crawler#976
Expedition Leader
http://www.azgfd.gov/artman/publish/article_551.shtml
Please take the time to attend your local meeting!
Please take the time to attend your local meeting!
Arizona Roadless Area Use meetings
- Thread starter crawler#976
- Start date
Jonathan Hanson
Well-known member
Thanks for posting the notice, Crawler. I hope everyone who can will attend a local meeting.
I also hope everyone on this forum will support the continued protection of the remaining roadless areas in Arizona. I've taken the liberty of reprinting below an op-ed piece I wrote for the East Valley Tribune, supporting the petition which the governor must submit this November. It's also on file in the Conservation section on the main Expedition Portal site.
It is local control: Americans support the Roadless Rule
By Jonathan Hanson
A recent editorial in the East Valley Tribune excoriated Janet Napolitano and the other governors and state attorneys general who support the so-called Roadless Rule, which banned new road construction in about 58 million acres of our national forests, mostly in the West. The editorial accused Napolitano et al of pandering to “green extremists,” and claimed that the “controversial” rule merely locks up public land for the exclusive use of “neo-Druids” and, worse, democrats, who the Tribune apparently believes are the rule’s only supporters.
As a Republican, 4x4 owner, and hunter lumped in with those neo-Druids, I wonder if the Tribune could stop pandering to lumber and mining companies long enough to get the facts straight.
Far from being some last-minute Clinton plot, the Roadless Rule was adopted after a two-year process involving over 600 public meetings. The Forest Service received four million comments on the proposal—more than for any other issue in its history. American citizens who supported the plan outnumbered those who didn’t by almost two to one—a significantly greater majority than that which returned George Bush to office. According to one poll, over 80 percent of hunters and anglers supported the plan. The Outdoor Industry Association, which represents 4,000 companies involved in the $20 billion outdoor industry, supported the plan. Even the corporate headquarters of KB Homes, one of the nation’s largest builders, sent a letter of support. Information is lacking on how many neo-Druids have infiltrated executive positions at KB.
The reason for this groundswell of support is simple: Americans overwhelmingly want to preserve the last pristine wild areas with which our country is blessed, along with the wildlife that lives there. The Roadless Rule affects only a third of all national forest land. The majority is still open to logging and other resource extraction, as well as motorized recreation, along 386,000 miles of existing Forest Service roads—enough to circle the earth 15 times. If that doesn’t qualify as “multiple use,” what would? Incidentally, the Forest Service has a $10 billion backlog on maintenance for those roads—which, remember, are funded by taxpayers in the first place, not by the lumber companies that benefit hugely from them. Public lands timber sales cost the public millions of dollars every year.
The Tribune’s claim that roads provide necessary access for fire crews is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. According to the Forest Service’s own studies, large, destructive fires occur much more frequently in roaded and logged areas than in roadless areas. Human-caused fires are almost five times more likely to occur in roaded areas. One need only research recent large fires in Arizona to confirm this. Recent catastrophic fires on public land are the direct result of a century of road-building, narrow-minded logging practices, and misguided fire suppression policies, all of which added up to forests comprising mostly kindling instead of mature, fire-resistant trees.
Bush’s move to rescind the Roadless Rule doesn’t restore “local control” over national forests, as claimed by the administration and the Tribune. In fact it gives state governors only 18 months to identify and study areas they believe should remain roadless, and to then petition the under-Secretary of Agriculture to develop management strategies for those areas. The under-Secretary is free to alter or reject outright those petitions. Does that sound like local control? Since the current under-Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Rey, spent 20 years as a timber industry lobbyist, one can predict where his sympathies might lie. Rey was a chief architect of Idaho Senator Larry Craig’s version of the 1997 National Forest Management Act, which would have eliminated citizen oversight of national forest policy and made timber harvest levels mandatory and enforceable. Does that sound like local control?
America does need lumber and minerals and oil. We also need space for fans of motorized backcountry recreation. That’s why over half of all national forest land remains open for such activities. And this doesn’t count 260 million acres of BLM land, most of which is also accessible by vehicle, or millions of acres of state land.
The Roadless Rule is supported by a solid majority of Americans (and Arizonans) and backed by sound science. It might be our final opportunity to preserve the last pristine areas of our national forests, for the enjoyment of ourselves and our children.
Even those we haven’t raised as Druids.
I also hope everyone on this forum will support the continued protection of the remaining roadless areas in Arizona. I've taken the liberty of reprinting below an op-ed piece I wrote for the East Valley Tribune, supporting the petition which the governor must submit this November. It's also on file in the Conservation section on the main Expedition Portal site.
It is local control: Americans support the Roadless Rule
By Jonathan Hanson
A recent editorial in the East Valley Tribune excoriated Janet Napolitano and the other governors and state attorneys general who support the so-called Roadless Rule, which banned new road construction in about 58 million acres of our national forests, mostly in the West. The editorial accused Napolitano et al of pandering to “green extremists,” and claimed that the “controversial” rule merely locks up public land for the exclusive use of “neo-Druids” and, worse, democrats, who the Tribune apparently believes are the rule’s only supporters.
As a Republican, 4x4 owner, and hunter lumped in with those neo-Druids, I wonder if the Tribune could stop pandering to lumber and mining companies long enough to get the facts straight.
Far from being some last-minute Clinton plot, the Roadless Rule was adopted after a two-year process involving over 600 public meetings. The Forest Service received four million comments on the proposal—more than for any other issue in its history. American citizens who supported the plan outnumbered those who didn’t by almost two to one—a significantly greater majority than that which returned George Bush to office. According to one poll, over 80 percent of hunters and anglers supported the plan. The Outdoor Industry Association, which represents 4,000 companies involved in the $20 billion outdoor industry, supported the plan. Even the corporate headquarters of KB Homes, one of the nation’s largest builders, sent a letter of support. Information is lacking on how many neo-Druids have infiltrated executive positions at KB.
The reason for this groundswell of support is simple: Americans overwhelmingly want to preserve the last pristine wild areas with which our country is blessed, along with the wildlife that lives there. The Roadless Rule affects only a third of all national forest land. The majority is still open to logging and other resource extraction, as well as motorized recreation, along 386,000 miles of existing Forest Service roads—enough to circle the earth 15 times. If that doesn’t qualify as “multiple use,” what would? Incidentally, the Forest Service has a $10 billion backlog on maintenance for those roads—which, remember, are funded by taxpayers in the first place, not by the lumber companies that benefit hugely from them. Public lands timber sales cost the public millions of dollars every year.
The Tribune’s claim that roads provide necessary access for fire crews is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. According to the Forest Service’s own studies, large, destructive fires occur much more frequently in roaded and logged areas than in roadless areas. Human-caused fires are almost five times more likely to occur in roaded areas. One need only research recent large fires in Arizona to confirm this. Recent catastrophic fires on public land are the direct result of a century of road-building, narrow-minded logging practices, and misguided fire suppression policies, all of which added up to forests comprising mostly kindling instead of mature, fire-resistant trees.
Bush’s move to rescind the Roadless Rule doesn’t restore “local control” over national forests, as claimed by the administration and the Tribune. In fact it gives state governors only 18 months to identify and study areas they believe should remain roadless, and to then petition the under-Secretary of Agriculture to develop management strategies for those areas. The under-Secretary is free to alter or reject outright those petitions. Does that sound like local control? Since the current under-Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Rey, spent 20 years as a timber industry lobbyist, one can predict where his sympathies might lie. Rey was a chief architect of Idaho Senator Larry Craig’s version of the 1997 National Forest Management Act, which would have eliminated citizen oversight of national forest policy and made timber harvest levels mandatory and enforceable. Does that sound like local control?
America does need lumber and minerals and oil. We also need space for fans of motorized backcountry recreation. That’s why over half of all national forest land remains open for such activities. And this doesn’t count 260 million acres of BLM land, most of which is also accessible by vehicle, or millions of acres of state land.
The Roadless Rule is supported by a solid majority of Americans (and Arizonans) and backed by sound science. It might be our final opportunity to preserve the last pristine areas of our national forests, for the enjoyment of ourselves and our children.
Even those we haven’t raised as Druids.
Jonathan Hanson
Well-known member
Thanks guys. Yes, they not only printed it, but a revised version has gone out in the newsletter for PARA (Protect Arizona's Roadless Areas).
You wouldn't think that in Arizona, the last frontier in the lower 48 (we were the 48th state), the issue of protecting our last bits of pristine public land would generate even a whiff of contention. Nice to see support on a 4x4 forum - but then I expected that here!
You wouldn't think that in Arizona, the last frontier in the lower 48 (we were the 48th state), the issue of protecting our last bits of pristine public land would generate even a whiff of contention. Nice to see support on a 4x4 forum - but then I expected that here!
DesertRose
Safari Chick & Supporting Sponsor
The Arizona Republic printed an op-ed by Jonathan today, on the values of roadless areas and supporting the Roadless Rule:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0710hanson-roads.html
All us 4x4-driving neo-druids will be there!
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0710hanson-roads.html
All us 4x4-driving neo-druids will be there!
crawler#976
Expedition Leader
Info on AZ FS land that's been inventoried, broken out by Nat Forest:
http://roadless.fs.fed.us/states/az/state3.shtml
I don't understand the process - reason #1 why I'll be attending the meeting.
My concern is that this process creates defacto wilderness areas - if the area is deserving of such designation, then why not do that vs. some policital machination that can be changed by future political hacks. Secondly, as a "motorized" hiker, I really don't want to lose more opportunities - enough area has been lost as it is.
I'm looking forward to being edified
http://roadless.fs.fed.us/states/az/state3.shtml
I don't understand the process - reason #1 why I'll be attending the meeting.
My concern is that this process creates defacto wilderness areas - if the area is deserving of such designation, then why not do that vs. some policital machination that can be changed by future political hacks. Secondly, as a "motorized" hiker, I really don't want to lose more opportunities - enough area has been lost as it is.
I'm looking forward to being edified
Last edited:
Seldom Seen
Observer
Hope I can help out a little. Here in Colorado we are about to rap up the process of reinstating the Roadless Rule. We had a different opportunity here than other states. Our governor and the state legislature formed a task force to examine the 2001 rule and, with public input, recommend changes to the rule to better serve Colorado and it's mtn. communities.
I have been very involved with our club to help our land use coordinator keep our club informed about the process. I have attended several meetings and have done a LOT of research on the 2001 rule and the reinstatement process.
1st a little history is in order. Back in 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act. The act mandated that public land managers inventory all public lands and identify all lands suitable for wilderness status. In typical government fashion it took longer than expected and involved many law suits. So they did it again in the early 70's. The inventory was called RARE I. Again the same old BS and they did it again ending in 1979 and was called RARE II. You will hear these terms thrown around a lot. Fast forward to 1998, Forest Chief Mike Dombeck realized that the USFS had a backlog of maintenance on existing roads so he put a temporary ban on road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) and adjacent primitive areas. He also gave notice to his bosses (the Sec. Of Agriculture and the Pres) that the USFS was proposing a rule change to make the ban permanent. During the public comment period on the proposed change the USFS received a record number of comments, the overwhelming majority were in favor of making the changes permanent. In 2001 Pres. Clinton made the changes permanent. After Bush was elected, and there was a changing of the guard, several states filed suit in federal court to repeal the 2001 rule. IIRC there were 9 cases and all upheld the rule. In late 2004 or early 2005 Bush suspended the rule and set forth a process in which the governor of each state can petition the Sec of Agriculture on how best to proceed with the rule in their state. Most states have petitioned to reinstate the rule. CA, OR and NM have decided to let a federal court decide after hearing from all sides. Other states have filed paper work saying the will abide by the decision in the CA et-al case even though they are not directly involved in the case.
OK a little background that I hope will answer a few questions and dispel some of the rhetoric you will hear.
What is the Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) process? Well basically it's an inventory. Like a shop keeper keeps inventory of this stock, the USFS keeps an inventory of lands that have primitive characteristics. Much like a shopkeeper's, the USFS's inventory is dynamic and land is added and deleted during FS plan revisions. The inventory exists as a set of lines on a map enshrined somewhere in Washington DC.
How does an area get included in the inventory? An IRA has to be at least 5,000 acres or adjacent to an existing Wilderness Area. The IRA has to be relatively free from human impact and have mostly a primitive characteristic.
Why are there ROADS in a ROADLESSarea? This one is going to be difficult as I am a visual person and it will be difficult to explain in writing. Give me a white board and 20mins of your time and I guarantee you will have an AH-HA moment. Any way here it goes so bear with me.
Let's say you have a forest, it is >5,000 acres and is mostly free of impact. However ********** dab in the middle of it there is an abandon mine and leading to the mine is a FS road. You look on a forest service map and it says that this forest is an IRA. When the USFS does the inventory they first look at the overall characteristic of the area and if there are some roads in the area they create a buffer zone around the road. The zone is 300 feet wide (150 feet either side of the road). Then, if say the road switchbacks up a hill instead of making the buffer zig-zag up the hill, leaving little slivers of land between the switchbacks, they "round" or "smooth" the edges so the buffer includes the switchback and all the ground in between. With me so far? Next they will create a buffer zone around the mine. All the acreage with in the buffer zone is subtracted from the overall acreage of the forest and if the forest is still >5,000 acres than it can be included in the inventory.
The best example I can use is Holy Cross City and the road leading to it. Holy Cross is surrounded on 3 sides by the Holy Cross Wilderness Area. If you look at the map you will see that the city (ghost town) the trail and the associated buffer is excluded from Wilderness status. (the process going from IRA to Wilderness is not the same as going from forest to IRA. This is the best example I can think of, if you look at the map and see how the boundaries are "rounded")
Got it?
Is inclusion as an IRA the 1st step in the Wilderness process? The short answer is yes. The long answer is a bit more complicated. The Inventory only identifies areas with potential. During FS plan revisions the lands are constantly re-evaluated for suitability as wilderness. Over the years as new leases are granted and development take place within IRA boundaries less land is eligible for Wilderness status. That plus the the ever increasing "Forest/Urban Interface", more land is removed from inventory than is added to Wilderness.
A lot of rumors, mostly inflammatory in nature, were spread by both radical and reactionary forces during our public comment process. I hope I can shed some light on what I found out from the USFS instead of reacting to these rumors.
Inclusion as an IRA IN NO WAY gives the area any "special status" like a Wilderness Area.
When an area is included it is not granted any special protection, so that it will remain in reserve for wilderness status. The 2001 rule did grant a Prohibition from new mining surface leases, commercial timber harvest and new road construction with in these areas. It's the 2001 rule and not inclusion as an IRA that created the Prohibition.
Inclusion as an IRA is not a "stand alone" management plan. IRA's are NOT managed as "de facto wilderness areas". IRA's have been, are and will continue to be managed under the USFS plans and it's revision process. When developing or revising plans the USFS assigns a "category" to all the land under its control. These categories (some times called "Themes" or "Prescription) range from Cat I to Cat VIII. Cat I&II are the most primitive, Cat VIII is the most developed (Think ski area base complex). Cat I&II usually exist together. Cat II is the most "wilderness like" designation and is some times called "flora and fauna" and is used to define areas that are fragile habitat. Cat II usually are small pockets with in Cat I. Cat I is considered "primitive." Cat III is less primitive and can have developed campgrounds, picnic areas and also allows for cattle grazing ect. The reason I mentioned the 1st 3 categories is that almost all of the IRA's fall into these management themes. It is because of their primitive and less developed characteristic that they are assigned these prescriptions and NOT because of their inclusion as an IRA. Its been a chicken and egg debate here, But it's because of their "wilderness like attributes" that they are IRA's and NOT because they are IRA's that they are managed as "de facto wilderness."
Cat I allows for roads and trails for motorized and non motorized recreation (cat II usually does not) Cat III allows for motorized recreation, and as I stated before, development of less primitive facilities.
OK still with me? Lets look at the 2001 rule
The rule DID NOT close even 1 inch of USFS system roads or trails with in IRAs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(page 3253)
The rule DOSE NOT effect "Trails" for motorized and non motorized use. Trails are defined by the USFS as being less than 50" wide (page 3250). The rule only effects "Roads" (>50" wide)
Trail construction can continue under the 2001 rule.
In the opening pages of the rule, under "Purpose" (page 3245) the rule states "Roadless areas often provide outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing. While they have many wilderness-like attributes, unlike Wilderness the use of mountain bikes and other mechanized means of travel often allowed". (note the use of capital letters in wilderness)
The USFS interpretation is; since you can't ride your ATV, motorcycle or mt bike or drive your 4x4 in Wilderness areas the rule will preserve primitive areas, for their wilderness like attributes, where you can take a motor vehicle.
There are downsides to the rule and I can address them in another post, but my eyes are going buggy so I'll post up latter. In the mean time I'll be glad to answer any questions.
Happy Trails, Seldom.
P.S. all page # in my posts will refer to The Federal Register page #, its how the rule is numbered. The rule is only 47 pages long.
I have been very involved with our club to help our land use coordinator keep our club informed about the process. I have attended several meetings and have done a LOT of research on the 2001 rule and the reinstatement process.
1st a little history is in order. Back in 1964 Congress passed the Wilderness Act. The act mandated that public land managers inventory all public lands and identify all lands suitable for wilderness status. In typical government fashion it took longer than expected and involved many law suits. So they did it again in the early 70's. The inventory was called RARE I. Again the same old BS and they did it again ending in 1979 and was called RARE II. You will hear these terms thrown around a lot. Fast forward to 1998, Forest Chief Mike Dombeck realized that the USFS had a backlog of maintenance on existing roads so he put a temporary ban on road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) and adjacent primitive areas. He also gave notice to his bosses (the Sec. Of Agriculture and the Pres) that the USFS was proposing a rule change to make the ban permanent. During the public comment period on the proposed change the USFS received a record number of comments, the overwhelming majority were in favor of making the changes permanent. In 2001 Pres. Clinton made the changes permanent. After Bush was elected, and there was a changing of the guard, several states filed suit in federal court to repeal the 2001 rule. IIRC there were 9 cases and all upheld the rule. In late 2004 or early 2005 Bush suspended the rule and set forth a process in which the governor of each state can petition the Sec of Agriculture on how best to proceed with the rule in their state. Most states have petitioned to reinstate the rule. CA, OR and NM have decided to let a federal court decide after hearing from all sides. Other states have filed paper work saying the will abide by the decision in the CA et-al case even though they are not directly involved in the case.
OK a little background that I hope will answer a few questions and dispel some of the rhetoric you will hear.
What is the Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) process? Well basically it's an inventory. Like a shop keeper keeps inventory of this stock, the USFS keeps an inventory of lands that have primitive characteristics. Much like a shopkeeper's, the USFS's inventory is dynamic and land is added and deleted during FS plan revisions. The inventory exists as a set of lines on a map enshrined somewhere in Washington DC.
How does an area get included in the inventory? An IRA has to be at least 5,000 acres or adjacent to an existing Wilderness Area. The IRA has to be relatively free from human impact and have mostly a primitive characteristic.
Why are there ROADS in a ROADLESSarea? This one is going to be difficult as I am a visual person and it will be difficult to explain in writing. Give me a white board and 20mins of your time and I guarantee you will have an AH-HA moment. Any way here it goes so bear with me.
Let's say you have a forest, it is >5,000 acres and is mostly free of impact. However ********** dab in the middle of it there is an abandon mine and leading to the mine is a FS road. You look on a forest service map and it says that this forest is an IRA.
When the USFS does the inventory they first look at the overall characteristic of the area and if there are some roads in the area they create a buffer zone around the road. The zone is 300 feet wide (150 feet either side of the road). Then, if say the road switchbacks up a hill instead of making the buffer zig-zag up the hill, leaving little slivers of land between the switchbacks, they "round" or "smooth" the edges so the buffer includes the switchback and all the ground in between. With me so far? Next they will create a buffer zone around the mine. All the acreage with in the buffer zone is subtracted from the overall acreage of the forest and if the forest is still >5,000 acres than it can be included in the inventory.The best example I can use is Holy Cross City and the road leading to it. Holy Cross is surrounded on 3 sides by the Holy Cross Wilderness Area. If you look at the map you will see that the city (ghost town) the trail and the associated buffer is excluded from Wilderness status. (the process going from IRA to Wilderness is not the same as going from forest to IRA. This is the best example I can think of, if you look at the map and see how the boundaries are "rounded")
Got it?
Is inclusion as an IRA the 1st step in the Wilderness process? The short answer is yes. The long answer is a bit more complicated. The Inventory only identifies areas with potential. During FS plan revisions the lands are constantly re-evaluated for suitability as wilderness. Over the years as new leases are granted and development take place within IRA boundaries less land is eligible for Wilderness status. That plus the the ever increasing "Forest/Urban Interface", more land is removed from inventory than is added to Wilderness.
A lot of rumors, mostly inflammatory in nature, were spread by both radical and reactionary forces during our public comment process. I hope I can shed some light on what I found out from the USFS instead of reacting to these rumors.
Inclusion as an IRA IN NO WAY gives the area any "special status" like a Wilderness Area.
When an area is included it is not granted any special protection, so that it will remain in reserve for wilderness status. The 2001 rule did grant a Prohibition from new mining surface leases, commercial timber harvest and new road construction with in these areas. It's the 2001 rule and not inclusion as an IRA that created the Prohibition.
Inclusion as an IRA is not a "stand alone" management plan. IRA's are NOT managed as "de facto wilderness areas". IRA's have been, are and will continue to be managed under the USFS plans and it's revision process. When developing or revising plans the USFS assigns a "category" to all the land under its control. These categories (some times called "Themes" or "Prescription) range from Cat I to Cat VIII. Cat I&II are the most primitive, Cat VIII is the most developed (Think ski area base complex). Cat I&II usually exist together. Cat II is the most "wilderness like" designation and is some times called "flora and fauna" and is used to define areas that are fragile habitat. Cat II usually are small pockets with in Cat I. Cat I is considered "primitive." Cat III is less primitive and can have developed campgrounds, picnic areas and also allows for cattle grazing ect. The reason I mentioned the 1st 3 categories is that almost all of the IRA's fall into these management themes. It is because of their primitive and less developed characteristic that they are assigned these prescriptions and NOT because of their inclusion as an IRA. Its been a chicken and egg debate here, But it's because of their "wilderness like attributes" that they are IRA's and NOT because they are IRA's that they are managed as "de facto wilderness."
Cat I allows for roads and trails for motorized and non motorized recreation (cat II usually does not) Cat III allows for motorized recreation, and as I stated before, development of less primitive facilities.
OK still with me? Lets look at the 2001 rule
The rule DID NOT close even 1 inch of USFS system roads or trails with in IRAs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(page 3253)
The rule DOSE NOT effect "Trails" for motorized and non motorized use. Trails are defined by the USFS as being less than 50" wide (page 3250). The rule only effects "Roads" (>50" wide)
Trail construction can continue under the 2001 rule.
In the opening pages of the rule, under "Purpose" (page 3245) the rule states "Roadless areas often provide outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing. While they have many wilderness-like attributes, unlike Wilderness the use of mountain bikes and other mechanized means of travel often allowed". (note the use of capital letters in wilderness)
The USFS interpretation is; since you can't ride your ATV, motorcycle or mt bike or drive your 4x4 in Wilderness areas the rule will preserve primitive areas, for their wilderness like attributes, where you can take a motor vehicle.
There are downsides to the rule and I can address them in another post, but my eyes are going buggy so I'll post up latter. In the mean time I'll be glad to answer any questions.
Happy Trails, Seldom.
P.S. all page # in my posts will refer to The Federal Register page #, its how the rule is numbered. The rule is only 47 pages long.
Last edited:
crawler#976
Expedition Leader
Wow!
Thanks for the info!
Thanks for the info!
HongerVenture
Adventurer
Ah Ha! Thanks Seldom... that helps me understand a lot better. Although I live in Indiana, I do care about these matters. Thanks for shedding light.
It's funny to me that you gave the page numbers for the federal register. Just a few weeks ago I completed a federal bridge inspection course and the instructor was constantly referring to page numbers in the federal register for differen't FHWA regs.
The federal register is huge! It's actually kinda sad sometimes to realize that the size of the federal register points to a lot government meddling into things that just shouldn't be of concern. Sorry, I'll shut up now!
It's funny to me that you gave the page numbers for the federal register. Just a few weeks ago I completed a federal bridge inspection course and the instructor was constantly referring to page numbers in the federal register for differen't FHWA regs.
The federal register is huge! It's actually kinda sad sometimes to realize that the size of the federal register points to a lot government meddling into things that just shouldn't be of concern. Sorry, I'll shut up now!