26594 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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penalty provisions that are outdated and 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, 

john_calhoun@nps.gov. 

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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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-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: 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
26596 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

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). 

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 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES