eje67. Nicely constructed argument, but it has one fatal flaw. The reg on its face requires and prohibits certain things, but unlike many other such regs, it does not authorize any discretionary action on the part of the FS, and certainly not a District Ranger or even a Forest Supervisor. SO you have to look to Wasson to see if that's what the Court said, and it pretty clearly is not..
There was no discretionary action by the FS in Wasson. Wasson promised to use a porta potty, but used a bucket instead. So the only question was whether the bucket was "a receptacle . . provided for that purpose". Th FS argued and the court agreed that it was not. There was no hint or suggestion that the porta potty would be provided by the FS. The correspondence clearly intends that Wasson would provide it. The only action by the FS was approval of Wasson's initial plan to use cat-holes or the porta potty. But the court did not rule or rely even on on that approval, only on the fact that in light of Wasson's intent to use a port-a-potty, the bucket was not a receptacle "provided for the purpose".
At most, the Forest Service "approval" of the port-a-potty stand only for the the opinion of the FS that the port-a-potty would be a receptacle "provided for the purposes" and the Court's agreement that the bucket was not. The District Ranger's approval was not at issue, not even whether the approval was authorized or accurate. So it is an unsupported leap to conclude that Wasson stands for any authority of anyone to act or authorize anything.
This is very different from the FS authority, much less the District Ranger's exercise of power to authorize, much less require the Wag bag. In fact, the dicta you mention about the cat-holes at the work site makes it pretty clear that the FS also approves burying of feces a proper method disposal. So that one may comply with 261.11(d) by doing that as well as by removal OR disposal in a receptacle. SO, if you can bury it and not violate 261.11 then by definition the FS cannot require you to use a receptacle.
So yes, the FS could take the position that burying it - the practice called for an approved everywhere else - is prohibited by 362.11(d), but that would require them to enforce it that way everywhere
