81022 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

180.930, and 180.940. The petitioner 

believes no analytical method is needed 

because it is not required for an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. Contact: RD. 

C. Notice of Filing—New Tolerances for 

Non-Inerts 

1. PP 0F8842. EPA–HQ–OPP–2020– 

0533. Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd, c/o 

Landis International, Inc., 3185 Madison 

Highway, P.O. Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 

31603–5126, requests to establish a 

tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for 

residues of the herbicide, L-glufosinate 

Free Acid, in or on apple at 0.05 parts 

per million (ppm); beet, sugar, molasses 

at 5.0 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.9 ppm; 

beet, sugar, tops (leaves) at 1.5 ppm; 

bushberry subgroup 13B at 0.15 ppm; 

canola, meal at 1.1 ppm; canola, seed at 

0.40 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.40 ppm; cattle, 

meal at 0.15 ppm; cattle, meat 

byproducts at 6.0 ppm; corn, field, 

forage at 4.0 ppm; corn, field, grain at 

0.20 ppm; corn, field, stover at 6.0 ppm; 

corn, sweet, forage at 1.5 ppm; corn, 

sweet, kernels plus cob with husks 

removed at 0.30 ppm; corn, sweet, 

stover at 6.0 ppm; cotton, gin 

byproducts at 15 ppm; cotton, 

undelinted seed at 4.0 ppm; egg at 0.15 

ppm; fruit, citrus, crop group 10–10 at 

.15 ppm; fruit, pome, crop group 11–10 

at .25 ppm; fruit, stone, crop group 12– 

12 at 0.30 ppm; goat, fat at 0.40 ppm; 

goat, meat at 0.15 ppm; goat, meat 

byproducts at 6.0 ppm; grape at 0.05 

ppm; hog, fat at 0.40 ppm; hog, meat at 

0.15 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 6.0 

ppm; horse, fat at 0.40 ppm; horse, meat 

at 0.15 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 

6.0 ppm; milk at 0.15 ppm; nut, tree, 

crop group 14–12 at 0.50 ppm; olive at 

0.50 ppm; potato at 0.80 ppm; potato, 

chips at 1.6 ppm; potato, granules/flakes 

at 2.0 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.15 ppm; 

poultry, meat at .15 ppm; poultry, meat 

byproducts at 0.60 ppm; sheep, fat at 

0.40 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.15 ppm; 

sheep, meat byproducts at 6.0 ppm; 

soybean at 2.0 ppm; soybean, hulls at 

10.0 ppm. The analytical methods 

HRAV–5A and BK/01/99 are used to 

measure and evaluate the chemical Lglufosinate free acid. Contact: RD. 

2. PP 2F9042. EPA–HQ–OPP–2023– 

0459. UPL NA Inc., 630 Freedom 

Business Center, Suite 402, King of 

Prussia, PA 19406, requests to establish 

a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for 

residues of the herbicide, L-Glufosinate 

Ammonium, in or on almond, hulls at 

0.25 parts per million (ppm); beet, 

sugar, molasses at 2.5 ppm; beet, sugar, 

roots at 0.45 ppm; bushberry subgroup 

13b at 0.075 ppm; canola, meal at 0.55 

ppm; canola, seed at 0.2 ppm; cattle, fat 

at 0.2 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.075 ppm; 

cattle, meat byproducts at 3 ppm; corn, 

field forage at 2 ppm; corn, field, grain 

at 0.1 ppm; corn, field, stover at 3 ppm; 

corn, sweet, forage at 0.75 ppm; corn, 

sweet, kernels plus cob with husks 

removed at 0.15 ppm; corn, sweet, 

stover at 3 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts 

at 15 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 

7.5 ppm; egg at 0.075 ppm; citrus fruit 

(crop group 10–10) at 0.075 ppm; pome 

fruit (crop group 11–10) at 0.125 ppm; 

stone fruit (crop group 12–12) at 0.15 

ppm; goat, fat at 0.2 ppm; goat, meat at 

0.075 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 3 

ppm; grain aspirated fractions at 12.5 

ppm; grape at 0.025 ppm; hog, fat at 0.2 

ppm; hog, meat at 0.075 ppm; hog, meat 

byproducts at 3 ppm; horse, fat at 0.2 

ppm; horse, meat at 0.075 ppm; horse, 

meat byproducts at 3 ppm; milk at 0.075 

ppm; tree nut (crop group 14–12) at 0.25 

ppm; olive at 0.25 ppm; potato at 0.4 

ppm; potato, chips at 0.8 ppm; potato 

granules/flakes at 1ppm; poultry, fat at 

0.075 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.075 ppm; 

poultry, meat byproducts at 0.3 ppm; 

sheep, fat at 0.2 ppm; sheep, meat at 

0.075 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 3 

ppm; soybean at 1 ppm; soybean, hulls 

at 5 ppm and inadvertent or indirect 

uses on Barley, hay at 0.2 ppm; barley, 

straw at 0.2 ppm; buckwheat, fodder at 

0.2 ppm; buckwheat, forage at 0.2 ppm; 

oat, forage at 0.2 ppm; oat, hay at 0.2 

ppm; oat, straw at 0.2 ppm; rye, forage 

at 0.2 ppm; rye, straw at 0.2 ppm; 

teosinte at 0.2 ppm; triticale at 0.2 ppm; 

wheat, forage at 0.2 ppm; wheat, hay at 

0.2 ppm; wheat, straw at 0.2 ppm. The 

analytical method uses liquid 

chromatograph-tandem mass 

spectrometer (LC–MS/MS) is used to 

measure and evaluate the chemical Lglufosinate ammonium. Contact: RD. 

3. PP 3E9058. EPA–HQ–OPP–2023– 

0399. UPL Delaware, Inc. (UPL), 630 

Freedom Business Center, Suite 402 

King of Prussia, PA 19406, requests to 

establish an import tolerance in 40 CFR 

part 180 for residues of the fungicide, 

kasugamycin, in or on tea, dried at 3 

ppm. The analytical method uses LC– 

MS/MS method is used to measure and 

evaluate the chemical kasugamycin. 

Contact: RD. 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a. 

Dated: November 13, 2023. 

Delores Barber, 

Director, Information Technology and 

Resources Management Division, Office of 

Program Support. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25751 Filed 11–20–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 8360 

[BLM_HQ_FRN_MO4500172968] 

RIN 1004–AE89 

Temporary Closure and Restriction 

Orders 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) proposes to 

modernize and streamline how the 

agency notifies the public of temporary 

closure and restriction orders; clarify 

that the BLM may issue temporary 

closure or restriction orders to 

implement management 

responsibilities, avoid conflicts among 

public land users, and ensure the 

privacy of Tribal activities for 

traditional or cultural use; require that 

all orders specify the date and time that 

a temporary closure or restriction 

becomes effective and terminates; and 

make the penalties for violating 

temporary closure and restriction orders 

consistent with current statutory 

authority. 

DATES: Please submit comments on this 

proposed rule on or before January 22, 

2024. The BLM is not obligated to 

consider comments received after this 

date in making its decision on the final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: 

Mail, personal, or messenger delivery: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Director 

(HQ–630), Bureau of Land Management, 

Room 5646, 1849 C St. NW, 

Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 

Regulatory Affairs: 1004–AE89. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Searchbox, 

enter ‘‘RIN 1004–AE89’’ and click the 

‘‘Search’’ button. Follow the 

instructions at this website. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Oliver with the BLM 

Headquarters Division of Recreation and 

Visitor Services at (801) 450–3134 or via 

email at koliver@blm.gov. For questions 

relating to regulatory process issues, 

email Brittney D. Rodrigues at: 

brodrigues@blm.gov. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, blind, hard 

of hearing, or have a speech disability 

may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) 

to access telecommunications relay 

services. Individuals outside the United 

States should use the relay services 

offered within their country to make 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules 81023 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. In 

compliance with the Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act of 2023, please see the Abstract 

section in Docket No. BLM–2023–0007 

on https://www.regulations.gov for a 

summary of the proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Public Comment Procedures 

III. Background 

IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule 

V. Procedural Matters 

I. Executive Summary 

The BLM proposes to modernize and 

streamline how the agency notifies the 

public of temporary closure and 

restriction orders; clarify that the BLM 

may issue temporary closure or 

restriction orders to implement 

management responsibilities, avoid 

conflicts among public land users, and 

ensure the privacy of Tribal activities 

for traditional or cultural use; require 

that all orders specify the date and time 

that a temporary closure or restriction 

becomes effective and terminates; and 

make the penalties for violating 

temporary closure and restriction orders 

consistent with current statutory 

authority. 

The proposed revisions would allow 

the BLM to better notify the public 

about the presence, nature, and scope of 

temporary closure and restriction orders 

and would make the BLM’s procedures 

for issuing temporary closure and 

restriction orders more consistent with 

those of the United States Forest Service 

(USFS) and the National Park Service 

(NPS). 

The requirement in 43 CFR 8364.1 to 

publish temporary closure and 

restriction orders in the Federal 

Register frequently delays the BLM’s 

ability to issue such orders. The BLM’s 

ability to expeditiously close or restrict 

the use of public lands temporarily is 

also hampered by the time it takes for 

an order to become effective after being 

signed by an authorized officer. Because 

emergencies and unforeseen events on 

public lands often require a more 

immediate response, any delay caused 

by the current regulatory scheme can 

compromise the BLM’s ability to carry 

out its mission and protect the public. 

The proposed rule would enhance the 

BLM’s ability to adequately meet the 

public’s expectation for the protection 

of health, safety, property, and public 

land resources. Importantly, the 

proposed rule would not itself close or 

restrict use of any public land, nor 

would it require the BLM to issue any 

new or additional closure or restriction 

orders. 

II. Public Comment Procedures 

If you wish to comment on this 

proposed rule, you may submit your 

comments to the BLM by mail, personal 

or messenger delivery, or through 

https://www.regulations.gov (see 

ADDRESSES, above). Please make your 

comments on the proposed rule as 

specific as possible, confine them to 

issues pertinent to the proposed rule, 

explain the reason for any changes you 

recommend, and include any 

supporting documentation. Where 

possible, your comments should 

reference the specific section or 

paragraph of the proposal that you are 

addressing. The BLM is not obligated to 

consider or include in the 

administrative record for the final rule 

any comments received after the close of 

the comment period (see DATES) or 

comments delivered to an address other 

than those listed previously (see 

ADDRESSES). Comments, including 

names and street addresses of 

respondents, will be available for public 

review at the address listed under 

‘‘ADDRESSES: Mail, personal or 

messenger delivery’’ during regular 

hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Eastern 

Time), Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. Before including your address, 

telephone number, email address, or 

other personal identifying information 

in your comment, be advised that your 

entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

III. Background 

The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 

1701–1787) establishes the agency’s 

multiple use and sustained yield 

mandate. In managing the public lands 

in accordance with FLPMA, the BLM 

occasionally issues temporary closure 

and restriction orders under 43 CFR 

8364.1 to protect persons, property, 

public lands, and resources. The need to 

temporarily close or restrict the use of 

public land often arises in response to 

emergencies or unplanned events such 

as a flood or fire, hazardous material 

incident, discovery of unexploded 

ordnance, public health emergency, or 

change in public land use that creates a 

public safety hazard. For example, the 

BLM issued temporary closure or 

restriction orders to protect the public 

from unsafe conditions in a community 

rock pit in Don ̃ a Ana County, New 

Mexico (88 FR 42984 (July 5, 2023)); 

close nine acres of public land near 

Rowley, Utah that were inundated with 

a hydrochloric acid spill (79 FR 26265 

(May 7, 2014)); and close a recreation 

site near Challis, Idaho to protect the 

public from dangerous flooding and ice 

jams impacting the recreation site (87 

FR 25523 (April 29, 2022)). 

Occasionally, the BLM also temporarily 

closes public land or restricts its uses to 

protect resources, implement certain 

management activities, or avoid conflict 

among visitor use activities. In such 

situations, the BLM may restrict an area 

to certain types of travel to facilitate 

restoration or close an area to public 

access to facilitate the preparation for 

and occurrence of a special recreation 

event, such as the Burning Man Project 

(88 FR 39863 (June 20, 2023)); the King 

of the Hammers off-road race (87 FR 

69300 (November 11, 2022)); the Reno 

Air Races (84 FR 31337 (July 1, 2019)); 

the Mint 400 off-road race in Las Vegas 

(88 FR 7994 February 7, 2023)); and the 

Desert Classic racecourse (87 FR 20457 

(April 7, 2022)). 

However, aspects of 43 CFR 8364.1— 

such as the requirement to publish 

temporary closure and restriction orders 

in the Federal Register and the absence 

of a provision authorizing the BLM to 

issue temporary closure and restriction 

orders with immediate full force and 

effect—can hinder the BLM’s ability to 

respond effectively to exigencies that 

arise on public lands. Streamlining and 

modernizing the manner in which the 

BLM notifies the public about 

temporary closure and restriction 

orders, as well as providing authorized 

officers with the ability to issue such 

orders with immediate effectiveness, 

would allow the BLM to better perform 

its mission to responsibly manage 

public lands and protect public safety. 

Revising § 8364.1 would also make the 

BLM’s closure and restriction 

authorities more consistent with those 

of the USFS and the NPS (agencies with 

which BLM-administered public lands 

often share a common boundary) and, in 

turn, would allow the BLM to be a more 

effective cooperator with other federal 

and local jurisdictions when responding 

to multijurisdictional emergency 

incidents or unforeseen events. 

Section 310 of FLPMA, which 

authorizes the Secretary to promulgate 

regulations to carry out the purposes of 

that Act and other laws with respect to 

public lands, provides authority for 

revising the BLM’s regulatory authority 

for closing and restricting the use of 

public lands. Other statutes, such as the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(16 U.S.C. 470aa–470mm), also 

authorize the Secretary to promulgate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
81024 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

regulations relating to closures and use 

restrictions in certain contexts. 

IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule 

As resource uses and demands for 

access to public lands have increased, 

the need for the BLM to issue temporary 

closure and restriction orders under 43 

CFR 8364.1 to protect persons, property, 

and public lands has also increased. 

However, current regulatory 

requirements can hinder the BLM’s 

ability to issue temporary closure and 

restriction orders. 

For example, the requirement to 

publish temporary closure and 

restriction orders in the Federal 

Register frequently impedes the agency 

from closing and restricting the use of 

public lands in a timely fashion. As a 

result of these requirements, the 

window of opportunity for the BLM to 

effectively respond to emergency 

incidents or unforeseen events can pass 

before a closure or restriction order 

takes effect. This hinders the agency’s 

ability to prevent or reduce the risk to 

public health or safety, property, or 

important resources. Although the 

Federal Register may have been the 

most effective way to convey access and 

use limitations when 43 CFR 8364.1 was 

promulgated in 1983, that is less true 

today. The tools for a bureau to 

communicate its actions to stakeholders 

and the public have become more 

numerous and direct, such that 

publication of a Federal Register notice 

is no longer likely to be the most 

effective way for the public to learn of 

a temporary closure or restriction in an 

expedient fashion. 

The proposed rule is intended to 

harmonize 43 CFR 8364.1 with that 

reality by eliminating the need to 

publish temporary closure and 

restriction orders issued under 43 CFR 

8364.1 in the Federal Register. Instead, 

the proposed rule would require the 

BLM to inform the public about 

temporary closure and restriction orders 

by notifying local media outlets and 

posting information about the closure or 

restriction on at least one BLMcontrolled, publicly available online 

communication system. By relying on 

more current communication methods 

and technologies, the BLM would be 

better positioned to serve the public and 

maximize the number of stakeholders 

and visitors who are aware of potential 

access and use limitations. 

Online systems have become widely 

used by government agencies in the 

time since 43 CFR 8364.1 was initially 

promulgated, and new online systems 

are already evolving that may soon 

supersede or supplant those used today 

as the most effective means for 

informing public land users about 

government actions. Language in the 

proposed rule is intended to describe 

the communications systems in 

common use today, while at the same 

time being sufficiently flexible to 

account for new systems and rapidly 

emerging best practices in 

communications and public affairs 

without needing to update the rule 

again in the near future. 

In addition to the Federal Register 

publication requirement in 43 CFR 

8364.1, the time it takes for an order to 

become effective after being signed by 

an authorized officer also hampers the 

BLM’s ability to expeditiously issue 

temporary closure and restriction 

orders. Under 43 CFR 4.21(a), orders 

that temporarily close or restrict the use 

of BLM-managed public lands are 

typically not effective during the 30-day 

period in which a person may file an 

appeal of the decision before the 

Department’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals. Emergencies and unforeseen 

events on public lands often require a 

more immediate response, however, and 

the delay in a closure or restriction 

order taking effect can compromise the 

BLM’s ability to carry out its mission 

and protect the public. To adequately 

meet the public’s expectation for the 

BLM to protect health, safety, property, 

and resources, the agency needs the 

ability to issue temporary closure or 

restriction orders that are immediately 

effective, when necessary. 

Under the proposed rule, BLM 

authorized officers would have 

discretion to provide that orders issued 

under 43 CFR 8364.1 will become 

effective upon issuance or at a date and 

time established in the order. While this 

change would not negate someone’s 

ability to appeal an order under 43 CFR 

part 4, it would make the orders 

effective during the time in which they 

are subject to appeal, which would 

allow the BLM to begin enforcing 

temporary closure and restriction orders 

in a timelier fashion, thus aiding the 

agency in protecting public lands, 

resources, and public safety. 

Notably, eliminating the Federal 

Register publication requirement and 

authorizing the issuance of temporary 

closure and restriction orders with 

immediate full force and effect would 

make 43 CFR 8364.1 more consistent 

with the NPS and USFS’s closure and 

restriction authorities. For example, 

USFS’s closure authority at 36 CFR 

261.50 does not have a Federal Register 

publication requirement. Instead, it 

requires closure and restriction orders to 

be placed in the offices of the Forest 

Supervisor and District Ranger who 

have jurisdiction over the subject lands, 

and the relevant prohibitions to be 

displayed in such locations and manner 

as to reasonably bring the prohibitions 

to the attention of the public. NPS 

similarly does not need to publish 

closure and restriction orders in the 

Federal Register in a wide variety of 

situations, such as those related to 

emergency situations, those that will not 

result in a significant alteration in the 

public use pattern of a park area, and 

those that will not adversely affect a 

park’s natural, aesthetic, scenic, or 

cultural values. Moreover, both USFS 

and NPS can issue closure and 

restriction orders with immediate full 

force and effect. Eliminating the Federal 

Register publication requirement and 

authorizing the issuance of temporary 

closure and restriction orders with 

immediate full force and effect would 

allow the BLM to better coordinate with 

other federal land management agencies 

(as well as Tribal, state, and local 

government agencies), especially in 

situations where the agencies manage 

land either adjacent to or in proximity 

with each other. 

The proposed rule would also 

effectuate other important changes 

intended to clarify the nature and extent 

of the restrictions temporarily being 

placed on the use of public lands. For 

example, the proposed rule would 

require all temporary closure and 

restriction orders issued under 43 CFR 

8364.1 to state the date and time that a 

closure or restriction would become 

effective, as well as the date and time 

that the closure or restriction would 

terminate. The proposed rule would 

also clarify the BLM’s ability to exempt 

certain persons from closure and 

restriction orders. Currently, 43 CFR 

8364.1 provides that the authorized 

officer may identify persons who are 

exempt from closure or restriction 

orders. The proposed rule clarifies that 

specific groups can also be exempt from 

closure or restriction orders, such as 

Tribal members that may need to access 

an otherwise closed area for traditional 

or cultural uses. 

Additionally, the proposed rule 

would help clarify the broad range of 

situations in which the BLM may issue 

temporary closure and restriction 

orders. While the BLM may currently 

issue closure and restriction orders to 

protect persons, property, and public 

lands and resources, the proposed rule 

would reinforce that the BLM may issue 

temporary closure and restriction orders 

to provide for implementation of 

management responsibilities; avoid 

conflicts among public land users; or 

ensure the privacy of Tribal activities 

for traditional or cultural use. While 

implementing various resource 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules 81025 

management strategies, it is sometimes 

necessary to exclude the public from 

areas of the public lands for either 

implementation efficiency or 

effectiveness. For instance, the BLM 

may need to exclude the public from an 

area to facilitate construction, 

demolition, resource monitoring, or 

invasive species control projects. 

Restricting access to areas of public 

lands may also be necessary to avoid 

conflicts between user groups, such as 

an off-road racecourse being closed to 

other uses during the race, or to ensure 

privacy to Tribal members during 

traditional or cultural uses. The 

proposed revisions to 43 CFR 8364.1 are 

intended to make clear that the 

temporary closure and restriction orders 

are intended to achieve such purposes. 

The proposed rule would update the 

penalty provision in 43 CFR 8364.1. The 

year after the current regulation was 

promulgated, Congress passed the 

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (98 Stat. 

1995) (18 U.S.C. 3571), which identifies 

criminal penalties that supersede the 

fines set in the FLPMA at 43 U.S.C. 

1743. The proposed rule would amend 

43 CFR 8364.1 to be consistent with 

current statutory authorities. Moreover, 

the elastic nature of the proposed rule 

language would make it unlikely that 

the BLM would need to amend the 

regulation if Congress updates 18 U.S.C. 

3571 with new fines in the future. 

Finally, the proposed rule would 

clarify that closure and restriction 

orders issued under § 8364.1 are 

‘‘temporary’’ in nature. However, this 

clarification would not change how or 

when the BLM would implement 

closures or restrictions, nor would it 

limit or impede the BLM’s ability to 

issue orders that remain in effect for the 

duration of the activity, situation, or 

unforeseen event that the closure or 

restriction order responds to or 

addresses. In other words, the term 

‘‘temporary’’ should be understood in 

relation to the underlying condition for 

which the BLM determines that a 

closure or restriction is warranted; it 

would not impose any specific time 

limitations on a closure or restriction 

order issued under § 8364.1. Instead, a 

temporary closure or restriction order 

would generally remain in effect until 

the situation it is addressing has ended 

or abated, it expires by its own terms, 

or the BLM issues a superseding 

decision, which can include 

incorporating the terms of a closure or 

restriction order into a resource 

management plan in accordance with 

the regulations at 43 CFR part 1600. 

Importantly, the proposed rule would 

not itself close or restrict the use of any 

specific public land, nor would it 

require the BLM to issue any new or 

additional temporary closure and 

restriction orders. The proposed rule 

would merely modernize and streamline 

the procedures governing how the BLM 

issues temporary closure and restriction 

orders, providing the public with better 

clarity about the scope of these orders 

and when they are effective. Under the 

proposed rule, the BLM would continue 

to establish closures and use restrictions 

after other management strategies and 

alternatives have been explored, 

including, but not limited to, increased 

law enforcement, cooperative efforts 

with local governments, engineering, 

education, and outreach. 

The proposed rule would not impact 

the public’s ability to provide feedback 

on temporary closures and restrictions. 

In its current form, 43 CFR 8364.1 

requires that closure and restriction 

orders be published in the Federal 

Register, but the provision does not 

require that the public have an 

opportunity to provide feedback on 

these closures and restrictions prior to 

their implementation. To the degree that 

the public receives an opportunity to 

provide feedback on proposed closures 

and restrictions, that opportunity stems 

from other authorities, such as the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the John D. Dingell, Jr. 

Conservation, Management, and 

Recreation Act of 2019 (Dingell Act), 

and the regulations implementing the 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980. That would 

still be the case under the proposed 

rule, which would neither require the 

BLM to seek public feedback on 

proposed closures and restrictions nor 

modify any separate statutory or 

regulatory provisions that do impose 

such requirements. For example, even 

though the proposed rule would 

eliminate the Federal Register 

publication requirement in 43 CFR 

8364.1, the BLM may still need to 

publish a Federal Register notice and 

provide the public with an opportunity 

to comment in accordance with section 

4103 of the Dingell Act (16 U.S.C. 7913) 

if proposing to close public lands to 

hunting, fishing, or recreational 

shooting. 

The proposed rule would not affect 

how the BLM complies with NEPA and 

other statutory obligations when issuing 

closure or restriction orders. While most 

temporary closure and restriction orders 

are unlikely to have significant effects 

on the quality of the human 

environment, the BLM would continue 

to ensure that individual closure and 

restriction orders satisfy NEPA’s 

requirements. 

The proposed rule would not 

diminish or eliminate the public’s 

opportunity to challenge the issuance of 

temporary closure or restriction orders, 

which would remain subject to appeal 

to the Department of the Interior’s Board 

of Land Appeals (IBLA) in accordance 

with 43 CFR part 4 or challenge in 

Federal court. The proposed rule would 

merely provide that the BLM may issue 

temporary closure and restriction orders 

with immediate full force and effect and 

that such orders would remain in effect 

pending a decision on administrative 

appeal unless a stay is granted by the 

IBLA. 

V. Procedural Matters 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 

51725, October 4, 1993), as amended by 

E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) will review all significant 

rules. The OIRA has determined that 

this proposed rule is not significant. 

E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 11, 

2011) reaffirms the principles of E.O. 

12866 while calling for improvements 

in the Nation’s regulatory system to 

promote predictability, reduce 

uncertainty, and use the best, most 

innovative, and least burdensome tools 

for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. 

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 rule 

making process must allow for public 

participation and an open exchange of 

ideas. The BLM has developed this 

proposed rule in a manner consistent 

with these requirements. 

The BLM reviewed the proposed 

requirements and has determined that 

the proposed rule does not meet any of 

the E.O. 12866 criteria of significance. 

The OIRA has also concluded that the 

proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action. Therefore, the 

proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action, and the BLM is not 

required to submit a regulatory impact 

analysis to OMB for review. 

The BLM reviewed the requirements 

of the proposed rule and determined 

that it would not adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or Tribal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
81026 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

governments or communities. For more 

detailed information, see the Economic 

and Threshold analysis prepared for this 

proposed rule. This analysis has been 

posted in the docket for the proposed 

rule on the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. In the 

Searchbox, enter ‘‘RIN 1004–AE89’’, 

click the ‘‘Search’’ button, open the 

Docket Folder, and look under 

Supporting Documents. 

Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (E.O. 12898) 

E.O. 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994) requires that, to the extent 

practicable and permitted by law, each 

Federal agency must make achieving 

environmental justice part of its 

mission. E.O. 12898 provides that each 

Federal agency conduct its programs, 

policies, and activities that substantially 

affect human health or the environment 

in a manner that ensures that such 

programs, policies, and activities do not 

have the effect of excluding persons 

(including populations) from 

participation in, denying persons 

(including populations) the benefits of, 

or subjecting persons (including 

populations) to discrimination under 

such programs, policies, and activities 

because of their race, color, or national 

origin. This proposed rule would amend 

the process the BLM uses to issue 

temporary closure and restriction 

orders. The proposed rule change is not 

expected to have an effect on any 

particular population. Therefore, this 

proposed rule is not expected to 

negatively impact any community and 

is not expected to cause any 

disproportionately high or adverse 

impacts to minority or low-income 

communities. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires that Federal agencies 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for rules subject to the notice-andcomment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(5 U.S.C. 500 et seq.), if the rule would 

have a significant economic impact, 

whether detrimental or beneficial, on a 

substantial number of small entities. See 

5 U.S.C. 601–612. Congress enacted the 

RFA to ensure that government 

regulations do not unnecessarily or 

disproportionately burden small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small governmental 

jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit 

enterprises. Based on the available 

information, we conclude that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Therefore, 

neither a final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis nor a Small Entity Compliance 

Guide is required. 

Congressional Review Act 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This proposed rule: 

(a) Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

(b) Would 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 

Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), agencies must prepare a written 

statement about benefits and costs prior 

to issuing a proposed or final rule that 

may result in aggregate expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

the requirements under the UMRA. The 

proposed rule does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector in any 

one year. The proposed rule would not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. A statement containing 

the information required by the UMRA 

is not required. 

Takings (E.O. 12630) 

This proposed rule would not affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under E.O. 

12630. Section 2(a) of E.O. 12630 (53 FR 

8859, March 15, 1988) identifies 

policies that do not have takings 

implications, such as those that abolish 

regulations, discontinue governmental 

programs, or modify regulations in a 

manner that lessens interference with 

the use of private property. The 

proposed rule would not interfere with 

private property and does not have 

takings implications under E.O. 12630. 

Accordingly, a takings implication 

assessment is not required. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 

13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999), 

this proposed rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. The 

proposed rule would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. A federalism 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

This proposed rule complies with the 

requirements of E.O. 12988 (61 FR 4729, 

February 5, 1996). Specifically, this 

proposed 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 (E.O. 

13175 and Departmental Policy) 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) 

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. 

In accordance with E.O. 13175 (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), the BLM has 

evaluated this proposed rulemaking and 

determined that it would not have 

substantial direct effects on Federally 

recognized Indian Tribes. Nevertheless, 

on a government-to-government basis 

we initiated consultation with Tribal 

governments that wish to discuss the 

proposed rule. 

On March 22, 2023, the BLM sent a 

letter to Federally recognized Indian 

Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations 

notifying them about the BLM’s intent 

to pursue this proposed rulemaking. In 

that letter, the BLM invited the Tribes 

and Corporations to engage in 

government-to-government 

consultation. We look forward to 

continuing close interaction with Tribal 

leaders throughout this proposed 

rulemaking process. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules 81027 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The BLM intends to apply the 

Departmental categorical exclusion at 43 

CFR 46.210(i) to comply with NEPA. 

This categorical exclusion covers 

policies, directives, regulations, and 

guidelines that are of an administrative, 

financial, legal, technical, or procedural 

nature or whose environmental effects 

are too broad, speculative, or conjectural 

to lend themselves to meaningful 

analysis and will later be subject to the 

NEPA process, either collectively or 

case-by-case. The BLM plans to 

document the applicability of the 

categorical exclusion concurrently with 

development of the final rule. 

The proposed rule is procedural and 

administrative in nature. The proposed 

rule would not be self-executing and 

would not result in access being 

prohibited or use being restricted on any 

specific public lands. The proposed rule 

also would not limit or reduce any 

current public participation 

opportunities. The proposed rule would 

merely streamline the administrative 

process through which the BLM issues 

and publicizes temporary closure and 

restriction orders in an effort to enhance 

the agency’s ability to respond to 

emergencies, unforeseen events, and 

other management exigencies. Because 

the proposed rule is administrative and 

procedural in nature and would not 

result in any on-the-ground changes or 

other environmental effects, it satisfies 

the first prong of the categorical 

exclusion at 43 CFR 46.210(i). 

The proposed rule also satisfies the 

second prong of 43 CFR 46.210(i). 

Because the proposed rule would not 

result in access being prohibited or use 

being restricted on any specific public 

lands, the environmental effects that 

may flow from the procedural changes 

being proposed are entirely speculative 

or conjectural at this time and do not 

lend themselves to meaningful analysis. 

Moreover, any environmental effects 

associated with future orders would be 

subject to the NEPA process on a caseby-case basis. Accordingly, reliance on 

the second prong of the categorical 

exclusion at 43 CFR 46.210(i) is also 

appropriate. 

The BLM has determined, as a 

preliminary matter, that the proposed 

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 (E.O. 

13211) 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

energy action under E.O. 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001). Section 4(b) of 

E.O. 13211 defines a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as ‘‘any action by an agency 

(normally published in the Federal 

Register) that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to the promulgation of 

a final rule or regulation, including 

notices of inquiry, advance notices of 

proposed rulemaking, and notices of 

proposed rulemaking: (1) (i) that is a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action.’’ 

The BLM reviewed the proposed rule 

and determined that it is not a 

significant energy action as defined by 

E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy 

Effects is not required. 

Clarity of This Regulation 

We are required by E.O.s 12866 

(section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 

3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and 

by the Presidential Memorandum of 

June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use common, everyday words and 

clear language rather than jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you believe that we have not met 

these requirements, send us comments 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. To better help us 

revise the proposed rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that you find unclear, which 

sections or sentences are too long, the 

sections where you feel lists or tables 

would be useful, etc. 

Authors 

The principal authors of this 

proposed rule are Kevin Oliver, Cory 

Roegner, Russell Scofield, and David 

Jeppesen, Recreation and Visitor 

Services Division; Rebecca Moore, 

Branch of Decision Support; Heather 

Feeney, Division of Public Affairs; Jon 

Young, Office of Law Enforcement and 

Security; Kyle W. Moorman Division of 

Regulatory Affairs; and Darrin King, 

Division of Regulatory Affairs, and 

assisted by the Office of the Solicitor, 

Ryan Sklar. 

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 8360 

Penalties, Public lands, Recreation 

and recreation areas. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Bureau of Land 

Management proposes to amend 43 CFR 

part 8360 as follows: 

PART 8360—VISITOR SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 8360 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 470aaa, et seq.; 670, 

et seq.; 877, et seq.; 1241, et seq.; and 1281c; 

and 43 U.S.C. 315a and 1701 et seq. 

■ 2. Revise § 8364.1 to read as follows: 

§ 8364.1 Temporary closure and restriction 

orders. 

(a) The authorized officer may issue 

an order to temporarily close or restrict 

the use of designated public lands to 

protect persons, property, public lands, 

or resources; provide for 

implementation of management 

responsibilities; avoid conflict among 

public land users; or ensure the privacy 

of Tribal activities for traditional or 

cultural use. 

(b) Each order shall: 

(1) Identify the public lands, roads, 

trails, or waterways that are closed to 

entry or restricted as to use; 

(2) Specify the uses that are restricted; 

(3) Specify the date and time that the 

closure or restriction order will become 

effective and the date and time the order 

will terminate; 

(4) Identify any persons or groups 

who are exempt from the closure or 

restrictions; 

(5) Be posted in a Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Office having 

jurisdiction over the public lands, roads, 

trails, or waterways to which the order 

applies; 

(6) Be posted at places near or within 

the area to which the closure or 

restriction applies, in such manner and 

location as is reasonable to bring 

prohibitions to the attention of users; 

and 

(7) Include a statement that includes 

the reasons for the closure or restriction. 

(c) When issuing closure or restriction 

orders pursuant to this section, the 

authorized officer shall provide public 

notice: 

(1) By notifying local media outlets; 

and 

(2) Posting information on at least one 

BLM-controlled, publicly available 

online communication system. 

(d) Orders issued pursuant to this 

section shall be effective upon issuance 

or a date and time established in the 

order and shall remain in effect during 

the time in which it may be appealed to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
81028 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

the Office of Hearings and Appeals 

under part 4 of this title. If appealed, 

such orders shall remain in effect 

pending the decision on appeal unless 

a stay is granted. 

(e) Any person who violates a 

temporary closure or restriction order 

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 § 8360.0–7, or both. 

Steven H. Feldgus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25698 Filed 11–20–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2022–0081; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234] 

RIN 1018–BF83 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

With Section 4(d) Rule for the Kern 

Canyon Slender Salamander and 

Endangered Species Status for the 

Relictual Slender Salamander; 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; revisions and 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening 

the comment period on our October 18, 

2022, proposed rule to list the Kern 

Canyon slender salamander 

(Batrachoseps simatus) and the relictual 

slender salamander (Batrachoseps 

relictus) under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to 

designate critical habitat. This action 

will allow all interested parties an 

additional opportunity to comment on 

the October 18, 2022, proposed rule, as 

well as the opportunity to comment on 

the new areas we are considering for 

relictual slender salamander critical 

habitat, small changes to Kern Canyon 

slender salamander critical habitat, and 

our updates to the physical or biological 

features for the Kern Canyon slender 

salamander, in response to previously 

submitted public comments. Comments 

previously submitted need not be 

resubmitted as they are already 

incorporated into the public record and 

will be fully considered in the final rule. 

DATES: The comment period on the 

proposed rule that published October 

18, 2022 (87 FR 63150), is reopened. We 

will accept comments received or 

postmarked on or before December 6, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R8–ES–2022–0081, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R8–ES–2022–0081, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

This document and supporting 

materials (including the species status 

assessment report, the coordinates or 

plot points or both from which the 

critical habitat maps are generated, 

comments and information received on 

the proposed rule, the updated 

economic analysis, and references cited 

are available at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No 

FWS–R8–ES–2022–0081. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Fris, Field Supervisor, 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 

2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 

95825; telephone 916–414–6700. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. In 

compliance with the Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act of 2023, please see Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2022–0081 on https://

www.regulations.gov for a document 

that summarizes this proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our proposed rule to 

list the Kern Canyon slender salamander 

and the relictual slender salamander 

and designate critical habitat for both 

species. We will consider information 

and recommendations from all 

interested parties. We intend that any 

final action resulting from the proposal 

will be based on the best scientific data 

available. Our final determination will 

take into consideration all comments 

and any additional information we 

receive during the reopened comment 

period on the proposed rule. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information received 

during both comment periods, our final 

determination may differ from our 

October 18, 2022 (87 FR 63150), 

proposed rule. Based on the new 

information we receive (and any 

comments on that new information), we 

may conclude that the Kern Canyon 

slender salamander is endangered 

instead of threatened, that the relictual 

slender salamander is threatened 

instead of endangered, or we may 

conclude that either or both species do 

not warrant listing as either endangered 

species or threatened species. For 

critical habitat, our final designation 

may not include all areas proposed, may 

include some additional areas that meet 

the definition of critical habitat, and 

may exclude some additional areas if we 

find the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

the benefits of inclusion and will not 

lead to the extinction of the species. 

In addition, we may change the 

parameters of the prohibitions or the 

exceptions to those prohibitions in the 

proposed 4(d) rule for the Kern Canyon 

slender salamander if we conclude it is 

appropriate in light of comments and 

new information received. For example, 

we may expand the prohibitions to 

include prohibiting additional activities 

if we conclude that those additional 

activities are not compatible with 

conservation of the species. Conversely, 

we may establish additional exceptions 

to the prohibitions in the final rule if we 

conclude that the activities would 

facilitate or are compatible with the 

conservation and recovery of the 

species. In our final rule, we will clearly 

explain our rationale and the basis for 

our final decision, including why we 

made changes, if any, that differ from 

this proposal. 

If you already submitted comments or 

information on the October 18, 2022, 

proposed rule, please do not resubmit 

them. Any such comments are 

incorporated as part of the public record 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1