ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION – NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW
Submitted on-line at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/16/2024-31578/powered- micromobility-devices#open-comment
March 17, 2025
Jay Calhoun
National Park Service
Division of Regulations, Jurisdiction and Special Park Uses
MS-2472 1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Subject: NPS Proposed Rule on Powered Micromobility Devices, (RIN) 1024-AE79
Dear Mr. Calhoun:
I am writing on behalf of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Coalition), which represents over 3,750 current, former, and retired employees and volunteers of the National Park Service (NPS).
Collectively, our membership represents over 50,000 years of national park management and stewardship experience. Our members include former NPS directors, deputy directors, regional directors, and park superintendents, as well as a variety of program specialists and field staff. Recognized as the Voices of Experience, the Coalition educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation and protection of the National Park System, and mission-related NPS programs.
We offer the following comments for your consideration regarding the Proposed Rule on Powered Micromobility Devices, (RIN) 1024-AE79, that is described at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/16/2024-31578/powered-micromobility-devices#:~:text=The%20proposed%20rule%20would%20define,of%20the%20National%20Park%20System
OVERVIEW
This overview provides legal and policy context for our comments that follow. Visitor use of parks is subject to the constraints of the NPS “conversation mandate” that was established under the NPS Organic Act of 1916 (54 USC § 100101(a)) and subsequent amendments. In essence, the Organic Act prioritized “conservation” over “visitor enjoyment” when it stated, in part:
[The National Park Service] shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments,and reservations hereinafter specified… by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (Emphasis added)
The 1978 “Redwood amendment” applied the conservation mandate to the authorization of activities, including visitor uses, allowed in parks when it stated, in part:
The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress. (Emphasis added)
The prioritization of conservation over visitor use is further explained and reinforced in NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 1.4.3, which states, in part:
Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant. This is how courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act. (Emphasis added)
We have reviewed the proposed rule from the perspective of the NPS conservation mandate and have several significant concerns about the proposed rule, which we describe below.
GENERAL COMMENTS
First, we appreciate the need for NPS to regulate the use of powered micromobility devices (PMDs) in urban or suburban park settings where PMDs are commonly used by commuters in and around parks. There are undoubtedly potential user conflicts and safety concerns related to PMD users operating their devices in the same, often congested spaces as pedestrians and bicycles. The use of PMDs on roads, parking areas, and paved or gravel sidewalks in or near “developed areas”1A “developed area” is “an area managed to provide and maintain facilities (e.g. roads, campgrounds, housing) serving park managers and visitors. Includes areas where park development or intensive use may have substantially altered the natural environment or the setting for culturally significant resources.” Denver Service Center: https://www.nps.gov/dscw/definitionsdc_d.htm in non-urban parks may also be appropriate as long as NPS can effectively manage potential user conflicts and safety concerns. In general, we are comfortable with the provision in §4.32(a) that would allow superintendents to designate park roads, parking areas, administrative roads, and paved and gravel sidewalks and paths for PMD use pursuant to §§ 1.5 and 1.7 of 36 CFR Part 1.
In contrast, we are very concerned about a separate provision in §4.32(a) that would allow superintendents to designate “natural surface” trails for PMD use subsequent to rulemaking. Our concern is that this provision is so generally worded and without regard to trail location that it creates the distinct possibility that PMD use could be authorized on “natural surface” trails in “backcountry”2“Backcountry” is “primitive, undeveloped portions of parks, some of which may be managed as wilderness.” Glossary, NPS Mgmt Policies 2006: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1548/upload/ManagementPolicies2006.pdf areas, including in areas that NPS has identified as “potential wilderness.” As described in NPS Management Policies 2006 Section 6.3.1, “potential wilderness’ is aninclusive term that encompasses not only designated wilderness but also eligible, proposed, and recommended wilderness and wilderness study areas.
Introducing PMD use onto backcountry trails and trails within potential wilderness is ripe with the potential for conflicts between conservation of park resources and visitor use. Potentially affected resources include soils, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat,wilderness characteristics, natural soundscapes, and/ or cultural or historic resources. In our view, authorizing PMD use in backcountry areas where PMDs use is not currently allowed would clearly be in conflict with the NPS conservation mandate; yet the proposed rule would create the mechanism for superintendents to authorize such use. For this reason, we strongly oppose the natural surface trail rulemaking provision in the proposed rule unless it is significantly reworded so that it is limited to natural surface trails within or near developed areas of parks where motorized transport devices such as PMDs may be appropriate.
A related concern is that the proposed rule does not specifically preclude designating natural surface trails for PMD use in areas that NPS has identified as potential wilderness; the rule only provides for the protection of designated wilderness. The Wilderness Act, 16 USC §1133(c)3https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title16/chapter23&edition=prelim, explicitly prohibits the use of “motor vehicles, motorized equipment” [or] “other form of mechanical transport” in designated wilderness; and, yes,
4.32(e) of the proposed rule would specifically prohibit the possession of PMDs only in designated wilderness. However, NPS Management Policies 2006 Section 6.3.1 directs parks to manage “potential wilderness” as if it were “designated wilderness.” In this case, “managing as if” means that PMD use should also be prohibited in ALL areas that NPS has identified as potential wilderness. By not explicitly prohibiting such use, the proposed rule creates the distinct possibility that superintendents could allow PMD use in potential wilderness areas, which would be in direct conflict with the applicable NPS management policy.
Last but not least, we are very concerned that the “natural surface trail designation by rulemaking” provision described in §4.32(a) does NOT require any sort of environmental impact analysis (i.e., NEPA review).
Introducing PMD use onto natural surface hiking trails where PMD is not currently allowed would reasonably be expected tocause impacts to a variety of park resources and values if not effectively regulated or managed. As stated previously, affected resources could include soils, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, wilderness characteristics, natural soundscapes, and/or cultural or historic resources. As a result, it is imperative that the rulemaking process for authorizing PMD use on natural surface trails include a substantive analysis of potential impacts to potentially affected resources.
There is precedent for NPS requiring such a review in its regulations. For example, to authorize bicycle use in a park on an existing trail, 36 CFR §4.30(d)4Ibid. requires the superintendent to:
- Complete a planning document that addresses bicycle use on the specific trail
- Complete either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluating the effects of bicycle use in the park and on the specific trail
- Complete a written determination stating that the addition of bicycle use on the existing hiking or horse trail is consistent with the protection of the park
- If, based on the outcome of the EA or EIS, the superintendent determines that bicycle use on the specific trail will have no significant impacts, the superintendent must publish a notice in the Federal Register providing the public at least 30 days to review and comment on the written determination
The planning and compliance requirements for authorizing PMD use on natural surface trails should be similar to the requirements for authorizing bicycle use on existing trail that are found in § 4.30(d). Yet the proposed PMD rule provides no such guidance and NPS has provided no reasonable explanation for this discrepancy.
SECTION-BY-SECTION COMMENTS
To address the concerns described above, we recommend revisions be made to the following sections of the proposed rule. Our suggestions are intended to be conceptual in nature. We defer to NPS to determine the regulatory language needed to incorporate the suggested concept(s) into the rule. Proposed revisions are shown in RED font below.
1. 4.32(a) Comment: We suggest this section be revised to clarify that: 1) the rulemaking provision applies only to natural surface trails within or near developed areas; 2) backcountry trails may NOT be designated for PMD use; and to 3) establish basic planning and environmental review requirements for designating natural surface trails for PMD use that are similar tothose provided in the NPS bicycle rule.
(a)Operating a powered micromobility device is prohibited except in designated locations. Use of powered micromobility devices is prohibited on backcountry trails. Locations within or near developed areas with a surface that is natural terrain,unimproved by artificial materials such as paving or gravel, must be designated by rulemaking in the Federal Register. As part of the rulemaking process, the superintendent must comply with the same planning and environmental review requirements described in 36 CFR § 4.32 (d) that apply to authorizing bicycle use of existing hiking or horse trails. Other locations, such as park roads, parking areas, administrative roads, and paved and gravel sidewalks and paths within developed areas, may be designated by the superintendent pursuant to §§ 1.5 and 1.7 of this chapter.
Philip A. Francis, Jr.
Chair of the Executive Council
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks