[Federal Register: October 1, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 190)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61746-61749]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01oc02-32]
[[Page 61746]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 2930
[WO-250-1220-PA-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AD45
Permits for Recreation on Public Lands
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to amend its
regulations on Special Recreation Permits by changing the maximum term
for these permits to 10 years instead of 5 years. The reason for this
change is to add a reasonable expectation of continuity for outfitters,
guides, and other small businesses that provide services to
recreationists on public lands.
BLM also proposes to amend its regulations on Recreation Use
Permits for fee areas by adding a section on prohibited acts and
penalties. This new provision is necessary to give BLM law enforcement
personnel authority to cite persons who do not pay fees or otherwise do
not follow the regulations on Recreation Use Permits.
DATES: You should submit your comments by December 2, 2002. BLM will
not necessarily consider comments postmarked or received by messenger
or electronic mail after the above date.
ADDRESSES:
Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office,
7450 Boston Blvd., Springfield, VA 22153, Attn: RIN 1004-AD45.
Personal or messenger delivery: Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20036.
Direct internet response: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/index.html
Internet e-mail: WOComment@blm.gov. (Include ``Attn: AD45'')
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Larson at (202) 452-5168 as to the
substance of the proposed rule, or Ted Hudson at (202) 452-5042 as to
procedural matters. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may contact either individual by calling the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Background
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
IV. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
A. How Do I Comment on the Proposed Rule?
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of
several methods.
[sbull] You may mail comments to Director (630), Bureau of Land
Management, Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Blvd., Springfield, VA
22153, Attn: RIN 1004-AD45.
[sbull] You may deliver comments to Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20036.
[sbull] You may comment via the Internet by accessing our automated
commenting system located at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/index.html and following the instructions there.
[sbull] You may also comment via email to WOComment@blm.gov. We
intend this address for use by those who want to keep their comments
confidential and for those who are unable, for whatever reason, to use
the Internet site. Please submit email comments as an ASCII file
avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
Please also include ``Attn: AD45'' and your name and return address in
your email message.
If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your
electronic message, contact us directly at (202) 452-5030.
Please make your comments on the proposed rule as specific as
possible, confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and
explain the reason for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your
comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the
proposal that you are addressing.
BLM may not necessarily consider or include in the Administrative
Record for the final rule comments that BLM receives after the close of
the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address
other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).
B. May I Review Comments Submitted By Others?
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES:
Personal or messenger delivery'' during regular business hours (7:45
a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Individual respondents may request confidentiality, which we will
honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to withhold your name
or address, except for the city or town, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
We intend to post all comments on the Internet. If you are
requesting that your comment remain confidential, do not send us your
comment to the direct internet response website. Use mail, messenger,
or email (include your request for confidentiality) to
WOComment@blm.gov. We will post all electronically-received comments
online as soon as we receive them.
II. Background
BLM published the proposed rule on Permits for Recreation on Public
Lands in the Federal Register on May 16, 2000 (65 FR 31234). That
proposed rule included a new subpart containing regulations on
recreation use permits. These permits are for use of BLM fee areas. Fee
areas are sites that provide specialized facilities, equipment, or
services related to outdoor recreation. These include areas that are
developed by BLM, receive regular maintenance, may have on-site
staffing, and are supported by Federal funding. Not all fee areas
necessarily have all of these attributes. Examples of fee areas are
campgrounds that include improvements such as picnic tables, toilet
facilities, tent or trailer sites, and drinking water; and specialized
sites such as swimming pools, boat launch facilities, places with
guided tours, hunting blinds, and so forth. The final rule containing
these regulations appears elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
The final rule left substantially intact the existing regulations
on the length of terms for commercial Special Recreation Permits. Those
regulations provide for a maximum term of 5 years, allowing applicants
to request permit terms up to that length and authorizing BLM to issue
them for no more than that length of time.
One comment on the proposed rule from an association representing
commercial outfitters and guides recommended that, considering the
investment required by outfitters, the maximum term for Special
Recreation Permits should be 10 years, unless BLM finds that special
circumstances require a shorter period.
BLM recognizes that the 5-year maximum term for permits is a matter
of concern for the outfitting and guiding community, and agrees that a
10-year
[[Page 61747]]
term may be more desirable from both a business and a land management
perspective.
From the business perspective, the change would improve the ability
of outfitters and guides to justify financing from lenders and would
allow them to amortize equipment fully within the permit term, if BLM
in fact sets their term at 10 years. It would improve the business
climate for larger scale commercial permits and operations, in turn
improving business stability and diversification within local
economies.
From the perspective of the land manager, extending the maximum
permit term from 5 to 10 years allows BLM greater range and flexibility
to set a term for the permit appropriate for the activity in light of,
and commensurate with--
[sbull] The level of investment required by the permittee;
[sbull] The geographic location and resource considerations;
[sbull] Anticipated changes or time frames in land use allocations
or planning decisions;
[sbull] Our experience in managing and monitoring the type of
permitted use; and
[sbull] The type, complexity, and extent of the proposed activity.
The rule would not automatically set the term of all permits at 10
years. Rather, it would simply allow the authorized officer to select
an appropriate term for up to 10 years.
Finally, the change would lead to a small but real reduction in
administrative costs by reducing the analysis and paperwork required
for more frequent permit renewal.
However, since the matter was not raised in the 2000 proposed rule,
it is appropriate to request public comment on the matter. Therefore,
we are including this provision in this proposed rule.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Section 2932.42 How Long Is My Special Recreation Permit Valid?
We propose to amend this section solely by changing the maximum
Special Recreation Permit term to 10 years. BLM would consider each
application separately, and could issue a permit for any period of time
from the 10-year maximum term to down to a season or even a single day.
We would consider the purpose of the permit, the needs of the
permittee, and the public interest in determining the appropriate term.
Permittees are subject to rigorous monitoring and may lose their
permits for poor performance under other provisions of the regulations
(see Sec. 2932.56 of the final rule published in today's Federal
Register). This proposed rule would have no impact on our ability to
ensure that permittees are well-qualified and carry out their
activities in a manner that protects the health of the public lands and
serves the recreating public. It would, on the other hand, allow
outfitters, guides, and river-running enterprises to amortize their
equipment fully within a permit term, avoid the expense and
inconvenience of more frequent permit renewal, secure financing more
easily (based on lenders knowing that permit terms are longer), and
engage in long-term business planning.
This change should benefit existing permit holders, but it may
reduce the ability of outfitters who currently do not hold a permit to
obtain one, but only in areas where resource sensitivity or high demand
for a limited recreational resource requires BLM to impose limits on
use allocations. BLM is also seeking comments on, and may include in
the final rule additional data about, the economic impact of this rule,
including its effects on the availability of loans and investments that
the outfitter industry needs to support its operations and provide
recreational services to its customers. BLM does not expect this rule
to present a substantial departure from current commercial outfitter
operations on BLM lands or the ability of BLM staff to monitor and
enforce permit compliance. However, BLM is seeking comments from the
public on this issue to ensure that this rule will adequately address
any outstanding concerns that may arise from its implementation.
Specifically, we invite comments offering answers to the following
questions:
[sbull] Is the proposed rule an appropriate way to encourage
business stability while allowing appropriate levels of competition and
ranges of services?
[sbull] What problems have outfitters had obtaining financing under
the current permit term limitation? Have lenders cited short permit
terms as a reason for denying longer-term financing?
[sbull] Is there specific guidance BLM should issue to its field
offices to assure fair and uniform implementation of this rule, and
reduce pressure for automatic approval of 10-year permit terms?
[sbull] How would the proposed rule affect BLM's ability to manage
permits even if on-the-ground conditions change?
[sbull] What substantial or additional benefit would the proposed
rule provide to small businesses that is not available under the
current 5 year maximum term?
We are also interested in anecdotal information concerning the
following issues:
[sbull] What has prompted BLM to deny permit renewal?
[sbull] What problems have outfitters had obtaining financing under
the present permit term limitation?
[sbull] What may be the tax consequences of allowing permits to
last 10 years?
Subpart 2933--Recreation Use Permits for Fee Areas
The May 16, 2000, proposed rule did not include enforcement
language for fee areas. In this new proposed rule we would amend this
subpart on Recreation Use Permits by adding a new section on prohibited
acts and penalties. Under this new Sec. 2933.33, persons using
campgrounds and other fee areas would be cited and penalized if they do
not--
[sbull] Obtain a permit,
[sbull] Pay necessary fees, or
[sbull] Display proof of payment as required by BLM and posted at
the site.
They may also be cited and penalized if they--
[sbull] Use forged permits, or
[sbull] Use another person's permit.
This new section would also state that failure to display proof of
payment on a vehicle parked in a fee area is evidence of non-payment.
Finally, the new section would list the penalties that may be
imposed upon conviction.
The existing regulation at 43 CFR 8365.2-3(a), which requires
visitors to pay fees imposed under 36 CFR part 71, is insufficient
because part 71 has not been amended since 1981, and thus does not
include fees provided for in numerous amendments of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act since that time. Further, fee areas now include
many more facilities besides developed campgrounds, and methods and
proof of payment have changed so radically that law enforcement has
encountered difficulties in enforcing these requirements and seeking
prosecution of violators. Field offices are trying to solve these
problems, primarily with supplementary rules under 43 CFR 8365.1-6.
IV. Procedural Matters
The principal author of this proposed rule is Lee Larson of the
Recreation Group, Washington Office, BLM, assisted by Ted Hudson of the
Regulatory Affairs Group, Washington Office, BLM.
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
This rule is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by
the Office of
[[Page 61748]]
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of
their recipients.
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
The first change in the proposed rule would be to increase the
maximum term for Special Recreation Permits from 5 to 10 years. During
fiscal year 2001, BLM issued about 34,500 Special Recreation Permits,
and collected about $4 million in fees. We give these figures to
illustrate that the revenues collected under BLM's recreation program
are minuscule compared with those realized by the overall national
recreation industry, which, according to industry sources, is a $350
billion industry. Special Recreation Permits are generally obtained by
commercial outfitters and guides, including river-running companies
(about 3,000), sponsors of competitive events (about 1,000), ``snow
bird'' seasonal mobile home campers who use BLM's long term visitor
areas (about 14,000), and private individuals and groups using certain
special areas.
The proposal to increase the maximum term for Special Recreation
Permits would affect primarily the first of these categories:
commercial outfitters and guides, and river-running companies. The rule
would not change the fee structure at all, but would benefit these
businesses by giving them a more secure tenure in their permits. This
in turn would help them justify financing from lenders and allow them
to amortize equipment fully within the permit term.
The second change in the proposed rule affects Recreation Use
Permits. During fiscal year 2001, BLM issued about 670,000 Recreation
Use Permits for use of fee sites, with revenues totaling about $3.9
million. The cost of such a permit averaged a little under $6.00.
This proposed rule will have no effect on fees, and should have no
effect on the number of Recreation Use Permits BLM will issue. It would
merely add a section--
[sbull] Making failure to obtain a permit, failure to pay for one,
and fraudulent use of permits or other documents to avoid paying a fee,
prohibited acts;
[sbull] Making failure to display a permit, where local rules
require it, evidence of failure to pay; and
[sbull] Stating the standard statutory maximum penalties for
violation that a magistrate could impose.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
According to the president of the American Recreation Coalition,
outdoor recreation is a $350 billion industry made up of small
businesses. None of these small businesses will be affected more than
incidentally by making failure to pay for or obtain a fee area
Recreation Use Permit a prohibited act. There is no way to quantify how
many of these permits BLM issues to small entities, but it must be a
minuscule share of the campground and similar permits BLM issues to the
general recreating public.
Changing the maximum term for Special Recreation Permits from 5 to
10 years will benefit small businesses as explained in the previous
section of this part of the Preamble. However, we cannot quantify the
benefits accruing from increased permit tenure. The rule will benefit
about 3,000 commercial outfitters and guides and river-running
outfitters, all of whom operate small businesses, and some of whom hold
multiple Special Recreation Permits.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
[sbull] Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. See the discussion under Regulatory Planning and
Review, above.
[sbull] Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. The rule does not change fees, but
only provides a mechanism for enforcing their collection. See the
discussion above under Regulatory Flexibility Act.
[sbull] Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Recreationists are not likely to resort to foreign recreation markets
because failure to pay a campground fee becomes a punishable offense.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule has no
effect on governmental or tribal entities. A statement containing the
information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) is not required.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications. The enforcement provision proposed
does not include any language requiring or authorizing forfeiture of
personal property or any property rights. A takings implications
assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. The rule does
not preempt State law.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order.
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O.
13175)
In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have found that this final rule
would not include policies that have tribal implications. The rule
would not affect lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and
Eskimos. The rule would apply only to BLM campgrounds and other fee
areas on BLM lands.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
[[Page 61749]]
National Environmental Policy Act
This proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A
detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
is not required. We base this finding on an environmental assessment of
the proposed rule dated August 22, 2002, which you will find in the
administrative record for the rule.
Clarity of This Regulation
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions
such as the following:
(1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
(2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon
that interferes with its clarity?
(3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity?
(4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into
more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type and is
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example,
Sec. 2932.42 How long is my Special Recreation Permit valid?)
(5) Is the description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION: section of this preamble helpful in understanding the
proposed rule? What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier
to understand?
If you have any comments that concern how we could make this
proposed rule easier to understand, in addition to sending the original
to the address shown in ADDRESSES, above, please send a copy to: Office
of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C
Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to
this address: Execsec@ios.doi.gov.
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2930
Penalties; Public lands; Recreation and recreation areas; Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements; Surety bonds.
Dated: August 30, 2002.
Rebecca W. Watson,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
For the reasons explained in the preamble, and under the authority
of 43 U.S.C. 1740, part 2930, chapter II, subtitle B of title 43 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 2930--PERMITS FOR RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS
1. The authority citation for part 2930 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1740; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a.
Subpart 2932--Special Recreation Permits for Commercial Use,
Competitive Events, Organized Groups, and Recreation Use in Special
Areas
2. Revise Sec. 2932.42 to read as follows:
Sec. 2932.42 How long is my Special Recreation Permit valid?
You may request a permit for a day, season of use, or other time
period, up to a maximum of 10 years. BLM will determine the appropriate
term on a case-by-case basis.
Subpart 2933--Recreation Use Permits for Fee Areas
3. Add Sec. 2933.33 to read as follows:
Sec. 2933.33 Prohibited acts and penalties.
(a) Prohibited acts. You must not--
(1) Fail to obtain a use permit or pay any fees that this subpart
or the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended, requires;
(2) Fail to pay any fees within a time that the local BLM office
sets after you have begun occupying a designated use facility;
(3) Fail to display any required proof of payment of fees;
(4) Willfully and knowingly possess, use, publish as true, or sell
to another, any forged, counterfeited, or altered document or
instrument used as proof of or exemption from fee payment; or
(5) Willfully and knowingly use any document or instrument used as
proof of or exemption from fee payment, that BLM issued to or intended
another to use, or
(6) Falsely represent yourself to be a person to whom BLM has
issued a document or instrument used as proof of or exemption from fee
payment.
(b) Evidence of nonpayment. BLM will consider as evidence of non-
payment failure to display proof of payment, where required, on your
unattended vehicle parked within a fee area.
(c) Responsibility for penalties. If another driver incurs a
penalty when using a vehicle registered in your name, you and the
driver are jointly responsible for the penalty, unless you can show
that the vehicle was used without your permission.
(d) Types of penalties. You may be subject to the following fines
or penalties for violating the provisions of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you may be
If you are convicted of subject to... Under...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Any act prohibited by A fine under 18 The Federal Land
paragraph (a) of this U.S.C. 3571 or Policy and
section. other penalties in Management Act 1976
accordance with 43 (43 U.S.C.
U.S.C. 1733. 1733(a)).
(2) Violating any regulation A fine under 18 The Federal Land
in this subpart or any U.S.C. 3571 or Policy and
condition of a Recreation other penalties in Management Act of
Use Permit. accordance with 43 1976 (43 U.S.C.
U.S.C. 1733. 1733(a)).
(3) Failing to obtain any A fine in accordance The Land and Water
permit or to pay any fee with 18 U.S.C. 3571. Conservation Fund
required in this subpart. Act, as amended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-24749 Filed 9-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
Go to the Top