[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 21, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19480-19483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9958]



[[Page 19480]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is issuing this final rule to 
prohibit public nudity within the boundaries of Kaloko-Honokohau 
National Historical Park, Hawaii. 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes effective on May 21, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Harry, Superintendent, National 
Park Service, Pacific Islands Support Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., 
Suite 6-226, P.O. Box 50165, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850. Telephone 808-541-
2693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Public Law 95-625 (16 U.S.C. 396d) established Kaloko-Honokohau 
National Historical Park 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 
native Hawaiian practices.
    In traditional Hawaiian culture, public nudity had strong social 
connotations. The following excerpts, pertaining to nudity, document 
the traditional viewpoint of Hawaiians. Nudity and public display of 
genitals was very strictly regulated within a defined traditional 
social context.
    Mourning: * * * displaying genitals was 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 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 (hoopohopoho) 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 
echoes 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.
    The park initially attempted to encourage voluntary compliance to 
prohibit 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.
    A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register April 20, 
1998 (63 FR 19436). The public comment period for the proposed rule was 
open for 60 days.

Summary of Comments

    We received a total of 1,355 letters and five petitions with 
comments on the proposed rule during the public comment period ending 
June 19, 1998. We have carefully considered all comments received. The 
legitimate concerns of both Hawaiian residents and of individuals from 
areas outside Hawaii were given consideration in the review process. In 
addition, we completed a critical review of the content and format of 
the final regulation. A summary of comments and our response to these 
comments follows.
    A total of 468 letters opposed the proposed rule to ban public 
nudity at Kaloko-Honokohau. Of the 468 letters opposing the proposed 
rule, 47 were from the State of Hawaii and 375 were from out-of-state. 
Twenty-eight of the 47 Hawaii addresses were from the island of Hawaii 
where this national historical park is located. The addresses of origin 
of 46 of the letters opposing the rule could not be determined.
    A total of 887 letters and the five petitions, containing a total 
of 74 signatures, were in support of the proposed rule and against 
public nudity at Kaloko-Honokohau. Of the 887 letters supporting the 
rule, 849 had addresses from the State of Hawaii and eight had out-of-
state addresses. A total of 815 of the 887 Hawaii addresses were from 
the island of Hawaii where this national historical park is located. 
The addresses of origin of 30 letters could not be determined.
    More than three hundred letters of comment opposing the rule 
appeared to come from members of the Naturist Society and the American 
Association for Nude Recreation (AANR). These letters contained 
statements similar to those found in advisory alerts forwarded to 
members by the Naturist Action Committee and contained in the AANR's 
monthly publication, The Bulletin. Members were asked to submit 
individual letters and were provided with the following suggested 
points to make in those letters:
    1. State that you are a federal taxpayer objecting to the proposed 
rule against Nudity at Honokohau National Park.
    2. You can also mention: That, as a federal taxpayer, you believe 
national parks are for everyone; that, with the right planning, nude 
recreation and other uses such as educational tours of the historic 
park can be accommodated; and that the availability of nude beaches is 
a factor in your decision-making about where you and your family choose 
to spend vacation dollars.
    A total of 317 letters opposing the proposed rule contained 
references to the above points.
    A total of 173 of the letters opposing the proposed rule disputed 
or disagreed that public nudity could be construed as contemptuous and 
insulting in traditional native Hawaiian culture and in conflict with 
the stated purpose of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. 
These letters contained statements that native Hawaiians swam nude at 
Honokohau beach for centuries and that nude use was not in conflict 
with traditional practices by native Hawaiians, and that nude use of 
Honokohau beach is not offensive to native Hawaiians.
    Letters were received from members of Hawaii's Congressional 
Delegation, a member of the State Legislature, the

[[Page 19481]]

Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission, 
the Naturist Society, the Naturist Action Committee, the American 
Association of Nude Recreation, the Western Sunbathing Association, and 
organizations and foundations representing Native Hawaiians. The 
content of these letters is summarized below.

    Hawaii Senator Daniel K. Inouye stated he was pleased to learn 
that a proposed rule had appeared in the April 20, 1998 Federal 
Register to prohibit nude sunbathing at Kaloko-Honokohau National 
Historical Park. Senator Inouye requested that the proposed rule be 
approved and ratified. The letter closed with the following: ``I am 
convinced that this rule is essential to the proper management of 
the national park, and as a means of demonstrating federal 
sensitivity to native Hawaiian cultural practices and historic 
sites.''
    Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka expressed full support for the 
proposed rule to prohibit public nudity within the boundaries of 
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. The senator added that 
``[p]ublic nudity was never intended to be permitted on park 
premises when Congress considered the establishment of the park.''
    U.S. Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink, within whose district the 
national historical park is located, wrote, ``to urge the adoption 
of the proposed rule to prohibit nude sunbathing at Kaloko-Honokohau 
National Historical Park.'' Congresswoman Mink further stated that 
as the sponsor of legislation to establish Kaloko-Honokohau as a 
national park, ``it was not my intention nor the intention of 
Congress to allow public nudity at this significant Native Hawaiian 
site.''
    State of Hawaii Representative Paul Whalen, whose legislative 
district contains Kaloko-Honokohau, supported including the proposed 
rule in the Code of Federal Regulations. Representative Whalen's 
letter stated ``[g]iven the stated purpose of the park and the 
native Hawaiian view of public nudity, nude sunbathing at the park 
site is both inappropriate for such a learning center and culturally 
insensitive.''
    The Hawaii Island Trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs 
supported the proposed regulation prohibiting public nudity at 
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. The Trustee stated that 
public nudity runs counter to the purpose of the park which is for 
reorientation to things Hawaiian. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs was 
established by the Hawaii Legislature as a self-governing, corporate 
body whose purpose is the betterment of conditions for all 
Hawaiians.
    A letter was received from the Chairman of the Na Hoa Pili O 
Kaloko-Honokohau, the Advisory Commission established by Congress to 
advise NPS ``with respect to the historical, archeological, 
cultural, and interpretive programs of the park.'' The letter stated 
that at the Commission's December 13, 1997 meeting the members 
present voted unanimously in favor of an amended motion to ban all 
nudity in the park. The letter further stated that at their March 
28, 1998 meeting, the Commission reiterated its position that nudity 
at the park be prohibited.
    The Founder and President of the Naturist Society (TNS) 
requested that the proposed rule be discarded and in its place a 
Special Regulation be formulated to provide for the management of 
nude recreation at Honokohau Beach. TNS has been actively engaged 
for nearly two decades in promoting nude recreation on appropriate 
public lands.
    The American Association of Nude Recreation (AANR), on behalf of 
its more than 50,000 members wrote to request that the proposed rule 
be delayed and ultimately rescinded. The AANR based its request on 
pending cases related to the current ban on nudity at Kaloko-
Honokohau and their awareness of a forthcoming lawsuit challenging 
both the current ban and the proposed rule. Further, AANR's letter 
presented the view that informational signs could be posted in the 
park to manage conflicting uses.
    The Naturist Action Committee (NAC), affiliated with the 
Naturist Society, expressed opposition to the proposal to prohibit 
public nudity at Honokohau Beach. The letter asked that the proposed 
rule be abandoned and a Special Regulation be established to express 
a more positive attitude toward nude recreation at Kaloko-Honokohau. 
NAC's stated objectives focus on perpetuating nude recreational 
activities that have existed on federal and state-managed 
recreational lands for many generations.

    A letter was received from Ms. Mililani Trask on behalf of Ka Lahui 
Hawaii, a native Hawaiian organization claiming membership of 23,000 
individuals of Hawaiian heritage. The letter, in part, states:

    Nudity in our Hawaiian culture was not and is not culturally 
appropriate. In our culture, public nudity was considered insulting 
and contemptuous and where it occurred in relation to sacred sites 
(wahi pana), it was considered an act of desecration. The only 
exceptions to this rule are religious ritual and mourning. These 
exceptions do not apply to Pu'uoina Heiau [a sacred Hawaiian temple 
near Honokohau beach]. Our cultural practices regarding nudity have 
been well documented by Ms. Mary Kawena Pukui, a renowned and often 
cited cultural expert.

    The Edith Kanaka'ole Foundation, a private non-profit organization 
established to uphold and practice the indigenous Hawaiian culture, 
opposed naked sunbathing in the National Park of Kaloko-Honokohau. The 
letter states why nudity in general and naked sunbathing in particular 
was not and is not a traditional Hawaiian cultural practice.
    The President of the Western Sunbathing Association, an affiliate 
of AANR, wrote to oppose the proposed ban on nudity at Honokohau Beach. 
The letter stated that until the enactment of the temporary ban on 
nudity effective January 1, 1997, nudists had peacefully coexisted with 
other beach users for many years. The association has over 8,000 
members and is affiliated with the Kona Sun Club.
    The chairperson of Na Kokua Kaloko-Honokohau, a non-profit 
organization established to assist NPS at Kaloko-Honokohau, wrote in 
opposition to nude sunbathing in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical 
Park and in support of the proposed rule.
    A letter and a petition containing 25 signatures were received from 
the Waimea Hawaiian Civic Club. These civic organizations were formed 
throughout the State of Hawaii to promote the interests of native 
Hawaiians. The purpose of the Waimea Hawaiian Civic Club's letter was 
to inform NPS of their stand banning nudity in public places in Hawaii, 
particularly at Kaloko-Honokohau.
    None of the letters of comment supporting the proposed rule 
included suggestions or recommendations for any modification in content 
or format. Therefore, we have not prepared responses to comment letters 
supporting the proposed rule.
    The following are responses to statements and suggestions made in 
several hundred comment letters opposing the proposed rule:
    Comment: With the right planning, nude recreation can be 
accommodated at the park.
    Response: The practice of nude sunbathing at Kaloko-Honokohau is a 
recreational activity that has been the cause of many complaints over 
the past decade from visitors and is therefore considered to be 
disruptive to orderly management of the park. Restricting this activity 
to certain locations within the park and/or to certain times has been 
eliminated as a management option because Honokohau beach is a small 
area and cultural practices take place throughout the park at different 
times. More important, nude sunbathing is a recreational activity that 
is in conflict with the purpose for which this national historical park 
was established. Therefore, anything less than a prohibition of public 
nudity at Kaloko-Honokohau is judged to be not feasible.
    Comment: Public nudity is consistent with native Hawaiian culture 
and the stated purpose of the park and is not offensive to the native 
Hawaiians.
    Response: The published cultural and historical record and the 
views of contemporary cultural experts, including native Hawaiians, do 
not support this view. Historically, in Hawaii, nudity has a wide range 
of strong social connotations from submission to spiritual ties to the 
aina, or earth. When done without purpose,

[[Page 19482]]

the exposure of the buttocks and anal area could be construed as a 
supreme gesture of contempt. Displaying genitals was neither common nor 
approved. Such actions were excusable during mourning only because the 
mourner was considered pupule (crazy) from grief. In general, adult 
nudity, outside of the family and without a reason for it, was 
disapproved. Today, the reaction of contemporary cultural experts to 
public nudity is consistent with the Hawaiian pre-missionary view of 
nakedness.
    The stated purpose of the park is to ``provide a center for the 
preservation, interpretation, and perpetuation of the traditional 
native Hawaiian activities and culture* * *'' Public nudity, an 
activity that can be construed as contemptuous and insulting to 
traditional native Hawaiian culture, is in direct conflict with the 
above stated purpose.
    Letters of comment received from contemporary native Hawaiian 
individuals and organizations consistently maintain that they regard 
public nudity is regarded by them to be offensive.
    Comment: Rescind the proposed rule because of the pending criminal 
case involving the nudity prohibition in the superintendent's 
compendium. Because the case raises several Constitutional issues, its 
outcome could well conflict with the proposed rule.
    Response: The defendants in that case withdrew their constitutional 
challenge to the compendium closure. Therefore, the ruling on this case 
will not conflict with this rulemaking.
    Comment: The proposed rule should be rescinded because the AANR is 
aware of a civil lawsuit about to be filed in federal court, which 
poses similar concerns.
    Response: The possibility of future lawsuits is not a sufficient 
basis for NPS to rescind this rulemaking.
    Comment: A preferable way to prevent conflict among users of 
Honokohau is with informational signs providing notice of areas where 
clothes-free swimming and sunbathing occur.
    Response: Informational signs would not prevent the conflicts 
between users engaged in public nudity and the traditional Hawaiian 
cultural purposes for which the park was established.
    Comment: Formulate a new Special Regulation that provides FOR the 
management of nude recreation.
    Response: Such a rule would be inconsistent with the park's 
enabling legislation and would derogate the values and purposes for 
which the park was established. The purpose of the proposed rule is to 
create an ambience and setting that fosters rather than inhibits the 
preservation and perpetuation of the traditional Hawaiian culture.
    Comment: Until the enactment of the temporary ban on nudity 
effective January 1, 1997, nudists had peacefully coexisted with other 
beach users for many years.
    Response: Since acquiring the property on which nude sunbathing is 
occurring, NPS has regularly received complaints from visitors--
cultural education groups, the native Hawaiian community, school 
groups, and segments of the general public--regarding the presence of 
nude sunbathers in the park. Park rangers, in a lengthy series of case 
incident reports, document all these complaints. Some visitors stated 
they would choose to stay away rather than to visit the park where this 
kind of recreational activity was taking place.
    Comment: Nude recreation is a legal activity on federal property, a 
point well established by NPS's own Special Directive 91-3 (Information 
on Public Nudity) dated May 29, 1991.
    Response: This Special Directive, which Kaloko-Honokohau has 
followed, provides the following information on NPS policy regarding 
recreational activities:

    The National Park Service will encourage recreational activities 
that are consistent with applicable legislation, and that are 
compatible with other visitor uses.
    Unless the activity is mandated by statute, the National Park 
Service will not allow a recreational activity in a park or in 
certain locations within a park if it would involve or result in * * 
* unacceptable impacts on visitor enjoyment due to interference with 
or conflict with other visitor use activities, among other things.
    When unacceptable visitor conflicts occur, as a result of public 
nudity, a resolution of the situation should be attempted 
informally, if appropriate, with the persons who are the subjects of 
the complaint. If informal attempts fail to resolve the conflict and 
enforcement action becomes necessary, the option may exist of either 
applying NPS regulations, or State or local laws that specifically 
prohibit public nudity. The latter method has the advantage of 
providing consistency in enforcement on both Federal lands and 
adjacent areas.
    Park areas experiencing a particularly difficult situation that 
cannot be solved by the above methods may wish to propose park 
specific rulemaking that will address these problems.

    Notwithstanding that nude sunbathing is inconsistent with the 
park's enabling legislation and that the park received many complaints 
from visitors about this recreational activity, the NPS, over a period 
of several years, attempted to resolve the situation informally with 
the persons who were the subjects of the complaint. In addition, 
attempts were made to apply State or county laws that prohibit public 
nudity. None of these attempts succeeded in resolving the situation and 
the Superintendent subsequently chose to propose park specific 
rulemaking to address this problem.
    Comment: Naturist individuals and organizations in Hawaii were 
unable to gain a place at the table in the discussion of management 
options at Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park.
    Response: The proponents of recreational nudity, including 
naturists, stated their views in substantial numbers at the public 
scoping meetings held in 1991 on the proposed general management plan. 
At these meetings and during the open public comment period that 
followed, the NPS was asked to designate Honokohau beach as clothing 
optional. In 1992, during the public meetings on the draft general 
management plan and during the open public comment period that 
followed, proponents of public nudity at Honokohau beach again asked 
that Honokohau beach be designated clothing optional. The NPS carefully 
weighed the feasibility of these requests against the park's enabling 
legislation and other public comments received during the development 
of the general management plan. Approved in 1994, the plan, while 
recognizing the use of Honokohau beach by nude sunbathers, states that 
this use will be prohibited in the future as the park is developed. 
Moreover, during the 60-day comment period on the proposed rule, 
naturists were able to express their views regarding recreational 
nudity at Kaloko-Honokohau. Over the past several years, there have 
been many opportunities for naturists to discuss the future of 
recreational nudity at Kaloko-Honokohau with the NPS.
    After careful review and analysis of the comments received during 
the public review period, NPS finds that the proposed rule is in accord 
with the congressionally established purpose of this national 
historical park. Specifically, the NPS judges the proposed rule to be 
consistent with Section 505(a) of Public Law 95-625 which states the 
purpose of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park to be ``the 
preservation, interpretation, and perpetuation of traditional native 
Hawaiian activities and culture.* * *'' Further, the NPS finds the 
proposed rule to be consistent with what past and contemporary cultural 
experts inform the Park Superintendent is Hawaiian tradition. Finally, 
the letters of comment contained no information that would

[[Page 19483]]

cause the NPS to modify either the content or format of the proposed 
rule.
    Drafting information. The principal authors of this final rule are 
James Martin, Superintendent, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park; Bryan 
Harry, Superintendent, National Park Service, Pacific Islands Support 
Office; Laura Carter-Schuster, Resource Manager, Kaloko-Honokohau 
National Historical Park; Dennis Burnett and Chip Davis, Washington 
Office of Ranger Activities, National Park Service.

Compliance With Other Laws

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

    This document is not a significant rule and has been reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
    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.
    This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The rule 
is local in nature and only impacts visitors to the Kaloko-Honokohau 
National Historical Park. Visitor conflicts will be reduced, enhancing 
the enjoyment of the area for the vast majority of visitors, who were 
previously offended by public nudity.
    This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of 
their recipients. The rule will not adversely impact public visitation 
or perpetuation and observance of traditional Native Hawaiian cultural 
practices for which the park was established.
    This rule does raise novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
The economic effects of this rulemaking are local in nature and 
negligible in scope.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    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. Does not represent a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    c. Does not have a significant adverse effect 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.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. No property acquisition or impacts on 
private property owners are expected due to the administrative nature 
of the rule.

Federalism (E.O. 12612)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12612, the rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment. State Representatives and organizations 
expressed support for the rule.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This regulation does not require an information collection from 10 
or more parties and submissions under the Paperwork Reduction Act or 
OMB form 83-I are not required. The visitor use management aspect of 
this rule does not require information collection.

National Environmental Policy Act

    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 that 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 upon 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, a Final EIS and Record of Decision were issued in 1994 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, 36 CFR Chapter I is amended 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 Sec. 7.87 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 7.87  Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park.

    (a) Is public nudity prohibited at Kaloko-Honokohau National 
Historical Park? Yes. Public nudity, including nude bathing, by any 
person on Federal land or water within the boundaries of Kaloko-
Honokohau National Historical Park is prohibited. This section does not 
apply to a person under 10 years of age.
    (b) What is public nudity? Public nudity is a person's failure, 
when in a public place, to cover with a fully opaque covering that 
person's genitals, pubic areas, rectal area or female breast below a 
point immediately above the top of the areola.
    (c) What is a public place? A public place is any area of Federal 
land or water subject to Federal jurisdiction within the boundaries of 
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, except the enclosed portions 
of restrooms or other structures designed for privacy or similar 
purposes.

    Dated: April 7, 1999.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-9958 Filed 4-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P