4500 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway Development Corporation is 

amending 33 CFR part 401, Regulations 

and Rules, as follows: 

PART 401—SEAWAY REGULATIONS 

AND RULES 

Subpart A—Regulations 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart A 

of part 401 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a)(4), 

as amended; 49 CFR 1.52, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 401.29, remove footnote 1 and 

revise paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 401.29 Maximum draft. 

(a) Notwithstanding any provision 

herein, the loading of cargo, draft and 

speed of a vessel in transit shall be 

controlled by the master, who shall take 

into account the vessel’s individual 

characteristics and its tendency to list or 

squat, so as to avoid striking bottom. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 401.61 to read as follows: 

§ 401.61 Assigned frequencies. 

The Seaway stations operate on the 

following assigned VHF frequencies: 

156.8 MHz—(channel 16)—Distress 

and Calling. 

156.7 MHz—(channel 14)—Working 

(Canadian stations in Sector 1 and the 

Welland Canal). 

156.65 MHz—(channel 13)—Working 

(U.S. station in Lake Ontario). 

156.6 MHz—(channel12)—Working 

(U.S. station in Lake Ontario). 

156.6 MHz—(channel 12)—Working 

(U.S. stations in Sector 2 of the River); 

and 

156.55 MHz—(channel 11)—Working 

(Canadian stations in Sector 3, Lake 

Ontario and Lake Erie). 

Issued at Washington, DC, on January 23, 

2015. 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation. 

Carrie Lavigne, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01554 Filed 1–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–61–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Parts 212 and 261 

RIN 0596–AD17 

Use By Over-Snow Vehicles (Travel 

Management Rule) 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service manages 

winter uses to protect National Forest 

System (NFS) resources and to provide 

a range of opportunities for motorized 

and non-motorized recreation. In 2005, 

the agency regulated winter motorized 

use as a discretionary activity under its 

regulations for Use by Over-Snow 

Vehicles. Consistent with a court order 

dated March 29, 2013, the United States 

Department of Agriculture (the 

Department) amends the Department’s 

travel management rule (TMR) to 

require designation of roads, trails, and 

areas on NFS lands to provide for oversnow vehicle (OSV) use. An over-snow 

vehicle is defined as ‘‘a motor vehicle 

that is designed for use over snow and 

that runs on a track and/or a ski or skis, 

while in use over snow’’. The 

Responsible Official will establish a 

system of routes and areas to provide for 

over-snow vehicle use. The regulations 

will continue to exempt over-snow 

vehicle use from the travel management 

rule, which provides for designation of 

a system of routes and areas for other 

types of motor vehicle use. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The record for this final rule 

contains all the documents pertinent to 

this rulemaking. These documents are 

available for inspection and copying at 

the Office of the Director, Recreation, 

Heritage, and Volunteer Resources Staff, 

5th Floor, Sidney R. Yates Federal 

Building, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC, on business days 

between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Those 

wishing to inspect or copy these 

documents are encouraged to call Jamie 

Schwartz, Recreation, Heritage, and 

Volunteer Resources Staff, at 202–205– 

1589 beforehand to facilitate access into 

the building. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Schwartz, 202–205–1589, 

Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer 

Resources Staff. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Background and Need for the Rule 

Between 1982 and 2009, the number 

of people who operated motor vehicles 

off road increased by more than 153 

percent in the United States (‘‘Outdoor 

Recreation Trends and Futures, a 

Technical Document Supporting the 

Forest Service 2010 RPA [Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974] Assessment,’’ p. 

135 (H. Cordell, 2012)). While both 

motor vehicle use and OSV use are 

increasing in the National Forests and 

Grasslands, so are many other types of 

recreational activities. From 1982 to 

2009, the number of people in the 

United States participating in viewing 

or photographing birds increased 304.2 

percent, the number of people 

participating in day hiking increased 

228.2 percent, the number of people 

participating in backpacking increased 

167 percent, the number of people 

participating in fishing increased 36 

percent, and the number of people 

participating in hunting increased 34 

percent (id. at 135–36). Providing for the 

long-term sustainable use of NFS lands 

and resources is essential to maintaining 

the quality of the recreation experience 

in the National Forests and Grasslands. 

In 2005, the Forest Service (Agency) 

promulgated the TMR to provide more 

effective management of public motor 

vehicle use. The 2005 TMR includes 

subpart B, which requires designation of 

those NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas 

on NFS lands where public motor 

vehicle use is allowed (36 CFR 

212.51(a)), and subpart C, under which 

the Responsible Official has the 

discretion to determine whether to 

regulate OSV use and to establish a 

system of routes and areas where OSV 

use is allowed unless prohibited or a 

system of routes and areas where OSV 

use is prohibited unless allowed. 

Subpart C of the 2005 TMR authorizes 

but does not require the Responsible 

Official to allow, restrict, or prohibit 

OSV use on NFS roads, on NFS trails, 

and in areas on NFS lands. 

On March 29, 2013, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Idaho ruled that 

subpart C of the TMR violated Executive 

Order (E.O.) 11644, as amended by E.O. 

11989. Winter Wildlands Alliance v. 

U.S. Forest Serv., 2013 WL 1319598, No. 

1:11–CV–586–REB (D. Idaho Mar. 29, 

2013). The court did not rule that the 

Agency lacks the discretion to 

determine how to regulate OSV use. To 

the contrary, the court held that the 

Forest Service has the discretion to 

determine where and when OSV use 

can occur on NFS lands. The ruling 

requires the Agency to designate routes 

and areas where OSV use is permitted 

and routes and areas where OSV use is 

not permitted on NFS lands, consistent 

with E.O. 11644, as amended by E.O. 

11989, sec. 3(a), but does not dictate 

where and when OSV use can occur on 

those lands. The court ordered the 

Forest Service to issue a new rule 

consistent with the E.O.s. 

The Department is amending subpart 

C of the TMR to provide for 

management of OSVs on NFS lands 

consistent with the EOs, the court’s 

order, and subpart B of the TMR. 

Specifically, the Department is 

amending subpart C of the TMR to 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4501 

require the Responsible Official to 

designate NFS roads, NFS trails, and 

areas on NFS lands where OSV use is 

allowed in administrative units or 

Ranger Districts, or parts of 

administrative units or Ranger Districts, 

where snowfall is adequate for OSV use 

to occur. The Department is not 

removing the exemption for OSVs from 

subpart B. 

2. Unique Qualities of OSV Use and 

Management 

The Department believes that a 

separate subpart for regulation of OSV 

use is appropriate because of the 

difference in management and impacts 

of OSV use and other types of motor 

vehicle use on NFS lands. 

The difference between management 

of OSV use and management of other 

types of motor vehicle use on NFS lands 

stems from differences in their 

associated settings, activities, 

environmental impacts, and public 

preferences. National Forests and 

Grasslands change when snow blankets 

the landscape. Vegetation camouflages, 

animals burrow, and water transforms 

into ice. Recreationists and others 

accessing snow-covered National 

Forests and Grasslands typically trade 

hiking boots for skis and snowshoes and 

motor vehicles with tires for those with 

tracks and sleds. 

Because of snowfall patterns, National 

Forests and Grasslands vary 

significantly in their need to address 

OSV use. National Visitor Use 

Monitoring (NVUM) data from 2008 to 

2012 show that approximately 30 

percent of NFS lands do not offer OSV 

recreation opportunities. OSV use 

occurs only when sufficient snow is 

present, in contrast to other types of 

motor vehicle use, which can occur at 

any time of the year. Other types of 

motor vehicles operating over snow are 

regulated under subpart B of the TMR. 

When properly operated and 

managed, OSVs do not make direct 

contact with soil, water, and vegetation; 

whereas most other types of motor 

vehicles operate directly on the ground. 

Unlike other types of motor vehicles 

traveling cross-country, OSVs generally 

do not create a permanent trail or have 

a direct impact on soil and ground 

vegetation. In some areas of the country, 

OSV use is therefore not always 

confined to roads and trails. 

The public’s OSV preferences and 

practices on NFS lands vary nationwide 

due to different terrain, snow typology 

and amount, recreational activities, and 

transportation needs. OSV use on NFS 

lands in the Northeast and Midwest is 

largely trail-based, while the larger, 

wide-open, powder-filled bowls in 

western mountains can support crosscountry OSV use. 

Subpart B of the TMR recognizes that 

cross-country travel by other types of 

motor vehicles is generally 

unacceptable. Subpart C of the TMR as 

originally promulgated and in the final 

rule recognizes that cross-country travel 

by OSVs may be acceptable in 

appropriate circumstances. 

Recreational preferences are another 

factor accounting for the difference in 

management of OSV use and other types 

of motor vehicle use. The public’s desire 

for recreational opportunities is 

different in the summer and the winter. 

The public enjoys the National Forests 

for a variety of winter activities 

including snowmobiling, cross country 

skiing, snowshoeing, and winter snow 

play. NVUM data from 2008 to 2012 

indicate that 21 percent of public use of 

the National Forests (152 million visits) 

occurs during the snow season. Most of 

this winter use (69 percent) occurs at 

alpine ski areas. Nearly 4 million people 

enjoy snowmobiling on the National 

Forests. 

In summary, OSV route and area 

designations will sustain natural 

resource values, enhance user 

experiences, and be consistent with 

other types of motor vehicle use 

designations on NFS lands. 

3. Impact on Existing Decisions 

Consistent with § 212.50(b) of subpart 

B of the 2005 TMR, existing decisions 

that allow, restrict, or prohibit OSV use 

on NFS roads, on NFS trails, or in areas 

on NFS lands that were made under 

prior authorities (part 295 or subpart C) 

will remain in effect under the final rule 

and will not have to be revisited. 

Analogous to § 212.52(a) of subpart B 

of the 2005 TMR, the final rule provides 

that public notice with no further public 

involvement is sufficient for previous 

administrative decisions, made under 

other authorities and including public 

involvement, that regulate OSV use on 

NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas 

on NFS lands over the entire 

administrative unit or Ranger District, or 

parts of the administrative unit or 

Ranger District, where snowfall is 

adequate for OSV use to occur, and no 

change is required to these previous 

decisions. In short, units or Districts 

that have completed OSV use 

designations under other authorities and 

including public involvement do not 

have to revisit them. 

For clarity, the final rule adds a 

provision in subpart C regarding the 

requirement for an OSV use map to 

display designations for OSV use, 

separate from the requirement in 

subpart B for a motor vehicle use map 

displaying designations for other types 

of motor vehicle use. 

4. Public Comments and Response to 

Comments 

Overview 

On June 18, 2014, the Forest Service 

published a document in the Federal 

Register (79 FR 34678) seeking public 

comment on the proposed amendments 

to subpart C of the TMR. The proposed 

rule was posted electronically on the 

Federal Register site at 

www.gpoaccess.gov and at the Federal erulemaking site at www.regulations.gov. 

During the 45-day comment period that 

ended on August 4, 2014, the Agency 

received no requests for an extension of 

the comment period. The Forest Service 

received 20,210 comments on the 

proposed rule. 

The respondents represented 37 

States and the District of Columbia. The 

following lists the categories of 

respondents: 

• Recreation interests, including 

permit holders; 

• Government agencies; 

• Environmental or conservation 

groups; and 

• Individuals who did not identify an 

affiliation. 

Comments came from organizations 

and individuals concerned about the 

impacts of OSV use on the environment 

and on non-motorized uses. Comments 

also came from organizations and 

individuals concerned about potential 

restrictions on OSV use. 

Respondents offered general 

comments either supporting or not 

supporting the proposed rule or 

supporting or opposing OSV use in 

general on NFS lands. Respondents also 

offered specific comments about 

sections of the proposed rule that they 

would like to see revised. Many 

respondents offered suggestions for 

implementation, funding, and 

enforcement of the proposed rule at the 

local level and comments on other 

rulemaking efforts or existing Forest 

Service policy, all of which are beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

General Comments 

Comment: Some respondents believed 

that the Forest Service has successfully 

used current subpart C of the TMR for 

managing OSV use and that there is no 

reason to implement the proposed rule. 

Response: The March 29, 2013, order 

requires the Agency to revise subpart C 

to require, rather than provide for, 

designation of routes and areas where 

OSV use is permitted and routes and 

areas where OSV use is not permitted 

on NFS lands, consistent with EO 

11644, as amended by EO 11989. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4502 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the Forest Service should have 

addressed OSV use in the TMR; that 

failure to do so has resulted in use 

conflicts and resource damage; and that 

the TMR should be reviewed and used 

as a starting point for developing an 

over-snow rule. 

Response: Current subpart C of the 

TMR addresses OSV use by providing 

for but not requiring designation of 

routes and areas for OSV use. The 

Department disagrees that the approach 

to management of OSV use in current 

subpart C has resulted in use conflicts 

and resource damage. As stated in the 

preamble to the proposed and final 

rules, the Forest Service is amending 

subpart C in response to a court order 

to require designation of those NFS 

roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS 

lands that are open to OSV use and to 

prohibit OSV use that is inconsistent 

with those designations. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the Forest Service should have 

more vigorously defended subpart C of 

the TMR and the Agency’s management 

of OSV use. 

Response: The Federal Government 

vigorously defended subpart C of the 

TMR in the litigation that resulted in the 

March 29, 2013, order. This order 

requires the Agency to revise subpart C 

to require, rather than provide for, 

designation of routes and areas where 

OSV use is permitted and routes and 

areas where OSV use is not permitted 

on NFS lands, consistent with EO 

11644, as amended by EO 11989. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the proposed rule should not have 

been published in the summer, when 

OSV users are not focused on winter 

recreation. 

Response: This rulemaking is courtordered and is subject to a court 

deadline. The Agency had to proceed as 

quickly as possible to comply with the 

court order. Moreover, no publication 

time is ideal for everyone. For example, 

in the winter time, OSV users could be 

recreating and not focused on 

rulemaking. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that since OSV use is not adequately 

regulated, and since few current 

restrictions on OSV use are enforced, 

OSV use should not be expanded. Other 

respondents noted that enforcement of 

restrictions and prohibitions on OSV 

use is an issue in the backcountry and 

that OSVs are encroaching on nonmotorized areas in search of fresh 

powder and are disregarding signage in 

the area. Other respondents stated that 

the registration fee for OSVs should be 

raised to pay for increased enforcement 

and signage for OSV use designations. 

Response: Enforcement of the TMR, 

including subpart C, is beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. Forest Service 

law enforcement personnel play a 

critical role in ensuring compliance 

with applicable laws and regulations, 

protecting public safety, and protecting 

NFS resources. The Forest Service also 

maintains cooperative relationships 

with many State and local law 

enforcement agencies that provide 

mutual support across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Education and cooperative 

relationships with users support 

enforcement efforts by promoting 

voluntary compliance. The final rule 

will not increase the Agency’s budget or 

the number of law enforcement officers. 

However, the final rule will enhance 

consistency and clarity in management 

of OSV use on NFS lands. 

OSV use maps will be available at 

local Forest Service offices and, as soon 

as practicable, on Forest Service Web 

sites. Once an administrative unit or a 

Ranger District issues an OSV use map, 

OSV use in that unit or District that is 

inconsistent with the designations 

reflected on the map will be prohibited. 

The Forest Service plans to issue 

additional travel management guidance 

in its sign handbook to enhance 

consistency in content and use of 

standard interagency symbols in signs. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the Forest Service should not 

establish an artificial, predetermined 

date by which local units are required 

to complete winter travel planning 

across the NFS. Other respondents 

requested that the Forest Service 

establish a timeline for issuance of OSV 

use maps. 

Response: The Department shares an 

interest in completing route and area 

designations for OSV use as quickly as 

possible. The Forest Service will make 

every effort, within its available 

resources, to complete route and area 

designations for OSV use as quickly as 

possible. However, the Department 

disagrees with establishing an 

enforceable deadline for completion of 

the process. Imposing an enforceable 

deadline for completing OSV use 

designations would subject the Forest 

Service to a legal challenge if, despite its 

best efforts (perhaps due to the 

controversy involved in the process), 

the Agency is unable to meet the 

deadline. The Department believes that 

appropriate public input and 

coordination between the Responsible 

Official and Federal, State, Tribal, 

county, and municipal governments 

offers the best hope for long-term 

resolution of issues involving 

designations for motor vehicle use, 

including OSV use. An inflexible 

deadline can make collaborative 

solutions more difficult. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that how the Agency will fund 

management of OSV use and enforce 

restrictions on OSV use should be 

considered in OSV designation 

decisions, and requested that the 

Agency consider pursuing alternative 

management practices in coordination 

with the States and organizations like 

the Interagency Off-Highway Vehicle 

(OHV) Working Group established by 

the State of Montana’s Department of 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 

Response: Recreation management in 

general and recreation funding are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking, 

which addresses designation of routes 

and areas on NFS lands for OSV use. 

Forest Service appropriations are 

authorized by Congress. The Forest 

Service is committed to using whatever 

funds it has available to accomplish the 

purposes of this final rule in a targeted, 

efficient manner. The Agency makes 

appropriate use of all other sources of 

available funding and has a number of 

successful cooperative relationships 

with State governments. Volunteer 

agreements with user groups and others 

have proven successful in extending 

Agency resources for trail construction, 

maintenance, monitoring, and 

mitigation. Regardless of the level of 

funding available, the Department 

believes that the final rule provides an 

appropriate procedural framework for 

management of OSV use on NFS lands 

that is consistent with EO 11644, as 

amended by EO 11989, the District 

Court’s March 29, 2013, order, and 

regulation of other types of motor 

vehicle use on NFS lands. While 

availability of resources for maintenance 

and administration must be considered 

in designating routes for OSV use 

(§§ 212.55(a) and 212.81(d) of the final 

rule), cooperative relationships and 

volunteer agreements may be included 

in this consideration. 

Comment: Some respondents 

supported the Forest Service policy for 

managing nonconforming uses in 

recommended wilderness and 

wilderness study areas and encouraged 

the Forest Service to codify this policy 

nationally in the final rule. Some 

respondents believed that inventoried 

roadless areas, areas recommended for 

wilderness in land management plans, 

and wilderness study areas should be 

more protected under the final rule. 

Other respondents suggested that the 

Forest Service amend 36 CFR 212.55(e) 

to state that ‘‘National Forest System 

roads, National Forest System trails, and 

areas on National Forest System lands 

in wilderness areas, or primitive areas, 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4503 

inventoried roadless areas, areas 

recommended for wilderness in land 

and resource management plans, or 

wilderness study areas shall not be 

designated for motor vehicle use 

pursuant to this section, unless, in the 

case of wilderness areas, motor vehicle 

use is authorized by the applicable 

enabling legislation for those areas.’’ 

Response: The issue regarding 

nonconforming uses in recommended 

wilderness and wilderness study areas 

is beyond the scope of this final rule. 

The Department believes that the 

National Forests and Grasslands should 

provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized uses in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the 

long term. Designations for motor 

vehicle use, including OSV use, are best 

made at the local level, in coordination 

with Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

governments and appropriate public 

involvement, as provided for in this 

final rule. 

Protection of roadless areas is 

adequately addressed by the national 

and State-specific roadless rules and 

need not be addressed in this 

rulemaking. 

Comment: Many respondents 

commented on the backcountry hut 

system in Colorado. Some of these 

respondents were in favor of allowing 

OSV use in the area surrounding these 

huts, while other respondents were 

opposed to OSV use in this area. 

Response: Whether OSV use should 

be allowed in certain areas on NFS 

lands is beyond the scope of this final 

rule. This final rule addresses the 

procedural framework for making OSV 

use designations rather than OSV use 

designations themselves. The 

Department encourages public 

participation in local OSV use 

designations. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that fat tire bicycles should be regulated 

under the proposed rule. Some 

respondents stated that the Forest 

Service should explicitly incorporate a 

definition of bicycles that 

unambiguously distinguishes them from 

motor vehicles, including OSVs, and 

should provide guidance to ensure that 

bicycles are managed as a nonmotorized use. Some respondents 

commented that bicycles should be 

managed on their own merits and not as 

an afterthought to motorized travel 

management. 

Response: Regulation of nonmotorized use, including bicycles 

without motors, is beyond the scope of 

this final rule, which addresses 

motorized use, specifically, OSV use. 

The Forest Service has clearly defined 

the term ‘‘bicycle’’, which includes new 

fat tire bicycles, in Forest Service 

Handbook 2309.18 as ‘‘a pedal-driven, 

human-powered device with two 

wheels attached to a frame, one behind 

the other.’’ Management of bicycles, 

including fat tire bicycles in winter, 

would be addressed as part of trail 

management planning for nonmotorized uses. New technologies that 

merge bicycles and motors, such as ebikes, are considered motor vehicles 

under § 212.1 of the TMR. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the proposed rule should require 

Forest Service employees to spend half 

their time in the field improving 

conditions and reducing fuels for fire. 

Response: Allocation of employees’ 

time with regard to conditions on the 

ground and reducing fuel loads is 

beyond the scope of this final rule, 

which addresses regulation of OSV use. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the term ‘‘Responsible Agency 

Official’’ should be clearly defined, and 

that identifying who this official is 

might help with potential inconsistency 

in implementing the rule. 

Response: The Forest Service did not 

propose any changes pertaining to 

identification of the Responsible Official 

in the current TMR. Therefore, the 

request to define the term ‘‘Responsible 

Official’’ is beyond the scope of this 

final rule. The Department believes the 

meaning of this term is clear from the 

context of the TMR. The Responsible 

Official in the context of the TMR is the 

person who has responsibility for 

managing an administrative unit or a 

Ranger District and who has delegated 

authority to make designation decisions 

under the TMR for that unit or District. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that education regarding 

outdoor ethics is paramount for 

backcountry activities such as OSV use 

and should be required in the final rule. 

These respondents believed that 

inexperienced users cause much of the 

environmental damage and use conflicts 

associated with OSV use and that better 

outdoor ethics training could prevent a 

lot of these problems. 

Response: Outdoor ethics training is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking, 

which addresses designation of routes 

and areas for OSV use. The Department 

appreciates the valuable and longstanding contributions of 

nongovernmental organizations, 

including user groups, to promote 

environmental ethics and responsible 

behavior on Federal lands. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that implementation of the 

proposed rule would have a direct 

impact on grooming programs and 

cooperative agreements for grooming 

among private organizations, counties, 

and the Forest Service. 

Response: The Department disagrees. 

The final rule revises the procedural 

framework for designating routes and 

areas for OSV use consistent with E.O. 

11644, as amended, and the March 29, 

2013, court order and will not have any 

direct effect on grooming programs or 

cooperative agreements for grooming 

among private organizations, counties, 

and the Forest Service. 

OSV Exemption in Subpart B 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the Forest Service should remove 

the OSV exemption in subpart B to 

provide consistency between winter and 

summer travel management. Other 

respondents stated that OSVs are motor 

vehicles and therefore should be subject 

to the same regulation as other types of 

motor vehicles, such as OHVs. Some 

respondents stated that the OSV 

exemption in subpart B is appropriate 

given the differences between OSVs and 

other types of motor vehicles, including 

OHVs. 

Response: The Department believes 

that there are enough differences 

between OSV use and other types of 

motor vehicle use to justify regulation of 

OSV use in a separate subpart. As stated 

above, the difference between 

management of OSV use and 

management of other types of motor 

vehicle use on NFS lands stems from 

differences in their associated settings, 

activities, environmental impacts, and 

public preferences. For example, 

impacts from wheeled motor vehicles 

traveling directly on the soil differ from 

impacts from motor vehicles with tracks 

or skis traveling over snow. Therefore, 

the Department is retaining the OSV 

exemption in subpart B of the TMR. 

Biological Resource Management 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the Forest Service should limit OSV 

use off established trails to minimize 

damage to habitat for species like bear, 

ermine, dusky grouse, lynx, mountain 

goat, bighorn sheep, and snowshoe hare 

and that OSV use on trails should be 

limited to areas with no ecological value 

to ensure these species have adequate 

habitat. Other respondents stated that 

there is no credible evidence that OSVs 

cause resource damage or have an 

impact on wildlife and that the 

proposed rule should be rewritten to 

reflect that fact. 

Response: The National Forests and 

Grasslands are managed by law for 

multiple uses, including wildlife, 

timber, grazing, mining, and outdoor 

recreation. These uses must be 

balanced, rather than given preference. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4504 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

OSV use may have an impact on NFS 

resources and wildlife. Managers must 

apply the so-called ‘‘minimization 

criteria’’ in § 212.55 when determining 

which roads, trails and areas to 

authorize for OSV use in order to 

minimize effects on National Forest 

resources including wildlife. These 

criteria do not change with this rule. 

The Department believes that National 

Forests and Grasslands should provide 

access for both motorized and nonmotorized uses in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the 

long term. The Department believes that 

the analysis of effects to wildlife and 

other NFS resources for designations for 

motor vehicle use, including OSV use, 

are best made at the local level, in 

coordination with Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local governments and with 

appropriate public involvement, as 

provided for in this final rule. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that allowing OSV use everywhere hurts 

dedicated lynx and wolverine habitat. 

Some respondents stated that a large 

portion of wolverine habitat in North 

America is under Federal ownership 

and should be protected. These 

respondents requested that the final rule 

fully evaluate and disclose the effects of 

dispersed recreation on wolverines and 

their habitat and, where necessary, 

minimize the harm from those activities. 

These respondents also stated that the 

final rule should require the Forest 

Service to consult with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to determine best 

mitigation practices regarding 

wolverines. Some respondents stated 

that OSV use compact snow, which 

gives larger predators like the coyote 

easier access to areas previously 

available to only smaller predators like 

the lynx and results in increased 

competition during sensitive lifecycles. 

Other respondents stated that there are 

fewer species in the winter season than 

in the summer, but that their protection 

is still important. Some respondents 

stated that Responsible Officials should 

be required to use the best available 

technology (BAT), as determined by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

in assessing impacts of OSV use in areas 

with sensitive species or special 

features. Some respondents stated that 

wildlife impacts from OSV use would 

be minimal because OSV users tend to 

favor higher elevations and because 

wildlife has typically migrated to lower 

elevations where conditions are more 

favorable. 

Response: The impact of OSV use on 

specific species, including threatened 

and endangered species, in specific 

locations is beyond the scope of this 

final rule. This final rule addresses the 

procedural framework for making OSV 

use designations, rather than OSV use 

designations themselves. OSV use 

designations are made at the local level, 

with appropriate public input and 

coordination with Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local governments based on the 

criteria in the final rule (§§ 212.55 and 

212.81(d)). The final rule does not 

provide for designating routes and areas 

for OSV use everywhere it may occur. 

Rather, the final rule provides for 

designation of a system of routes and 

areas where OSV use is allowed and for 

prohibition of OSV use that is 

inconsistent with the designations. 

The final rule will not have any effect 

on the ground until designation of 

roads, trails, and areas for OSV use is 

complete for a particular administrative 

unit or Ranger District, with appropriate 

public involvement and coordination 

with Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

governments. Designation decisions at 

the local level will be accompanied by 

appropriate consideration of potential 

impacts on threatened and endangered 

species. In making designations for OSV 

use, the Forest Service will consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as 

appropriate, under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. BAT is not 

required for assessing impacts from 

motor vehicle use. The Forest Service 

encourages public participation in local 

OSV decision making. 

Other Environmental Impacts and Use 

Conflicts 

Comment: Some respondents noted 

that OSVs are heavy and compact the 

snow, leaving deep tracks that make 

slopes unusable and dangerous for 

cross-country skiing. These respondents 

stated that this impact could be avoided 

by separating motorized and nonmotorized uses. Some respondents 

commented that motorized and nonmotorized uses should be located in 

separate staging areas, where possible, 

to limit use conflicts. Some respondents 

believed that snow pack from track 

compaction decreases snow melt. Other 

respondents stated that OSVs come in 

direct contact with the soil when OSV 

users search for adequate snow and that 

OSVs come in contact with the top of 

vegetation, which has an impact on the 

soil and vegetation. Some respondents 

stated that motorized and nonmotorized recreational activities are 

legitimate uses of Federal land, but they 

should be separated to ensure safe 

enjoyment for all involved. Other 

respondents believed that OSV use is 

incompatible with non-motorized uses 

and should be excluded from all NFS 

lands or should be restricted to trails 

and subject to a licensing requirement. 

Some respondents commented that the 

Responsible Official should have to 

address OSV use in the same manner as 

other motorized recreational uses on 

NFS lands. These respondents reasoned 

that the issue of use conflicts between 

motorized and non-motorized recreation 

is the same regardless of the level of 

snowfall or the season. 

Other respondents stated that OSVs 

are loud and that their noise carries, in 

some cases for several miles, which 

disturbs the quiet recreational 

experience of non-motorized users. 

Some respondents believed that OSVs 

compromise air and water quality, the 

landscape, and the quiet of the natural 

forest setting. Some respondents 

believed that OSV users leave behind 

trash and litter that adversely affects 

other users. Other respondents stated 

that the Forest Service should endorse 

the minimization of OSV use in the 

backcountry and that mechanized travel 

spoils the wilderness experience. 

Some respondents stated that the 

proposed rule should protect the quiet 

use of NFS lands, as this use predates 

any motorized use. Some respondents 

stated that the Forest Service failed to 

address non-motorized winter 

recreational uses like skiing and 

snowshoeing, which predate OSV use, 

and that these non-motorized uses are 

most likely to be heavily impacted by 

OSV use and should be addressed. 

Some respondents commented that it is 

difficult for non-motorized winter users 

to reach the backcountry, but when they 

do and find it overrun with OSVs, it can 

detract from their experience. These 

respondents believed that motorized 

winter uses should be limited to certain 

areas so that non-motorized winter users 

can seek solitude and quiet elsewhere. 

Other respondents stated that advances 

in technology have allowed OSVs to go 

places they never have before, further 

decreasing the areas available for quiet 

recreation. Some respondents believed 

that non-motorized uses should be given 

priority over motorized uses when 

undertaking winter travel management 

planning. 

Some respondents believed that OSVs 

with two-cycle motors are obsolete and 

environmentally wasteful and should be 

banned in favor of modern four-cycle 

motors. These respondents noted that 

the exhaust from an OSV not only 

smells but lingers in the area for several 

hours. 

Other respondents stated that OSVs 

do not come in direct contact with the 

ground and often ride on a cushion of 

snow several feet thick, and that when 

the snow melts, the tracks are washed 

away. Some respondents believed that 

OSVs on NFS roads do little to no harm 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4505 

compared to other motor vehicles and 

therefore should not be restricted. Other 

respondents believed that motorized 

winter use is an appropriate use of NFS 

lands and should not be limited in favor 

of non-motorized winter uses. Some 

respondents suggested that winter travel 

planning be based on an equitable 

process that eliminates the perceived 

bias that the OSV community has dealt 

with for many years. These respondents 

stated that non-motorized users like 

cross-country and backcountry skiers, 

snowshoe enthusiasts, split boarders, 

and dog-sledders have unlimited access 

to the backcountry, including areas that 

they could not realistically reach 

without the aid of an OSV, while OSVs 

are limited to small fractions of the 

National Forests and Grasslands. These 

respondents believed that limiting OSVs 

to small areas would result in more use 

conflicts and greater environmental 

impacts. 

Response: The site specific potential 

effects of OSV use on non-motorized 

winter recreational use and natural 

resources and the designation of certain 

types of OSVs in specific locations are 

beyond the scope of this final rule. This 

final rule addresses the procedural 

framework for making OSV use 

designations, rather than OSV use 

designations themselves. OSV use 

designations are made at the local level, 

with appropriate public input and 

coordination with Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local governments based on the 

criteria in the final rule (§§ 212.55 and 

212.81(d)). The same criteria are applied 

to designations for OSV use and 

designations for other types of motor 

vehicle use. Potential effects of OSV use 

on non-motorized winter recreational 

use and natural resources are addressed 

in the procedural framework for OSV 

use designations in the final rule. The 

criteria for designation of roads, trails, 

and areas for OSV use in the final rule 

require the Responsible Official to 

consider, with the objective of 

minimizing, effects of OSV use on 

natural resources and conflicts between 

OSV use and existing or proposed 

recreational uses of NFS lands, 

including non-motorized winter 

recreational uses. In addition, the 

criteria for designation of routes and 

areas for OSV use require the 

Responsible Official to consider the 

compatibility of OSV use with existing 

conditions in populated areas, taking 

into account sound, emissions, and 

other factors (§§ 212.55(b) and 212.81(d) 

of the final rule). 

The Department believes that 

National Forests and Grasslands should 

provide access for both motorized and 

non-motorized uses in a manner that is 

environmentally sustainable over the 

long term. The NFS is not reserved for 

the exclusive use of any one group, nor 

must every use be accommodated on 

every acre. It is entirely appropriate for 

different areas of the NFS to provide 

different opportunities for recreation. 

The Department believes that 

designations for motor vehicle use, 

including OSV use, are best made at the 

local level, in coordination with 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

governments and with appropriate 

public input, as provided for in this 

final rule. The Forest Service 

encourages public involvement in local 

OSV decisions. 

The Department agrees that OSVs 

have different impacts from other types 

of motor vehicles that run on the 

ground. However, per EO 11644, as 

amended, and the court order, the 

Forest Service must designate those 

routes and areas where OSV use is 

allowed and those routes and areas 

where OSV use is prohibited. 

Economic Impacts 

Comment: Some respondents believe 

that increased regulation of OSV use 

will have a negative impact on smalltown economies that depend on OSV 

users for income. 

Response: The final rule revises the 

procedural framework for local 

decision-making regarding OSV use and 

will not have any effect until 

designation of roads, trails, and areas for 

OSV use is complete for a particular 

administrative unit or Ranger District, 

with appropriate public involvement 

and coordination with Federal, State, 

Tribal, and local governments. Even 

after OSV designations are complete, the 

final rule will have no direct impact on 

small business entities because 

designations merely will regulate where 

OSV use will occur on NFS roads, on 

NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands. 

The Department has determined that the 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

final rule will not impose recordkeeping 

requirements on them, nor will it affect 

their competitive position in relation to 

large entities or their cash flow, 

liquidity, or ability to remain in the 

market. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that non-motorized winter users of NFS 

lands use staging areas and trails that in 

many cases have been plowed or 

groomed with revenue from OSV users; 

that non-motorized users do not pay for 

plowed trailhead parking or groomed 

trails but want increased access to these 

areas; and that non-motorized users 

should be required to share the cost of 

plowing trailhead parking and grooming 

trails by paying for a trail pass or 

parking pass or paying a use fee. Some 

respondents stated that if non-motorized 

users want a separate system of trails, 

they should have to pay a separate fee 

to fund maintenance of those trails. 

Other respondents stated that the 

motorized recreation community has 

many partnerships in place to maintain 

and improve existing trails that are used 

by both motorized and non-motorized 

users. 

Response: The extent to which the 

costs of plowing trailhead parking and 

grooming trails are borne by users is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

The Forest Service does not typically 

plow trailhead parking or groom trails 

and does not run programs that generate 

revenue to pay for these services. States 

or private organizations typically plow 

trailhead parking and groom trails using 

revenue derived from the States’ sales 

tax or the sale of stickers issued by the 

States. The final rule revises the 

procedural framework for local 

decision-making regarding OSV use and 

will not have any effect until 

designation of roads, trails, and areas is 

complete for a particular administrative 

unit or Ranger District, with appropriate 

public involvement and in coordination 

with Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

governments. The Forest Service’s 

authority to charge and retain fees for 

use of recreational facilities and services 

is contained in the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 

6801–6814), which is beyond the scope 

of this rulemaking. The Department 

agrees that cooperators make valuable 

contributions to maintenance and 

improvement of NFS trails for both 

motorized and non-motorized users. 

Demographics of OSV Use 

Comment: The demographics used in 

the proposed rule are outdated and 

should be updated to reflect current 

OSV use. 

Response: The demographics for OSV 

use used in the proposed rule are 

provided for background purposes and 

date from a 2012 Resource Planning 

Assessment. These figures are current, 

as figures in Resource Planning 

Assessments conducted under the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) 

(16 U.S.C. 1600 note, 1600–1614) are 

normally updated every 5 to 10 years. 

The increase in cross-country skiing 

between 1992–93 and 1999–2000 is 2.6 

million visits, while the increase in OSV 

use for those periods is 6.1 million 

visits. 

Comment: The percentages used in 

the proposed rule to demonstrate an 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4506 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

increase in recreational activities like 

bird-watching and fishing can be 

misleading; the Forest Service should 

replace them with actual numbers. 

Response: This information was 

provided for background purposes and 

came from research data in ‘‘Outdoor 

Recreation Trends and Futures, a 

Technical Document Supporting the 

Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment,’’ 

p. 135 (H. Cordell, 2012) at http://

www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_

srs150.pdf. 

Recreational Preferences 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that wilderness areas have increased 

steadily over the last 40 years, which 

has limited all forms of motorized 

recreation and given more access to 

non-motorized uses. These respondents 

stated that Federal lands should be open 

to all members of the public. 

Response: This final rule does not 

encourage or discourage motor vehicle 

use, but rather requires designation of 

roads, trails, and areas for OSV use. The 

Department believes that a welldesigned system of routes and areas 

designated for OSV use can reduce 

maintenance needs and environmental 

damage while enhancing the 

recreational experience for all users, 

both motorized and non-motorized. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that motor vehicle access 

for the elderly and persons with 

disabilities should not be limited. 

Response: Under section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, no person 

with a disability can be denied 

participation in a Federal program that 

is available to all other people solely 

because of his or her disability. In 

conformance with section 504, 

wheelchairs are welcome on all NFS 

lands that are open to foot travel and are 

specifically exempted from the 

definition of a motor vehicle in § 212.1 

of the TMR, even if they are batterypowered. However, there is no legal 

requirement to allow people with 

disabilities to use OSVs on NFS roads, 

on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands 

where OSV use is prohibited because 

such an exemption could fundamentally 

alter the nature of the Forest Service’s 

travel management program (7 CFR 

15e.103). Reasonable restrictions on 

OSV use, applied consistently to 

everyone, are not discriminatory. 

Comment: Some respondents believed 

that the Forest Service should remove 

references to ‘‘play areas’’ from the final 

rule because all types of terrain are 

conducive to OSV travel and recreation. 

Response: Like the proposed rule, the 

final rule does not include a reference 

to ‘‘play areas.’’ 

Comments Related to Specific Sections 

of the Proposed Rule 

Part 212—Travel Management 

Subpart A—Administration of the 

Forest Transportation System 

212.1—Definitions 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that designation of areas as 

big as a Ranger District would not 

comply with the language or intent of 

EO 11644, as amended. Some 

respondents commented that the 

proposed definition for an area would 

not resolve use conflicts and would only 

exacerbate them. One respondent 

suggested that designated areas should 

be limited to watersheds no larger than 

those assigned hydrologic unit code 6 

by the U.S. Geological Survey. Other 

respondents supported the proposed 

definition of an area. 

Response: E.O. 11644, as amended, 

does not define the term ‘‘area.’’ The 

amended definition for ‘‘area’’ in the 

proposed and final rules is based on the 

characteristics of OSV use, which 

presents a distinct suite of issues. An 

OSV traveling over snow has different 

impacts on natural resource values than 

motor vehicles traveling over the 

ground. Unlike other motor vehicles 

traveling cross-country, OSVs traveling 

cross-country generally do not create a 

permanent trail or have a direct impact 

on soil and ground vegetation. However, 

OSV use may have an impact on NFS 

resources and wildlife. The Department 

anticipates that it may be appropriate to 

designate areas for cross-country OSV 

use and that it may be appropriate to 

designate larger areas for cross-country 

OSV use than for cross-country use by 

other types of motor vehicles. 

Accordingly, the definition for an area 

in the proposed and final rules exempts 

OSVs from the statement that in most 

cases an area will be much smaller than 

a Ranger District. The definition of 

‘‘area’’ in the proposed and final rules 

does not provide that areas designated 

for OSV use will necessarily be as large 

as a Ranger District, but rather that they 

do not have to be much smaller than a 

Ranger District. As with evaluation of 

areas proposed for other types of motor 

vehicle use, proposed OSV areas will be 

subject to the minimization criteria in 

§ 212.55(b)(1)–(4), pursuant to 

§ 212.81(d) of the final rule. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that the definition of the 

term ‘‘over-snow vehicle’’ needs to be 

expanded to allow for modified 

vehicles, such as snowcats and fat tire 

bicycles, to be used on the trail system 

if permitted by State law. 

Response: Regulation of nonmotorized uses such as bicycle use is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

The definition of ‘‘over-snow vehicle’’ is 

also beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking, as it was not proposed for 

revision. The Department does not 

believe it is necessary or appropriate to 

revise the definition of ‘‘over-snow 

vehicle’’ at this time. 

Subpart C—–Over-Snow Vehicle Use 

212.81(a)—Over-Snow Vehicle Use, 

General 

Comment: Some respondents believed 

that local officials should be given the 

discretion to designate a system of 

routes and areas where OSV use is 

allowed unless prohibited or a system of 

routes and areas where OSV use is 

prohibited unless allowed. 

Some respondents believed that the 

Responsible Official should not have the 

discretion to designate a system of 

routes and areas where OSV use is 

allowed unless prohibited or a system of 

routes and areas where OSV use is 

prohibited unless allowed. These 

respondents stated that winter travel 

management planning should be more 

consistent with travel management 

planning in other seasons by producing 

a system of routes and areas where OSV 

use is prohibited unless allowed. These 

respondents noted that this approach is 

easily understood by the public and is 

more enforceable. Other respondents 

stated that where appropriate (for 

example, where no natural resource 

issues are identified), the Forest Service 

should be consistent regarding 

designations for OSV use across District, 

Forest, and Regional boundaries. These 

respondents believed that District, 

Forest, and Regional boundaries can be 

confusing to the public and that 

consistent designations for OSV use 

would improve public understanding as 

well as provide consistent opportunities 

for OSV use. 

Other respondents commented that 

the proposed rule violates E.O. 11644, 

as amended, and the March 29, 2013, 

court decision by continuing to allow 

designation of a system that is open 

unless closed to OSV use, which 

circumvents analysis of impacts from 

OSV use. Other respondents commented 

that, to be consistent with the E.O. 

11644, as amended, the Agency must 

designate trails and areas where OSV 

use is allowed and trails and areas 

where OSV use is not allowed. 

Response: In its March 29, 2013, 

ruling, the Federal District Court held 

that under E.O. 11644, as amended, the 

Forest Service has the discretion to 

determine how to regulate OSV use, but 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4507 

that the Agency does not have the 

discretion to determine whether it will 

regulate OSV use. The proposed rule is 

consistent with the court’s ruling in that 

it requires the Agency to designate 

routes and areas for OSV use, but gives 

the Responsible Official the discretion 

to determine whether to designate a 

system of routes and areas that is open 

unless designated closed to OSV use or 

a system of routes and areas that is 

closed unless designated open for OSV 

use. In either case, the decision would 

be based on an analysis of the impacts 

from the proposed designations and 

anticipated uses in accordance with 

subpart B, as modified in subpart C to 

provide for consistency in terminology. 

The Department agrees that it would 

be clearer for the public and would 

enhance consistency in travel 

management planning and decisionmaking if the Responsible Official were 

required to designate a system of routes 

and areas where OSV use is prohibited 

unless allowed. Accordingly, the 

Department has revised § 212.81(a) in 

the final rule to state that, subject to 

specified exemptions, OSV use on NFS 

roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on 

NFS lands must be designated by the 

Responsible Official on administrative 

units or Ranger Districts, or parts of 

administrative units or Ranger Districts, 

where snowfall is adequate for that use 

to occur and, as appropriate, must be 

designated by class of vehicle and time 

of year. Under § 261.14 of the final rule, 

OSV use that is not in accordance with 

the designations reflected on an OSV 

use map is prohibited. 

The Department has removed the 

definition of ‘‘designated road, trail, or 

area’’ from § 212.1, as with 

promulgation of this final rule it is no 

longer accurate to define designated 

routes and areas as those that are 

designated for motor vehicle use 

pursuant to § 212.51 on a motor vehicle 

use map. Under this final rule, routes 

and areas will also be designated for 

OSV use pursuant to § 212.81 on an 

OSV use map. 

Comment: Most respondents 

commented that OSV designation 

decisions should be made at the local 

level, not at the national level. Some 

respondents commented that the local 

Forest Service official should retain the 

discretion to manage OSV use to 

address local conditions. 

Many respondents stated that whether 

there is adequate snowfall for OSV use 

should be determined at the local level 

and should not be based on specific 

starting and ending dates because of the 

unpredictability of snowfall. Some 

respondents suggested that adequate 

snowfall be determined by a minimum 

depth, rather than a specific timeframe. 

Other respondents suggested that OSV 

use be zoned by timeframe as well as by 

location. 

Response: The Department agrees that 

OSV designation decisions, including 

adequacy of snowfall for OSV use, 

should be made at the local level, as 

reflected in the final rule. Designation of 

OSV use in specific locations, including 

determination of where snowfall is 

adequate for OSV use to occur, is 

beyond the scope of this rule. The final 

rule revises the procedural framework 

for local decision-making regarding OSV 

use, utilizing the criteria for designation 

of roads, trails, and areas (§§ 212.55 and 

212.81(d) of the final rule). 

Section 212.81(a) of the proposed rule 

provides, subject to certain exceptions, 

that OSV use on NFS roads, on NFS 

trails, and in areas on NFS lands must 

be designated on administrative units 

and Ranger Districts, or parts of those 

units and Districts, where snowfall is 

adequate for that use to occur. The 

Forest Service intended the phrase, 

‘‘where snowfall is adequate for that use 

to occur,’’ to have two applications. 

First, the Agency intended the phrase to 

exempt units like the National Forests of 

Florida that never have enough snowfall 

for OSV use to occur from the 

designation requirement in § 212.81(a). 

Second, where snowfall may occur, but 

is not consistently adequate for OSV use 

to occur, the Agency intended the 

phrase to provide for the Responsible 

Official to determine when snowfall is 

adequate in designating OSV use. To 

clarify these intentions, the Department 

has added the phrase, ‘‘and if 

appropriate, shall be designated by class 

of vehicle and time of year,’’ after the 

phrase, ‘‘where snowfall is adequate for 

that use to occur.’’ The Department has 

included the phrase, ‘‘class of vehicle,’’ 

to enhance consistency with subpart B, 

in accordance with the preceding 

comment and response, and to allow 

Responsible Officials to take into 

account changing technology in OSVs. 

The Department has included the 

qualifier, ‘‘as appropriate,’’ because it 

may not always be appropriate or 

necessary to designate OSV use by class 

of vehicle or time of year. The 

Department believes that determinations 

of when snowfall is adequate for OSV to 

occur should be based on local 

conditions, including, as appropriate, 

variability in the weather. 

Comment: Many respondents 

commented that the proposed rule 

recognizes the difference between OSV 

use in the East and OSV use in the 

Midwest and West. These respondents 

stated that cross-country travel is the 

preferred method of OSV use in the 

Midwest and West and should be 

allowed to continue under the final rule. 

Other respondents believed that OSV 

use in the West should not be limited 

to designated trails and that experienced 

riders would not ride off route in an 

area that is not conducive to OSV use 

because they are aware that riding in 

this type of area would damage the 

expensive tracks on OSVs. Some 

respondents stated that OSVs should be 

given the same opportunity to travel 

cross-country as skiers and snowshoers. 

Some respondents suggested that the 

ability to travel cross-country on an 

OSV is what brings people to snowcovered areas and that by limiting OSV 

use to routes, the Forest Service would 

decrease the number of people who will 

visit these areas. Some respondents 

believed that the proposed rule 

recognizes that OSV use is a legitimate 

use on NFS lands and that OSV use 

should not be limited to designated 

trails and roads, but should also be 

allowed to occur in open areas. These 

respondents stated that the proposed 

rule should be implemented as written. 

Other respondents believed that crosscountry OSV use should not be allowed 

because OSV users can quickly become 

lost and end up in a non-motorized area. 

Some respondents suggested that areas 

3 to 5 square miles beyond trailheads 

and parking lots should be closed to 

cross-country OSV use during the snow 

months. These respondents believed 

that this approach would allow OSVs to 

access the backcountry while leaving 

the more accessible areas to snowshoers 

and cross-country skiers. 

Response: The Department agrees that 

OSV use presents a distinct suite of 

issues. An OSV traveling over snow has 

different impacts on natural resource 

values than motor vehicles traveling 

over the ground. Unlike other motor 

vehicles traveling cross-country, OSVs 

traveling cross-country generally do not 

create a permanent trail or have a direct 

impact on soil and ground vegetation. 

Therefore, the Department anticipates 

that it may be appropriate to designate 

areas for cross-country OSV use and that 

it may be appropriate to designate larger 

areas for cross-country OSV use than for 

cross-country use by other types of 

motor vehicles. Accordingly, the 

definition for an area in the proposed 

and final rules exempts OSVs from the 

statement that in most cases an area will 

be much smaller than a Ranger District. 

Whether specific areas should be 

designated for OSV use is beyond the 

scope of this final rule. This final rule 

addresses the procedural framework for 

making OSV use designations, rather 

than OSV use designations themselves. 

OSV use designations are made at the 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4508 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

local level, with appropriate public 

input and coordination with Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local governments, 

based on the criteria in the final rule 

(§§ 212.55 and 212.81(d)). 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that the proposed rule 

should restrict OSV use to designated 

routes and prohibit cross-country OSV 

use near wilderness and that the routes 

should be designated so as to minimize 

impacts on wilderness and wildlife and 

to avoid impairment of the visitor 

experience in wilderness. 

Response: The Department does not 

believe it would be appropriate for this 

rule to restrict OSV use to designated 

routes and prohibit cross-country OSV 

use near wilderness. Responsible 

officials will consider impacts of OSV 

use on nearby wilderness and wildlife 

during the designation process by 

applying the minimization criteria of 

212.55 to minimize effects to National 

Forest resources and to other users. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that Forest Service units 

will need to conduct site-specific 

analysis for all resources within an area 

to be designated for OSV use, which 

would require a ‘‘hard look’’ under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). These respondents believed 

that the NEPA process for designating 

an area for OSV use could be onerous. 

Other respondents commented that 

NEPA documentation for winter travel 

management decisions does not 

adequately reflect how the Forest 

Service applied the minimization 

criteria in the TMR in those decisions 

and is inconsistent with the TMR. 

Response: Regulations implementing 

NEPA are issued by the Council on 

Environmental Quality and are found at 

40 CFR part 1500. Agency direction on 

NEPA compliance is found in 36 CFR 

part 220 and FSH 1909.15. The 

Department believes that the scope, 

content, and documentation of NEPA 

analysis associated with designating 

routes and areas for OSV use will 

ultimately depend on site-specific 

factors, including the local history of 

travel planning, public input, and 

environmental impacts at the local 

level. Therefore, the Department is not 

addressing NEPA compliance in this 

final rule. The Responsible Official will 

address application of the minimization 

criteria pursuant to §§ 212.55(b)(1)–(4) 

and 212.81(d) of the final rule in 

documentation for OSV designation 

decisions. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the Forest Service should clarify in 

the final rule the need to apply the 

minimization criteria in the TMR to 

trails within areas that are proposed for 

designation for OSV use. Other 

respondents commented that by failing 

to provide for analysis of trails within 

areas, the proposed rule does not 

address the requirement to show that 

OSV use on those routes will not have 

a negative impact on the environment or 

other uses. 

Response: The Department believes 

that if an area is analyzed appropriately 

under NEPA for OSV use utilizing the 

criteria established in the final rule 

(§§ 212.55 and 212.81(d)), there is no 

need for additional analysis to evaluate 

effects of OSV use on specific trails in 

that area, which are typically covered by 

snow. As units analyze an area, impacts 

on the environment and other users will 

be minimized within that area as 

specified in § 212.55(b)(1)–(4). 

Consistent with the EOs, the proposed 

and final rules do not require the Forest 

Service to show the absence of any 

adverse impacts from OSV use on the 

environment or other uses. Rather, the 

proposed and final rules require the 

Agency to consider, with the objective 

of minimizing, certain environmental 

impacts and use conflicts 

(§ 212.55(b)(1)–(4)). 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that there is a master 

memorandum of understanding between 

the Forest Service’s Alaska Region and 

the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (ADF&G) and that ADF&G has 

authority to regulate fish and wildlife 

populations on NFS lands, except to the 

extent that authority is superseded by 

Federal law. These respondents also 

noted that, with regard to designated 

wilderness in Alaska, administrative use 

of OSVs by governmental agencies is 

allowed pursuant to the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) and Forest Service Manual 

Supplement no. R–10 2300–2003–2, 

2326.1, Conditions Under Which Use 

May Be Approved. These respondents 

suggested amending the exemption from 

OSV designations in proposed 

§ 212.81(a)(1) for limited administrative 

use by the Forest Service to add 

administrative use by State fish and 

wildlife management agencies. These 

respondents believed that an exemption 

should be granted for all administrative 

use because the qualifier ‘‘limited’’ is 

not defined and is redundant, since 

Agency administrative field work and 

travel are presumably necessary rather 

than superfluous. 

Response: The Department disagrees 

that the exemption from OSV 

designations in § 212.81(a)(1) of the 

proposed rule and from the prohibition 

in § 261.14(a) of the TMR for limited 

administrative use by the Forest Service 

should be revised to add limited 

administrative use by State fish and 

wildlife management agencies. The 

Department has retained the qualifier 

‘‘limited administrative use’’ in the 

exemption. A broad exemption from 

OSV designations could undercut the 

purposes of the final rule. The 

Department is not making the requested 

revision so as to stay consistent with the 

corresponding exemption in 

§§ 212.51(a)(4) and 261.13(d) of the 

TMR. The Forest Service has the ability 

to authorize OSV use by State fish and 

wildlife management agencies on a caseby-case basis. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that there should be a process for 

administrative review of OSV 

designation decisions prior to their 

enforcement. 

Response: OSV designation decisions 

that are documented with a decision 

notice or record of decision associated 

with an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement are 

subject to the predecisional objection 

process in 36 CFR part 218. 

212.81(b)—Previous Comprehensive 

Over-Snow Vehicle Decisions 

Comment: Some respondents believed 

that all areas on NFS lands that are open 

to OSV use should remain that way. 

Other respondents stated that the final 

rule should allow areas and routes to be 

designated for OSV use only after 

comprehensive analysis has been made 

available for public review and 

comment. 

Response: The final rule’s prohibition 

on OSV use off the designated system 

(§ 261.14) goes into effect on an 

administrative unit or a Ranger District 

once that unit or District has designated 

those NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas 

on NFS lands that are open to OSV use 

and published an OSV use map 

identifying those roads, trails, and areas 

(§ 212.81(c) of the final rule). Until 

designations for a unit or District are 

complete and an OSV use map 

identifying those designations is 

published, existing OSV travel 

management policies, restrictions, and 

orders remain in effect. Use of NFS 

roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS 

lands consistent with current OSV 

travel management decisions and 

management objectives may continue. 

Forest Supervisors may continue to 

issue travel management orders 

pursuant to part 261, subpart B, and 

impose temporary, emergency closures 

based on a determination of 

considerable adverse effects pursuant to 

§§ 212.52(b)(2) and 212.81(d) of the final 

rule. Under §§ 212.80(b) and 212.81(b) 

of the final rule, previous administrative 

decisions that allow, restrict, or prohibit 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4509 

OSV use on NFS roads and NFS trails 

or in areas on NFS lands and that were 

made under other authorities may 

remain in effect. 

As stated above, units or Districts that 

have completed OSV use designations 

under other authorities and including 

public involvement do not have to 

revisit them and may, with public 

notice but no further analysis or 

decision-making, establish those 

decisions as the designation pursuant to 

this final rule for the unit or District, 

effective upon publication of an OSV 

use map. 

In that situation, the only substantive 

change effected by this final rule will be 

enforcement of the restrictions pursuant 

to the prohibition in § 261.14, rather 

than pursuant to an order issued under 

part 261, subpart B. Section 212.81(b) of 

the final rule provides that no further 

public involvement is required in this 

special case. Alternatively, Responsible 

Officials may revise OSV designations 

under §§ 212.54 and 212.81(d) of the 

final rule. 

New OSV designation decisions will 

be subject to the procedural 

requirements in the final rule, including 

appropriate public involvement 

(§§ 212.52(a) and 212.81(d) of the final 

rule). Nothing in this final rule requires 

reconsideration of any previous 

administrative decisions that allow, 

restrict, or prohibit OSV use on NFS 

roads and NFS trails or in areas on NFS 

lands and that were made under other 

authorities, including decisions made in 

land management plans and travel 

plans. Section 212.80(b) of the final rule 

provides that these decisions may be 

incorporated into OSV designations 

made pursuant to this final rule. 

Comment: Some respondents 

suggested that the Forest Service 

establish an expiration date for all 

previous OSV use decisions to ensure 

that an administrative unit or a Ranger 

District is not relying on OSV use 

decisions or winter travel plans that are 

woefully out of date. Other respondents 

stated that previous OSV use decisions 

should not be given undue weight, and 

that just because they were made under 

previous authorities does not mean that 

they should not be reviewed. Some 

respondents suggested that all existing 

OSV use decisions be reviewed for 

compliance with the minimization 

criteria in the TMR and E.O. 11644, as 

amended. Other respondents believed 

that if previous OSV use decisions 

addressed the minimization criteria in 

E.O. 11644, as amended, and were made 

with public involvement, they should 

not have to be reviewed, but that 

previous OSV use decisions that do not 

meet these criteria should have to be 

reviewed under the proposed rule. 

Some respondents suggested that the 

Forest Service retain only previous OSV 

use decisions that were based on 

application of the minimization criteria, 

as required by E.O. 11644, and that all 

other previous OSV use decisions are 

deemed invalid. 

Some respondents believed that 

previous OSV use decisions should not 

have to be reviewed, as they were made 

in accordance with the legal authorities 

in effect at that time, and as the Forest 

Service does not have the budget or 

personnel to review all previous OSV 

use decisions while making new OSV 

use decisions. These respondents 

believed that requiring review of all 

previous OSV use decisions would 

result in a backlog that would negatively 

affect all winter recreationists. 

Response: The Department does not 

believe that previous OSV use decisions 

made under other authorities should be 

subject to an expiration date or a 

requirement for review. As with prior 

administrative decisions governing 

other types of motor vehicle use, 

nothing in this final rule requires 

reconsideration of any previous 

administrative decisions that allow, 

restrict, or prohibit OSV use on NFS 

roads and NFS trails or in areas on NFS 

lands and that were made under other 

authorities, including decisions made in 

land management plans and travel 

plans. To the contrary, §§ 212.80(b) and 

212.81(b) of the final rule provide for 

these decisions to be given effect. The 

Department believes that previous OSV 

use decisions made under other 

authorities are valid and that requiring 

review of previous OSV use decisions 

would be inefficient and disrespectful of 

public involvement in past OSV use 

decision-making. The final rule 

recognizes that designations of roads, 

trails, and areas for OSV use are not 

permanent. Unforeseen environmental 

impacts, changes in public demand, 

route construction, and monitoring 

conducted under §§ 212.57 and 

212.81(d) of the final rule may lead 

Responsible Officials to consider 

revising OSV designations under 

§§ 212.54 and 212.81(d) of the final rule. 

212.81(c)—Decision-Making Process 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the specific requirements for 

management of OSV use in E.O. 11644, 

as amended, as reinforced by the March 

29, 2013, court ruling, should be 

incorporated into the proposed rule. 

Response: The Department agrees and 

believes that the final rule is consistent 

with E.O. 11644, as amended, and the 

March 29, 2013, court ruling in 

requiring the Responsible Official to 

designate those routes and areas where 

OSV use is allowed and in prohibiting 

OSV use off the designated system. 

Comment: Some respondents 

suggested expanding the criterion to 

consider conflicts between motorized 

and non-motorized uses under 

§ 212.55(b)(3) in making OSV 

designations to state that (1) remote 

lands that are not readily reachable by 

non-motorized winter recreationists but 

are readily reachable by OSV users 

should not be counted against OSV 

users; (2) OSV users should be credited 

for maintaining restrooms, parking 

facilities, and trails that benefit nonmotorized recreationists; and (3) lands 

that are open to OSV use generally 

remain open to non-motorized winter 

recreation and so provide value to nonmotorized recreationists. 

Response: The Department does not 

believe that it would be appropriate to 

make this revision. Section 212.55(b)(3) 

of the TMR applies to all types of motor 

vehicle use, including OSV use, and 

tracks the corresponding wording in 

Section 3(a)(3) of E.O. 11644, as 

amended. Decisions regarding where 

OSV use may occur are best made at the 

local level based on site-specific 

conditions and with appropriate public 

involvement, including input from 

motorized and non-motorized users and 

other interested parties. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that the final rule should 

require the Responsible Official to 

coordinate with State and local officials 

before making any preliminary or final 

OSV designation decision. 

Response: The Department agrees that 

travel management decisions should be 

coordinated with appropriate Federal, 

State, Tribal, county, and other local 

governments, as provided for in 

§§ 212.53 and 212.81(d) of the final rule. 

Comment: Some respondents 

commented that the proposed rule 

appropriately requires the Responsible 

Official to recognize Sections 811(b) and 

1110(a) of ANILCA when implementing 

the rule in Alaska and that the proposed 

rule should reference OSV use 

authorized under other applicable 

provisions of ANILCA. 

Response: The Department declines to 

make this change, as sections 811(b) and 

1110(a) are the only provisions in 

ANILCA that directly address OSV use. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the OSV use map, a requirement 

under the proposed rule, must have 

sufficient detail in order to be useful, 

and that the final rule should identify 

more clearly what should be included 

on an OSV use map. 

Response: The Forest Service plans to 

develop a standard national format for 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4510 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

OSV use maps issued under this final 

rule. The Forest Service also plans to 

issue additional travel management 

guidance in its sign handbook to 

enhance consistency in content and use 

of standard interagency symbols in 

signs. In addition, the Department has 

added a definition for ‘‘over-snow 

vehicle use map’’ to 36 CFR 212.1 and 

has moved the requirement for an OSV 

use map in subpart C to a separate 

section, § 212.81(c) of the final rule, to 

underscore that this requirement is 

separate from the requirement for a 

motor vehicle use map under subpart B. 

Consistent with § 212.81(a) of the final 

rule, § 212.81(c) of the final rule 

provides for an OSV use map to display 

the classes of vehicles and the time of 

year designated for OSV use, if 

applicable. 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on 

NFS lands designated for OSV use 

should be clearly marked. Other 

respondents believed that restrictions 

on OSV use should be more clearly 

relayed to the public so incidents of 

OSV use off the designated system 

could be reported to the proper 

authorities. These respondents 

recommended increasing signage 

around areas designated for OSV use to 

increase awareness of these designations 

by both motorized and non-motorized 

users. 

Response: The Department declines to 

adopt this suggestion. The Forest 

Service has found that posting routes as 

open or closed to particular uses has not 

always been effective in controlling use, 

partly because new unauthorized routes 

continue to appear even in areas that are 

closed to motor vehicle use. Requiring 

each undesignated route and area to be 

posted as closed would be an 

unreasonable and unnecessary burden 

on Agency resources and would tend to 

defeat the purpose of the final rule. 

Signs have also proven to be difficult to 

maintain and subject to vandalism. The 

final rule places more responsibility on 

users to get OSV use maps from Forest 

Service offices or Web sites and to 

remain on routes and in areas 

designated for OSV use. This approach 

is consistent with subpart B of the TMR. 

Part 261—Prohibitions 

Subpart A—General Prohibitions 

261.14—Over-Snow Vehicle Use 

Comment: Some respondents 

suggested that the Forest Service require 

a special use permit for or prohibit 

activities and events involving OSV use 

on NFS lands. Other respondents 

commented that day use permits should 

be required for OSV use to limit impacts 

on natural resources and non-motorized 

users. 

Response: Regulation of activities and 

events involving OSV use on NFS lands 

is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, 

which involves designation of routes 

and areas for OSV use. OSV use 

designations are made at the local level, 

with appropriate public input and 

coordination with Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local governments based on the 

criteria in the final rule (§§ 212.55 and 

212.81(d)). The Department does not 

believe it would be appropriate to 

establish a prohibition on activities and 

events involving OSV use, which is a 

legitimate use of NFS lands. Permit 

requirements for OSV use are governed 

by the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6802(h)). 

5. Regulatory Certifications for the 

Final Rule 

Regulatory Impact 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under USDA procedures and E.O. 12866 

on regulatory planning and review. The 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this final 

rule is nonsignificant and is therefore 

not subject to OMB review under E.O. 

12866. 

Environmental Impact 

This final rule requires designation at 

the field level, with appropriate public 

input, of those NFS roads, NFS trails, 

and areas on NFS lands that are open to 

OSV use. This final rule will have no 

effect on users or on the environment 

until designation of NFS roads, NFS 

trails, and areas on NFS lands for OSV 

use is complete for a particular 

administrative unit or Ranger District, 

with appropriate public involvement. 

Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 

220.6(d)(2) exclude from documentation 

in an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement ‘‘rules, 

regulations, or policies to establish 

service-wide administrative procedures, 

program processes, or instructions.’’ The 

Department has concluded that this 

final rule falls within this category of 

actions and that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist which would 

require preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

The Department has considered this 

final rule in light of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et seq.). 

This final rule will not directly affect 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small governmental entities. The 

Department has determined that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities pursuant to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act because it 

will not impose recordkeeping 

requirements on them; it will not affect 

their competitive position in relation to 

large entities; and it will not affect their 

cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain 

in the market. 

Federalism and Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The Department has considered this 

final rule under the requirements of E.O. 

13132 on federalism and has 

determined that the final rule conforms 

with the federalism principles set out in 

this E.O. The final rule will not impose 

any compliance costs on the States and 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, the 

Department has determined that no 

further assessment of federalism 

implications is necessary at this time. 

Moreover, this final rule does not 

have Tribal implications as defined by 

E.O. 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments,’’ and therefore advance 

consultation with Tribes is not required. 

No Takings Implications 

The Department has analyzed this 

final rule in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in E.O. 

12630. The Department has determined 

that this final rule will not pose the risk 

of a taking of private property. 

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public 

This final rule does not contain any 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

or other information collection 

requirements as defined in 5 U.S.C. 

1320 that are not already required by 

law or not already approved for use. 

Accordingly, the review provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its 

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320 do not apply. 

Energy Effects 

The Department has reviewed this 

final rule under E.O. 13211, entitled 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use.’’ The Department 

has determined that this final rule does 

not constitute a significant energy action 

as defined in the E.O. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4511 

Civil Justice Reform 

The Department has reviewed this 

final rule under E.O. 12988 on civil 

justice reform. After adaptation of this 

final rule, (1) all State and local laws 

and regulations that conflict with this 

final rule or that impede its full 

implementation will be preempted; (2) 

no retroactive effect will be given to this 

final rule; and (3) it will not require 

administrative proceedings before 

parties may file suit in court challenging 

its provisions. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538), which the President signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, the 

Department has assessed the effects of 

this final rule on State, Tribal, and local 

governments and the private sector. 

This final rule will not compel the 

expenditure of $100 million or more by 

any State, Tribal, or local government or 

anyone in the private sector. Therefore, 

a statement under section 202 of the act 

is not required. 

List of Subjects 

36 CFR Part 212 

Highways and roads, National Forests, 

Public lands—rights-of-way, and 

Transportation. 

36 CFR Part 261 

Law enforcement, National forests. 

Therefore, for the reasons set out in 

the preamble, the Forest Service amends 

parts 212 and 261 of title 36 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 212—TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Subpart A—Administration of the 

Forest Transportation System 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart A 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 551, 23 U.S.C. 205. 

■ 2. Amend § 212.1 by revising the 

definition for ‘‘area,’’ adding definitions 

for ‘‘designation of over-snow vehicle 

use’’ and ‘‘over-snow vehicle use map’’ 

in alphabetical order, and removing the 

definition for ‘‘designated road, trail, or 

area’’ to read as follows: 

§ 212.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Area. A discrete, specifically 

delineated space that is smaller, and, 

except for over-snow vehicle use, in 

most cases much smaller, than a Ranger 

District. 

* * * * * 

Designation of over-snow vehicle use. 

Designation of a National Forest System 

road, a National Forest System trail, or 

an area on National Forest System lands 

where over-snow vehicle use is allowed 

pursuant to § 212.81. 

* * * * * 

Over-snow vehicle use map. A map 

reflecting roads, trails, and areas 

designated for over-snow vehicle use on 

an administrative unit or a Ranger 

District of the National Forest System. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—Over-Snow Vehicle Use 

■ 3. Revise the heading of subpart C to 

read as set forth above. 

■ 4. The authority citation for subpart C 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011(f), 16 U.S.C. 551, 

E.O. 11644, 11989 (42 FR 26959). 

■ 5. Revise § 212.80 to read as follows: 

§ 212.80 Purpose, scope, and definitions. 

(a) Purpose. This subpart provides for 

a system of National Forest System 

roads, National Forest System trails, and 

areas on National Forest System lands 

that are designated for over-snow 

vehicle use. After these roads, trails, and 

areas are designated, over-snow vehicle 

use not in accordance with these 

designations is prohibited by 36 CFR 

261.14. Over-snow vehicle use off 

designated roads and trails and outside 

designated areas is prohibited by 36 

CFR 261.14. 

(b) Scope. The Responsible Official 

may incorporate previous 

administrative decisions regarding oversnow vehicle use made under other 

authorities in designating National 

Forest System roads, National Forest 

System trails, and areas on National 

Forest System lands for over-snow 

vehicle use under this subpart. 

(c) Definitions. For definitions of 

terms used in this subpart, refer to 

§ 212.1. 

■ 6. Revise § 212.81 to read as follows: 

§ 212.81 Over-snow vehicle use. 

(a) General. Over-snow vehicle use on 

National Forest System roads, on 

National Forest System trails, and in 

areas on National Forest System lands 

shall be designated by the Responsible 

Official on administrative units or 

Ranger Districts, or parts of 

administrative units or Ranger Districts, 

of the National Forest System where 

snowfall is adequate for that use to 

occur, and, if appropriate, shall be 

designated by class of vehicle and time 

of year, provided that the following uses 

are exempted from these decisions: 

(1) Limited administrative use by the 

Forest Service; 

(2) Use of any fire, military, 

emergency, or law enforcement vehicle 

for emergency purposes; 

(3) Authorized use of any combat or 

combat support vehicle for national 

defense purposes; 

(4) Law enforcement response to 

violations of law, including pursuit; and 

(5) Over-snow vehicle use that is 

specifically authorized under a written 

authorization issued under Federal law 

or regulations. 

(b) Previous over-snow vehicle 

decisions. Public notice with no further 

public involvement is sufficient if an 

administrative unit or a Ranger District 

has made previous administrative 

decisions, under other authorities and 

including public involvement, which 

restrict over-snow vehicle use to 

designated routes and areas over the 

entire administrative unit or Ranger 

District, or parts of the administrative 

unit or Ranger District, where snowfall 

is adequate for OSV use to occur, and 

no change is proposed to these previous 

decisions. 

(c) Identification of roads, trails, and 

areas for over-snow vehicle use. 

Designation of National Forest System 

roads, National Forest System trails, and 

areas on National Forest System lands 

for over-snow vehicle use shall be 

reflected on an over-snow vehicle use 

map. Over-snow vehicle use maps shall 

be made available to the public at 

headquarters of corresponding 

administrative units and Ranger 

Districts of the National Forest System 

and, as soon as practicable, on the Web 

site of the corresponding administrative 

units and Ranger Districts. Over-snow 

vehicle use maps shall specify the 

classes of vehicles and the time of year 

for which use is designated, if 

applicable. 

(d) Decision-making process. Except 

as modified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the requirements governing 

designation of National Forest System 

roads, National Forest System trails, and 

areas on National Forest System lands 

in §§ 212.52 (public involvement), 

212.53 (coordination), 212.54 (revision), 

212.55 (designation criteria (including 

minimization)), and 212.57 

(monitoring), shall apply to decisions 

made under this subpart. In making 

decisions under this subpart, the 

Responsible Official shall recognize the 

provisions concerning rights of access in 

sections 811(b) and 1110(a) of the 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3121(b) and 

3170(a), respectively). 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
4512 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 261—PROHIBITIONS 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 472, 

551, 620(f), 1133(c), (d)(1), 1246(i). 

Subpart A—General Prohibitions 

■ 8. Revise the definition for ‘‘area’’ in 

§ 261.2 to read as follows: 

§ 261.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Area. A discrete, specifically 

delineated space that is smaller, and, 

except for over-snow vehicle use, in 

most cases much smaller, than a Ranger 

District. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Revise § 261.14 to read as follows: 

§ 261.14 Over-snow vehicle use. 

After National Forest System roads, 

National Forest System trails, and areas 

on National Forest System lands have 

been designated for over-snow vehicle 

use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.81 on an 

administrative unit or a Ranger District 

of the National Forest System, and these 

designations have been identified on an 

over-snow vehicle use map, it is 

prohibited to possess or operate an oversnow vehicle on National Forest System 

lands in that administrative unit or 

Ranger District other than in accordance 

with those designations, provided that 

the following vehicles and uses are 

exempted from this prohibition: 

(a) Limited administrative use by the 

Forest Service; 

(b) Use of any fire, military, 

emergency, or law enforcement vehicle 

for emergency purposes; 

(c) Authorized use of any combat or 

combat support vehicle for national 

defense purposes; 

(d) Law enforcement response to 

violations of law, including pursuit; 

(e) Over-snow vehicle use that is 

specifically authorized under a written 

authorization issued under Federal law 

or regulations; and 

(f) Use of a road or trail that is 

authorized by a legally documented 

right-of-way held by a State, county, or 

other local public road authority. 

Dated: January 20, 2015. 

Robert Bonnie, 

Under Secretary, NRE. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01573 Filed 1–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0643; FRL–9920–45] 

Sulfoxaflor; Pesticide Tolerances for 

Emergency Exemptions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

time-limited tolerances for residues of 

sulfoxaflor, N-[methyloxido[1-[6- 

(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]ethyl]- l4- 

sulfanylidene]cyanamide, including its 

metabolites and degradates in or on 

sorghum, grain; sorghum, forage; and 

sorghum, stover. This action is in 

response to EPA’s granting of an 

emergency exemption under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the 

pesticide on sorghum. This regulation 

establishes a maximum permissible 

level for residues of sulfoxaflor in or on 

these commodities. The time-limited 

tolerances expire on December 31, 2017. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

January 28, 2015. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before March 30, 2015, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0643, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lewis, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under section 408(g) of the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2014–0643 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before March 30, 2015. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2014–0643, by one of the following 

methods: 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES