[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29288-29294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7775]



[[Page 29288]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

RIN 0596-AB93


Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines and 
Integration of Direction on Accessibility Into Forest Service Manual 
2330

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of final directive.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is issuing a final directive as an 
amendment to Forest Service Manual 2330, Publicly Managed Recreation 
Opportunities to ensure that new or reconstructed developed outdoor 
recreation areas on National Forest System lands are developed to 
maximize accessibility, while recognizing and protecting the unique 
characteristics of the natural setting. The amendment guides Forest 
Service employees regarding compliance with the Forest Service Outdoor 
Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG). The amendment directs 
that new or reconstructed outdoor developed recreation areas in the 
National Forest System, including campgrounds, picnic areas, beach 
access routes, and outdoor recreation access routes, comply with these 
agency guidelines and applicable Federal accessibility laws, 
regulations, and guidelines. The FSORAG is linked to and referenced in 
this amendment.
    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) is preparing to publish for public notice and comment 
proposed accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas that 
would apply to Federal agencies subject to the Architectural Barriers 
Act. When the Access Board finalizes its accessibility guidelines for 
outdoor developed areas, the Forest Service will revise the FSORAG to 
incorporate the Access Board's standards where those provisions are a 
higher standard, as supplemented by the Forest Service. The 
supplementation will ensure the agency's application of equivalent or 
higher guidelines and universal design, as well as consistent use of 
agency terminology and processes.

DATES: This final amendment is effective May 22, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The full text of the final amendment to FSM 2330 is 
available electronically on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives. The administrative record for this final amendment is 
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 the administrative record are 
encouraged to call Janet Zeller at (202) 205-9597 beforehand to 
facilitate access to the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Zeller, Recreation and Heritage 
Resources Staff, USDA Forest Service, (202) 205-9597.

1. Background

    Although the Forest Service is committed to ensuring accessibility 
of agency facilities and programs to serve all employees and visitors, 
as well as complying with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA) 
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, agency accessibility 
requirements for outdoor developed recreation areas have not been 
integrated into the Forest Service Directives System.
    The ABA requires facilities that are designed, constructed, 
altered, or leased by, for, or on behalf of a Federal agency to be 
accessible, as well as those funded in whole or in part by a Federal 
agency. To emphasize the need for accessibility guidelines for outdoor 
recreation areas, in 1993 the Forest Service developed Universal Access 
to Outdoor Recreation: A Design Guide. This guidebook blended 
accessibility into the recreation opportunity spectrum, ranging from 
urban areas in full compliance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility 
Standards, the ABA accessibility standards in place at that time, to 
primitive and wilderness areas.
    The Access Board is the federal agency responsible for issuing 
accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered facilities 
subject to the ABA. The Forest Service served on the Access Board's 
Regulatory Negotiation Committee on Outdoor Developed Areas (Reg Neg 
Committee). In 1999, the Reg Neg Committee completed draft 
accessibility guidelines for outdoor recreation facilities and trails. 
However, the Access Board was not able to complete the rulemaking 
process for the guidelines at that time.
    While awaiting completion of the rulemaking process for those 
guidelines, the Forest Service determined that it needed accessibility 
guidelines that would comply with the public notice and comment process 
for Forest Service directives pursuant to 36 CFR part 216. These 
guidelines, which are based on the Reg Neg Committee's draft 
guidelines, meet the agency's need to integrate accessibility into the 
development of outdoor recreation facilities and trails. The Forest 
Service's guidelines incorporate universal design and agency 
terminology and processes and in some respects establish higher 
accessibility standards than the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines. 
The Forest Service's guidelines are in two parts, the FSORAG and the 
Forest Service Trail Accessibility Guidelines (FSTAG), both of which 
are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility.
    The Forest Service is issuing an amendment to Forest Service Manual 
(FSM) 2330, ``Publicly Managed Recreation Opportunities,'' to require 
compliance with the FSORAG. The Forest Service published this policy 
for public notice and comment as a proposed amendment. Since this 
policy has been subjected to public notice and comment through 
publication in the Federal Register, the agency has decided to issue 
the final policy as an amendment to the FSM.
    The FSORAG will apply to newly constructed or altered camping 
facilities, picnic areas, beach access routes, outdoor recreation 
access routes, and other constructed features, including benches, 
trash, recycling, and other essential containers, viewing areas at 
overlooks, telescopes and periscopes, mobility device storage, pit 
toilets, warming huts, and outdoor rinsing showers in the National 
Forest System. The FSORAG is linked to and referenced in this 
amendment.
    The FSORAG maximizes the accessibility of outdoor developed 
recreation areas for all people, while recognizing and protecting the 
unique characteristics of the natural setting of each outdoor developed 
recreation area within the National Forest System. The FSORAG 
integrates the Forest Service policy of universal design to ensure the 
development of programs and facilities to serve all people, to the 
greatest extent possible. Universal design requires that all new or 
reconstructed facilities and associated constructed features, rather 
than only a certain percentage of those facilities, be accessible to 
all people. Universal design provides for the integration of all people 
in outdoor developed recreation areas, without separate or segregated 
access for people with disabilities. In addition, the final amendment 
clarifies internal agency procedures and policies related to the 
accessibility of outdoor developed recreation areas, including 
compliance with the FSORAG.

[[Page 29289]]

    Like the proposed accessibility guidelines developed by the Reg Neg 
Committee, the FSORAG establishes only one level of accessibility for 
all outdoor developed recreation areas and provides for application of 
conditions for departure and exceptions when necessary to preserve the 
uniqueness of each recreation area and when application of the FSORAG 
would cause a change in an area's setting. Compliance with the FSORAG 
will not always result in facilities that are accessible to all persons 
with disabilities because at some locations the natural environment 
might prevent application of some of the FSORAG's technical provisions.
    The Access Board plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) seeking public comment on proposed accessibility guidelines for 
outdoor developed areas. The NPRM will contain the Reg Neg Committee's 
draft guidelines and will apply to Federal agencies subject to the ABA. 
The Forest Service will work with the Access Board and the other 
federal land management agencies as the Access Board develops final 
accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed areas. When the Access 
Board finalizes its accessibility guidelines for outdoor developed 
areas, the Forest Service will revise the FSORAG to incorporate the 
Access Board's standards, as supplemented by the Forest Service. The 
supplementation will ensure the agency's application of equivalent or 
higher guidelines and universal design, as well as consistent use of 
agency terminology and processes.
    In a related notice published elsewhere in this part of today's 
Federal Register, the agency is publishing notice of a final directive 
to require compliance with the FSTAG, which will apply to trails that 
are designed for hiker/pedestrian use. The FSORAG and the FSTAG are 
both available electronically on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility.
    Copies also may be obtained by writing to USDA, Forest Service, 
Attn: Accessibility Program Manager, Recreation and Heritage Resources 
Staff, Stop 1125, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-
0003.

2. Public Comments on the Proposed Interim Directive

    On February 17, 2005, the Forest Service published the proposed 
interim directive in the Federal Register (70 FR 8060) for public 
notice and comment. The proposed interim directive was also posted 
electronically on the World Wide Web on the Federal Register site at 
http://www.fs.fed.us/programs/recreation/accessibility. The Forest 
Service received 37 letters or electronic messages in response to the 
proposed interim directive. Each respondent was grouped in one of the 
following categories:

Business: 1
Federal Agencies: 6
Federal Agency Employees: 25
Individuals (unaffiliated or unidentifiable): 5

    Most respondents supported the FSORAG. A few respondents were not 
supportive. One respondent opposed access by people with disabilities 
on Federally managed lands. Another respondent opposed any improved 
access and was concerned that improved access would lead to more 
hunting. Many respondents commented on specific sections of the FSORAG. 
The agency appreciates the spelling, pagination, and other similar 
nonsubstantive comments and has incorporated them into the FSORAG 
posted on the Forest Service's accessibility Web page at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility.

General Comments

    Many respondents appreciated that application of the FSORAG would 
result in the natural setting being maintained. All respondents who 
commented on format supported addressing outdoor developed recreation 
areas in a separate document from trails, as well as integration of the 
scoping and technical provisions in each document. Several respondents 
also expressed appreciation for revisions in the order of the technical 
provisions in the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines.
    Comment. Most respondents supported the Forest Service's policy of 
universal design. However, several respondents expressed concern that 
under this policy, developed recreation areas would be forced into a 
higher level of development or would all look alike, resulting in a 
change to their setting.
    Response. The Forest Service policy on universal design is defined 
in FSM 2330.5 as ``the design of programs and facilities to be usable 
by all people, to the greatest extent possible, while maintaining the 
natural setting, providing access to programs and facilities for all, 
without separate or segregated access for people with disabilities. New 
or reconstructed buildings, developed recreation sites, associated 
constructed features and alterations are to comply with the 
accessibility guidelines.'' Therefore, all constructed features are 
required to be accessible, rather than only a certain percentage of 
those facilities, with few exceptions.
    In the Forest Service's accessibility guidelines, the policy of 
universal design is applied by starting with the assumption that all 
areas and constructed features will be accessible to the extent 
provided in the guidelines. In contrast to application of universal 
design to picnic tables and toilet structures, which occupy a small 
area, application of universal design to camping units and their 
connecting routes (called ``outdoor recreation access routes'' or 
``ORARs) raises a potential concern of over-development. However, under 
the FSORAG, the uniqueness of the site is preserved because departure 
from the guidelines is permitted when certain conditions exist at a 
site. Therefore, not all camping units and ORARs may have to meet the 
guidelines. The intent of universal design is met by maximizing 
accessibility while maintaining the character and experience of the 
setting, given the natural constraints of a site and its level of 
development.
    Page 16 of the Forest Service's Built Environment Image Guide 
states: ``Under the ABA and other mandates, universal design requires 
complete integration of accessibility within our facilities. As with 
sustainable design elements, universal design principles applied to the 
site or facility from the outset seldom, if ever, have any obvious 
effect on the architectural character. When skillfully executed, 
universally designed facilities fit seamlessly within the natural and 
social environments.''
    Comment. One respondent expressed confusion concerning turning 
radius, clear floor or ground space, and other technical aspects of the 
guidelines.
    Response. Graphics will be included in the final FSORAG and in the 
Forest Service Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor Recreation and 
Trails, which will be available by the spring of 2006 at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility. This guidebook will 
provide a clear explanation of the accessibility guidelines, with 
examples of best practices and illustrative photographs, graphics, and 
design tips.
    Comment. One respondent requested that technical provisions for 
parking lots be included in the FSORAG.
    Response. The FSORAG covers only the developed recreation elements 
that are not addressed in other accessibility guidelines. Parking lots 
are already addressed in the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility 
Standards (ABAAS).
    Comment. One respondent requested that the text of all ABAAS 
provisions cited in the technical provisions of the

[[Page 29290]]

FSORAG be integrated into the FSORAG, rather than appearing in an 
appendix.
    Response. The Forest Service has decided not to accept this 
recommendation because many ABAAS provisions are cited repeatedly in 
the FSORAG. For example, the reference to controls (ABAAS 308 and 309) 
are referenced ten times in the FSORAG and appear multiple times on the 
same page in several instances. If these provisions were included each 
time they were cited, the FSORAG would become unwieldy, as well as 
difficult to follow. Once a designer has consulted the same ABAAS 
citation several times in the FSORAG appendix, the designer should 
become familiar with the ABAAS requirement and not have to reference 
the appendix as frequently.
    Comment. One respondent believed that the FSORAG is not needed 
because there are enough laws and guidelines dealing with 
accessibility, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADAAG, and the new ABAAS.
    Response. The FSORAG is needed because no other accessibility 
guidelines that address outdoor developed recreation areas have 
completed the rulemaking process.

Comments on Specific Sections of the FSORAG

    Section 1.1 Conditions for Departure. This section contains the 
conditions that would permit departure from a technical provision.
    Comment. All but one respondent who commented on the phrase ``or 
would not be consistent with the applicable forest land and resource 
management plan'' in the second condition for departure were 
supportive.
    Response. The National Forest Management Act requires each national 
forest and national grassland to develop a land management plan. These 
plans are developed through extensive public participation and 
generally are in effect for 10 to 15 years. These plans guide forest 
management, and the Forest Service is prohibited from authorizing 
actions that are inconsistent with the plans. The language regarding 
consistency with the plan was included in the second condition for 
departure because of this legal constraint.
    Comment. One respondent requested a definition of the character, 
setting, and experience of a recreation site. This respondent also 
requested a quantifiable, formula-based method to determine whether 
compliance with the guidelines would result in a substantial change to 
these characteristics.
    Response. The Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity 
Spectrum (ROS) to characterize a recreation site. The ROS was developed 
to identify more clearly the relationships among a site's physical 
characteristics and the recreation activities and experience that the 
public expects at the site. More information about the ROS is available 
at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/data/pdfdocs/rosguide.pdf.
    Determination of a substantial change to the characteristics of a 
site from compliance with the FSORAG cannot be standardized or 
quantified because the determination will vary greatly depending on the 
specific circumstances and because recreational experience is 
perception-based. ``Managing for recreation requires different kinds of 
data and management concepts than does most other activities. While 
recreation must have a physical base of land or water, the product--
recreation experience--is a personal or social phenomenon. Although the 
management is resource based, the actual recreational activities are a 
result of people, their perceptions, wants, and behavior'' (Final 
Report of the Committee of Scientists for Implementation of Section 6 
of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, February 22, 1979, 44 FR 
26628, May 4, 1979). Since people's expectations differ depending on 
the setting, it is impossible to quantify change, for example, by 
saying that removing a certain number of trees per acre constitutes 
substantial change.
    The ROS assists landscape architects and recreation managers in 
evaluating all the factors that affect recreational experiences, 
including changes to the setting. For example, far more change can 
occur at a developed site before the effect would be substantial than 
at a site that has never been developed. Similarly, the surface at a 
site that has been worn down from heavy use may need to be hardened to 
accommodate the public's desire to recreate there and to protect the 
surrounding environment, and a significant amount of change may occur 
without substantially affecting the setting. However, at a site with a 
worn-down surface that is located in an environmentally sensitive area, 
the threshold of substantial change may be lower, and different 
measures may need to be taken, such as precluding public use of parts 
of the site or site rehabilitation instead of hardening. Any design 
solution needs to consider the full range of managerial and 
environmental needs.
    Comment. One respondent requested a definition for ``significant 
natural feature.''
    Response. A significant natural feature generally has some special 
meaning and is held in some esteem in its locale. That meaning may be 
based on its uniqueness, rarity, beauty, historical significance, or 
other factors. The FSORAG includes a discussion of significant natural 
features. A significant natural feature may include a large rock, 
outcrop, tree, or body of water that would block or interfere with or 
would directly or indirectly be altered or destroyed by construction of 
the outdoor recreation facility or element at that point. Significant 
natural features also could include areas protected under Federal or 
State laws, such as areas with threatened or endangered species or 
wetlands that could be threatened or destroyed by full compliance with 
the technical provisions in the FSORAG or areas where compliance would, 
directly or indirectly, substantially harm natural habitat or 
vegetation.
    Significant cultural features include areas such as archaeological 
sites, sacred lands, burial grounds and cemeteries, and tribal 
protected sites. Significant historical features include properties 
listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 
Places and other places of recognized historic value. Significant 
religious features include tribal sacred sites and other properties 
held sacred by an organized religion.
    Comment. One respondent requested a definition for ``significant 
harm.''
    Response. The FSORAG and the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines 
utilize the term ``substantial harm,'' not ``significant harm.'' The 
term ``substantial harm'' is used in the guidelines in conjunction with 
the term ``significant feature'' in the first condition for departing 
from the technical provisions. Therefore, this measure of the substance 
of the change and the harm that change would cause is not to be taken 
lightly. In this context, to cause ``substantial harm,'' the proposed 
change would have to have a considerable negative effect on the feature 
that has been identified as ``significant'' in that locale.
    Comment. A number of respondents requested that ``infeasible'' be 
replaced with ``impractical'' in the fourth condition for departure.
    Response. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 
4th edition (2000), cites ``impractical'' as the definition for 
``infeasible.'' Since the words are interchangeable and ``impractical'' 
is used more commonly, the Forest Service has changed ``would not be 
feasible'' to ``would be impractical'' in the section-by-section

[[Page 29291]]

analysis for the fourth condition for departure and in the fourth 
condition for departure.
    Section 1.2 Definitions. This section includes definitions of terms 
used in the FSORAG, including terminology used by the Forest Service.
Camp Living Area and Parking Spur
    Comment. All respondents who commented on the terminology used to 
designate specific areas within a camping unit supported the use of 
that terminology.
    Response. For clarity, the FSORAG distinguishes between a camp 
living area and a parking spur. A parking spur is divided into a 
vehicle parking area and a driveway, each of which has its own 
technical provisions. This differentiation allows the designer to 
integrate a parking spur into the terrain. In many cases, designers 
need the flexibility to work with each component separately to 
accommodate a camp living area near a parking spur in a way that 
respects the lay of the land. In some cases, the camp living space may 
not be located immediately next to the parking spur because the terrain 
will not permit it.
Developed Recreation Site and General Forest Area
    Comment. All respondents who commented on the distinction between a 
developed recreation site and a general forest area were supportive.
    Response. The Forest Service distinguishes in its management 
between developed recreation sites and general forest areas. The Forest 
Service's Infrastructure database defines a developed site as ``a 
discrete place containing a concentration of facilities and services 
used to provide recreation opportunities to the public and evidencing a 
significant investment in facilities and management under the direction 
of an administrative unit in the National Forest System.'' Developed 
recreation sites provide visitor convenience and comfort while 
protecting natural resources. Most of the agency's recreational 
improvements are located at developed recreation sites.
    The Forest Service defines general forest areas as ``all lands 
available for recreation use and outside of Wilderness, developed 
sites, trails and administrative sites. Amenities or constructed 
features inside general forest areas are primarily for resource 
protection rather than for visitor comfort.'' While some constructed 
features (such as picnic tables, fire rings, and toilet buildings) may 
be provided in general forest areas, these constructed features are 
usually for resource protection rather than visitor convenience. Any 
constructed features in general forest areas must be designed 
appropriately for the setting and must comply with the FSORAG's 
accessibility requirements.
    It is important to the recreating public that not all National 
Forest System lands be developed to the same extent, level, or 
intensity.
    The FSORAG requires that any constructed feature (such as a picnic 
table, fire ring, or bench) in a general forest area meet the 
applicable technical provisions. However, a connection to an ORAR is 
not required in general forest areas to ensure that these areas are not 
developed beyond what is desirable from managers' and visitors' 
perspectives. As a result, accessibility is maximized within the 
constraints of the outdoor environment, without requiring a fundamental 
change in the nature of the program.
    Section 2.0 Outdoor Recreation Access Routes (ORARs). This section 
of the FSORAG includes the technical specifications for the pathways 
that connect constructed features in a picnic or camping area or at a 
trailhead.
    Comment. All respondents who commented on this provision supported 
the exception for slope, which is permitted for alterations only, not 
new construction. One respondent recommended that the same exception 
for slope permitted in alteration of ORARs should also be permitted in 
alteration of beach access routes.
    Response. Due to the terrain where a campground or picnic area was 
constructed, it may not be possible to meet the running slope 
requirements of an ORAR during alteration of the site without 
substantially changing the natural setting. Therefore, exceptions to 
slope requirements for alteration of ORARs are necessary.
    The FSORAG permits exceptions to slope requirements only when an 
area is being reconstructed or altered. These exceptions are not 
permitted in new construction because selection of the most appropriate 
site is part of the new construction process.
    While a campground may have been constructed some years ago at a 
location that would not now be considered appropriate because of its 
terrain, the location of a beach is generally determined by the best 
location for accessing the water. Therefore, exceptions to slope 
requirements for alteration of beach access routes are not appropriate.
    Comment. All except one respondent who commented on the provision 
exempting general forest areas from the requirement for ORARs supported 
the exception.
    Response. The FSORAG states that ORARs are not required in general 
forest areas. In general forest areas, a path connecting associated 
constructed facilities, as well as a path connecting them to a trail, 
must comply with the technical provisions for a trail enumerated in 
section 7.0 of the FSTAG. These paths are not ORARs and are not 
required to meet the technical provisions for ORARs in the FSORAG. 
ORARs are not required in general forest areas because the resulting 
additional construction and site modification would substantially alter 
the nature of the setting.
    While some constructed features (such as picnic tables, fire rings, 
and toilet buildings) may be provided in general forest areas, these 
constructed features are usually for resource protection rather than 
visitor convenience. Any constructed features in general forest areas 
must be designed appropriately for the setting and must comply with the 
FSORAG so that the facilities can be used by persons with a disability.
    Comment. Two respondents believed that handrails on ORARs are not 
appropriate in a recreation setting.
    Response. The agency agrees. References to handrails on ORARs have 
been deleted from the FSORAG, just as handrails on ORARs are not 
included in the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines.
    Comment. One respondent believed that because all picnic tables in 
a picnic area must be accessible, each picnic table would have to be 
located along an ORAR, which would result in numerous pathways through 
picnic areas. One respondent believed that the Reg Neg Committee's 
draft guidelines would require fewer picnic tables to be located along 
an ORAR than the FSORAG.
    Response. The FSORAG does not require all picnic tables to be 
located along an ORAR. Rather, the FSORAG requires that 20 percent of 
all picnic tables at a site be located along an ORAR. This requirement 
yields the same density of picnic tables located along ORARs as the Reg 
Neg Committee's draft guidelines. The Reg Neg Committee's draft 
guidelines require that 50 percent of all picnic tables at a site, but 
no fewer than two, be accessible, and that 40 percent of these 
accessible picnic tables be located along an ORAR. The FSORAG 
requirement of 20 percent of 100 percent of the picnic tables at a site 
equates to the requirement in the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines 
of 40 percent of 50 percent of the picnic

[[Page 29292]]

tables at a site. For example, under the FSORAG, if a site has 8 picnic 
tables, 8 x .20 or 1.6 (rounded up to 2) of them must be located along 
an ORAR. Under the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines, if a site has 
8 picnic tables, 8 x .50 or 4 must be accessible, and 4 x .40 or 1.6 
(rounded up to 2) of those 4 must be located along an ORAR.
    Section 2.7 Protruding Objects. This section includes the 
requirements for clear headroom on a trail.
    Comment. All respondents who commented on protruding objects 
supported the exception to the requirement for clear headroom or a 
warning barrier.
    Response. The FSORAG provides an exception to the requirement for 
80 inches of clear headroom if a warning barrier is installed. However, 
on a narrow pathway through a cave or through certain types of trees, 
such as the walkway through the historic cherry trees around the Tidal 
Basin in Washington, DC, conditions may make it impossible to place a 
warning barrier and permit passage. In those types of situations, the 
FSORAG permits an exception to the requirement for 80 inches of clear 
headroom and installation of a warning barrier. This exception must be 
retained to address unusual situations in the natural environment.
    Section 3.0 Beach Access Routes. This section includes technical 
specifications for pedestrian routes that access beaches.
    No comments were received on this section.
    Section 4.0 Constructed Features for Developed Picnic Areas. This 
section includes technical specifications for picnic units in developed 
recreation areas.
    No comments were received on this section.
    Section 5.1 Parking Spurs. This section includes technical 
specifications for parking spurs in camping units.
    Comment. All respondents who commented on the distinction between a 
camping unit and a parking spur and the further breakdown of a parking 
spur into parking and driveway areas were supportive of those 
distinctions.
    Response. The FSORAG identifies two typical components of a camping 
unit: (1) A camp living area and (2) a parking spur. A parking spur is 
further divided into a vehicle parking area and a driveway. These 
distinct components are identified to facilitate application of the 
scoping requirements and to integrate parking spurs into camping units 
in an environmentally sensitive manner that maximizes accessibility.
    Comment. Many respondents agreed that the width of an accessible 
parking spur may have an impact on the natural setting.
    Response. The FSORAG requires the same number of 20-foot-wide 
parking areas for recreational vehicles that are required under the Reg 
Neg Committee's draft guidelines. The rest of the parking spurs in a 
campground must be 16 feet wide, where that width would not 
substantially change the nature of the setting. If that width is not 
feasible because of the presence of a condition for departure, the 
width may be reduced to13 feet. If the 13-foot width would not be 
possible without substantially changing the nature of the setting, the 
parking spur is exempt from the technical provisions.
    This technical provision provides the flexibility to design 
accessible parking spurs, while taking into account varying terrain. 
This flexibility in design results in facilities that are not only 
universally usable, but also respectful of the natural environment, 
which is a primary reason people recreate outdoors.
    Unlike the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines, the FSORAG 
includes technical provisions for parking spur driveways. Because 
parking spur driveways are not required to be as wide as parking spurs 
at the end of the driveways that are adjacent to the living area, 
parking spur driveways have less visual impact on the natural setting 
than parking spurs. The FSORAG takes this difference into account, thus 
maximizing accessibility while ensuring the best environmental fit on 
the ground.
    Comment. Several respondents thought the parking chart in Figure 
5.1 of the February 2005 draft of the FSORAG was confusing.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees. That chart has been removed 
from the FSORAG. The only parking chart that appears in the current 
version of the FSORAG addresses the minimum number of 20-foot-wide 
parking spurs for recreational vehicles that is required. The FSORAG 
requires the same percentage of 20-foot-wide parking spurs for 
recreational vehicles as the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines.
    Section 5.2 Tent pads and platforms. This section includes the 
technical specifications for tent pads and platforms.
    Comment. All respondents who commented on this provision supported 
the flexibility in the FSORAG to determine whether edge protection 
should be required.
    Response. The FSORAG states that edge protection, where provided, 
is to be at least 3 inches high, whereas the Reg Neg Committee's draft 
guidelines require that all tent platforms have 3-inch edge protection. 
The FSORAG allows the designer to determine where edge protection 
should be provided for safety and where edge protection is not needed 
due to the design or location of a tent platform or absence of a drop-
off that would preclude access. Thus, the FSORAG requires edge 
protection only where it is necessary.
    Comment. All respondents who commented on the tent pad and platform 
provisions supported them as they appear in the FSORAG.
    Response. The FSORAG requires that at least 20 percent of the tent 
pads or platforms provided at a developed recreation site meet the 
FSORAG's technical provisions and be connected to an ORAR. The FSORAG 
requires 5 percent of the tent pads or platforms in a general forest 
area to meet the technical provisions, but does not require connection 
to an ORAR in a general forest area. This difference in scoping and the 
requirement for connection to an ORAR reflects the differences between 
developed recreation sites and general forest areas. The agency agrees 
with the respondent who stated that this distinction gives the designer 
a realistic and reasonable ability to comply with accessibility 
requirements. Where an area's natural terrain permits, 100 percent of 
the tent pads or platforms may be accessible and connected to an ORAR.
    Section 5.3 Fire Rings. This section includes the technical 
specifications for fire rings.
    Comment. All except one respondent who commented on this section 
supported the exception in general forest areas to the requirement for 
the height of the fire-building surface. The dissenting respondent 
suggested that rock circles in general forest areas be piled higher and 
that soil be added inside the rocks to achieve the height required for 
the fire-building surface at developed recreation sites.
    Response. To permit the use of a circle of rocks or other low-
profile campfires in remote or wilderness settings, the FSORAG provides 
an exception in general forest areas to the height of the fire-building 
surface if one or more conditions for departure exist. Without this 
exception, the fire-building surface in a fire ring would have to be at 
least 9 inches above the ground, which could have a substantial 
negative impact in a wilderness setting. The Forest Service is not 
accepting the suggestion to provide for rock circles in general forest 
areas to be piled higher and for soil to be added inside the rocks to 
achieve a 9-inch height for the fire-

[[Page 29293]]

building surface because the agency is concerned about the safety of 
such a structure.
    Comment. Several respondents expressed concern that the design for 
accessible fire rings is unsightly and therefore unpopular.
    Response. The primary accessibility requirement for fire rings is 
that the fire-building surface be at least 9 inches above the ground. 
This requirement does not preclude fire ring designs that are 
innovative, attractive, and appropriate in developed recreation 
settings. Fifteen years ago, the most common fire ring design that 
supposedly was accessible looked like a barrel. Today the most common 
accessible fire ring design is not unattractive. Designers can be 
creative and check other sources for appropriate designs that fit the 
developed recreation setting and that are accessible.
    Section 5.4 Wood Stoves and Fireplaces. This section includes 
technical specifications for wood stoves and fireplaces at developed 
recreation sites.
    No comments were received on this section.
    Section 5.5 Utilities. This section includes technical 
specifications for utilities at developed recreation sites.
    No comments were received on this section.
    Section 5.6 Utility Sinks. This section includes technical 
specifications for utility sinks at developed recreation sites.
    No comments were received on this section.
    Section 6.1 Benches. This section includes technical specifications 
for benches at developed recreation sites.
    No comments were received on this section.
    Section 6.2 Trash and Recycling Containers. This section includes 
technical specifications for trash and recycling containers.
    Comment. One respondent recommended that bear-proof storage 
containers be addressed in the FSORAG because none with accessible 
controls are readily available.
    Response. The Forest Service agrees. The phrase, ``other essential 
containers'' has been added to the heading and text of section 6.2. 
``Other essential containers'' includes trash, recycling, food storage, 
and other animal-resistant containers.
    Section 6.3 Viewing Areas at Overlooks. This section includes 
technical specifications for viewing areas at overlooks.
    No comments were received on this section.
    Section 6.4 Telescopes and Periscopes. This section includes 
technical specifications for telescopes and periscopes.
    Comment. All respondents who commented on this section supported 
the provision that does not appear in the Reg Neg Committee's draft 
guidelines for telescopes and periscopes.
    Response. Unlike the Reg Neg Committee's draft guidelines, the 
FSORAG requires maneuvering space at each accessible telescope and 
periscope. Maneuvering space is needed to ensure that telescopes and 
periscopes are accessible to a person who uses a wheelchair.
    Section 6.5 Mobility Device Storage. This section includes 
technical specifications for storage facilities for mobility devices at 
developed recreation sites.
    No comments were received on this section.
    Section 6.6 Pit Toilets. This section includes technical 
specifications for pit toilets.
    Comment. All except one respondent who commented on this section 
supported the specifications in the FSORAG, including the exception to 
the requirement for a level entrance into a pit toilet. One respondent 
believed that there should never be an exception to the requirement for 
a level entrance to a pit toilet, regardless of the difficulties 
presented by the structure or location of a pit toilet's waste disposal 
system.
    Response. The FSORAG requires that the clear floor or ground space 
adjacent to a pit toilet comply with ABAAS requirements for toilets. 
The FSORAG clarifies that pit toilets are permitted only in general 
forest areas and that privacy screens rather than walls are commonly 
used for pit toilets in remote areas. To address safety concerns, the 
agency clarified the FSORAG to provide that grab bars are to be 
installed only on walls that will withstand 250 pounds of force, in 
accordance with ABAAS. In addition, the FSORAG now specifies the 
orientation of the riser inside the pit toilet structure to maximize 
accessibility of the toilet's interior. These additions will ensure 
that pit toilets are designed and installed to be accessible for people 
with disabilities.
    The FSORAG permits exceptions to the requirement for a level 
entrance into a pit toilet. Providing for exceptions is necessary 
because some pit toilet floors have to be located above the ground due 
to operation and maintenance requirements of the toilet's waste 
disposal system. Where the entrance cannot be located at ground level, 
a trail or ramp, if feasible, must be provided from the ground to the 
entrance. Where a trail or ramp is not feasible and no other 
alternative is possible because of the presence of one or more 
conditions for departure, transfer steps meeting specifications similar 
to those for play areas in Chapter 10 of ABAAS may be provided. These 
exceptions allow trail planners and facility designers to work with an 
area's topography and other physical characteristics, rather than 
forcing planners and designers to alter the natural setting 
unreasonably.
    Section 6.7 Warming Huts. This section includes technical 
specifications for warming huts at developed recreation sites.
    No comments were received on this section.
    Section 6.8 Outdoor Rinsing Showers. This section includes 
technical specifications for outdoor rinsing showers at developed 
recreation sites.
    No comments were received on this section.

3. Regulatory Certifications

Environmental Impact

    Section 31.12, paragraph 2, of Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 
1909.15 (67 FR 54622, August 23, 2002) excludes from documentation in 
an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement ``rules, 
regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative 
procedures, program processes, or instructions.'' The agency concludes 
that this amendment falls within this category of actions and that no 
extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Regulatory Impact

    This amendment has been reviewed under USDA procedures and 
Executive Order 12866 on regulatory planning and review. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that the amendment is 
significant because of its relationship to the accessibility guidelines 
to be established by the Access Board. Accordingly, this amendment has 
been reviewed by OMB pursuant to Executive Order 12866. A cost and 
benefits analysis of this action was developed and is available at 
http://www.fs.fed.us/programs/recreation/accessibility. The remaining 
portions of the proposed amendment, which addressed other aspects of 
the agency's accessibility program not related to the accessibility 
guidelines, were not deemed significant by OMB and were issued as a 
final interim directive on July 13, 2005.
    Moreover, this amendment has been considered in light of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et seq.). It

[[Page 29294]]

has been determined that this amendment will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by 
the act because the amendment will not impose record-keeping 
requirements on them; it will not affect their competitive position in 
relation to large entities; and it will not affect their cash flow, 
liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. The amendment will 
establish accessibility guidelines that will apply internally to the 
Forest Service and that will have no direct effect on small businesses. 
No small businesses have been awarded contracts for construction or 
reconstruction of recreation facilities covered by these accessibility 
guidelines.

No Takings Implications

    This amendment has been analyzed in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630. It has been determined 
that this amendment does not pose the risk of a taking of private 
property.

Civil Justice Reform

    This amendment has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988 on 
civil justice reform. After adoption of this amendment, (1) All State 
and local laws and regulations that conflict with this amendment or 
that impede its full implementation will be preempted; (2) no 
retroactive effect will be given to this amendment; and (3) it will not 
require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in 
court challenging its provisions.

Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 
1995, the agency has assessed the effects of this amendment on State, 
local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This amendment 
will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, 
local, or Tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, 
a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.

Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The agency has considered this amendment under the requirements of 
Executive Order 13132 on federalism and has determined that the 
amendment conforms with the federalism principles set out in this 
Executive Order; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; 
and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the 
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, the agency has determined that no further 
assessment of federalism implications is necessary.
    Moreover, this amendment does not have Tribal implications as 
defined by Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments,'' and therefore advance consultation with 
Tribes is not required.

Energy Effects

    This amendment has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211 of May 
18, 2001, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' It has been determined that this 
amendment does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in 
the Executive Order.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This amendment does not contain any record-keeping or reporting 
requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 
5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already 
approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing 
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

    Dated: April 10, 2006
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief, Forest Service.
[FR Doc. E6-7775 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P