[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