The Crittenden Automotive Library

Off-Road Vehicle Use

Off-Road Vehicle Use

Timothy R. Petty
Department of the Interior
22 October 2020

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 205 (Thursday, October 22, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67294-67299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22108]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

43 CFR Part 420

[RR85672000, 20XR0680A2, RX.31480001.0040000]
RIN 1006-AA57

Off-Road Vehicle Use

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is amending its
regulations to add a definition for electric bikes (E-bikes) and
exclude E-bikes from the regulatory definition of an off-road vehicle
where E-bikes are being used on roads and trails where mechanized, non-
motorized use is allowed, where E-bikes are not propelled exclusively
by a motorized source, and appropriate Reclamation Regional Directors
expressly determine through a formal decision that E-bikes should be
treated the same as non-motorized bicycles. This change facilitates
increased E-bike use where other types of bicycles are allowed in a
manner consistent with existing use of Reclamation land, and increases
recreational opportunities for all Americans, especially those with
physical limitations.

DATES: This rulemaking is effective November 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.usbr.gov/recreation/index.html.
Comments we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in
preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov in Docket ID: BOR-2020-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Alcorn, Asset Management
Division, Bureau of Reclamation, (303) 445-2711; ralcorn@usbr.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 29, 2019, the Secretary of the Interior signed
Secretarial Order 3376, Increasing Recreation Opportunities Through the
Use of Electric Bikes, that directed Reclamation and other Department
of the Interior (DOI) bureaus (Bureau of Land Management, National Park
Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to increase recreation
opportunities and expand access on public lands. The Secretarial Order
addressed regulatory uncertainty on how bureaus within DOI manage
recreational opportunities for E-bikes on trails and paths where
traditional bikes are allowed.
Uncertainty about the regulatory status of E-bikes had led some of
DOI's land management bureaus to impose restrictive access policies
treating E-bikes as motor vehicles, often inconsistent with State and
local regulations for adjacent areas. The possibility that in some
cases E-bikes can be propelled solely through power provided by the
electric motor, a function often used in short duration as an assist,
has contributed to confusion about E-bike classification. Further,
Federal regulation has not been consistent across DOI and has created
ambiguity among recreation area rules regarding trail and road access
to E-bikes resulting in limited access to Federally owned lands by E-
bike riders.
To provide consistency in Federal policy among DOI's bureaus, the
Secretarial Order set forth the policy of DOI that E-bikes should be
allowed where other, non-motorized types of bicycles are allowed, and
not allowed where other, non-motorized types of bicycles are
prohibited.

Summary of Final Rule

Reclamation was directed by the Secretarial Order to revise 43 CFR
part 420 to add a definition of E-bikes and to generally treat E-bikes
similarly to traditional, non-motorized bicycles. Continuing, it is
further specified that E-bikes should be defined as having two or three
wheels and fully operable pedals. The electric motor for an E-bike may
not exceed 750 watts (one horsepower) and E-bikes must fall into one of
three classes:
(a) ``Class 1 electric bicycle'' means an electric bicycle equipped
with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling,
and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the
speed of 20 miles per hour;
(b) ``Class 2 electric bicycle'' means an electric bicycle equipped
with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and
that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches
the speed of 20 miles per hour; and
(c) ``Class 3 electric bicycle'' means an electric bicycle equipped
with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling,
and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the
speed of 28 miles per hour.
The rule therefore amends title 43 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) by revising part 420 as follows:
(a) Section 420.5(a) is amended to include E-bikes that satisfy
certain criteria in the specified exclusions to the definition of off-
road vehicles.
(b) Section 420.5(h) is added to define electric bicycles to
include the three classes of electric bicycles.
Reclamation expects these changes to the rule could facilitate
increased E-bike ridership on Reclamation lands in the future. However,
the rule would not be self-executing. The rule, in and of itself, does
not change existing allowances for E-bike usage on Reclamation-
administered public lands. It would neither allow E-bikes on roads and
trails that are currently closed to off-road vehicles but open to
mechanized, non-motorized bicycle use, nor affect the use of E-bikes
and other motorized vehicles on roads and trails where off-road vehicle
use is currently allowed. Furthermore, 43 CFR 420.5(a)(7) would allow
Reclamation's Regional Directors to expressly determine, as part of a
land-use planning or implementation-level decision, that E-bikes should
be treated the same as non-motorized bicycles. While Reclamation
intends for this rule to increase accessibility to public lands, E-
bikes would not be given special access beyond what traditional, non-
motorized bicycles are allowed. To address site-specific issues,
Reclamation would consider the environmental impacts from the use of E-
bikes through subsequent analysis in accordance with applicable legal
requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA).

Summary of and Response to Public Comments

Reclamation published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on
April 13, 2020 (85 FR 20463) soliciting public comments for a 60-day
period. The public comment period ended on June 12, 2020. During the
public comment period, Reclamation received 705 comment submissions
from members of the public including senior citizens, avid cyclists,
hikers, equestrians and equestrian associations, industrial cycling
organizations and manufacturers, as well as state and local

[[Page 67295]]

governments. Each public comment received consideration in the
development of the final rule.
Comments received that are similar in nature have been categorized
by subject, and in some instances have been combined with related
comments. The following discussion addresses substantive information
provided during the comment period, by topic, and includes comments and
responses that were made in the final rule based on comment analysis
and other considerations.
Comment: Before any existing, non-motorized trails could be opened
to E-bikes, logic suggests a NEPA study should have to be completed.
Response: Lands managed by Reclamation vary significantly from
region to region (e.g., the environmental variability, potential user
conflicts, amounts of visitation) making an overarching NEPA analysis
infeasible. Addressing potential environmental and social issues are
most meaningful at the site-specific level. Reclamation will consider
the suitability of E-bike use on specific trails through subsequent
analysis consistent with the requirements of NEPA and other applicable
laws. The NEPA process and implementation will be conducted in
accordance with 43 CFR 420.5(a)(7) whereby Reclamation's Regional
Directors may expressly determine, as part of a land-use planning or
implementation-level decision, that E-bikes should be treated the same
as non-motorized bicycles. Implementation may also include the
development of site-specific design features and mitigation strategies
to reduce or negate potential adverse impacts.
Comment: A public review and comment period of at least 60 days
should be provided for each proposed trail or trail system, and that
comment period should be in a season when the area is accessible to
people who want to examine the routes for themselves before submitting
comments.
Response: Reclamation began its 60-day public comment period on
April 13, 2020 and concluded on June 12, 2020. This period gave the
public the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Given
the quantity of existing trails upon Reclamation lands, creating
additional 60-day public comment periods for each proposed trail would
be extremely costly and create a large administrative burden.
Additionally, as local field and area offices will work with recreation
area managing partners to make such determinations, the decision to add
additional comment periods, if necessary, will remain at that level and
at the discretion of the Regional Director.
Comment: Reclamation seeks to define relevant classifications of
electric bicycles (``E-bikes'') and exclude E-bikes from DOI's
regulatory definition of ``off-road vehicles,'' which are forbidden to
be used in certain areas that are open to traditional bicyclists.
Permitting the use of certain E-bikes in appropriate areas could indeed
benefit many Americans who otherwise could not access certain lands.
However, instead of clearly describing a widening of the permitted
category of ``bicycles,'' the amendment offers clumsy, incohesive
groupings of E-bikes. The proposed amendments may create arbitrary and
capricious results.
Response: The definition of E-bikes included in this rule
establishes a consistent definition for use across all DOI bureaus. The
definition and associated classification system are based on industry
standards and is the same system that many states are using to regulate
E-bikes. DOI chose this system to be as consistent as possible with how
E-bikes are being regulated.
Comment: The regulation fails to offer any policy rationale, and
thus is both arbitrary and capricious and fails to allow commenters to
properly respond to the agency's decision-making. The regulation simply
states that ``E-bikes should be allowed where other, non-motorized
types of bicycles are allowed.''
Response: Federal regulation of E-bikes has not been consistent
across DOI. The purpose of this rulemaking is to unify regulation of E-
bikes on Federal lands managed by DOI. Secretarial Order 3376 directs
the Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service, and Reclamation to define E-bikes, and directs
Reclamation to expressly exclude E-bikes from the definition of Off-
Road Vehicles (ORV) in accordance with 43 CFR 420.5(a)(7) whereby
Reclamation's Regional Directors may expressly determine, as part of a
land-use planning or implementation-level decision, that E-bikes should
be treated the same as non-motorized bicycles.
Comment: We support allowing only Class 1 E-bikes on narrow trails
to better ensure trail integrity and appropriate speeds for safe
interaction with other trail users. Class 2 and Class 3 E-bikes are not
appropriate for these narrow non-motorized trails.
Response: Reclamation acknowledges comments that request the
exclusion of Class 2 and Class 3 E-bikes from non-motorized trails. The
rule provides Regional Directors or their delegates authority to
determine whether E-bike use generally, or the use of certain classes
of E-bikes, would be appropriate on certain roads or trails.
Comment: Omit three-wheeled E-bikes or provide a detailed
description of the three-wheeled bikes and specific trail parameters on
which they should be allowed. Three-wheeled bikes are closer to all-
terrain vehicles and will have specific requirements for the trails
unlike a two-wheeled E-bike.
Response: Reclamation acknowledges comments pertaining to omitting
the use of three-wheeled E-bikes on non-motorized trails. The rule
provides Regional Directors or their delegates the authority to
determine whether E-bike use generally, or the use of certain classes
of E-bikes, would be appropriate on certain roads or trails. Regional
Directors may also determine whether the use of three-wheeled E-bikes
are appropriate on certain roads or trails. In addition, keeping in
line with industry standards, the term ``low-speed'' electric bicycles
means two- or three-wheeled vehicle.
Comment: Reclamation should amend text within the proposed rule to
allow all bicycle trails and routes to be open to E-bikes as well as
motorized paths with improved surfaces.
Response: Reclamation believes that E-bikes would generally be
appropriate on roads and trails upon which mechanized, non-motorized
use is permitted, however there are certain instances where that may
not be possible. Therefore, it is most appropriate to follow 43 CFR
420.5(a)(7) whereby Reclamation's Regional Director may expressly
determine, as part of a land-use planning or implementation-level
decision, that E-bikes should be treated the same as non-motorized
bicycles. Additionally, E-bikes are currently allowed on many surfaced
roads and motorized paths per state and local level discretion.
Comment: As Reclamation will be allowing E-bikes on non-motorized
trails and trail systems, the addition of other ORVs should also be
permitted.
Response: This final rule addresses only Class 1, 2, and 3 E-bikes.
Reclamation will continue to manage all types of ORVs in accordance
with 43 CFR 420.21, Procedure for Designating Areas for Off-Road
Vehicle Use. No other types of ORVs will be eligible for exclusion
under this rule.
Comment: Reclamation may wish to exclude hoverboards and other
standing, electrical motorbikes, because these devices can also have
``pedals'' that do not engage the motor unless activated. Explicit
exclusion of hoverboards and other motorized instruments may be
required to avoid an issue.

[[Page 67296]]

Response: The intent of the rule is to generally allow E-bikes
where a traditional bicycle is allowed. E-bikes may have two or three
wheels and must have fully operable pedals. The electric motor for an
E-bike may not exceed 750 watts (one horsepower). E-bikes must fall
into one of three classes, as described in the rule. The definition
provided in the rule, including the requirement for fully operational
pedals, is sufficient to allow use of E-bikes and does not apply to
other electric vehicles such as scooters, skateboards, or hoverboards
if they do not fit into the definition established by this rule.
Comment: Definitions of Class 1, 2, and 3 E-bikes will need to be
reassessed and updated to reflect improvement in technologies as it
becomes available.
Response: Reclamation acknowledges that future changes in
technology may result in some E-bikes not being eligible for exclusion
from the definition of ORV as defined in 43 CFR part 420 if they do not
fit into the definition established by this rule. Regional Directors
may allow the use of certain ORVs on designated routes and trails
without any necessary revisions to the regulations as part of 43 CFR
420.21, Procedure for Designation Areas for Off-road Vehicle Use.
Comment: Previous grants that put monies into non-motorized trails,
will now have spent their money on trails that are no longer non-
motorized. E-bikes would also create issues with further Federal trail
funding.
Response: Reclamation recognizes that funding commitments for trail
planning, construction, and maintenance must be considered. The use of
funds from grants and other funding sources for past, present, and
future trail projects will be a contributing factor in making
management determinations. Title 43 CFR part 420 gives Regional
Directors authority in making management determinations.
Comment: The implementation of the proposed rule will negatively
impact natural resources and wildlife.
Response: Future implementation of the rule will be subject to the
NEPA process on a case-by-case basis depending on the approach at
Reclamation's Regional and Area Office levels. Applying the NEPA
process at a site-specific level will allow Reclamation to evaluate
detailed information on the potential effects of E-bike use for a
particular area and develop site-specific design features and
mitigation strategies, if needed. In addition, the rule continues to
allow the flexibility in accordance with 43 CFR 420.5(a)(7) whereby
Reclamation's Regional Directors may expressly determine, as part of a
land-use planning or implementation-level decision, that E-bikes should
be treated the same as non-motorized bicycles and to review designated
areas and trails periodically for unmitigated resource damage.
Comment: The use of E-bikes on non-motorized trails will create
user conflicts and safety concerns for hikers, traditional bikers, and
equestrians.
Response: Reclamation acknowledges concerns regarding potential
user conflicts and safety concerns on trails that have previously been
designated for non-motorized use such as hiking and equestrian trails.
As such, the rule allows the flexibility in accordance with 43 CFR
420.5(a)(7) whereby Reclamation's Regional Directors may expressly
determine, as part of a land-use planning or implementation-level
decision, that E-bikes should be treated the same as non-motorized
bicycles and will not create unmitigated user conflicts.
Comment: Based on the three categories of E-bikes as defined in the
rule, it will be impossible to enforce that E-bikes are not modified
beyond these specifications.
Response: Illegal modification of E-bikes is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking process. Reclamation acknowledges that enforcement of
modified vehicles is difficult. However, modifications that result in
such vehicles no longer qualifying as a Class 1, 2, or 3 E-bike as
defined in the rule, result in that vehicle being subject to the same
enforcement as designated in 43 CFR 420.4.
Comment: E-bikes have a motor and therefore should not be allowed
on non-motorized trails and roads.
Response: Reclamation recognizes the nuance within the comments
related to E-bikes having a motor, and therefore should not be allowed
on non-motorized trails and roads. In making its decision Reclamation
took into consideration the 1972 Executive Order 11644 and the amended
1977 Executive Order 11989, ``Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public
Lands'' which established policies and procedures for managing the use
of ``off-road vehicles'' to protect the resources of the public lands,
promote safety of all users of the lands, and minimize conflicts among
users. The Executive order, which does not reference E-bikes, defines
``off road vehicles'' as any motorized vehicle designed for or capable
of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow,
ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. Certain vehicles are
expressly exempt from this definition and additional exemptions may be
made by the respective agency head or as is 43 CFR part 420 by Regional
Directors.
In addition, although the E-bikes addressed in this rule have a
small electric motor, there are multiple reasons why it is reasonable
for Regional Directors to maintain the authority to manage Class 1, 2,
and 3 E-bikes in the same manner as non-motorized bicycles.
Class 1, 2, and 3 E-bikes that are the subject of this rule differ
significantly in their engineering from the types of motorized vehicles
that are expressly referenced in Executive Order 11644 and that the
executive branch was interested in regulating. These vehicles include
the ``motorcycles, minibikes, trail bikes, snowmobiles, dune-buggies,
[and] all-terrain vehicles'' expressly referenced in Executive Order
11644 and the ``motorcycles of various sorts (minibikes, dirt bikes,
enduros, motocross bikes, for example), four-wheel drive vehicles such
as Jeeps, Land Rovers, or pickups, snowmobiles, dune buggies, and all-
terrain vehicles'' discussed in a 1979 report by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) that discusses the requirements of the
Executive Order in great detail and evaluates efforts undertaken by
Federal land management agencies to comply with its requirements.
Although these lists were not intended to include every type of vehicle
that may fall within the Executive order's definition of off-road
vehicle, it is telling that all of the vehicles identified in Executive
Order 11644 and the CEQ report differ markedly from E-bikes that may be
excluded from the definition of ORV under this rule. Whereas the
vehicles referenced in the Executive order are powered by internal
combustion engines that produce more than 1 horsepower, the E-bikes
that may be allowed on non-motorized trails under this rule rely on
human power and only derive some assistance from a small, electric
motor. Whereas the E-bikes that are the subject of this rule have
operable pedals, the ORVs expressly referenced in the Executive order
do not.
As a result of those engineering differences, E-bikes tend to have
impacts that are similar to traditional, non-motorized bicycles and
unlike those that result from the larger, more powerful vehicles that
Executive Order 11644 was intended to mitigate.
Lastly, 43 CFR part 420 has always allowed for the inclusion of
ORVs where Regional Directors have authorized the use, this rule is not
authorizing the opening of all trails and roads to E-bikes. The
intended purpose is to meet public demand for E-bike use

[[Page 67297]]

and creating opportunities for furthering recreation through the use of
E-bikes where it is deemed appropriate.
Comment: Some commenters stated that E-bikes would be incompatible
on non-motorized trail networks that were constructed with grant
funding from the Recreational Trails Program and other Federal funding
sources. Some commenters stated that E-bike use might impact future
trail funding from Federal programs such as the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
Response: Class 1, 2, or 3 E-bike use may be inappropriate on
certain roads and trails that were constructed or are maintained using
funding sources which may prohibit or be inconsistent with motorized
use, such as the Recreational Trails Program and other Federal funding
sources authorized by Title 23, Chapter 2 of the United States Code.
Reclamation has designed the rule to provide Regional Directors with
the ability to consider whether E-bike use is consistent with potential
funding sources when determining which roads and trails to allow E-bike
use. Regional Directors will take these and other types of site-
specific consideration into account when making future planning or
implementation-level decisions concerning E-bike use.
Comment: The opening of trails to E-bikes on Government managed
lands will make it easier for people with physical impairments to enjoy
trails again.
Response: The intention of the Secretarial Order 3376, Increasing
Recreational Opportunities through the Use of Electric Bikes, was
written for this very reason. Reclamation understands that there are
members of the public that may be unable to utilize public trails and
roads by means of biking due to physical limitations and impairments.
It is important to note that while the purpose is to expand
recreational opportunities by allowing E-bikes on trails, 43 CFR part
420 will continue to authorize Regional Directors and their delegates
authority to open or close the use of E-bikes on certain trails. This
decision will remain at the local level and follow the framework of 43
CFR part 420.
Comment: The new rule provides much needed category guidelines for
public safety officers as well as a new degree of local level decision
making for E-bikes.
Response: The current category classes of E-bikes is a widely used
model across the United States. While Reclamation did not create the
classes, we do recognize the importance of maintaining a clear and
consistent message to aid not only public safety officers, but also the
general public. Additionally, due to the unique characteristics of each
recreation area, Reclamation also agrees that maintaining local level
decision making is vital in successfully implementing the Secretarial
Order. In accordance with 43 CFR 420.5(a)(7), Reclamation's Regional
Directors may expressly determine, as part of a land-use planning or
implementation-level decision, that E-bikes should be treated the same
as non-motorized bicycles.
Comment: Federal Laws concerning E-bike use on public lands are
currently outdated and are confusing for consumers, small businesses
and local governments. This proposed rule fixes that.
Response: Reclamation's final rule is not changing any existing
Federal Laws but rather aligning with other land management bureaus
within DOI and other Federal Agencies. The Secretarial Order has
intended to increase recreational opportunities through the use of E-
bikes by establishing uniform rules across DOI. Reclamation's authority
to use discretion when opening and closing areas to the use of E-bikes
will not be affected by the rule. In accordance with 43 CFR
420.5(a)(7), Reclamation's Regional Directors may expressly determine,
as part of a land-use planning or implementation-level decision, that
E-bikes should be treated the same as non-motorized bicycles.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

After taking the public comments into consideration and after
additional review, Reclamation has made the decision to not revise 43
CFR 420.21, but rather add language to 43 CFR 420.5(a)(7) to allow
Reclamation's Regional Directors to expressly determine, as part of a
land-use planning or implementation-level decision, that E-bikes should
be treated the same as non-motorized bicycles. Additionally,
Reclamation made small, non-substantive stylistic, formatting, and
structural changes to better serve the reader.

Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order
12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends. The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible,
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this
rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

DOI 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.).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
c. 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement
containing information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is
not required.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have

[[Page 67298]]

taking implications under Executive Order 12630. This rule is not a
Government action capable of interfering with constitutionally
protected property rights. A takings implication assessment is not
required.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. It does not have
a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the levels of government. A federalism
summary impact statement is not required.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.

Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175)

Under the criteria in Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated this
rule and determined that it has no potential effects on federally
recognized Indian tribes. This rule does not have tribal implications
that impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal
governments.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded from the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 analysis under DOI categorical exclusion, 43 CFR
46.210(i), which covers policies, directives, regulations, and
guidelines: That are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical,
or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad,
speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis
and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively, or
case-by-case. This rule would not change the existing allowances for E-
bike usage on Reclamation lands. Rather, it adds a new definition for
E-bikes and directs Reclamation to specifically address E-bike usage in
future recreation and land-use decisions. The categorical exclusion is
appropriate and applicable because the rule is for an administrative
change and the environmental effects of the rule in future land use and
implementation-level decisions to open or close lands are too
speculative to lend themselves to meaningful analysis in this
rulemaking. The environmental consequences of these decisions will be
subject to the NEPA process before a land use decision is made to
ensure the appropriate management of resources on a case-by-case basis.
Pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205(c), Reclamation has reviewed its reliance
upon this categorical exclusion against the list of extraordinary
circumstances, at 43 CFR 46.215, and has found that none are applicable
for this rule. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is required for this rulemaking.

Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition
in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not
required. This rule will not have a significant effect on the Nation's
energy supply, distribution, or use.

Drafting Information

This final rule reflects the collective efforts of Reclamation
staff in the Asset Management Division under the Dam Safety and
Infrastructure Directorate, and in coordination with staff of the
Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, as well as with assistance from DOI's Office of the
Solicitor.

References

A complete list of all resources reviewed and considered during the
development of this rulemaking is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. BOR-2020-0001.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 420

E-bikes, Recreation.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Reclamation is amending
part 420 of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 420--OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE

0
1. The authority citation for part 420 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 32 Stat. 388 (43 U.S.C. 391 et seq.) and acts
amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto; E.O. 11644 (37 FR
2877).

0
2. Amend Sec. 420.5 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (h)
to read as follows:

Sec. 420.5 Definitions.

* * * * *
(a) Off-road vehicle means any motorized vehicle (including
standard automobile) designed for or capable of cross-country travel on
or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or
natural terrain. The term includes:
(1) Nonamphibious registered motorboats;
(2) Military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicles when
used for emergency purpose;
(3) Self-propelled lawnmowers, snowblowers, garden or lawn
tractors, and golf carts while being used for their designed purpose;
(4) Agricultural, timbering, construction, exploratory, and
development equipment and vehicles while being used exclusively as
authorized by permit, lease, license, agreement, or contract with the
Bureau;
(5) Any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of
national defense emergencies;
(6) ``Official use'' vehicles; and
(7) Electric bikes as defined by paragraph (h) of this section:
While being used on roads and trails upon which mechanized, non-
motorized use is allowed, that are not being used in a manner where the
motor is being used exclusively to propel the E-bike for an extended
period of time, and where the Regional Director has expressly
determined, as part of a land-use planning or implementation-level
decision, that E-bikes should be treated the same as non-motorized
bicycles.
* * * * *
(h) Electric bicycle (also known as an E-bike) means a two- or
three-wheeled cycle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of
not more than 750 watts (1 horsepower) that meets the requirements of
one of the following three classes:
(1) Class 1 electric bicycle means an electric bicycle equipped
with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling,
and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the
speed of 20 miles per hour.
(2) Class 2 electric bicycle means an electric bicycle equipped
with a motor

[[Page 67299]]

that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not
capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of
20 miles per hour.
(3) Class 3 electric bicycle means an electric bicycle equipped
with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling,
and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the
speed of 28 miles per hour.

Timothy R. Petty,
Assistant Secretary--Water and Science.
[FR Doc. 2020-22108 Filed 10-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332-90-P