National Cemeteries, Demonstration, Special Event, 33434-33436 [2014-13623]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33434
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing this final priority only
on a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that this regulatory
action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Jun 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: June 6, 2014.
Lynn B. Mahaffie,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary
Education.
[FR Doc. 2014–13654 Filed 6–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 12
[NPS–WASO–REGS–14841;
PX.XVPAD0517.00.1; 1024–AE01]
National Cemeteries, Demonstration,
Special Event
National Park Service, Interior.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Park Service is
revising the definition of the terms
demonstration and special event,
applicable to the national cemeteries
administered by the National Park
Service.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 11,
2014.
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: We
published a proposed rule on this
subject in the Federal Register on
August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53383). The
proposed rule’s comment period ended
on October 28, 2013, and resulted in
three timely submitted comments, a
portion of which were duplicative of
each other. After carefully considering
the comments, we have decided to
adopt the proposed rule unchanged. The
comments and our considerations are
summarized in this preamble under
Consideration of Comments.
SUMMARY:
Background
The National Park Service (NPS) is
responsible for protecting and managing
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
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
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 36 CFR
2.50, 2.51, and 7.96 (78 FR 14673,
March 7, 2013; 78 FR 37713, June 24,
2013).
The NPS desires to maintain
consistency in the regulations governing
demonstrations and special events in
park units, including our national
cemeteries. Accordingly, we proposed
to amend the terms demonstration and
special event in § 12.3 to mirror the
language used in 36 CFR 2.51 and 7.96.
To avoid the possibility of a decision
based on impermissible grounds, the
rule revises 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.’’ These proposed revisions
do not substantively alter the § 12.4
prohibition of special events and
demonstrations within national
cemeteries.
Consideration of Comments
Comment 1: The first commenter
suggests the phrase ‘‘that attracts or’’ be
added to the definition before the
phrase ‘‘is reasonably likely to attract.’’
The commenter suggests this would
help ‘‘avoid quarrelsome demonstrator’s
[sic] efforts to subvert the rule’s purpose
by arguing what is ‘reasonably likely’.’’
Response: After review, we believe
the suggested additional phrase is
unnecessary. As explained in the
proposed rule preamble, we believe that
a ‘‘reasonably likely’’ standard is
objective and easily and consistently
understood. Further, this same standard
has been successfully implemented in
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
NPS regulations governing
‘‘demonstrations’’ in 36 CFR 2.50, 2.51,
and 7.96.
Comment 2: The second commenter
suggests that ‘‘peaceful demonstrations
or vigils’’ should be allowed to occur in
national cemeteries if they do not
interfere with the NPS interests in
maintaining a solemn atmosphere. The
comment also suggests that while the
NPS’s revised definition is a more
objective standard, it lacks a necessary
mens rea requirement and guidance ‘‘as
to what is reasonably likely to draw a
crowd.’’
Response: After review, the NPS
respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the
proposed rule, the NPS’s national
cemeteries were established as national
shrines in tribute to the gallant dead of
our Armed Forces, and are to be
protected, managed, and administered
as suitable and dignified burial grounds
and as significant cultural resources.
These national cemeteries are intended
to have a protected atmosphere of peace,
calm, tranquility, and reverence, where
individuals should be able to quietly
contemplate and reflect upon the
significance of the contributions made
to the nation by those interred. Because
the NPS has a substantial governmental
interest to maintain this protected
atmosphere, we have determined that
even ‘‘peaceful’’ demonstrations and
vigils would have a negative impact on
the cemeteries’ atmosphere of peace,
calm, tranquility, and reverence, and
should be prohibited.
Moreover, because the NPS national
cemeteries are non-public forums, the
NPS need not prove that a ‘‘peaceful’’
demonstration or vigil threatens the
cemetery’s intended use. The Supreme
Court has said that such a determination
is not necessary for nonpublic forums,
where ‘‘[t]he State, no less than a private
owner of property, has power to
preserve property under its control for
the use to which it is lawfully
dedicated.’’ ‘‘We have not required that
[proof of past disturbances or likelihood
of future disturbances] be present to
justify the denial of access to a nonpublic forum on grounds that the
proposed use may disrupt the property’s
intended function.’’ Perry Education
Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n,
460 U.S. at 46, 52 n.12 (1983).
The NPS rule does contain an implicit
mens rea requirement, a criminal-intent
element that courts generally find
necessary for criminal regulations that
impact First Amendment activity, and
which may be found either in the rule’s
text, its regulatory history, or presumed
by the courts. Finally, for the reasons
earlier detailed, we believe that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Jun 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
‘‘reasonably likely’’ standard is well
understood.
Comment 3: The third commenter
argues that the verb form definition of
the word ‘‘conduct’’ and the phrase
‘‘casual park use’’ are ambiguous,
suggests these could be construed to
prohibit a mother who ‘‘inadvertently
lets out a wail of despair’’ at the grave
of her deceased son, and recommends
that the word ‘‘conduct’’ be deleted.
Response: After review, we believe
that neither the word nor phrase is
ambiguous, when one fully considers
the NPS’s complete two-sentence
definition. The NPS notes that the word
‘‘conduct’’ is being used in its noun
form, which addresses the manner in
which a person behaves, and which the
commenter concedes is not ambiguous.
As earlier explained, the regulation’s
‘‘reasonably likely’’ standard is also well
understood. As such, an expression of
grief that is uttered by a mother at her
son’s grave-side would not fall within
the definition of a demonstration,
especially since the national cemeteries
are ‘‘where individuals can quietly visit,
contemplate, and reflect upon the
significance’’ of the interned. (78 FR
53384, August 29, 2013)
For the reasons detailed here and in
the proposed rule, and consistent with
First Amendment jurisprudence, the
NPS is accordingly finalizing
unchanged its proposed revised
definitions of the terms demonstrations
and special events at 36 CFR 12.3.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33435
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,
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
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
33436
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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
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 the NEPA.
wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
Drafting Information: The primary
author of this regulation was C. Rose
Wilkinson, National Park Service,
Regulations and Special Park Uses,
Washington, DC.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 12
Cemeteries, Military personnel,
National parks, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Jun 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
In consideration of the foregoing, the
National Park Service amends 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 the
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
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: May 27, 2014.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014–13623 Filed 6–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–EJ–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 294
Idaho Roadless Rule
Forest Service, USDA.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service is
modifying the boundaries for the Big
Creek, Grandmother Mountain, Pinchot
Butte, Roland Point, and Wonderful
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Peak Idaho Roadless Areas on the Idaho
Panhandle National Forests to include
lands acquired within and/or adjacent
to these roadless areas. In addition, the
Forest Service is correcting mapping
errors involving Forest Plan Special
Areas in the Salmo-Priest and Upper
Priest Idaho Roadless Areas. The Forest
Service is also making an administrative
correction to add the Buckhorn Ridge
Idaho Roadless Area to the list under
the Kootenai National Forest. These
modifications and corrections are
pursuant to Forest Service regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective June
11, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne Davy, Idaho Roadless Coordinator,
USDA Forest Service, Northern Region,
200 E. Broadway, Missoula, MT 5980;
(406) 329–3314. Additional information
concerning these administrative
corrections and modifications,
including the corrected maps, may be
obtained on the Internet at https://
roadless.fs.fed.us. Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.,
Eastern Standard Time, Monday
through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The following modifications and
corrections will update five roadless
areas due to land exchanges that
occurred after the Idaho Roadless Rule
was finalized, correct two roadless area
mapping errors associated with Forest
Plan Special Areas, and correct the list
at 36 CFR 294.29 because an area had
been inappropriately shown as only
located on the Idaho Panhandle
National Forest instead of split between
the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai
National Forests. The Idaho Roadless
Rule authorizes administrative
corrections to the maps of lands
identified in 36 CFR 294.22(c),
including but not limited to, adjustment
that remedy clerical errors,
typographical errors, mapping errors, or
improvements in mapping technology.
Pursuant to 36 CFR 294.27(b), the Chief
of the Forest Service may issue
administrative corrections after a 30-day
public notice and opportunity to
comment. The Final Rule also
authorizes modifications that add to,
remove from, or modify the designations
and management classifications listed in
36 CFR 294.29 based on changed
circumstances or public need. The Chief
of the Forest Service may issue
modifications after a 45-day public
notice and opportunity to comment.
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33434-33436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13623]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 12
[NPS-WASO-REGS-14841; PX.XVPAD0517.00.1; 1024-AE01]
National Cemeteries, Demonstration, Special Event
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service is revising the definition of the
terms demonstration and special event, applicable to the national
cemeteries administered by the National Park Service.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 11, 2014.
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: We published a proposed rule on this subject
in the Federal Register on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53383). The proposed
rule's comment period ended on October 28, 2013, and resulted in three
timely submitted comments, a portion of which were duplicative of each
other. After carefully considering the comments, we have decided to
adopt the proposed rule unchanged. The comments and our considerations
are summarized in this preamble under Consideration of Comments.
Background
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for protecting and
managing 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 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.
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 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 36 CFR 2.50, 2.51, and
7.96 (78 FR 14673, March 7, 2013; 78 FR 37713, June 24, 2013).
The NPS desires to maintain consistency in the regulations
governing demonstrations and special events in park units, including
our national cemeteries. Accordingly, we proposed to amend the terms
demonstration and special event in Sec. 12.3 to mirror the language
used in 36 CFR 2.51 and 7.96. To avoid the possibility of a decision
based on impermissible grounds, the rule revises 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.'' These proposed
revisions do not substantively alter the Sec. 12.4 prohibition of
special events and demonstrations within national cemeteries.
Consideration of Comments
Comment 1: The first commenter suggests the phrase ``that attracts
or'' be added to the definition before the phrase ``is reasonably
likely to attract.'' The commenter suggests this would help ``avoid
quarrelsome demonstrator's [sic] efforts to subvert the rule's purpose
by arguing what is `reasonably likely'.''
Response: After review, we believe the suggested additional phrase
is unnecessary. As explained in the proposed rule preamble, we believe
that a ``reasonably likely'' standard is objective and easily and
consistently understood. Further, this same standard has been
successfully implemented in
[[Page 33435]]
NPS regulations governing ``demonstrations'' in 36 CFR 2.50, 2.51, and
7.96.
Comment 2: The second commenter suggests that ``peaceful
demonstrations or vigils'' should be allowed to occur in national
cemeteries if they do not interfere with the NPS interests in
maintaining a solemn atmosphere. The comment also suggests that while
the NPS's revised definition is a more objective standard, it lacks a
necessary mens rea requirement and guidance ``as to what is reasonably
likely to draw a crowd.''
Response: After review, the NPS respectfully disagrees. As detailed
in the proposed rule, the NPS's national cemeteries were established as
national shrines in tribute to the gallant dead of our Armed Forces,
and are to be protected, managed, and administered as suitable and
dignified burial grounds and as significant cultural resources. These
national cemeteries are intended to have a protected atmosphere of
peace, calm, tranquility, and reverence, where individuals should be
able to quietly contemplate and reflect upon the significance of the
contributions made to the nation by those interred. Because the NPS has
a substantial governmental interest to maintain this protected
atmosphere, we have determined that even ``peaceful'' demonstrations
and vigils would have a negative impact on the cemeteries' atmosphere
of peace, calm, tranquility, and reverence, and should be prohibited.
Moreover, because the NPS national cemeteries are non-public
forums, the NPS need not prove that a ``peaceful'' demonstration or
vigil threatens the cemetery's intended use. The Supreme Court has said
that such a determination is not necessary for nonpublic forums, where
``[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to
preserve property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully
dedicated.'' ``We have not required that [proof of past disturbances or
likelihood of future disturbances] be present to justify the denial of
access to a non-public forum on grounds that the proposed use may
disrupt the property's intended function.'' Perry Education Ass'n v.
Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. at 46, 52 n.12 (1983).
The NPS rule does contain an implicit mens rea requirement, a
criminal-intent element that courts generally find necessary for
criminal regulations that impact First Amendment activity, and which
may be found either in the rule's text, its regulatory history, or
presumed by the courts. Finally, for the reasons earlier detailed, we
believe that the ``reasonably likely'' standard is well understood.
Comment 3: The third commenter argues that the verb form definition
of the word ``conduct'' and the phrase ``casual park use'' are
ambiguous, suggests these could be construed to prohibit a mother who
``inadvertently lets out a wail of despair'' at the grave of her
deceased son, and recommends that the word ``conduct'' be deleted.
Response: After review, we believe that neither the word nor phrase
is ambiguous, when one fully considers the NPS's complete two-sentence
definition. The NPS notes that the word ``conduct'' is being used in
its noun form, which addresses the manner in which a person behaves,
and which the commenter concedes is not ambiguous. As earlier
explained, the regulation's ``reasonably likely'' standard is also well
understood. As such, an expression of grief that is uttered by a mother
at her son's grave-side would not fall within the definition of a
demonstration, especially since the national cemeteries are ``where
individuals can quietly visit, contemplate, and reflect upon the
significance'' of the interned. (78 FR 53384, August 29, 2013)
For the reasons detailed here and in the proposed rule, and
consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence, the NPS is accordingly
finalizing unchanged its proposed revised definitions of the terms
demonstrations and special events at 36 CFR 12.3.
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, 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
[[Page 33436]]
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 the
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.
Drafting Information: The primary author of this regulation was C.
Rose Wilkinson, National Park Service, Regulations and Special Park
Uses, Washington, DC.
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 amends
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 the 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 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: May 27, 2014.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-13623 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-EJ-P
