[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14673-14681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05249]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
[NPS-NCR-10414] [PPNCNAMA00, PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000]
RIN 1024-AD89
Special Regulation; Areas of the National Park System, National
Capital Region, Demonstrations and Special Events
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the National Park Service, are amending the regulations on
demonstrations and special events for the National Capital Region. This
rule revises the definition of ``demonstration,'' lifts the prior
regulatory ban on soliciting money or funds but requires a permit for
the in-person solicitation of money or funds on Federal park land, and
revises an introductory sentence prohibiting demonstrations or special
events in designated memorial areas. This rule also changes the name of
the permit office to the Division of Permits Management.
DATES: Effective Date: April 8, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisa Richardson, Acting Chief,
Division of Permits Management, 900 Ohio Drive SW., Washington, DC
20024, Telephone: 202-245-4715.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction and Background
We published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on January 3,
2011 (76 FR 57) and provided a 60-day period for public review and
comment that closed on March 4, 2011. In this rule we proposed to:
Revise the definition of ``demonstration'' at 36 CFR
7.96(g)(1)(i) by replacing the phrase ``intent or propensity'' with the
phrase ``reasonably likely.'' This change was based upon the court's
decision in Boardley v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 605 F. Supp.
2d 8 (D.D.C. 2009), holding that the prior phrase granted overly broad
discretion to NPS personnel in the permit process, which may result in
an impermissible regulation of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Amend 36 CFR 7.96(h) to allow solicitation of gifts,
money, goods, or services funds as part of a permit issued for a
demonstration or special event, to be consistent with the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
[[Page 14674]]
Columbia decision in ISKCON of Potomac v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 949 (DC Cir.
1995).
Amend the introductory sentence to 36 CFR 7.96(g)(3)(ii)
to more clearly indicate that demonstrations or special events are not
allowed in certain designated memorial areas.
Analysis of Comments
We received a total of 12 timely written comments on the proposed
rule. Six comments came from individuals associated with Stanford Law
School; five comments came from members of the general public; and one
comment came from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of the
National Capital Area. We have reviewed the comments and decided to
publish the proposed regulation as a final regulation with one change.
In response to comments, we are revising the final rule to center
more narrowly on in-person solicitation for money or funds for donation
on Federal park lands as part of a permit issued for a demonstration or
special event. Besides reaffirming the explanations found in our
earlier rulemaking, we offer the following responses to the various
issues raised by the comments.
Revised Definition of Demonstration--36 CFR 7.96(g)(1)
As detailed in the proposed rule, the revised definition of
demonstration at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(1)(i) eliminates the term ``intent or
propensity'' and replaces it with the term ``reasonably likely.'' In
Boardley, the District Court commented that this part of the current
regulatory definition could raise problems, because it allowed NPS
officials to restrict speech based on their determination that a person
intended to draw a crowd with his or her conduct. The Court reasoned
that this determination could rest on impermissible grounds, such as an
official's perception that certain expression is controversial or
inappropriate, which would be a content-based decision and therefore
impermissible under the First Amendment. This portion of the District
Court's decision was not appealed. While we have not applied the
regulation in such an impermissible manner and have since issued a
clarifying memorandum to preclude such a determination, this revised
definition of ``demonstration'' will minimize the possibility of a
decision being based on impermissible grounds.
Some comments focused on our revised narrowed definition of a
demonstration. Two comments favored the change, noting that it would
encourage, among other things, greater transparency and consistency
within the NPS. The ACLU also supported the definitional change,
finding it to be more objective and not lending itself to a subjective,
and perhaps biased, judgment.
Other commenters expressed concern that the narrowed definition was
still insufficient, believing that it contained an impermissible
content-based regulation of speech. These comments stated that park
personnel may be likely to refer to the content of speech when
determining whether conduct is ``reasonably likely'' to draw a crowd.
As a remedy, some commenters suggested that the definition use the term
``has the effect or express intent of drawing a crowd,'' while others
suggested including a mandate that directs park officials not to
consider the content of speech when determining whether a permit is
required.
We believe that our narrowed definition addresses the District
Court's concerns in Boardley, and is designed to be applied by park
personnel in an objective, fair, and even-handed manner, regardless of
the identity or cause of demonstrators. We believe that the use of the
``reasonably likely'' standard ensures the necessary objectivity in the
regulatory process, while negating the possibility of a permit being
granted or rejected on impermissible grounds. In addition, we consider
the ``reasonably likely'' standard to be easily and consistently
understood, thus preventing us from regulating First Amendment
activities more than necessary to further our legitimate interests.
We also expect that park officials will continue to comply with NPS
policies that already specifically prohibit impermissible content-based
discrimination of First Amendment activities. See NPS Management
Policies Sec. 8.6.3 (2006) (``No group wishing to assemble lawfully
may be discriminated against or denied the right of assembly provided
that all permit conditions are met''); NPS Director's Order 53 Sec.
9.1 (2010) (``Note that it is the conduct associated with the exercise
of these [First Amendment] rights that is regulated, and never the
content of the message.''); NPS RM-53 Appendix 3, Page A3-1 (April
2000) (``It should be noted that it is the conduct associated with the
exercise of these [First Amendment] rights that is regulated, and never
the content of the message'') (emphasis in original).
Finally, one commenter expressed concerns that the ``casual park
use'' exclusion found in the definition was vague and may not include a
visitor who merely had ``a strange haircut'' or wore ``a controversial
T-shirt.'' We believe that the ``casual park use'' exclusion is not
vague, is well understood, and would not result in discrimination. As
we earlier explained in our rulemaking for the same demonstration
definition found in 36 CFR 2.51(a):
Application of the NPS's narrowed definition of a demonstration thus
excludes visitors who merely have tattoos or are wearing baseball
caps, T-shirts, or other articles of clothing that convey a message;
or visitors whose vehicles merely display bumper stickers. By
limiting the definition of what constitutes a demonstration, and by
explicitly excluding casual park use by visitors or tourists which
is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers * * * the
NPS believes that the rule comports with the First Amendment and is
narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests.
75 FR 64150 October 19, 2010.
Revised Solicitation Regulation--36 CFR 7.96(h)
The proposed regulation would have allowed in-person soliciting or
demanding of gifts, money, goods, or services, if it occurs as part of
a permit issued for a demonstration or special event. The proposed
regulation also provided that persons permitted to solicit must not
give false or misleading information regarding their purposes or
affiliations or give false or misleading information regarding whether
any item is available without donation.
No commenters objected to the regulation's prohibition of giving
false or misleading information regarding a solicitor's purposes or
affiliations or giving false or misleading information regarding
whether any item is available without donation. However, three comments
expressed concerns with the permit requirement. After review, we have
narrowed the text of the final solicitation regulation so that it
clearly centers on prohibiting the ``in-person soliciting or demanding
of money or funds for contemporaneous donation on Federal park land * *
* unless it occurs as part of a permit issued for a demonstration or
special event.'' We believe that this revised and narrowed regulation,
which centers on in-person solicitation of money or funds for donations
on Federal park land as part of a permit issued for a demonstration or
special event, is not a content-based regulation of speech.
By focusing on in-person solicitation for the receipt of money or
funds on Federal park land, we believe that we have a narrowly tailored
regulation of conduct that is not broader than necessary, and that
addresses the risks
[[Page 14675]]
and problems caused by the in-person request for the receipt of money
or funds on Federal park land. We believe that this type of
solicitation creates well-recognized risks and problems that other NPS
regulations do not address, including fraud and duress, questionable
solicitation practices including the targeting of vulnerable and easily
coerced persons, and even outright theft. We also believe that
requiring a permit will help ensure that unregulated solicitation
activities that have the potential to be disruptive and intrusive will
not interfere with other visitors' enjoyment of the park. Our narrowly
focused final solicitation regulation thus centers on in-person
soliciting or demanding of money or funds for receipt on Federal park
land as part of a permit issued for a demonstration or special event,
described in the prefatory statement as ``in-person solicitation for
immediate funds'' (76 FR 57, January 3, 2011). Courts have recognized
the risks and problems posed by in-person solicitation for funds.
The term ``funds'' includes monetary funds obtained through the use
of credit cards or other electronic payment methods. One commenter
suggested that an immediate credit card or electronic commitment of
funds should be allowed for later processing. We have not accepted that
suggestion, however, because these kinds of solicitations pose an even
greater risk of later theft and fraud than an in-person, immediate
exchange of funds. The Federal Trade Commission states that credit and
charge card fraud costs cardholders and issuers hundreds of millions of
dollars each year, and can occur when an unauthorized person uses
another person's card number.
This rule prohibits in-person solicitation for immediate funds on
Federal park land; it does not prohibit other forms of communication
that allow the person to obtain the funds later off park land, such as
soliciting funds that would be sent at a later time by mail or through
the internet, or distributing literature describing where funds could
be sent. The rule does not address persons seeking signatures for
petitions or donations for food or clothing drives; these activities
can be addressed under the Park Service demonstration or special event
regulations.
One commenter stated that the solicitation regulation would
encourage an impermissible content-based regulation of speech because
solicitation, itself, is the form of expression being regulated. We
disagree, because we believe that the narrowed regulation is consistent
with the Court of Appeal's decision in ISKCON, which found that the
earlier NPS solicitation regulation's focus on the in-person
solicitation of donations on Federal park land was not content based.
The Court found that the earlier regulation did not prohibit any
particular expression or message based on content but merely regulated
the manner in which the message is conveyed, although the earlier NPS
solicitation prohibition failed because it was not ``narrowly
tailored.'' ISKCON, 61 F.3d at 955-956.
We believe that this new and revised final solicitation regulation
is narrowly tailored because this rule focuses on persons who seek to
engage in the in-person solicitation for the receipt of money or funds
on Federal park land and does not include goods or services as
originally proposed. We believe that it is not broader than necessary
to address the particular problems and risks posed by such in-person
solicitation and does not ``sweep in'' expressive activities that do
not contribute to those problems. ``A narrowly tailored permitting
scheme--one that reasonably identifies particular expressive conduct
for which a permit is required--is an entirely appropriate tool.''
Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Turner, 893 F.2d 1387, 1393
(D.C. Cir. 1990).
This NPS solicitation regulation requires that in-person
solicitation for funds on Federal park land may only occur under a
permit that designates well-defined areas for the activity. The rule is
thus fully consistent with the Court of Appeals decision in ISKCON. The
Court of Appeals observed that a future NPS solicitation regulation
could require a permit, so ``[t]he effects of solicitation will be
confined to the permit area, and those who wish to escape them may
simply steer clear of the authorized demonstration or special event.''
61 F.3d at 956. The Court of Appeals in ISKCON also made clear that its
``holding allows only those individuals or groups participating in an
authorized demonstration or special event to solicit donations in the
confines of a restricted permit area . * * * It does not require the
Park Service to let rampant panhandling go unchecked.'' Id.
The NPS solicitation regulation controls the in-person solicitation
for funds on Federal park land; it does not regulate sales. An attempt
to sell items or offer items for sale, whether directly or by the use
of deceit, is still governed by the NPS sales regulation at 36 CFR
7.96(k), which limits items to be sold to books, newspapers, leaflets,
pamphlets, buttons, and bumper stickers. As we explained in the
prefatory statement to the sales regulation, at 60 FR 17648 (April 7,
1995), ``restricted merchandise cannot be `given away' and a `donation
accepted' or one item `given away' in return for the purchase of
another item; such transactions amount to sales.''
The ACLU supported our amendment of the solicitation regulation
``to provide that donations or contributions may be solicited within an
area that is covered by a permit for a demonstration or a special
event.'' Earlier the ACLU had asked, and our National Capital Region
confirmed, that buskers may, consistent with NPS regulations, be able
to conduct their activities by obtaining a demonstration or a special
event permit. (The ACLU defined buskers as ``individuals who play music
or entertain in public parks, streets and other places and seek
voluntary contributions.'')
Focusing on buskers, however, the ACLU expressed concern about the
proposed regulatory requirement for a permit if the activity involves a
group of less than 25 people who would otherwise qualify under the
existing ``small group exception'' for demonstrations at 36 CFR 7.96
(g)(2)(i). Using the example of a lone person who plays his guitar and
asks for donations, the ACLU thought that requiring a permit for a
single individual busker was an ``unnecessary burden'' on First
Amendment rights. Instead, the ACLU suggested that we modify the
regulation such that either (1) no permit is needed for a single busker
who solicits donations or contributions with his or her performance, or
(2) the regulation would authorize a U.S. Park Police officer to issue
an on-the-spot permit, after checking with the permit office to be sure
that the busker's location does not conflict with any existing permit.
We have carefully considered the ACLU's views on this matter and
its two suggested modifications, but we believe that requiring a permit
when an in-person solicitation of funds occurs is warranted. For the
reasons stated herein, we believe that the solicitation regulation is
not an unnecessary burden on First Amendment rights but rather is a
proper time, place, and manner restriction. Moreover, we believe that
it is not appropriate to require or ask U.S. Park Police officers to
issue an ``on the spot'' permit when a lone busker is engaged in in-
person solicitation for immediate funds.
The NPS regulatory ``small group exception'' has applied only to
demonstrations, and was the product of rulemaking after discussions
with the ACLU as detailed at 45 FR 29858 (May 6, 1980) and 46 FR 55959
(November 13,
[[Page 14676]]
1981). Whether a busker's activity qualifies as a demonstration or is
characterized as a special event will ultimately depend on the facts of
the activity; special events have always required a permit, while most
``small group'' demonstrations do not require a permit under 36 CFR
7.96(g)(2)(i). Regardless of whether the activity qualifies as a
demonstration or is characterized as a special event, we believe that
the risks and potential problems posed by the in-person solicitation
for funds justify and support a permit requirement for solicitation.
Moreover, we believe that the problems and risks of in-person
solicitation for funds on Federal park land occur regardless of whether
the number of persons engaged in the solicitation activity is one, 24,
26, or 1,000, or whether the person is or is not a busker. As one
busker readily acknowledged, busking for cash does create the risk of
theft. He also wrote that buskers may need to move around to multiple
locations, given that there may be busker competition at ``popular,
centralized areas where the crowds gather''; that one needs to ``[m]ake
sure your audience knows you're looking for cash''; and that one needs
to ``[w]atch for thieves.'' Jacob Bear ``Making the Scene: Busking Can
Pay for Travel in Europe,'' Transitions Abroad Magazine (March/April
2004).
Accordingly, we believe that it is the solicitation for funds that
generates risks and potential problems, rather than the size of the
group involved in such activities. Similar risks and problems exist
when 24 people together engage in-person solicitation for funds, when
compared to 24 people who separately engage in such solicitation
activities. By requiring a permit for all who engage in the in-person
solicitation for funds regardless of the number of participants, we are
able to minimize the risks and problems of theft, fraud, and duress.
Requiring a permit protects both the public and the permit holder.
If a visitor complains that theft, fraud, or duress occurred, the U.S.
Park Police will be able to investigate the incident because they will
know the identity of, and contact information for, the permit holder.
Knowing where and when in-person solicitation is authorized under
permit also allows the U.S. Park Police to monitor and protect the
permit holder from theft, as well as to ensure public safety, the
orderly movement of park visitors, and the avoidance of conflicts among
permit holders.
Accordingly, we believe that the problems and risks posed by in-
person solicitation of funds on Federal park land by individuals and
groups under 25 in number should require a permit. If a permit was not
required, then people engaged in in-person solicitation for funds on
Federal park land could simply follow the park visitor, preventing the
visitor from avoiding them, a result that the Court of Appeals in
ISKCON specifically rejected.
The ACLU's other suggestion is to authorize U.S. Park Police
officers to issue on-site written permits for buskers. After review, we
believe this approach is not workable, since it exceeds the expertise
and proper role of law enforcement officers and is inconsistent with
our centralized regulatory process, whereby a staff park ranger reviews
applications and coordinates permit issuance. The ACLU suggestion would
be impractical because it would rely on a U.S. Park Police officer who
encounters a busker to successfully do all of the following:
Recognize and assess the situation;
Obtain on-site information as to who, where, and when they
want to engage in their activities;
Know where and when other First Amendment or other
activities have been permitted; and
Decide whether to issue a written permit based upon the
NPS regulations. U.S. Park Police officers are limited in number and
their activities are focused on performing a wide array of law
enforcement functions in extensive areas that constitute Federal park
land within the National Capital Region. In the District of Columbia,
these park areas include the National Mall, Lafayette Park, DuPont
Circle, and Rock Creek Park, as well as scores of large and small park
areas located throughout the city. The National Mall alone covers
approximately 684 acres and receives approximately 22 million visits
per year. It is therefore unrealistic to expect that officers could
regularly chance upon people engaged in solicitation activity and issue
them a permit.
We also believe that the ACLU suggestion runs counter to our
centralized permit system, where applications are submitted to the
permit office in advance of any proposed demonstration or special event
and under which only the NPS Regional Director or, in certain
circumstances, a supervisory U.S. Park Police officer may revoke a
permit. To have U.S. Park Police officers issue ``on-site permits''
deviates from a generally successful NPS regulatory permit process. The
current permit process relies upon a limited number of park rangers who
are trained and knowledgeable about NPS regulations and who:
Evaluate the application:
Review other pending or issued permits;
Consult with other park officials;
Determine whether a permit should be issued; and
If a permit is issued, determine the appropriate permit
conditions.
Finally, two other comments cited the Court of Appeals decision in
Boardley v. Department of the Interior, 615 F.3d 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010),
and contended that requiring a permit for small groups who engage in
the in-person solicitation for immediate funds is an unnecessary burden
on First Amendment rights. We respectfully disagree and believe that
problems and risks posed by in-person solicitation for funds on Federal
park land justify a permit requirement because they differ from the
likely effects of small group demonstrations that do not involve
solicitation activities. We further believe that the problems and risks
posed by solicitations were recognized by the Court of Appeals in
ISKCON when it concluded that we may regulate solicitation of funds
through a permit system. The basis for our solicitation regulation is
also significantly different than what the Court of Appeals considered
in Boardley. By focusing on the problems and risks posed by in-person
solicitation for funds on park land, we believe that the solicitation
regulation is narrowly tailored, no broader than necessary, and does
not sweep into expressive activities that don't contribute to these
problems and risks.
Revised Introductory Sentence--36 CFR 7.96(g)(3)(ii)
The ACLU submitted the only comment regarding our proposed
amendment of the introductory sentence to 36 CFR 7.96(g)(3)(ii), which
was intended to more clearly indicate that demonstrations or special
events are not allowed in restricted areas of designated memorials. It
has been our longstanding reading of our regulations that
demonstrations and special events, whether under permit or not, are not
allowed in the restricted areas identified at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(3)(ii).
This was a natural reading that was recently accepted by the Court of
Appeals in Oberwetter v. Hilliard, 639 F.3d 545, 551 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
The ACLU comment also concluded that this was their understanding of
our regulations, but that they ``are not opposed to greater clarity.''
This revision provides greater clarity that demonstrations and special
events, either with or without a permit, are not allowed in restricted
areas of designated memorials.
[[Page 14677]]
Change of Name--Permit Office
Recently the name of the permit office, which had been called the
``Division of Park Programs,'' was administratively changed to the
``Division of Permits Management.'' While this name change was not
included in the proposed rule, the name change at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(3) is
an internal administrative matter that has no substantive implications
and, therefore, does not require public review and comment.
Compliance With Other Laws and Executive Orders
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 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 E.O. 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. E.O. 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)
The 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.). The rule expands opportunities for individuals and organizations
to solicit funds, associated with a demonstration or special event for
which a permit has been issued. Other organizations with interest in
the rule will not be effected economically.
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. A statement
containing the information required by the UMRA, (2 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) is not required.
Takings (Executive Order 12630
Under the criteria in section 2 of Executive Order12630, this rule
does not have significant takings implications. It pertains
specifically to operation and management of locations within the NPS--
National Capital Region. 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. A Federalism
summary impact statement is not required.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian tribes (Executive Order 13175)
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. The rule only applies to management and operation of NPS
areas within the National Capital Region.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements in this rule and assigned control
number 1024-0021 (expires 02/28/2014). We estimate the burden
associated with this information collection to be 30 minutes. The
information collection activities are necessary for the public to
obtain benefits in the form of special park use permits. A Federal
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB Control Number.
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 the rule is covered by a
categorical exclusion. We have determined that the rule is
categorically excluded under 516 DM 12.5 A (10), insofar as it is a
modification of existing NPS regulations that does not increase public
use to the extent of compromising the nature and character of the area
or causing physical damage to it. Further, the rule will not result in
the introduction of incompatible uses which might compromise the nature
and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it.
Finally, the rule will not cause conflict with adjacent ownerships or
land uses, or cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants. 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 is not
required.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
District of Columbia, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the NPS amends 36 CFR Part 7 as
set forth below:
[[Page 14678]]
PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
0
1. The authority citation for part 7 is continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued
under 36 U.S.C. 501-511, DC Code 10-137 (2001) and DC Code 50-2201
(2001).
0
2. In Sec. 7.96:
0
A. Revise paragraph (g)(1)(i);
0
B. Revise the heading and first two sentences of paragraph (g)(3);
0
C. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (g)(3)(ii);
0
D. Revise paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(D);
0
E. Add paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(E) and maps;
0
F. Remove maps following paragraph (g)(7); and
0
G. Revise paragraph (h).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 7.96 National Capital Region.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The term ``demonstration'' includes demonstrations, picketing,
speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all
other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or
expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons,
the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.
This term does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists that
is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers.
* * * * *
(3) Permit applications. Permit applications may be obtained at the
Division of Permits Management, National Mall and Memorial Parks, 900
Ohio Drive SW., Washington DC 20024. Applicants shall submit permit
applications in writing on a form provided by the National Park Service
so as to be received by the Regional Director at the Division of
Permits Management at least 48 hours in advance of any proposed
demonstration or special event. * * *
* * * * *
(ii) Other park areas. Demonstrations and special events are not
allowed in the following other park areas:
* * * * *
(D) The Vietnam Veterans Memorial, except for official annual
Memorial Day and Veterans Day commemorative ceremonies.
(E) Maps of the park areas designated in this paragraph are as
follows. The darkened portions of the diagrams show the areas where
demonstrations or special events are prohibited.
BILLING CODE 4312-EJ-P
[[Page 14679]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR13.005
[[Page 14680]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR13.006
BILLING CODE 4312-EJ-C
* * * * *
(h) Soliciting. (1) The in-person soliciting or demanding of money
or funds for donation on Federal park land is prohibited, unless it
occurs as part of
[[Page 14681]]
a permit issued for a demonstration or special event.
(2) Persons permitted to solicit must not:
(i) Give false or misleading information regarding their purposes
or affiliations;
(ii) Give false or misleading information as to whether any item is
available without donation.
* * * * *
Dated: January 25, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-05249 Filed 3-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-EJ-P