[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49312-49317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24695]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Parts 1 and 3
RIN 1024-AC65
Personal Watercraft Use Within the NPS System
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing regulations that
will prohibit personal watercraft (PWC) in units of the National Park
System unless the NPS determines that PWC use is appropriate for a
specific unit based on that unit's enabling legislation, resources and
values, other visitor uses and overall management objectives. This
regulation will describe a process that will allow continued PWC use in
some areas. This proposed rule would enable the NPS to better manage
the use of personal watercraft in units of the NPS.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted until November 16, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: NPS--Ranger Activities Division--PWC, Room
7408, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. E-mail comments by
selecting Hotdocs and Personal Watercraft Use in the NPS System at
http://www.nps.gov/refdesk on the NPS website.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chip Davis at the above address or by
calling 202-208-4874.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NPS is granted broad statutory authority under 16 U.S.C. 1 et
seq. (National Park Service Organic Act) and 16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h) to ``* *
* regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks,
monuments, and reservations * * * by such means and measures as conform
to the fundamental purpose of the said parks * * * which purpose is to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wildlife 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''. Conserving the resources of the
parks is the primary responsibility of the NPS, while compatibly
providing for the enjoyment of the visitor, without impairing the
resources or the visitor experience. The appropriateness of a visitor
use or recreational activity will vary from park to park. NPS
Management Polices states that ``* * * because of differences in
individual park enabling legislation and resources and differences in
the missions of the NPS and other federal agencies, an activity that is
entirely appropriate when conducted in one location may be
inappropriate if conducted in another'' (Chapter 8:2-3).
NPS Management Policies provide further direction in implementing
the intent of the congressional mandate and other applicable Federal
legislation. The policy of the NPS regarding protection and management
of natural resources is ``The National Park Service will manage the
natural resources of the national park system to maintain,
rehabilitate, and perpetuate their inherent integrity'' (Chapter 4:1).
Where conflict arises between human use and resource protection, where
the NPS has a ``reasonable basis to believe a resource is or would
become impaired, the Park Service may, * * * otherwise place
limitations on public use'' (Chapter 1:3).
The Organic Act and the other statutory authorities of the NPS vest
the NPS with substantial discretion in determining how best to manage
park resources and provide for park visitors. ``Courts have noted that
the Organic Act is silent as to the specifics of park management and
that `under such circumstances, the Park Service has broad discretion
in determining which avenues best achieve the Organic Act's mandate * *
*. Further, the Park Service is empowered with the authority to
determine what uses of park resources are proper and what proportion of
the park resources are available for each use.' '' Bicycle Trails
Council of Marin v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1454 (9th Cir. 1996),
quoting National Wildlife Federation v. National Park Service, 669 F.
Supp. 384, 390 (D.Wyo. 1987). In reviewing a challenge to NPS
regulations at Everglades National Park, the court stated, ``The task
of weighing the competing uses of federal property has been delegated
by Congress to the Secretary of the Interior * * *. Consequently, the
Secretary has broad discretion in determining how best to protect
public land resources.'' Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Hodel, 775
F.2d 1544, 1550 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1169 (1986).
Over the years, NPS areas have been impacted with new, and what
often prove to be controversial, recreational activities. These
recreational activities tend to gain a foothold in NPS units in their
infancy, before a full evaluation of the possible impacts and
ramifications that expanded use will have on the unit can be initiated,
completed and
[[Page 49313]]
considered. Personal watercraft (PWC) use fits this category.
PWC use is a relatively new recreational activity that has been
observed in about 32 of the 87 units of the National Park System that
allow motorized boating. PWC refers to a vessel, usually less than 16
feet in length (measured from end to end over the deck excluding sheer)
which uses an inboard, internal combustion engine powering a water jet
pump as its primary source of propulsion. The vessel is intended to be
operated by a person or persons sitting, standing or kneeling on the
vessel, rather than within the confines of the hull. PWCs are high
performance vessels designed for speed and maneuverability and are
often used to perform stunt-like maneuvers. PWC includes vessels
commonly referred to as jet ski, waverunner, wavejammer, wetjet, sea-
doo, wet bike and surf jet. Over 1.3 million PWCs are in use today with
annual sales of approximately 200,000. The Personal Watercraft Industry
Association (PWIA), which consists of about five or six PWC
manufacturers, coined the term ``Personal Watercraft'.
This proposed rule takes a conservative approach to PWC use in
units of the National Park System based on consideration of the
potential resource impacts, conflicts with other visitors' uses and
enjoyment, and safety concerns. The proposed rule prohibits PWC use in
units of the National Park System unless the NPS determines that PWC
use is appropriate for a specific unit based on that unit's enabling
legislation, resources and values, other visitor uses, and overall
management objectives. The proposed rule incorporates and distinguishes
two methods of authorizing PWC use. The first method is available for a
relatively small group of park units where authorization might be
appropriately and successfully accomplished through locally based
procedures. The second method, unit-specific rulemaking through the
Federal Register, is available for all other park units where
authorization is deemed appropriate.
The first, or locally-based, method of authorizing PWC use would be
available to allow PWC use to continue in certain park units identified
in the proposed rule, namely, eleven national recreation areas (NRA's):
Amistad, Bighorn Canyon, Chickasaw, Curecanti, Gateway, Glen Canyon,
Golden Gate, Lake Mead, Lake Meredith, Lake Roosevelt and Whiskeytown-
Shasta-Trinity, and two national seashores: Gulf Islands and Padre
Island. In these park units, the superintendent could invoke the
procedures established by 36 CFR 1.5 and 1.7 to allow specified PWC use
to continue. These procedures authorize the superintendent to restrict
or allow activities, among other things, ``for the maintenance of
public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values,
protection of natural or cultural resources, * * * or the avoidance of
conflict among visitor use activities.'' 36 CFR 1.5(a). These
procedures authorize the superintendent to take such actions using
locally based methods, unless the proposed action ``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, or is of a highly controversial nature * * *'' 36 CFR 1.5 (b),
(e); 1.7. In these circumstances, the superintendent must elevate the
authorization to a unit-specific rulemaking through the Federal
Register, which is the authorization procedure required of all other
units of the National Park System where PWC use might be appropriate.
The proposed rule makes available the locally-based approach of 36
CFR 1.5 and 1.7 to the thirteen park units listed above based on a
determination that (a) PWC use in portions of these units appears
consistent with these units' enabling legislation, resources and
values, other visitor uses, and overall management objectives, and (b)
the superintendent may be able to authorize such PWC use without
triggering the provisions of 36 CFR 1.5(b) that would require elevating
the action to a Federal Register rulemaking. In the event that
rulemaking is required, the effective date of this regulation is
delayed for two years for the park units listed above. All thirteen
areas were established for water-related recreation and characterized
by substantial motorized use: nine contain man-made lakes created by
the construction of dams, and four have open ocean or bay waters, and
visitors to all thirteen areas appear generally to accept a variety of
motorized boating. The superintendent has the authority under 36 CFR
1.5 to regulate PWC use within these units, e.g., by area closures or
operating conditions.
The second method for authorizing PWC use in park units is a unit-
specific rulemaking in the Federal Register. This method provides
nationwide notice and opportunity to comment on any proposal to
authorize PWC use in a unit of the NPS other than the thirteen listed
above. This approach is similar to the NPS's approach to certain other
activities that raise questions of resource impacts, visitor use
conflicts, or significant controversy, such as snowmobile and off-road
vehicle use, bicycle use in undeveloped park zones, aircraft landing,
and hang-gliding. (See, e.g., 36 CFR 2.17, 2.18, and 4.30).
The proposed rule recognizes that promulgation of unit-specific
regulations can be time-consuming. Therefore, the rule would establish
a two-year ``grace period'' following final rule publication to provide
certain listed park units where PWC use is presently occurring
sufficient time to develop and finalize special regulations as
appropriate. During this two-year period, the superintendents of the
following park units would be able to authorize PWC use to continue by
complying with the procedures of 36 CFR 1.5 and 1.7:
National Seashores
Assateague Island
Canaveral
Cape Cod
Cape Hatteras
Cape Lookout
Cumberland Island
Fire Island
National Lakeshores
Indiana Dunes
Pictured Rocks
Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Recreation Areas
Delaware Water Gap
Chattahoochee River
NPS is presently adopting interim management measures to govern PWC
use in units of the National Park System during the rulemaking period.
These interim management measures are intended to prohibit the
introduction of PWC use into park units, which have not experienced
significant PWC use before this year. NPS is directing all park units
with water resources capable of being used by PWCs, but where PWCs are
not being used, to designate such water resources closed to PWC use
through the procedures of 36 CFR 1.5 and 1.7 pending promulgation of a
final rule. In addition, superintendents in park units with some level
of PWC use continue to have the authority to close areas to PWC use
using these same procedures while the rulemaking process is taking
place. As discussed above, the final rule, to the extent that it
reflects the proposed rule, will prohibit PWC use throughout the
National Park System except where specifically authorized through
appropriate authorization procedures.
The NPS's conservative approach to authorizing PWC use in units of
the NPS
[[Page 49314]]
reflects many concerns that have been raised about such use. These
concerns, described below, lead NPS to presume that, as a general
matter, PWC is inappropriate in most units of the National Park System.
NPS also recognizes, however, that PWC use appears appropriate in
certain park units; for example, Congress intended the NPS to manage an
active motorized water-based recreation program on the large man-made
lakes of Lake Mead and Glen Canyon National Recreation Areas. The
proposed rule requires NPS to determine that PWC use is consistent with
a park unit's enabling legislation, resources and values, other visitor
uses, and overall management objectives before authorizing PWC use in
the park unit.
The NPS is aware that the use of PWCs has raised controversy in
numerous locations throughout the nation. Not surprisingly, this
controversy is also affecting NPS units. PWCs clearly differ from
conventional watercraft in terms of design, use, safety record,
controversy and visitor and resource impacts. They are high performance
vessels designed for speed and maneuverability and are often operated
in an aggressive manner. They have a disproportional thrust capability
and horsepower to vessel length and/or weight, in some cases four times
that of conventional vessels. They are designed to be capable of
operation at high speed and are able to perform stunt-like maneuvers.
The complaint most often voiced by the boating public about PWCs is the
seeming disregard for other boaters and unsafe boating activity.
Complaints include PWCs operating too close to other boaters in order
to jump the wake of the other boats, buzzing swimmers, failure to
control their vessels, going in circles in the same area for long
periods of time, underage operators and not observing ``no wake''
zones. Studies also show the disturbance of fish and wildlife
associated with PWC use.
The use of PWCs as a recreational pursuit in and of itself is not
necessarily an appropriate use in units of the National Park System,
especially where it has the potential to affect adversely the resources
and values of that unit or other visitors' enjoyment of those resources
and values. Such use of PWCs for excitement and thrills is to be
distinguished from use of motorized vehicles for access and enjoyment
of the statutorily protected resources and values of the park unit. For
example, motor boats provide access for touring, fishing and transport
on some park lakes, and snowmobiles provide visitor transportation on
unplowed snow-covered park roads that are open to other motorized
vehicles at other times of the year.
While PWCs make up about eleven percent of the vessels registered
in the country, they comprise over 35 percent of the vessels involved
in accidents. Forty-four percent of the boating injuries reported in
1996 involved PWCs (National Association of State Boating Law
Administrators). The majority of these accidents are attributed to
rider inexperience and lack of skill, operation and use patterns,
excessive speed, alcohol use and conflicts with other vessels in
congested use areas. Also, PWCs are considered too dangerous to operate
at night and are explicitly prohibited from night operation by some
States. The number of PWC accidents has created enough concern that the
United States Coast Guard (USCG), as well as many of the States, is
looking into their use and operation. At least 34 States have
implemented or are contemplating some type of legislation or regulation
specific to PWC use, including minimum age requirement, education and
training requirement, wake jumping, use in specific areas, speed
limits, adult presence and night use.
PWCs have a shallow draft, which gives them the ability to
penetrate areas that are not available to conventional motorized
watercraft. This access has the potential to adversely impact wildlife
and aquatic vegetation in these shallow areas. Wildlife impacts may
include interruption of normal activity and alarm or flight; avoidance
and displacement, loss of habitat use, decreased reproductivity
success, interference with movement, direct mortality, interference
with courtship, alteration of behavior, change in community structure
and nest abandonment. Other potential impacts on the environment
include elevated noise levels and the discharge of oil and gas mixture
into the water.
NPS began to recognize the need to address PWC use and its
potential to impact park resources, values, and purposes several years
ago. In 1994, the NPS prohibited the use of PWCs at Everglades National
Park through a special regulation (59 FR 58781). Studies conducted at
the Everglades determined that the use of PWC over emergent vegetation,
shallow grass flats and mud flats commonly used by feeding shore birds,
damaged the vegetation, adversely impacted these shore birds, disturbed
the life cycles of other wildlife and was inconsistent with the
resources, values and purpose for which the park was established.
Everglades was established to protect a unique natural ecosystem. NPS
determined that activities such as water skiing and the use of PWCs are
incompatible with protecting such natural resources and preserving
wilderness qualities such as serenity. The studies conducted by the
Everglades recommended that the potential impact of PWCs be studied
before their use is permitted within other areas of the National Park
System.
At about the same time as the Everglades rulemaking, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) were addressing the impact of PWCs on similarly
sensitive resources and adopting regulations to manage PWCs. NOAA has
already regulated the use of PWCs in most National Marine Sanctuaries.
(See, e.g., 50 CFR 922). In PWIA v. the Department of Commerce, NOAA,
48 F.3d 540, (D.C. Cir. 1995), concerning PWC use in the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit held that Federal officials could regulate certain
types of vessels (i.e., PWCs) differently from other types of vessels.
In February 1997, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), a
governing body consisting of representatives from the States of Nevada
and California, held hearings on the adverse environmental impacts of
PWCs. Lake Tahoe, which straddles the border of California and Nevada
in the Sierra Nevada mountains, is world renowned for its cobalt blue
waters. TRPA is charged with protecting these waters against
degradation. The hearings focused in particular on the impacts to water
quality of two-stroke, non-fuel-injected engines on the marine
environment of Lake Tahoe. The vast majority of PWCs in use today
operate two-stroke, non-fuel injected engines. Studies have shown that
these two-stroke engines discharge as much as 25 percent of their gas
and oil emissions directly into the water. At the conclusion of
testimony, the TRPA voted unanimously to ban all two-stroke, internal
combustion engines (PWCs and outboards) from all of Lake Tahoe
beginning in the year 2000.
PWC use has a significant potential to conflict with other
visitors' enjoyment of park values and purposes. Many people complain
about the noise and pitch changes associated with PWC use. There are
additional concerns when high speed PWCs are operated in park areas
used almost exclusively by slow moving canoes and rafts in back water
areas, inlets or in river corridors. The visitor experience related to
a
[[Page 49315]]
traditional river, secluded lake or cove, where the number of launches
or number of users is limited to protect the remote quality and
expectations of solitude and where parties encounter each other
infrequently, would be greatly compromised with the introduction of
PWCs into the same area. Fishermen have also voiced concerns over the
introduction of PWC use in areas historically known for their
isolation, solitude and overall fishing experience.
In proposing this rulemaking, NPS has considered certain legal
issues brought to its attention about PWC regulation. The Personal
Watercraft Industry Association believes that PWCs are Class A vessels
according to the USCG, and therefore cannot be singled out and
regulated differently than any other Class A vessel. However, USCG
officials state that the term ``Class A'' vessel no longer has any
significant meaning other than with respect to certain fire
extinguisher and life preserver requirements. Indeed, the Recreational
Boating Product Assurance Division of the USCG has determined as a
practical matter that the term ``Class A'' has no meaning insofar as
Coast Guard regulations are concerned, except with regard to fire
extinguisher regulations. No matter how PWCs are classified, NPS and
other agencies believe PWCs can be regulated differently from other
vessels because of the unique performance capabilities and operational
characteristics of PWCs.
Impact of This Proposal
NPS expects PWC use to be authorized to continue in several units
of the National Park System. Because these are precisely the areas
likely to get the preponderance of PWC usage in units of the National
Park System, the NPS expects little, if any, economic impact on PWC
users or the PWC industry on a regional or national basis. The NPS
completed a threshold analysis, as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, to examine the impacts on small entities and consider
alternatives to minimize such impact. Significant impacts on commercial
PWC operations in and adjacent to NPS units are not expected from this
rule and a substantial number of small entities will not be affected.
Moreover, from the point of view of both users and the industry, it is
quite likely that any restrictions in one area would only shift usage
to other areas, either within or outside the park unit. And while such
restrictions may reduce the quality of experience of some PWC users, by
and large, the impact of this proposed rule on non-PWC visitors of NPS
units is expected to be positive since their visitor experience would,
if anything, be enhanced.
Drafting Information
The principal authors of this proposed rule are Dennis Burnett and
Chip Davis, Washington Office of Ranger Activities, National Park
Service, Michael Tiernan, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the
Interior and Molly N. Ross, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Public Participation
It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever
practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written
comments regarding this proposed rule to the address noted at the
beginning of this rulemaking. The NPS will review all comments and
consider making changes to the rule based upon analysis of the
comments.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking does not contain collections of information
requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Compliance With Other Laws
The Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866
reviewed this rule. The Department of the Interior determined that this
document 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.). The overall economic effects of this rulemaking should
be negligible. There are no expected increases in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State or local governments,
agencies or geographic regions.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, requires agencies to
analyze impacts of regulatory actions on small entities (businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and governments), and to consider alternatives
that minimize such impacts while achieving regulatory objectives. This
threshold analysis examines impacts of the proposed regulation that
would restrict personal watercraft (PWC) use within the National Park
System. A combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators is
used to determine whether these regulations would impose significant
impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
Analysis of Impacts
The PWC regulation could potentially impact two types of small
businesses: manufacturers and rental shops. Small nonprofit
organizations and small governments will not be affected. With respect
to small manufacturers, significant impacts are not likely given the
relatively low level of PWC use in affected NPS units compared to the
overall use of PWCs throughout the United States. Over 1.3 million PWCs
are currently in use in the U.S. with annual sales of approximately
200,000. Currently, PWC use has been observed in only 32 NPS units, 13
of which will likely not be affected significantly by these
regulations. Those 13 units, which are specifically authorized in their
enabling legislation for water recreation, account for the vast
majority of PWC use in NPS units. Consequently, PWC use would likely be
potentially affected in only 19 NPS units. Those 19 affected units
generally have alternative sites nearby where PWC use is allowed.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that PWC manufacturers will suffer a
significant decrease in sales due to these regulations.
Most, if not all, rental shops that supply PWCs for use within NPS
units could be classified as small businesses for purposes of this
threshold analysis. In the 19 potentially affected units, where PWCs
are currently in use, there are approximately 53 rental shops that
could be potentially impacted. However, any impacts from this
rulemaking should not be widespread or significant for the following
reasons:
1. In 12 of the 19 affected units, a 2-year grace period would
allow a locally based determination on PWC use until unit-specific
rulemakings can determine appropriate management measures. Such
measures would not automatically prohibit PWC use, but could limit use
to areas and times that are consistent with a unit's enabling
legislation, resources and values, other visitor uses, and overall
management objectives. Therefore, not only would potentially affected
rental shops benefit from the 2 year grace period, but a determination
of appropriate levels of PWC use would be made in these units under
future unit-specific regulations.
2. Future rulemakings will solicit and consider public comments on
proposed management measures, potentially increasing the flexibility of
such measures.
3. The remaining 7 affected units have limited commercial PWC use
from rental shops. The primary use is by individuals with privately
owned PWCs. Therefore, there would be
[[Page 49316]]
limited impacts on rental shops near those units.
4. All of the affected units having commercial PWC rental
operations operate on larger bodies of water (oceans, lakes and rivers)
of which the NPS managed portions are only a part of the larger body of
water. NPS jurisdiction typically extends from the shoreline out to \1/
4\ mile and up to one mile in various units. PWC use is managed by
state and local governments in the waters outside NPS jurisdiction and
is unaffected by the NPS regulation.
5. NPS managers have reported the existence of significant
opportunities for PWC use at alternative sites near each of the 19
affected NPS units. Therefore, potentially affected rental shops would
continue to be able to rent PWCs for use at these alternative sites.
6. No direct compliance costs, such as those associated with
reporting requirements, would be imposed on rental shops.
Therefore, significant impacts on PWC rental shops are not expected
from this rulemaking. Moreover, even if significant impacts were
expected, a substantial number of rental shops will not be affected.
Currently, there are approximately 133 rental shops that supply PWCs
for use in NPS units. However, only 4 rental shops supply PWCs for use
in units that would be automatically closed to PWC use by this
rulemaking.
There are virtually tens of thousands of water areas nationwide
where PWCs may be operated. A very small percentage of the nation's 1.3
million PWCs are used in units of the NPS. Where PWC use already occurs
in the NPS, there are anticipated to be few changes that would
adversely affect their current activity. Where PWC use does not already
occur, the possibility of keeping those areas free of PWC use will not
pose any additional economic impact.
These considerations indicate that this rulemaking will not impose
significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
The Department has determined and certifies pursuant to the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.), that this rule
will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on
local, State or tribal governments or private entities. The threshold
economic analysis of commercial PWC activity in relation to NPS areas
supports this determination.
The Department has determined that this rule meets the applicable
standards provided in Section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order
12988.
This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional review
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5
U.S.C. 804(2)).
The NPS has determined that this proposed rulemaking will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, health
and safety because it is not expected to:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(b) Introduce potentially incompatible uses, which compromise the
nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it;
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownership or land uses; or
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
Based on this determination, the regulation is categorically
excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in 516 DM 6, Appendix 7.4D
(49 FR 21438). As such, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 1
National parks, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Signs and symbols.
36 CFR Part 3
Marine safety, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the NPS proposes to amend 36 CFR
Chapter I as follows:
PART 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 460 1-6a(e), 469(k); D.C. Code 8-137,
40-721 (1981).
2. Section 1.4 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding a new definition, in alphabetical order to paragraph (a), to
read as follows:
Sec. 1.4 What terms do I need to know?
(a) * * *
Personal watercraft refers to a vessel, usually less than 16 feet
in length, which uses an inboard, internal combustion engine powering a
water jet pump as its primary source of propulsion. The vessel is
intended to be operated by a person or persons sitting, standing or
kneeling on the vessel, rather than within the confines of the hull.
The length is measured from end to end over the deck excluding sheer,
meaning a straight line measurement of the overall length from the
foremost part of the vessel to the aftermost part of the vessel,
measured parallel to the centerline. Bow sprits, bumpkins, rudders,
outboard motor brackets, and similar fittings or attachments, are not
included in the measurement. Length is stated in feet and inches.
* * * * *
PART 3--BOATING AND WATER USE ACTIVITIES
3. The authority citation for Part 3 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 1a-2(h), 3.
4. New Sec. 3.24 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 3.24 Where may I use personal watercraft?
(a) The use of personal watercraft in units of the National Park
System is allowed only in designated areas.
(b) Designation of areas for personal watercraft use requires the
promulgation of a special regulation, except for the following park
areas: Amistad, Bighorn Canyon, Chickasaw, Curecanti, Gateway, Glen
Canyon, Golden Gate, Lake Mead, Lake Meredith, Lake Roosevelt,
Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Areas, and Gulf Islands
and Padre Island National Seashores, where personal watercraft use may
be designated using the procedures of Secs. 1.5 and 1.7 of this
Chapter.
(c) The provisions of this section do not apply until [ insert date
two years from effective date of final regulation ] to the park areas
identified in paragraph (b) to allow either designation of personal
watercraft use areas pursuant to Secs. 1.5 and 1.7 of this chapter or
promulgation of a special regulation, and for the following park areas,
if determined appropriate, to promulgate a special regulation to
designate use areas for personal watercraft:
National Seashores
Assateague Island
Canaveral
Cape Cod
Cape Hatteras
Cape Lookout
Cumberland Island
Fire Island
National Lakeshores
Indiana Dunes
Pictured Rocks
Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Recreation Areas
Delaware Water Gap
[[Page 49317]]
Chattahoochee River
Dated: July 17, 1998.
Stephen C. Saunders
(Acting) Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 98-24695 Filed 9-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
