19436 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

These changes to the regulations will

require the bridge to open on signal on

the hour from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., except

that from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to

7 p.m., Monday through Friday, the

bridge need not open, except for

inbound commercial fishing vessels on

the hour. The bridge shall be opened at

any time for vessels with a draft of 15

feet or greater, except during on call

hours. An on call requirement for

openings Christmas eve through

Christmas day is being added as part of

this proposal requiring that the draw

will open as soon as possible but not

longer than two hours after notice has

been given by calling the number posted

at the bridge.

The requirement in the regulations to

open as soon as possible for U.S.

Government and State of Massachusetts

vessels is being removed since it is now

listed under the general operating

regulations in 33 CFR 117.31 for all

bridges. The requirement to post the

operating regulations is being removed

since it is listed under 33 CFR 117.55

under the general operating regulations

for all bridges.

The times when the bridge opens are

being changed to on the hour

eliminating the period 11:15 a.m. to 6:15

p.m. when the bridge opened at a

quarter past the hour. The bridge

opening times will all be on the hour for

simplicity since there is no known

reason to have different opening times.

The requirement to not exceed 15

minutes is being eliminated from the

regulations because the drawtenders

open and close the bridge promptly or

as soon as possible as a rule and should

have the discretion to use their

experience for safety and preservation of

the mechanical components for the

operating machinery of the bridge.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866, and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

Order. It has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

that Order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this proposed rule to be so

minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT, is unnecessary. This conclusion is

based on the fact that bridges must

operate in accordance with the needs of

navigation while providing for the

reasonable needs of land transportation.

This proposed rule adopts the operating

hours which the Coast Guard believes to

be appropriate based on the results of

past experience and the bridge traffic

counts reviewed by the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard believes this rule

achieves the requirement of balancing

the navigational rights of recreational

boaters and the needs of land based

transportation.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

considers whether this proposal will

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

‘‘Small entities’’ include small

businesses, not-for profit organizations

that are independently owned and

operated and are not dominant in their

fields, and governmental jurisdictions

with populations less than 50,000.

Therefore, for the reasons discussed in

the Regulatory Evaluation section above,

the Coast Guard certifies under section

605(b) that this proposed rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

If, however, you think that your

business or organization qualifies as a

small entity and that this proposed rule

will have a significant economic impact

on your business or organization, please

submit a comment (see ADDRESSES)

explaining why you think it qualifies

and in what way and to what degree this

rule will economically affect it.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule does not provide

for a collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposed rule in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612 and has

determined that this rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that, under section

2.B.2.e.(34) of Commandant Instruction

M16475.1B, as amended by 50 FR

38655, July 29, 1994, this proposed rule

is categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation because

promulgation of changes to drawbridge

regulations have been found not to have

significant effect on the environment. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is available in the docket for inspection

or copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Proposed Regulation

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.585 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 117.585 Acushnet River

(a) The New Bedford Fairhaven

Route-6 Bridge, mile 0.0, shall open on

signal on the hour from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.,

except:

(1) From 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, the

draw shall open on the hour for

inbound commercial fishing vessels

only.

(2) Except as noted in paragraph (c) of

this section, the draw shall open on

signal at any time for vessels with a

draft exceeding 15 feet.

(b) From 7 p.m. through 6 a.m. the

draw shall open on signal.

(c) From 6 p.m. on December 24th

through midnight on December 25th,

the draw shall open as soon as possible

but not longer than two hours after

notice has been given by calling the

number posted at the bridge.

Dated: April 8, 1998.

R.M. Larrabee,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–10272 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 7

RIN 1024–AC66

Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical

Park, Hawaii Public Nudity

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The National Park Service

(NPS) is proposing to prohibit public

nudity within the boundaries of Kaloko-
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19437

Honokohau National Historical Park,

Hawaii. The existing practice of

recreational public nudity is in conflict

with the enabling legislation of the park

and the traditional values of native

Hawaiian culture which the park was

created to perpetuate and preserve.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted through June 19, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Superintendent, KalokoHonokohau National Historical Park,

734786 Kanalani St. # 14, Kailua-Kona,

Hawaii 96745.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryan Harry, Superintendent, National

Park Service, Pacific Island Support

Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite

6305, P.O. Box 50165, Honolulu, Hawaii

96850. Telephone 808–541–2693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Kaloko-Honokohau National

Historical Park was established under

Public Law 95–625 (16 U.S.C. 396d) on

November 10, 1978 to ‘‘* * * provide a

center for the preservation,

interpretation and perpetuation of

traditional native Hawaiian activities

and culture, and to demonstrate historic

land use patterns as well as to provide

needed resources for the education,

enjoyment and appreciation of such

traditional native Hawaiian activities

and culture by local residents and

visitors * * *.’’ Public nudity, an

activity that can be construed as

contemptuous and insulting in

traditional native Hawaiian culture, is

in conflict with the above stated

purpose for which this park was

established. Continued use of the park

in this manner derogates resources that

are used traditionally and creates a

condition that is in conflict with related

traditional practices by native

Hawaiians.

In traditional Hawaiian culture,

public nudity had strong social

connotations as documented by the

following excerpts pertaining to nudity

and how it is viewed in the Hawaiian

culture, stating specifically that such

activity was very strictly regulated

within a defined traditional social

context.

Mourning: ‘‘* * * displaying genitals were

neither common nor approved, Mrs. Pukui

explains. Such actions were excusable only

because the mourner was considered pupule

(crazy) from grief.’’ (Kamakau 1919–20:2–45;

Campbell 1967:101; Pukui, Haertig, and Lee,

1972 Vol. I: 124,133; 1972 Vol. II:183; Valeri

1985:261, 308).

Sorcery: ‘‘ As nudity is excused during

mourning, nudity in the ceremony of

anewanewa, was excused due to the fear of

sorcery. These two circumstances were

probably the only time Hawaiians of both

sexes were ever nude in public. Exposure of

the genitals was not approved.’’ (Pukui,

Haertig, and Lee, 1972:124)

Nudity, general: Hawaiian tradition, for

those following the kapu ‘‘exposing the

buttocks (ho’opohopoho) was a gesture of

complete contempt * * * and a grave insult

to the beholder and for this reason even the

‘‘slit-in-the-back’’ hospital gown thus

becomes a threat to ordinary courtesy’’

(Pukui, Haertig, and Lee, 1972:91)

Today, the reaction of Hawaiian

cultural experts to public nudity echos

the past pre-missionary view towards

nakedness (personal communication

with Pat Bacon, who is Mary Kawena

Pukui’s daughter). Specifically, she was

asked as to what circumstances in the

Hawaiian Culture would nudity be

acceptable. Ms. Bacon stated that

traditionally, children were allowed to

go naked until they were about 10 years

old, and that adult, female or male,

nudity was not acceptable, and that men

were nude only for rituals.

Existing Conditions

Public nudity is currently taking place

in a relatively confined area fronting

one of the park’s more important

cultural features, ‘‘Aimakapa’’ fishpond.

The beach front at this location is

visible from the proposed park

observation platform and the boardwalk

trail, both primary destination points for

park visitors. Many more of the

significant culture features of the park

are located along the beach trail through

the area currently used by the nudists.

All park users must pass along this

narrow coastal strip and therefore must

confront any person(s) involved in

public nudity. Native Hawaiians, school

groups and other visitors with a strong

identity to traditional Hawaiian culture

have informed park management that

they have chosen to abandon their visit

to the park rather than confront this

conflicting and distracting activity. The

NPS has on file numerous letters and

documents from the Hawaii

Congressional Delegation and the native

Hawaiian constituency relating to their

views of an existing conflict between

public nudity and the purposes for

which the park was established.

The park initially attempted to

encourage voluntary compliance against

public nudity. When this failed, the

park enacted a temporary restriction of

public nudity through the

Superintendent’s Compendium (36 CFR

1.5(a)(2)). This temporary prohibition is

currently in place and will remain in

place while the park solicits public

comment through this rulemaking.

The creation of Kaloko-Honokohau

National Historical Park was largely

driven by the congressional delegations

of the State of Hawaii. This

congressional delegation, native

Hawaiian community groups and

leaders, and other special interest

groups were influential in defining the

nature and purpose of the park and

maintain an active interest in the

progress and direction of the park’s

development.

The enabling legislation defines the

intended purpose and management

direction for the park, and recreational

nudity, or any other recreational

activity, must be compatible with NPS

management’s ability to carry out that

legislated purpose. Mitigation efforts to

resolve the issue to date have failed.

The issue of public nudity was first

addressed in public on December 12,

1990, when a Notice of Intent to prepare

an environmental impact statement for

a general management plan for KalokoHonokohau National Historical Park

appeared in the Federal Register (55 FR

51165). Following the Federal Register

notice, scoping for the preparation of

the General Management Plan (GMP)

was initiated. Letters were sent to

officials, organizations and individuals

who were known to have an interest in

the development of Kaloko-Honokohau

National Historical Park, inviting them

to attend scheduled public meetings or

provide written comments expressing

their views and concerns related to the

future use and development of KalokoHonokohau National Historical Park.

Public meetings were held on the

islands of Hawaii (Kona and Waimea)

and O’ahu (Honolulu) in January 1991

to receive comments from all interested

parties in order to identify the full scope

of issues relevant to the preparation of

that GMP. During the public comment

period, which ran to the end of February

1991, more than 900 responses to

Kaloko-Honokohau’s GMP initiative

were received. These comments were

carefully considered in drafting

planning options to reflect all

viewpoints. Planning issues evolving

into the GMP included the following:

future public use of Honokohau beach,

protection of the fishpond’s endangered

biota, park development and

accessibility, carrying capacities, and

others.

With regard to future use of

Honokohau beach, 19 individuals either

spoke or wrote in opposition to allowing

nude sunbathing there. Three of the

letters were accompanied by petitions.

These petitions contained a total of 442

signatures from individuals who

opposed nude sunbathing in national

parks. There were a total of 42

individuals who either spoke or wrote

in favor of designating Honokohau

beach as clothing optional. One of the
19438 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

letters was accompanied by a petition

with 189 signatures of individuals

recommending the NPS designate

Honokohau beach as clothing optional.

This response persuaded the park to

move forward with comment

rulemaking.

Public Participation

It is the policy of the Department of

the Interior, whenever practicable, to

afford the public an opportunity to

participate in the rulemaking process.

Accordingly, interested persons may

submit written comments regarding this

proposed rule to the address noted at

the beginning of this rulemaking. The

NPS will review these comments, as

well as the comments received from the

previous public meetings concerning

the future use of Honokohau beach, and

consider making changes to the rule

based upon an analysis of the

comments.

Drafting Information

The principal authors of this

proposed rulemaking are James Martin,

Superintendent, Hawaii Volcanoes

National Park; Bryan Harry,

Superintendent, National Park Service,

Pacific Island Support Office; Laura

Carter-Schuster, Resource Manager,

Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical

Park; and Dennis Burnett, Washington

Office of Ranger Activities, National

Park Service.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rulemaking does not contain

collections of information requiring

approval by the Office of Management

and Budget under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995.

Compliance With Other Laws

This rule was not subject to Office of

Management and Budget review under

Executive Order 12866. The Department

of the Interior determined that this

document will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities under Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). The

economic effects of this rulemaking are

local in nature and negligible in scope.

The Service has determined and

certifies pursuant to the Unfounded

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et

seq., that this proposed rule will not

impose a cost of $100 million or more

in any given year on local, State, or

tribal governments or private entities.

The Department has determined that

this rule meets the applicable standards

provided in Section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12988.

This rule is not a major rule under the

Congressional review provisions of the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).

The NPS has determined that this

rulemaking will not have a significant

effect on the quality of the human

environment, health and safety because

it is not expected to:

(a) Increase public use to the extent of

compromising the nature and character of the

area or causing physical damage to it;

(b) Introduce incompatible uses which

compromise the nature and characteristics of

the area or cause physical damage to it;

(c) Conflict with adjacent ownership or

land uses; or

(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or

occupants.

Based on this determination, this

rulemaking is categorically excluded

from the procedural requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in

516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438). As such,

neither an Environmental Assessment

nor an Environmental Impact Statement

has been prepared specifically for this

regulation. However, an EIS was issued

in 1992 along with the General

Management Plan for the management

and development of Kaloko-Honokohau

National Historical Park under the

provisions of NEPA.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7

District of Columbia, National parks,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

NPS proposes to amend 36 CFR Chapter

I 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, 460(q),

462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code

8–137(1981) and D.C. Code 40–721(1981).

2. New Section 7.87 is added to read

as follows:

§ 7.87 Kaloko-Honokohau National

Historical Park.

Public nudity, including public nude

bathing, by any person on Federal land

or water within the boundaries of

Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical

Park is prohibited. Public nudity is a

person’s failure to cover with a fully

opaque covering that person’s own

genitals, pubic areas, rectal area or

female breast below a point immediately

above the top of the areola when in a

public place. Public place is any area of

Federal land or water within the

Historical Park, except the enclosed

portions of restrooms or other structures

designed for privacy or similar

purposes. This section shall not apply to

a person under 10 years of age.

Dated: January 30, 1998.

Donald J. Barry,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 98–10322 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 142

[FRL–5999–5]

RIN 2020–AA37

Revision of Existing Variance and

Exemption Regulations to Comply

With Requirements of the Safe

Drinking Water Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Agency is proposing to

revise the existing regulations regarding

Safe Drinking Water Act variances and

exemptions. These revisions are based

on the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act

Amendments. A new subpart, Subpart

K, created to implement a new section

in the Amendments, describes

procedures and conditions under which

a primacy State/Tribe (please note that

throughout this preamble and proposed

rule, the term ‘‘State’’ has the same

definition as currently exists in 40 CFR

141.2, i.e., ‘‘State means the agency of

the State or Tribal government which

has jurisdiction over public water

systems . . .’’) or the Administrator may

issue small system variances to public

water systems serving less than 10,000

persons. This rule-making is intended to

provide regulatory relief to all public

water systems, particularly small

systems.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by midnight May 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to: W–97–26 Comment

Clerk, Water Docket (mailcode

MC4101), Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C., 20460.

The record is available for inspection

at the Water Docket, Washington, D.C.,

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. For

access to docket materials, please call

(202)–260–3027 to schedule an

appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew J. Hudock, Office of