Source: http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/nfs-regs/followup.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-24 22:00:08
Document Index: 161818151

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2157', 'art 215', 'art 215', 'art 261', 'art 261', 'art 261', 'art 261']

Follow-up Questions and Answer For
Training on New Noncommercial Group Use Rule
How can scoping as required under the NEPA Handbook be adequately performed in the 48-hour time frame)
Section 10.3(2)(a) of the NEPA Handbook directs the authorized officer to
[c)onduct the scoping actions set forth in this chapter commensurate with the nature and complexity of the proposed action.
FSH 1909.15 (57 Fed. Reg. 43194) (emphasis added). Section 11 of the Handbook states:
Because the nature and complexity of a proposed action determine the scope and intensity of the required analysis, no single technique is required or prescribed. Except where required by statute or regulations, the responsible official may adjust or combine the various steps of the process outlined in this chapter to aid in the understanding of the proposed action and identified issues.
FSH 1909.15 (57 Fed. Reg. 43194) (emphasis added)
Thus, the authorized officer has the flexibility to tailor the scoping to the context at hand. In the case of noncommercial group use, where constitutional due process requires a short, specific time frame for processing applications, the context is a 48-hour response period. Ideally, groups will provide adequate lead time before submitting their applications to allow appropriate consideration of issues. Scoping can be done before applications come in, i.e., sites can be evaluated for up to certain numbers of people and certain types of activities. (Forests may wish to develop criteria for identifying appropriate sites and eliminating sensitive sites.
Can the time frame for analysis be extended?
First Amendment due process requires a short, specific time frame for processing applications; an unspecified or lengthy time frame leaves the authorized officer the discretion to chill speech by delaying the processing of the application. Therefore, the rule specifically requires a response within 48 hours.
The authorized officer must make every reasonable effort to complete the requisite analysis within the time frame set out in the regulations. As stated above, preconsideration of sites would greatly aid in evaluating applications within the time frame Specified in the rule. It should be noted that the standard in the rule for a categorical exclusion is not whether the environmentally sensitive resources or Lands identified in FSH 1909.15, chapter 30, exist, but whether the proposed activity materially impacts the characteristics or functions of those resources or lands. See 36 CFR. If there is no material impact, the proposed use may be categorically excluded.
Once the analysis has been done, if extraordinary circumstances have been determined to exist and the applicant has rejected offered alternatives, the authorized officer may notify the applicant that additional time will be necessary to Perform the requisite analysis on the requested site and that the determination resulting from that analysis is subject to appeal.
Denial under any of the eight criteria, including the criterion on extraordinary circumstances, must be documented and supported by specific facts.
After an application has been granted or deemed granted and a permit has been issued, if the agency receives new information that would justify denial of an application under any of the evaluation criteria in the rule, the authorized officer may revoke the permit. See 36 CFR 251.60(a)(l)(i)(A) There must be a factual basis for revocation, and the revocation must be documented. Consider consulting with the Office of the General Counsel before revoking a permit for noncommercial group Use under these circumstances Revocation is a serious measure that should not substitute for pre-permit evaluation.
Can consultation with the Fish And Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service be accomplished within the 48-hour timeframe?
Impacts to species and designated critical habitat listed Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are a regulatory criterion of whether or not permit issuance can be categorically excluded. ESA consultation comes into play only if permit issuance "may affect" a listed species or designated critical habitat. InformaL consultation with the regulatory agency is available for those situations where the Forest Service determines that the proposed activity "may affect, but is not likely to dversely affect" a listed species or designated critical habitat. A proposed use that the Forest Service classifies as "may affect, likely to adversely affect" would not qualify for categorical exclusion. Again, preconsideration of sites would greatly aid in complying with consultation requirements within the time frame specified in the rule.
Can the agency negotiate longer response times for applications?
No. However, an application may be submitted up to 72 hours before a proposed activity, and the 48-hour period does not start to run until an application is received. The rule encourages proponents to contact the agency as far in advance of a proposed activity as Possible to address any concerns that may be associated with an application.
Can the agency encourage applicants to select another location?
The agency can discuss possible locations with proponents before they submit an application. Once an application is submitted, the requested location should be evaluated under the eight criteria in the rule. The application must be granted If the application meets the evaluation criteria.
How do we reconcile the determination that permits issued under this regulation may be categorically excluded with statements in the rule that large group gatherings potentially have significant adverse impacts on forest resources and public health and safety?
While large group gatherings potentially have significant adverse impacts on forest resources and public health and safety, these gatherings are short-term, typically for only a few days or weeks, and minor in that they entail readily mitigable environmental disturbance. Thus, authorization of these activities qualifies for categorical exclusion under FSH 1909.15, sec. 31.lb(8) See 60 Fed. Reg. 45276 (citing United States v. Rainbow Family, 695 F. Supp. 294, 324 (E.D. Tex. 1988); Department of the Interior NEPA Procedures, 516 DM 6, Appendix 7, sec. 7.4(D)(5); 516 DM 2, Appendix 2, sec. 2.1 through 2.10) Categorically excluding noncommercial group uses allows the Forest Service to expedite processing of applications for these activities in compliance with both NEPA and the First Amendment. See 60 Fed. Reg. 45277.
Appeal Rights and Cost Recovery
Is issuance of a permit appealable under 30 CFR Part 2157
If a proposed group use is categorically excluded under the rule, there would be no appeal rights under 36 CFR Part 215. See 36 CFR 215.8(a)(4) However, if a proposed activity cannot be categorically excluded, if the applicant still wants to use the requested site, and if an EA is prepared, issuance of the permit would be subject to the notice and appeal procedures of 36 CFR Part 215.
If extraordinary circumstances exist and an EA is required, can the agency charge the applicant for the costs associated with conducting the analysis or require the applicant to provide reports necessary for the analysis?
No. Either of these measures could be viewed as establishing an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. See question 23 on conditions in the operating plan and question 37 on fees, bonding, and insurance.
Calculating the Time Frames
Are the 72- and 48-hour time frames business hours or clock hours?
Clock hours. For example, if an application is submitted at 4:00 p.m. on Friday afternoon, the 48-hour period will expire at 4:00 p.m. on Sunday afternoon. If the agency does not respond within that period, the application is deemed granted.
Granting the Application Versus Issuing the Permit
If an application is received several months before the proposed use is to take place, does the agency still have to respond within 48 hours?
Yes. Again, First Amendment due process requires a short, specific time frame for processing this type of permit application. Providing that an application does not have to be granted within that time frame if received far enough in advance of the proposed activity is too vague and leaves the authorized officer discretion to favor some applications over others.
However, granting the application is separate from issuing the permit. While the application must be granted or denied or else deemed granted within 48 hours, the permit does not necessarily have to be issued within that time frame. Once an application has been granted or deemed granted, a permit must be issued, but if the application has been submitted sufficiently in advance of the proposed activity, the agency will have the opportunity to negotiate the terms and conditions of the operating plan with the applicant before the permit is issued.
Processing and Evaluating Applications
When will the new application form be available?
The application form for the rule, FS-2700-3b, has cleared the Office of Management and Budget and is now available electronically.
Will the new application form and permit be the only paperwork involved?
Not necessarily. An operating plan may also be required. No documentation for a categorical exclusion is necessary under the rule, since the basis for the CE is under section 31 of the NEPA Handbook. However, documentation of a categorical exclusion is recommended to make the determination more legally defensible. An EA would be required if the application is denied because extraordinary circumstances exist and offered alternatives are rejected. In addition, denial of an application must be documented.
What is the use code for noncommercial group use, and will it be a Lands or Recreation use?
The code for noncommercial group use is 311. The code is currently designated as "group event." That designation will be changed to "noncommercial group use." Although the Lands Staff designates the codes, no staff group has ownership of the codes.
How can the authorized officer determine from an application whether the proposed use is commercial or noncommercial
The description of the proposed activity should provide some indication of whether it is commercial or noncommercial. A follow-up call to the applicant may be necessary. Questions should be keyed to the definition for "commercial use or activity" in the rule at 36 CFR 251.51.
Does this regulation preempt state or local permit systems for large group gatherings that have conflicting or different requirements?
Yes. All state and local laws and regulations that conflict with this rule or that impede its full implementation will be preempted. See 60 Fed. Reg. 45292. For example, a state or local permit system that does not require a response to applications within 48 hours would be preempted by the new federal rule.
Bow can the agency determine whether the proposed activity violates state and local public health laws and regulations under 36 CFR 251.54(h)(l)(v) when the applicant is not required to provide any information about compliance in this area?
The burden is on the agency to determine whether the proposed activity violates state and local public health laws and regulations as applied to the proposed site. See 60 Fed. Reg. 45283. The description of the proposed activity and the requested location should give some indication of whether this criterion is met. Familiarity with basic state and local public health laws and regulations that could apply to large group gatherings may be helpful in evaluating applications. Consultation with state and local public health officials may be necessary, as they are charged with enforcing these laws and regulations.
What if the agency determines that the proposed activity complies with state and local public health laws as applied to the proposed site, but after issuance of the permit the state or local health agency refuses to issue a permit based on its own analysis?
The Forest Service's determination of compliance with state and local public health laws generally should be consistent with the determination of the state and local agencies charged with administering those laws. Therefore, it may be advisable to consult with state and local public health officials before issuing a permit. The federal rule will preempt any state or local permit system that conflicts with the rule or impedes its full implementation.
How should the agency handle requests for the use of lands or facilities that are not open to the public, such as roads or areas that are closed?
Applications may be denied if any of the eight evaluation criteria in the rule are not met. Specifically, an application may be denied under 36 CFR 251.54(h)(l)(i) if the requested site is covered by a closure order issued under 36 CFR Part 261, Subpart B If an alternative site would allow the applicant to meet the criteria, that alternative must be offered.
How do we handle a natural reserve area where we want to keep group size below 757 ?
A closure order could be issued under 36 CFR Part 261, Subpart B. The order must specify the area to which it applies, and while not required by the regulations, for First Amendment purposes the rationale for the order and any limitations in the order should be documented and keyed to characteristics or functions of the area. If a group limit is desired, it must be specified in the order, and the order must be issued before applications for group use are received. Otherwise, the limit established in the order could appear arbitrary and unfair.
Should an application be denied if the proposed activity can be conducted on private land ?
No. Applications subject to the rule may be denied only if one or more of the eight evaluation criteria are not met. The fact that a proposed activity can be conducted on Private land is not one of the eight criteria.
Can an application be denied because of non-compliance under a prior permit ?
No. Denying an application because of non-compliance under a prior permit could be viewed as placing a Prior restraint on expressive activities Conditions in the Permit and Operating Plan.
If the agency has not responded to an application within 48 hours and the application is deemed granted, does the applicant conduct the activity without a permit? If not, what are the conditions of the permit, and under what authority is it issued? Should a permit be issued after an activity has taken place?
If an application has been deemed granted, the agency should still issue a permit before the activity occurs. The terms and conditions of the permit are contained in FS-2700-25, Temporary Special Use Permit Form. The permit is issued under the Organic Act of 1897, 16 U.S.C. 551 A Permit should not be issued after an activity has taken place.
What types of conditions for such issues as sanitation can be included in the operating plan ?
The Temporary Special Use Permit Form provides that the holder shall maintain the improvements and premises covered by the permit to standards of repair, orderliness, neatness, sanitation, and safety acceptable to the authorized officer. See FS-2700-25, clause 7. Likewise, the operating plan should specify the objectives or standards, rather than the means, with respect to sanitation and other management issues.
Some groups may not be able to afford certain equipment such as portable toilets. Requiring them when other measures could accomplish agency objectives could be viewed as establishing unconstitutional conditions on approval of the use. Courts could view this approach as placing a price tag on expression and hold that the permit system as applied is an unconstitutional prior restraint. See question 8 on recovery of costs associated with NEPA compliance and question 37 on fees, bonding, and insurance.
In addition, it should be noted that on the videotape for the rule it was stated that the agency will provide sanitation facilities for noncommercial group uses. what was intended was that the agency may require sanitation facilities for group uses, consistent with the above.
Is it acceptable for a permit holder to exclude others ?
The permit authorizes non-exclusive use, in the sense that the permit holder and the agency cannot prevent others from coming to the authorized site. See 36. CFR 251.55. For example, a group of demonstrators issued a permit cannot prevent counterdemonstrators from protesting at the same site, as long as they do not delay, halt, or prevent the permit holder's demonstration. However, an application generally may not be denied because a proposed activity itself would exclude certain people, since Title VI generally does not apply to noncommercial group use of National Forest System lands. See question 14 in the communication plan for the final rule.
Definition of "Group Use"
What is our responsibility if a group is under 75 initially but increases to 75 or more because others are engaging in a counterdemonstration or because people are stopping to watch the activity?
The rule defines "group use" as an activity conducted on National Forest System lands that involves a group of 75 or more people, either as participants or spectators. Applicants should estimate the expected number of participants and spectators at their activities. These estimates may be based on past experience or on how many have expressed interest or have committed to participate. For example, if it is reasonable to expect that a group under 75 engaging in a protest will grow to 75 or more demonstrators or counterdemonstrators, a permit is required.
However, groups should not be held accountable for unrelated and uninvited outsiders who are attracted to an activity. See 60 Fed. Reg. 45270 (discussing why the phrase "and/or attracts" was deleted from the definition for group use). Therefore, if a group under 75 grows to 75 or more because people stop to watch the activity, a permit is not required.
How do we handle activities where the participants are outside our jurisdiction and 75 or more spectators are inside ?
In order to qualify as a "group use," an activity must be conducted on National Forest System lands. Therefore, if the participants are entirely off National Forest System lands, a permit would not be required. A permit would be required if the participants are partly or entirely on National Forest System lands. The permit would cover the portion of the activity that occurs on the national forests.
Groups of Less Than 75
Will noncommercial groups of less than 75 no longer be issued a permit even if the authorized officer has resource concerns ?
Other than certain groups in wilderness areas (see question 28), noncommercial groups of less than 75 will no longer be issued a permit. Based on a review of comments on the numerical threshold in the proposed rule and the agency's experience with all types of noncommercial group uses on National Forest System lands, the agency determined that a 25-person threshold is too low and that 75 people is a more appropriate threshold for applicability of the rule. See question 3 in the communication plan for the final rule.
Will the new rule override group limits established in wilderness areas ?
No. Wilderness areas are subject to special statutory and regulatory requirements prescribed by or in conformance with the Wilderness Act.
Can an authorized officer issue a letter of agreement to groups of less than 757
No. Under the rule, noncommercial groups of less than 75 do not require authorization, either in the form of a permit, letter of agreement, or memorandum of understanding, from the Forest Service.
Do groups of less than 75 still requite a permit for engaging in federally-funded military activities on National Forest System lands ?
Yes. These uses should be authorized as they have been in the past. They are not recreation special uses (the use code is 431, "military training area") and are not subject to the new rule.
Is a recreation event considered a commercial use under the rule ?
Yes. Under the rule, a commercial use or activity is defined in part as any use or activity on National Forest System lands where an entry or participation fee is charged, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to produce a profit. An entry or participation fee is charged for recreation events. See 60 Fed. Reg. 45269 (explaining difference between "noncommercial group use" and "recreation event")
Is a commercial use permit required if the charging of an entry or participation fee or the sale of a good or service occurs off National Forest System lands?
Forest Service regulation of either commercial or noncommercial uses is triggered by use and occupancy of National Forest System lands. Therefore, a commercial use permit is required if the activity is conducted on National Forest System lands and involves an entry or participation fee or has as its primary purpose the sale of a good or service, even if the charging of the fee or the sale occurs off National Forest System lands.
For example, if a business rents equipment on private land and provides maps of recommended routes on National Forest System lands, the business would not require a commercial use permit because the activity is not conducted on National Forest System lands. A permit would be required if the business rented equipment on private land and provided guiding services on National Forest System lands or delivery or pickup of equipment at sites on National Forest System lands. See FSH 2709.11, sec. 41.53d, para. 2, for when outfitting and guiding permits are required.
If a commercial promoter organizes an event to be held on National Forest System lands and sells an event package as a prerequisite to participation in the event that includes a route guide and other logistical information, a commercial use permit would be required, even if the event package is sold off the National Forest System. The activity will be conducted on National Forest System lands, and selling the event package in this scenario is equivalent to charging an entry or participation fee. If purchasing the package is not a prerequisite to participation and no entry or participation fee is charged, a commercial use permit would not be required.
Who has the burden to show whether a group is engaging in a commercial or noncommercial activity? Can the agency require the group to provide financial records if there is a question as to the group's status ?
The agency has the burden to show whether a group is engaging in a commercial or noncommercial activity. The agency may request rather than require that a group provide financial records and other information that may assist in making this determination.
36 CFR 251.50(a) and 36 CFR 251.50(d)
Does 36 CFR 251.50(d), which provides that a permit is not required for the use of forest development roads and trails, prevent the agency from issuing a Permit under CFR 251.50(a) for Uses and activities that occur on forest development roads and trails ?
No. Section 251.50(d) prevents the agency from requiring a permit strictly for the use of roads and trails, i.e., for transit over roads and trails commonly used by the public as a means of travel between two places. Section 251.50(a) authorizes the agency to issue permits for commercial uses and noncommercial group uses of National Forest System lands, regardless of where these activities occur on the National Forest System. Thus, under section 251.50(a), what is being authorized in the case of outfitting and guiding, recreation events, and noncommercial group uses that occur entirely or partially on forest deveLopment roads and trails is not use of the roads and trails, but rather the activity itself. Another way to look at it is that section 251.50(d) does not allow the agency to require a permit for typical use of forest development roads and trails. Uses authorized Under 251.50(a) that occur on forest development roads and trails are not typical.
Sites authorized Under the LWCFA and G-T
Can fees still be collected for noncommercial under the Land and Water group use of developed sites Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA)? Can groups still reserve fee sites?
Yes to both questions. The LWCFA is a Separate authority. The rule does not apply at developed recreation sites where use is allocated Under a formal reservation system and where the agency has the authority to manage and to Charge a user fee to the public under the LWCFA. Fee sites should be managed as they have been in the past. Fees collected shoUld be deposited into the LWCF.
Fees, Bonding, and Insurance
Why will no fees, bonding, or insurance be required under the rule ?
Courts have held that fees, bonding, and insurance required under a permit system constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. In other words, requiring fees, bonding, and insurance has been viewed as placing a price tag on speech in violation of the First Amendment. See question 13 in the communication plan for the final rule.
What will happen when the Forest Service and a noncommercial group that was not required to have insurance are sued in connection with the group's use and occupancy ?
This is a determination that will be made on the facts of each case. The regulations at 36 CFR 251.56(d)(1) and the Temporary Special Use Permit require holders to indemnify the Forest Service for damages incurred as a result of the holder's use and occupancy. In addition, the government has an array of potential defenses to liability.
Noncommercial Distribution of Printed Material
Can the agency restrict noncommercial distribution of printed material to certain locations at high-profile areas ?
No. The agency does not have the authority to regulate noncommercial distribution of printed material, unless 75 or more people are engaging in the activity. The agency may enforce prohibitions at 36 CFR Part 261 that may apply in this context.
New Rule, FSM, and FSH
The Manual states that permit termination is not appealable, but the new rule provides that termination of permits for other than noncommercial group use is appealable. Explain.
While the Forest Service Manual (FSM) provides that permit termination is not subject to appeal, the regulations at 36 CFR 251.60 in effect before the new rule was published provided that permit termination was appealable. Regulations, which have the force and effect of law, supersede the FSM. The new rule provides that termination of permits for noncommercial group use is not appealable. A corresponding change for permits for commercial uses was not made because that change would have gone beyond the scope of the rulemaking. However, the Lands Staff is working on revisions to the regulations for commercial uses that would include that change.
When will the CFR, FSM, and FSH be updated to reflect changes made by the new rule ?
The federal regulations were changed as of August 30, 1995, when the final rule Was published in the Federal Register The new rule will appear in the next edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Conforming amendments to the FSM and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) will be made as soon as practicable. Changes that will probably be made include:
Adding approval of noncommercial group use as a type of action that may be categorically excluded under the NEPA Handbook without preparing a project file or decision memo.
Revising FSM 2340.5 and 2705 to include definitions for "commercial" and "noncommercial."
Revising FSM 2345, "GROUP USE BY INSTITUTIONS OR OTHER ENTITIES," to address noncommercial group use in conformance with the new rule.
Revising the heading for FSM 2347, "NON-COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE," to clarify that this section covers non-public, rather than noncommercial, recreation use.
Clarifying FSM 2701, para. 12, to list commercial recreation events and other commercial specialized recreation activities of limited duration as uses that may be authorized under section 4(c) of the LWCFA.
Revising FSM 2703.2, "Denial of Use," to conform with the new rule.
Revising FSM 2721.1, "Group Use," to conform with the new rule.
Revising FSM 2721.49, "Recreation Event," to clarify that this section covers commercial, rather than noncommercial, activities.
Other changes may be made after we have a better sense of what aspects of the rule need additional direction. In the meantime, rely on The rule, questions and answers, and other material provided in the communication plan.
How do we handle a situation where one group of 75 or more people that is in the same area and is conducting the same activity has split into two or more groups that each have less than 75 people ?
Several comments on the proposed rule noted that it would be unclear how the rule would be applied if 75 or more people unexpectedly ended up using the same site. One comment noted that it would also be unclear how the rule would be applied if a large group of People were camping in the same area, but far apart.
The Department's response indicated that the rule is intended to apply to noncommercial groups of 75 or more that camp in the same area, even if they camp far apart from each other. The burden is on the government to establish that a group of 75 or more has gathered at a site. Document the count and the rationale used in performing it Attempt to identify group leader(e) and other signs that the people at the site have gathered as a group. For example, if there is a common kitchen or campfire or if people are observed going from one campsite to another, it is more likely that the people have gathered at the site as a group.
Why is a group to be given 72 hours to disperse if the leader is not responsive to law enforcement? Wouldn't the activity often end during that time frame before any further action could be taken ?
After consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of the General Counsel, the agency determined that it was appropriate and fair to give a group 72 hours to disperse given that there will be at least 75 people in the group. Arrest of the leader(s) was deemed necessary only if the group failed to disperse within 72 hours. At this stage, the leader(s) will have been cited for failure to have a required permit, so some law enforcement action will already have been taken. Other violations of the prohibitions at 36 CFR Part 261 may also have been cited.) Arrest of the leader(s) was deemed necessary only if the group failed to disperse within 72 hours. This time frame was recommended to ensure that the rule is enforced consistently and fairly with respect to all groups.
Row will the agency enforce the rule against large groups that gather without notice and that do not want to sign a permit ?
The preamble to the final rule explains why it is appropriate for any group subject to the rule to sign a permit. By requiring a person to sign a permit as an agent or representative of a group, the agency ensures that the group will be responsible for the actions of its members as a whole that relate to the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands. By signing the permit on behalf of the group, the agent or representative gives the permit legal effect and subjects the group to the permit's terms and conditions. See 60 Fed. Reg. 45274, 45286-87.
The videotape explains in detail the recommended procedure for enforcing the rule in this situation. It is recommended that a violation notice be issued for a mandatory appearance before the local U.S. Magistrate Judge with jurisdiction. The citing officer should explain to the leader(s) that unless they and their group leave the area within 72 hours after the violation notice is issued, they will be subject to arrest. The leader(s)' failure to disperse after a violation notice has been issued and 72 hours have elapsed constitutes a continuing criminal offense that would support a custodial arrest. If arrests are made, consult with the local Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to determine the best way to proceed with the criminal case. If the group still has not dispersed after the leader(s) have been arrested, again consult with the local OGC, which will work with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to devise an appropriate strategy.
What is the responsibility of the person who signed the permit ?
The person who signs the permit does not assume personal responsibility for the actions of other group members. Individual group members are personally responsible for their own actions. A person who signs the permit acts as an agent for the group, but does not assume personal responsibility for the group's actions. See 60 Fed. Reg. 45274, 45286-87.
What is the responsibility of leaders who are arrested because of the group's failure to obtain a permit ?
Anyone who is occupying the National Forest System without proper authorization is subject to citation and/or arrest. In this situation, we are recommending that only the leaders, if they can be identified, be cited and/or arrested in the hope that the rest of the group will disperse. If they do not, other group members could be cited and/or arrested Consult with OGC before making additional arrests.
If an arrest in a made in a remote area, will DOJ and OGC provide assistance ?
It is our expectation that the local U.S. Attorney's Office and OGC will provide assistance if arrests are made. DOJ in Washington will probably have primary responsibility for constitutional issues that arise in connection with criminal actions.
Has a permit been issued under the rule in any of the regions ?
Region 6 has issued a permit under the rule, and there are indications that there may be a gathering subject to the rule in Regions 3, 5, and 8 this fall.