Technical and Clarifying Edits; Criminal Violations NPS Units Nationwide, 26594-26596 [2018-12324]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26594
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
units referred to in paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d). This rule removes these
unnecessary provisions to reduce the
chance of confusion and clarify that a
uniform penalty structure applies to the
entire National Park System.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Parts 1 and 4
[NPS–WASO–24719; PPWOVPADU0/
PPMPRLE1Y.Y00000]
Blood Test Procedures
RIN 1024–AE43
Technical and Clarifying Edits;
Criminal Violations NPS Units
Nationwide
National Park Service, Interior.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This rule removes criminal
penalty provisions that are outdated and
unnecessary under federal statute. The
rule also clarifies—consistent with
recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme
Court—that, absent exigent
circumstances, a search warrant is
necessary to require a motor vehicle
operator to submit to a blood test (rather
than a breath or urine test) to measure
blood alcohol and drug content.
DATES: This rule is effective June 8,
2018.
SUMMARY:
Jay
Calhoun, NPS Regulations Program
Specialist, 1849 C Street NW,
Washington, DC 20240, (202) 513–7112,
john_calhoun@nps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Criminal Penalty Provisions
Paragraph (a) of 36 CFR 1.3 describes
the penalties for violating a provision of
NPS regulations contained in parts 1
through 7, part 9 subpart B, and parts 12
and 13 of chapter I of title 36. These
penalties are payment of a fine as
provided by law or imprisonment not
exceeding six months, or both, and
payment of the costs of all proceedings.
The authority to impose these penalties
is found in the NPS Organic Act (54
U.S.C. 100751) and 18 U.S.C. 1865. The
NPS has the authority to impose these
penalties for a violation of any
regulation relating to the use and
management of the units of the National
Park System.
Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 36 CFR
1.3 describe lesser penalties that apply
to violations of NPS regulations that
occur within units of the National Park
System that originated as military parks
or national historic sites. These
additional provisions are superfluous
because the NPS has the authority to
impose greater penalties under the NPS
Organic Act for violations of NPS
regulations that occur in any unit of the
National Park System, including those
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Jun 07, 2018
Jkt 244001
Existing NPS regulations at 36 CFR
4.23(c) state that a driver suspected of
operating a motor vehicle while under
the influence of alcohol or drugs must
submit to a blood test (if requested) for
the purpose of determining blood
alcohol and drug content. This language
could be misleading because it does not
explicitly state that—absent exigent
circumstances—a search warrant must
be present in order to require a blood
test. This is the Constitutional
requirement under the Fourth
Amendment following the U.S.
Supreme Court decisions in Missouri v.
McNeely (2013) and Birchfield v. North
Dakota (2016). This rule revises section
4.23(c) to explicitly state this general
requirement for a warrant for blood
tests. Law enforcement officers will still
have the regulatory authority to require
an operator to submit to less intrusive
tests such as the extraction of saliva,
breath tests, or urine samples without a
warrant. In practice, NPS law
enforcement officers generally stopped
requiring blood tests after the McNeely
decision in 2013.
Consistent with McNeely and
Birchfield, this rule deletes the
requirement that a suspected operator
submit to a blood test under 36 CFR
4.23(c)(1). This rule clarifies that 36 CFR
4.23(c)(2)’s prohibition on refusing tests
applies to those tests allowed under
(c)(1) (and would thus no longer apply
to the refusal of a blood test, since blood
tests have been deleted from that
paragraph). This rule creates a new 36
CFR 4.23(c)(3) that provides that absent
exigent circumstances, an operator
cannot ordinarily be required to submit
for a blood test unless it occurs through
a search warrant. Existing paragraphs
(c)(3) and (c)(4) are redesignated as
paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) but
otherwise do not change.
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 in the Office of Management and
Budget will review all significant rules.
The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not significant.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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. The NPS has
developed this rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs (Executive Order
13771)
This rule is an E.O. 13771
deregulatory action because, once
finalized, it will impose less than zero
costs by removing unnecessary criminal
penalty provisions and clarifying the
current law regarding the valid use of
blood tests to measure blood alcohol
and drug content.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
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
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 Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not
required.
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Consultation With Indian Tribes
(Executive Order 13175 and Department
Policy)
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
This rule does not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
takings 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 rule only affects use of
federally-administered lands and
waters. It has no outside effects on other
areas. A Federalism summary impact
statement is not required.
Administrative Procedure Act (Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Effective
Date)
We recognize that under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) and (c), notice of proposed rules
ordinarily must be published in the
Federal Register and the agency must
give interested parties an opportunity to
submit their views and comments. We
have determined under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
and 318 DM HB 5.3, however, that
notice and public comment for this rule
are not required. We find good cause to
treat notice and comment as
unnecessary. As discussed above, the
penalty provisions being removed are
superfluous and not used by the NPS.
The clarification that the NPS must
obtain a warrant to require a blood
sample is settled law and comports with
NPS practice since 2013. These
regulatory changes will not benefit from
public comment, and further delaying
them is contrary to the public interest.
We also recognize that rules
ordinarily do not become effective until
at least 30 days after their publication in
the Federal Register. We have
determined, however, that good cause
exists for this rule to be effective
immediately upon publication for the
reasons stated above.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order
12988)
This rule complies with the
requirements of Executive Order 12988.
This rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a)
requiring that all regulations be
reviewed to eliminate errors and
ambiguity and be written to minimize
litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2)
requiring that all regulations be written
in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Jun 07, 2018
Jkt 244001
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. The
NPS has evaluated this rule under the
criteria in Executive Order 13175 and
under the Department’s tribal
consultation policy and have
determined that tribal consultation is
not required because the rule will have
no substantial direct effect on federally
recognized Indian tribes.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements,
and a submission to the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act is not
required. The NPS may not conduct or
sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. A
detailed statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) is not required because the rule
is covered by a categorical exclusion.
We have determined the rule is
categorically excluded under 43 CFR
46.210(i) because it is administrative,
legal, and technical in nature. We also
have determined the rule does not
involve any of the extraordinary
circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215
that would require further analysis
under NEPA.
Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive
Order 13211)
This rule is not a significant energy
action under the definition in Executive
Order 13211. A Statement of Energy
Effects in not required.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 1
National parks, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Signs
and symbols.
36 CFR Part 4
National parks, Traffic regulations.
The National Park Service amends 36
CFR parts 1 and 4 as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26595
PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751,
320102.
■
2. Revise § 1.3 to read as follows:
§ 1.3
Penalties.
(a) A person convicted of violating a
provision of the regulations contained
in parts 1 through 7, part 9 subpart B,
and parts 12 and 13 of this chapter shall
be subject to the criminal penalties
provided under 18 U.S.C. 1865.
(b) [Reserved]
PART 4—VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
SAFETY
3. The authority citation for part 4
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751,
320102.
4. In § 4.23, revise paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
■
§ 4.23 Operating under the influence of
alcohol or drugs.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Tests. (1) At the request or
direction of an authorized person who
has probable cause to believe that an
operator of a motor vehicle within a
park area has violated a provision of
paragraph (a) of this section, the
operator shall submit to one or more
tests of the breath, saliva, or urine for
the purpose of determining blood
alcohol and drug content.
(2) Refusal by an operator to submit
to a test under paragraph (c)(1) is
prohibited and proof of refusal may be
admissible in any related judicial
proceeding.
(3) Absent exigent circumstances, an
operator cannot ordinarily be required
to submit blood samples for the purpose
of determining blood alcohol and drug
content unless it occurs through a
search warrant. An authorized person
who has probable cause to believe that
an operator of a motor vehicle within a
park area has violated a provision of
paragraph (a) of this section shall get a
search warrant, except when exigent
circumstances exist, to obtain any blood
samples from the operator for the
purpose of determining blood alcohol
and drug content.
(4) Any test or tests for the presence
of alcohol and drugs shall be
determined by and administered at the
direction of an authorized person.
(5) Any test shall be conducted by
using accepted scientific methods and
equipment of proven accuracy and
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
26596
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
reliability operated by personnel
certified in its use.
*
*
*
*
*
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Susan Combs,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising
the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
On February 16, 2018 (83 FR 6996),
the EPA proposed to approve the second
10-year maintenance plan for the
Douglas, Arizona SO2 maintenance area.
Submitted by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality on December 14,
2016, the Douglas second 10-year SO2
maintenance plan (‘‘plan’’)
demonstrates maintenance of the 1971
SO2 standards through 2030.
We proposed to approve the plan
because we determined that it complied
with the relevant Clean Air Act (CAA or
‘‘Act’’) requirements. Our proposed
action contains more information on the
plan and our evaluation (83 FR 6996,
February 16, 2018).
I. Proposed Action
[FR Doc. 2018–12324 Filed 6–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0537; FRL–9979–
18—Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Douglas, Arizona;
Second 10-Year Sulfur Dioxide
Maintenance Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final rulemaking
action to approve, as part of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State
of Arizona, the second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Douglas
maintenance area for the 1971 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(‘‘standards’’) for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
DATES: This final rule is effective on July
9, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0537. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ashley Graham, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3877, graham.ashleyr@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the words
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Jun 07, 2018
Jkt 244001
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
for a 30-day public comment period.
The EPA received eleven anonymous
comment letters in response to the
proposed action. All eleven comments
concerned issues that are outside the
scope of our proposed approval of the
Douglas second 10-year SO2
maintenance plan. The issues raised in
those comments include, but are not
limited to, air quality in China and
India, natural gas, mining, electric
vehicles, wind farms, and wind
turbines.
III. EPA Action
The EPA is taking final rulemaking
action to approve the Douglas second
10-year SO2 maintenance plan under
sections 110 and 175A of the CAA. As
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the
Act, the EPA is approving the submitted
SIP revision because it fulfills all
relevant requirements.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C.
7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26594-26596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12324]
[[Page 26594]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Parts 1 and 4
[NPS-WASO-24719; PPWOVPADU0/PPMPRLE1Y.Y00000]
RIN 1024-AE43
Technical and Clarifying Edits; Criminal Violations NPS Units
Nationwide
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule removes criminal penalty provisions that are
outdated and unnecessary under federal statute. The rule also
clarifies--consistent with recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court--
that, absent exigent circumstances, a search warrant is necessary to
require a motor vehicle operator to submit to a blood test (rather than
a breath or urine test) to measure blood alcohol and drug content.
DATES: This rule is effective June 8, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Calhoun, NPS Regulations Program
Specialist, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 513-7112,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Criminal Penalty Provisions
Paragraph (a) of 36 CFR 1.3 describes the penalties for violating a
provision of NPS regulations contained in parts 1 through 7, part 9
subpart B, and parts 12 and 13 of chapter I of title 36. These
penalties are payment of a fine as provided by law or imprisonment not
exceeding six months, or both, and payment of the costs of all
proceedings. The authority to impose these penalties is found in the
NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100751) and 18 U.S.C. 1865. The NPS has the
authority to impose these penalties for a violation of any regulation
relating to the use and management of the units of the National Park
System.
Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 36 CFR 1.3 describe lesser
penalties that apply to violations of NPS regulations that occur within
units of the National Park System that originated as military parks or
national historic sites. These additional provisions are superfluous
because the NPS has the authority to impose greater penalties under the
NPS Organic Act for violations of NPS regulations that occur in any
unit of the National Park System, including those units referred to in
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d). This rule removes these unnecessary
provisions to reduce the chance of confusion and clarify that a uniform
penalty structure applies to the entire National Park System.
Blood Test Procedures
Existing NPS regulations at 36 CFR 4.23(c) state that a driver
suspected of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol or drugs must submit to a blood test (if requested) for the
purpose of determining blood alcohol and drug content. This language
could be misleading because it does not explicitly state that--absent
exigent circumstances--a search warrant must be present in order to
require a blood test. This is the Constitutional requirement under the
Fourth Amendment following the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Missouri
v. McNeely (2013) and Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016). This rule
revises section 4.23(c) to explicitly state this general requirement
for a warrant for blood tests. Law enforcement officers will still have
the regulatory authority to require an operator to submit to less
intrusive tests such as the extraction of saliva, breath tests, or
urine samples without a warrant. In practice, NPS law enforcement
officers generally stopped requiring blood tests after the McNeely
decision in 2013.
Consistent with McNeely and Birchfield, this rule deletes the
requirement that a suspected operator submit to a blood test under 36
CFR 4.23(c)(1). This rule clarifies that 36 CFR 4.23(c)(2)'s
prohibition on refusing tests applies to those tests allowed under
(c)(1) (and would thus no longer apply to the refusal of a blood test,
since blood tests have been deleted from that paragraph). This rule
creates a new 36 CFR 4.23(c)(3) that provides that absent exigent
circumstances, an operator cannot ordinarily be required to submit for
a blood test unless it occurs through a search warrant. Existing
paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) are redesignated as paragraphs (c)(4) and
(c)(5) but otherwise do not change.
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 in the Office of Management and Budget will review
all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
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. The NPS has developed this
rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order
13771)
This rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action because, once
finalized, it will impose less than zero costs by removing unnecessary
criminal penalty provisions and clarifying the current law regarding
the valid use of blood tests to measure blood alcohol and drug content.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 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
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 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is
not required.
[[Page 26595]]
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have takings 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 rule only
affects use of federally-administered lands and waters. It has no
outside effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement
is not required.
Administrative Procedure Act (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Effective Date)
We recognize that under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c), notice of proposed
rules ordinarily must be published in the Federal Register and the
agency must give interested parties an opportunity to submit their
views and comments. We have determined under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and 318 DM
HB 5.3, however, that notice and public comment for this rule are not
required. We find good cause to treat notice and comment as
unnecessary. As discussed above, the penalty provisions being removed
are superfluous and not used by the NPS. The clarification that the NPS
must obtain a warrant to require a blood sample is settled law and
comports with NPS practice since 2013. These regulatory changes will
not benefit from public comment, and further delaying them is contrary
to the public interest.
We also recognize that rules ordinarily do not become effective
until at least 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register.
We have determined, however, that good cause exists for this rule to be
effective immediately upon publication for the reasons stated above.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988.
This rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department
Policy)
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its
government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a
commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their
right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated
this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the
Department's tribal consultation policy and have determined that tribal
consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial
direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and
you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not
required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. We
have determined the rule is categorically excluded under 43 CFR
46.210(i) because it is administrative, legal, and technical in nature.
We also have determined the rule does not involve any of the
extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require
further analysis under NEPA.
Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition
in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects in not
required.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 1
National parks, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Signs and symbols.
36 CFR Part 4
National parks, Traffic regulations.
The National Park Service amends 36 CFR parts 1 and 4 as follows:
PART 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102.
0
2. Revise Sec. 1.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.3 Penalties.
(a) A person convicted of violating a provision of the regulations
contained in parts 1 through 7, part 9 subpart B, and parts 12 and 13
of this chapter shall be subject to the criminal penalties provided
under 18 U.S.C. 1865.
(b) [Reserved]
PART 4--VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC SAFETY
0
3. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102.
0
4. In Sec. 4.23, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.23 Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
* * * * *
(c) Tests. (1) At the request or direction of an authorized person
who has probable cause to believe that an operator of a motor vehicle
within a park area has violated a provision of paragraph (a) of this
section, the operator shall submit to one or more tests of the breath,
saliva, or urine for the purpose of determining blood alcohol and drug
content.
(2) Refusal by an operator to submit to a test under paragraph
(c)(1) is prohibited and proof of refusal may be admissible in any
related judicial proceeding.
(3) Absent exigent circumstances, an operator cannot ordinarily be
required to submit blood samples for the purpose of determining blood
alcohol and drug content unless it occurs through a search warrant. An
authorized person who has probable cause to believe that an operator of
a motor vehicle within a park area has violated a provision of
paragraph (a) of this section shall get a search warrant, except when
exigent circumstances exist, to obtain any blood samples from the
operator for the purpose of determining blood alcohol and drug content.
(4) Any test or tests for the presence of alcohol and drugs shall
be determined by and administered at the direction of an authorized
person.
(5) Any test shall be conducted by using accepted scientific
methods and equipment of proven accuracy and
[[Page 26596]]
reliability operated by personnel certified in its use.
* * * * *
Susan Combs,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising the Authority of the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2018-12324 Filed 6-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
