Proposed Supplementary Rules for Fort Ord National Monument, California, 76905-76908 [2016-26457]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 214 / Friday, November 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 8360
[LLCAC09400 L19200000.NU0000
XXXL1109RM LRORBX619900]
Proposed Supplementary Rules for
Fort Ord National Monument,
California
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed
supplementary rules.
AGENCY:
The California State Director
of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) is proposing to establish new
supplementary rules related to dog
management and public safety on public
lands at Fort Ord National Monument
(FONM), California.
Furthermore, these proposed rules
would clarify some of the existing
restrictions that have been in place on
the FONM since 1996. These proposed
rules are consistent with the national
monument proclamation of 2012 (i.e.,
Proclamation 8803), and the BLM’s 2007
Resource Management Plan.
DATES: Interested parties may submit
written comments regarding the
proposed supplementary rules until
January 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by mail, hand-delivery, or electronic
mail. Mail: FONM Manager, BLM,
Central Coast Field Office, 940 2nd
Avenue, Marina, CA 93933. Electronic
mail: blm_ca_fonm_dog_mgt_plan@
blm.gov.
SUMMARY:
Eric
Morgan, FONM Manager, Bureau of
Land Management, Central Coast Field
Office, 940 2nd Avenue, Marina, CA
93933, at (831) 582–2200, or emorgan@
blm.gov. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
may call the Federal Relay Service at 1–
800–877–8339 to contact the above
individual during normal business
hours. The Service is available 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, to leave a
message or question with the above
individual. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Public Comment Procedures
You may mail or email comments to
the Central Coast Field Office, at the
addresses listed above (See ADDRESSES).
Written comments on the proposed
supplementary rules should be specific
and confined to issues pertinent to the
proposed rules, and should explain the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
11:53 Nov 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
reason for any recommended change.
Where possible, comments should
reference the specific section or
paragraph of the proposal that the
commenter is addressing. The BLM is
not obligated to consider or include, in
the Administrative Record for the final
supplementary rules, comments
delivered to an address other than those
listed above (See ADDRESSES) or
comments that the BLM receives after
the close of the comment period (See
DATES), unless they are postmarked or
electronically dated before the deadline.
Comments, including names, street
addresses, and other contact
information for respondents, will be
available for public review at 940 2nd
Avenue, Marina, CA 93933, during
regular business hours (7:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays). Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your 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.
II. Background
The BLM California State Director is
proposing to establish new
supplementary rules related to dog
management and other public safety
issues for public lands on the FONM in
Monterey County, California.
Furthermore, the State Director is
supplementing some of the existing land
restrictions that have been in place on
the monument since December 5, 1996
(61 FR 64530), that are consistent with
the national monument proclamation of
2012 (i.e., Proclamation 8803), and the
BLM’s 2007 Resource Management Plan.
The proposed supplementary rules are
necessary to support the mission of the
BLM by protecting the natural resources
and enhancing the health and safety of
those using and enjoying the public
lands.
These proposed rules would
implement restrictions prescribed
within the FONM Dog Management
Plan that was approved on July 5, 2016.
The plan was analyzed under
environmental assessment DOI–BLM–
CA–C090–2016–0021–EA (Fort Ord
National Monument Dog Management
Plan), and associated Decision Record
and Finding of No Significant Impact.
The plan considered various dog
management prescriptions across the
monument within four different
planning units. One of the planning
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76905
units, the Inland Range Planning Unit,
contains extremely hazardous military
munitions and public use opportunities
are greatly limited.
III. Discussion of Proposed
Supplementary Rules
When the former Fort Ord military
installation closed in 1994, the
Secretary of the Army transferred
administration of approximately 7,205
acres to the BLM via a letter of transfer
to the Secretary of Interior on October
18, 1996. Those lands are now part of
the 14,651 acre FONM that was
designated by President Obama under
Proclamation 8803. The Army currently
manages approximately 7,446 acres of
the FONM and will transfer those lands
to the BLM for administration following
a munitions cleanup being performed
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act.
The BLM issued a notice of
emergency closure and established
restrictions on use of public lands on
the former Fort Ord on December 5,
1996 (61 FR 64530). Since that time, the
BLM has applied those restrictions as
they pertain to public use, but those
restrictions did not address management
of dogs on these public lands. On
September 7, 2007, the BLM State
Director approved a Record of Decision
for the Southern Diablo Mountain Range
and Central Coast of California Resource
Management Plan (RMP) that directed
the BLM’s Central Coast Field Office to
develop a dog management plan for
FONM due to conflicts between visitors,
attacks on livestock, and impacts to
wildlife. On April 8, 2015, the BLM
notified the public of its intent to
develop a dog management plan and,
using the 1996 emergency closure,
initiated an interim dog leash restriction
on public lands at FONM due to
increasing conflicts between visitors,
attacks on livestock, hazards from
munitions, and impacts to wildlife. The
BLM held three public scoping
workshops (July 28 and 29, 2015, and
August 5, 2015) to solicit public input
on the development of the draft dog
management plan. The proposed
supplementary rules are the logical
conclusion of the dog management
planning process.
On May 17, 2016, the BLM released
the Draft FONM Dog Management Plan
and associated environmental
assessment (DOI–BLM–CA–C090–2016–
0021–EA) for a 30 day comment period.
The proposed supplementary rules were
included with the draft plan and were
analyzed within the environmental
assessment. One comment was made on
the proposed supplementary rules that
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
76906
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 214 / Friday, November 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
resulted in a minor editorial change
regarding the definition of ‘‘yield’’ as is
described in the proposed rule text.
On July 5, 2016 the BLM approved the
Final FONM Dog Management Plan and
associated environmental assessment
(DOI–BLM–CA–C090–2016–0021–EA).
The proposed supplementary rules
(when approved) will supplement some
of the December 1996 restrictions and
April 2015 restrictions under 43 CFR
8364.1 and 43 CFR 8341.2 and enact
new rules that are specified in the Final
FONM Dog Management Plan. The
proposed supplementary rules also
would implement existing Monterey
County ordinances germane to dog use
under 43 CFR 8365.1–6, 43 U.S.C.
1733(a), 16 U.S.C. 670h(c)(5), and 43
U.S.C. 315a that were disclosed and
analyzed within the approved plan.
The proposed supplementary rules
are broken into three categories.
Proposed supplementary rules
numbered 1 through 9 are new and
would implement new direction from
the approved dog management plan.
Proposed supplementary rules 10
through 15 are not new, but would
implement previous restrictions that
were established in 1996 (see 61 FR
64530) and that are consistent with the
national monument proclamation of
2012 (i.e. Proclamation 8803), and the
BLM 2007 Resource Management Plan.
Finally, proposed supplementary rules
16 and 17 are existing Monterey County
ordinances that the BLM proposes to
adopt as supplementary rules in order to
facilitate cooperation between BLM
rangers and local law enforcement
officials.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
The proposed supplementary rules
are not a significant regulatory action
and are not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
They would not have an effect of $100
million or more on the economy. The
proposed supplementary rules would
not adversely affect in a material way
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health and
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. The
proposed supplementary rules would
not create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency. The
proposed supplementary rules would
not alter the budgetary effects of
entitlements, grants, user fees or loan
programs, or the rights or obligations of
their recipients, nor do they raise novel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
11:53 Nov 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
legal or policy issues. They would
merely impose rules of conduct and
impose other limitations on certain
recreational and commercial activities
on certain public lands to protect
natural resources and human health and
safety.
Clarity of the Supplementary Rules
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write regulations that are
simple and easy to understand. The
BLM invites your comments on how to
make these proposed supplementary
rules easier to understand, including
answers to questions such as the
following:
(1) Are the requirements in the
supplementary rules clearly stated?
(2) Do the supplementary rules
contain technical language or jargon that
interferes with their clarity?
(3) Does the format of the
supplementary rules (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce clarity?
(4) Would the supplementary rules be
easier to understand if they were
divided into more (but shorter) sections?
(5) Is the description of the
supplementary rules in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this preamble helpful in understanding
the supplementary rules? How could
this description be more helpful in
making the supplementary rules easier
to understand?
Please send any comments you have
on the clarity of the rule to the
addresses specified in the ADDRESSES
section.
National Environmental Policy Act
The BLM has prepared an
environmental assessment (EA) that
analyzed different dog management
alternatives on FONM under Section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C). On July 5, 2016, the BLM
approved the Final FONM Dog
Management Plan and associated
environmental assessment (DOI–BLM–
CA–C090–2016–0021–EA). The
proposed supplementary rules are also
consistent with the Record of Decision
for the Southern Diablo Mountain Range
and Central Coast of California RMP
approved in 2007.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Congress enacted the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, to ensure
that government regulations do not
unnecessarily or disproportionately
burden small entities. The RFA requires
a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule
would have a significant economic
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
impact, either detrimental or beneficial,
on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed supplementary
rules would merely impose reasonable
restrictions on certain recreational or
commercial activities on public lands in
order to protect natural resources and
the environment, and provide for
human health and safety. Therefore, the
BLM has determined under the RFA
that the proposed supplementary rules
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
The proposed supplementary rules
are not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined under
5 U.S.C. 804(2). The proposed
supplementary rules would merely
revise the rules of conduct for public
use of limited areas of public lands and
would not affect commercial or business
activities of any kind.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The proposed supplementary rules
would not impose an unfunded
mandate of more than $100 million per
year; on State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate; or on the
private sector; nor would they have a
significant or unique effect on small
governments. The proposed
supplementary rules would have no
effect on governmental or tribal entities
and would impose no requirements on
any of these entities. The proposed
supplementary rules would merely
revise the rules of conduct for public
use of limited areas of public lands and
would not affect tribal, commercial, or
business activities of any kind.
Therefore, the BLM is not required to
prepare a statement containing the
information required by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act at 2 U.S.C. 1531.
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights (Takings)
The proposed supplementary rules do
not represent a government action
capable of interfering with
constitutionally protected property
rights. Therefore, the BLM has
determined that the proposed
supplementary rules would not cause a
taking of private property or require
further discussion of takings
implications under this Executive order.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The proposed supplementary rules
would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 214 / Friday, November 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore,
in accordance with Executive Order
13132, the BLM has determined that the
proposed supplementary rules would
not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a
federalism assessment.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform
Under Executive Order 12988, the
BLM has determined that the proposed
supplementary rules would not unduly
burden the judicial system, and that
they meet the requirements of sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order
12988.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order
13175, the BLM has found that the
proposed supplementary rules do not
include policies that would have tribal
implications. The proposed
supplementary rules would merely
revise the rules of conduct for public
use of limited areas of public lands.
Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of
Cooperative Conservation
In accordance with Executive Order
13352, the BLM has determined that
these proposed consolidated
supplementary rules would not impede
facilitating cooperative conservation;
would take appropriate account of and
consider the interests of persons with
ownership or other legally recognized
interests in land or other natural
resources. The rules would properly
accommodate local participation in the
Federal decision-making process, and
would provide that the programs,
projects, and activities are consistent
with protecting public health and safety.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Information Quality Act
In developing these proposed
supplementary rules, the BLM did not
conduct or use a study, experiment, or
survey requiring peer review under the
Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–
554). In accordance with the
Information Quality Act, the DOI has
issued guidance regarding the quality of
information that it relies on for
regulatory decisions. This guidance is
available on the DOI’s Web site at https://
www.doi.gov/ocio/information_
management/iq.cfm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
11:53 Nov 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
76907
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Under Executive Order 13211, the
BLM has determined that the proposed
supplementary rules would not
comprise a significant energy action,
and that they would not have an adverse
effect on energy supplies, production, or
consumption.
Unattended dog means any dog that is
unaccompanied by an owner and/or
handler whether on tether or otherwise.
Yield means slowing or stopping
forward progress to a point where it is
possible to safely pass another visitor
without injuring, startling, or surprising
that visitor. For bicycles, the passing
speed shall be no greater than 10 mph
on roads, and 5 mph on single-track
trails.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed supplementary rules do
not directly provide for any information
collection that the Office of
Management and Budget must approve
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. Moreover,
any information collection that may
result from Federal criminal
investigations or prosecutions
conducted under the proposed
supplementary rules are exempt from
the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 3518(c)(1).
Prohibited Acts
Author
The principal author of these
proposed supplementary rules is Eric
Morgan, Monument Manager, Central
Coast Field Office, 940 2nd Avenue,
Marina, CA 93933.
Proposed Supplementary Rules
For the reasons stated in the preamble
and under the authorities for
supplementary rules found under 43
CFR 8365.1–6, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), 16
U.S.C. 670h(c)(5), and 43 U.S.C. 315a,
the BLM California State Director
proposes to issue supplementary rules
for public lands managed by the BLM
within the boundaries of the FONM, to
read as follows:
Definitions
Designated route means any road or
trail that the BLM has signed and shown
on trail maps where public use is
authorized.
Dog means any domestic dog that is
not classified as a ‘‘service animal.’’
‘‘Off-leash-opportunity-route’’ means
a specific road or trail on FONM that
has been designated by the BLM to
allow some opportunities for dogs to be
off leash under specific circumstances.
Service animal means a dog that is
individually trained to do work or
perform tasks for people with
disabilities as covered under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Street-legal vehicle means a vehicle,
such as an automobile, motorcycle, or
light truck, that is equipped and
licensed for use on a public street and/
or highway and that is subject to
registration under the California Vehicle
Code 4000(a)(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Unless otherwise authorized by the
BLM, the following prohibitions apply
to all BLM-managed public lands on the
Fort Ord National Monument (FONM):
Proposed Supplementary Rules From
the Dog Management Plan
1. You must not bring a dog into the
Inland Range Planning Unit. Service
animals accompanying a disabled
person as accommodated by the
Americans with Disabilities Act are
excluded from this provision.
2. You must physically restrain, or
keep your dog(s) on a leash or cord not
to exceed 6 feet in length, at all times
while you are on a road or trail that has
not been designated as an ‘‘off-leashopportunity-route.’’
3. You and/or your dog must not walk
or roam off a designated route,
including any route designated as an
‘‘off-leash-opportunity route.’’
4. You must physically restrain, or
keep your dog on a leash or cord not to
exceed 6 feet in length, on a designated
‘‘off-leash-opportunity-route’’ when you
are within 100 feet of another person
and/or dog that is not with your party.
5. You must not allow your dog to
roam over 50 feet away from you while
on a designated ‘‘off-leash-opportunityroute.’’
6. You must not allow your dog to
enter any vernal pool or pond, or roam
within 20 feet of any such area, unless
you and your dog are on a route
designated for public use.
7. You must carry a leash for each dog
you have with you.
8. You are prohibited from leaving a
dog unattended, even if on tether,
within a crate, or within an unoccupied
motor vehicle.
9. Visitors must yield the path, on
both roads and trails, to other visitors in
the following manner: Bicycles must
yield to pedestrians and equestrians;
and pedestrians must yield to
equestrians. For bicycles, the passing
speed shall be no greater than 10 mph
on roads, and 5 mph on single-track
trails.
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
76908
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 214 / Friday, November 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Proposed Supplementary Rules That
Clarify Existing Restrictions Established
in 1996 and Direction From the 2007
Record of Decision
10. Motorized vehicles and other
motorized devices, including electronic
bicycles, are prohibited on all roads and
trails excluding Creekside Terrace Road
and Badger Hills Driveway. Motorized
vehicle use on these two roadways is
restricted to highway licensed streetlegal vehicles.
11. Use and/or occupancy of all lands
within the FONM, including leaving
personal property unattended, is
prohibited between 1⁄2 hour after sunset
and 1⁄2 hour before sunrise.
12. All use (including pet use) is
restricted to designated routes and
trails. Open routes and trails are
indicated on BLM maps and signed with
route or trail markers. Any unsigned
route which does not appear on the
most current BLM map is closed to all
uses.
13. Campfires and other open flame
fires are prohibited.
14. Possession or discharge of
fireworks, including ‘‘safe and sane’’
fireworks, is prohibited.
15. Wood cutting and the collection of
downed wood are prohibited.
Proposed FONM Supplementary Rules
That Are Currently Monterey County
Ordinances
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16. It shall be unlawful for the owner
or person having custody of any dog,
either willfully or through failure to
exercise due care or control, to allow
said dog to defecate and to allow the
feces thereafter to remain on FONM
other than within trash receptacles
provided for such purposes. This
includes bagged feces—Reference
Monterey County ordinance, 8.36.030.
17. All dogs under four months of age
shall be kept under physical restraint by
the owner, keeper, or harborer when on
FONM—Reference Monterey County
ordinance, 8.20.020.
18. Dogs on FONM shall wear a
license tag with or without a chip
implant at all times. The tag shall be
attached at all times to a collar, harness,
or other suitable device upon the dog for
which the license tag was issued—
Reference Monterey County ordinance,
8.08.040.
Exemptions
The following persons are exempt
from these supplementary rules: Any
Federal, State, or local officer or
employee in the scope of their duties;
members of any organized law
enforcement, rescue, or fire-fighting
force in performance of an official duty;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
11:53 Nov 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
and any person whose activities are
authorized in writing by the BLM.
Enforcement
Any person who violates any of these
supplementary rules may be tried before
a United States Magistrate and fined in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571,
imprisoned no more than 12 months
under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR
8360.0–7, or both.
In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1–7,
State or local officials may also impose
penalties for violations of California
law.
Jerome E. Perez,
State Director, California.
[FR Doc. 2016–26457 Filed 11–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
RIN 0648–BG18
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;
Amendment 43
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf)
Fishery Management Council (Gulf
Council) has submitted Amendment 43
to the Fishery Management Plan for the
Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of
Mexico (FMP) for review, approval, and
implementation by NMFS. If approved
by the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary), Amendment 43 would
revise the hogfish fishery management
unit (FMU) to be the West Florida stock
and define the geographic range of this
stock consistent with the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council’s (South
Atlantic Council) proposed boundary
between the Florida Keys/East Florida
and West Florida stocks, set the status
determination criteria (SDC) and annual
catch limits (ACLs) for the West Florida
stock, increase the minimum size limit
for the West Florida stock, and remove
the powerhead exception for harvest of
hogfish in the Gulf reef fish stressed
area. The purpose of Amendment 43 is
to establish management measures for
the West Florida hogfish stock in the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Gulf using the best scientific
information available.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by January 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on Amendment 43 identified by
‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2016–0126’’ by either
of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20160126, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit all written comments
to Peter Hood, NMFS Southeast
Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Electronic copies of Amendment 43,
which includes an environmental
assessment, a fishery impact statement,
a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis,
and a regulatory impact review, may be
obtained from www.regulations.gov or
the Southeast Regional Office Web site
at https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/
sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/
reef_fish/2016/am43/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Hood, NMFS Southeast Regional
Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
peter.hood@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each
regional fishery management council to
submit any FMP or amendment to
NMFS for review and approval, partial
approval, or disapproval. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires
that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or
amendment, publish an announcement
in the Federal Register notifying the
public that the FMP or amendment is
available for review and comment.
The FMP being revised by
Amendment 43 was prepared by the
Gulf Council and, if approved, would be
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76905-76908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26457]
[[Page 76905]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 8360
[LLCAC09400 L19200000.NU0000 XXXL1109RM LRORBX619900]
Proposed Supplementary Rules for Fort Ord National Monument,
California
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed supplementary rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The California State Director of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) is proposing to establish new supplementary rules related to dog
management and public safety on public lands at Fort Ord National
Monument (FONM), California.
Furthermore, these proposed rules would clarify some of the
existing restrictions that have been in place on the FONM since 1996.
These proposed rules are consistent with the national monument
proclamation of 2012 (i.e., Proclamation 8803), and the BLM's 2007
Resource Management Plan.
DATES: Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the
proposed supplementary rules until January 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by mail, hand-delivery, or
electronic mail. Mail: FONM Manager, BLM, Central Coast Field Office,
940 2nd Avenue, Marina, CA 93933. Electronic mail:
blm_ca_fonm_dog_mgt_plan@blm.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Morgan, FONM Manager, Bureau of
Land Management, Central Coast Field Office, 940 2nd Avenue, Marina, CA
93933, at (831) 582-2200, or emorgan@blm.gov. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal
business hours. The Service is available 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You
will receive a reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
You may mail or email comments to the Central Coast Field Office,
at the addresses listed above (See ADDRESSES). Written comments on the
proposed supplementary rules should be specific and confined to issues
pertinent to the proposed rules, and should explain the reason for any
recommended change. Where possible, comments should reference the
specific section or paragraph of the proposal that the commenter is
addressing. The BLM is not obligated to consider or include, in the
Administrative Record for the final supplementary rules, comments
delivered to an address other than those listed above (See ADDRESSES)
or comments that the BLM receives after the close of the comment period
(See DATES), unless they are postmarked or electronically dated before
the deadline.
Comments, including names, street addresses, and other contact
information for respondents, will be available for public review at 940
2nd Avenue, Marina, CA 93933, during regular business hours (7:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays). Before
including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your
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.
II. Background
The BLM California State Director is proposing to establish new
supplementary rules related to dog management and other public safety
issues for public lands on the FONM in Monterey County, California.
Furthermore, the State Director is supplementing some of the existing
land restrictions that have been in place on the monument since
December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64530), that are consistent with the national
monument proclamation of 2012 (i.e., Proclamation 8803), and the BLM's
2007 Resource Management Plan. The proposed supplementary rules are
necessary to support the mission of the BLM by protecting the natural
resources and enhancing the health and safety of those using and
enjoying the public lands.
These proposed rules would implement restrictions prescribed within
the FONM Dog Management Plan that was approved on July 5, 2016. The
plan was analyzed under environmental assessment DOI-BLM-CA-C090-2016-
0021-EA (Fort Ord National Monument Dog Management Plan), and
associated Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact. The
plan considered various dog management prescriptions across the
monument within four different planning units. One of the planning
units, the Inland Range Planning Unit, contains extremely hazardous
military munitions and public use opportunities are greatly limited.
III. Discussion of Proposed Supplementary Rules
When the former Fort Ord military installation closed in 1994, the
Secretary of the Army transferred administration of approximately 7,205
acres to the BLM via a letter of transfer to the Secretary of Interior
on October 18, 1996. Those lands are now part of the 14,651 acre FONM
that was designated by President Obama under Proclamation 8803. The
Army currently manages approximately 7,446 acres of the FONM and will
transfer those lands to the BLM for administration following a
munitions cleanup being performed under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
The BLM issued a notice of emergency closure and established
restrictions on use of public lands on the former Fort Ord on December
5, 1996 (61 FR 64530). Since that time, the BLM has applied those
restrictions as they pertain to public use, but those restrictions did
not address management of dogs on these public lands. On September 7,
2007, the BLM State Director approved a Record of Decision for the
Southern Diablo Mountain Range and Central Coast of California Resource
Management Plan (RMP) that directed the BLM's Central Coast Field
Office to develop a dog management plan for FONM due to conflicts
between visitors, attacks on livestock, and impacts to wildlife. On
April 8, 2015, the BLM notified the public of its intent to develop a
dog management plan and, using the 1996 emergency closure, initiated an
interim dog leash restriction on public lands at FONM due to increasing
conflicts between visitors, attacks on livestock, hazards from
munitions, and impacts to wildlife. The BLM held three public scoping
workshops (July 28 and 29, 2015, and August 5, 2015) to solicit public
input on the development of the draft dog management plan. The proposed
supplementary rules are the logical conclusion of the dog management
planning process.
On May 17, 2016, the BLM released the Draft FONM Dog Management
Plan and associated environmental assessment (DOI-BLM-CA-C090-2016-
0021-EA) for a 30 day comment period. The proposed supplementary rules
were included with the draft plan and were analyzed within the
environmental assessment. One comment was made on the proposed
supplementary rules that
[[Page 76906]]
resulted in a minor editorial change regarding the definition of
``yield'' as is described in the proposed rule text.
On July 5, 2016 the BLM approved the Final FONM Dog Management Plan
and associated environmental assessment (DOI-BLM-CA-C090-2016-0021-EA).
The proposed supplementary rules (when approved) will supplement some
of the December 1996 restrictions and April 2015 restrictions under 43
CFR 8364.1 and 43 CFR 8341.2 and enact new rules that are specified in
the Final FONM Dog Management Plan. The proposed supplementary rules
also would implement existing Monterey County ordinances germane to dog
use under 43 CFR 8365.1-6, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), 16 U.S.C. 670h(c)(5), and
43 U.S.C. 315a that were disclosed and analyzed within the approved
plan.
The proposed supplementary rules are broken into three categories.
Proposed supplementary rules numbered 1 through 9 are new and would
implement new direction from the approved dog management plan. Proposed
supplementary rules 10 through 15 are not new, but would implement
previous restrictions that were established in 1996 (see 61 FR 64530)
and that are consistent with the national monument proclamation of 2012
(i.e. Proclamation 8803), and the BLM 2007 Resource Management Plan.
Finally, proposed supplementary rules 16 and 17 are existing Monterey
County ordinances that the BLM proposes to adopt as supplementary rules
in order to facilitate cooperation between BLM rangers and local law
enforcement officials.
IV. Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
The proposed supplementary rules are not a significant regulatory
action and are not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. They would not have an
effect of $100 million or more on the economy. The proposed
supplementary rules would not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health and safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities. The proposed supplementary rules would not create a
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency. The proposed supplementary rules would not
alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan
programs, or the rights or obligations of their recipients, nor do they
raise novel legal or policy issues. They would merely impose rules of
conduct and impose other limitations on certain recreational and
commercial activities on certain public lands to protect natural
resources and human health and safety.
Clarity of the Supplementary Rules
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are simple and easy to understand. The BLM invites your comments
on how to make these proposed supplementary rules easier to understand,
including answers to questions such as the following:
(1) Are the requirements in the supplementary rules clearly stated?
(2) Do the supplementary rules contain technical language or jargon
that interferes with their clarity?
(3) Does the format of the supplementary rules (grouping and order
of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce
clarity?
(4) Would the supplementary rules be easier to understand if they
were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
(5) Is the description of the supplementary rules in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in
understanding the supplementary rules? How could this description be
more helpful in making the supplementary rules easier to understand?
Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the rule to the
addresses specified in the ADDRESSES section.
National Environmental Policy Act
The BLM has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzed
different dog management alternatives on FONM under Section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C). On July 5, 2016, the BLM approved the Final FONM Dog
Management Plan and associated environmental assessment (DOI-BLM-CA-
C090-2016-0021-EA). The proposed supplementary rules are also
consistent with the Record of Decision for the Southern Diablo Mountain
Range and Central Coast of California RMP approved in 2007.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not
unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA
requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a
substantial number of small entities. The proposed supplementary rules
would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational or
commercial activities on public lands in order to protect natural
resources and the environment, and provide for human health and safety.
Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA that the proposed
supplementary rules would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The proposed supplementary rules are not a ``major rule'' as
defined under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The proposed supplementary rules would
merely revise the rules of conduct for public use of limited areas of
public lands and would not affect commercial or business activities of
any kind.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The proposed supplementary rules would not impose an unfunded
mandate of more than $100 million per year; on State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate; or on the private sector; nor would they
have a significant or unique effect on small governments. The proposed
supplementary rules would have no effect on governmental or tribal
entities and would impose no requirements on any of these entities. The
proposed supplementary rules would merely revise the rules of conduct
for public use of limited areas of public lands and would not affect
tribal, commercial, or business activities of any kind. Therefore, the
BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information
required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act at 2 U.S.C. 1531.
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings)
The proposed supplementary rules do not represent a government
action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property
rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that the proposed
supplementary rules would not cause a taking of private property or
require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive
order.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The proposed supplementary rules would not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and
[[Page 76907]]
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with
Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that the proposed
supplementary rules would not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM has determined that the
proposed supplementary rules would not unduly burden the judicial
system, and that they meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that
the proposed supplementary rules do not include policies that would
have tribal implications. The proposed supplementary rules would merely
revise the rules of conduct for public use of limited areas of public
lands.
Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation
In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined
that these proposed consolidated supplementary rules would not impede
facilitating cooperative conservation; would take appropriate account
of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other
legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources. The
rules would properly accommodate local participation in the Federal
decision-making process, and would provide that the programs, projects,
and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.
Information Quality Act
In developing these proposed supplementary rules, the BLM did not
conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review
under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554). In accordance with
the Information Quality Act, the DOI has issued guidance regarding the
quality of information that it relies on for regulatory decisions. This
guidance is available on the DOI's Web site at https://www.doi.gov/ocio/information_management/iq.cfm.
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Under Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined that the
proposed supplementary rules would not comprise a significant energy
action, and that they would not have an adverse effect on energy
supplies, production, or consumption.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed supplementary rules do not directly provide for any
information collection that the Office of Management and Budget must
approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
Moreover, any information collection that may result from Federal
criminal investigations or prosecutions conducted under the proposed
supplementary rules are exempt from the provisions of 44 U.S.C.
3518(c)(1).
Author
The principal author of these proposed supplementary rules is Eric
Morgan, Monument Manager, Central Coast Field Office, 940 2nd Avenue,
Marina, CA 93933.
Proposed Supplementary Rules
For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities
for supplementary rules found under 43 CFR 8365.1-6, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a),
16 U.S.C. 670h(c)(5), and 43 U.S.C. 315a, the BLM California State
Director proposes to issue supplementary rules for public lands managed
by the BLM within the boundaries of the FONM, to read as follows:
Definitions
Designated route means any road or trail that the BLM has signed
and shown on trail maps where public use is authorized.
Dog means any domestic dog that is not classified as a ``service
animal.''
``Off-leash-opportunity-route'' means a specific road or trail on
FONM that has been designated by the BLM to allow some opportunities
for dogs to be off leash under specific circumstances.
Service animal means a dog that is individually trained to do work
or perform tasks for people with disabilities as covered under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Street-legal vehicle means a vehicle, such as an automobile,
motorcycle, or light truck, that is equipped and licensed for use on a
public street and/or highway and that is subject to registration under
the California Vehicle Code 4000(a)(1).
Unattended dog means any dog that is unaccompanied by an owner and/
or handler whether on tether or otherwise.
Yield means slowing or stopping forward progress to a point where
it is possible to safely pass another visitor without injuring,
startling, or surprising that visitor. For bicycles, the passing speed
shall be no greater than 10 mph on roads, and 5 mph on single-track
trails.
Prohibited Acts
Unless otherwise authorized by the BLM, the following prohibitions
apply to all BLM-managed public lands on the Fort Ord National Monument
(FONM):
Proposed Supplementary Rules From the Dog Management Plan
1. You must not bring a dog into the Inland Range Planning Unit.
Service animals accompanying a disabled person as accommodated by the
Americans with Disabilities Act are excluded from this provision.
2. You must physically restrain, or keep your dog(s) on a leash or
cord not to exceed 6 feet in length, at all times while you are on a
road or trail that has not been designated as an ``off-leash-
opportunity-route.''
3. You and/or your dog must not walk or roam off a designated
route, including any route designated as an ``off-leash-opportunity
route.''
4. You must physically restrain, or keep your dog on a leash or
cord not to exceed 6 feet in length, on a designated ``off-leash-
opportunity-route'' when you are within 100 feet of another person and/
or dog that is not with your party.
5. You must not allow your dog to roam over 50 feet away from you
while on a designated ``off-leash-opportunity-route.''
6. You must not allow your dog to enter any vernal pool or pond, or
roam within 20 feet of any such area, unless you and your dog are on a
route designated for public use.
7. You must carry a leash for each dog you have with you.
8. You are prohibited from leaving a dog unattended, even if on
tether, within a crate, or within an unoccupied motor vehicle.
9. Visitors must yield the path, on both roads and trails, to other
visitors in the following manner: Bicycles must yield to pedestrians
and equestrians; and pedestrians must yield to equestrians. For
bicycles, the passing speed shall be no greater than 10 mph on roads,
and 5 mph on single-track trails.
[[Page 76908]]
Proposed Supplementary Rules That Clarify Existing Restrictions
Established in 1996 and Direction From the 2007 Record of Decision
10. Motorized vehicles and other motorized devices, including
electronic bicycles, are prohibited on all roads and trails excluding
Creekside Terrace Road and Badger Hills Driveway. Motorized vehicle use
on these two roadways is restricted to highway licensed street-legal
vehicles.
11. Use and/or occupancy of all lands within the FONM, including
leaving personal property unattended, is prohibited between \1/2\ hour
after sunset and \1/2\ hour before sunrise.
12. All use (including pet use) is restricted to designated routes
and trails. Open routes and trails are indicated on BLM maps and signed
with route or trail markers. Any unsigned route which does not appear
on the most current BLM map is closed to all uses.
13. Campfires and other open flame fires are prohibited.
14. Possession or discharge of fireworks, including ``safe and
sane'' fireworks, is prohibited.
15. Wood cutting and the collection of downed wood are prohibited.
Proposed FONM Supplementary Rules That Are Currently Monterey County
Ordinances
16. It shall be unlawful for the owner or person having custody of
any dog, either willfully or through failure to exercise due care or
control, to allow said dog to defecate and to allow the feces
thereafter to remain on FONM other than within trash receptacles
provided for such purposes. This includes bagged feces--Reference
Monterey County ordinance, 8.36.030.
17. All dogs under four months of age shall be kept under physical
restraint by the owner, keeper, or harborer when on FONM--Reference
Monterey County ordinance, 8.20.020.
18. Dogs on FONM shall wear a license tag with or without a chip
implant at all times. The tag shall be attached at all times to a
collar, harness, or other suitable device upon the dog for which the
license tag was issued--Reference Monterey County ordinance, 8.08.040.
Exemptions
The following persons are exempt from these supplementary rules:
Any Federal, State, or local officer or employee in the scope of their
duties; members of any organized law enforcement, rescue, or fire-
fighting force in performance of an official duty; and any person whose
activities are authorized in writing by the BLM.
Enforcement
Any person who violates any of these supplementary rules may be
tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18
U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a)
and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both.
In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may
also impose penalties for violations of California law.
Jerome E. Perez,
State Director, California.
[FR Doc. 2016-26457 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P