9852 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 0023.1 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction, which applies 

to regulations establishing, 

disestablishing, or changing Regulated 

Navigation Areas, safety zones or 

security zones. 

An environmental analysis checklist 

and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T11–472 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165–T11–472 Safety Zone; 2012 

Mavericks Invitational, Half Moon Bay, CA. 

(a) Location. This safety zone is 

established for the waters of Half Moon 

Bay, California, in the vicinity of Pillar 

Point bounded by a line connecting the 

following coordinates in the order they 

appear written in this section: 37°29′23′′ 

N, 122°30′04′′ W; 37°29′15′′ N, 

122°30′10′′ W; 37°29′17′′ N, 122°30′30′′ 

W; 37°29′36′′ N, 122°30′16′′ W; 

37°29′23′′ N, 122°30′04′′ W; 37°29′36′′ N, 

122°29′21′′ W; 37°29′13′′ N, 122°29′25′′ 

W; 37°29′15′′ N, 122°29′58′′ W; 

37°29′23′′ N, 122°30′04′′ W (NAD 83). 

(b) Definitions. Patrol Commander 

(PATCOM). As used in this section, 

‘‘Patrol Commander’’ or ‘‘PATCOM’’ 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer, 

or a Federal, State, or local officer 

designated by the Captain of the Port 

San Francisco (COTP) to assist in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Enforcement period. This rule is 

effective during the 2012 Maverick 

Invitational, which will take place on a 

day that presents favorable surf 

conditions between 7 a.m. Monday 

January 23, 2012 and 3 p.m. Saturday 

March 31, 2012. The Coast Guard will 

issue notice of the event to the public 

as soon as practicable, and no later than 

24 hours prior to the event via Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

regulations in 33 CFR part 165, Subpart 

C this title, the safety zone is closed to 

all unauthorized vessel traffic, except as 

may be permitted by the COTP or 

PATCOM. 

(2) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the COTP or PATCOM to obtain 

permission. Vessel operators given 

permission to enter or operate in the 

safety zone must comply with all 

directions given to them by the COTP or 

PATCOM. Persons or vessels may 

request permission to enter the safety 

zone on VHF–23A or through the 24- 

hour Command Center telephone at 

(415)–399–3547. 

(4) The COTP, or PATCOM as the 

designated representative of the COTP, 

may control the movement of all vessels 

operating on the navigable waters of 

Half Moon Bay when the COTP has 

determined that such orders are justified 

in the interest of safety by reason of 

weather, visibility, sea conditions, 

temporary port congestion, and other 

temporary hazardous circumstances. 

When hailed or signaled by PATCOM, 

the hailed vessel must come to an 

immediate stop and comply with the 

lawful directions issued. Failure to 

comply with a lawful direction may 

result in additional operating 

restrictions, citation for failure to 

comply, or both. 

Dated: January 23, 2012. 

C.L. Stowe, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3868 Filed 2–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 7 

RIN 1024–AD88 

Special Regulations; Areas of the 

National Park System, Cape Cod 

National Seashore 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service is 

amending special regulations for Cape 

Cod National Seashore that authorize 

hunting to allow for a spring season 

hunt for Eastern Wild Turkey. The Final 

Rule implements the Record of Decision 

for the Cape Cod National Seashore 

Hunting Program Environmental Impact 

Statement of August 2007. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 22, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Thatcher, Acting Chief Ranger, 99 

Marconi Site Road Wellfleet, MA 02667; 

508–957–0735. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description of the Park Area 

In 1961 Congress established Cape 

Cod National Seashore (Seashore). In 

establishing the Seashore, Congress 

directed that the unique flora and fauna, 

the physiographic conditions, and the 

historic sites and structures of the area 

be permanently preserved; authorized 

the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 

to provide for the public enjoyment and 

understanding of the unique natural, 

historic, and scientific features of the 

Seashore be facilitated by establishing 

trails, observation points, exhibits and 

services for the public, and provided 

that adaptable portions of the Seashore 

may be managed for camping, 

swimming, boating, sailing, hunting, 

fishing, and other activities of similar 

nature. Public Law 87–126, Sec. 7 (Aug. 

7, 1961). 

The Seashore comprises 43,608 acres 

of shoreline; salt marshes; clear, deep, 

freshwater kettle ponds; and uplands; as 

well as a great diversity of species 

supported by these habitats. 

Lighthouses, a life-saving station, dune 

shacks, modern and Cape Cod-style 

houses, cultural landscapes, and wild 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 9853 

cranberry bogs provide a glimpse into 

Cape Cod’s past and continuing life 

ways. The Seashore offers six swimming 

beaches, eleven self-guiding nature 

trails, and a variety of picnic areas and 

scenic overlooks. 

Background 

The 1961 legislation establishing the 

Seashore authorized the Secretary, 

acting through the National Park Service 

(NPS), to permit hunting. 

The Secretary may permit hunting and 

fishing, including shellfishing, on lands and 

waters under his jurisdiction within the 

seashore in such areas and under such 

regulations as he may prescribe during open 

seasons prescribed by applicable local, State 

and Federal law. The Secretary shall consult 

with officials of the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts and any political subdivision 

thereof who have jurisdiction of hunting and 

fishing, including shellfishing, prior to the 

issuance of any such regulations, and the 

Secretary is authorized to enter into 

cooperative arrangements with such officials 

regarding such hunting and fishing, 

including shellfishing, as he may deem 

desirable. * * * 

16 U.S.C. 459b–6(c). 

The final rule increases hunting 

opportunities by expanding the hunting 

season to include a spring turkey hunt. 

Hunting within the Seashore that is 

authorized by NPS regulations is 

conducted in accordance with 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 

(MDFW) regulations. Currently 

authorized hunting in the Seashore is 

limited to deer, upland game, and 

migratory waterfowl. Although the 

Eastern Wild Turkey is managed as a 

native upland game bird by the MDFW, 

the current special regulation for 

hunting within the Seashore prohibits 

all hunting from March 1 through 

August 31. This rule change is necessary 

because the Massachusetts spring turkey 

season generally takes place from late 

April to mid or late May when hunting 

is prohibited by the Seashore’s current 

special regulation. Fall turkey hunting 

could also be initiated if MDFW 

established such a season in the Cape 

Cod zone, but no rule change would be 

needed for a fall turkey hunt since the 

State does not conduct hunting before 

September 1. 

For many years, the Seashore 

cooperated with the MDFW to release 

ring-necked pheasants within the 

Seashore to provide a pheasant hunt. In 

2002, the Seashore was sued for failure 

to follow the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) with respect to the 

hunting program. In September 2003, 

the U.S. District Court ordered the 

Seashore to prepare a NEPA 

environmental assessment of the 

hunting program. The court also 

enjoined the pheasant hunt until the 

Seashore completed the NEPA 

assessment. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Process 

As a result of the court order, the 

Seashore initiated and completed a 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS), and Record of Decision (ROD), 

on the Seashore’s hunting program. The 

chosen alternative as documented by 

the ROD, was Alternative B—Develop a 

Modified Hunting Program. 

Through Alternative B, the Seashore 

seeks to increase hunting opportunities 

for native upland game bird species by 

establishing a turkey season generally 

consistent with MDFW regulations and 

making ancillary improvements to 

upland game bird habitat. The 

alternative phases out pheasant stocking 

and hunting through adaptive 

management actions aimed at improving 

the availability of native upland game 

bird species. Hunting areas will be 

consolidated and clearly delineated and 

educational outreach concerning 

hunting will be expanded to hunting 

and non-hunting users. The NPS and 

MDFW will cooperatively monitor and 

manage game and other species. The 

FEIS and ROD may be reviewed at: 

http://www.nps.gov/caco/parkmgmt/

planning.htm. 

Summary of and Responses to Public 

Comments 

The NPS published a proposed rule 

on March 22, 2011, and accepted public 

comments through April 21, 2011. 

Comments were accepted through the 

mail, hand delivery, and through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. A total of eleven 

comments were received during the 

comment period. Ten comments 

supported the establishment of the 

spring turkey season within the 

Seashore. One comment was not 

responsive to the proposed rule, but 

contained strong, general anti-hunting 

sentiment. 

Seven comments were received from 

individuals. Of these, two came from 

the same person. Two of the remaining 

individual comments were very similar 

in context and point, but did not 

contain the name(s) of the person(s) that 

sent them. 

Three comments were received from 

organizations: the Cranberry County 

Longbeards Chapter of the National 

Wild Turkey Federation; the Barnstable 

County League of Sportsman’s Clubs, 

Inc.; and the Bass River Rod and Gun 

Club, Inc. One comment was from the 

agency that manages hunting in 

Massachusetts, the MDFW. 

Two individual comments expressed 

general support for establishing a spring 

turkey season at the Seashore that was 

consistent with the MDFW program, but 

also recognized that the Seashore season 

and the State season were separately 

managed. Two individual comments 

supported the spring turkey season 

based on reducing motor vehicle and 

turkey conflicts on Route 6, a well 

travelled State highway that runs 

through the Seashore. 

The comments received from the 

three organizations supported 

establishing a spring turkey season at 

the Seashore. These comments also 

suggested there should be: 

• Consistency between the Seashore 

and MDFW regulations, 

• A youth turkey hunt similar to the 

State youth hunt, 

• Flexibility in the rule for the 

Seashore to adjust to any changes 

MDFW makes with the spring turkey 

season, and 

• No extra geographic restraints in the 

Seashore spring turkey season that 

might create a high hunter density. 

The MDFW made similar suggestions 

and also expressed concern about the 

possible need for a hunter to have a 

permit issued by the Seashore in 

addition to their State hunting license 

and turkey stamp. 

Analysis and Response 

The Seashore’s hunting FEIS 

evaluated a turkey hunting season that 

was consistent with the MDFW 

regulations. The Seashore’s hunting 

program has generally followed the 

MDFW program, with additional 

provisions or restrictions as necessary to 

meet park objectives and NPS policies. 

The Seashore regards MDFW as a key 

expert agency with State and regionwide perspective that is important for 

determining hunting seasons, bag limits, 

and other elements of a sound hunting 

program. Accordingly, management of 

hunting at the Seashore will be 

accomplished through close 

coordination between the Seashore and 

MDFW. The Seashore has adopted many 

of the MDFW regulations without 

additional restrictions, although the 

ultimate responsibility for developing 

and managing an appropriate hunting 

program for the Seashore rests with the 

NPS. 

The existing special regulation 

utilizes 36 CFR 1.5, Closures and public 

use limits, to designate appropriate 

locations where hunting is allowed and 

to impose reasonable limits or 

restrictions necessary to address park 

specific issues such as resource 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

9854 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

protection, public safety and other 

visitor use concerns. While the general 

authority of § 1.5 remains available as 

an alternative closure authority, the new 

§ 7.67(f)(5) creates Seashore-specific 

discretionary authority for the 

Superintendent, consistent with the 

public notice requirement of 36 CFR 1.7, 

to require permits where appropriate 

and to ensure that potential park 

specific concerns or conflicts, such as 

resource protection, visitor use, and 

public safety, can be addressed should 

they arise. Section 1.7 describes four 

alternative methods of notifying the 

public: Signs; maps; newspaper 

publication; and electronic media, 

brochures, or hand-outs. In addition, the 

Superintendent must annually compile 

all park closures and restrictions into a 

document generally referred to as the 

Superintendent’s Compendium, which 

is available to the public on the 

Seashore’s Web site at http:// 

www.nps.gov/caco. Although, closures 

under the new § 7.67(f)(5)(ii) are 

‘‘temporary’’ insofar as they must be 

annually re-evaluated and renewed by 

the Superintendent, they may be 

renewed each year whenever 

appropriate. In order to clarify this 

point, and because the requirement for 

annual review already exists in 36 CFR 

1.7, NPS has deleted the word 

‘‘temporarily’’ from § 7.67(f)(5)(ii) in this 

final rule. This closure authority will 

allow for such closures to remain 

flexible in light of changes in visitor 

use, public safety, wildlife resource 

impacts, or other changed or 

unanticipated conditions. Hunters are 

urged to consult with the Seashore each 

season to ascertain whether or not there 

are any changes from the prior year. 

For similar reasons, NPS has deleted 

the reference to management activities 

and objectives ‘‘such as those described 

in the Cape Cod National Seashore 

Hunting Program/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement’’ from § 7.67(f)(5)(ii) 

in this final rule. Although the FEIS will 

continue to be an important guiding 

document, the Seashore will gain 

knowledge and experience each season 

that will inform the ongoing 

management process, and accordingly 

some flexibility is necessary. 

For example, when the FEIS (July 

2007) and ROD (September 2007), were 

completed, the MDFW had a two-week 

spring turkey hunting season, starting at 

the end of April and ending in early 

May. The FEIS and ROD statements of 

being ‘‘consistent with’’ the State season 

and expanding the Seashore’s hunting 

season to accommodate the State’s 

spring turkey hunt was written in the 

context of the two-week season. Since 

that date, the State has expanded its 

spring turkey season from two to four 

weeks, ending in late May. Due to 

possible user conflicts that may arise in 

late May, the Seashore Superintendent, 

using discretionary authority of the rule, 

will set the closing date of the season. 

The Seashore will strive to be consistent 

with the MDFW’s turkey season dates to 

avoid confusion. However, the 

Superintendent will have the discretion 

to adjust the Seashore’s opening and 

closings dates based on factors such as 

safety, use patterns, and the public 

interest. 

To authorize and manage hunting 

activities compatible with their land 

management concerns, other federal and 

Commonwealth facilities within 

Massachusetts, such as the 

Massachusetts Military Reservation, 

have different rules and different dates 

than the dates/times established by the 

MDFW. The Superintendent’s discretion 

in this case would be similar to such 

established practice. The public will be 

notified of the spring turkey hunt 

opening and closing dates and other 

special conditions for the Seashore 

hunting program, all of which will also 

be published in the Superintendent’s 

Compendium. 

Affording the Seashore 

Superintendent this discretion provides 

the flexibility suggested by the three 

organizations and the MDFW to allow 

for accommodation of future changes in 

the State’s program (provided the 

changes fall within the scope of 

discretion authorized by this regulation) 

without further rulemaking. For 

example, MDFW currently has a special 

youth turkey hunt, which is allowed on 

a specific day, as part of its spring 

turkey season. The Seashore may 

consider, and this rulemaking 

accommodates, the possibility of 

incorporating a youth turkey hunt into 

the Seashore’s program in the future. 

Consideration of the youth turkey hunt 

component may be entertained after the 

Seashore has implemented and 

evaluated the regular spring turkey 

hunt. 

The ROD directed that: ‘‘[t]urkey 

hunting within [the Seashore] will be a 

controlled hunt requiring a permit, 

limiting the number of hunters, and 

likely managed through a lottery 

system.’’ Accordingly, to control issues 

such as hunter density for safety, this 

rule provides that the Seashore will 

manage the turkey hunt through 

permits. A person seeking the turkey 

hunting permit must present a driver’s 

license, vehicle registration and 

Massachusetts State Hunting license 

with turkey stamp to ensure compliance 

with MDFW turkey hunt legal 

requirements and to verify the identity 

of the applicant. Seashore hunters 

should understand that some areas 

where hunting has previously been 

allowed might be closed to hunting 

during the spring turkey season for 

safety reasons. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

After review and analysis of the 

public comments, NPS has: 

• Deleted the word ‘‘temporarily’’ in 

paragraph (f)(5)(ii), for the reasons 

discussed in the previous section; 

• Deleted the reference to activities 

and objectives ‘‘such as those described 

in the Cape Cod National Seashore 

Hunting Program/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement’’ in paragraph 

(f)(5)(ii), for the reasons discussed in the 

previous section; and 

• Added the terms ‘‘limitations, 

restrictions * * * or other hunting 

related designations’’ to the public 

notification requirements for closures in 

paragraph (f)(6) to clarify that the 

requirement applies to all such actions. 

Compliance With Other Laws and 

Executive Orders 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

This document is not a significant 

rule and the Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed this rule under 

Executive Order 12866. 

(1) This rule will not have an effect of 

$100 million or more on the economy. 

It will not adversely affect in a material 

way the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

(2) This rule will not create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency. This is an agency 

specific rule. 

(3) This rule does not alter the 

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 

user-fees, or loan programs or the rights 

or obligations of their recipients. 

(4) This rule does not raise novel legal 

or policy issues. The rule meets the 

requirements of the NPS general 

regulations at 36 CFR 2.2(b)(2). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this document will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 9855 

The rule will benefit small businesses in 

the local communities through the sale 

of goods and services to turkey hunters. 

b. Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. The rule will not 

impose restrictions on business in the 

local communities in the form of fees, 

record keeping or other requirements 

that would increase costs. 

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 Executive Order 

12630, this rule does not have 

significant takings implications. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

Under the criteria in 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 requirements of section 

3(a) requiring 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) 

Under the criteria in Executive Order 

13175 we have evaluated this rule and 

determined that it has no potential 

effects on federally recognized Indian 

tribes. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collection of information that requires 

approval by OMB under the PRA of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has 

approved the information collection 

requirements associated with NPS 

special use permits and has assigned 

OMB control number 1024–0026 

(expires 06/30/2013). An 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 implements a portion of a 

major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. The Seashore formally 

initiated the NEPA process on June 21, 

2004 by publishing in the Federal 

Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) on the Seashore 

Hunting Program. 

A series of public and agency scoping 

meetings followed to solicit input on 

hunting in the park from American 

Indian tribes, Federal and State agencies 

and local towns, the public, and 

interested groups. Using the information 

gathered during the scoping process, the 

Seashore prepared a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft 

EIS) for public review and comment. 

The comment period opened on April 

21, 2006, with the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) publication 

of a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the 

Federal Register, and closed 60 days 

later, on June 19, 2006. 

Two public meetings were held 

during the 60-day review period to 

receive oral comment. The availability 

of the Draft EIS and the dates and times 

of the public meetings were also 

publicized through a second NOA 

published by the NPS in the Federal 

Register on May 10, 2006, and through 

press releases sent to local newspapers 

and radio stations. Over 200 comments 

were received on the Draft EIS. These 

comments were used to improve the 

Draft and produce the FEIS. 

Completion of the FEIS was noticed 

in the Federal Register by the DOI and 

EPA on August 7 and August 10, 2007, 

respectively. The ROD was signed on 

September 18, 2007. The chosen 

alternative was Alternative B—Develop 

a Modified Hunting Program. The FEIS 

and ROD may be reviewed at: http:// 

www.nps.gov/caco/parkmgmt/ 

planning.htm. 

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. 

Drafting Information 

The primary authors of this regulation 

were Craig Thatcher, Acting Chief 

Ranger, Cape Cod National Seashore; 

Robin Lepore, Office of the Regional 

Solicitor, Department of the Interior; 

Russel J. Wilson, Chief Regulations and 

Special Park Uses, National Park 

Service; and, A.J. North, Regulations 

Coordinator, National Park Service. 

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 

National Parks, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the National Park Service 

amends 36 CFR part 7 as follows: 

PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, 

AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 7 

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). 

■ 2. Revise § 7.67(f) to read as follows: 

§ 7.67 Cape Cod National Seashore. 

* * * * * 

(f) Hunting. (1) Hunting is allowed at 

times and locations designated by the 

Superintendent as open to hunting. 

(2) Except as otherwise provided in 

this section, hunting is permitted in 

accordance with § 2.2 of this chapter. 

(3) Only deer, upland game (including 

Eastern Wild Turkey), and migratory 

waterfowl may be hunted. 

(4) Hunting is prohibited from March 

1st through August 31st each year, 

except for the taking of Eastern Wild 

Turkey as designated by the 

Superintendent. 

(5) The Superintendent may: 

(i) Require permits and establish 

conditions for hunting; and 

(ii) Limit, restrict, or terminate 

hunting access or activities after taking 

into consideration public health and 

safety, natural and cultural resource 

protection, and other management 

activities and objectives. 

(6) The public will be notified of such 

limitations, restrictions, closures, or 

other hunting related designations 

through one or more methods listed in 

§ 1.7(a) of this chapter. 

(7) Violating a closure, designation, 

use or activity restriction or a term or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

9856 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

condition of a permit is prohibited. 

Violating a term or condition of a permit 

may result in the suspension or 

revocation of the permit by the 

Superintendent. 

Dated: February 10, 2012. 

Rachel Jacobson, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3950 Filed 2–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–WV–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2012–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8219] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you want to determine whether a 

particular community was suspended 

on the suspension date or for further 

information, contact David Stearrett, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2953. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

Federal flood insurance that is not 

otherwise generally available from 

private insurers. In return, communities 

agree to adopt and administer local 

floodplain management aimed at 

protecting lives and new construction 

from future flooding. Section 1315 of 

the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, 

prohibits the sale of NFIP flood 

insurance unless an appropriate public 

body adopts adequate floodplain 

management measures with effective 

enforcement measures. The 

communities listed in this document no 

longer meet that statutory requirement 

for compliance with program 

regulations, 44 CFR part 59. 

Accordingly, the communities will be 

suspended on the effective date in the 

third column. As of that date, flood 

insurance will no longer be available in 

the community. We recognize that some 

of these communities may adopt and 

submit the required documentation of 

legally enforceable floodplain 

management measures after this rule is 

published but prior to the actual 

suspension date. These communities 

will not be suspended and will continue 

their eligibility for the sale of insurance. 

A notice withdrawing the suspension of 

the communities will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood 

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that 

identifies the Special Flood Hazard 

Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. 

The date of the FIRM, if one has been 

published, is indicated in the fourth 

column of the table. No direct Federal 

financial assistance (except assistance 

pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act not in connection with a 

flood) may be provided for construction 

or acquisition of buildings in identified 

SFHAs for communities not 

participating in the NFIP and identified 

for more than a year on FEMA’s initial 

FIRM for the community as having 

flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This 

prohibition against certain types of 

Federal assistance becomes effective for 

the communities listed on the date 

shown in the last column. The 

Administrator finds that notice and 

public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 

are impracticable and unnecessary 

because communities listed in this final 

rule have been adequately notified. 

Each community receives 6-month, 

90-day, and 30-day notification letters 

addressed to the Chief Executive Officer 

stating that the community will be 

suspended unless the required 

floodplain management measures are 

met prior to the effective suspension 

date. Since these notifications were 

made, this final rule may take effect 

within less than 30 days. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This rule is categorically excluded from 

the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, 

Environmental Considerations. No 

environmental impact assessment has 

been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Administrator has determined that this 

rule is exempt from the requirements of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act because 

the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, 

prohibits flood insurance coverage 

unless an appropriate public body 

adopts adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed no 

longer comply with the statutory 

requirements, and after the effective 

date, flood insurance will no longer be 

available in the communities unless 

remedial action takes place. 

Regulatory Classification. This final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This rule involves no policies that have 

federalism implications under Executive 

Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule meets the applicable 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 

does not involve any collection of 

information for purposes of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 

Flood insurance, Floodplains. 

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 64—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. 

§ 64.6 [Amended] 

■ 2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 64.6 are amended as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES