The Department of Interior are already making good on their wish to reduce regulations by announcing their first rescissions. They are further asking the public for recommendations on reducing regulatory burdens across its agencies. This presents a critical opportunity to address the outdated and overly restrictive federal regulations that are increasingly used to limit access, recreation, and multiple-use management on public lands.
In a previous post we reviewed what CFRs are and how these regulations, enacted by unelected bureaucrats, are being abused to restrict motorized recreation on public lands. These Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), especially those related to off-highway vehicle use, land planning, and environmental policy, were originally intended to guide responsible stewardship. However, they are now frequently referenced in land use plans to close areas, restrict motorized access, and undermine the multiple-use mandate central to agencies like the BLM.
We need our supporters to add their voice to BRC’s and highlight regulations that are repeatedly manipulated to close recreation access. Comments are accepted through mid June. The Administration is already acting to rescind regulations, so let’s not miss this crucial window of opportunity. It’s not often the federal government retracts regulations and asks for the public’s help to identify those that should be rescinded. Use the form below to submit your comment with the list of CFR’s BRC is recommending for review— which are listed below for your reference.
BRC’s Complete List:
43 CFR Part 8340 – Off-Road Vehicles
Summary: Establishes overall policies and regulations for ORV use on public lands.
BRC Rationale for Rescission: This regulatory scheme has no basis in federal law. It was developed in response to an executive order issued by Richard Nixon. Over time it has evolved into the basis for an agency culture that is hard-wired to restrict motorized access to public lands. We believe the entire Part 8430 should be rescinded, but we also have specific problems with the following Sub-parts.
43 CFR § 8342.1 – Designation Criteria for OHV Areas
Summary: This regulation mandates that public lands be designated as open, limited, or closed to off-road vehicles (ORVs). Designations must minimize damage to natural resources, prevent impairment of wilderness suitability, protect wildlife habitats, and reduce conflicts with other recreational uses.
BRC Rationale for Rescission: No federal statutes require ORV management as outlined in this regulation. FLPMA and other statutes provide the necessary statutory basis for balancing impacts to natural resources, wilderness suitability, and wildlife, while mandating mulitple-use management. Full analysis available here: https://blueribboncoalition.org/support-rescinding-43-cfr-8342-1-designation-criteria/
43 CFR § 8342.2 – Designation Procedures for OHV Areas
Summary: Outlines the process for designating OHV areas, including public participation, stakeholder consultation, and approval through resource management planning. It also requires identification and marking of designated areas and trails.
BRC Rationale for Rescission: The public participation requirement is redundant and already guaranteed by FLPMA, and agencies have failed to adhere to their coordination obligations regardless of the existence of this regulation. Singling out off-road vehicles isn’t called for by any statute passed by Congress, and this regulation perpetuates regulatory practices that have no basis in statute. FLPMA and other statutes provide necessary guidance for managing resource impacts without needing to develop special regulatory programs for managing OHV access. This regulation also provides guidance for e-bike management that is resulting in unnecessary discrimination against e-bike users and preventing them from using mountain bike trails. We support a blanket rule that allows pedal assist e-bikes on all DOI managed mountain bike trails.
43 CFR § 8341.2 – Special Rules for OHV Use
Summary: Allows temporary/emergency closure of areas to OHV use if adverse effects on resources such as soil, vegetation, wildlife, cultural resources, or wilderness suitability occur. Areas may only reopen once these effects are resolved and preventive measures are implemented.
BRC Rationale for Rescission: The original justification for the rule was the concern that uncontrolled vehicle use could damage sensitive areas. But over time, the BLM has weaponized this rule, using vague allegations of “resource damage” to implement road closures without adequate public notice, timeframes, input, or transparency. The language of the rule gives land managers the ability to bypass established planning frameworks and unilaterally restrict access, often in response to litigation threats or activist lobbying. Full analysis available here: https://blueribboncoalition.org/support-rescinding-cfr-8341-2/
Like What We Do?
It takes a team of people to investigate, review, advocate and litigate in order to protect your rights to public lands. Please consider donating today so we can defend your ground.
43 CFR § 420.22 – Criteria for Off-Road Vehicle Areas (Reclamation Lands)
Summary: Specifies criteria for designating areas for ORV use on Bureau of Reclamation lands, including minimizing hazards to public health and safety, resource damage, harassment of wildlife, and recreational conflicts.
BRC Rationale for Rescission: Singling out off-road vehicles through regulation has no statutory basis. This regulation is redundant, and existing statues provide adequate authorities to manage environmental impacts.
43 CFR Part 19 – Wilderness Preservation
Summary: Provides procedures for reviewing and recommending roadless areas for wilderness preservation, including public hearings and agency coordination.
BRC Rationale for Rescission: This regulation required all wilderness inventories to be completed by 1974, so this regulation should be sunset since it is obsolete by 50 years.
43 CFR Part 46 – Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Summary: Establishes procedures for NEPA compliance within the Department of the Interior, aligning with CEQ regulations.
BRC Rationale for Rescission: CEQ NEPA regulation have recently been invalidated by federal courts, and the current Administration is developing new NEPA regulations that don’t rely on the flawed CEQ regulations.
43 CFR Part 6100 – Management Actions for Ecosystem Resilience
Summary: This regulation is a Biden-era regulation that was written to create the definitions and implementing guidance for the Landscape Health and Conservation Rule that has been rescinded by the Trump Administration.
BRC Rationale for Rescission: Until Part 6100 is rescinded the regulatory basis for reinstating the Landscape Health and Conservation Rule will still be intact.
43 CFR Part 6300, Subpart § 6305 – Access to State and Private Lands or Valid Occupancies Within Wilderness Areas
Summary: Addresses how BLM manages access to private or state-owned lands within designated wilderness areas.
BRC Rationale for Rescission: The government interest in Wilderness designation should not supersede constitutionally protected private property rights.
43 CFR Subpart 8364 – Closures and Restrictions
Summary: Provides authority for temporary closures and restrictions on public lands for various resource protection or public safety reasons.
BRC Rationale for Rescission: While it is necessary for BLM to have authority to temporarily close public lands when absolutely necessary, BLM should revise this rule to better address the public feedback they received on the 2024 rule making for this rule. We are primarily concerned that it gives broad and vague authority for BLM to close public lands.
NEPA Implementing Regulations
The following NEPA implementing guidelines have been rendered invalid by recent court decisions. The Department of Interior is currently updating its NEPA implementing regulations, and the following list of regulations will need to be rescinded and replaced with the new implementing regulations.
40 CFR § 1502.13 – Purpose and Need Statement
Summary: Requires agencies to clearly state the purpose and need for the proposed action in NEPA documents.
43 CFR § 1601.0-5 – Definitions
Summary: Provides key definitions for planning terms including ACEC, cooperating agency, conformance, multiple use, and public lands.
43 CFR § 1601.0-6 – Environmental Impact Statement Policy
Summary: Establishes BLM policy for preparing EIS documents under NEPA.
43 CFR § 1601.0-7 – Scope
Summary: Describes the scope of BLM planning, incorporating FLPMA requirements.
43 CFR § 1601.0-8 – Principles
Summary: Planning must involve public input and consider economic impacts and effects on nearby non-federal lands.
43 CFR § 1610.1 – Resource Management Planning Guidance
Summary: Provides general guidance for resource management planning efforts.
43 CFR § 1610.2 – Public Participation
Summary: Requires public involvement throughout the BLM planning process.
43 CFR § 1610.3 – Coordination with Other Government Entities
Summary: Directs BLM to coordinate planning with federal, state, local, and tribal governments.
43 CFR § 1610.3-1 – Coordination of Planning Efforts
Summary: Emphasizes aligning BLM planning with other agencies’ planning efforts.
43 CFR § 1610.4-1 – Identification of Issues
Summary: Involves stakeholders in identifying concerns and opportunities early in the planning process.
43 CFR § 1610.4-4 – Analysis of the Management Situation
Summary: Requires evaluation of current resource conditions and management capability.
43 CFR § 1610.4-5 – Formulation of Alternatives
Summary: Outlines the process for creating management alternatives during planning.
43 CFR § 1610.4-7 – Selection of Preferred Alternatives
Summary: Guides selection of the preferred management alternative based on analysis and public input.
43 CFR § 1610.4-9 – Monitoring and Evaluation
Summary: Requires monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of resource management plans.
43 CFR § 1610.5-1 – RMP Approval and Administrative Review
Summary: Describes procedures for approving RMPs and handling protests.
43 CFR § 1610.7 – Designation of Areas
Summary: Allows for designation of ACECs and identification of areas unsuitable for mining.
