[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32371-32376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-13578]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 7

RIN 1024-AD02


Assateague Island National Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule designates areas where personal watercraft (PWC) may 
be used in Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland and Virginia. 
This rule is necessary because regulations require any park allowing 
the use of PWC to promulgate a special regulation authorizing the use. 
The decision to allow use of PWC must consider whether PWC use is 
appropriate for a specific park area based on that area's enabling 
legislation, resources, values, other visitor uses, and overall 
management objectives. The NPS published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register on May 6, 2002. The public was invited to comment on the 
rulemaking for 60 days.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes effective June 30, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Mail inquires to Superintendent, Assateague Island National 
Seashore, 7206 National Seashore Lane, Berlin, Maryland 21811.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kym Hall, Regulations Program Manager, 
National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 3145, Washington, DC 
20240. Phone: (202) 208-4206. e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Park Service is granted broad authority under 16 
U.S.C. 1 et seq., the NPS ``Organic Act'', to regulate

[[Page 32372]]

the use of the Federal areas known as national parks. In addition, the 
Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 3) allows the NPS, through the Secretary of the 
Interior, to ``make and publish such rules and regulations as he may 
deem necessary or proper for the use and management of the parks * * 
*''
    16 U.S.C. 1a-1 states, ``The authorization of activities shall be 
conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the 
National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the 
values and purposes for which these various areas have been established 
* * *''
    As with the United States Coast Guard, NPS regulatory authority 
over waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including 
navigable waters and areas within their ordinary reach, is based upon 
the Property and Commerce Clauses of the U. S. Constitution. In regards 
to the NPS, Congress in 1976 directed the NPS to ``promulgate and 
enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or 
relating to waters within areas of the National Park System, including 
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States * * *'' (16 
U.S.C. 1a-2(h)). In 1996 the NPS clarified its authority to regulate 
activities within the park boundaries occurring on waters subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States by adopting 36 CFR 1.2(a)(3).

Personal Watercraft Use in the National Seashore

    PWC use at Assateague Island National Seashore is a relatively 
recent phenomenon, paralleling the national trend of increasing 
popularity and sales during the 1980s and 1990s. During that period, 
the preponderance of PWC use within the National Seashore occurred in 
the ocean and bay waters surrounding the northernmost 6 miles of 
Assateague Island. This area is immediately adjacent to the town of 
Ocean City which, with its summertime population of 300,000 and 
numerous marinas and boat launching facilities, generates significant 
amounts of water-based recreation, including boating and PWC use.
    On April 20, 2000, the National Park Service adopted a final rule 
(36 CFR 3.24) for managing PWC use in areas of the National Park 
System. The regulation was implemented to ensure a prudent approach to 
PWC management that would potentially allow their use, yet protect park 
resources, sensitive natural areas, plants and wildlife, and reduce 
conflicts between park visitors. The final rule prohibited PWC use in 
all National Park System areas unless the NPS determined that this type 
of water-based activity was appropriate for a specific park based upon 
the legislation establishing the area, the park's resources and values, 
other visitor uses of the area, and overall management objectives.
    Prior to 2000, PWC use was allowed throughout Assateague Island 
National Seashore, although as previously noted, the vast majority 
occurred adjacent to the northern end of the Island. In May 2000, most 
of the waters within the National Seashore were closed to PWC use 
consistent with 36 CFR 3.24 and a local determination by the 
superintendent that their continued use threatened the resources and 
values for which the park was established to protect. The authority for 
this closure was based upon 36 CFR Section 1.5, Closure and Public Use 
Limits. As established by the April 2000 National Park Service rule, 
PWC use is prohibited in all National Park System areas unless 
determined appropriate.
    The process used to identify appropriate PWC use at Assateague 
Island National Seashore considered the known and potential effects of 
PWC on park natural resources, traditional uses, public health and 
safety. This rule is designed to manage PWC use within the National 
Seashore in a manner that achieves the legislated purposes for which 
the park was established while providing reasonable access to the park 
by PWC.
    The Master Plan for Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (CNWR) 
(approved December 27, 1993) in the section entitled ``Public Use 
Management--Access'' states that ``From September 1 through March 14, 
allow boating access to Fishing Point, Toms Cove and year round at 
Assateague Point Beach.'' The Master Plan does not distinguish between 
boats and PWC in regards to access in the Assateague Point area of the 
CNWR. The Assateague Point Beach is the only area of the entire 
southern end of Assateague Island that is open to boat-in access during 
the summer months. The Seashore has identified the adjacent waters as 
open to PWC use in paragraph (c)(ii) of this regulation. CNWR and the 
Seashore work cooperatively to assure that unit specific regulations 
are as compatible as can be, given the somewhat different missions of 
the two agencies. Prohibiting PWC use in this area would substantially 
deprive PWC operators of any beach access within reasonable operating 
range for PWC from the town of Chincoteague and would conflict with the 
Refuge's allowance of PWC access at CNWR. Additionally, this would have 
a negative impact on the tourism-based economy the town of Chincoteague 
depends on.
    The use of motor vessels is a traditional method of accessing 
Assateague Island for land-based recreational activities. As such, 
providing PWC owners with this opportunity is considered both desirable 
and compatible with park purposes. To identify areas of potential use, 
the effects of PWC were evaluated against a number of resource and 
public use issues. Only those areas with minimal, if any, potential for 
resource and visitor use impacts were selected. Under this rule, PWC 
use will be allowed only in the Ocean City Inlet and Horse Marsh areas 
primarily for the purpose of providing a transportation corridor to 
Assateague Island. Both areas have physical and biological 
characteristics that minimize the potential for adverse impacts to park 
resources and values, and both are located immediately adjacent to 
population centers and experience high levels of general boat traffic. 
The effect will be to provide island access for persons wanting to use 
PWC to travel to the National Seashore or for persons for whom a PWC is 
the only form of water access to Assateague Island.

Summary of Comments

    The NPS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 6, 
2002 (67 FR 30339). The public was invited to comment on the rulemaking 
for 60 days. We received approximately 7,600 comments in the form of 
letters, faxes, emails and postcards on the rulemaking and supporting 
environmental assessment. Of the comments received, 7,264 support a 
complete ban on PWC use within the national seashore boundary. An 
additional 43 individuals support banning PWC use within the entire 
National Park System. Approximately 170 comments supported the proposed 
rule.
    Comments that referred to the environmental assessment have been 
identified and responded to in the Finding of No Significant Impact. 
The following is a summary of the comments specific to the rulemaking 
and the responses by the NPS.
    Comment 1: Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) would 
like to see a designated area along the ocean side of the island where 
PWC could come ashore, possibly south of where most beach-going 
visitors congregate.
    Response: Ocean front use and beach access by personal watercraft 
was considered and rejected by the park. Concerns associated with such 
use/access included those related to visitor

[[Page 32373]]

conflicts, safety, noise, and wildlife disturbance.
    Comment 2: The park service can set aside a one or two mile stretch 
of beach, (the larger the stretch the more spread out the users will 
be, thereby enhancing safety), and designate it a PWC use area. This 
portion should be in the ORV zone where fishermen do not frequent.
    Response: The Park Service is not considering access to the island 
by PWC via the ocean front for several reasons. Although ORV use does 
occur along the beach, use of PWC along that same stretch of ocean 
conflict with other uses in that area such as surf fishermen, sea 
kayakers, and surfers. These users are in that area in order to avoid 
conflicts with swimmers using beaches in other areas. Additionally, in 
order to launch from the ORV use area on the ocean front, it would be 
necessary to bring trailers out onto the beach and that is prohibited. 
Without launch capabilities, PWC would be forced to travel great 
distances along the coast in order to use that area, possibly causing a 
fuel shortage problem for the PWC. All of these issues and concerns 
lead the NPS to conclude that PWC use in the proposed area cannot be 
accommodated.
    Comment 3: There are no enforcement powers established in the rule 
for personal watercraft violations. Until enforcement powers are 
established in the rule, the rule should not go into effect.
    Response: In April of 2000, a service-wide rule became effective 
that defined a PWC and established the requirements for PWC use in the 
National Park System. That rule is located at Title 36 Code of Federal 
Regulations, Section 3.24. In April 2002, the authority for PWC to 
operate within Assateague Island National Seashore expired and PWC have 
been prohibited within the Seashore's boundaries pending the 
promulgation of this final rule. When this rule becomes effective, it 
establishes areas where PWC may operate within the boundaries of the 
Seashore and under what conditions. As codified, 36 CFR 3.24 
establishes what areas of the Seashore are closed to PWC use and what 
craft meet the definition of a PWC. The regulations contained in 36 CFR 
3.24 continue to apply to the areas where PWC use is prohibited within 
the Seashore and are enforceable by all commissioned rangers within the 
NPS.
    Comment 4: The Town [of Chincoteague] feels that the distance from 
the shoreline in the Assateague Channel adjacent to Chincoteague should 
be decreased to as little as 25' to accommodate a rather narrow 
navigable area. To compress the area available to personal watercraft 
only creates a safety hazard by overcrowding the area that would be 
available in this narrow waterway.
    Response: The NPS is authorizing PWC use to occur in the water area 
along the western shore of Assateague Island near Horse Marsh. The use 
area will increase the total available area for PWC to operate within 
the bay and will not compress the navigable use area. This should help 
to alleviate any safety concerns related to PWC and other craft 
attempting to operate in the Assateague Channel, a narrow waterway.
    Comment 5: The U.S. Coast Guard expressed concern if the PWC use 
area described in Sinepuxent Bay in Alternative A is prohibited in 
Alternative B then Alternative B leaves only the inlet area for use. 
That could send the wrong signal and push a lot of folks into a very 
tight area where the currents max out, large vessels transit and over 
the next couple of years there will be a large scale Army Corps of 
Engineers project.
    Response: Following their initial comments, the U.S. Coast Guard 
met with park staff to discuss the proposed action. The U.S. Coast 
Guard Command then retracted their original statement.
    The Coast Guard's initial concern was the ramification of a closed 
area in Sinepuxent Bay and how this would potentially increase traffic 
in Ocean City Inlet. The NPS reported that they had previously engaged 
the local PWC rental companies, discussed the proposed closure area and 
the impact this would have on their operation. The area in question is 
just west of Assateague and north of the 611 bridge. In alternative A, 
this area is indicated by the ``PWC use area'' markings. The PWC rental 
companies stated that this would not impact their operation, because 
the area in question is very shallow and would likely cause damage to 
their craft. Their renters are directed to stay in the deeper water to 
the west outside of the park boundaries. Therefore, the Coast Guard 
does not have a problem with the ban in that region, as it would 
negligibly impact inlet congestion.
    Comment 6: Some provision for non-official emergency personnel 
rescue use should be allowed in Sinepuxent Bay, such as towing a 
drifting kayaker, windsurfer, swimmer, etc. There are no enforcement 
powers established in the rule for personal watercraft violations. 
Until enforcement powers are established in the rule, the rule should 
not go into effect. The EA does not take into account the considerable 
law enforcement burden caused by PWC users.
    Water-based boundaries are difficult to define and enforce. A 
complete ban on PWC landings on Assateague Island National Seashore 
beaches and Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge beaches and in these 
areas' respective waters would likely lead to less confusion and fewer 
enforcement actions. Once a community of PWC users understands that 
there is a complete prohibition on operating PWC in park and refuge 
waters, the demands on NPS enforcement personnel would be minimized.
    Response: All mariners, regardless of type of vessel used, are 
obligated to render assistance to those in distress on the sea 
precluding the need for verbiage in the rule allowing such actions. The 
rule permits personal watercraft to beach on the ocean side of the 
island in case of injury or mechanical failure. The final rule will be 
enforceable pursuant to the authority provided in Title 36 Code of 
Federal Regulations, Sections 3.24 and 7.65. The limited amount of park 
water legally accessible by personal watercraft will make enforcement 
relatively easy.
    Comment 7: The Town questions the right of the United States 
National Park Service or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to 
regulate waters for which jurisdiction was granted to the Town by the 
Virginia General Assembly. The Town Charter as granted by the State 
gives jurisdictional authority over the surrounding waters of 
Chincoteague to the mean low water level of the Assateague shoreline.
    Response: Congress in 16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h) has directed the NPS to 
regulate the waters within areas of the National Park System. The 
particular waters at issue are navigable waters which are clearly 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
    Public Law 89-195 September 21, 1965 authorized the establishment 
of Assateague Island National Seashore ``together with the adjacent 
water areas not more than one-half mile beyond the mean high 
waterline.'' Sec. 4 of that law required the Secretary of the Interior 
to publish the location of the seashore in the Federal Register. This 
was published in FR Vol. 50 No. 159 August 16, 1985.
    Together with the authority the Commonwealth of Virginia may have 
granted to the Town of Chincoteague, the National Park Service has the 
authority to regulate activities in the waters surrounding Assateague 
Island. However, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, 
federal law and regulations may supercede state and local laws when 
necessary to protect the federal interest. In this rule, the NPS has

[[Page 32374]]

determined it is necessary to regulate the use of PWC in order to 
protect the resources of Assateague Island National Seashore and is 
consistent with the statutory direction to regulate boating and related 
activities.
    Comment 8: One organization commented that the PWC industry has 
claimed that PWC are recognized by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) as 
``Class A'' vessels and therefore cannot be regulated differently than 
other motorboats. However, the USCG states that the term ``class A 
vessel'' has no meaning insofar as USCG regulations are concerned. To 
date, the USCG has refrained from defining PWC and encourages other 
government agencies to define the craft. The NPS determined that PWC 
are different from conventional motorboats and finalized PWC-specific 
regulations in March of 2000.
    Response: The NPS definition of PWC is as follows: 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 NPS agrees that PWC have sufficient individual characteristics 
to warrant regulations specific to this type of craft. With this in 
mind, the NPS evaluated and chose the best regulatory approach in the 
preferred alternative in order to maintain the opportunities for 
various types of recreation while protecting the resources of 
Assateague Island National Seashore.

Changes to the Final Rule

    Based on the preceding comments and responses, the NPS does not 
intend to make any changes to the provisions of this rule with regard 
to PWC operations.

Compliance With Other Laws

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    This document is a significant rule and has been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
    (1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on 
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities.
    The National Park Service has completed the report ``Economic 
Analysis of Personal Watercraft Regulations in Assateague Island 
National Seashore'' (Law Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Inc.) 
dated March 2002. The report found that this proposed rule would not 
have a negative economic impact. In fact this rule, which will not 
impact local PWC dealerships and rental shops, may have an overall 
positive impact on the local economy. This positive impact to the local 
economy is a result of an increase of other users, most notably 
canoeists, swimmers, anglers and traditional boaters seeking solitude 
and quiet, and improved water quality. The economic analysis estimates 
that PWC users and related businesses to experience a net present value 
of $475,000-$506,600 in benefits over the next ten years as a result of 
implementing the preferred alternative. True social benefits are 
expected to be somewhat lower, since this estimate does not include 
increased park enforcement costs or potential adverse effects to non-
PWC users due to lack of data.
    (2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
    Actions taken under this rule will not interfere with other 
agencies or local government plans, policies, or controls. This is an 
agency specific rule.
    (3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of 
their recipients.
    This rule will have no effects on entitlements, grants, user fees, 
or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients. No 
grants or other forms of monetary supplements are involved.
    (4) This rule raises novel policy issues. The proposed regulation 
was the first special regulation for managing PWC use in National Park 
Units. The National Park Service published the general regulations (36 
CFR 3.24) in March 2000, requiring individual park areas to adopt 
special regulations to authorize PWC use. This regulation, and other 
PWC rules have generated considerable public interest because of 
potential environmental and economic impacts from these rules.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies 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.). 
This certification is based upon the finding in a report prepared by 
the National Park Service entitled, ``Economic Analysis of Personal 
Watercraft Regulations in Assateague Island National Seashore'' (Law 
Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Inc., March 2002). The focus of 
this study was to document the impact of this rule on two types of 
small entities, PWC dealerships and PWC rental outlets. This report 
found that small businesses would experience a small economic gain as a 
result of implementing the preferred alternative.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The National Park Service 
has completed an economic analysis to make this determination. This 
rule:
    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    c. Do not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule is an 
agency specific rule and imposes no other requirements on other 
agencies, governments, or the private sector.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant taking implications. A taking implication assessment is not 
required. No takings of personal property will occur as a result of 
this rule.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.
    This proposed rule only effects use of NPS administered lands and 
waters. It has no outside effects on other areas and only allows use 
within a small portion of the park.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has

[[Page 32375]]

determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system 
and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This regulation does not require an information collection from 10 
or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is 
not required. An OMB form 83-I is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Park Service has analyzed this rule in accordance with 
the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and has prepared 
an Environmental Assessment (EA). Additionally, a Finding of No 
Significant Impact was completed and signed on January 30, 2003. A copy 
of that finding may be obtained by contacting the Superintendent of 
Assateague Island National Seashore.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2:
    We have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian 
tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects.

Administrative Procedures Act

    This final rule will be effective upon publication in the Federal 
Register. In accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, 
specifically, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), this rule (36 CFR 7.48 (g)) is exempt 
from the requirement of publication of a substantive rule not less than 
30 days before its effective date.
    As discussed in the preamble of this rule, the final rule is a Part 
7 special regulation for Assateague Island National Seashore that 
relieves the restrictions imposed by the general regulation, 36 CFR 
3.24. The general regulation, 36 CFR 3.24, prohibits the use of 
personal watercraft in units of the national park system unless an 
individual park area has designated the use of personal watercraft by 
adopting a Part 7 special regulation. The proposed rule was published 
in the Federal Register (67 FR 30339) on May 6, 2002, with a 60-day 
period for notice and comment consistent with the requirements of 5 
U.S.C. 553(b). The Administrative Procedures Act, pursuant to the 
exception in (d)(1), waives the section 553(d) 30-day waiting period 
when the published rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves 
a restriction.'' In this rule the NPS is authorizing the use of PWCs, 
which is otherwise prohibited by 36 CFR 3.24. As a result, the 30-day 
waiting period does not apply to the Assateague Island National 
Seashore final rule.
    The Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedures Act 
explained that the ``reason for this exception would appear to be that 
the persons affected by such rules are benefited by them and therefore 
need no time to conform their conduct so as to avoid the legal 
consequences of violation. The fact that an interested person may 
object to such issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule does not change 
the character of the rule as being one `granting or recognizing 
exemption or relieving restriction', there by exempting it from the 
thirty-day requirement.'' This rule is within the scope of the 
exception as described by the Attorney General's Manual and the 30-day 
waiting period should be waived. See also, Independent U.S. Tanker 
Owners Committee v. Skinner, 884 F.2d 587(D.C.Cir. 1989). In this case, 
the court found that (d)(1) is a statutory exception that applies 
automatically for substantive rules that relieves a restriction and 
does not require any justification to be made by the agency. ``In sum, 
the good cause exception must be invoked and justified; the (d)(1) 
exception applies automatically.'' at 591. The facts are that 
Assateague Island National Seashore is promulgating this special 
regulation for the purpose of relieving the restriction, prohibition of 
PWC use, imposed by 36 CFR 3.24 and therefore, the (d)(1) exception 
applies to this rule.
    In accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, this rule is 
also excepted from the 30-day waiting period by 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3) and 
is effective upon publication in the Federal Register. As discussed 
above, the purpose of this rule is to comply with 36 CFR 3.24 
requirement for authorizing PWC use in park areas by promulgating a 
special regulation. ``The legislative history of the APA reveals that 
the purpose for deferring the effectiveness of a rule under section 
553(d) was `to afford persons affected a reasonable time to prepare for 
the effective date of a rule or rules or to take other action which the 
issuance may prompt.' S.Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess.15 (1946); 
H.R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 25 (1946).'' United States v. 
Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977). The persons affected 
by this rule are PWC users and delaying the implementation of this rule 
for 30 days will not benefit them; but instead will be 
counterproductive by denying them, for an additional 30 days, the 
benefits of the rule.
    The rule has been developed in full compliance with section 553(b) 
and (c) rulemaking requirements. The proposed rule was published in the 
Federal Register and provided 60 days for public comments. The public 
comments received are summarized and analyzed in this rule. ``In 
determining whether to invoke the exception, the agency is `required to 
balance the necessity for immediate implementation against principles 
of fundamental fairness which require that all affected persons be 
afforded a reasonable time to prepare for the effective date of its 
ruling.' The Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel, 808 F.2d 741, 752 (10th 
Cir. 1987). Since the primary purpose of the 30-day waiting period is 
so the public can prepare for the changes caused by the new rule, this 
rule authorizes the continued use of PWCs at Assateague Island National 
Seashore and will not require any changes that will require a 30-day 
waiting period for the public to prepare itself. There is no need to 
utilize the 30-day waiting period for the benefit of the affected 
parties, instead there is good cause for making this rule effective 
upon publication so that affected parties can begin using PWCs again.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7

    District of Columbia, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.


0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Park Service is 
amending 36 CFR part 7 as follows:

PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

0
1. The authority citation for Part 7 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also 
issued under D.C. Code 8-137(1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).


0
2. Section 7.65 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  7.65  Assateague Island National Seashore

* * * * *
    (c) Personal Watercraft. (1) Personal Watercraft (PWC) are allowed 
in Assateague Island National Seashore within the following locations 
and under the following conditions:
    (i) Ocean City Inlet: PWC may operate, transit, launch in water or 
beach on land between the north shore of Assateague Island and the 
south margin of the established Ocean City

[[Page 32376]]

Inlet channel, between Lighted Buoy 10 at approximate latitude 
38.19.30N, longitude 75.05.30W and Lighted Buoy 11 at 
approximate latitude 38.19.16N, longitude 75.09.0W
    (ii) Chincoteague Bay: PWC may operate, transit or launch in waters 
between the established Park boundary and the western shore of 
Assateague Island, from Assateague Point north to that portion of Horse 
Marsh located due east of the Memorial Park boat ramp on Chincoteague 
Island.
    (iii) Oceanside: PWC are allowed to beach along the ocean side of 
the island only in the case of personal injury or mechanical failure.
    (2) The Superintendent may temporarily limit, restrict or terminate 
access to the areas designated for PWC use after taking into 
consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource 
protection, and other management activities and objectives.

    Dated: May 27, 2003.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-13578 Filed 5-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-60-P