Proposed Rule2026-17902
Bicycle Use in Park Areas
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 1, 2026
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentNational Park Service
Abstract
The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to modify the procedural requirements in existing NPS regulations for the designation of roads and trails for bicycle use within park areas. The changes would align NPS regulations with applicable Federal law and policy, remove unnecessary requirements, and ensure public involvement when needed. The changes in this rule would allow the NPS to manage its resources and allocate taxpayer funds more efficiently and streamline the approval of new and expanded opportunities for use and enjoyment of park areas by the American public.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 168 (Tuesday, September 1, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 168 (Tuesday, September 1, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56095-56101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17902]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 4
[NPS-WASO-DTS#NPS0042897; PPMPRLE1Y.Y00000. 255P103601]
RIN 1024-AE97
Bicycle Use in Park Areas
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
[[Page 56096]]
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to modify the
procedural requirements in existing NPS regulations for the designation
of roads and trails for bicycle use within park areas. The changes
would align NPS regulations with applicable Federal law and policy,
remove unnecessary requirements, and ensure public involvement when
needed. The changes in this rule would allow the NPS to manage its
resources and allocate taxpayer funds more efficiently and streamline
the approval of new and expanded opportunities for use and enjoyment of
park areas by the American public.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by 11:59 p.m. ET
on November 2, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter 1024-AE97, the RIN for
this rulemaking. On the resulting page, select the Dockets tab and then
click on the title of the rule. Next, click the ``Open for Comments''
box, then click the blue ``Comment'' box and follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
(2) By hard copy: Mail to: National Park Service Division of
Regulations, 7206 National Seashore Lane, Berlin, MD 21811.
Instructions: Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in
any way other than those specified above. All submissions received must
include the words ``National Park Service'' or ``NPS'' and must include
the docket number or RIN (1024-AE97) for this rulemaking. Comments
received may be posted without change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>,
including any personal information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to view the proposed rule and
comments received, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and search for
``1024-AE97.'' Be sure to check the Dockets Tab, Documents Tab, and
Comment Tab for possible results.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Apgar, Regulations Program
Specialist, National Park Service; (908) 766-6841;
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#047365776b5b766163716865706d6b6a77446a74772a636b72"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="037462706c5c716664766f62776a6c6d70436d73702d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States. In compliance with the
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023, the plain
language summary of the proposal is available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in the docket for this rulemaking.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Bicycle Use in Park Areas
The NPS is responsible for administering the National Park System
of more than 400 areas and sites that preserve America's natural and
cultural heritage for the enjoyment of this and future generations.
These areas and sites include national parks, national lakeshores,
national seashores, national parkways, national battlefields, national
monuments, national preserves, national historical parks, national
memorials, and national recreation areas. Millions of people visit the
National Park System each year, many of whom seek opportunities for
recreation, access to points of interest, and connection to and from
gateway communities.
Bicycling is a common and popular form of access and recreation in
park areas, providing riders of all skill levels and ages a fun and
engaging way to experience their natural and cultural heritage.
Socioeconomic monitoring data indicates that bicycling is the most
popular form of active recreation within the National Park System after
hiking and walking.\1\ Bicycling offers visitors another option for
access and recreation in park areas with the added benefits to health
and wellness that come from physical activity. This includes use of
traditional bicycles and electric bicycles (e-bikes). E-bikes reduce
the physical demands of operating a bicycle and therefore expand
opportunities for recreation and access, particularly for those with
limitations stemming from age, illness, disability or fitness, and in
more challenging environments, such as high altitudes or hilly terrain.
Bicycling in any form helps relieve vehicle congestion on roads and in
parking areas. It also can mitigate some of the negative impacts motor
vehicles have on resources, such as air, light, and noise pollution,
collisions and other disturbances to wildlife, and wear on aging
infrastructure. Improvements to facilities, such as new or modified
bicycle trails, and related opportunities for riding can support
economies in gateway communities by attracting visitors and supporting
local businesses such as bicycle shops, sports stores, and restaurants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 2024 Socioeconomic Research of National Park Service
Visitors: Report on 2024 Data Collection (NPS Datastore--2024
Socioeconomic Research of National Park Service Visitors: Report on
2024 Data Collection, last visited May 21, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and Regulatory Framework
On February 19, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14219,
``Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's
`Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative.'' This
Executive Order directs Agency heads to identify regulations that are
based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying
statutory authority or prohibition. On July 3, 2025, President Trump
signed Executive Order 14314, ``Making America Beautiful Again by
Improving Our National Parks.'' This Executive Order directs the
Secretary of the Interior to review all of the Department's recreation
access rules and take steps to rescind any that unnecessarily restrict
recreation in national parks.
NPS regulations in 36 CFR 4.30 establish procedural requirements
for designating trails for bicycle use in park areas. These regulations
require the NPS to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an
environmental impact statement (EIS) that evaluates the potential
impacts of various actions, whether or not an EA or EIS would be
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq. Such actions that require an EA or EIS in every case
include designation of existing trails that do not require any
construction or significant modification to accommodate bicycle use,
development of new trails, trail construction activities (such as
clearing brush, cutting trees, excavation, or surface treatment), and
the authorization of new trails for bicycle use. The regulations
require the NPS to provide the public with at least 30 days to review
and comment on an EA, if prepared. These requirements conflict with
Federal law and policy for the reasons given below.
Categorical exclusions are classes of actions that a Federal agency
has determined do not have a significant effect on the human
environment and therefore do not need to be evaluated in an EA or EIS.
Categorical exclusions are a valid compliance pathway under NEPA and
apply to a substantial number and type of Federal actions. Existing NPS
bicycle regulations, however, do not allow the NPS to use categorical
exclusions for the actions identified in the regulations even if doing
so would be appropriate under NEPA. For example, the NPS recently
[[Page 56097]]
adopted a categorical exclusion from the Federal Highway Administration
that covers ``construction of bicycle and pedestrian lands, paths, and
facilities.'' \2\ The NPS cannot use this categorical exclusion,
however, for the construction of new bicycle trails because of the
regulatory requirement to prepare an EA or EIS. In general, the NPS is
forced to conduct levels of review with resulting delays that may not
be justified by the scope and potential environmental effects of the
actions under consideration.\3\ Delays can complicate coordination with
the development and construction of larger trail networks outside of a
System unit that will connect to park trails, which increases access to
and from gateway communities.\4\ The NPS must use administrative
resources preparing EAs or EISs when those documents may not otherwise
be required by Federal law. This is unnecessary and results in an
opportunity cost for the American taxpayer because the NPS cannot use
such resources, including, for example, staff time and contractor fees,
to accomplish other management actions that benefit the public, such as
improving facilities that provide essential visitor services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 90 FR 24645 adopting the categorical exclusion on June
11, 2025; and DOI NEPA Handbook (February 2026), Appendix 2, Section
16.1.G(4).
\3\ The NPS acknowledged this in 2012 when it published the
final rule for the existing regulations by stating that ``[w]hen
trails are sustainably located, designed, and constructed, impacts
[from bicycle use] are normally insignificant.'' 77 FR 39931 (July
6, 2012). The final rule went on to say that categorical exclusions
are precluded because ``there may be cases where impacts are
significant, including soil erosion, safety, and conflicts with
other users.'' Id. If impacts may be significant, however, the NPS
would be required to prepare an EA or EIS anyway under NEPA.
\4\ For example, the Marquette River Greenway will run through
Indiana Dunes National Park. For more information, see <a href="https://www.in.gov/nirpc/transportation/the-marquette-greenway-project-site/">https://www.in.gov/nirpc/transportation/the-marquette-greenway-project-site/</a>
(last visited March 23, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement to provide at least 30 days of public comment on an
EA conflicts with Departmental policy set forth in 516 DM 1--U.S.
Department of the Interior Handbook of NEPA Implementing Procedures
(the Handbook). Appendix 1, Section 1 of the Handbook states that NEPA
does not require public involvement when a bureau prepares an EA. The
Responsible Official has discretion to determine whether to involve the
public, when to involve the public, and what kind of public involvement
is most appropriate. The Handbook states that public comment periods,
if offered, should generally not be more than 30 days. The regulatory
requirement to provide the public with at least 30 days to comment on
an EA conflicts with the Handbook's policy providing the superintendent
with discretion to determine whether public involvement is appropriate,
and with its policy on the duration of any comment periods that are
offered.
In brief, existing NPS regulations prevent the NPS from using
categorical exclusions under NEPA and mandate public involvement in EA
preparation that is not required by NEPA and conflicts with
Departmental policy. Accordingly, these regulatory requirements are not
based on the best reading of NEPA--both on its face and as implemented
by Departmental policy--and should be rescinded consistent with the
direction in E.O. 14219.
In addition to the requirements discussed above, the NPS believes
that other requirements in the existing regulations are unnecessary and
should be rescinded for the reasons given below.
Before the NPS takes any of the actions that require an EA or EIS,
it also must prepare a park planning document that addresses bicycle
use on the existing or new trail under consideration. This planning
document must evaluate (1) the suitability of the trail surface and
soil conditions for accommodating bicycle use, including any
maintenance, minor rehabilitation or armoring that is necessary to
upgrade the trail to sustainable condition; (2) life cycle maintenance
costs; (3) safety considerations; (4) methods to prevent or minimize
user conflict; (5) methods to protect natural and cultural resources
and mitigate impacts; and (6) integration with commercial services and
alternative transportation systems (if applicable). These requirements
are inconsistent with the NPS's established framework for planning and
are redundant with compliance actions required by NEPA.
The NPS planning framework is designed to be flexible and give
superintendents discretion to determine how to meet legal and policy
planning requirements, including what types of plans are necessary,
when they should be prepared, and what should be evaluated. This design
allows superintendents to allocate administrative resources
efficiently. Requiring the superintendent to prepare a planning
document before taking any of the actions listed in the regulations and
then to evaluate the same items in the planning document regardless of
the scope and magnitude of the proposed action requires the NPS to
expend administrative resources in manner that may not create
commensurate value for the American public. For example,
superintendents and regional offices may be required to assign
personnel and spend time and funds preparing a park planning document
before allowing bicycles on an existing paved trail of minimal length
that would require no modification or construction to accommodate
bicycles, such as a 20-foot paved path connecting a parking lot with a
visitor center. The only way to save the administrative resources that
would be used on a planning document for other management actions is to
take no action regarding bicycle use on the trail. The result is that
the public is denied a new opportunity for recreation and access that
would otherwise be allowed as an appropriate use of the park area. The
NPS believes that superintendents and regional offices should have
discretion to prepare planning documents when necessary given the scope
and potential effects of the proposed action.
To the extent that a proposed action warrants evaluation of the
items listed in the existing regulations, such as construction of
multi-use trail network in a backcountry area, it is likely the NPS
would prepare an EA or EIS and evaluate those items through the NEPA
compliance process.\5\ This would be consistent with Departmental
policy. Appendix 1, Section 4 of the Handbook states that the
description of alternatives in an EA or EIS may include a description
of project maintenance, estimated costs, and modifications of existing
facilities. Part 1, Section 1.2 of the Handbook states that effects on
public health and safety should be considered in evaluating the degree
of effects of a proposed action or alternatives, and so too should
economic effects and effects on the quality of life of the American
people, which could include how an action would integrate with
commercial services and alternative transportation systems. Part 6,
Section 6.1 of the Handbook defines effects or impacts to include
ecological effects (such as effects on natural resources) and cultural
and economic effects. Part 1, Section 1.3 of the Handbook states that
NEPA requires agencies to consider reasonable mitigation measures.
Accordingly, compliance with NEPA likely will result in the evaluation
of the
[[Page 56098]]
items listed in the regulations, but only when the potential effects of
the proposed action on the human environment justify doing so pursuant
to Federal law and policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The NPS acknowledged this in 2012 when it published the
final rule for the existing regulations by stating that ``[m]ost
NEPA requirements are compatible with or identical to requirements
for sound management planning.'' 77 FR 29928 (July 6, 2012). The
final rule commends the potential efficiency of using one document
to satisfy the requirements to prepare a park planning document and
an EA or EIS, but neither of those requirements need to be in the
regulations in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existing regulations also require the NPS to develop and
construct new trails in accordance with NPS sustainable trail design
principles and guidelines. The final rule published in 2012 that
established this requirement discusses the importance of sustainable
trails in backcountry areas. 77 FR 39929 (July 6, 2012). This
discussion identifies potential impacts to resources from backcountry
trail use and offers recommendations for mitigating those impacts by
ensuring that trails are sustainable. The discussion cites to several
laws, policies, and reference materials, some of which are now many
years old and no longer accessible at the source website in the
rule.\6\ This type of information may be useful to superintendents,
project managers, and others involved in trail design and development,
but requiring that superintendents adhere to ambiguous ``design
principles and guidelines'' in regulatory text offers little direction
or benefit to the American public. This requirement has even less
meaning when superintendents consider bicycle use on trails in
frontcountry areas, which the NPS did not address in the trail
sustainability discussion in 2012. This omission was understandable
because the types of impacts that might occur from the use of
unsustainable trails in primitive, undeveloped areas, such as
compaction and erosion of trail tread materials, in most cases are not
possible from the use of trails in developed areas, many of which are
paved. The NPS maintains established processes for design and
construction of various types of facilities and infrastructure across
the National Park System, including trails of all types.\7\ These
processes are subject to their own policies, compliance requirements
and technical standards. Because these processes are managed under
separate NPS authorities and procedures, decisions about physical
design and construction are not part of this rule. The primary purpose
of NPS regulations is to manage visitor use of park areas.\8\ It
follows that NPS regulations for bicycle use should focus on visitor
use of trails, not the design or construction of them before they are
designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The final rule cites to a 1991 document titled ``Developing
Sustainable Mountain Trail Corridors: An Overview, National Park
Service'' and another document titled ``Guide to Sustainable
Mountain Trails'' that was published by the NPS in partnership with
the Colorado Outdoor Training Initiative in 2007.
\7\ See information about the NPS Park Planning, Facilities, and
Lands Directorate on <a href="https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1640/index.htm">https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1640/index.htm</a> (last
visited March 9, 2026).
\8\ See 36 CFR 1.2(d) stating that NPS regulations do not apply
to administrative activities conducted by the NPS or its agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the requirements to prepare an EA or EIS, and the
requirement to prepare a park planning document, the existing
regulations also require the superintendent to prepare a written
determination that applies another set of criteria for evaluating the
effects of bicycle use on trails and administrative roads.
Administrative roads are open to motor vehicle use by the NPS for
administrative purposes but not open to motor vehicle use by the
public. Superintendents must determine that bicycle use is consistent
with protection of the park area's natural, scenic and aesthetic
values, safety considerations and management objectives, and will not
disturb wildlife or park resources. Regional directors must concur with
written determinations for bicycle use on trails. Written
determinations for existing trails and for new trails within developed
areas must be published in the Federal Register for 30 days of public
comment. The items that must be evaluated in the written determination
are confusingly similar to, but not the same, as the items that must be
evaluated in the park planning document. For this reason, the
justifications explained above for rescinding the park planning
document requirements also support rescinding the written determination
requirements. Requiring superintendents to prepare a written
determination in every case, even for decisions to allow bicycles on
administrative roads and trails that would result in minor or
negligible impacts to resources or visitors, forces the NPS to dedicate
administrative time and cost that could be put to better uses. The
administrative burden is even worse for proposals to allow bicycle use
on existing trails and on new trails in developed areas, which require
publication of the written determination in the Federal Register,
consideration of public comments, and concurrence by the regional
director, no matter the scope or magnitude of the potential effects of
the action. In addition, relying on the regulatory definition of
``developed area'' can create additional illogical outcomes, because
some areas may be developed in the ordinary sense of the word but not
within a designated development or historic zone on a land management
and use map.\9\ In such areas any new trail, no matter the scope or
magnitude of its impacts, will require a special regulation.\10\
Similar to the items that must be evaluated in a park planning
document, the items that must be evaluated in a written determination
likely would be evaluated in an EA or EIS if preparation of those
documents is required under NEPA given the scope and potential effects
of the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NPS regulations at 36 CFR 1.4 define ``developed area'' as
roads, parking areas, picnic areas, campgrounds, or other
structures, facilities or lands located within development and
historic zones depicted on the park area land management and use
map. Emphasis added.
\10\ NPS regulations at 36 CFR 4.30(e)(2) require promulgation
of a special regulation prior to developing, constructing, or
authorizing new trails outside of developed areas for bicycle use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A final requirement in the regulations prevents the NPS from
allowing bicycle use on existing trails if the Finding of No
Significant Impact or Record of Decision that follows the preparation
of an EA or EIS concludes that such action may have a significant
impact on the environment. It is not clear why this requirement applies
to existing trails but not to new trails. The distinction between an
existing and a new trail ceases after the new trail is built, at which
point the potential impacts of allowing bicycle use on the trail can be
the same. Another problem is that this requirement establishes a
substantive standard for allowable impacts that is different from the
non-impairment standard in the NPS Organic Act and the standard in NPS
Management Policies that prevents the NPS from allowing unacceptable
impacts from visitor use. See 54 U.S.C. 100101 and NPS Management
Policies 2006, Section 1.4.7.1. There is no basis for applying a
standard for impacts from bicycle use that is different from the
standards that apply to impacts from other visitor activities.
Superintendents should follow established NPS policy about appropriate
use of park areas when making decisions about bicycle use. Additional
confusion may arise because the significance standard used in the
regulations refers to specific determinations made in the NEPA
compliance process, but the regulations use this standard as a
substantive limitation on decision-making, while NEPA purposefully does
not. NEPA is a procedural statute requiring Federal agencies to
evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed actions, but does not
mandate specific outcomes or limit agency decision-making.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County,
605 U.S. 168, 169 (2025) (``Otherwise stated, NPS `does not mandate
particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process' for
an agency's environmental review of a project.'' (quoting Roberston
v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56099]]
None of the procedural requirements that would be rescinded by this
rule exist in general regulations that address other types of visitor
recreation and access in park areas.\12\ These include regulations for
designating lands and waters for operating or using aircraft (36 CFR
2.17), routes and water surfaces for the use of snowmobiles (36 CFR
2.18), areas for using human-powered coasting devices such as roller
skates, skateboards, and scooters (36 CFR 2.20), waters for the use of
personal watercraft (PWC) (36 CFR 3.9), routes and areas for off-road
vehicle (ORV) use (36 CFR 4.10), and locations for the operation of
powered micromobility devices, such as e-scooters (36 CFR 4.32). None
of them address the design, development, or construction of routes,
trails, paths, traffic barriers, or other physical assets that are used
for the visitor activities and uses described. Some of these
regulations address devices similar to traditional bicycles, such as
the regulations for human-powered coating devices, and similar to e-
bikes, such as the regulations for powered micromobility devices.
Others manage devices such as aircraft, snowmobiles, PWCs, and ORVs
that have the potential to impact resources and visitors well beyond
what is possible from bicycles and e-bikes due to their weight, speed
of operation, use of internal combustion engines, and other
characteristics of use. Some of these regulations require notice and
comment rulemaking to ensure there is public involvement before certain
uses are allowed. Notice and comment rulemaking is required to
designate any location for the use of aircraft, snowmobiles, PWC, and
ORVs. These requirements are justified because these types of
activities have greater potential for impacts no matter the location.
Rulemaking is required before allowing powered micromobility devices in
locations that have never been improved by artificial or processed
materials such as paving or gravel. This requirement is justified
because the use of powered micromobility devices in these locations has
potential for greater impacts than use in other locations, such as
paved pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NPS regulations that govern the gathering of plants or
plant parts by federally recognized Indian tribes require the
preparation of an EA. 36 CFR 2.6(d)(2). The NPS does not consider
this activity to be visitor recreation or access due to the special
relationship between the NPS and federally-recognized Indian tribes,
which are sovereign governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the NPS believes that the requirements in 36 CFR 4.30
discussed above unnecessarily restrict recreation and access by making
it more difficult than needed to authorize administrative roads and
trails for bicycle use. Therefore they should be rescinded consistent
with the direction in Executive Order 14314. This proposed rule would
allow the NPS to manage its resources and allocate taxpayer funds more
efficiently and streamline the approval of new and expanded
opportunities for use and enjoyment of park areas by the American
public. Key elements of the proposed rule are discussed below.
Proposed Rule
Identifying new opportunities for responsible outdoor recreation in
park areas is a priority for the Trump Administration and the NPS. This
includes identifying new and expanded opportunities for bicycle use
where appropriate. The proposed rule would simplify how the NPS allows
bicycle and e-bike use in park areas for the benefit of the American
public. Bicycles and e-bikes would be allowed on park roads and in
parking areas that are otherwise open for motor vehicle use by the
general public. This would not change the status quo for traditional
bicycles, but it would for e-bikes by removing the need for
superintendents to take affirmative action to allow them in those
locations by designation. Setting the same baseline for the use of all
forms of bicycles on roads and in parking areas would simplify
administration and make the regulations easier to understand. The
superintendent would have authority to designate other locations,
including administrative roads and trails, for bicycle and e-bike use
except that rulemaking in the Federal Register would be required to
allow bicycles or e-bikes in two circumstances. First, rulemaking would
be required if the designation would be highly controversial or
otherwise significant according to the criteria in paragraph (b) of 36
CFR 1.5.\13\ Second, rulemaking would be required before bicycles or e-
bikes are allowed in locations that have never been improved by
artificial or processed materials. Artificial or processed materials
include gravel, asphalt, concrete, wood boards, soil cement, and resin-
based material. Rulemaking would not be required for locations with
surfaces composed of these materials at present, nor for locations that
have a natural surface at present but in the past were altered or
improved by artificial or processed materials, such as trails located
on top of old rail lines. The purpose of the rulemaking requirements in
this rule is to ensure public involvement in decision-making that has
more potential for impacts to park resources, values, and visitors, or
when stakeholders such as gateway communities have strong viewpoints
about potential designations. Related to trail characteristics, the NPS
seeks specific comment from the public about criteria that could be
used to determine whether rulemaking is required. An example is whether
rulemaking should not be required to designate certain locations that
have never been improved by artificial or processed materials but that
have other characteristics that might lessen the potential for impacts,
such as public beaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Rulemaking is required for an action ``which is of a
nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant
alteration in the public use pattern of the park area, adversely
affect the park's natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values,
require a long-term or significant modification in the resource
management objectives of the unit . . . .'' 36 CFR 1.5(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would maintain several provisions in the existing
regulations that do not need revision. The definitions of ``bicycle''
and ``electric bicycle'' in 36 CFR 1.4 would remain the same. So would
the existing prohibition on possessing a bicycle or e-bike in a
wilderness area established by Federal statute and other restrictions
on the operation of a bicycle or e-bike that promote visitor
safety.\14\ The rule would maintain an existing prohibition on using
the electric motor to exclusively propel an e-bike for an extended
period of time, except where use of motor vehicles is allowed. This
only affects Class-2 e-bikes and helps ensure that they are used for
access and recreation in a similar manner to traditional bicycles. The
rule would continue to apply state law to the use of bicycles and e-
bikes except as provided in NPS regulations. Finally, the rule would
maintain the authority given to superintendents to establish bicycle or
e-bike use limitations, restrictions, conditions, and closures after
consideration of public health and safety, resource protection, and
other management activities and objectives. This rule would add a new
provision, however, clarifying that permanent closures of park roads
and parking areas that are otherwise open for motor vehicle use by the
general public, or of administrative roads, trails, and other
[[Page 56100]]
locations that are designated by rulemaking, must be promulgated as
special regulations for the applicable System unit. The only exception
would be for closures of park roads and parking areas that exist under
state law. This exception would be compatible with the NPS's general
adoption of state traffic laws in 36 CFR 4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For example, 36 CFR 4.30(h)(5) prohibits operating a
bicycle while consuming an alcoholic beverage or carrying in hand an
open container of an alcoholic beverage, and is applied to e-bikes
in 36 CFR 4.30(i)(5). As another example, 36 CFR 4.12 requires
compliance with the directions of a traffic control device. It is
applied to bicycles in 36 CFR 4.30(g)(1) and to e-bikes in 36 CFR
4.30(i)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders and Department Policy
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 14192)
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
The NPS expects this rule would result in net economic benefits due to
reduced administrative costs. Administrative costs associated with the
requirements in the existing regulations to prepare a planning
document, an EA or EIS, and a written determination would be eliminated
in situations where such actions are not warranted.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed 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.). No small entities would be directly
regulated by this rule, which would modify existing NPS regulations to
simplify how the NPS allows traditional and electric bicycle use in
park areas. The proposed changes would remove unnecessary requirements,
reduce regulatory burden, and allow the NPS to streamline the approval
of new and expanded opportunities for use and enjoyment of park areas
by the American public. While the changes in this rule are procedural
in nature, they could result in a small increase in recreational
visitation, thereby benefitting nearby small businesses through
increased visitor spending. This proposed rule would not generate new
costs for small businesses, organizations, or governmental
jurisdictions, nor would it impose fees, operational requirements,
training, recordkeeping, or other compliance burdens on small
businesses or organizations. It is not expected to have adverse
economic effects on any sector, including small entities. For these
reasons, the NPS certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Congressional Review Act
This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
proposed rule:
(a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more.
(b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Would 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
This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100
million per year. This proposed rule would not have a significant or
unique effect on State, local or Tribal governments, or the private
sector. It addresses public use of national park lands and imposes no
requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing
the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) is not required.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. A takings
implication assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this proposed rule
would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule would
only affect use of federally administered lands. It would have no
direct effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement is
not required.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.
This proposed 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 (E.O. 13175 and Department Policy)
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its
government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a
commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their
right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated
this proposed rule under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and under the
Department's Tribal consultation policy and has determined that Tribal
consultation is not required because this rule will have no substantial
direct effect on federally recognized Indian Tribes and that
consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not
required.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule contains no new information collections. All information
collections require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The NPS may not conduct or sponsor, and you
are not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.)
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not
required because the rule is covered by categorical exclusions. This
rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in
43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA. The NPS
has determined the change in the rule that would allow e-bikes on park
roads and parking areas that are otherwise open for motor vehicle use
by the general public, without the need for superintendents to take
affirmative action to allow them in those locations by designation, is
categorically excluded under Appendix 2, Section 12.5.D(4) of the
Handbook, which covers minor changes in programs and regulations
pertaining to visitor activities. The NPS has determined that all other
changes in this rule are categorically excluded under 43 CFR 46.210(i),
which covers minor 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
[[Page 56101]]
lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the
NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case. The NPS will
document the application of these categorical exclusions to this rule.
Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)
This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the
definition in E.O. 13211; this proposed rule is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, and this proposed rule has not otherwise been designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. A Statement of
Energy Effects is not required.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 4
National Parks, Traffic regulations.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service
proposes to amend 36 CFR part 4 as set forth below:
PART 4--VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC SAFETY
0
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102.
0
2. Revise and republish Sec. 4.30 as follows:
Sec. 4.30 Bicycles.
(a) Park roads and parking areas. The use of bicycles and electric
bicycles is allowed on park roads and in parking areas that are
otherwise open for motor vehicle use by the general public.
(b) Other locations. The use of bicycles and electric bicycles is
allowed in other locations designated by the superintendent after
notice is provided using one or more of the methods described in Sec.
1.7 of this chapter. Locations must be designated by rulemaking in the
Federal Register when the designation would meet the criteria in
paragraph (b) of Sec. 1.5 of this chapter. Rulemaking in the Federal
Register also is required before bicycles or electric bicycles are
allowed in locations that have never been improved by artificial or
processed materials. Artificial or processed materials include, but are
not limited to, gravel, asphalt, concrete, steel rail lines, wood
boards, soil cement, and resin-based material.
(c) Closures and other use restrictions. (1) A superintendent may
limit or restrict or impose conditions on bicycle use or electric
bicycle use, or may close any park road, parking area, administrative
road, trail, or other location, or a portion thereof, to bicycle or
electric bicycle use, or terminate such condition, closure, limit or
restriction after:
(i) Taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and
cultural resource protection, and other management activities and
objectives; and
(ii) Notifying the public through one or more methods listed in
Sec. 1.7 of this chapter.
(2) A closure of all or a portion of a park road or parking area
that is otherwise open for motor vehicle use by the general public, or
all or a portion of an administrative road, trail, or other location
designated by rulemaking, may not remain in effect on a permanent basis
unless it is promulgated as a special regulation, except that a special
regulation is not required for a closure of all or a portion of a park
road or parking area that exists under state law.
(d) Prohibited acts. The following are prohibited:
(1) Operating a bicycle or an electric bicycle off of park roads
and parking areas in locations not designated for their use in
accordance with this section.
(2) Possessing a bicycle or an electric bicycle in a wilderness
area established by Federal statute.
(3) Operating a bicycle or an electric bicycle during periods of
low visibility, or while traveling through a tunnel, or between sunset
and sunrise, without exhibiting on the operator, bicycle, or electric
bicycle a white light or reflector that is visible from a distance of
at least 500 feet to the front and with a red light or reflector that
is visible from at least 200 feet to the rear.
(4) Operating a bicycle or an electric bicycle abreast of another
bicycle or electric bicycle except where authorized by the
superintendent.
(5) Operating a bicycle or an electric bicycle while consuming an
alcoholic beverage or carrying in hand an open container of an
alcoholic beverage.
(6) Except where use of motor vehicles by the public is allowed,
using the electric motor exclusively to move an electric bicycle for an
extended period of time.
(e) Other requirements. (1) A person operating or possessing a
bicycle or an electric bicycle is subject to the following sections of
this part that also apply to the operation of a motor vehicle:
Sec. Sec. 4.12, 4.13, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, and 4.23.
(2) Except as specified in this chapter, the use of a bicycle or an
electric bicycle is allowed in compliance with applicable State law.
Any act in violation of applicable State law is prohibited.
Kevin Lilly,
Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2026-17902 Filed 8-31-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 1, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.