Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73085 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 211 

[Docket ID: DOD–2011–OS–0054; RIN 0790– 

AI69] 

Mission Compatibility Evaluation 

Process 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics, DoD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 358 of the Ike Skelton 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 required the 

Department of Defense (DoD) to 

designate a senior official and a lead 

organization to serve as a clearinghouse 

for the coordination of DoD review of 

applications filed with the Secretary of 

Transportation. Applications referred to 

the DoD involve proposals for the 

construction of structures that may 

affect navigable air space. Section 358 

requires DoD to issue procedures for 

addressing the impacts of those 

structures on military operations and 

determining if they pose an 

unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States. Section 

358 requires the establishment of a 

comprehensive strategy for addressing 

military impacts of renewable energy 

projects and other energy projects and 

annual reports to Congress; these 

requirements are not part of this rule 

and will be addressed separately. Nor 

does this rule deal with other proposal 

review processes not included in 

section 358, such as those applied by 

the Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

6, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Van Houten, (703) 571–9068, or at 

DoDSitingClearinghouse@osd.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Outline 

I. Authority 

II. Background 

III. Summary of Significant Changes to the 

Rule 

A. Definitions 

B. Project Evaluation Procedures 

C. Communications and Outreach 

IV. Other Adjustments to the Final Rule 

V. Executive Summary 

VI. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review. 

B. Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

C. Public Law 96–354, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) 

D. Section 96–511, Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

I. Authority 

This action is authorized by section 

358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 

Public Law 111–383, as amended by 

section 331 of Public Law 112–81. 

II. Background 

The Department of Defense 

(hereinafter the ‘‘Department’’) 

published an interim final rule in the 

Federal Register on October 20, 2011, at 

76 FR 65112. 

The public comment period for the 

interim final rule ended on December 

19, 2011. Two commenters submitted 

comments on the interim final rule. The 

preamble to the final rule provides a 

discussion of each section of the interim 

final rule on which comments were 

received. Where changes in the rule are 

being made, specific reference is made 

to those changes in the discussion. 

Where no specific reference is made in 

the discussion, no change to the interim 

final rule is being made. Revisions to 

the rule that are simply editorial or that 

do not reflect substantive changes are 

not addressed in this preamble. 

All comments the Department 

received are presented in a document 

available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/

siting.shtml. 

III. Summary of Significant Changes to 

the Final Rule 

This section contains the 

Department’s responses to the 

comments received on the interim final 

rule, organized by the structure of the 

interim final and final rules. 

The primary purpose of the rule is to 

promulgate the Department’s policies 

and procedures for the external 

interfaces that are necessary to comply 

with section 358 of Public Law 111–383. 

Most of the comments received were 

recommendations for greater specificity 

in the rule, particularly with respect to 

standards, criteria, and 

communications. The Department has 

carefully considered the comments it 

has received. Its responses follow: 

A. Definitions 

Comment: One comment 

characterized the definition of ‘‘adverse 

impact on military operations and 

readiness’’ as overly broad and stated 

that it is not clear from either section 

358 or the interim final rule how an 

adverse impact that rises to the level of 

an unacceptable risk to national security 

differs from an adverse impact that does 

not. The same comment suggested that 

the rule distinguish impacts that do not 

significantly impact military operations 

from those that could so that further 

evaluation and discussion of mitigation 

measures could be focused on the latter. 

Response: The Department has made 

some minor grammatical adjustments to 

the definition of ‘‘Unacceptable risk to 

the national security of the United 

States’’. However, the coordinated 

evaluation process required by section 

358 is still not sufficiently mature for 

the Department to establish more 

specific quantitative thresholds to 

distinguish adverse impacts that do not 

significantly impact military operations 

and readiness from those that do. The 

law provides for the Department to 

establish procedures to ensure that the 

Secretary of Defense does not object to 

a project unless the Secretary of Defense 

or a senior officer designated by the 

Secretary of Defense determines that the 

project would result in an unacceptable 

risk to the national security of the 

United States. The rule provides that the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense may make 

a determination that a particular project 

would pose an unacceptable risk to 

national security and it establishes 

procedures to ensure that, in such cases, 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense has the 

benefit of a recommendation from a 

senior official as well as information 

about the mitigation measures that were 

available to both the Department and 

the applicant. The Department does not 

believe that further specificity is needed 

at this time. 

Comment: One comment suggested 

expanding the definition of the term 

‘‘requester’’ in the rule. Under the rule, 

a requester is authorized to ask the DoD 

for an informal review of a proposed 

project. However, the definition of 

‘‘requester’’ in the interim final rule did 

not include landowners, and the 

comment argued that large landowners 

are in a position to steer developers to 

portions of their property that have 

better resources for renewable energy 

projects and fewer or more manageable 

conflicts with DoD interests. 

Response: The Department agrees, 

and the definition of ‘‘requester’’ has 

been expanded in the final rule to 

include landowners. A definition of the 

term ‘‘landowner’’ has been provided in 

the rule. 

B. Project Evaluation Procedures 

Comment: One comment stated that 

the interim final rule was not clear as to 

what level of information will be shared 

with the applicant or with the Federal 

Aviation Administration to explain a 

DoD determination that a project will 

have an adverse impact on military 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

operations and readiness or pose an 

unacceptable risk to national security. 

Response: Because some explanations 

may involve sensitive or classified 

information, it is appropriate to avoid 

committing the Department to a certain 

level, or format, for transmitting 

information about such determinations 

to either applicants or the Federal 

Aviation Administration. The language 

in the rule allows the Department the 

flexibility to provide explanations in a 

manner that the Department considers 

necessary and appropriate as well as to 

withhold information that could 

compromise the national security of the 

United States if it were released. No 

change was made to the rule to address 

this comment. 

Comment: One comment questioned 

the provision in section 211.6(b)(1)(ii) of 

the interim final rule that requires the 

applicant to amend an application that 

has been filed with the Secretary of 

Transportation if the applicant and the 

Department reach agreement on 

mitigation measures that remove an 

adverse impact on military operations 

and readiness. The comment contends 

that such an amendment is unnecessary 

if the agreed-upon mitigation solely 

involves measures to be taken by DoD. 

Response: The Department agrees, 

and the provision has been modified in 

the final rule to require the applicant to 

file an amended application only if the 

agreed-upon mitigation measures entail 

modification to the proposed project. 

Comment: One comment pointed out 

that the language in the subpart of the 

interim final rule that addresses project 

evaluation procedures could be 

interpreted as implying a preference for 

mitigation measures to be taken by the 

applicant over mitigation measures to be 

taken by the Department. The comment 

recommended that the language in 

question be modified to ensure there is 

no implied preference for mitigation on 

the part of the applicant. 

Response: The Department does not 

agree that the language in the rule 

suggests a preference for mitigation 

measures to be taken by the applicant. 

Section 211.6(b)(2)(iii) and Section 

211.6(c)(3) provide for consideration of 

the mitigation actions that are available 

to the Department as well as those that 

have been agreed to by the applicant. No 

change was made in the rule to address 

this comment. 

Comment: One comment raised a 

question as to whether all adverse 

impacts must be mitigated or only those 

that are determined to pose an 

unacceptable risk to national security. 

Response: Since only the senior 

officer designated by the Secretary of 

Defense can officially determine that a 

proposed project poses an unacceptable 

risk to the national security of the 

United States and communicate that 

determination to the Secretary of 

Transportation, it would not be cost 

effective to make such determinations 

relative to each project before deciding 

whether or not to mitigate the adverse 

impact of that project. However, in 

response to that comment, sections 

211.6(a)(3)(ii) and 211.7(b)(2)(ii) have 

been added to provide for 

determinations that the adverse impact 

posed by a proposed project is 

sufficiently attenuated that it does not 

require mitigation. 

Comment: One comment 

recommended that the procedures in the 

rule be modified to allow landowners to 

address mitigation. That comment 

contended that large landowners in 

particular would have more flexibility 

in addressing mitigation than a 

developer who only has a leasehold 

interest on a portion of the landowner’s 

property. 

Response: In the final rule, section 

211.3 has been modified to include the 

owners of land on which a proposed 

project is planned among the parties 

that are eligible to request an informal 

review from the Department of Defense. 

Additionally, section 211.7(b)(2)(ii)(B) 

has been modified to ensure that 

landowners (when they are requesters) 

are notified of Clearinghouse 

determinations. 

Comment: One comment 

recommended that the Department 

provide quantitative guidance in the 

rule concerning what constitutes at 

acceptable level of mitigation. 

Response: It is not currently possible 

to identify objective measures of 

mitigation with sufficient specificity to 

enumerate them in a rule. The 

Department is working to develop 

guidelines and models, but those 

guidelines and models are not yet 

mature. To provide some additional 

clarity, however, in section 211.9(b) of 

the final rule, the Department included 

a provision that an applicant or 

requester discussing mitigation with the 

Department should consider limiting 

the daily operating hours or the number 

of days that equipment in the proposed 

structure would be in use along with 

other possible actions that could be 

taken to avoid an unacceptable risk to 

the national security of the United 

States. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that section 211.9(b)(3) of the 

interim final rule urged applicants to 

consider providing a voluntary 

contribution to offset the cost of 

mitigation measures undertaken by the 

DoD, but did not provide a specific 

process for the transfer of such funds or 

a statement of what commitments the 

Department would make in return for 

such funds. The comment also 

requested clarification as to how large a 

contribution would be necessary to lead 

the Department to withdraw an 

objection, whether the only acceptable 

level of contributions was to pay the full 

cost of mitigation, or whether a Federal 

cost share would be available in some 

circumstances. 

Response: It is not possible to specify 

in a rule what commitments, if any, the 

Department would make in conjunction 

with any given voluntary contribution. 

Certainly, the decision to withdraw an 

objection based on the existence of an 

unacceptable risk to national security 

will not be predicated on the magnitude 

of a voluntary contribution. A voluntary 

contribution is in the nature of 

mitigation since it allows the 

Department to reduce or eliminate an 

adverse impact. The effect that a 

voluntary contribution has on the 

analysis of adverse impact and 

unacceptable risk will vary from project 

to project. In some instances, it may 

remove an adverse impact; in others, an 

unacceptable risk may be unavoidable 

and not subject to mitigation. The facts 

of each project will determine whether 

a voluntary contribution will act to 

mitigate an adverse impact. It is not 

necessary to specify a method of 

payment in the rule since that 

information will be available on the 

Clearinghouse Web site. No change was 

made to the rule to address this 

comment. 

C. Communications and Outreach 

Comment: With respect to section 

211.12 of the interim final rule, one 

comment observed that proposed 

renewable energy projects are 

competition sensitive. Because of that 

concern, the comment recommended 

that the Department refrain from 

publicizing proposed projects for which 

a requester is seeking informal review 

on the DoD Web site, noting that 

publication of such projects would limit 

the attractiveness of the early 

consultation option. 

Response: The rule requires only the 

minimum information necessary to 

conduct a useful review. An additional 

provision was added to section 211.7(a) 

encouraging requestors to mark any 

documents containing proprietary or 

competition-sensitive information 

accordingly when requesting an 

informal review of a proposed project. 

However, the DoD must comply with all 

applicable laws, including the Freedom 

of Information Act. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73087 

In response to this comment, section 

211.12 was modified to eliminate the 

requirement for the Department to 

include the requests for informal review 

that the Department is considering on 

its Web site. 

IV. Other Adjustments to the Final Rule 

This section identifies and explains 

minor adjustments that the Department 

made to the rule that were not the result 

of public comments. 

In the final rule, the applicability of 

the rule is extended to Indian tribal 

governments, and they are included in 

the definition of a ‘‘requester’’ so they, 

like State and local governments, have 

the authorization to seek informal 

reviews of proposed projects. It was the 

Department’s view that Indian tribal 

governments fell within the category of 

state governments, to which they are 

somewhat analogous as separate 

sovereigns. But in order to avoid any 

doubt, the rule is being changed to 

clarify this point. 

In section 211.7 of the final rule, the 

Department includes a requirement for 

requesters that desire an informal 

review of a project to provide the height 

of the project as part of the required 

information. It was the Department’s 

view that the requirement to provide the 

‘‘nature of the project’’ would 

necessarily include the project’s height. 

However, to avoid any doubt, the rule 

is being changed to specifically include 

a reference to the height of the project. 

V. Executive Summary 

In section 358 of Public Law 111–383, 

Congress required, among other things, 

that the DoD implement new procedures 

relating to how the DoD reviews and 

comments on applications filed with the 

Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 44718. Section 358 also 

specifies who within DoD may provide 

such comments to the Secretary of 

Transportation, that DoD will engage in 

outreach activities with interested 

parties, and that Congress must be 

advised when the DoD objects to an 

application filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718. 

Section 211.1 of this rule states the 

two primary purposes of the rule which 

are to provide for DoD commenting on 

(1) applications filed pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 44718 and (2) requests for 

reviews of projects prior to applications 

being filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718. 

Section 211.2 addresses the 

applicability of part 211. This part 

applies to all components of the DoD, 

those applicants filing applications 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718 when those 

applications are conveyed by the 

Secretary of Transportation to the 

Department of Defense, those requesting 

reviews of projects prior to applications 

being filed under 49 U.S.C. 44718 

(including State, Indian tribal, and local 

officials and landowners), and those 

providing comments to DoD relating to 

its actions in reviewing applications. It 

also applies, geographically, to the 

United States. 

Section 211.3 provides definitions. 

The definition of ‘‘adverse impact on 

military operations and readiness’’ 

provides that a demonstrable 

impairment or degradation of the ability 

of the armed forces to perform their 

warfighting missions constitutes an 

adverse impact. The definition of 

‘‘applicant’’ refers to an entity filing a 

proper application with the Secretary of 

Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718, and whose application has been 

provided by the Secretary of 

Transportation to the DoD. The 

definition of ‘‘armed forces’’ refers to 

the definition at 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(4), 

which includes the Army, Navy, Air 

Force, and Marine Corps, but excludes 

the Coast Guard. The definition of 

‘‘congressional defense committees’’ is 

taken from section 3 of Public Law 111– 

383, which, in turn, adopts by reference 

the definition of the term in 10 U.S.C. 

101(a)(16). The definition of ‘‘military 

readiness’’ is taken from the definition 

of the term provided in section 358. The 

definition of ‘‘mitigation’’ provides a 

general description of the term while 

leaving to individual actions more 

specific examples of what may 

constitute mitigation. The definition of 

‘‘proposed project’’ is the project as 

submitted to the Secretary of 

Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718. The definition of ‘‘requester’’ 

refers to a developer of a renewable 

energy development or other energy 

project, a landowner on whose property 

such project is proposed to be built, or 

a State, Indian tribal, or local official 

seeking an informal review of a project 

by the DoD prior to the project being 

submitted for formal review pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 44718. The definition of 

‘‘section 358’’ refers to the authorizing 

provision, section 358 of Public Law 

111–383. The definition of 

‘‘unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States’’ includes 

the two existing criteria found in 49 

U.S.C. 44718, namely the construction, 

alteration, establishment, or expansion, 

or the proposed construction, alteration, 

establishment, or expansion, of a 

structure or sanitary landfill that 

endangers safety in air commerce or 

interferes with the efficient use and 

preservation of the navigable airspace 

and of airport traffic capacity at publicuse airports, but, for purposes of this 

rule, only when related to the activities 

of the DoD. The definition also includes 

an additional criterion consisting of 

actions that will significantly impair or 

degrade the capability of the DoD to 

conduct training, research, 

development, testing, and evaluation, 

and operations or to maintain military 

readiness. The definition of ‘‘United 

States’’ is included to provide the 

geographical limitation of the part, 

clarifying that it does not apply outside 

of the United States. 

Section 211.4 provides the general 

policy of the part, taken from section 

358(a). It also limits the participation of 

DoD in the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s process under 49 

U.S.C. 44718 to the process provided in 

this rule. 

Section 211.5 specifies the officials 

with authorities and responsibilities 

under the part pursuant to section 358. 

The Deputy Secretary of Defense is 

designated as the senior officer who is 

authorized to provide a determination to 

the Secretary of Transportation that a 

project filed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718 would result in an unacceptable 

risk to the national security of the 

United States. The Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics is designated as the senior 

official who may make a 

recommendation to the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense that such a project 

would result in such a risk. The Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense 

(Installations & Environment) is 

designated as the official who, in 

coordination with the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (Readiness) and the 

Principal Deputy Director, Operational 

Test and Evaluation, reviews such a 

project and provides a preliminary 

assessment of the level of risk of adverse 

impact on military operations and 

readiness that would arise from the 

project and the extent of mitigation that 

may be needed to address such risk. The 

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense (Installations & Environment) is 

designated as the lead organization, and 

the DoD Siting Clearinghouse is 

established and organized under the 

Deputy Under Secretary. 

Section 211.6 provides the procedures 

for formal DoD review of a project filed 

by an applicant with the Secretary of 

Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718. 

Section 211.7 provides the procedures 

for informal DoD review of a project 

submitted by a requester prior to 

submitting a formal application 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44718. 

Section 211.8 directs DoD 

Components to forward any inquiries or 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

requests they may receive to the 

Clearinghouse so as to avoid 

unauthorized action by a Component 

outside of the process established by 

this rule. 

Section 211.9 provides some of the 

types of mitigation to be considered by 

the DoD and the applicant/requester 

when discussing mitigation. 

Section 211.10 provides for the 

notification to Congress required by 

section 358 when the senior officer 

makes a determination that a project 

presents an unacceptable risk to the 

national security of the United States. 

Section 211.11 provides for a public 

Web site where the public can review 

the actions being considered by DoD, 

track their progress, and offer 

comments. 

VI. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

It has been certified that this rule is 

not an economically significant rule that 

will result in an annual effect of $100 

million or more on the national 

economy or which will have other 

substantial impacts. This rule has been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget as required under the 

provisions of E.O. 12866. 

B. Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

It has been certified that 32 CFR part 

211 does not contain a Federal mandate 

that may result in the expenditure by 

State, local and tribal governments, in 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

C. Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601) 

The Congress enacted the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as 

amended, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, to ensure 

that Government regulations do not 

unnecessarily or disproportionately 

burden small entities. The RFA requires 

a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact, either detrimental or beneficial, 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The RFA requires agencies to 

analyze the economic impact of 

regulations to determine the extent to 

which there is anticipated to be a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

DoD anticipates that the rule could 

potentially affect a few entities that 

might otherwise have located structures 

on public or private lands that would 

present an unreasonable risk to the 

national security of the United States. 

DoD further anticipates that some of 

these entities will be small entities as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration; however, DoD does not 

expect the potential impact to be 

significant because this rule provides 

procedures to mitigate the impact of 

such an unreasonable risk to the benefit 

of both the proponent and the DoD. 

D. Public Law 96–511, Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

It has been certified that the 

Paperwork Reduction Act applies. This 

rule contains information collection 

requirements under OMB Control 

Number 0790–0005 titled, ‘‘Informal 

DoD Review of Energy Projects.’’ 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

It has been certified that this part does 

not have federalism implications, as set 

forth in Executive Order 13132. This 

rule does not have substantial direct 

effects on: 

(1) The States 

(2) The relationship between the 

National Government and the States; or 

(3) The distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of Government. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 211 

Energy, Evaluation. 

Accordingly 32 CFR part 211 is 

revised to read as follows: 

PART 211—MISSION COMPATIBILITY 

EVALUATION PROCESS 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

211.1 Purpose. 

211.2 Applicability. 

211.3 Definitions. 

Subpart B—Policy 

211.4 Policy. 

211.5 Responsibilities. 

Subpart C—Project Evaluation Procedures 

211.6 Initiating a formal DoD review of a 

proposed project. 

211.7 Initiating an informal DoD review of 

a project. 

211.8 Inquiries received by DoD 

Components. 

211.9 Mitigation options. 

211.10 Reporting determinations to 

Congress. 

Subpart D—Communications and Outreach 

211.11 Communications with the 

Clearinghouse. 

211.12 Public outreach. 

Authority: Public Law 111–383, Section 

358, as amended by Public Law 112–81, 

Section 331. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 211.1 Purpose. 

This part prescribes procedures 

pursuant to section 358 of the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 to provide: 

(a) A formal review of projects for 

which applications are filed with the 

Secretary of Transportation under 49 

U.S.C. 44718, to determine if they pose 

an unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States. 

(b) An informal review of a renewable 

energy development or other energy 

project in advance of the filing of an 

application with the Secretary of 

Transportation under 49 U.S.C. 44718. 

§ 211.2 Applicability. 

This part applies to: 

(a) The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, the Military Departments, the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 

the Joint Staff, the Combatant 

Commands, the Office of the Inspector 

General of the Department of Defense, 

the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field 

Activities, and all other organizational 

entities in the Department of Defense 

(hereafter referred to collectively as the 

‘‘DoD Components’’). 

(b) Persons filing applications with 

the Secretary of Transportation for 

proposed projects pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718, when such applications are 

received by the Department of Defense 

from the Secretary of Transportation. 

(c) A State, Indian tribal, or local 

official, a landowner, or a developer of 

a renewable energy development or 

other energy project seeking a review of 

such project by DoD. 

(d) Members of the general public 

from whom comments are received on 

notices of actions being taken by the 

Department of Defense under this part. 

(e) The United States. 

§ 211.3 Definitions. 

Adverse impact on military 

operations and readiness. Any adverse 

impact upon military operations and 

readiness, including flight operations 

research, development, testing, and 

evaluation and training, that is 

demonstrable and is likely to impair or 

degrade the ability of the armed forces 

to perform their warfighting missions. 

Applicant. An entity filing an 

application with the Secretary of 

Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718, and whose proper application 

has been provided by the Secretary of 

Transportation to the Clearinghouse. 

Armed forces. This term has the same 

meaning as provided in 10 U.S.C. 

101(a)(4) but does not include the Coast 

Guard. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73089 

Clearinghouse. The DoD Siting 

Clearinghouse, established under the 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Installations & Environment). 

Congressional defense committees. 

The— 

(1) Committee on Armed Services and 

the Committee on Appropriations of the 

Senate; and 

(2) Committee on Armed Services and 

the Committee on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives. 

Days. All days are calendar days but 

do not include Federal holidays. 

Landowner. A person, partnership, 

corporation, or other legal entity, that 

owns a fee interest in real property on 

which a proposed project is planned to 

be located. 

Military readiness. Includes any 

training or operation that could be 

related to combat readiness, including 

testing and evaluation activities. 

Mitigation. Actions taken by either or 

both the DoD or the applicant to ensure 

that a project does not create an 

unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States. 

Proposed project. A proposed project 

is the project as described in the 

application submitted to the Secretary 

of Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718 and transmitted by the Secretary 

of Transportation to the Clearinghouse. 

Requester. A developer of a renewable 

energy development or other energy 

project, a State, Indian tribal, or local 

official, or a landowner seeking an 

informal review by the DoD of a project. 

Section 358. Section 358 of the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 

111–383. 

Unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States. The 

construction, alteration, establishment, 

or expansion, or the proposed 

construction, alteration, establishment, 

or expansion, of a structure or sanitary 

landfill that would: 

(1) Endanger safety in air commerce, 

related to the activities of the DoD. 

(2) Interfere with the efficient use and 

preservation of the navigable airspace 

and of airport traffic capacity at publicuse airports, related to the activities of 

the DoD. 

(3) Significantly impair or degrade the 

capability of the DoD to conduct 

training, research, development, testing, 

and evaluation, and operations or to 

maintain military readiness. 

United States. The several States, the 

District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the 

Northern Mariana Islands, American 

Samoa, Guam, Midway and Wake 

Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, any 

other territory or possession of the 

United States, and associated navigable 

waters, contiguous zones, and territorial 

seas and the airspace of those areas. 

Subpart B—Policy 

§ 211.4 Policy. 

(a) It is an objective of the Department 

of Defense to ensure that the robust 

development of renewable energy 

sources and the increased resiliency of 

the commercial electrical grid may 

move forward in the United States, 

while minimizing or mitigating any 

adverse impacts on military operations 

and readiness. 

(b) The participation of the DoD in the 

process of the Federal Aviation 

Administration conducted pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 44718 shall be conducted in 

accordance with this part. No other 

process shall be used by a DoD 

Component. 

(c) Nothing in this part shall be 

construed as affecting the authority of 

the Secretary of Transportation under 49 

U.S.C. 44718. 

§ 211.5 Responsibilities. 

(a) Pursuant to subsection (e)(4) of 

section 358, the Deputy Secretary of 

Defense is designated as the senior 

officer. Only the senior officer may 

convey to the Secretary of 

Transportation a determination that a 

project filed with the Secretary of 

Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718 would result in an unacceptable 

risk to the national security of the 

United States. 

(b) Pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of 

section 358, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics is designated as the senior 

official. Only the senior official may 

provide to the senior officer a 

recommendation that the senior officer 

determine a project filed with the 

Secretary of Transportation pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 44718 would result in an 

unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States. 

(c) Pursuant to subsection (e)(1) of 

section 358, the Deputy Under Secretary 

of Defense (Installations & 

Environment), in coordination with the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Readiness) and the Principal Deputy 

Director, Operational Test and 

Evaluation, shall review a proper 

application for a project filed pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. 44718 and received from 

the Secretary of Transportation and 

provide a preliminary assessment of the 

level of risk of adverse impact on 

military operations and readiness that 

would arise from the project and the 

extent of mitigation that may be needed 

to address such risk. 

(d) Pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of 

section 358, the Office of the Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense 

(Installations & Environment) is 

designated as the lead organization. 

Under the authority, direction, and 

control of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics, there is, within the Office 

of the Deputy Under Secretary, a DoD 

Siting Clearinghouse. The 

Clearinghouse: 

(1) Shall have a governing board 

organized in accordance with DoD 

Instruction 5105.18, DoD 

Intergovernmental and 

Intragovernmental Committee 

Management Program. 

(2) Has an executive director who is 

a Federal Government employee, 

appointed by the Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense (Installations & 

Environment). 

(3) Performs such duties as assigned 

in this part and as the Deputy Under 

Secretary directs. 

Subpart C—Project Evaluation 

Procedures 

§ 211.6 Initiating a formal DoD review of a 

proposed project. 

(a) A formal review of a proposed 

project begins with the receipt from the 

Secretary of Transportation by the 

Clearinghouse of a proper application 

filed with the Secretary of 

Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718. 

(1) The Clearinghouse will convey the 

application as received to those DoD 

Components it believes may have an 

interest in reviewing the application. 

(2) The DoD Components that receive 

the application shall provide their 

comments and recommendations on the 

application to the Clearinghouse no 

later than 20 days after they receive the 

application. 

(3) Not later than 30 days after 

receiving the application from the 

Secretary of Transportation, the 

Clearinghouse shall evaluate all 

comments and recommendations 

received and take one of three actions: 

(i) Determine that the proposed 

project will not have an adverse impact 

on military operations and readiness, in 

which case it shall notify the Secretary 

of Transportation of such determination. 

(ii) Determine that the proposed 

project will have an adverse impact on 

military operations and readiness but 

that the adverse impact involved is 

sufficiently attenuated that it does not 

require mitigation. When the 

Clearinghouse makes such a 

determination, it shall notify the 

Secretary of Transportation of such 

determination. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73090 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) Determine that the proposed 

project may have an adverse impact on 

military operations and readiness. When 

the Clearinghouse makes such a 

determination it shall immediately— 

(A) Notify the applicant of the 

determination of the Clearinghouse and 

offer to discuss mitigation with the 

applicant to reduce the adverse impact; 

(B) Designate one or more DoD 

Components to engage in discussions 

with the applicant to attempt to mitigate 

the adverse impact; 

(C) Notify the Secretary of 

Transportation that the Department of 

Defense has determined that the 

proposed project may have an adverse 

impact on military operations and 

readiness, and, if the cause of the 

adverse impact is due to the proposed 

project exceeding an obstruction 

standard set forth in subpart C of part 

77 of title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, identify the specific 

standard and how it would be exceeded; 

and 

(D) Notify the Secretary of 

Transportation and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security that the 

Clearinghouse has offered to engage in 

mitigation discussions with the 

applicant. 

(4) The applicant must provide to the 

Clearinghouse its agreement to discuss 

the possibility of mitigation within five 

days of receipt of the notification from 

the Clearinghouse. 

(b) If the applicant agrees to enter into 

discussions with the DoD to seek to 

mitigate an adverse impact, the 

designated DoD Components shall 

engage in discussions with the applicant 

to attempt to reach agreement on 

measures that would mitigate the 

adverse impact of the proposed project 

on military operations and readiness. 

The Clearinghouse shall invite the 

Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Administration and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security to participate in 

such discussions. The Clearinghouse 

may also invite other Federal agencies 

to participate in such discussions. 

(1) Such discussions shall not extend 

more than 90 days beyond the initial 

notification to the applicant, unless both 

the designated DoD Components and 

the applicant agree, in writing, to an 

extension of a specific period of time. 

(i) If agreement between the applicant 

and the designated DoD Components 

has not been reached on mitigation 

measures by that time and no extension 

has been mutually agreed to, the 

designated DoD Components shall 

notify the Clearinghouse of the results of 

the discussions and the analysis and 

recommendations of the Components 

with regard to the proposed project as 

it is proposed after discussions. 

(ii) If agreement between the 

applicant and the designated DoD 

Components has been reached on 

mitigation measures that remove the 

adverse impact of the proposed project 

on military operations and readiness, 

the DoD Components shall notify the 

Clearinghouse of the agreement. If the 

mitigation measures entail modification 

to the proposed project, the applicant 

shall notify the Secretary of 

Transportation of such agreement and 

amend its application accordingly. 

(2) If the applicant and the designated 

DoD Components are unable to reach 

agreement on mitigation, the 

Clearinghouse shall review the analysis 

and recommendations of the DoD 

Components and determine if the 

proposed project as it may have been 

modified by the applicant after 

discussions would result in an 

unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States. 

(i) If the Clearinghouse determines 

that the proposed project as it may have 

been modified by the applicant after 

discussions would result in an 

unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States, it shall 

make a recommendation to the senior 

official to that effect. If the 

Clearinghouse determines, contrary to 

the recommendations of the DoD 

Components, that the proposed project 

as it may have been modified by the 

applicant after discussions would not 

result in an unacceptable risk to the 

national security of the United States, it 

shall make a recommendation to the 

senior official to that effect. 

(ii) If the senior official concurs with 

the recommendation of the 

Clearinghouse, the senior official shall 

make a recommendation to the senior 

officer that is consistent with the 

recommendation of the Clearinghouse. 

If the senior official does not agree with 

the recommendation of the 

Clearinghouse, the senior official may 

make a recommendation to the senior 

officer to that effect. 

(iii) The senior officer shall consider 

the recommendation of the senior 

official, and, after giving full 

consideration to mitigation actions 

available to the DoD and those agreed to 

by the applicant, determine whether the 

proposed project as it may have been 

modified by the applicant would result 

in an unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States. If the 

senior officer makes such a 

determination, the senior officer shall 

convey that determination to the 

Secretary of Transportation, identifying 

which of the three criteria in § 211.3 

creates the unacceptable risk to the 

national security of the United States. 

(iv) Any mitigation discussions 

engaged in by the Department of 

Defense pursuant to this part shall not 

be binding upon any other Federal 

agency, nor waive required compliance 

with any other law or regulation. 

(c) If the applicant does not agree to 

enter into discussions with the DoD to 

seek to mitigate an adverse impact, the 

Clearinghouse shall review the analysis 

and recommendations of the designated 

DoD Components and determine if the 

proposed project would result in an 

unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States. 

(1) If the Clearinghouse determines 

that the proposed project would result 

in an unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States, it shall 

make a recommendation to the senior 

official to that effect. If the 

Clearinghouse determines, contrary to 

the recommendations of the DoD 

Components, that the proposed project 

would not result in an unacceptable risk 

to the national security of the United 

States, it shall make a recommendation 

to the senior official to that effect. 

(2) If the senior official concurs with 

the recommendation of the 

Clearinghouse, the senior official shall 

make a recommendation to the senior 

officer that is consistent with the 

recommendation of the Clearinghouse. 

If the senior official does not agree with 

the recommendation of the 

Clearinghouse, the senior official may 

make a recommendation to the senior 

officer to that effect. 

(3) The senior officer shall consider 

the recommendation of the senior 

official, and, after giving full 

consideration to mitigation actions 

available to the DoD and those agreed to 

by the applicant, determine whether the 

proposed project would result in an 

unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States. If the 

senior officer makes such a 

determination, the senior officer shall 

convey that determination to the 

Secretary of Transportation, identifying 

which of the three criteria in § 211.3 

creates the unacceptable risk to the 

national security of the United States. 

(d) The Clearinghouse may, on behalf 

of itself, the senior official, or the senior 

officer, seek an extension of time from 

the Secretary of Transportation for 

consideration of the application. 

§ 211.7 Initiating an informal DoD review of 

a proposed project. 

(a) An informal review of a project 

begins with the receipt from a requester 

by the Clearinghouse of a request for an 

informal review. In seeking an informal 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73091 

review, the requester shall provide the 

following information to the 

Clearinghouse: 

(1) The geographic location of the 

project including its latitude and 

longitude, 

(2) The height of the project, 

(3) The nature of the project. 

(4) The requester is encouraged to 

provide as much additional information 

as is available. The more information 

provided by the requester, the greater 

will be the accuracy and reliability of 

the resulting DoD review. When a 

request for an informal review includes 

information that is proprietary or 

competition sensitive, requesters are 

encouraged to mark the documents they 

submit accordingly. 

(b) The Clearinghouse shall, within 

five days of receiving the information 

provided by the requester, convey that 

information to those DoD Components it 

believes may have an interest in 

reviewing the request. 

(1) The DoD Components that receive 

the request from the Clearinghouse shall 

provide their comments and 

recommendations on the request to the 

Clearinghouse no later than 30 days 

after they receive the request. 

(2) Not later than 50 days after 

receiving the request from the requester, 

the Clearinghouse shall evaluate all 

comments and recommendations 

received and take one of three actions: 

(i) Determine that the project will not 

have an adverse impact on military 

operations and readiness, in which case 

it shall notify the requester of such 

determination. In doing so, the 

Clearinghouse shall also advise the 

requester that the informal review by 

the DoD does not constitute an action 

under 49 U.S.C. 44718 and that neither 

the DoD nor the Secretary of 

Transportation are bound by the 

determination made under the informal 

review. 

(ii) Determine that the project will 

have an adverse impact on military 

operations and readiness but that the 

adverse impact involved is sufficiently 

attenuated that it does not require 

mitigation. The Clearinghouse shall 

notify the requester of such 

determination. In doing so, the 

Clearinghouse shall also advise the 

requester that the informal review by 

the DoD does not constitute an action 

under 49 U.S.C. 44718 and that neither 

the DoD nor the Secretary of 

Transportation are bound by the 

determination made under the informal 

review. 

(iii) Determine that the project will 

have an adverse impact on military 

operations and readiness. 

(A) When the requester is the project 

proponent, the Clearinghouse shall 

immediately— 

(1) Notify the requester of the 

determination and the reasons for the 

conclusion of the Clearinghouse and 

advise the requester that the DoD would 

like to discuss the possibility of 

mitigation to reduce any adverse 

impact; and 

(2) Designate one or more DoD 

Components to engage in discussions 

with the requester to attempt to mitigate 

the adverse impact. 

(B) When the requester is a State, 

Indian tribal, or local official or a 

landowner, notify the requester of the 

determination and the reasons for that 

conclusion. 

(c) If the requester is the project 

proponent and agrees to enter into 

discussions with the DoD to seek to 

mitigate an adverse impact, the 

designated DoD Components shall 

engage in discussions with the requester 

in an attempt to reach agreement on 

measures that would mitigate the 

adverse impact of the project on military 

operations and readiness. 

§ 211.8 Inquiries received by DoD 

Components. 

(a) An inquiry received by a DoD 

Component other than the 

Clearinghouse relating to an application 

filed with the Secretary of 

Transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

44718 shall be forwarded to the 

Clearinghouse by the DoD Component 

except when that DoD Component has 

been designated by the Clearinghouse to 

engage in discussions with the entity 

making the inquiry. 

(b) A request for informal DoD review 

or any other inquiry related to matters 

covered by this part and received by a 

DoD Component other than the 

Clearinghouse shall be forwarded to the 

Clearinghouse by that Component 

except when that DoD Component has 

been designated by the Clearinghouse to 

engage in discussions with the entity 

making the request. 

§ 211.9 Mitigation options. 

(a) In discussing mitigation to avoid 

an unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States, the DoD 

Components designated to discuss 

mitigation with an applicant or 

requester shall, as appropriate and as 

time allows, analyze the following types 

of DoD mitigation to determine if they 

identify feasible and affordable actions 

that may be taken to mitigate adverse 

impacts of projects on military 

operations and readiness: 

(1) Modifications to military 

operations. 

(2) Modifications to radars or other 

items of military equipment. 

(3) Modifications to military test and 

evaluation activities, military training 

routes, or military training procedures. 

(4) Providing upgrades or 

modifications to existing systems or 

procedures. 

(5) The acquisition of new systems by 

the DoD and other departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government. 

(b) In discussing mitigation to avoid 

an unacceptable risk to the national 

security of the United States, the 

applicant or requester, as the case may 

be, should consider the following 

possible actions: 

(1) Modification of the proposed 

structure, operating characteristics, or 

the equipment in the proposed project. 

(2) Changing the location of the 

proposed project. 

(3) Limiting daily operating hours or 

the number of days the equipment in 

the proposed structure is in use in order 

to avoid interference with military 

activities. 

(4) Providing a voluntary contribution 

of funds to offset the cost of measures 

undertaken by the Secretary of Defense 

to mitigate adverse impacts of the 

project on military operations and 

readiness. 

§ 211.10 Reporting determinations to 

Congress. 

(a) Not later than 30 days after making 

a determination of unacceptable risk 

pursuant to § 211.6, the senior officer 

shall submit to the congressional 

defense committees a report on such 

determination and the basis for such 

determination. 

(b) Such a report shall include— 

(1) An explanation of the operational 

impact that led to the determination. 

(2) A discussion of the mitigation 

options considered. 

(3) An explanation of why the 

mitigation options were not feasible or 

did not resolve the conflict. 

Subpart D—Communications and 

Outreach 

§ 211.11 Communications with the 

Clearinghouse. 

All communications to the 

Clearinghouse by applicants, requesters, 

or members of the public should be 

addressed to: Executive Director, DoD 

Siting Clearinghouse, Office of the 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Installations and Environment), Room 

5C646, 3400 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3400, or, if by 

electronic mail, to 

DoDSitingClearinghouse@osd.mil. 

Additional information about the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73092 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Clearinghouse and means of contacting 

it are available at the following URL: 

http://www.acq.mil/ie/sch. 

§ 211.12 Public outreach. 

(a) The DoD shall establish a Web site 

accessible to the public that— 

(1) Lists the applications that the DoD 

is currently considering. 

(2) Identifies the stage of the action, 

e.g., preliminary review, referred for 

mitigation discussions, determined to be 

an unacceptable risk. 

(3) Indicates how the public may 

provide comments to the DoD. 

(b) The Clearinghouse shall publish a 

handbook to provide applicants, 

requesters, and members of the public 

with necessary information to assist 

them in participating in the Mission 

Compatibility Evaluation Process. 

Dated: November 18, 2013. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2013–28868 Filed 12–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

36 CFR Part 7 

[NPS–NERI–14336; PPNENERIP0, 

PPMPRLE1Z.Y00000] 

RIN 1024–AD95 

Special Regulations; Areas of the 

National Park System, New River 

Gorge National River, Bicycling 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule authorizes bicycle 

use on new and existing multi-use trails 

and administrative roads within the 

New River Gorge National River. The 

rule is necessary because the National 

Park Service general regulation for 

bicycle use requires publication of a 

special regulation when new trails are 

constructed outside of developed areas. 

DATES: The rule is effective January 6, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Fields, Outdoor Recreation 

Planner, New River Gorge National 

River, P.O. Box 246 (104 Main St), Glen 

Jean, WV 25846, (304) 465–6527, Jamie_

Fields@nps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Administrative Background 

The New River Gorge National River 

(NERI or park), a unit of the National 

Park System located in West Virginia, 

encompasses approximately 72,000 

acres within a 53-mile corridor along 

the New River, extending from Hawks 

Nest State Park to Hinton. Congress 

established NERI as a unit of the 

National Park System, largely in 

response to a 20-year grassroots effort 

organized by local community leaders. 

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed 

legislation establishing the park, ‘‘for 

the purpose of conserving and 

interpreting outstanding natural, scenic, 

and historic values and objects in and 

around the New River Gorge and 

preserving as a free-flowing stream an 

important segment of the New River in 

West Virginia for the benefit and 

enjoyment of present and future 

generations’’ (Pub. L. 95–625, sec. 1101, 

1978). Subsequent legislation 

concerning the park states in its findings 

that NERI ‘‘has provided the basis for 

increased recreation and tourism 

activities in southern West Virginia due 

to its nationally recognized status and 

has greatly contributed to the regional 

economy’’ (Pub. L. 100–534, sec. 

2(a)(1)–(2), 1988). 

Park Planning 

The park’s 1982 General Management 

Plan (1982 GMP) anticipated 

accommodating an expanding array of 

recreational pursuits, including off-road 

bicycling. It states that ‘‘[l]evels of use 

of new or unusual forms of recreation 

(such as hang gliding, rock climbing, 

dirt bicycling) will be managed to avoid 

problems of visitor safety, conflicts 

between uses, or resource impacts.’’ 

The 1982 GMP also anticipated trail 

construction as funding became 

available. A subsequent park-wide Trail 

Development Plan (1993) recommended 

that the park develop a trail system 

emphasizing multiple uses, including 

hiking and bicycling. Both of these 

plans can be viewed by going to the 

NERI park planning Web site, http://

www.nps.gov/neri/parkmgmt/

planning.htm, then following this path: 

Click the link for ‘‘Environmental 

Assessment: Design and Build Two 

Stacked Loop Hiking and Biking Trail 

Systems . . .’’; click the link to the 

Document List on the left; click the link 

to either the ‘‘1982 NERI General 

Management Plan’’ or the ‘‘1993 NERI 

Trail Development Plan’’; then 

download the documents on their 

respective pages. 

The park began developing a new, 

updated general management plan in 

2005 to respond to changes in park 

boundaries, land acquisitions, and park 

and public needs and priorities that had 

occurred since the 1982 GMP was 

approved. The park’s updated 2010/

2011 GMP and Environmental Impact 

Statement (2010/2011 GMP/EIS) process 

revealed substantial and consistent 

public support for authorizing bicycle 

use on trails during public scoping 

(February 2004 through October 2007) 

and public comment (January 13, 2010 

through April 16, 2010). 

The 2010/2011 GMP/EIS proposed 

that, after promulgation of the required 

special regulations and proper 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

bicycle use would be an appropriate use 

on new and existing trails. This would 

include bicycle use in frontcountry 

zones, in backcountry zones on single 

track trails, and on a limited basis on a 

variety of trail types in historic resource, 

river corridor, and park development 

zones. The Record of Decision (ROD) for 

the 2010/2011 GMP/EIS was signed, and 

the Notice of Availability was published 

in the Federal Register (77 FR 12877, 

March 2, 2012). The 2010/2011 GMP/

EIS can be viewed by going to the NERI 

park planning Web site, http://

www.nps.gov/neri/parkmgmt/

planning.htm, then following this path: 

Click the link for ‘‘General Management 

Plan’’; click the link to the Document 

List on the left; click the link to the 

‘‘Draft General Management Plan and 

EIS/Draft Foundation Plan’’; then 

download the documents at the bottom 

of the page (corrections to the 2010/

2011 GMP/EIS are located in the 

‘‘Abbreviated Final General 

Management Plan . . .’’, also in the 

Document List). 

As a result of the public support for 

bicycle use expressed early in the 2010/ 

2011 GMP/EIS process, the park 

developed an Environmental 

Assessment (Trails EA) to evaluate the 

impact of the construction of new trails 

and designation of new and existing 

park trails as routes for bicycle use. 

Public scoping for the Trails EA, which 

occurred from November 10, 2009 until 

January 15, 2010 (with a public focus 

group on November 10, 2009 and a 

public open house on December 8, 

2009), confirmed there was 

overwhelming support for bicycle use 

on trails. Only one of approximately 400 

scoping comments from residents of 32 

states was opposed to bicycle use at 

NERI. 

The Trails EA 

The Preferred Alternative that became 

the NPS Selected Action upon approval 

of the Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) provided for the designation of 

some existing park trails and 

administrative roads as routes open to 

bicycle use, and for the construction 

and designation of three new trails for 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES