Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use, 68264-68291 [05-22024]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68264-68291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22024]



[[Page 68263]]

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

Part IV





Department of Agriculture





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



Forest Service



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



36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295



Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; 
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 68264]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295

RIN 0596-AC11


Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle 
Use

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture is revising regulations 
regarding travel management on National Forest System lands to clarify 
policy related to motor vehicle use, including the use of off-highway 
vehicles. This final rule requires designation of those roads, trails, 
and areas that are open to motor vehicle use. Designations will be made 
by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. The final 
rule will prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the designated system, 
as well as use of motor vehicles on routes and in areas that is not 
consistent with the designations. The clear identification of roads, 
trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on each National Forest will 
enhance management of National Forest System lands; sustain natural 
resource values through more effective management of motor vehicle use; 
enhance opportunities for motorized recreation experiences on National 
Forest System lands; address needs for access to National Forest System 
lands; and preserve areas of opportunity on each National Forest for 
nonmotorized travel and experiences. The final rule is consistent with 
provisions of Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989 regarding 
off-road use of motor vehicles on Federal lands.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective December 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The rulemaking 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 
and Heritage Resources Staff, USDA, Forest Service, 4th Floor Central, 
Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
holidays. Those wishing to inspect or copy these documents are 
encouraged to call Jerry Ingersoll, Recreation and Heritage Resources 
staff, at (202) 205-0931 beforehand to facilitate access to the 
building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Ingersoll, Recreation and 
Heritage Resources Staff, (202) 205-0931.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

1. Background
     Travel Management Program
     Need for Revised Rule
2. Public Comments on Proposed Rule and Department Responses
     Overview
     General Comments
     Forest Service Directives
     Implementation
     Proposed Rule Preamble
     Specific Sections by Part
    Part 212--Travel Management
    Part 251--Land Uses
    Part 261--Prohibitions
    Part 295--Use of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System Roads
     Regulatory Certifications in the Proposed Rule
3. Regulatory Certifications for Final Rule
     Environmental Impact
     Regulatory Impact
     Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
     No Takings Implications
     Civil Justice Reform
     Federalism and Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
     Energy Effects
     Unfunded Mandates
     Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
4. Text of the Final Rule
     Part 212--Travel Management
     Part 251--Land Uses
     Part 261--Prohibitions
     Part 295--Use of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest 
System Roads

1. Background

Travel Management Program

    Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR part 212 governing 
administration of the forest transportation system and regulations at 
36 CFR part 295 governing use of motor vehicles off National Forest 
System (NFS) roads are combined and clarified in this final rule as 
part 212, Travel Management, covering the use of motor vehicles on NFS 
lands. These regulations implement Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 
(February 8, 1972), ``Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,'' 
as amended by E.O. 11989 (May 24, 1977). These Executive orders direct 
Federal agencies to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public 
lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of 
those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to 
minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.
    Nationally, the Forest Service manages approximately 300,000 miles 
of NFS roads open to motor vehicle use, and about 133,000 miles of NFS 
trails. Only a portion of the trails are open to motor vehicles. This 
transportation system ranges from paved roads designed for passenger 
cars to single-track trails used by dirt bikes. Many roads designed for 
high-clearance vehicles (such as log trucks and sport utility vehicles) 
also allow use by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and other off-highway 
vehicles (OHVs) not normally found on city streets. Almost all NFS 
trails serve nonmotorized users, including hikers, bicyclists, and 
equestrians, alone or in combination with motorized users. NFS roads 
often accept nonmotorized use as well.
    In addition to this managed system of roads and trails, many 
National Forests contain user-created roads and trails. These routes 
are concentrated in areas where cross-country travel by motor vehicles 
has been allowed, and sometimes include dense, braided networks of 
criss-crossing trail. There has been no comprehensive national 
inventory of user-created routes (and continuing proliferation of such 
routes has made a definitive inventory difficult), but they are 
estimated to number in the tens of thousands of miles.
    Wilderness areas are closed to motor vehicles by statute. On some 
National Forests, and portions of others, motor vehicles are restricted 
by order to the established system of roads and trails. On other 
Forests, cross-country travel is not currently restricted.

Need for Revised Rule

    Most National Forest visitors use motor vehicles to access the 
National Forests, whether for recreational sightseeing; camping and 
hiking; hunting and fishing; commercial purposes such as logging, 
mining, and grazing; administration of utilities and other land uses; 
outfitting and guiding; or the many other multiple uses of NFS lands. 
For many visitors, motor vehicles also represent an integral part of 
their recreational experience. People come to National Forests to ride 
on roads and trails in pickup trucks, ATVs, motorcycles, and a variety 
of other conveyances. Motor vehicles are a legitimate and appropriate 
way for people to enjoy their National Forests--in the right places, 
and with proper management.
    Current regulations at 36 CFR part 295, which provide for allowing, 
restricting, or prohibiting motor vehicle travel, were developed when 
OHVs were less widely available, less powerful, and less capable of 
cross-country travel than today's models. The growing popularity and 
capabilities of OHVs demand new regulations, so that

[[Page 68265]]

the Forest Service can continue to provide these opportunities while 
sustaining the health of NFS lands and resources.
    From 1982 to 2000, the number of people driving motor vehicles off 
road in the United States increased over 109 percent (``Outdoor 
Recreation for 21st Century America: A Report to the Nation, The 
National Survey on Recreation and the Environment,'' p. 37 (H. Cordell, 
2004)). Recent decades have seen like advances in the power, range, and 
capabilities of OHVs. Whole new classes of vehicles have been 
introduced by manufacturers and are growing in popularity. From 1997 to 
2001, the number of ATVs in use increased by almost 40 percent 
(statement by Dr. Edward J. Heiden at Consumer Products Safety 
Commission Field Hearing, June 5, 2003). These advances expand 
opportunities for Americans to enjoy Federal lands. However, the 
magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have increased to the 
point that the intent of E.O. 11644 and E.O. 11989 cannot be met while 
still allowing unrestricted cross-country travel. Soil erosion, water 
quality, and wildlife habitat are affected. Some National Forest 
visitors report that their ability to enjoy quiet recreational 
experiences is affected by visitors using motor vehicles. A designated 
and managed system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use is 
needed.
    Current regulations prohibit trail construction (Sec.  261.10(a)) 
and operation of vehicles in a manner damaging to the land, wildlife, 
or vegetation (Sec.  261.13(h)). However, these regulations have not 
proven sufficient to control proliferation of routes or environmental 
damage. This insufficiency is due in part to the nature of OHV travel. 
The first vehicle driving across a particular meadow may not harm the 
land. However, by the time 50 vehicles have crossed the same path, 
there may be a user-created trail and lasting environmental impacts. 
Determining which particular vehicle caused the damage can sometimes 
represent a challenge to law enforcement officers.
    In addition, the line between highway vehicles and OHVs has 
blurred. Vehicles created for specialized off-road use, such as 
military vehicles, are now marketed and purchased as family cars. Some 
States have recently enacted statutes governing OHV use, including 
vehicle registration requirements, limits on operator age, training and 
licensing requirements, equipment requirements, sound restrictions, and 
safety requirements.
    Current agency policy varies from State to State and National 
Forest to National Forest. Sometimes one National Forest restricts 
motor vehicles to roads and trails, while an adjoining National Forest 
allows unrestricted cross-country travel. One State may prohibit ATVs 
on public roads, while an adjoining State generally allows such use. 
Revised regulations are needed to provide national consistency and 
clarity on motor vehicle use within the NFS. At the same time, the 
Department believes that designations of roads, trails, and areas for 
motor vehicle use should be made locally. The final rule provides a 
national framework under which designations are made at the local 
level.
    Americans cherish the National Forests and National Grasslands for 
the values they provide: opportunities for healthy recreation and 
exercise, natural scenic beauty, important natural resources, 
protection of rare species, wilderness, a connection with their 
history, and opportunities for unparalleled outdoor adventure. The 
agency must strike an appropriate balance in managing all types of 
recreational activities. To this end, a designated system of roads, 
trails, and areas for motor vehicle use, established with public 
involvement, will enhance public enjoyment of the National Forests 
while maintaining other important values and uses on NFS lands.

2. Public Comments on Proposed Rule and Department Responses

Overview

    On July 15, 2004, the Forest Service published a proposed rule in 
the Federal Register (69 FR 135) seeking public comment in amending 
regulations at 36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 to clarify policy 
related to motor vehicle use on NFS lands, including the use of OHVs. 
The proposed regulation would require designation of those roads, 
trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use. Designations 
would be made by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. 
The proposed rule would prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the 
designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles that is not 
consistent with the designations.
    During the 60-day comment period that ended on September 13, 2004, 
the agency received six requests for an extension of the comment 
period. Five of these were mailed during the last two business days of 
the comment period, and were received after the comment period closed. 
Respondents indicated that, due to the complexity of the proposed 
regulations, additional time was needed. The Forest Service did not 
extend the comment period because the agency does not agree that the 
proposed regulation was complex and because of the strong interest 
expressed in many other comments to expedite the rulemaking.
    The proposed rule was posted electronically on the World Wide Web 
at the Federal Register site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov and at the 
FirstGov e-rulemaking site at https://www.regulations.gov. The agency 
also posted the proposed rule on its World Wide Web site for OHVs at 
https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv. The Forest Service 
received 81,563 letters or electronic messages in response to the 
proposed rule, of which 9,638 contained original text (the remainder 
were form submissions). More than 80 percent of the comments were 
submitted electronically. Responses submitting original text represent 
the following categories:

Academic........................................................       2
Business Association............................................      11
Civic Group.....................................................       1
Consultants/Legal Representatives...............................       3
County Agency/Elected Official..................................      16
Domestic Livestock Industry/Permit Holders......................       5
Federal Agency/Elected Official.................................       2
Individual (unaffiliated or unidentifiable).....................   9,310
Mechanized Recreation Group (bicycling).........................       2
Mining Industry Association.....................................       2
Motorized Recreation Group......................................      71
Multiple Use/Land Rights Organization...........................       1
Nonmechanized Recreation Group..................................      24
Oil, Natural Gas, Coal Industry (leasable)......................       2
Other or Unidentified Organization..............................       1
Place-Based Group (homeowners association)......................       2
Preservation/Conservation Organization..........................      98
Private Landowner...............................................       2
Recreational/Conservation Organization..........................      14
Recreation Organization (non-specific)..........................       5
Special Use Permit Holder.......................................       2
State Agency/Elected Official...................................      21
Timber/Wood Products Industry...................................       3
Town/City Agency/Elected Official...............................       2
Tribal Agency/Elected Official..................................       3
Tribal Member/Nongovernmental Organization......................       3
Single Responses Signed by Multiple Organizations...............      29
 

    The respondents represented all 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, seven foreign countries, and two international 
U.S. Armed Forces bases. The largest number of responses containing 
original text came from California (1,308), Washington (565), and 
Oregon (392).
    A summary report and searchable database of comments are available 
by

[[Page 68266]]

contacting the Forest Service (see: ADDRESSES). The comments also are 
available for review in hard copy, but arrangements for viewing them 
should be made in advance as they are warehoused off site.
    Many comments came from organizations and individuals concerned 
about impacts of OHVs on the environment and on nonmotorized uses. 
These comments included form letters and standard letters with 
additional specific information added by the commenter.
    Many comments also came from organizations and individuals 
concerned about potential restrictions on OHV use. These comments 
included form letters and standard letters with additional information 
added.
    Federal, tribal, State, and local agencies and elected officials 
also submitted comments. The Forest Service received comments from 2 
Federal agencies, 21 State governments, 3 Federally recognized tribal 
governments, and 18 county, municipal, and local governments, 
representing a variety of points of view.
    Many respondents offered general comments either supporting or not 
supporting the proposed rule, or supporting or opposing OHV use in 
general. Most 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 
rule at the local level. A few respondents submitted comments on other 
rulemaking efforts or existing Forest Service policy beyond the scope 
of this rulemaking.

General Comments

    Comment. Many respondents supported multiple uses of NFS lands and 
recreational access for OHVs. These respondents believed that closures 
harm the public, private landowners, economic interests, and the 
environment by limiting and concentrating use. These respondents 
suggested that the agency support the public interest, rather than 
letting environmental and anti-access groups drive agency policy. These 
respondents were concerned that nonmotorized interests have an unfair 
advantage in public involvement due to better funding, organization, 
and access to decisionmaking.
    Many other respondents supported environmental protection and 
nonmotorized recreational uses of NFS lands and suggested confining 
OHVs to small, geographically isolated areas separated from 
nonmotorized users. These respondents believed that OHVs harm the 
environment, as well as people looking for quiet, peaceful recreation 
experiences. They suggested that the agency support the public 
interest, rather than letting manufacturers and user groups drive 
agency policy. These respondents were concerned that motorized 
interests have an unfair advantage in public involvement due to better 
funding, organization, and access to decisionmaking.
    Response. The Department believes that National Forests should 
provide access for both motorized and nonmotorized users 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 National Forests to provide different opportunities for 
recreation. The Department believes such choices and evaluations are 
best made at the local level, with full involvement of Federal, tribal, 
State, and local governments, motorized and nonmotorized users, and 
other interested parties, as provided for in this final rule.
    Comment. Some respondents stated that OHVs should not be allowed on 
National Forests at all. These respondents suggested that National 
Forests should be managed primarily for preservation of natural values, 
water quality, wildlife habitat, endangered species, biological 
diversity, quiet, and spiritual renewal.
    Response. The Department disagrees. National Forests are managed by 
law for multiple use. They are managed not only for the purposes stated 
in these comments, but for timber, grazing, mining, and outdoor 
recreation. These uses must be balanced, rather than one given 
preference over another.
    Comment. Some respondents stated that Americans have an 
unrestricted right to unlimited access to National Forests with motor 
vehicles and insisted that the Forest Service restore this right.
    Response. The Department disagrees with this assertion. National 
Forests belong to all Americans, but Americans do not have a right to 
unrestricted use of National Forests. Congress established the Forest 
Service to provide reasonable regulation of the National Forests so 
that future generations can continue to enjoy them.
    Comment. Some respondents requested improved Forest Service 
accountability, communications, and consistency in implementing rules 
governing motor vehicle use.
    Response. The final rule is intended to provide a consistent 
framework and consistent terminology for travel management decisions 
made at the local level. For greater clarity in terminology, the final 
rule adds a definition for ``off-highway vehicle'' and changes the term 
``use map'' to ``motor vehicle use map.''
    Comment. Many respondents asked that decisions on motor vehicle use 
be based on high-quality scientific information, including review by 
independent scientists, and not on biased data. Some respondents 
suggested that motor vehicle use should be allowed only when it can be 
clearly proven to be harmless to the environment. Others suggested that 
motor vehicle use should be restricted only when it can be clearly 
proven to be harmful to the environment.
    Response. Designations of roads, trails, and areas for motor 
vehicle use should be based on accurate, pertinent, unbiased 
information. The Department does not believe that it is necessary to 
have independent scientists review proposed designation decisions. The 
Department disagrees that motor vehicle use should be allowed only when 
it can be clearly proven to be harmless to the environment, and that 
motor vehicle use should be restricted only when it can be clearly 
proven to be harmful to the environment. Rather, designation decisions 
will be made in accordance with the criteria in Sec.  212.55 of the 
final rule.
    Comment. Some respondents stated that access to private inholdings 
must not be restricted by this rule, and that reciprocal rights-of-way 
between the Forest Service and private landowners should be allowed.
    Response. The final rule requires responsible officials to 
recognize rights of access in designating roads, trails, and areas 
(Sec.  212.55(d)). Rights of access include valid existing rights and 
rights of use of NFS roads and NFS trails under Sec.  212.6(b). This 
final rule does not affect reciprocal rights-of-way between the Forest 
Service and private landowners.
    Comment. Some respondents asked the Forest Service to encourage 
private landowners to open OHV trails and accommodate use on private 
lands.
    Response. Many private landowners allow recreational use of their 
lands, including use by OHVs. Some private landowners provide managed 
facilities for OHV enthusiasts. In some cases, trails on private land 
are part of a network including NFS lands. The Forest Service often 
works with private landowners to secure public rights-of-way for trails 
providing access to the National Forests. However, the Department 
believes that private

[[Page 68267]]

landowners are the best judges of the proper uses for their land.
    Comment. Some respondents asked the Forest Service to set aside 
nonmotorized ``quiet use areas'' across the NFS.
    Response. The final rule requires local agency officials, working 
with the public, to designate which roads, trails, and areas are 
available for motor vehicle use. The final rule prohibits use off the 
designated system. In designating roads, trails, and areas, local 
agency officials must consider minimization of conflicts among uses of 
NFS lands (Sec.  212.55(a)). In designating trails and areas, local 
agency officials must consider compatibility of motor vehicle use with 
existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, 
emissions, and other factors (Sec.  212.55(b)(5)). A system of quiet 
use areas established outside the designation process is unnecessary.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested that all routes closed to motor 
vehicles should also be closed to horses, bicycles, and all 
nonpedestrian access.
    Response. The Department disagrees. Some poorly located, 
unauthorized routes causing considerable environmental damage may have 
to be closed to all uses. However, other routes are better suited to 
some uses than others. In some areas of high concentrations of use, 
maintaining separate trail networks for different uses may reduce 
conflict and enhance public safety and the recreational experience. In 
other areas, multiple-use trails work well. The Department believes 
these decisions are best made at the local level, with public 
participation.
    Comment. Some respondents asked the Forest Service to provide 
access to groups that maintain and improve roads and trails.
    Response. The Department is grateful to the many groups who provide 
volunteer assistance in constructing, improving, and maintaining roads 
and trails. Without the support of these groups, public access and 
recreational opportunities would be more limited. Most of these groups 
help maintain trails not to get special privileges, but to provide 
better access for everyone. The Department supports the general 
principle of equal public access to Federal lands.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested limits on timber harvesting and 
grazing, and on road construction related to timber harvesting. Other 
respondents requested increased fuel treatment to protect communities 
from wildfire and construction of additional roads for fuel reduction, 
fire suppression, and timber management needs.
    Response. These comments are beyond the scope of this rule. Road 
construction for timber harvesting, fuel treatment, or other purposes 
must be subjected to site-specific environmental analysis, which 
establishes road management objectives. Roads constructed as part of 
these projects could be added to the system of designated roads, 
trails, and areas open to motor vehicles, depending on the results of 
these local decisions.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the Forest Service retain 
a right-of-way for public access in all land exchanges, and deny access 
to private landowners who block public access to Federal lands.
    Response. This comment is beyond the scope of this final rule. The 
Forest Service seeks, wherever possible, to secure or retain public 
access to Federal lands by purchasing or exchanging rights-of-way and 
reserving rights-of-way in land exchanges.
    Comment. Some respondents requested additional scientific studies 
of the environmental impacts of motor vehicle use, the social and 
economic impacts of restrictions on motor vehicle use, the impacts of 
road closures on firefighting and fuel reduction, the numbers of 
visitors using motor vehicles, and other related topics.
    Response. In addition to the studies mentioned in the preamble to 
the proposed rule, ongoing studies by Forest Service researchers and 
monitoring by National Forest managers address several of these topics. 
The Department believes that these studies support the need for this 
final rule. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the results 
of monitoring pursuant to Sec. 212.57 of the final rule could provide 
the basis for revision or rescission of designations made pursuant to 
Sec. 212.51, or for a determination of considerable adverse effects for 
purposes of implementing a temporary, emergency closure pursuant to 
Sec. 212.52(b)(2).
    Comment. One respondent asserted that the Forest Service must 
formally consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects 
of this rule on threatened and endangered species, as required by the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    Response. The Department has determined that this final rule will 
have no effect on threatened or endangered species. The final rule 
establishes a procedural framework for local decisionmaking and will 
not have any effect until designation of roads, trails, and areas is 
complete for a particular administrative unit or Ranger District, with 
opportunity for public involvement and coordination with Federal, 
State, local, and tribal governments. Designation decisions at the 
local level will be accompanied by appropriate consideration of 
potential impacts to threatened and endangered species. If such 
decisions may affect threatened or endangered species, the Forest 
Service will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as 
appropriate, under Section 7 of the ESA.

Forest Service Directives

    Comment. Some respondents asked the Forest Service to issue 
proposed directives on implementation of the final travel management 
rule and requested that the agency seek public comment on these 
directives. One respondent stated that the final rule must be 
consistent with Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbook 
direction.
    Response. The Forest Service provides internal direction to field 
units through its directives system, consisting of the Forest Service 
Manual (FSM) and Forest Service Handbooks (FSH). The FSM and FSH assist 
field units in implementing programs established by statutes and 
regulations. The Forest Service plans to develop proposed directives 
implementing this final rule and to publish them in the Federal 
Register for public notice and comment.
    Comment. Some respondents requested that officials responsible for 
implementation of this rule be properly identified, qualified, and free 
of conflict of interest. Others asked the agency to ensure that Forest 
Service officials do not play an active role in State or local 
legislation affecting OHVs.
    Response. Section 212.51 of the final rule provides that 
designations shall be made by the responsible official on 
administrative units or Ranger Districts of the NFS. Delegations of 
authority for designation decisions will be included in directives 
issued for purposes of implementing this final rule. The Department 
expects that designation decisions will generally be made by Forest 
Supervisors and District Rangers. Forest Supervisors and District 
Rangers are selected for their positions based on Federal civil service 
rules. Federal ethics and conduct rules protect the public and agency 
personnel from conflicts of interest and limit the roles agency 
personnel may play in their official capacities in the State or local 
legislative process.
    Comment. Some respondents requested standardized, easily available 
use maps and interagency signage to ensure consistent communication and 
enforcement of route designations.

[[Page 68268]]

    Response. The Forest Service plans to develop a standard national 
format for motor vehicle use maps issued under this final rule. In the 
final rule, the Department is changing the term ``use map'' to ``motor 
vehicle use map.'' Motor vehicle use maps will be available at local 
Forest Service offices and, as soon as practicable, on Forest Service 
web sites. The Forest Service plans to issue additional travel 
management guidance in its sign handbook to ensure consistent messages 
and use of standard interagency symbols.
    Comment. Many respondents submitted suggestions on compliance with 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with 
designation of routes and areas for motor vehicle use. Some suggested 
including provisions on this topic in the rule itself. Others suggested 
specific direction related to the range of alternatives subject to 
consideration, the scope of analysis, the starting point for analysis, 
and the various environmental effects to be considered.
    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 FSH 1909.15. The Department 
believes that the scope, content, and documentation of NEPA analysis 
associated with designating routes and areas for motor vehicle 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.
    Comment. Many respondents addressed the status of user-created 
routes in areas currently managed as open to cross-country motor 
vehicle use, especially with regard to NEPA compliance (FSH 1909.15). 
Some respondents asked the Forest Service to acknowledge all such 
routes as legal, legitimate travel ways, and to require specific 
documentation and analysis to close them. Other respondents asked the 
Forest Service to treat all such routes as illicit and subject to 
immediate closure.
    Response. The Department rejects both of these approaches. User-
created routes were developed without agency authorization, 
environmental analysis, or public involvement and do not have the same 
status as NFS roads and trails included in the forest transportation 
system.
    Some user-created routes are well-sited, provide excellent 
opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and nonmotorized 
users alike, involve less environmental impact than unrestricted cross-
country motor vehicle use, and would enhance the system of designated 
routes and areas. Other user-created routes are poorly located and 
cause unacceptable environmental impacts.
    The Department believes that evaluation of user-created routes is 
best handled at the local level by officials with first-hand knowledge 
of the particular circumstances, uses, and environmental impacts 
involved, working closely with local governments, users, and other 
members of the public.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested reviewing and inventorying all 
roads, trails, and areas, without regard to prior travel management 
decisions and travel plans. Other respondents observed that land 
management plans, travel plans, and other recent agency documents 
already include a variety of decisions related to motor vehicle use and 
route designation. These respondents asked the agency to recognize 
existing plans and decisions in designating roads, trails, and areas 
for motor vehicle use.
    Response. The Department believes that reviewing and inventorying 
all roads, trails, and areas without regard to prior travel management 
decisions and travel plans would be unproductive, inefficient, counter 
to the purposes of this final rule, and disrespectful of public 
involvement in past decisionmaking. Local responsible officials can and 
should take into account past travel management decisions.
    Some National Forests have long restricted motor vehicles to 
designated routes under E.O. 11644, 36 CFR part 295, and FSM 2355. 
Other National Forests have recently issued comprehensive travel 
management decisions that restrict motor vehicle use to designated 
routes and issued orders that prohibit cross-country motor vehicle use. 
All National Forests have a system of NFS roads open to motor vehicle 
use, and many also have a system of NFS trails managed for motor 
vehicle use.
    Nothing in this final rule requires reconsideration of any previous 
administrative decisions that allow, restrict, or prohibit motor 
vehicle 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. The final rule adds a new 
paragraph (b) to Sec. 212.50 to clarify that these decisions may be 
incorporated into designations made pursuant to this final rule.
    Some National Forests or Ranger Districts have previous 
administrative decisions, made under other authorities with public 
involvement, which restrict motor vehicle use over an entire Forest or 
District to designated routes and areas. In these cases, the 
responsible official may, with public notice but no further analysis or 
decisionmaking, establish that decision or those decisions as the 
designation pursuant to this rule for the National Forest or Ranger 
District, effective upon publication of a motor vehicle use map. In 
that situation, the only substantive change effected by this final rule 
would be enforcement of the restrictions pursuant to the prohibition in 
Sec. 261.13, rather than pursuant to an order issued under part 261, 
subpart B. The final rule includes additional language in 
Sec. 212.52(a) to clarify that no further public involvement is 
required in this special case.
    Alternatively, responsible officials may choose to reconsider past 
decisions, with public involvement, as necessary to achieve the 
purposes of the final rule.
    The final rule recognizes that designations of roads, trails, and 
areas for motor vehicle use are not permanent. Unforeseen environmental 
impacts, changes in public demand, route construction, and monitoring 
conducted under Sec. 212.57 of the final rule may lead responsible 
officials to consider revising designations under Sec. 212.54 of the 
final rule.
    Designations must be consistent with the applicable land management 
plan. If a responsible official proposes a designation that would be 
inconsistent with the applicable land management plan, a proposed 
amendment to the plan must be included with the proposed designation so 
that the designation decision will conform with the land management 
plan.
    Comment. Some respondents observed that NFS roads that are open to 
motor vehicle use are already in effect designated and need not be re-
evaluated. Other respondents asked the agency to ensure that proposed 
changes to allowed uses, reconstruction, and changes in maintenance 
levels resulting in changes in type or level of use receive appropriate 
site-specific consideration.
    Response. As recognized in the preamble to the proposed rule, to a 
certain degree, NFS roads are in effect already designated for some 
classes of motor vehicle use. These roads are included in a forest 
transportation atlas, and road management objectives may establish the 
appropriate vehicle classes and uses for each road segment. In recent 
years, the roads analysis process established under 36 CFR 212.5 and 
FSM 7712 has been used to evaluate the

[[Page 68269]]

long-term management objectives for the passenger car road system in 
each National Forest.
    This final rule does not require responsible officials to 
reconsider decisions authorizing motor vehicle use on NFS roads and NFS 
trails. After consulting with the public, responsible officials may 
choose to reconsider past decisions as necessary to achieve the 
purposes of this final rule. In addition, responsible officials may 
revise designations under Sec.  212.54 of the final rule. Revisions of 
designations, including revisions in the class of vehicle designated 
for use, must be made in accordance with the requirements for public 
involvement in Sec.  212.52 and the criteria in Sec.  212.55. Road 
reconstruction is beyond the scope of the designation provisions in 
subpart B of this rule.

Implementation

    Comment. Many respondents requested a specific, enforceable 
deadline (most suggested two years) for completing route and area 
designation and ending cross-country motor vehicle use. Many other 
respondents asked the Forest Service not to establish a specific time 
frame for completing designations, and to allow enough time to complete 
a full and fair evaluation of all potential routes.
    Response. The Department shares an interest in completing route and 
area designation as quickly as possible. The problems associated with 
unmanaged motor vehicle use are important and deserve immediate 
attention. The Forest Service will make every effort, within its 
available resources, to complete route and area designation as quickly 
as possible. However, the Department disagrees with establishing an 
enforceable deadline for completion of the process. Imposing an 
enforceable deadline for completing designations would subject the 
Forest Service to 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 cooperative work by 
responsible officials with State, tribal, county, and municipal 
governments, user groups, and other interested parties offers the best 
hope for long-term resolution of issues involving recreational use, 
including use of motor vehicles. An inflexible deadline can make 
collaborative solutions more difficult.
    Comment. Some respondents requested that the Forest Service 
complete a full inventory of all existing motor vehicle routes, 
regardless of origin, prior to making a designation decision. Many of 
these respondents asked the Forest Service to cooperate with user 
groups in conducting this inventory, but some also insisted that the 
agency take ultimate responsibility for including all user-created 
routes.
    Response. The Department disagrees that a complete inventory of 
user-created routes is required in order to complete the designation 
process. As a practical matter, such an inventory may never be fully 
complete, as new routes will continue to be created during the 
inventory process. A complete inventory would be very time-consuming 
and expensive, delaying completion of route designation. Advance 
planning based on public involvement, careful design, and site-specific 
environmental analysis provide the best hope for a sustainable, managed 
system of motor vehicle routes and areas addressing user needs and 
safety with a minimum of environmental impacts.
    As stated above, some user-created routes would make excellent 
additions to the system of designated routes and areas. The Forest 
Service is committed to working with user groups and others to identify 
such routes and consider them on a site-specific basis.
    Comment. Some respondents asked the Forest Service to include 
potential future routes in the inventory and designation process, and 
to make provision for including additional user-created routes 
discovered after designation is complete.
    Response. Long-term planning may identify potential corridors 
suitable for consideration for future construction. However, the agency 
does not intend to designate routes on a motor vehicle use map until 
such routes actually exist, have been analyzed and evaluated, and are 
available for public use. Section 212.54 of the final rule provides for 
revision of designations as needed to meet changing conditions. New 
routes may be constructed and added to the system following public 
involvement and site-specific environmental analysis. Such revisions 
may also include closures or changes in designations.
    Comment. Many respondents supported public involvement in the route 
designation process. Some requested that local residents and private 
landowners receive a greater voice in decisions affecting their use. 
Other respondents requested that county governments, State tourism 
offices, or other agencies receive formal recognition as participants 
in agency decisionmaking. One respondent asked that OHV access be 
subject to a public vote.
    Response. The proposed and final rules require public involvement 
in the designation process (Sec.  212.52), and coordination with 
appropriate Federal, State, county, local, and tribal governments in 
designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use (Sec.  
212.53). Designation of a system of motor vehicle routes and areas will 
be made with public involvement and coordination with Federal, State, 
local, and tribal governments. Most NFS roads are intertwined with 
networks of State and county roads (often crossing NFS lands), and 
cooperative planning among affected agencies is essential. Nothing in 
the final rule, however, can relieve the Forest Service of the ultimate 
responsibility for decisions regarding management of NFS lands.
    Comment. Many respondents requested that the Forest Service 
allocate sufficient funds for management of motor vehicle use on 
National Forests, particularly for the process of route and area 
designation envisioned in the proposed rule. Many asked the agency to 
pursue all available sources of funding, including the Recreational 
Trails Program and gasoline tax revenues. Some respondents insisted 
that inadequate funding not be used as an excuse to close routes and 
restrict motor vehicle access. Others stated that the rule was 
pointless without adequate funding.
    Response. The issue regarding funding is beyond the scope of this 
final rule. 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 a better framework for management of motor 
vehicle use on National Forests and National Grasslands. While 
availability of resources for maintenance and administration must be 
considered in designating routes for motor vehicle use (Sec.  212.55), 
cooperative relationships and volunteer agreements may be included in 
this consideration.
    Comment. Some respondents offered specific suggestions for 
consideration during route and area designation, including conversion 
of low-standard roads to motorized trails, provision of

[[Page 68270]]

parking and trailhead facilities, reopening of closed roads, design of 
loop and long-distance trail systems to meet user needs, and 
integration of designated routes with roads and trails managed by local 
governments, States, and other Federal agencies.
    Some respondents suggested consideration of specific environmental 
impacts during route and area designation, including introduction of 
invasive species, impacts to cultural activities of American Indians, 
quality of the user experience, and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 
(ROS) designations in land management plans. Other respondents 
suggested specific areas to avoid in route and area designation, 
including high alpine areas, wetlands, riparian areas, and roadless 
areas.
    Response. The Department agrees that many of these considerations 
may be important in designating routes and areas at the local level. 
Section 212.55 of the final rule enumerates the criteria for 
designating roads, trails, and areas pursuant to the final rule. 
Specific considerations (such as geography, user demands, and 
environmental impacts) will vary from place to place, and even route to 
route, across the NFS. Responsible officials, working closely with the 
public, should consider local circumstances in applying the criteria 
for designating roads, trails, and areas pursuant to the final rule.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested a no-net-loss policy for motor 
vehicle routes (every route closed must be replaced by a new route of 
the same length and character), a specific goal for available routes 
(such as four miles of motor vehicle trail per square mile), or a 
general policy to develop all access opportunities close to urban 
areas.
    Response. The Department disagrees with establishing any of these 
principles as national policy. Designation decisions are best left to 
local managers, working closely with State, tribal, and local 
governments, users, and other members of the public and informed by 
site-specific evaluation of environmental impacts.
    Comment. Some respondents stated that regulations are effective 
only if they are enforced, and questioned whether the agency was 
capable of enforcing motor vehicle restrictions due to limited numbers 
of law enforcement officers.
    Response. Forest Service law enforcement personnel play a critical 
role in ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, protecting 
public safety, and protecting National Forest 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 
enforcement by substituting a regulatory prohibition for closure orders 
and providing for a motor vehicle use map supplemented by signage.
    Comment. Some respondents questioned the use of contractors and 
volunteers to map and maintain trails, and to report violations of 
motor vehicle regulations.
    Response. The Forest Service utilizes a mix of agency personnel, 
contractors, volunteers, and cooperators to accomplish many elements of 
its mission. Without the support of cooperators and volunteers and the 
services of contractors, the agency would be unable to provide the same 
level of service to the public or care for the lands entrusted to it 
within its current budget. Like all law enforcement agencies, the 
Forest Service depends on citizen reports of violations as a critical 
component of its enforcement program.
    Comment. Some respondents asked the Forest Service to ensure 
representation of OHV enthusiasts and riders among agency staff 
responsible for OHV management.
    Response. The Forest Service uses competitive civil service 
procedures to select the best qualified applicant for each position, 
based on the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform the 
job. While ability to use government equipment may be a selective 
factor for some positions, the agency does not hire personnel based on 
their outside recreational interests. Nevertheless, there are Forest 
Service employees who are OHV riders.
    Comment. Some respondents asked the Forest Service to ensure 
adequate maintenance for motor vehicle trails, rather than closing 
them.
    Response. The Forest Service maintains NFS roads and NFS trails in 
accordance with their management objectives and the availability of 
funds. Volunteers and cooperators maintain many trails. The agency 
collects fees for use of some developed recreational facilities, most 
of which are retained and spent at the site where they are collected. 
Unfortunately, resources are still limited, and the Forest Service has 
a substantial backlog of maintenance needs, even before adding many 
user-created routes to the system. In some cases, an extended lack of 
maintenance can lead to deterioration of a road or trail to the point 
that it must be closed to address user safety or to prevent severe 
environmental damage. The Forest Service actively tries to avoid 
closures by encouraging volunteer agreements and cooperative 
relationships with user groups.
    Comment. Some respondents requested clarification of the rules 
applicable to motor vehicle use while designation is pending. Some 
asked that current rules remain in effect. Others requested immediate 
closure of all user-created routes. Some respondents sought to continue 
using and maintaining existing trails while designation is pending.
    Response. The final rule's prohibition on motor vehicle use off the 
designated system (Sec.  261.13) goes into effect on an administrative 
unit or Ranger District once that unit or District has designated those 
NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are open to motor 
vehicle use and published a motor vehicle use map identifying those 
roads, trails, and areas (Sec.  212.56). Until designations for a unit 
or District are complete and a motor vehicle use map identifying those 
designations is published, existing travel management policies, 
restrictions, and orders remain in effect. 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 Sec.  
212.52(b)(2) of the final rule. The Department does not believe that 
immediate closure of all user-created routes, without local evaluation 
and public input, is necessary or appropriate. Use and maintenance of 
NFS roads and NFS trails consistent with current travel management 
policies and management objectives may continue. Construction and 
maintenance of roads or trails without a permit are prohibited by 
existing regulations (Sec.  261.10(a)).
    The Department expects that some administrative units or Ranger 
Districts will complete route and area designation before others and 
that the prohibition on cross-country motor vehicle use in Sec.  261.13 
will go into effect on different units and Ranger Districts at 
different times. This variation in travel management mirrors the 
existing situation, in which some units are open to cross-country motor 
vehicle use, while others restrict motor vehicles to designated routes 
and areas. Over the next few years, all administrative units and Ranger 
Districts will institute a system of designated routes and areas.

[[Page 68271]]

    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the Forest Service require 
vehicle registration, license plates, noise abatement, and safety 
equipment for all motor vehicles using NFS lands. Others suggested 
requiring licensing and safety training for all riders.
    Response. State traffic laws apply on NFS roads as provided for in 
36 CFR 212.5(a)(1). State governments have long taken the lead in 
establishing registration, safety, and licensing requirements for motor 
vehicles and motor vehicle operators, providing a consistent framework 
for users within State boundaries. The Department wholeheartedly 
supports this framework. The Department believes a separate 
registration or licensing process for operators for the NFS would be 
confusing, inefficient, and intrusive.
    The Department notes that some States have no requirements 
regarding minimum age, safety equipment, and noise levels for OHVs. 
Some National Forests have experienced serious injuries and fatal 
accidents involving OHVs, some of which involve young children. The 
Forest Service will continue to regulate OHV riders to a certain degree 
in existing regulations at Sec.  261.13, recodified as Sec.  261.15 in 
the final rule (for example, by requiring a headlight and taillight 
when riding after dark and by providing for incorporation of State law 
pertaining to use of motor vehicles off roads). At this time, however, 
the Department is not prepared to issue or enforce new national 
standards for operators or equipment on NFS lands. As designations are 
completed and management of designated roads, trails, and areas 
continues, the Department may consider developing some national safety 
standards for OHVs at a later date.
    Noise is a particularly important issue affecting OHV use 
nationally. The Forest Service anticipates developing a national 
standard for OHV noise levels in a future rulemaking.
    Comment. Some respondents suggested that the Forest Service charge 
a fee for OHV use on NFS lands and retain the funds for route 
maintenance and enforcement. Other respondents objected to any fees for 
public access to Federal land. One respondent suggested a surcharge on 
OHV manufacturers.
    Response. These comments are beyond the scope of this final rule, 
which governs designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle 
use. Forest Service 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). The agency has no 
authority to tax manufacturers.

Proposed Rule Preamble

    Comment. Some respondents disagreed with the Forest Service's 
rationale for the proposed rule and urged the agency not to adopt a 
final rule. These respondents stated that a prohibition on cross-
country motor vehicle use will harm small businesses, recreation users, 
the tourism industry, local governments, local economies, low-income 
residents, families with children, and people with disabilities, and 
reduce public access to Federal lands. Some respondents stated that any 
environmental impacts and other problems associated with cross-country 
motor vehicle use result from poor Forest Service management and should 
be addressed by better implementation and enforcement of existing 
rules, rather than additional regulation. Others contended that natural 
forces, such as fire and flood, have far greater environmental impact 
than OHVs and that the motor vehicle regulation is not needed.
    Response. The Department disagrees with these assertions. 
Unregulated cross-country motor vehicle use may have been appropriate 
on some National Forests when these vehicles were less numerous, less 
powerful, and less capable of cross-country travel. Today, however, the 
proliferation of user-created routes is a major challenge on many 
National Forests and examples of significant environmental damage, 
safety issues, and user conflicts are well established. The Department 
believes that a well-planned, well-designed system of designated roads, 
trails, and areas, developed in coordination with Federal, State, 
local, and tribal governments and with public involvement, offers 
better opportunities for sustainable long-term recreational motor 
vehicle use and better economic opportunities for local residents and 
communities.
    Comment. Some respondents stated that the proposed rule will harm 
the nonmotorized recreation industry by encouraging OHV use. Other 
respondents stated that the proposed rule does not do enough to address 
the threat of OHVs, unauthorized routes, and continuing damage to the 
environment, and should be strengthened. Some asked the Forest Service 
to explain how its maintenance backlog can be reconciled with the 
stated goal of enhancing opportunities for motorized recreation.
    Response. This final rule does not encourage or discourage motor 
vehicle use, but rather requires designation of roads, trails, and 
areas for motor vehicle use. The Department believes that a well-
designed system of routes and areas designated for motor vehicle use 
can reduce maintenance needs and environmental damage, while enhancing 
the recreational experience for all users, both motorized and 
nonmotorized.
    Comment. Some respondents called for clear and consistent national 
standards for motor vehicle use and route and area designation. They 
stated that the proposed rule allows too much discretion for local 
Forest Service managers to make designation decisions, which may result 
in inconsistent and ineffective decisionmaking. Other respondents 
stated that the final rule should retain flexibility in local 
decisionmaking, rather than establishing a one-size-fits-all national 
policy.
    Response. The final rule provides a national framework for local 
decisionmaking. The rule includes definitions, procedures, and criteria 
for designation of NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands for 
motor vehicle use, and a prohibition on motor vehicle use that occurs 
off the designated system or that is inconsistent with motor vehicle 
designations. The Department expects the roughly 300,000 miles of NFS 
roads currently open to highway-legal motor vehicle use to be 
designated for that purpose. However, the rule retains flexibility at 
the local level to determine, with public involvement, appropriate 
motor vehicle use on local NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on 
NFS lands. The Department believes that decisions about specific routes 
and areas are best made by local officials with knowledge of those 
routes and areas, the local environment, and site-specific tradeoffs, 
with public involvement and in coordination with appropriate Federal, 
State, local, and tribal governments.
    Comment. Some respondents asked the Forest Service to commit to 
designating enough OHV routes to accommodate current and future demand.
    Response. Provision of recreational opportunities and access needs 
are two of several criteria the responsible official must consider 
under Sec.  212.55 of the final rule in designating routes for motor 
vehicle use. National Forests are popular with many Americans for many 
uses. It is not possible to accommodate all user demands on all 
National Forests while also protecting water quality, wildlife habitat, 
and other natural resources that people come to enjoy. Forest Service 
managers must balance user interests against the other criteria

[[Page 68272]]

for designating routes and areas under the final rule.
    Comment. Some respondents stated that local government, not the 
Forest Service, should decide where roads and vehicle access are needed 
to serve local communities and protect public health and safety.
    Response. The Department believes that coordination with local 
governments is essential in designating a system of motor vehicle 
routes and areas on NFS lands. The final rule requires coordination 
with appropriate local governmental entities when designating routes 
and areas for motor vehicle use and provides for designation decisions 
to be made by Forest Service officers at the local level to ensure that 
they take local needs into account. However, the Forest Service retains 
ultimate responsibility, as provided by Congress, for management of 
uses on the NFS.
    Forest Service policy (FSM 7703.3) is to seek to transfer 
jurisdiction of NFS roads to public road authorities when (1) more than 
half of the use is likely to be non-Forest Service-generated traffic; 
(2) the road is necessary and used for mail, school, or other local 
government purposes, or (3) the road serves year-long residents within 
or adjacent to the National Forests.
    Comment. Some respondents stated that the language of the preamble 
to the proposed rule, particularly the shift of regulations governing 
OHV use from part 295 (Use of Motor Vehicles Off National Forest System 
Roads) to part 212 (Administration of the Forest Transportation 
System), reflects a change in the agency's perception of motor vehicle 
use on NFS lands. These respondents asked the Forest Service to 
recognize motor vehicle use as a legitimate recreational pursuit, not 
just as a transportation issue.
    Response. The Department recognizes this concern. Motor vehicles 
serve a variety of functions on National Forests. Motor vehicles are 
used in commercial and natural resource management activities, 
including maintaining utility corridors, mining, and timber sales. 
Motor vehicles on NFS lands provide access to private land, recreation 
destinations, and destinations off NFS lands. Motor vehicles are used 
in support of other recreational activities, such as hunting and 
camping. Motor vehicles are also used as a recreational experience in 
their own right, such as for trail riding and driving for pleasure. 
These uses overlap and are not always clearly distinguishable. To 
create a comprehensive system of travel management, the final rule 
consolidates regulations governing motor vehicle use in one part, 212, 
entitled ``Travel Management.'' Motor vehicles remain a legitimate 
recreational use of NFS lands.
    Comment. Some respondents objected to the preamble's use of the 
term ``off-road vehicle'' in reference to E.O. 11644 and E.O. 11989, 
and asked the agency to use ``off-highway vehicle.'' Other respondents 
objected to the latter term and preferred ``off-road vehicle.'' Some 
respondents requested that specific classes of vehicles, such as side-
by-sides, sport utility vehicles, and motorcycles, be included or 
excluded from the definition of OHV.
    Response. The final rule addresses all motor vehicle use on NFS 
roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands, from passenger cars to 
ATVs to motorcycles. The final rule is not limited to OHVs, in part 
because OHVs are not always clearly distinguishable from passenger 
vehicles (today the family car may be quite capable of off-highway 
travel). Local units are responsible for designating routes and areas 
for motor vehicle use, including which routes and areas are designated 
for which vehicle classes. In response to comments, and because the 
agency has used the term extensively in communications, the final rule 
has added a definition of ``off-highway vehicle.'' This definition is 
consistent with the definition of ``off-roa