mar 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
commercial dog walking. Prior to
implementation, the Trust would
conduct a public outreach and
education campaign to alert Commercial
Dog Walkers and others about the use
limitation. The Trust would also post
signs and provide handouts to notify
park users of the limitation in areas
where dog walking is a particularly
high-use activity.
Regulatory Impact: The proposed
interim rule would not have an annual
effect of $100 million or more on the
economy nor adversely affect
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State or local or tribal governments or
communities. The proposed interim rule
would 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
would result from adoption of the
proposed interim rule. Because the rule
is not ‘‘economically significant,’’ it is
not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 or Executive
Order 13536. The proposed interim 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 interim rule would not
have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
The economic effect of the rule is local
in nature and negligible in scope,
restricting only a single use (commercial
dog walking) in a limited geographic
area (Area B of the Presidio occupies
less than four percent of the City and
County of San Francisco’s total acreage)
for purposes of protecting public health
and safety and the natural environment.
There would be no loss of significant
numbers of jobs, as Commercial Dog
Walkers would retain the flexibility to
avoid the proposed restriction and
permit fees by opting to use one or more
of the available open space lands
maintained by the San Francisco Park
and Recreation Department, the Port of
San Francisco, and the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission. Among
these lands are 28 specifically
designated off-leash park areas for dogs
throughout the City, including the
Mountain Lake Park Dog Play Area that
is immediately adjacent to Area B (see
https://sfrecpark.org/parks-open-spaces/
dog-play-areas-program/ for a location
map for specified areas and for
information on the process for
establishment of additional off-leash
areas within the City’s park system).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Trust has determined and
certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et
seq., that the proposed interim rule
would 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 National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
mandates that federal agencies
responsible for preparing environmental
analyses and documentation do so in
cooperation with other governmental
agencies. The Trust is a cooperating
agency with special expertise for the
GGNRA proposed interim commercial
dog walking permit requirement (as well
as the special regulation for dog
walking) under the NEPA and the
Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (an agency is considered to
have special expertise when it has a
related ‘‘statutory responsibility, agency
mission, or . . . program experience’’
(40 CFR 1508.26)). The regulatory
actions by GGNRA and the Trust
regarding interim commercial dog
management for Areas A and B are
substantially the same. As a cooperating
agency, the Trust will support the
GGNRA in the development of
information and the preparation of
environmental analyses to determine
whether the actions would have a
significant effect on the environment.
Other Authorities: The Trust has
drafted and reviewed the proposed rule
in light of Executive Order 12988 and
has determined that it meets 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 an interim action 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: 16 U.S.C. 460bb note.
■
2. Add § 1002.6 to read as follows:
§ 1002.6
Commercial Dog Walking.
(a) The walking of more than six dogs
at one time by any one person for
consideration (commercial dog walking)
is prohibited within the area
administered by the Presidio Trust.
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(b) The walking of more than three
dogs, with a limit of six dogs, at one
time by any one person for
consideration (commercial dog walking)
within the area administered by the
Presidio Trust, where dog walking is
otherwise allowed, is hereby authorized
provided that:
(1) That person has a valid
commercial dog walking permit issued
by Golden Gate National Recreation
Area (GGNRA);
(2) The walking of more than three
dogs, with a limit of six dogs, is done
pursuant to the conditions of that
permit; and
(3) The commercial dog walker badge
issued to the permittee by the GGNRA
shall be visibly displayed at all times as
directed in the permit while the
permittee is engaging in commercial dog
walking activities, and shall be provided
upon request to any person authorized
to enforce this provision.
Dated: March 13, 2014.
Karen A. Cook,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014–06032 Filed 3–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–4R–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0415; FRL 9908–15Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Evansville Area; 1997 Annual Fine
Particulate Matter Maintenance Plan
Revision to Approved Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
request by Indiana to revise the 1997
annual fine particulate matter
maintenance air quality state
implementation plan (SIP) for the
Evansville/Southwestern, Indiana Area
to replace onroad emissions inventories
and motor vehicle emissions budgets
(budgets) with inventories and budgets
developed using EPA’s Motor Vehicle
Emissions Simulator (MOVES)
emissions model. Indiana submitted the
SIP revision request for the Evansville,
Indiana Area on July 2, 2013.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 18, 2014. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:37 Mar 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0415, by one of
the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov
3. Fax: (312) 692–2450.
4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley,
Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Please see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)353–8777,
maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives 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 rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment. For additional information,
see the direct final rule which is located
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15281
in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: March 4, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014–05904 Filed 3–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0657; FRL–9907–99–
Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Arizona; Payson PM10 Air Quality
Planning Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Payson portion of the
Arizona State Implementation Plan
submitted by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality on January 23,
2012. This revision consists of the
second ten-year maintenance plan for
the Payson air quality planning area for
the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate
matter less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10). EPA is proposing to approve this
plan based on the conclusion that the
plan adequately provides for continued
maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the
Payson area through 2022. EPA is
proposing this action pursuant to those
provisions of the CAA that obligate the
Agency to take action on submittals of
revisions to SIPs. The effect of this
action would be to make the State’s
continuing commitments with respect to
maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the
Payson area federally enforceable for
another ten years.
DATES: Any comments on this proposal
must arrive by April 18, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2013–0657, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15278-15281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06032]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDIO TRUST
36 CFR Part 1002
Public Use Limit on Commercial Dog Walking
AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.
ACTION: Proposed interim 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 would require any such Commercial Dog Walker in
Area B to possess a valid commercial dog walking permit obtained from
the National Park Service (NPS), Golden Gate National Recreation Area
(GGNRA).
Commercial Dog Walkers would be required to comply with the terms
and conditions of the GGNRA permit as well as those rules and
regulations otherwise applicable to Area B of the Presidio. The permit
would allow a maximum of six dogs per Commercial Dog Walker at any one
time. The GGNRA commercial dog walking permit requirement is a
compendium amendment being proposed for all GGNRA sites in San
Francisco and Marin County that allow dog walking, and would be
implemented concurrently with the Trust's proposed rule. Both are
interim actions and would remain in effect until the final special
regulation for dog walking in the GGNRA is promulgated as anticipated
in late 2015, at which time the Trust expects that it will adopt a
final rule following public input and comment.
DATES: Public comment on this proposal will be accepted through May 5,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Electronic comments may be sent to
commercialdogwalking@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 this proposed interim
rule 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: Presidio Trust Office of External
Affairs, 415.561.5300 or commercialdogwalking@presidiotrust.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1,491-acre former U.S. Army base known
as
[[Page 15279]]
the Presidio is part of and is at the center of the GGNRA.
Administrative jurisdiction over the Presidio is divided between the
Trust and the NPS. The Trust oversees the interior 1,100 acres, Area B,
and the NPS oversees approximately 300 acres along the waterfront, Area
A, of the national park site. Commercial Dog Walkers have been
regularly using the Presidio for at least ten years. According to the
most recent estimates by the San Francisco Professional Dog Walkers
Association, the City and County of San Francisco (City) has roughly
300 Commercial Dog Walkers. Trust staff estimates that between ten and
twenty of these Commercial Dog Walkers walk their dogs within Area B
during any given time of day, typically bringing between four and ten
dogs or more at a time. Most often-used areas include 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.
To ensure that Commercial Dog Walkers act responsibly, effective
July 1, 2013, the City passed legislation that requires Commercial Dog
Walkers with four or more dogs, limited to eight dogs total, to carry a
valid annually renewed dog walking permit issued by the San Francisco
Department of Animal Care & Control (see https://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=3857). The law is enforced on all City property under
the San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks, the Port of San
Francisco, and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, but does
not apply to federal property within the geographic limits of the City,
including Area B. Currently, the Trust does not impose restrictions
specific to Commercial Dog Walkers in Area B. Since last year, the
Trust has witnessed a number of Commercial Dog Walkers who would
otherwise fall under the City's legislation, walking 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 City law.
Under 36 CFR 1001.5, the Trust 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. On November 21, 2012, in direct
response to the City's Commercial Dog Walker regulations, the Trust
requested public comment on a proposed public use limit on Commercial
Dog Walkers (77 FR 69785). The limit would have required Commercial Dog
Walkers in Area B to possess a valid dog walking permit obtained from
the City. Commercial Dog Walkers would have needed to comply with the
terms and conditions of the City permit as well as those rules and
regulations otherwise applicable to Area B. In proposing the public use
limit, the Trust felt that 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, would have assisted in implementing its
responsibilities, including the avoidance of conflicts among the many
different users of the Presidio, equitable allocation and use of
facilities, ensuring public safety, and protecting resources.
The initial 65-day comment period for the proposed use limit was
extended by 30 days to February 25, 2013 at the request of the public.
By the close of the public comment period, the Trust had received 257
individual comments, including nine oral comments provided at a public
Trust Board of Directors meeting on November 29, 2012. Roughly one-half
(51 percent) of the comments received expressed support for the public
use limit, and roughly one-half (49 percent) were opposed. Commenters
who opposed the proposed use limit, including four conservation
organizations, were largely ``dissatisfied with the status quo'' of the
presence of Commercial Dog Walkers in the Presidio and wished to see
the activity prohibited. They recommended that the Trust should not
adopt the proposed use limit until such time as GGNRA published its own
policies and requirements on Commercial Dog Walkers. They further
requested the Trust to work in partnership with GGNRA and ``come out
together with one system clearly defined.'' They urged that ``a single,
clear rule for federal park properties that can be widely broadcast to
dog walkers in the area will allow for more efficient administration,
greater compliance, and reduced impacts to Trust resources.'' One dog
owner group also supported deferring implementation of the proposed
rule until such time as GGNRA adopted its rule.
In its February 25, 2013 letter to the Trust, the GGNRA stated its
support for the Trust's public use limit. The GGNRA disagreed, however,
with the number of dogs allowed under the City permit (up to eight),
and argued that a limit of six dogs is more reasonable, and is
consistent with the NPS's understanding of the standard practice for
the majority of local land management agencies that regulate commercial
dog walking. In reaction to the City's program and the Trust's
proposal, the GGNRA stated it would consider enacting an interim
commercial dog walking permit system this year, before completing its
dog management planning process and rulemaking. Given the Trust's and
the GGNRA's shared management responsibilities within the Presidio, the
GGNRA asked the Trust to consider adopting its interim permit system
rather than that being implemented by the City.
On May 30, 2013, the Trust announced on its Web site that it
supported the GGNRA's proposed intention to move forward at this time
to create and implement an interim permit system to regulate commercial
dog walking within the park. After having examined all public comments
and considered the new information provided by the GGNRA, the Trust
agreed to suspend its own decisions regarding the regulation of
commercial dog walking. Before taking any action, the Trust also
offered to provide the public with an additional opportunity to
comment.
On March 14, 2014, the GGNRA provided 30-day public notice of its
intended interim change to its compendium requiring that Commercial Dog
Walkers in all San Francisco and Marin County sites of the GGNRA where
dog walking is allowed, including Area A, obtain a permit from the park
(see https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commercialdogwalking). Permits would
allow a maximum of six dogs per Commercial Dog Walker, and require a
business license and proof of liability insurance and dog-handling
training through existing training courses, such as those offered by
Marin Humane or San Francisco SPCA. Permit holders must also abide by
all NPS regulations. The GGNRA action is an interim compendium
amendment (2014 Superintendent's Compendium of Designations, Closures,
Permit Requirements, and Other Restrictions Imposed under Discretionary
Authority) and would remain in effect until late 2015, at which time
the final special regulation for dog walking in the GGNRA, which will
address commercial dog walking, is promulgated. The GGNRA involved the
Trust throughout the development of the interim commercial permit
requirement.
[[Page 15280]]
Aligning with the City's rather than the GGNRA permit system could
be considered a less restrictive measure reasonably available to the
Trust due to the City's higher limit on the maximum number of dogs
allowed (eight), which poses less of a financial burden on Commercial
Dog Walkers. In a local newspaper article on the subject, the author of
the City's legislation and City supervisor said that it was preferable
to be less restrictive in light of the City's ``huge population of dog
owners'' and the fact that ``many of them don't have yards'' (see
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Commercial-dog-walkers-must-follow-new-law-4665243.php). However, the NPS has expressed concern
that Commercial Dog Walkers could not consistently control more than
six dogs under voice and sight control. And while the City's Department
of Animal Care & Control enforces eight dogs as the limit for one
Commercial Dog Walker, in its Commercial Dog Walker Informational
Pamphlet, it recommends six as a maximum number (see https://www.sfgov2.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1419). GGNRA
research on the maximum number reveals that the City's regulation
allowing up to eight dogs is an outlier among jurisdictions around the
country. As caretaker of the national park site and while mindful of
the importance of equitably allocating facilities within the park, the
Trust must place a higher priority on avoiding conflict among visitor
uses, protection of environmental values, natural resources, and
cultural resources and maintaining health and safety over a minor
difference (six dogs versus eight) in addressing City residents'
particular needs in this area and affecting the individual earnings of
Commercial Dog Walkers (or otherwise having them choose to go elsewhere
to walk their dogs). In addition, adopting the City's less restrictive
measure in lieu of the GGNRA interim permit system would engender
public confusion given the Presidio's presence within the boundaries of
the GGNRA, the similar visitor experience mandates of the Trust and the
NPS, and the adjacent jurisdictions of the two land management agencies
with an unmarked boundary within the Presidio.
The Trust's limitation would go into effect on the operative date
of the GGNRA's interim commercial dog walking permit requirement, and
is anticipated to remain in effect until the GGNRA's interim action is
supplanted by a special regulation for dog walking in the GGNRA, which
will address commercial dog walking. Prior to implementation, the Trust
would conduct a public outreach and education campaign to alert
Commercial Dog Walkers and others about the use limitation. The Trust
would also post signs and provide handouts to notify park users of the
limitation in areas where dog walking is a particularly high-use
activity.
Regulatory Impact: The proposed interim rule would not have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely
affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health
or safety, or State or local or tribal governments or communities. The
proposed interim rule would 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 would result from
adoption of the proposed interim rule. Because the rule is not
``economically significant,'' it is not subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order
13536. The proposed interim 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 interim rule
would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities. The economic effect of the rule is local in nature and
negligible in scope, restricting only a single use (commercial dog
walking) in a limited geographic area (Area B of the Presidio occupies
less than four percent of the City and County of San Francisco's total
acreage) for purposes of protecting public health and safety and the
natural environment. There would be no loss of significant numbers of
jobs, as Commercial Dog Walkers would retain the flexibility to avoid
the proposed restriction and permit fees by opting to use one or more
of the available open space lands maintained by the San Francisco Park
and Recreation Department, the Port of San Francisco, and the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Among these lands are 28
specifically designated off-leash park areas for dogs throughout the
City, including the Mountain Lake Park Dog Play Area that is
immediately adjacent to Area B (see https://sfrecpark.org/parks-open-spaces/dog-play-areas-program/ for a location map for specified areas
and for information on the process for establishment of additional off-
leash areas within the City's park system).
The Trust has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that the proposed interim
rule would 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 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
mandates that federal agencies responsible for preparing environmental
analyses and documentation do so in cooperation with other governmental
agencies. The Trust is a cooperating agency with special expertise for
the GGNRA proposed interim commercial dog walking permit requirement
(as well as the special regulation for dog walking) under the NEPA and
the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (an agency is
considered to have special expertise when it has a related ``statutory
responsibility, agency mission, or . . . program experience'' (40 CFR
1508.26)). The regulatory actions by GGNRA and the Trust regarding
interim commercial dog management for Areas A and B are substantially
the same. As a cooperating agency, the Trust will support the GGNRA in
the development of information and the preparation of environmental
analyses to determine whether the actions would have a significant
effect on the environment.
Other Authorities: The Trust has drafted and reviewed the proposed
rule in light of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that it meets
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 an interim
action as set forth below:
PART 1002--RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 1002 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 460bb note.
0
2. Add Sec. 1002.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 1002.6 Commercial Dog Walking.
(a) The walking of more than six dogs at one time by any one person
for consideration (commercial dog walking) is prohibited within the
area administered by the Presidio Trust.
[[Page 15281]]
(b) The walking of more than three dogs, with a limit of six dogs,
at one time by any one person for consideration (commercial dog
walking) within the area administered by the Presidio Trust, where dog
walking is otherwise allowed, is hereby authorized provided that:
(1) That person has a valid commercial dog walking permit issued by
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA);
(2) The walking of more than three dogs, with a limit of six dogs,
is done pursuant to the conditions of that permit; and
(3) The commercial dog walker badge issued to the permittee by the
GGNRA shall be visibly displayed at all times as directed in the permit
while the permittee is engaging in commercial dog walking activities,
and shall be provided upon request to any person authorized to enforce
this provision.
Dated: March 13, 2014.
Karen A. Cook,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-06032 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P