[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5702-5707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 2930

[WO-250-1220-PA-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AD45


Permits for Recreation on Public Lands

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is amending its 
regulations on Special Recreation Permits by changing the maximum term 
for these permits to 10 years instead of 5 years. The reason for this 
change is to add a reasonable expectation of continuity for outfitters, 
guides, and other small businesses that provide services to 
recreationists on public lands.
    BLM is also amending its regulations on Recreation Use Permits for 
fee areas by adding a section on prohibited acts and penalties. This 
new provision is necessary to give BLM law enforcement personnel 
authority to cite persons who do not pay fees or otherwise do not 
follow the regulations on Recreation Use Permits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit suggestions or inquiries to the following 
addresses: Mail: Director (250), Bureau of Land Management, Eastern 
States Office, 7450 Boston Blvd., Springfield, VA 22153. Personal or 
messenger delivery: Room 301, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Larson at (202) 452-5168 as to the 
substance of the final rule, or Ted Hudson at (202) 452-5042 as to 
procedural matters. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD) may contact either individual by calling the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Discussion of Public Comments
III. Discussion of Final Rule
IV. Procedural Matters

I. Background

    BLM published a final rule on Permits for Recreation on Public 
Lands in the Federal Register on October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61732). That 
final rule included a new subpart containing regulations on recreation 
use permits. These permits are for use of BLM fee areas. Fee areas are 
sites that provide specialized facilities, equipment, or services 
related to outdoor recreation. These include areas that are developed 
by BLM, receive regular maintenance, may have on-site staffing, and are 
supported by Federal funding. Not all fee areas necessarily have all of 
these attributes. Examples of fee areas are campgrounds that include 
improvements such as picnic tables, toilet facilities, tent or trailer 
sites, and drinking water; and specialized sites such as swimming 
pools, boat launch facilities, places with guided tours, hunting 
blinds, and so forth.
    The October 1, 2002, final rule did not include a section on 
prohibited acts for such fee areas. We later determined that such a 
provision was necessary to give BLM law enforcement personnel authority 
to cite persons who use these areas without proper authorization, 
without paying required fees, without properly displaying their 
authorizations, or with falsified documentation. The proposed rule 
published on October 1, 2002 (67 FR 61746), listed these acts as those 
that would be prohibited.
    The October 1, 2002, final rule left substantially intact the 
existing

[[Page 5703]]

regulations on the length of terms for commercial Special Recreation 
Permits. Those regulations provide for a maximum term of 5 years, 
allowing applicants to request permit terms up to that length of time 
and authorizing BLM to issue them for no more than 5 years.
    One comment on the May 16, 2000 (65 FR 31234), proposed rule from 
an association representing commercial outfitters and guides 
recommended that the maximum term for Special Recreation Permits should 
be 10 years, unless BLM finds that special circumstances require a 
shorter period. The comment stated that outfitters need a 10-year term 
because they must make substantial investments that are not 
economically viable with a 5-year permit.
    We recognize that the 5-year maximum term for permits is a matter 
of concern for the outfitting and guiding community, and that a 10-year 
term may be more desirable from both a business and a land management 
perspective. For this reason, BLM published a proposed rule on October 
1, 2002 (67 FR 61746), to allow our field managers to grant up to a 10-
year term for Special Recreation Permits on a case-by-case basis.

II. Discussion of Public Comments

    BLM received about 97 comments on the proposed rule. Of these, 4 
opposed the provision in the rule that extended the maximum term for 
Special Recreation Permits to 10 years, and 88 supported it without 
reservation. The remainder expressed support for the change if BLM 
would base its determination of the permit term on the performance of 
the permittee.
    Several comments expressed concern about the effect of a 10-year 
permit on competition and the availability of permits for new 
businesses. The proposed rule would have little impact in most cases on 
the ability of new outfitters to obtain a permit. Special Recreation 
Permits are not exclusive. The majority of public lands do not have use 
allocations limiting the number of commercial Special Recreation 
Permits issued. In areas where there is resource sensitivity or high 
demand for limited recreation resources, BLM may impose limits on 
recreation use allowed and the number of permits available. We 
determine such limitations through the land use planning process under 
43 CFR subpart 1610, and not through the permit administration process.
    Limited permit availability is therefore a function of resource 
allocation through a land use plan rather than the length of the term. 
Permit tenure has minimal affect on availability. An expiring permit 
has preference for renewal, so long as--
    (1) The permit is in good standing,
    (2) The permit is consistent with BLM plans, and
    (3) The permittee has a satisfactory record of performance (see 
Sec.  2932.51).
    Where the number of permits is limited, a new business can--
    (1) Apply for a new permit if and when BLM determines through a 
comprehensive study and evaluation of the site or locale that we can 
justify an increase in allowable use with negligible impact on the 
existing permittees and environment,
    (2) Purchase a business that is already permitted in the area and 
apply for a transfer of that permit. The tenure or length of term of 
the permit has no effect on its transferability (see subpart 2932.54), 
or
    (3) Participate in the planning process and advocate expanded 
opportunities.
    This is true regardless of the length of the permit term. Since 
land use planning is a public process, businesses interested in 
operating in the area subject to a plan should become involved and may 
be able to present information to justify expanding permit 
opportunities in the area.
    We received several comments which were supportive of the proposed 
rule if the 10 year maximum term for special recreation permits is 
discretionary rather than mandatory, and if BLM grants it only to 
permits whose holders have successfully complied with all permit terms 
and conditions on previous permits for the same activity. Generally, 
BLM issues a first-time permit for a one year term, treating that year 
as a probationary period. In subsequent years, we might issue longer-
term permits up to the 10-year maximum based on the factors discussed 
in this rule.
    The comments suggested that BLM automatically revoke multi-year 
permits and change them to an annual probationary authorization if the 
operator violates any permit term or condition. We have not adopted 
this comment in the final rule, although BLM policy provides for such 
an annual probationary authorization for permittees with substantial 
violations. BLM has the authority to pursue measures such as this on a 
case-by-case basis. We prefer to retain permit management flexibility 
in the regulations and to consider violations on a case-by-case basis. 
We would not generally impose such sanctions for minor infractions that 
the operator remedies during the operating season.
    The comments also suggested that the onus of demonstrating 
compliance with the terms of the previous permit fall on the applicant 
rather than BLM. This is correct. Once BLM monitoring and annual 
evaluations determine that an operator is or has been in noncompliance, 
the burden is on the operator to prove that he or she has remedied the 
problem.
    Most of the concerns raised in the comments have already been 
addressed in the proposed rule and the existing regulations in 43 CFR 
part 2930. The proposed rule stated that an applicant may request a 
permit for a period of up to 10 years, and specifically stated that BLM 
will determine the appropriate term on a case-by-case basis. The BLM 
Manual/Handbook for Special Recreation Permits gives field office 
managers guidance for determining the length of a permit. It directs 
them to consider--
    (1) Performance and compliance with the terms and conditions of 
previous permits;
    (2) Conformance to land use plans; and
    (3) Evolving resource conditions and technologies.
    Other sections of the existing regulations on recreation 
authorizations (see Sec.  2932.56) provide for the amendment, 
suspension, or revocation of the permit if an operator violates permit 
stipulations. These provisions apply to all permits, regardless of term 
length.
    Finally, one comment expressed concern about the penalty provision 
included in the section on prohibited acts in fee areas, stating it was 
too vague and might allow disproportionate fines for minor violations. 
The comment gave an example, stating it appeared that a person who 
failed to pay a $10 camping fee could be fined up to $5,000, depending 
on the class of violation involved.
    We did not include specific penalties for violations. There are too 
many possible variations in citable offenses and degrees of 
culpability. To list all possible associated penalties is beyond the 
scope of this rule.
    BLM relies on two authorities for the imposition of penalties for 
violation of these regulations. The first of these is section 303 of 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
1733). Section 303 authorizes a maximum penalty of $1,000 or 12 months 
imprisonment, or both. Violation of some of the prohibited acts in this 
rule, those governing personal conduct, would trigger a penalty under 
section 303. Under the United States Criminal Code and the Sentencing 
Reform Act (18 U.S.C. 3571), the level of penalty in section 303 
translates to a

[[Page 5704]]

Class A misdemeanor. Section 3571 raises the maximum fine to $100,000 
for individuals and $200,000 for corporations.
    The authority for imposing monetary penalties for infraction of 
permit requirements is the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. This 
Act imposes a penalty of $500 for permit infractions. Under the 
Sentencing Reform Act, these infractions may be penalized up to $5,000 
for an individual or $10,000 for a corporation.
    In enacting the Sentencing Reform Act, Congress concluded that a 
$1,000 fine such as that provided for by FLPMA was an insufficient 
deterrent for some illegal activities. In some cases, such activities 
may be very profitable, as well as extremely harmful to society or the 
environment. Establishing the higher maximum punishment provides 
flexibility for the agencies and the courts to address the extremely 
wide variety of offenses covered under agency regulations. By 
establishing these maximum penalties, however, Congress clearly did not 
intend that persons convicted of minor offenses should be subject to 
maximum levels of punishment in every case.
    Federal rules authorize each Federal Judicial District to establish 
a bail forfeiture schedule for all offenses. Agencies use the bail 
forfeiture schedule to issue citations. This allows local courts to 
establish appropriate fines for each offense in their area of 
jurisdiction. It is also the fine the officer or BLM ranger enters on a 
citation. The violator may mail it in with a check to dispose of the 
citation and avoid further judicial action. The fine, in effect, 
becomes the bail forfeiture amount.
    If a defendant chooses to appear in court to challenge the 
citation, and is convicted, he or she may face a fine and/or 
imprisonment for a misdemeanor offense. In such a case, the Magistrate 
Judge carefully tailors the sentence to the offense and is guided by 
clear rules of Federal criminal procedure.
    We amended the table in the penalties section of the regulations to 
make it clear what penalty provisions pertain to which violations. We 
decided to provide only the cross-references to the statutory 
provisions rather than dollar figures for the penalties.
    At present, bails for nonpayment are estimated to range from $25-
$100 with most being around $50. Barring extreme aggravating 
circumstances, there is no reasonable likelihood of a defaulting camper 
being subjected to such an extreme fine as the comment postulated.

III. Discussion of Final Rule

Section 2932.42 How Long Is My Special Recreation Permit Valid?

    We did not make changes in this section in the final rule. We are 
amending this section solely by changing the maximum Special Recreation 
Permit term from 5 years in the previous regulations to 10 years. BLM 
will consider each application separately and may issue a permit for 
any period of time from the 10-year maximum term to a season or even a 
single day. We consider the purpose of the permit, the needs of the 
permittee, and the public interest in determining the appropriate term.
    Permittees are subject to rigorous monitoring and may lose their 
permits for poor performance under other provisions of the regulations 
(see 43 CFR 2932.56). This final rule will have no impact on our 
ability to ensure that permittees are well-qualified and carry out 
their activities in a manner that protects the health of the public 
lands and serves the recreating public. It will, on the other hand, 
allow outfitters, guides, and river-running enterprises to avoid the 
expense and inconvenience of more frequent permit renewal, secure 
financing more easily (based on lenders knowing that permit terms are 
longer), and engage in long-term business planning.
    This change should benefit existing permit holders. However, it may 
reduce the ability of outfitters who currently do not hold a permit to 
obtain one, but only in areas where resource sensitivity or high demand 
for a limited recreational resource requires BLM to impose limits on 
use allocations. BLM does not expect this rule to present a substantial 
departure from current commercial outfitter operations on BLM lands or 
diminish the ability of BLM staff to monitor and enforce permit 
compliance.
    From the business perspective, the change will improve the ability 
of outfitters and guides to justify financing from lenders. Also, the 
business climate should improve for larger scale commercial permits and 
operations as a result of this change, in turn improving business 
stability within local economies.
    In the proposed rule, we asked specific questions relating to the 
likely effects of the proposed increase of maximum permit terms. We 
also asked for anecdotal evidence of problems caused for small 
businesses by the 5-year maximum term. Most comments offered general 
support for the proposed change. A trade association for outfitters and 
other commercial recreation enterprises replied that a longer term for 
permits would make financing more readily obtainable and business 
planning more feasible. Without offering data or anecdotal history, the 
comment went on to quote outfitters saying that getting financing has 
been difficult with the 5-year maximum term. This commentary did 
nothing to negate our expectations as to the likely effects of this 
rule.
    From the perspective of the land manager, extending the maximum 
permit term from 5 to 10 years allows BLM greater range and flexibility 
to set a term for the permit appropriate for the activity in light of, 
and commensurate with--
    [sbull] The level of permittee investment;
    [sbull] The geographic location and resource considerations;
    [sbull] Anticipated changes or time frames in land use allocations 
or planning decisions;
    [sbull] Our experience in managing and monitoring the type of 
permitted use; and
    [sbull] The type, complexity, and extent of the proposed activity.
    The rule does not automatically set the term of all permits at 10 
years. Rather, it simply allows the field manager to select an 
appropriate term for up to 10 years.
    Finally, the amendment should lead to a small reduction in 
administrative costs by reducing the analysis and paperwork required 
for more frequent permit renewal.

Subpart 2933--Recreation Use Permits for Fee Areas

    We have amended this subpart on Recreation Use Permits by adding a 
new section on prohibited acts and penalties. Under this new section 
2933.33, BLM will cite and penalize persons using campgrounds and other 
fee areas if they do not--
    [sbull] Obtain a permit,
    [sbull] Pay necessary fees, or
    [sbull] Display proof of payment as BLM requires and posts at the 
site.
    BLM may also cite and penalize them if they--
    [sbull] Use forged permits, or
    [sbull] Use another person's permit.
    This new section also states that failure to display proof of 
payment on a vehicle parked in a fee area is evidence of non-payment. 
This is important. It strengthens BLM's enforcement capability and 
reduces costs by establishing an evidentiary threshold that the 
defendant must overcome or be found guilty. Once BLM establishes that 
the defendant did not display a permit, the defendant has the burden of 
overcoming the presumption of non-payment by proving that he or she 
paid the fee.

[[Page 5705]]

    Finally, the new section lists the penalties that may be imposed 
upon conviction.

IV. Procedural Matters

    The principal author of this final rule is Lee Larson of the 
Recreation Group, Washington Office, BLM, assisted by Ted Hudson of the 
Regulatory Affairs Group, Washington Office, BLM.

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

    The Office of Management and Budget has asked to review this rule 
as possibly a significant rule under Executive Order 12866. However, 
BLM has made the following determinations:
    (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. It will 
make BLM's regulatory approach to maximum special recreation permit 
terms identical to that of the National Park Service, whose regulations 
also allow a maximum permit term of 10 years.
    (3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of 
their recipients.
    (4) This rule does not raise novel legal issues, but raises a novel 
policy issue by making a substantive change in the maximum term length 
for Special Recreation Permits, increasing it from 5 to 10 years. Four 
comments opposed this change, 88 supported it without reservation, and 
several others supported it conditionally, as discussed above in the 
Discussion of Comments.
    The increase in the maximum term for Special Recreation Permits 
from 5 to 10 years should have no significant economic effect. It is 
not expected to have a significant effect on the number of firms 
operating on BLM lands. The operating costs of such firms may be 
slightly reduced as a result of this rule due to better financing 
terms. During fiscal year 2001, BLM issued about 34,500 Special 
Recreation Permits and collected about $4 million in fees. Special 
Recreation Permits are generally obtained by commercial outfitters and 
guides, including river-running companies (about 3,000), sponsors of 
competitive events (about 1,000), ``snow bird'' seasonal mobile home 
campers who use BLM's long term visitor areas (about 14,000), and 
private individuals and groups using certain special areas.
    The increase of the maximum term for Special Recreation Permits 
will affect primarily the first of these categories: Commercial 
outfitters and guides, which include river-running companies. The rule 
does not change the fee structure at all, but benefits these businesses 
by giving them a more secure permit tenure. This will help them justify 
financing from lenders.
    The second change in the rule affects Recreation Use Permits. 
During fiscal year 2001, BLM issued about 670,000 Recreation Use 
Permits for use of fee sites, with revenues totaling about $3.9 
million. The cost of such a permit averaged a little under $6.00.
    This final rule does not affect fees, and should have no effect on 
the number of Recreation Use Permits BLM will issue. It merely adds a 
section--
    [sbull] Prohibiting the following acts: Failure to obtain a permit, 
failure to pay for one, and fraudulent use of permits or other 
documents to avoid paying a fee;
    [sbull] Making failure to display a permit, where local rules 
require it, evidence of failure to pay; and
    [sbull] Stating the standard statutory maximum penalties for 
violation that a magistrate could impose.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule 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.). 
According to the president of the American Recreation Coalition, 
outdoor recreation is a $350 billion industry made up of small 
businesses. None of these small businesses will be affected more than 
incidentally by making failure to pay for or obtain a fee area 
Recreation Use Permit a prohibited act. There is no way to quantify how 
many of these permits BLM issues to small entities; it must be a 
minuscule share of the campground and similar permits BLM issues to the 
general recreating public.
    Changing the maximum term for Special Recreation Permits from 5 to 
10 years will benefit small businesses as explained in the previous 
section of this part of the Preamble. We cannot quantify the benefits 
accruing from increased permit tenure. The rule will benefit about 
3,000 commercial outfitters and guides and river-running outfitters. 
All of them operate small businesses and some hold multiple Special 
Recreation Permits.

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:
    [sbull] Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more. See the discussion under Regulatory Planning and 
Review, above.
    [sbull] 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 does not change fees. It 
merely provides a mechanism for enforcing their collection. See the 
discussion above under Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    [sbull] 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. 
Recreationists are not likely to resort to foreign recreation markets 
because failure to pay a campground fee becomes a punishable offense.

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. The rule has no 
effect on governmental or tribal entities. A statement containing the 
information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.) is not required.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. The enforcement provision does not 
include any language requiring or authorizing forfeiture of personal 
property or any property rights. A takings implications assessment is 
not required.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National 
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of Government. The rule does 
not preempt State law.

[[Page 5706]]

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.

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 
13175)

    In accordance with E.O. 13175, we find that this final rule does 
not include policies with tribal implications. The rule does not affect 
lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. The rule 
applies only to BLM campgrounds and other fee areas on BLM lands, and 
to commercial outfitters and guides who may apply for longer term 
permits to use the public lands.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that 
the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This final 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 
is not required. We base this finding on an environmental assessment of 
the rule dated August 22, 2002, which you can find in the 
administrative record for the rule.

Clarity of This Regulation

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as 
the following:
    (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
interferes with its clarity?
    (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
    (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into 
more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type and is 
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example, 
Sec.  2932.42 How long is my Special Recreation Permit valid?)
    (5) Is the description of the rule in the Supplementary Information 
section of this preamble helpful in understanding the final rule? What 
else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
    If you have any comments that concern how we could make this rule 
easier to understand, in addition to sending the original to the 
address shown in ADDRESSES, above, please send a copy to: Office of 
Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to 
this address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2b78a9791819791b29b9d81dc969d9bdc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e7a29f8284948284a78e8894c983888ec9808891">[email protected]</span></a>.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2930

    Penalties; Public lands; Recreation and recreation areas; Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements; Surety bonds.


0
For the reasons explained in the preamble, and under the authority of 
43 U.S.C. 1740, part 2930, chapter II, subtitle B of title 43 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    Dated: October 6, 2003.
Rebecca W. Watson,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

PART 2930--PERMITS FOR RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 2930 continues to read as follows:

    Authority citation: 43 U.S.C. 1740; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a.

Subpart 2932--Special Recreation Permits for Commercial Use, 
Competitive Events, Organized Groups, and Recreation Use in Special 
Areas

0
2. Revise section 2932.42 to read as follows:


Sec.  2932.42  How long is my Special Recreation Permit valid?

    You may request a permit for a day, season of use, or other time 
period, up to a maximum of 10 years. BLM will determine the appropriate 
term on a case-by-case basis.

Subpart 2933--Recreation Use Permits for Fee Areas

0
3. Add section 2933.33 to read as follows:


Sec.  2933.33  Prohibited acts and penalties.

    (a) Prohibited acts. You must not--
    (1) Fail to obtain a use permit or pay any fees that this subpart 
or the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended, requires (see 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section);
    (2) Fail to pay any fees, after you first occupy a designated use 
facility, within the time set by the local BLM office (see paragraph 
(d)(3) of this section);
    (3) Fail to display any required proof of payment of fees (see 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section);
    (4) Willfully and knowingly possess, use, publish as true, or sell 
to another, any forged, counterfeited, or altered document or 
instrument used as proof of or exemption from fee payment (see 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section);
    (5) Willfully and knowingly use any document or instrument used as 
proof of or exemption from fee payment, that BLM issued to or intended 
another to use (see paragraph (d)(1) of this section); or
    (6) Falsely represent yourself to be a person to whom BLM has 
issued a document or instrument used as proof of or exemption from fee 
payment (see paragraph (d)(1) of this section).
    (b) Evidence of nonpayment. BLM will consider failure to display 
proof of payment on your unattended vehicle parked within a fee area, 
where payment is required under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to be 
prima facie evidence of nonpayment.
    (c) Responsibility for penalties. If another driver incurs a 
penalty under this subpart when using a vehicle registered in your 
name, you and the driver are jointly responsible for the penalty, 
unless you show that the vehicle was used without your permission.
    (d) Types of penalties. You may be subject to the following fines 
or penalties for violating the provisions of this subpart.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    then you may be
  If you are convicted of . . .    subject to . . .       under . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Any act prohibited by         a fine under 18     the Federal Land
 paragraph (a)(4), (5), or (6)     U.S.C. 3571 or      Policy and
 of this section.                  other penalties     Management Act of
                                   in accordance       1976 (43 U.S.C.
                                   with 43 U.S.C.      1733(a)).
                                   1733(b)(5) for
                                   individuals or
                                   (c)(5) for
                                   organizations.
(2) Violating any regulation in   a fine under 18     the Federal Land
 this subpart or any condition     U.S.C. 3571 or      Policy and
 of a Recreation Use Permit.       other penalties     Management Act of
                                   in accordance       1976 (43 U.S.C.
                                   with 43 U.S.C.      1733(a)).
                                   1733(b)(5) for
                                   individuals or
                                   (c)(5) for
                                   organizations.

[[Page 5707]]

 
(3) Failing to obtain any permit  a fine in           the Land and Water
 or to pay any fee required in     accordance with     Conservation Fund
 this subpart.                     18 U.S.C.           Act, as amended,
                                   3571(b)(7) for      16 U.S.C. 460l-
                                   individuals or      6a(e).
                                   (c)(7) for
                                   organizations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 04-2545 Filed 2-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>