[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69268-69289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-30755]



[[Page 69267]]

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

Part VIII





Department of the Interior





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



National Park Service



36 CFR Part 7



Special Regulations; Areas of the National Park System; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2003 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 69268]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 7

RIN 1024-AD11


Special Regulations; Areas of the National Park System

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service is promulgating this rule to more 
effectively manage winter visitation and recreational use in 
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, 
Jr., Memorial Parkway. This rule is issued in conjunction with the 
Winter Use Plans Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Final 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and is necessary to 
mitigate impacts resulting from oversnow motorized recreation in the 
parks and to implement the Record of Decision of March 25, 2003. The 
rule implements an adaptive management strategy. In order to minimize 
impacts the rule requires that most recreational snowmobiles and 
snowcoaches operating in the parks meet certain air and sound emissions 
requirements, be accompanied by a trained guide, and comply with 
established daily entry limits on the numbers of snowmobiles that may 
enter the parks. Cross-country routes will continue to remain closed to 
oversnow motorized vehicles.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 11, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Sacklin, Planning Office, 
Yellowstone National Park, 307-344-2021.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Park Service (NPS) has been 
managing winter use issues in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), Grand 
Teton National Park (GTNP), and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial 
Parkway (the Parkway) for several decades. In 1997, the Fund for 
Animals and others filed suit, alleging that the NPS failed to: Consult 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on impacts of winter use on 
threatened and endangered species; prepare an EIS concerning winter 
use; and evaluate the effects of grooming on wildlife and other park 
resources. The suit was resolved with a settlement agreement in October 
1997 which, among other things, required the NPS to prepare a new 
winter use plan for the three park units. On October 10, 2000, a Winter 
Use Plans Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published for 
YNP, GTNP, and the Parkway. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by 
Intermountain Regional Director Karen Wade on November 22, 2000, and 
subsequently distributed to interested and affected parties. The ROD 
selected FEIS Alternative G, which eliminated both snowmobile and 
snowplane use from the parks by the winter of 2003-2004, and provided 
access via an NPS-managed, mass-transit snowcoach system. This decision 
was based on a finding that the snowmobile and snowplane use existing 
at that time, and the snowmobile use analyzed in the FEIS alternatives, 
impaired park resources and values, thus violating the statutory 
mandate of the NPS.
    Implementing aspects of this decision required a special regulation 
for each park unit in question. Following publication of a proposed 
rule and the subsequent public comment period, a final rule was 
published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001 (66 FR 7260). The 
rule became effective on April 22, 2001.
    On December 6, 2000, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of 
the National Park Service and others in the Department of the Interior 
and the NPS were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by the 
International Snowmobile Manufacturers' Association and several groups 
and individuals. The State of Wyoming subsequently intervened on behalf 
of the plaintiffs. Following promulgation of final regulations, the 
original complaint was amended to also challenge the regulations. The 
lawsuit asked for the decision contained in the ROD be set aside. The 
lawsuit alleged that NPS failed to give legally mandated consideration 
to all of the alternatives, made political decisions outside the public 
process and contrary to evidence and data, failed to give the public 
appropriate notice and participation, failed to adequately consider and 
use the proposals and expertise of the cooperating agencies, failed to 
properly interpret and implement the parks' purpose, discriminated 
against disabled visitors, and improperly adopted implementing 
regulations. A procedural settlement was reached on June 29, 2001, 
under which, NPS prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 
(SEIS). In accordance with the settlement, the SEIS incorporated ``any 
significant new or additional information or data submitted with 
respect to a winter use plan.'' Additionally, the NPS provided the 
opportunity for additional public participation pursuant to NEPA. A 
Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2001 (66 FR 
39197).
    A draft SEIS was published on March 29, 2002, and distributed to 
interested and affected parties. NPS accepted public comments on the 
draft for 60 days, and 357,405 pieces of correspondence were received. 
The draft SEIS examined four additional alternatives: Two alternatives 
that would allow some form of snowmobile access to continue; a no-
action alternative, that would implement the November 2000 ROD; and 
another alternative that would implement the no-action alternative one 
year later to allow additional time for phasing in snowcoach-only 
travel. The SEIS focused its analysis only on the issues relevant to 
allowing recreational snowmobile and snowcoach use in the parks. These 
impact topics included: Air quality and air quality related values, 
employee health and safety, natural soundscapes, public health and 
safety, socioeconomics, wildlife--bison and elk, and visitor 
experience. The SEIS did not include re-evaluating the decision to ban 
snowplane use on Jackson Lake because this had not been an issue in the 
lawsuit, and was not an aspect of the resulting settlement.
    On November 18, 2002, the NPS published a final rule (67 FR 69473) 
based on the FEIS, which generally postponed for one year 
implementation of the phase-out of snowmobiles in the parks under the 
January 2001 regulation. This rule allowed for additional time to plan 
and implement the NPS-managed mass-transit, snowcoach-only system 
outlined in the FEIS as well as time for completion of the SEIS. The 
rule delayed the implementation of the daily entry limits on 
snowmobiles until the winter of 2003-2004 and the complete prohibition 
on snowmobiles until 2004-2005. The transitional requirement under the 
2001 regulation that snowmobile parties use an NPS-permitted guide was 
also delayed until the 2003-2004 winter use season.
    Other provisions under the January 2001 regulation concerning 
licensing requirements, limits on hours of operation, and the ban on 
snowplane use remained effective for the winter use season of 2002-
2003. The rule also closed to snowmobiles 14 miles of roads that had 
been previously opened to snowmobile use.
    The Notice of Availability for the Final SEIS was published on 
February 24, 2003 (68 FR 8618). The Final SEIS included a new 
alternative, alternative 4, consisting of elements which fell within 
the scope of the analyses contained in the Draft SEIS and which

[[Page 69269]]

was identified as the preferred alternative. In addition, the final 
SEIS included changes to the alternatives, changes in modeling 
assumptions and analysis, and it incorporated additional new 
information. Intermountain Regional Director Karen Wade signed a Record 
of Decision for the SEIS, which became effective on March 25, 2003. In 
the ROD she stated: ``[that there is] broad discretion afforded under 
the applicable laws and policies to the Service in the operation of 
these units'' * * * [T]here is no single decision mandated by these 
laws and policies. This is reflected in my ROD from November 2000 * * * 
and the decision I made herein today * * * ''' The Regional Director 
selected Final SEIS alternative 4 for implementation, and enumerated 
specific modifications to that alternative. The Final SEIS and ROD each 
concluded that implementation of Final SEIS alternatives 1a, 1b, 3, or 
4 would not be likely to impair park resources or values resulting from 
motorized oversnow recreation. Promulgation of this rule is necessary 
to implement the March 25, 2003, ROD. Absent the promulgation of these 
new regulations, the existing regulations which reduce the numbers of 
snowmobiles that may be used in the parks during the winter of 2003-
2004, but without air and sound emissions requirements, will continue 
to apply. A detailed description of the background of this regulation 
is contained in the proposed regulation.

Summary of and Responses to Comments

    The NPS published a proposed rule on August 27, 2003 (68 FR 51526) 
and took comment for 49 days. The NPS received 104,802 documents 
commenting on the proposed rule, including 90,624 in electronic form, 
12,584 in hard copy, and 1,594 in other formats. The comments were 
categorized into one of four possible positions on the proposed 
regulations: (1) Pro Rule--the commentor generally supports the 
proposed rule; (2) Anti Rule, Too Strong--commentor generally objects 
to the proposed rule because it places too much of a burden on 
snowmobilers; (3) Anti Rule, Weak--commentor generally objects to the 
proposed rule because it does not adequately protect park resources due 
to the presence of snowmobiles; (4) Unclear--general position 
concerning the proposed rule is unclear.
    Approximately 91% of all commentors believed the proposed 
regulation does not adequately protect park resources due to the 
presence of snowmobiles. These commentors generally believe that the 
National Park Service should not implement this proposed rule and 
instead allow the current regulations to take effect, which would 
eliminate snowmobiles in favor of mass transit snowcoaches. About 8% of 
all commentors generally supported the proposed regulation, arguing 
that the NPS has correctly balanced visitor use with preserving park 
resources. Nearly 2% of commentors offered comments within the scope of 
the rulemaking, but they were generally unclear as to their position. 
Less than 1% of commentors generally believed the rule imposed too 
great of a burden on snowmobilers due to the restrictions associated 
with the regulation.
    The following is a summary of substantive comments on the proposed 
rule and our responses to them.

Snowmobile BAT

    Issue: Many commentors raised concerns that 2004 snowmobile models 
are more polluting than 2002 model-year machines, despite the NPS' 
expectations that snowmobile technology will continue to improve. They 
asserted that the snowmobile industry cannot be relied upon to provide 
innovative clean and quiet machines in a market that seeks faster and 
more powerful snowmobiles.
    NPS Response: NPS analysis indicates that some snowmobiles' 
emissions in the 2004 model year have increased slightly since the 2002 
model year. 2004 snowmobile models that have been certified as Best 
Available Technology (BAT) have slightly increased carbon monoxide 
emissions, relative to the tests on the 2002 models. This is likely due 
to an increase in horsepower. For hydrocarbon emissions, one 
manufacturer has slightly decreased emissions since 2002, but another 
manufacturer has slightly increased emissions. This increase is likely 
the result of the 2002 snowmobile being a prototype machine, which was 
significantly altered. In any event, these snowmobiles are still better 
than the BAT requirement of 90% reduction of hydrocarbons and 70% 
reduction of carbon monoxide. Sound emissions have been relatively 
level between 2002-2004 model years. The BAT requirements of this rule 
may encourage a niche market for a handful of snowmobile models. This 
may also provide incentives for some manufacturers to design 
snowmobiles that are cleaner and quieter than our BAT requirements, as 
future adaptive management decisions will be based in part on noise and 
air emissions.
    Issue: The rule does not recognize permeation emissions from 
snowmobile fuel systems. Permeation losses from snowmobiles stand to be 
a source of significant air pollution under the current rule, yet there 
is no proposed means for testing or regulating this form of pollution.
    NPS Response: We agree that permeation emissions could be a source 
of pollution in the parks. However, the EPA has promulgated regulations 
that will govern permeation emissions from snowmobile tanks. This is 
primarily a summer issue when temperatures are higher (as the report 
cited by the commentor indicates). We feel it is more appropriate to 
rely on these regulations for controlling permeation emissions. We will 
monitor air quality in the parks, and continue to evaluate this issue. 
Should we detect that permeation emissions lead to unacceptable air 
quality impacts, we will take action under the adaptive management 
provisions of this regulation.
    Issue: Several individuals believe the rule should require that 
snowmobiles produce the same emissions per passenger as snowcoaches. 
They recommended that snowmobiles would have to emit, at most, one-
sixth the amount of pollution and noise as the cleanest and quietest 
snowcoaches.
    NPS Response: We are trying to provide a range of appropriate 
activities in the parks, while protecting park resources and values. 
Use of snowcoaches has definite emissions benefits, relative to 
snowmobiles, because of their overall lower emissions and their ability 
to carry as many as seven times the number of passengers. However, we 
believe it is more appropriate to require that all snowmobiles in the 
park utilize BAT, which is demonstrably cleaner and quieter than 
conventional snowmobiles and allows for a range of activities in a 
manner that ensures protection of park resources and values.
    Issue: One commentor recommended including a new section requiring 
BAT-certified snowmobiles to be visually marked with a sticker or stamp 
demonstrating BAT compliance. Another commentor questioned how NPS will 
ensure that each snowmobile has not been modified by the owner in such 
a way that would increase emissions.
    NPS Response: Entrance station personnel will be given information 
to identify BAT compliant snowmobiles. The requirements that 80 percent 
of all snowmobilers be accompanied by commercial guides operating under 
a concessions contract will also provide further assurances that BAT 
snowmobiles are used. Further, snowmobile engines will already be

[[Page 69270]]

labeled with emissions information in compliance with the EPA's 
snowmobile regulation. NPS will evaluate the need for additional 
measures as this rule is implemented. If NPS determines that additional 
measures are necessary, these could be required through the adaptive 
management framework of this rule. We also considered suggestions of 
installing remote sensing devices at each entrance, which would detect 
snowmobile emissions and indicate if they exceed the 15 and 120 g/kW-hr 
requirements. However, we believe instituting this system as it 
currently exists is impractical because of the burden on visitors and 
cost. The final regulation has also been clarified to include language 
that using a snowmobile or snowcoach which has been modified in such a 
way as to increase air or sound emissions is prohibited. This provision 
will provide NPS with sufficient assurance that snowmobiles will not be 
modified in ways that increase emissions.
    Issue: There should be a date by which the park will identify 
makes, models and year of manufacture of snowmobiles meeting BAT.
    NPS Response: The NPS wishes to be as flexible as possible and not 
have an arbitrary date for determining which snowmobiles are BAT 
compliant. We will certify snowmobiles as BAT when we have received 
sufficient information from snowmobile manufacturers concerning the 
emissions of machines. We recognize that potential customers want to 
know if a machine is BAT compliant before they order that machine for 
the upcoming winter season. Consumer demand may provide incentives to 
the snowmobile manufacturers to disclose emissions information early in 
the year, so potential customers will know which machines will be BAT 
and can make appropriate choices in determining which machines to 
purchase. We strongly encourage anyone who wishes to purchase a 
snowmobile for the parks to check with the manufacturer to insure it is 
BAT compliant.

BAT Snowmobile Sound Emissions

    Issue: One commentor noted that the proposed rule sets BAT for 
snowmobiles at 73 dB(A) and the SAE J192 test procedures allows a +2 
decibel error range. They claimed this represented no improvement over 
two-stroke snowmobiles, which typically perform at 75-78 dB(A). Another 
commentor suggested that we change the BAT requirement to 75 dB(A), 
since we already allow the 2 dB(A) error range.
    NPS Response: The BAT sound requirements established by this rule 
are noticeably quieter than conventional two stroke-snowmobiles; a 3-5 
dB difference represents a doubling of sound emissions. Monitoring will 
provide NPS with additional data concerning noise impacts, and we may 
make changes under adaptive management. In addition, if improved 
technology becomes available, BAT sound requirements could be adjusted 
accordingly. We are continuing to use 73 dB(A) as our BAT requirement, 
as we wish to base it on SAE test procedures. If we changed this to 75 
dB(A), we would need to eliminate the 2 dB(A) margin of error provided 
in the SAE J192 testing procedures.
    Issue: Several commentors noted that the data NPS relied on to 
establish the proposed BAT sound requirement was not in full accordance 
with SAE J192 (March 1985) test method cited in the proposed 
regulation. Specifically, the atmospheric pressure during the test runs 
was outside the range specified in the test method. One commentor 
suggested that final BAT limits should be based on test data that fully 
complies with the applicable test method and that the test method be a 
standard SAE procedure. Another commentor recommended revising part 
7.13 (l)(4)(ii) to disclose that the J192 test procedure was modified 
using Yellowstone elevations/barometric pressure.
    NPS Response: We recognize that the test procedures used, in part, 
to determine the BAT sound requirement were based on testing done at 
Yellowstone National Park, where the atmospheric pressure is lower than 
the SAE J192 requirements due to the park's elevation. Initial testing 
data indicates that snowmobiles may test quieter at high elevation, and 
likewise be able to pass our BAT requirements at higher elevations but 
fail our requirements near sea level. Therefore, the NPS is initially 
allowing testing to be performed at reduced barometric pressure, 
recognizing that snowmobiles will be used in these conditions. The 
regulatory text has been clarified to note that snowmobile 
manufacturers may test at any barometric pressure above or equal to 
23.4 inches Hg (uncorrected). We are interested in transitioning to the 
standard SAE J192 test as sufficient test data becomes available.
    Issue: The test specified in the proposed rule (SAE J192, 1985 
revision) was revised in March 2003. The BAT requirement should be 
based on this newer test.
    NPS Response: We are continuing to use the SAE J192 test, 1985 
revision, for several reasons. Most importantly, our BAT requirement 
was established using the 1985 test procedures along with industry 
information and modeling. At the time this testing occurred, the J192 
testing procedures that were used were the most up to date (revised 
1985). However, after that initial testing and after the SEIS was 
finalized, the SAE updated J192 test procedures in March 2003. The 
changes from the 1985 procedures to the 2003 procedures could alter the 
results. For instance, because of technical changes to sound meter 
settings, snowmobiles may yield slightly quieter test results using the 
2003 test procedures. In addition, the rolling start called for in the 
new procedure may also generate higher sound levels due to increased 
speed. Therefore, to be consistent with our BAT requirements, we must 
continue to use the 1985 test. We are interested in transitioning to 
the March 2003 J192 test because it is a more current procedure, and we 
will continue to evaluate this issue after these regulations are 
implemented.
    Issue: One commentor recommended that the BAT sound requirement 
should be adjusted upward by 3 dB(A) to reflect the effects of 
different atmospheric pressures between Yellowstone and the SAE J192 
test procedures.
    NPS Response: We believe the BAT sound requirement of 73 dB(A) is 
appropriate and should not be altered. As noted above, we are allowing 
manufacturers to test at any barometric pressure above 23.4 inches Hg 
(uncorrected). Currently, there are two snowmobile manufacturers that 
have demonstrated compliance with this BAT requirement. Testing for one 
of these snowmobiles indicates that it is well within our BAT 
requirement even when tested in the Midwest at approximately 1,000 feet 
in elevation. This snowmobile yields sound emissions of 71.75 dB(A), 
well below our BAT requirements. If tested at higher elevation in 
Yellowstone National Park, we believe this snowmobile would yield sound 
emissions even below 71 dB(A). If the BAT requirement was increased by 
3 dB(A), to 76 dB(A), it would only be 2 dB(A) quieter than the maximum 
snowmobile sound emissions allowed for any snowmobile. A BAT 
requirement of 76 dB(A) would be far too high to achieve our goal of 
insuring that soundscapes are protected.
    Issue: One commentor suggested the SAE J2567 test be used for 
snowmobile sound.
    NPS Response: We have no information at this time about the 
comparability of this test to the SAE J192 test, and the commentor does 
not provide any further data or information about this test. 
Accordingly, we have not made this change in the regulation.

[[Page 69271]]

BAT Snowmobile Air Emissions

    Issue: One commentor was concerned that the 5-mode engine 
dynamometer is not reasonable since it includes a full throttle 
measurement while snowmobiles are not allowed to operate at full 
throttle because of speed limits. Another commentor suggested that we 
use this test since it is the industry standard.
    NPS Response: The 5-mode engine dynamometer is the industry 
standard test for measuring emissions. It is also the test used by 
snowmobile manufacturers in determining compliance with the EPA's 
regulation on snowmobile emissions. Relying on the same testing will 
simplify compliance procedures for snowmobile manufacturers, as the 
manufacturers will be able to provide NPS with a copy of their 
emissions data generated to comply with EPA's rule. Further, 
snowmobiles used in the park are often operated by users at full 
throttle during acceleration, even though speed limits are in place. 
Many four-stroke machines also operate near full throttle when going 45 
mph, especially when they are going up hills, weighted with two riders 
or luggage or other gear, or pulling a tow sled. Eliminating the full 
throttle mode within the 5-mode test would also amount to a de facto 
increase in total emissions in the parks.
    Issue: One commentor provided a report by an independent firm 
reviewing the SEIS air quality analysis, which alleged that the SEIS 
overestimated the air quality impacts resulting from snowmobiles. They 
requested that NPS re-analyze the air quality impacts of snowmobiles 
and factor in the new analysis to the final regulation.
    NPS Response: The NPS believes the SEIS conclusions concerning air 
quality impacts resulting from snowmobiles are accurate. While the 
modeling may have overestimated one emissions factor, others were 
underestimated. However, specific questions related to the SEIS 
analysis are beyond the scope of this rule. Further, it would be 
impossible to re-analyze the air quality impacts of snowmobiles and 
still publish this final rule prior to the start of the 2003-2004 
winter season. The NPS will conduct ongoing monitoring to determine the 
accuracy of the SEIS analysis.
    Issue: One commentor recommended harmonization of the NPS BAT 
program with EPA's November 2002 regulation. The commentor also 
suggested that NPS use the EPA's 2012 snowmobile emissions limits as 
the BAT requirements.
    NPS Response: We wish to make the administrative burden for 
complying with our BAT requirements as simple as possible. Therefore, 
we are requiring through the final regulation that manufacturers submit 
to the NPS their Family Emissions Limit (FEL) application, which 
complies with EPA's regulations. This should minimize the need for 
snowmobile manufacturers to conduct any additional testing or analysis 
to demonstrate their compliance with the NPS'' air emissions 
requirements. Generally, engine families contain only a single engine, 
which are then used in a variety of snowmobile body styles or models. 
Snowmobile engines that have significant emissions related 
modifications are categorized as a different engine family. For 
instance, a four-stroke with a turbo charger would constitute a 
separate engine family, and require a separate FEL, than the same 
engine without a turbo charger.
    Using FELs will harmonize the process for determining BAT 
compliance with EPA's regulation. However, we do not believe EPA's Tier 
3 emissions limits, which reduce hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by 
50%, will sufficiently protect air quality in the parks, where 
snowmobile use is highly concentrated. Therefore, the final regulation 
relies on the proposed BAT requirements of a 90% reduction in 
hydrocarbons and a 70% reduction in carbon monoxide.
    Issue: BAT limits as proposed should only be applied to the average 
emissions of individual snowmobile models. Thus, BAT limits in the 
proposed regulation should be compared to Official Test Results (OTR).
    NPS Response: When initially contemplated, the NPS intended for the 
BAT requirements to represent the maximum emissions a snowmobile could 
emit while still being allowed to enter the parks. Several statements 
regarding BAT in the ROD and SEIS indicate that ``any recreational 
snowmobile entering YNP must achieve emissions below 15 g/kW-hr for 
hydrocarbons and 120 g/kW-hr for carbon monoxide.'' (ROD p. 14) We 
believe that we can use FEL to demonstrate compliance with BAT and 
achieve this purpose. If we instead relied on Official Test Results to 
determine compliance with BAT, some snowmobiles could have emissions 
greater than our BAT requirements, which could result in an overall 
increase in emissions in the parks.
    Issue: One commentor said the use of OTR as an emission standards 
basis is not as reliable as the use of FELs, nor is it consistent with 
EPA's current practice for developing emission standards. They 
concluded that NPS should base its numerical limits on the use of FEL 
values.
    NPS Response: We agree with these comments and we are adopting the 
FEL method of demonstrating compliance with BAT in the final 
regulation. The use of FEL has several advantages. First, use of FEL 
will ensure that all individual snowmobiles entering the parks achieve 
our emissions requirements, unless modified or damaged (under the final 
regulation, snowmobiles which are modified in such a way as to increase 
air or sound emissions will not be in compliance with BAT and not 
permitted to enter the parks). For this reason, FEL is the best 
mechanism to protect park air quality. Use of FEL will also represent 
the least amount of administrative burden on the snowmobile 
manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with NPS BAT requirements. 
Further, the EPA has the authority to insure that manufacturers' claims 
on their FEL applications are valid. EPA also requires that 
manufacturers conduct production line testing (PLT) to demonstrate that 
machines being manufactured actually meet the certification levels. If 
PLT indicates that emissions exceed the FEL levels, then the 
manufacturer is required to take corrective action. Through EPA's 
ability to audit manufacturers' emissions claims, NPS will have 
sufficient assurance that emissions information and documentation will 
be reviewed and enforced by the EPA. FEL also takes into account other 
factors, such as the deterioration rate of snowmobiles (some 
snowmobiles may produce more emissions as they age), lab-to-lab 
variability, test-to-test variability, and production line variance. In 
addition, under the EPA's regulations, all snowmobiles manufactured 
must be labeled with FEL air emissions information. This will help to 
ensure that our emissions requirements are consistent with these labels 
and the use of FEL will avoid potential confusion for consumers.
    Issue: One commentor stated that the EPA baseline emissions 
assumptions for conventional two-stroke snowmobiles (400 g/kW-hr for 
CO; 150 g/kW-hr for HC) were determined based on the average test 
results of several snowmobile models. They were not intended to reflect 
the FEL. Therefore, NPS should rely on OTR.
    NPS Response: NPS recognizes that the EPA baseline assumptions 
represent the emissions of an ``average'' snowmobile. However, EPA ties 
this assumption to their FEL requirements. For instance, the EPA 
regulation requires that all snowmobiles achieve a

[[Page 69272]]

50 percent reduction for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by 2012 . 
This reduction is demonstrated with the manufacturer's FEL and is a 
reduction from the baseline snowmobile assumption. This is the purpose 
of the FEL `` to ensure that snowmobiles are consistently under the 
certification values, with the difference in emissions benefiting the 
environment in the form of further emission reductions.
    Issue: One commentor said that in developing the appropriate FEL, 
NPS should not use the current BAT values, which were based on OTR. 
These do not account for test variability, durability effects, and 
other inherent sources of variability. When these effects are accounted 
for (i.e., with a 15-20 percent margin), the BAT values should be 
adjusted to 18 g/kW-hr for HC and 144 g/kW-hr for CO.
    NPS Response: We believe that the BAT requirements identified in 
the proposed rule are appropriate. As noted elsewhere, these were 
intended to represent the maximum emissions a snowmobile would be 
allowed to produce. For instance, one snowmobile manufacturer is 
currently producing a snowmobile that is certified by EPA at a FEL of 
10 g/kW-hr for hydrocarbons and 115 g/kW-hr for carbon monoxide. This 
is 33.3% better than our hydrocarbon requirements and 4.2% better than 
our carbon monoxide requirements. Thus, it is clear the industry is 
currently able to meet our BAT requirements given technology presently 
used in snowmobiles.
    Issue: Snowmobile manufacturers and the public must have 
significant advance notice before changes are made to BAT requirements. 
Significant changes in emissions performance require modifications to 
basic engine and chassis design features. NPS should allow 4 years 
leadtime before BAT requirements are changed, which is the amount of 
time EPA generally allows before modifying emissions requirements.
    NPS Response: We agree that snowmobile manufacturers must have 
sufficient advance notice before changes to BAT requirements are 
enacted. Therefore, the final rule will require that any changes to the 
BAT requirements will be published in the Federal Register and the 
public will be notified in accordance with 36 CFR 1.7(a). Through this 
process, snowmobile manufacturers and the public will be notified on 
the timeframe for changes to BAT requirements in light of the 
technology that is available at the time, environmental needs, and 
whatever changes might be proposed. Additional details about the 
adaptive management process are contained in the response to comments 
in the adaptive management section. The BAT requirements are not a 
restriction on what snowmobile manufacturers may produce, but an end-
use restriction on which commercially produced snowmobiles may be used 
in the parks.

BAT Certification Issues

    Issue: One commentor noted that the certification process is the 
responsibility of the snowmobile manufacturers, not the guides and 
outfitters. Another commentor stated that manufacturers should be 
allowed to use existing documentation and test methods to certify 
snowmobiles as BAT compliant. For emissions certification, relevant 
sections of the current EPA certification template for snowmobiles 
should be used. The relevant sections include the family information 
form, the test results form, and the certified models form. This 
information on the EPA template is subject to audit by EPA and the 
manufacturer certifies it is correct when submitted to EPA. Production 
line testing, required by EPA, ensures the units being produced exhibit 
emission characteristics consistent with the certification values.
    NPS Response: We agree that the snowmobile manufacturers have the 
primary responsibility for documenting compliance with BAT, although 
guides and outfitters have a responsibility to insure their snowmobiles 
are BAT compliant and are well-maintained. We also agree that 
manufacturers should be permitted to use information submitted in 
accordance with EPA's regulation to document compliance with the NPS 
BAT requirements. We will accept this application information from 
manufacturers in support of conditionally certifying a snowmobile as 
BAT, pending ultimate review and certification by EPA at the same 
emissions levels identified in the application. Should EPA certify the 
snowmobile at a level that would no longer meet BAT requirements, this 
snowmobile would no longer be considered to be BAT compliant and would 
be phased-out according to a schedule determined by the NPS to be 
appropriate.
    Issue: For sound testing, NPS should confirm compliance with the 
BAT requirements by using the existing Snowmobile Safety and 
Certification Committee (SSCC) sound level certification form. Under 
the SSCC machine safety standards program, snowmobiles are certified by 
an independent testing company as complying with all SSCC safety 
standards, including sound standards.
    NPS Response: We agree that snowmobile manufacturers should be 
allowed to use the existing SSCC sound level certification form to 
demonstrate compliance with NPS BAT requirements. Our regulation does 
not require this form specifically, as there could be other acceptable 
documentation in the future. The NPS will work cooperatively with the 
snowmobile manufacturers on appropriate documentation.
    Issue: One commentor suggested that NPS should develop an 
alternative test method in addition to the manufacturer certification 
process should a BAT snowmobile be modified.
    NPS Response: The primary method for documenting compliance with 
BAT is the FEL method. All recreational snowmobiles used in the park 
that are 2005 or later model years must be certified by EPA with an FEL 
at or below the NPS BAT requirement. However, an individual may modify 
a snowmobile already approved by the NPS as a BAT machine, so long as 
these modifications do not increase air or sound emissions. The 
responsibility to demonstrate that such modifications did not increase 
emissions would be on the owner. Thus, if after-market emissions 
reduction equipment became available, a snowmobile owner could install 
it only on machines already BAT approved.

Snowcoach BAT

    Issue: Many commentors said that snowcoaches should be treated the 
same as snowmobiles for determining compliance with BAT. Snowcoaches 
should be BAT compliant at the same time snowmobiles are required to be 
BAT compliant. Many of these individuals do not feel it is fair to 
exempt historic snowcoaches. Many also said that snowcoaches should not 
be allowed to operate at 2 dB higher than snowmobiles with speed 
measured at 25 mph as opposed to full throttle.
    NPS Response: The SEIS and EIS air quality analyses indicate that 
the vast majority of air pollution generated in the parks results from 
the historic use levels and types of snowmobiles. Little pollution is 
generated by snowcoaches as a whole, partly because their numbers are 
far fewer relative to snowmobiles, and also because they are far 
cleaner on both grams of CO and particulate matter emissions per mile 
and greater passenger capacity relative to snowmobiles. For sound 
emissions, the SEIS soundscape analysis noted that a group of 4 BAT 
snowmobiles, carrying up to 8 people total, has a distance to 
audibility of 5,810 feet in open terrain under average background 
conditions. A

[[Page 69273]]

comparable BAT snowcoach, potentially carrying even more passengers, is 
audible for only 2,630 feet under the same conditions. Therefore, it is 
appropriate to allow snowcoaches to be somewhat louder individually, 
because they can carry many more passengers than a single snowmobile. 
In addition, the NPS is allowing additional time to phase-in BAT 
requirements for snowcoaches because of the substantial investment 
required to upgrade snowcoach technology. Historic snowcoaches are 
being initially exempted because the NPS wishes to provide incentives 
to continue operation of these machines to maintain the character of 
winter touring, as they add to the overall winter experience. Further, 
there are not very many of these vehicles operating in the parks, 
(approximately 29) and they provide additional options for visitors.
    Issue: One commentor recommended that 2004 engine technology should 
be required as it becomes phased-in. They stated that replacement of 
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) equipment on older snowcoaches 
does not necessarily result in reduced emissions due to open-loop 
operation of emission control technology.
    NPS Response: The NPS intends to work with operators to better 
understand snowcoach emissions and how they can be reduced. This 
recommendation could be part of adaptive management, recognizing a 
phase-in requirement due to the potentially significant investment.
    Issue: A commentor asked the NPS to elaborate on how EPA's Tier 2 
standards will significantly reduce the open loop mode of operation for 
snowcoaches.
    NPS Response: New 2004 and later medium and heavy duty vehicles ( 
or snowcoaches) will be cleaner and operate more often in closed-loop 
mode because of the new EPA rules in effect for 2004 and beyond. 
Manufacturers now have equipment and engine controls that will keep 
their engines operating in closed loop for more of their power curve, 
cutting down on the area where these engines would operate in a period 
of ``enrichment'' (open loop). Because the engine controls have not 
been implemented yet, there is some uncertainty about how much the open 
loop mode will be reduced.

General BAT

    Issue: One commentor recommended that part 7.13 (l)(1) include a 
term defining BAT.
    NPS Response: The regulatory text does not use the term ``BAT''. 
Therefore we have not defined it in the regulation.

Adaptive Management

    Issue: Several commentors suggested there should be a written plan 
of what monitoring will be done at the minimum, and how, where, and 
when it will be conducted.
    NPS Response: The Final SEIS and ROD included information (Table 12 
and Appendix A, respectively) related to monitoring and adaptive 
management. We will periodically report to the public on the results of 
monitoring and adaptive management. Administrative details of 
monitoring are beyond the scope of this rule. We will continue to work 
with state regulatory agencies in our monitoring programs.
    Issue: Several commentors expressed concerns regarding the 
timeframe for changes under adaptive management. One commentor 
recommended taking management actions for future winters in August or 
September, as opposed to July 1 as specified in the preamble of the 
proposed rule. Adequate time for appropriate analyses of monitoring 
results must occur. They suggested that a July 1 date does not allow 
sufficient time for collecting and reporting environmental monitoring 
data or for the installation of any updated vehicle equipment.
    NPS Response: NPS recognizes that monitoring data can take several 
months to fully analyze. The winter season ends approximately the first 
week of March. This provides for over 3 months to complete data 
analysis and provide results to the NPS. At the same time, gateway 
communities, concessioners, and the public should have adequate notice 
before any changes are made to the management of winter use. Thus, it 
is our goal to notify the public of changes in winter use management by 
July 1. However, if monitoring results are not available by that time, 
notice could come at a later time.
    Issue: One commentor noted that the adaptive management provisions 
of this rule will not allow for the public to comment on changes in 
management of winter use. Another commentor requested that in 
implementing adaptive management, the NPS consult with the cooperating 
agencies involved in the SEIS process. Another commentor questioned how 
substantive changes that might have impacts to the human environment 
can be accomplished through the adaptive management process. Several 
commentors suggested that the final regulation be more specific in 
outlining specific procedures entailed in the Parks' adaptive 
management process.
    NPS Response: The public will be notified of all changes under 
adaptive management, and the regulation has been clarified to reflect 
the process we will use to provide the public with notice. Some changes 
to winter use under adaptive management will be published in the 
Federal Register to provide notice to the public. Specifically, we will 
provide notice in the Federal Register and through one or more of the 
methods identified in 36 CFR 1.7(a) for changes to BAT air and sound 
emissions requirements, the commercial: non-commercial guiding ratio, 
new snowcoach-only routes, and the daily entry limits. The public will 
be notified of changes to other elements of this regulation, such as 
group size requirements, and hours of park operation, through one or 
more of the methods in 36 CFR 1.7(a). New snowmobile routes would be 
promulgated as a special regulation in accordance with 36 CFR 2.18(c). 
This is in keeping with the philosophy of adaptive management and will 
provide park managers with the flexibility necessary to respond quickly 
to changing circumstances and conditions. We will involve our partners, 
gateway communities, former cooperating agencies, and the public, as 
appropriate throughout the adaptive management process.
    Issue: One commentor stated that if the adaptive management 
thresholds identified in the ROD are not violated, there will be 
significant pressure on NPS to relax the daily entry limits, BAT 
requirements, or guiding requirements. Another commentor stated that 
the proposed rule does not define what ``unacceptable impacts'' are 
under the adaptive management provisions, and it avoids establishing 
any criteria which would, if met or exceeded, require the 
Superintendent to impose new management strategies.
    NPS Response: NPS will only take action under adaptive management 
when it is warranted based on resource conditions and visitor 
experience. Preliminary thresholds, and what constitutes ``unacceptable 
impacts'' were established in the SEIS and ROD (Table 12 and Appendix 
A, respectively) to protect park resources. The thresholds are not 
intended to necessarily automatically trigger action. Instead, these 
thresholds would be used by park managers, as would other factors, in a 
larger context of determining when adjustments in winter use management 
are appropriate.
    Issue: The SEIS demonstrated that impacts of this rule already 
exceed the thresholds set for air quality, visibility, human health, 
natural soundscapes, wildlife, and visitor experience.

[[Page 69274]]

    NPS Response: While NPS does not agree with this blanket statement, 
actual monitoring will tell the NPS if the thresholds are exceeded. It 
is not possible to exceed the thresholds set by the ROD until the rule 
is actually implemented. Further, the SEIS impact analysis was based on 
models, projections, and expert judgements. While each of these have 
inherent limitations, they provide the best estimate of impacts. The 
models' fundamental purpose is to allow comparisons to be made among 
the alternatives.
    Issue: One commentor said it is unacceptable to wait until a 
``future winter season'' to make changes based on adaptive management. 
They said it should not take a full year to remedy health problems.
    NPS Response: Existing regulations ensure that the Superintendent 
may take emergency action for safety (including health problems), 
resource protection, or other reasons under the authority of 36 CFR 
1.5. For non-emergency adaptive management actions, we would ordinarily 
announce changes by July 1. These changes would be implemented in a 
future winter season. For some changes, this could be the following 
winter season, beginning that December (six months after the 
announcement). Other changes, which might require a phase-in, could be 
implemented in December of the following year (an 18-month phase-in).

Daily Entry Limits

    Issue: There is no emissions-related basis for the specific limits 
on snowmobiles proposed in the regulations. The Final SEIS air quality 
analysis indicates the modeled levels of CO and PM10 will be well below 
the NAAQS limits. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration increment 
consumptions under these alternatives were below that permitted under 
the Clean Air Act. Emissions from snowmobiles do not result in a 
situation inconsistent with the NPS mission.
    NPS Response: The parks are designated as Class I airsheds under 
the Clean Air Act, which requires that their air quality be the most 
pristine in the nation. The BAT requirements and daily entry limits are 
a necessary alternative to eliminating all snowmobile use in the parks.
    Issue: One commentor requested that the NPS reconsider the 
requirement to count commercial guides towards the daily entry limits.
    NPS Response: Exempting commercial guides from the daily entry 
limits would cause a substantial increase in the number of snowmobiles 
operating in the parks. This increase would not be supported by the 
SEIS' analysis of impacts. Through adaptive management, daily entry 
limits could be subject to review and change.
    Issue: One commentor questioned how the 40 snowmobiles allowed per 
day on Jackson Lake will be monitored, and if they would need a 
reservation.
    NPS Response: The NPS will monitor the amount of snowmobile use on 
Jackson Lake through ranger patrols and visual observation by park 
staff. Entry to the lake is only at two locations, which may be readily 
monitored. Snowmobiles will have to be trailered to these two locations 
as there is no direct access to the lake from points where snowmobiles 
are otherwise permitted. The operational details of the monitoring are 
beyond the scope of this rule. If monitoring shows that the number of 
snowmobiles using Jackson Lake is sufficient to warrant a more 
stringent monitoring and/or reservation system, a reservation system 
will be developed as needed (in accordance with 36 CFR 1.5(d) and 1.6).
    Issue: Several commentors stated the proposed restrictions on the 
number of snowmobiles allowed into YNP each day will increase, not 
decrease, the total number of snowmobiles permitted in the parks 
throughout a winter season.
    NPS Response: This is the first time there has been a limit on 
snowmobiles in the parks. Therefore, it is inappropriate to compare 
daily entry limits with historic averages. Additionally, the limits are 
set below peak usage in the Parks, so they may reduce visitation on 
particular days. The daily entry limits do not automatically constitute 
an ``increase'' from historic visitation. First, it is uncertain at 
best if visitors will redistribute themselves to other entrances or to 
other days of the week because their preferred entrance and/or day are 
already fully utilized. Second, snowmobile visitation numbers for the 
past 10 years have not exhibited significant growth, nor are there any 
factors that lead NPS to conclude this trend will change (EIS 184 and 
SEIS 132).

Guiding

    Issue: Some commentors suggested that NPS should not require that 
all snowombilers travel in groups of at least two snowmobiles. These 
commentors believed photographers and other individuals wishing to 
travel alone should be permitted to do so.
    NPS Response: We have removed group size limitations from the final 
regulation. This will allow the Superintendent the flexibility to 
determine group size requirements based on adaptive management. Changes 
to group size requirements would be announced using one or more of the 
methods identified in 1.7 of this section. Initially, we will allow 
groups of 1-11 snowmobiles, which will permit individuals traveling by 
themselves to do so. The goal of establishing a minimum group size of 
two snowmobiles was to concentrate snowmobilers into groups, thus 
reducing the overall number of snowmobile-wildlife encounters. However, 
after taking into account public comments and further assessing visitor 
use patterns, we believe our interest in concentrating snowmobiles will 
be best achieved by other means. First, the requirement that 80% of all 
visitors travel with a commercial guide will concentrate groups 
together, because it is more economical for a guide to offer services 
with more snowmobiles in the group. Past practice in Yellowstone 
indicates that most commercially guided groups contain 8-11 
snowmobiles. We believe this practice will continue. Further, only a 
very small number of snowmobile visitors travel by themselves (about 2% 
according to a 2002-2003 visitor survey). NPS believes this small 
number of additional groups would have negligible impacts to wildlife. 
Finally, visitor experience will be enhanced by allowing visitors the 
opportunity to have a solitary experience on snowmobiles.
    Issue: Some commentors suggested that the NPS should adopt 
different ratios of commercial and non-commercial guides.
    NPS Response: We are initially requiring that 80% of all entries be 
accompanied by a commercial guide, and 20% be accompanied by a non-
commercial guide. Through adaptive management, we may alter this ratio. 
However, at this time we believe it to be prudent to maintain the 80/20 
ratio, which was analyzed in the SEIS, selected in the ROD, and 
specified in the proposed rule in order to retain some opportunity for 
the public to view the park outside of a commercial group.
    Issue: One commentor suggested that the non-commercial guide 
training should not be too cumbersome, and should be offered through 
the Internet or by mail. Another commentor suggested that the NPS 
invest the time and resources into making the non-commercial training 
program work and give it 2-3 years to work out any issues before making 
any changes.
    NPS Response: NPS is currently developing the non-commercial guide 
training program. We have previously stated a goal to have the training 
be

[[Page 69275]]

partially off-site (i.e., through the mail or Internet). Details of the 
implementation of this program are outside the scope of this 
regulation. NPS agrees that elements of this regulation, including the 
non-commercial guiding program, will likely require at least two 
seasons of monitoring to determine their effectiveness before changes 
are made.
    Issue: If some of the daily commercially guided entries are not 
fully utilized on a given day, they should be re-allocated for non-
commercially guided use. The reverse should also be true.
    NPS Response: Guiding requirements are in place primarily to 
protect wildlife and visitor health and safety. Professional, 
commercial guides typically have greater snowmobiling expertise than 
non-commercial guides. Therefore, this final rule caps the number of 
non-commercial guides at 20 percent of the daily entries in 
Yellowstone, and we will not allow unused commercially guided entries 
to be re-allocated to non-commercial entries. In addition, it would be 
impractical at this time to fairly reallocate unused non-commercial 
entries to commercial guides given the number of concessionaires that 
we may potentially have operating in the parks. Further, this 
potentially would prevent visitors from obtaining same-day non-
commercially guided reservations. Through adaptive management, however, 
these details could be changed to enhance visitor experience or protect 
park resources.
    Issue: One commentor asserted that stretching a group of 10 
snowmobiles over \1/3\ mile (about 160 feet between snowmobiles) is 
very difficult to monitor. They suggested requiring each snowmobiler to 
keep a distance of 75-100 feet between machines.
    NPS Response: This comment is consistent with the regulation. 
Outfitters may suggest or require clients to keep a distance of 75-100 
feet between machines as appropriate, as long as all the group members 
stay within a maximum distance of \1/3\ mile of the first snowmobile in 
the group. We want to insure that snowmobilers maintain a safe 
following distance and that guides have suitable control over (and 
actually accompany) their parties. The \1/3\ mile requirement provides 
both.
    Issue: A commentor said NPS should allow commercial guides to 
operate on the CDST and Jackson Lake and should offer a prospectus for 
commercial guiding purposes.
    NPS Response: The issue of whether or not the NPS should offer a 
prospectus for commercial guiding operations on the CDST is outside the 
scope of this rule. However, the rule does not prohibit commercial 
guiding on the CDST or Jackson Lake, and the Superintendent of Grand 
Teton National Park could issue a prospectus for such commercial 
activities.

Licensing, Registration

    Issue: Several commentors did not agree with the requirement that 
only people with valid driver's licenses be allowed to operate a 
snowmobile in the parks. There is no evidence that children with a 
learner's permit cause problems driving snowmobiles.
    NPS Response: In ordinary circumstances with automobiles, 
individuals possessing learner's permits are required to be accompanied 
by a fully licensed driver. Learner's permits are intended to allow 
student drivers the opportunity to safely learn positive driving habits 
while in the presence of an adult. However, operation of snowmobiles in 
Yellowstone is a totally different environment. Even if an adult was a 
passenger on the same sled as the learner it is very difficult if not 
impossible to communicate with the driver over the noise of the 
snowmobile. Most riders wear helmets and many wear ear plugs. In fact, 
past experience is that children with learner's permits often will ride 
on a sled by themselves, with adults on other snowmobiles that would be 
out of earshot and potentially out of sight. The park and visitors will 
be safer by requiring that all snowmobile operators have driver's 
licenses.
    Issue: The proposed rule requires that snowmobilers display a State 
registration sticker from any State in the U.S. This is a change from 
existing language. What registration is acceptable for Canadian 
visitors?
    NPS Response: We have updated the final regulations to allow 
visitors to operate snowmobiles registered in Canada in the parks. 
Otherwise these regulations clarify prior regulations concerning 
registration.

Entry Passes

    Issue: Many commentors said that only allowing one snowmobile to 
enter the park with an annual pass discriminates against families.
    NPS Response: No provision in this final regulation affects this 
issue, as it is contained in 36 CFR Part 71. NPS is attempting to 
clarify, not change, existing regulation with regard to entrance 
passes. The intent in the passes is to admit for free or at a reduced 
rate, only those persons occupying the same motor vehicle as the pass 
holder. In the case of snowmobiles, we are allowing the rider of the 
snowmobile with the pass holder, and the pass holder's immediate 
family, to enter at the fee rate of the pass holder. Thus, several 
snowmobiles could qualify for entry under the pass holder's fee rate, 
so long as it was immediate family only (spouse, parents, and children 
under the age of 21).

Side Roads

    Issue: Many commentors required that NPS re-open the Firehole 
Canyon Drive, North Canyon Rim Drive, and Riverside Drive to snowmobile 
use.
    NPS Response: NPS believes it to be important to allow for some 
spatial separation of use and user groups. The side roads will be open 
to snowcoach riders, skiers, and snowshoers to offer areas of increased 
quiet and solitude. These road segments amount to approximately 14 
miles, while there are still over 180 miles of park roads open to both 
snowmobile and snowcoach use. In addition, there are thousands of miles 
of snowmobile trails outside the parks, none of which are open to 
snowcoaches.

Reservations

    Issue: Several commentors said the reservation fee is too 
expensive.
    NPS Response: This issue is beyond the scope of this regulation. 
However, NPS is working to keep fees reasonable and recover only the 
costs of administering the reservation system.
    Issue: Several commentors stated that people obtaining an entrance 
reservation under the 20 percent of non-commercially guided daily 
snowmobile entries should not be allowed to re-sell their entrance 
reservations for profit, i.e., ``scalping'' should not be allowed.
    NPS Response: NPS agrees with these comments. The passes are not 
transferable without NPS authorization, and the Superintendent will 
determine procedures for transfer and publicize them appropriately. 
Passes that have been transferred without prior authorization are 
invalid.
    Issue: It should be illegal for individuals or groups to purchase 
snowmobile entrance reservations without the intent to use them.
    NPS Response: It would be difficult if not impossible to know if 
individuals intended to actually use their snowmobile entrance 
reservations. Further, we have no evidence to date to indicate that 
this is a problem. Therefore, we are not attempting to regulate this 
issue through this final rule, but we will address it in the future if 
needed.

Alcohol Restrictions

    Issue: Several commentors noted that the policy of preventing 
anyone who

[[Page 69276]]

has ever received a DUI from being a guide is discriminatory. It would 
be impossible for concessionaires to know if one of their guides had 
ever received a DUI and could create undue liability for these 
concessionaires. In addition, people should not be penalized for 
mistakes made far in their past. This would also be difficult to 
enforce and manage.
    NPS Response: We have eliminated this stipulation from these 
regulations.
    Issue: One commentor said the term snowcoach ``operator'' is 
unclear in the regulation as it pertains to alcohol restrictions for 
individuals driving a snowcoach, as concessionaires are sometimes 
referred to as ``operators.'' Concessionaires should not lose their 
licenses to operate in the parks because of an infraction by an 
employee, which this language implies. They suggested that NPS change 
the language to snowcoach ``driver.''
    NPS Response: We have made this change in the regulatory text.
    Issue: The Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) requirements for guides 
should parallel the requirements for commercial drivers. Federal and 
State rules pertaining to BAC threshold for someone with a Commercial 
Drivers License (CDL) is .04. If .04 is appropriate for someone with a 
CDL (semi trucks over 26,000 pounds, buses, etc.), then .02 seems to be 
an unreasonable standard for a snowmobile guide or coach operator when 
compared to vehicles being operated by bus or truck drivers.
    NPS Response: The NPS agrees and we have changed the BAC maximum 
for guides to be .04 grams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood or .04 grams 
of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

Cross Country Skiing, Etc.

    Issue: One commentor questioned the validity of the assertion that 
20% of the winter visitors use cross country skis.
    NPS Response: As discussed on page 135 of the final SEIS, visitor 
surveys indicate that 20% of visitors participate in cross country 
skiing while visiting Yellowstone, although they may enter the park by 
other means, including snowmobile, snowcoach, or automobile.
    Issue: One commentor stated that the NPS should promote human-
powered activities in winter, such as skiing and snowshoeing, in order 
to satisfy the June 20, 2002, Executive Order signed by President Bush 
to promote personal fitness, and not allow snowmobiling.
    NPS Response: The management of the parks in winter provides ample 
opportunity for people to pursue physical fitness goals by skiing or 
snowshoeing. The parks groom ski trails, lead snowshoe walks, and there 
are hundreds of miles of ungroomed trails available for visitors. Grand 
Teton National Park's Inner Park Road was also closed in 2002-2003 to 
snowmobiles and is now groomed for cross country skiing.

Natural Soundscapes Issues

    Issue: To protect natural soundscapes, one commentor suggested 
concentrating the departure times from motorized tour groups, so there 
are significant periods during each day when visitors are likely to be 
free of noise impacts.
    NPS Response: This could be considered under adaptive management if 
necessary and if evidence indicated it would be effective in improving 
the natural soundscape. This action would do little to protect the 
natural soundscape for visitors riding snowmobiles if they were part of 
a group that was departing at a concentrated time with many other 
snowmobile groups. However, as the commentor notes, it could result in 
more periods of quiet for visitors seeking a non-motorized experience.
    Issue: Getting away from crowds, peace and tranquility, and quiet 
are perhaps expectations that cannot be totally met with a destination 
as popular as Yellowstone. NPS is not obligated to ensure the existence 
of natural soundscapes along and proximate to road systems.
    NPS Response: The NPS is required by law to protect the values of 
Yellowstone National Park, which include these attributes. These are 
among the fundamental purposes for the existence of the parks. The 
natural soundscapes are one of the intrinsic elements of the 
environment that are associated both with the purpose of the parks and 
with their natural ecological functioning. The soundscape is an 
inherent component of the ``scenery and the natural and historic 
objects and the wildlife'' protected by the NPS Organic Act. The NPS 
policy is to facilitate, to the fullest extent practicable, the 
protection, maintenance, or restoration of the natural soundscape in a 
condition unimpaired by inappropriate noise sources. Visitors seeking 
wilderness-dependent experiences have expectations for natural quiet. 
Visitors viewing wildlife or scenery along park roads also have an 
expectation for natural quiet that must be accommodated, although 
perhaps to a lesser degree than visitors in the backcountry. The 
adaptive management thresholds identified in Table 12 of the SEIS and 
Appendix A of the ROD recognize these distinctions by instituting 
different thresholds for different zones. We will be monitoring the 
soundscape conditions along park roads and in the backcountry to ensure 
the desired conditions and thresholds identified in the SEIS are being 
achieved.

Snowcoaches

    Issue: Several commentors stated that snowcoaches must offset any 
declines in total snowmobile use.
    NPS Response: NPS agrees that snowcoaches are a critical part of 
the winter experience and may increase opportunities for access to the 
parks in winter. We are working to develop a new generation snowcoach, 
which will substantially improve touring in the parks.

Laws, Policies, Executive Orders

    Issue: Many commentors believe the rule is inconsistent with the 
NPS Organic Act, the General Authorities Act as amended by the Redwood 
Act, the Clean Air Act, the NPS general snowmobiling regulations (36 
CFR 2.18), executive orders, NPS Management Policies, and OSHA 
regulations to protect employee and visitor health.
    NPS Response: The NPS disagrees. This rule will protect park 
resources and values in an unimpaired condition through adaptive 
management, daily entry limits, guiding, and BAT requirements. This 
regulation reflects the NPS' commitment to: provide protection of park 
resources and values; allowing appropriate levels of visitor use, while 
recognizing that winter in the parks is a unique experience; and work 
closely and cooperatively with gateway communities. The NPS believes 
there is no single decision mandated by the laws and policies governing 
the national parks, and that these laws and policies provide broad 
discretion to the NPS in the operation of the parks. Requirements for 
BAT and snowmobile daily entry limits will substantially improve air 
quality conditions relative to the current situation of unregulated 
snowmobile use. This rule will protect public health by establishing 
air and sound emissions requirements, daily entry limits, and 
requirements for guides. Finally, the provisions for adaptive 
management will allow park managers to make adjustments in winter 
operations to protect park resources and values.

Consistency With Other Regulations

    Issue: Some letters stated that the NPS has exempted snowmobiling 
in the parks from 36 CFR 2.18 through the proposed regulation. They 
stated that this provision, among other things, prohibits snowmobiling 
in national

[[Page 69277]]

parks except where designated and only when their use is consistent 
with the park's natural, cultural, scenic and aesthetic values, safety 
considerations, park management objectives, and will not disturb 
wildlife or damage park resources. The routes designated by this rule 
are not subject to 36 CFR 2.18(c), and hence exempt from disturbing 
wildlife. However, new routes would be subject to the language in 36 
CFR 2.18(c). This can only be interpreted as an admonition by NPS that 
snowmobiling cannot coexist in Yellowstone without causing disturbance 
to wildlife. The NPS should retain the prohibition of wildlife 
disturbance by snowmobiles in the final rule.
    NPS Response: The intent of the proposed rule was to incorporate 
the appropriate language of 2.18 (including 2.18(c)), and have all the 
applicable snowmobile regulations in one location. We have clarified 
the rule to insure the language in question applies to both existing 
and proposed oversnow routes. Specifically, this regulation no longer 
supercedes 36 CFR 2.18(c).

Road Grooming

    Issue: The proposed rule fails to address road packing and 
grooming. Habitat degradation may be occurring in conjunction with the 
changes in bison numbers and distribution. The proposed rule will do 
nothing to alleviate the ecosystem change generated by changes in bison 
distribution and numbers.
    NPS Response: This rule allows for the Superintendent to take 
management action should unacceptable impacts to park resources and 
values, including wildlife, occur. Currently, the NPS believes the 
evidence of whether or not road grooming is affecting bison 
distribution and abundance is inconclusive. Thus taking dramatic 
actions, such as ceasing grooming, appears unwarranted based on the 
evidence currently available.

Economics

    Issue: Several commentors stated that the economic impact of the 
proposed rule is going to be devastating. Another commentor believed 
the 2002-2003 visitor survey was flawed because it did not adequately 
represent a sample of visitors entering through the West Entrance.
    NPS Response: An economic impact analysis has been prepared in 
support of this rulemaking. It found that there will be negligible 
impacts on the economies surrounding the parks. Further details are 
contained in this report, which is available at www.nps.gov/yell. The 
study used statistically valid sampling to arrive at its conclusions. 
This means that only a certain number of visitors at each entrance were 
surveyed, based on the percent of total visitors that enter through 
each entrance.
    Issue: Banning snowmobiles in Yellowstone will result in a more 
diverse, sustainable economy for West Yellowstone and attract new 
winter visitors, especially since snowmobiling is allowed on the 
adjacent national forest lands.
    NPS Response: This rule allows the gateway communities 
opportunities to benefit economically, as would almost any alternative 
which maintains winter-time visitation. The purpose for implementing 
this rule is not related directly to diversifying local economies, 
however.
    Issue: This rule places a tremendous administrative burden on the 
staffs of the parks, due to the reservation system, monitoring, guiding 
requirements, etc.
    NPS Response: NPS recognizes that there are often substantial costs 
associated with properly operating and maintaining national parks and 
will strive to effectively manage these costs.

Consistency With the SEIS and EIS

    Issue: Many commentors stated the proposed rule runs counter to the 
conclusions of the FSEIS.
    NPS Response: This regulation is based on the Final SEIS and ROD 
and is necessary to implement these documents. The NPS believes this 
rule is consistent with the Final SEIS and ROD, as these documents 
concluded that park resources will be protected in an unimpaired 
condition through adaptive management and requirements related to the 
daily entry limits, guiding, and BAT. Specifically, conclusions 
regarding impairment are on pages 242-246 of the Final SEIS.
    Issue: In the 2001 rule phasing-out snowmobile use, the NPS 
considered ``strict limitations'' to mean caps so stringent they would 
result in ``drastically reducing'' visitation. In contrast, the 2003 
ROD does not anticipate reduced visitation.
    NPS Response: This regulation substantially reduces peak-day use of 
snowmobiles and imposes several types of limitations, beyond daily 
entry limits to protect park resources and values in an unimpaired 
condition. These limitations represent a suite of management actions, 
including BAT and guiding requirements, in addition to the daily entry 
limits. Further, we could take action under adaptive management if 
desired resource conditions are not met.

Misc.

    Issue: One commentor suggested that the term ``recreational 
snowmobile'' be replaced with ``snowmobile transportation.''
    NPS Response: NPS wishes to make a distinction between snowmobiling 
by visitors for recreational purposes versus snowmobiling by NPS, 
contractors, researchers, concessioners, or others for administrative 
or non-administrative snowmobile travel. The term snowmobile 
transportation does not adequately capture this distinction.
    Issue: Several commentors said there are no statistics to back up 
the claim that towing people is a potential safety hazard and that 
prohibiting this discourages family participation in snowmobiling. They 
urged NPS to remove this provision.
    NPS Response: NPS believes that towing people on sleds or sliding 
devices is unacceptable for several reasons, especially in the 
conditions associated with snowmobiling in the parks. First, this 
places riders in direct exposure to snowmobile exhaust, including 
carbon monoxide and air toxics. Although four-stroke snowmobiles are 
far cleaner than traditional two-strokes, they still produce air 
pollution. Generally, visitors spend several hours snowmobiling in the 
parks, which substantially increases exposure risks to those riding in 
the towing unit. In the case of children, such long-term and direct 
exposure to these chemicals is especially dangerous. In addition, 
towing people could present a special hazard if the snowmobile was 
involved in an accident, or if the towing device did not have lights 
and was not adequately visible to other drivers. Therefore, to 
adequately provide for the safety of our visitors we are prohibiting 
this activity.

Changes to Final Rule

    After taking the public comments into consideration, and after 
additional internal review, several changes were made to the final 
rule. Those changes are as follows:
    A paragraph was added to each park's section to define the scope of 
the regulations. These regulations address recreational and commercial 
snowmobile use and are not applicable to the provisions for air and 
sound emissions, guiding and daily entry limits for the use of 
snowmobiles by NPS or concessioner employees who live or work in the 
interior of the park. There are daily circumstances where a person who 
resides in the interior of the park must exit or transit the park to

[[Page 69278]]

retrieve groceries, attend medical appointments, or conduct other types 
of daily activities which are neither recreational nor commercial in 
nature. These uses are not intended to count towards daily entry limits 
or similar types of regulated activities. The parks will be working to 
produce a directive that addresses this kind of use and manages it 
appropriately but similar to an administrative use.
    Changes were made to paragraph (4) and language added to the new 
paragraph (6) based on input from the EPA regarding air emissions. EPA 
provided language on pollution control equipment for snowcoaches as 
well as language to clarify compliance with the FEL for snowmobiles.
    A new paragraph (6) was added to each section to define how the 
makes, models and years of manufacture for snowmobiles will be approved 
for use in the parks. Specifically it introduced using the Family 
Emissions Limits (FEL) as the standard for demonstrating compliance 
with the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission limits. Additional 
details on FEL are contained in the Summary of and Response to 
Comments. In general, after demonstrating compliance with BAT 
requirements particular snowmobile models will be approved for entry 
into the parks for six winter use seasons. However, the length of 
approval may be longer or shorter under the adaptive management 
framework. For example, technologies may begin to improve so rapidly 
that a shorter approval period could be warranted. In the future, the 
period of the approval for each snowmobile will be stated when 
published as an approved model. The period of approval will not be 
decreased once published. As of the 2003-2004 winter season, the 
following models of snowmobiles are approved for entry into the parks:
    2002 Arctic Cat 4-Stroke Touring, 2002 Arctic Cat 4-Stroke Trail, 
2002 Polaris Frontier Touring, 2003 Arctic Cat 4-Stroke Touring, 2003 
Arctic Cat 4-Stroke Trail, 2003 Polaris Frontier Classic, 2003 Polaris 
Frontier Touring, 2004 Arctic Cat T660 Touring, 2004 Polaris Frontier 
Classic, and 2004 Polaris Frontier Touring. These snowmobiles are 
approved for entry into the parks through the 2008-2009 winter season.
    Under paragraph (6) there are several references to a certain 
``model year'' snowmobile. For the purposes of this paragraph, the 
model year refers to the calendar year the snowmobile is intended for 
use but the snowmobile generally becomes available for commercial sale 
during the previous calendar year. For example, a model year 2005 
snowmobile would generally become available for sale to the public 
during the fall of 2004.
    Also under paragraph (6) a provision was added to specify the 
minimum barometric pressure at which snowmobiles could be tested to 
determine compliance with sound emission requirements. Many snowmobiles 
are tested at the place of manufacture or nearby which can be at a 
significantly different elevation than Yellowstone or Grand Teton 
National Parks. In order to make it clear what conditions are allowed 
for sound testing, a minimum barometric pressure was specified. 
Additional details on barometric pressure are contained in the Summary 
of and Response to Comments. Different emission reporting procedures 
are allowed for 2004 and prior model years because the EPA snowmobile 
emission regulations implementing FEL were not in effect.
    Finally, under paragraph (6) a sentence was added to prohibit the 
entry of snowmobiles that have been modified in a manner that could 
affect air or sound emissions. There was a concern that a snowmobile 
model previously approved for entry could have after-market equipment 
added or mechanisms adjusted that could increase the decibel level of 
that model or increase the previously certified air emissions. Besides 
the possibility of increased air or sound emissions, it was necessary 
to prohibit these modifications in order to avoid the need for 
individual snowmobile testing. Modifications of snowmobiles approved 
under FEL that decrease air or sound emissions could be permitted.
    In paragraph (7) language was added to clearly state that oversnow 
routes are designated in accordance with Sec.  2.18(c). Although it was 
the intent of the proposed rule to comply with 2.18(c) when designating 
oversnow routes, it was not clearly stated and thus caused concern to 
some commentors. The final regulations also remove the language from 
the proposed rule that could have allowed the Superintendents to 
designate additional oversnow routes without going through rulemaking.
    In paragraph (10) of Yellowstone and the Parkway, the specific 
group size numbers were removed from the rule. The Superintendents are 
establishing a maximum group size of 11 initially but will notify the 
public of this requirement or changes to the requirement through local 
methods. Had a specific number remained in the regulatory text, a 
notice in the Federal Register would have been required to change it. 
The final regulations also eliminate the requirement for a minimum 
group size of 2 as explained in the response to comments. Nonetheless, 
single snowmobile operators are still required to be certified as a 
snowmobile guide before operating in the park.
    Similarly, the specific hours of operation for snowmobiles or 
snowcoaches are removed from the regulatory text for each of the parks. 
Initially, the hours of operation will be from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Had a 
specific number remained in the regulatory text, a notice in the 
Federal Register would have been required to change it. Changes to 
operating hours will be advertised through local methods.
    Paragraph (11) for the Parkway was amended by modifying Table 1 to 
include a maximum number of snowmobiles on the road segment from Flagg 
Ranch to the South Entrance of Yellowstone. That road segment can only 
be accessed from inside the Parkway and the daily entry limit at the 
South Entrance of Yellowstone (only two miles north of Flagg Ranch) 
limits the number of snowmobiles that could proceed any further north. 
However, the park felt it was necessary to clarify that snowmobile use 
is permitted on that roadway and the daily limit is the same as the 
South Entrance of Yellowstone.
    Paragraph (12) for Yellowstone was added to discuss the ways in 
which the daily entry limits will be applied and enforced. No 
reservation system exists for Grand Teton or the Parkway thus no 
similar regulations exist in those sections. First, a reservation 
system, managed by a contractor, has been set up to allocate all non-
commercial daily entries. Commercial entries are allocated to local 
guiding businesses through a concessions contract. If you choose to use 
a commercial guiding service to enter the park, you will not need a 
separate reservation since this is already allocated to the commercial 
guiding service through their contract to operate inside the national 
park. Second, each snowmobile entering the park must have an entrance 
pass in addition to a reservation. Lastly, the Superintendent has 
prohibited the use of transferred reservations and entrance passes. 
This is intended to curtail the resale of these items for profit since 
there are a limited number of non-commercial reservations for each day. 
Additionally, the NPS is requiring that the person who holds the 
reservation must accompany the snowmobile group into the park in order 
to further discourage the mass purchase and resale of reservations. The 
NPS acknowledges the limitations of our ability to enforce such a 
requirement but will make every

[[Page 69279]]

effort to discourage such activities. The Superintendent has the 
authority to allow the use of transferred entrance passes for 
legitimate purposes (a trip cancelled due to illness, or some similar 
circumstance) through procedures established with the reservation 
contractor.
    A minor change was made to the operating conditions in paragraph 
(14) for Yellowstone, (13) for the Parkway and (11) for Grand Teton. So 
as not to exclude Canadian or other foreign visitors, language was 
changed to allow for all types of motor vehicle operator's licenses, 
including international driver's licenses, and registration stickers on 
snowmobiles from the United States and Canada.
    Changes were made to paragraph (15) for Yellowstone, (14) for the 
Parkway and (12) for Grand Teton and the conditions associated with 
alcohol use and operating a snowmobile or snowcoach. Paragraph (ii) 
proposed a maximum blood alcohol level of .02 when operating or being 
in physical control of a snowcoach or serving as a snowmobile guide. 
The maximum blood alcohol level has been changed to .04 to be 
consistent with most State commercial drivers' license requirements. 
Also, the NPS proposed to make any driving under the influence of 
alcohol or drug violations a disqualifier for being a snowmobile guide 
or driving a snowcoach. Many commenters felt this was an unreasonably 
strict requirement and the NPS agreed. If a person is properly and 
legally licensed by a state to operate a motor vehicle, they will be 
allowed to operate as a snowmobile guide or snowcoach driver. The 
requirement to be properly licensed is addressed in paragraph (14) for 
Yellowstone, (13) for the Parkway and (11) for Grand Teton. Finally, 
the term snowcoach operator was changed to snowcoach driver. Generally, 
the term operator refers to the business owner or contract holder, not 
the person actually driving the vehicle. To be clear, the prohibitions 
about alcohol consumption apply to the person actually driving the 
snowcoach, not the person(s) who operate the snowcoach business.
    In paragraph (16) for Yellowstone, (15) for the Parkway and (13) 
for Grand Teton of the proposed regulations oversnow vehicles from the 
requirements of 36 CFR 2.18 and part of Sec.  2.19. The exemption was 
proposed so that the existing regulations on such things as maximum 
operating decibels, operating hours, and operator age would be governed 
by the new regulations in part 7 for each park unit. However, the 
inadvertent result was the exclusion of the requirements in Sec.  
2.18(c) for designating new snowmobile routes and what factors must be 
taken into consideration when designating such routes. As a result, 
only specific paragraphs in section 2.18 have been excluded from 
applying to the use of oversnow vehicles in the parks since those 
paragraphs conflict with the Winter Use Management Record of Decision. 
However, Yellowstone is exempt from paragraph (b) while the Parkway and 
Grand Teton are not. The use of oversnow vehicles in Grand Teton and 
the Parkway is subject to paragraph (b) due to the existing concurrent 
jurisdiction in both park areas. These two units are solely within the 
boundaries of the State of Wyoming and national park rangers work 
concurrently with state and county officers enforcing the laws of the 
State of Wyoming.
    Throughout the document there are references to giving notice to 
the public of changes to the regulations through publication in the 
Federal Register and/or through one of the methods in Sec.  1.7(a). 
Some changes, which are considered more significant, such as changes to 
air and sound emissions requirements, daily entry limits, or guiding 
requirements, will be published as both a change in the Federal 
Register and advertised through other local methods. Less significant 
changes, like hours of operation, group size or road closures and 
reopenings, will be advertised only through local methods, a less 
formal process. The parks will also make every effort to keep current 
information available on their Web sites including a list of the 
currently approved snowmobile makes, models, and years of manufacture 
and monitoring reports (www.nps.gov/yell or www.nps.gov/grte).
    It is the intent of this regulation to have the Superintendents of 
the three park units work collaboratively when making future winter use 
management decisions under the adaptive management framework. Although 
some changes to oversnow vehicle use could be made to one park unit and 
not affect the other, it is expected that the Superintendents would 
engage in regular consultation with each other to make decisions that 
would be in the best interest of all three parks, the visiting public, 
and local businesses and communities.

Summary of Economic Analysis

    The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) and two other 
alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) are analyzed to examine the effect 
of allowing the use of snowmobile in the Yellowstone National Park, 
Grand Teton National Park, and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial 
Parkway. Alternative 1b, the delay rule, represents the baseline for 
this analysis. Under that alternative, most snowmobile use would be 
prohibited in the parks by the 2004-2005 winter season, with 
restrictions on snowmobile use phased in during the 2003-2004 winter 
season. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 allow for continued recreational 
snowmobile use subject to daily limits on the number of snowmobiles 
that can enter the parks. The daily limits on snowmobile use vary 
across these three alternatives, with Alternatives 2 and 4 allowing the 
greatest number of snowmobiles in the parks each day. Alternatives 3 
and 4 also require snowmobiles to meet air and sound emission 
requirements and to be part of a guided tour. Alternative 4 allows for 
at least 20 percent of the tours to be led by non-commercial guides.
    The primary beneficiaries of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are the park 
visitors who ride snowmobiles in the parks and the businesses that 
serve them. Alternative 2 is expected to provide the greatest benefits 
to snowmobile visitors and businesses, followed by Alternatives 4 and 3 
in order of decreasing benefits. The primary group that would incur 
costs under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are the park visitors who do not 
ride snowmobiles. Alternatives 3 and 4 are expected to impose the least 
costs on non-snowmobile visitors.
    The total present value of net benefits expected from Alternatives 
2, 3, and 4 are calculated over a 10-year horizon from the 2003-2004 
winter season through the 2012-2013 winter season. A range of net 
benefits is calculated to acknowledge uncertainty in the benefit and 
cost estimates. Given the uncertainties of this analysis and 
acknowledging the range of net benefits presented, the selection of 
Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative is considered reasonable 
because it provides increased benefits for snowmobile visitors while 
containing provisions that should help mitigate the costs imposed on 
those visitors who are negatively impacted by snowmobile use.
    Table 1 presents the total present value of net benefits for 
Yellowstone National Park only. The amortized net benefits per year 
over the 10-year timeframe of the analysis for this valuation case are 
presented in Table 2. To calculate the net benefits to the Yellowstone 
National Park only, we assumed that the non-snowmobile visitors to 
Grand Teton are relatively unaffected by snowmobiles as compared

[[Page 69280]]

to the non-snowmobile visitors to Yellowstone, thereby effectively 
assigning zero cost impact to this group. These net benefit estimates 
therefore may understate the cost estimate. The total present value of 
net benefits ranges from negative to positive for Alternatives 2 and 4 
in this valuation case, and are entirely negative for Alternative 3.

    Table 1.--Total Present Value of Net Benefits for Yellowstone National Park Only, 2003-2004 to 2012-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Total present value of net benefits \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$89,310,000 to +$9,660,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$73,470,000 to +$6,880,000
Alternative 3:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$70,360,000 to -$25,130,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$57,920,000 to -$21,750,000
Alternative 4:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$56,750,000 to +$5,430,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$46,730,000 to +$3,470,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The range in net benefits reflects the different values obtained for snowmobile visitors using the estimates
  from two economic valuation models, and the different scenarios analyzed for impacts to businesses.
\b\ The economics literature supports a 3% annual discount rate in the valuation of public goods (e.g., Freeman
  1993). Federal rulemakings also support a 3% annual discount rate in the valuation of lost natural resource
  use (61 FR 453; 61 FR 20584).
\c\ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 (revised January 2003).


      Table 2.--Amortized Net Benefits per Year for Yellowstone National Park Only, 2003-2004 to 2012-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Amortized net benefits per year \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$10,470,000 to +$1,130,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$10,460,000 to +$979,000
Alternative 3:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$8,249,000 to -$2,946,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$8,247,000 to -$3,096,000
Alternative 4:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$6,653,000 to +$637,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$6,653,000 to +$493,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This is the total present value of net benefits reported in Table 1 amortized over the ten-year analysis
  timeframe at the indicated discount rate.
\b\ The economics literature supports a 3% annual discount rate in the valuation of public goods (e.g., Freeman
  1993). Federal rulemakings also support a 3% annual discount rate in the valuation of lost natural resource
  use (61 FR 453; 61 FR 20584).
\c\ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 (revised January 2003).

    Table 3 presents the total present value of net benefits for both 
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. In this valuation case, the 
non-snowmobile visitors to Grand Teton National Park are assigned the 
same unit costs as non-snowmobile visitors to Yellowstone National 
Park. This valuation case may overstate the cost impacts to non-
snowmobile visitors to Grand Teton National Park since they are 
believed to be less than the costs imposed on non-snowmobile visitors 
to Yellowstone. The amortized net benefits per year over the 10-year 
timeframe of the analysis for this valuation case are presented in 
Table 4.

Table 3.--Total Present Value of Net Benefits for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, 2003-2004 to 2012-
                                                      2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Total present value of net benefits \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$254,717,000 to -$140,490,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$208,342,000 to -$116,011,000
Alternative 3:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$164,143,000 to -$120,253,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$134,319,000 to -$99,504,000
Alternative 4:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$141,679,000 to -$64,572,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$116,060,000 to -$54,211,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The range in net benefits reflects the different values obtained for snowmobile visitors using the estimates
  from two economic valuation models, and the different scenarios analyzed for impacts to businesses.
\b\ The economics literature supports a 3% annual discount rate in the valuation of public goods (e.g., Freeman
  1993). Federal rulemakings also support a 3% annual discount rate in the valuation of lost natural resource
  use (61 FR 453; 61 FR 20584).
\c\ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 (revised January 2003).


[[Page 69281]]


Table 4.--Amortized Net Benefits per Year for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, 2003-2004 to 2012-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Amortized net benefits per year \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 2:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$29,860,000 to -$16,470,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$29,663,000 to -$16,517,000
Alternative 3:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$19,242,000 to -$14,097,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$19,124,069 to -$14,167,000
Alternative 4:
    Discounted at 3% \b\......................  -$16,609,000 to -$7,570,000
    Discounted at 7% \c\......................  -$16,524,000 to -$7,718,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This is the total present value of net benefits reported in Table 3 amortized over the ten-year analysis
  timeframe at the indicated discount rate.
\b\ The economics literature supports a 3% annual discount rate in the valuation of public goods (e.g., Freeman
  1993). Federal rulemakings also support a 3% annual discount rate in the valuation of lost natural resource
  use (61 FR 453; 61 FR 20584).
\c\ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 (revised January 2003).

    The range of net benefits for the valuation case represented by 
Tables 3 and 4 is entirely negative for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

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. These conclusions are based on the analysis contained in 
the Final SEIS and a report entitled ``Economic Analysis of Regulations 
on Snowmobile Use in the Greater Yellowstone Area'' (MACTEC Engineering 
and Consulting, Inc., November 2003).
    (2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. 
Implementing actions under this rule will not interfere with plans by 
other agencies or local government plans, policies, or controls since 
this is an agency specific change.
    (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. It only affects the use of over-snow machines within 
specific national parks. No grants or other forms of monetary 
supplement are involved.
    (4) This rule may raise novel legal or policy issues. The issue has 
generated local as well as national interest on the subject in the 
Greater Yellowstone Area. The NPS received nearly 360,000 public 
comment letters on the draft SEIS and over 105,000 comments on the 
proposed rule. Additionally, this is only the second NPS regulation to 
use an adaptive management strategy for managing visitor use levels. 
That concept, coupled with new provisions for Best Available Technology 
engine requirements, make this proposed rule unique to the NPS.

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 on information contained in the report 
entitled ``Economic Analysis of Regulations on Snowmobile Use in the 
Greater Yellowstone Area'' (MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 
November 2003). This report is available on the Yellowstone website.

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. 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. Does 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. This 
rulemaking has no effect on methods of manufacturing or production and 
specifically affects the Montana, Idaho and Wyoming region near the 
parks, not national or U.S. 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. It addresses public 
use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other 
agencies or governments.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. Access to private property located 
within or adjacent to the parks will still be afforded the same access 
during winter as before this rule. No other property is affected.

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. It addresses public use of national park lands, 
and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

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

[[Page 69282]]

National Environmental Policy Act

    A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement has been 
completed and a Record of Decision issued. The Final SEIS and ROD are 
available for review by contacting Yellowstone or Grand Teton Planning 
Offices or at www.nps.gov/grte/winteruse/intro.htm.

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. 
Numerous tribes in the area were consulted in the development of the 
SEIS. Their major concern was to reduce the adverse effects on wildlife 
by snowmobiles. This rule does that through implementation of the 
guiding requirements and disbursement of snowmobile use through the 
various entrance stations.

Administrative Procedures Act

    NPS recognizes that new rules ordinarily go into effect 30 days 
after publication in the Federal Register. For this regulation, 
however, we have determined under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) and 318 DM 6.25 that 
this rule should be effective immediately. This rule relieves a 
restriction on snowmobile use, and does not require a delay in its 
effective date. In addition, good cause exists for an immediate 
effective date because:
    (1) Delaying implementation of this rule would prevent it from 
being in place in time for the opening of the winter use season and 
would cause it to go into effect well after the season started. 
Carrying out such a significant change in the terms for winter use mid-
season would cause substantial confusion for the public, and could also 
present implementation and enforcement problems for NPS. It is better 
to avoid such confusion by ensuring that this new rule is in effect at 
the start of the season.
    (2) Normally, the purpose of the delayed effective date is to give 
affected parties a chance to learn about a new regulation and how to 
comply with it. Here, any such benefit to winter users would be greatly 
outweighed by the harm that a delay in implementation would cause, 
because it would have significant impacts on visitors planning to visit 
the park during the forthcoming December-January holiday season, and on 
various small businesses in the surrounding communities which provide 
services to the visitors.
    Drafting Information: The primary authors of this regulation were 
Kevin Schneider, Outdoor Recreation Planner, and John Sacklin, 
Supervisory Park Resource Planner, Yellowstone National Park; Bill 
Holda, Supervisory Park Ranger, and Gary Pollock, Management Assistant, 
Grand Teton National Park; and Kym Hall, NPS Special Assistant, and 
Barry Roth, Deputy Associate Solicitor, Washington, DC.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7

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

0
36 CFR part 7 is amended as set forth below:

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

0
1. The authority 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. Amend Sec.  7.13 to revise paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  7.13  Yellowstone National Park.

* * * * *
    (l)(1) What is the scope of this regulation? The regulations 
contained in paragraphs (l)(2) through (l)(19) of this section are 
intended to apply to the use of recreational and commercial 
snowmobiles. Except where indicated, paragraphs (l)(2) through (l)(19) 
do not apply to non-administrative snowmobile or snowcoach use by NPS, 
contractor or concessioner employees who live or work in the interior 
of the park, or other non-recreational users authorized by the 
Superintendent.
    (2) What terms do I need to know? This paragraph also applies to 
non-administrative snowmobile use by NPS, contractor or concessioner 
employees, or other non-recreational users authorized by the 
Superintendent.
    Commercial guide means those guides who operate as a snowmobile 
guide for a fee or compensation and are authorized to operate in the 
park under a concession contract.
    Non-commercial guide means those authorized guides who have 
successfully completed an NPS-approved training course and provide 
guiding services without compensation.
    Oversnow route means that portion of the unplowed roadway located 
between the road shoulders and designated by snow poles or other poles, 
ropes, fencing, or signs erected to regulate over-snow activity. 
Oversnow routes include pullouts or parking areas that are groomed or 
marked similarly to roadways and are adjacent to designated oversnow 
routes. An oversnow route may also be distinguished by the interior 
boundaries of the berm created by the packing and grooming of the 
unplowed roadway. The only motorized vehicles permitted on oversnow 
routes are oversnow vehicles.
    Oversnow vehicle means a snowmobile, snowcoach, or other motorized 
vehicle that is intended for travel primarily on snow and is authorized 
by the Superintendent to operate in the park. An oversnow vehicle that 
does not meet the definition of a snowcoach or a snowplane must comply 
with all requirements applicable to snowmobiles.
    Snowcoach means a self-propelled mass transit vehicle intended for 
travel on snow, having a curb weight of over 1000 pounds (450 
kilograms), driven by a track or tracks and steered by skis or tracks, 
and having a capacity of at least 8 passengers.
    Snowplane means a self-propelled vehicle intended for oversnow 
travel and driven by an air-displacing propeller.
    (3) May I operate a snowmobile in Yellowstone National Park? You 
may operate a snowmobile in Yellowstone National Park in compliance 
with use limits and entry passes, guiding requirements, operating hours 
and dates, equipment, and operating conditions established pursuant to 
this section. The Superintendent may establish additional operating 
conditions and shall provide notice of those conditions in accordance 
with Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter or in the Federal Register.
    (4) May I operate a snowcoach in Yellowstone National Park? 
Commercial snowcoaches may be operated in Yellowstone National Park 
under a concessions contract. Non-commercial snowcoaches may be 
operated if authorized by the Superintendent. Snowcoach operation is 
subject to the conditions stated in the concessions contract and all 
other conditions identified in this section.
    (i) Historic snowcoaches (Bombardier snowcoaches manufactured in 
1983 or earlier) are not initially required to meet air or sound 
requirements.
    (ii) Beginning with the winter of 2005-2006, all non-historic 
snowcoaches must meet NPS air emissions requirements. These 
requirements are the EPA's emission standards for the vehicle at the 
time it was manufactured.

[[Page 69283]]

    (iii) Beginning with the winter of 2008-2009, all non-historic 
snowcoaches must meet NPS sound requirements. Snowcoaches must operate 
at or below 75 dB(A) as measured at 25 mph on the A-weighted scale at 
50 feet using test procedures similar to Society of Automotive 
Engineers J1161 (revised 1983).
    (iv) All critical emission-related exhaust components (as defined 
in 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(3)(iii) through (v)) must be functioning 
properly. Malfunctioning critical emissions-related components must be 
replaced with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) component, 
where possible. Where OEM parts are not available, aftermarket parts 
may be used. In general, catalysts that have exceeded their useful life 
must be replaced unless the operator can demonstrate the catalyst is 
functioning properly.
    (v) Tampering with or disabling a snowcoach's original pollution 
control equipment is prohibited except for maintenance purposes.
    (vi) Individual snowcoaches may be subject to period inspections to 
determine compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (l)(4)(ii) 
through (l)(4)(v) of this section.
    (5) Must I operate a certain model of snowmobile? Only commercially 
available snowmobiles that meet NPS air and sound emissions 
requirements may be operated in the park. The Superintendent will 
approve snowmobile makes, models, and year of manufacture that meet 
those requirements. The public will be made aware of any new air or 
sound emissions requirements through publication in the Federal 
Register and using one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of 
this chapter. Any snowmobile model not approved by the Superintendent 
may not be operated in the park.
    (6) How will the Superintendent approve snowmobile makes, models, 
and year of manufacture for use in the park? (i) Beginning with the 
2005 model year, all snowmobiles must be certified under 40 CFR part 
1051, to a Family Emission Limit no greater than 15 g/kW-hr for 
hydrocarbons and to a Family Emission Limit no greater than 120 g/kW-hr 
for carbon monoxide.
    (A) 2004 model year snowmobiles may use measured emissions levels 
(official emission results with no deterioration factors applied) to 
comply with the emission limits specified in paragraph (l)(6)(i) of 
this section.
    (B) Snowmobiles manufactured prior to the 2004 model year may be 
operated only if they have been shown to have emissions no greater than 
the requirements identified in paragraph (l)(6)(i) of this section.
    (C) The snowmobile test procedures specified by EPA (40 CFR 1051 
and 1065) shall be used to measure air emissions from model year 2004 
and later snowmobiles. Equivalent procedures may be used for earlier 
model years.
    (ii) For sound emissions, snowmobiles must operate at or below 
73dB(A), as measured at full throttle according to Society of 
Automotive Engineers J192 test procedures (revised 1985). Snowmobiles 
may be tested at any barometric pressure equal to or above 23.4 inches 
Hg uncorrected.
    (iii) Snowmobiles not operating under a concessions contract are 
exempt from air and sound emissions requirements for the winter 2003-
2004 only.
    (iv) The Superintendent may prohibit entry into the park of any 
snowmobile that has been modified in a manner that may affect air or 
sound emissions.
    (7) Where must I operate my snowmobile? You must operate your 
snowmobile only upon designated oversnow routes established within the 
park in accordance with Sec.  2.18(c) of this chapter. The following 
oversnow routes are so designated for snowmobile use:
    (i) The Grand Loop Road from its junction with Terrace Springs 
Drive to Norris Junction.
    (ii) Norris Junction to Canyon Junction.
    (iii) The Grand Loop Road from Norris Junction to Madison Junction.
    (iv) The West Entrance Road from the park boundary at West 
Yellowstone to Madison Junction.
    (v) The Grand Loop Road from Madison Junction to West Thumb.
    (vi) The South Entrance Road from the South Entrance to West Thumb.
    (vii) The Grand Loop Road from West Thumb to its junction with the 
East Entrance Road.
    (viii) The East Entrance Road from the East Entrance to its 
junction with the Grand Loop Road.
    (ix) The Grand Loop Road from its junction with the East Entrance 
Road to Canyon Junction.
    (x) The South Canyon Rim Drive.
    (xi) Lake Butte Road.
    (xii) In the developed areas of Madison Junction, Old Faithful, 
Grant Village, Lake, Fishing Bridge, Canyon, Indian Creek, and Norris.
    (xiii) The Superintendent may open or close these routes, or 
portions thereof, for snowmobile travel after taking into consideration 
the location of wintering wildlife, appropriate snow cover, public 
safety, and other factors. Notice of such opening or closing shall be 
provided by one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this 
chapter.
    (xiv) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users authorized by the Superintendent.
    (xv) Maps detailing the designated oversnow routes will be 
available from Park Headquarters.
    (8) What routes are designated for snowcoach use? Authorized 
snowcoaches may only be operated on the routes designated for 
snowmobile use in paragraphs (l)(7)(i) through (l)(7)(xii) of this 
section and the following additional oversnow routes:
    (i) Firehole Canyon Drive.
    (ii) Fountain Flat Road.
    (iii) Virginia Cascades Drive.
    (iv) North Canyon Rim Drive.
    (v) Riverside Drive.
    (vi) That portion of the Grand Loop Road from Canyon Junction to 
Washburn Hot Springs overlook.
    (vii) The Superintendent may open or close these oversnow routes, 
or portions thereof, or designate new routes for snowcoach travel after 
taking into consideration the location of wintering wildlife, 
appropriate snow cover, public safety, and other factors. Notice of 
such opening or closing shall be provided by one or more of the methods 
listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (viii) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowcoach 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users authorized by the Superintendent.
    (9) Will I be required to use a guide while snowmobiling? Beginning 
in the winter of 2004-2005, all snowmobile operators must be 
accompanied by a guide who has successfully completed an NPS-approved 
training program. During the winter of 2003-2004 only, the twenty 
percent (20%) of the authorized daily snowmobile entries that are 
allocated to the general public do not require a guide.
    (10) What other requirements apply to the use of snowmobile guides? 
Eighty percent (80%) of the authorized daily snowmobile entries are 
allocated under concessions contracts for commercial guiding services 
while the remaining twenty percent (20%) of the authorized daily 
snowmobile entries are allocated to the general public for non-
commercially guided parties.
    (i) Non-commercial guides are required to successfully complete a 
training program approved by the Superintendent to include training on 
park rules, safety considerations, and appropriate actions to minimize 
impacts to wildlife and other park resources.

[[Page 69284]]

    (ii) Snowmobile parties must travel in a group, including the 
guide. Maximum or minimum group size may be designated by the 
Superintendent. Notice of group size requirements shall be provided by 
one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (iii) It is prohibited for non-commercial guides, or anyone else, 
to receive fees or other forms of compensation for non-commercial 
guiding services.
    (iv) Guided parties must travel together within a maximum of one-
third mile of the first snowmobile in the group.
    (v) The Superintendent may change requirements related to guiding, 
including the commercial: non-commercial guide ratio. Except for 
emergency situations, changes to guiding requirements may be made on an 
annual basis and the public will be notified of those changes through 
publication in the Federal Register and by one or more of the 
procedures listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (11) Are there limits established for the numbers of snowmobiles 
permitted to enter the park each day? Snowmobiles allowed to enter the 
park each day will be limited to a specific number per entrance. The 
initial limits are listed in the following table:

                         Table 1 to Sec.   7.13.--Initial Daily Snowmobile Entry Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of    Number of non-
                                                                   commercially-   commercially    Total number
                                                                      guided          guided       of snowmobile
                   Park entrance/road segment                       snowmobile      snowmobile       entrance
                                                                     entrance        entrance         passes
                                                                      passes        passes \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) YNP--North Entrance.........................................              40              10              50
(ii) YNP--West Entrance.........................................             440             110             550
(iii) YNP--South Entrance.......................................             200              50             250
(iv) YNP--East Entrance.........................................              80              20            100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the 2003-2004 winter season only, these entries will be available for unguided parties, to allow
  sufficient time to develop and implement a non-commercial guide training program.

    (v) The limits established in Table 1 to this section apply until 
modified by the Superintendent. The Superintendent may establish 
different limits, after taking into consideration the effectiveness of 
air and sound emissions requirements, the state of technology, 
monitoring results, or other relevant information. The public will be 
made aware of any new limits through publication in the Federal 
Register and using one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of 
this chapter.
    (12) How will the daily snowmobile entry limits be enforced? The 
daily snowmobile entry limits will be enforced through at least three 
methods:
    (i) The operator of a snowmobile is required to have a reservation 
to obtain entry into the park and pay any fees associated with that 
reservation;
    (ii) The operator of a snowmobile is required to have an entrance 
pass to obtain entry into the park and pay any fees associated with 
that entrance pass; and,
    (iii) The person who makes or holds the reservation must accompany 
the snowmobile group while in the park.
    (iv) Reservations or entrance passes that have been obtained using 
false information, or have been altered, are invalid. Reservations or 
entrance passes that have been transferred or resold without the 
authorization of the Superintendent are invalid. The use of an invalid 
reservation or entrance pass is prohibited.
    (13) When may I operate my snowmobile or snowcoach? The 
Superintendent will determine operating hours and dates. Except for 
emergency situations, changes to operating hours or dates may be made 
annually and the public will be notified of those changes through one 
or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (14) What other conditions apply to the operation of oversnow 
vehicles? (i) The following are prohibited:
    (A) Idling an oversnow vehicle more than 5 minutes at any one time.
    (B) Operating an oversnow vehicle while the operator's state motor 
vehicle license or privilege is suspended or revoked by any state.
    (C) Allowing or permitting an unlicensed driver to operate an 
oversnow vehicle.
    (D) Operating an oversnow vehicle in willful or wanton disregard 
for the safety of persons, property, or park resources or otherwise in 
a reckless manner.
    (E) Operating an oversnow vehicle without a lighted white headlamp 
and red taillight.
    (F) Operating an oversnow vehicle that does not have brakes in good 
working order.
    (G) The towing of persons on skis, sleds or other sliding devices 
by oversnow vehicles, except in emergency situations.
    (ii) The following are required:
    (A) All oversnow vehicles that stop on designated routes must pull 
over to the far right and next to the snow berm. Pullouts must be 
utilized where available and accessible. Oversnow vehicles may not be 
stopped in a hazardous location or where the view might be obscured, or 
operating so slowly as to interfere with the normal flow of traffic.
    (B) Oversnow vehicle operators must possess a valid motor vehicle 
operator's license. A learner's permit does not satisfy this 
requirement. The license must be carried by the operator at all times.
    (C) Equipment sleds towed by a snowmobile must be pulled behind the 
snowmobile and fastened to the snowmobile with a rigid hitching 
mechanism.
    (D) Snowmobiles must be properly registered and display a valid 
registration from the United States or Canada.
    (iii) The Superintendent may impose other terms and conditions as 
necessary to protect park resources, visitors, or employees. The public 
will be notified of any changes through one or more methods listed in 
Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (iv) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users as authorized by the Superintendent.
    (15) What conditions apply to alcohol use while operating an 
oversnow vehicle? In addition to the regulations contained in 36 CFR 
4.23, the following conditions apply:
    (i) Operating or being in actual physical control of an oversnow 
vehicle

[[Page 69285]]

is prohibited when the driver is under 21 years of age and the alcohol 
concentration in the driver's blood or breath is 0.02 grams or more of 
alcohol per 100 milliliters or blood or 0.02 grams or more of alcohol 
per 210 liters of breath.
    (ii) Operating or being in actual physical control of an oversnow 
vehicle is prohibited when the driver is a snowmobile guide or a 
snowcoach driver and the alcohol concentration in the operator's blood 
or breath is 0.04 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood 
or 0.04 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
    (iii) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users as authorized by the Superintendent.
    (16) Do other NPS regulations apply to the use of oversnow 
vehicles? (i) The use of oversnow vehicles in Yellowstone is not 
subject to Sec. Sec.  2.18 (b), (d), (e) and 2.19(b) of this chapter.
    (ii) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users as authorized by the Superintendent.
    (17) Are there any forms of non-motorized oversnow transportation 
allowed in the park? Non-motorized travel consisting of skiing, 
skating, snowshoeing, or walking is permitted unless otherwise 
restricted pursuant to this section or other provisions of 36 CFR Part 
1.
    (i) The Superintendent may designate areas of the park as closed, 
reopen such areas or establish terms and conditions for non-motorized 
travel within the park in order to protect visitors, employees or park 
resources.
    (ii) Dog sledding or ski-jorring is prohibited.
    (18) May I operate a snowplane in Yellowstone? The operation of a 
snowplane in Yellowstone is prohibited.
    (19) Is violating any of the provisions of this section prohibited? 
Violating any of the terms, conditions or requirements of paragraphs 
(l)(2) through (l)(18) of this section is prohibited. Each occurrence 
of non-compliance with these regulations is a separate violation.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  7.21 to revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  7.21  John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway.

    (a)(1) What is the scope of this regulation? The regulations 
contained in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(18) of this section are 
intended to apply to the use of recreational and commercial 
snowmobiles. Except where indicated, paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(18) 
do not apply to non-administrative snowmobile or snowcoach use by NPS, 
contractor or concessioner employees who live or work in the interior 
of Yellowstone, or other non-recreational users authorized by the 
Superintendent.
    (2) What terms do I need to know? All the terms in Sec.  7.13(l)(2) 
of this part apply to this section. This paragraph applies to non-
administrative snowmobile use by NPS or concessioner employees.
    (3) May I operate a snowmobile in the Parkway? You may operate a 
snowmobile in the Parkway in compliance with use limits and entry 
passes, guiding requirements, operating hours and dates, equipment, and 
operating conditions established pursuant to this section. The 
Superintendent may establish additional operating conditions and shall 
provide notice of those conditions in accordance with Sec.  1.7(a) of 
this chapter or in the Federal Register.
    (4) May I operate a snowcoach in the Parkway? Commercial 
snowcoaches may be operated in the Parkway under a concessions 
contract. Non-commercial snowcoaches may be operated if authorized by 
the Superintendent. Snowcoach operation is subject to the conditions 
stated in the concessions contract and all other conditions identified 
in this section.
    (i) Historic snowcoaches (Bombardier snowcoaches manufactured in 
1983 or earlier) are not initially required to meet air or sound 
requirements.
    (ii) Beginning with the winter of 2005-2006, all non-historic 
snowcoaches must meet NPS air emissions requirements. These 
requirements are the EPA's emission standards for the vehicle at the 
time it was manufactured.
    (iii) Beginning with the winter of 2008-2009, all non-historic 
snowcoaches must meet NPS sound requirements. Snowcoaches must operate 
at or below 75 dB(A) as measured at 25 mph on the A-weighted scale at 
50 feet using test procedures similar to Society of Automotive 
Engineers J1161 (revised 1983).
    (iv) All critical emission-related exhaust components (as defined 
in 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(3)(iii)-(v)) must be functioning properly. 
Malfunctioning critical emissions-related components must be replaced 
with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) component, where 
possible. Where OEM parts are not available, after-market parts may be 
used. In general, catalysts that have exceeded their useful life must 
be replaced unless the operator can demonstrate the catalyst is 
functioning properly.
    (v) Tampering with or disabling a snowcoach's original pollution 
control equipment is prohibited except for maintenance purposes.
    (vi) Individual snowcoaches may be subject to periodic inspections 
to determine compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) 
through (a)(4)(v) of this section.
    (5) Must I operate a certain model of snowmobile? Only commercially 
available snowmobiles that meet NPS air and sound emissions 
requirements may be operated in the Parkway. The Superintendent will 
approve snowmobile makes, models, and year of manufacture that meet 
those requirements. The public will be made aware of any new air or 
sound emissions requirements through publication in the Federal 
Register and using one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of 
this chapter. Any snowmobile model not approved by the Superintendent 
may not be operated in the Parkway.
    (6) How will the Superintendent approve snowmobile makes, models, 
and year of manufacture for use in the Parkway? (i) Beginning with the 
2005 model year, all snowmobiles must be certified under 40 CFR part 
1051, to a Family Emission Limit no greater than 15 g/kW-hr for 
hydrocarbons and to a Family Emission Limit no greater than 120 g/kW-hr 
for carbon monoxide.
    (A) 2004 model year snowmobiles may use measured air emissions 
levels (official emission results with no deterioration factors 
applied) to comply with the air emission limits specified in paragraph 
(a)(6)(i) of this section.
    (B) Snowmobiles manufactured prior to the 2004 model year may be 
operated only if they have shown to have air emissions no greater than 
the requirements identified in paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section.
    (C) The snowmobile test procedures specified by EPA (40 CFR parts 
1051 and 1065) shall be used to measure air emissions from model year 
2004 and later snowmobiles. Equivalent procedures may be used for 
earlier model years.
    (ii) For sound emissions snowmobiles must operate at or below 
73dB(A) as measured at full throttle according to Society of Automotive 
Engineers J192 test procedures (revised 1985). Snowmobiles may be 
tested at any barometric pressure equal to or above 23.4 inches Hg 
uncorrected.
    (iii) These air and sound emissions requirements shall not apply to 
snowmobiles originating in the Targhee

[[Page 69286]]

National Forest and traveling on the Grassy Lake Road to Flagg Ranch, 
however these snowmobiles may not travel further into the Parkway 
unless they meet the air and sound emissions and all other requirements 
of this section.
    (iv) Snowmobiles not operating under a concessions contract are 
exempt from air and sound emissions requirements for the winter 2003-
2004 only.
    (v) The Superintendent may prohibit entry into the Parkway of any 
snowmobile that has been modified in a manner that may affect air or 
sound emissions.
    (7) Where must I operate my snowmobile in the Parkway? You must 
operate your snowmobile only upon designated oversnow routes 
established within the Parkway in accordance with 36 CFR 2.18(c). The 
following oversnow routes are so designated for snowmobile use:
    (i) The Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail (CDST) along U.S. 
Highway 89/287 from the southern boundary of the Parkway north to the 
Snake River Bridge.
    (ii) Along U.S. Highway 89/287 from the Snake River Bridge to the 
northern boundary of the Parkway.
    (iii) Grassy Lake Road from Flagg Ranch to the western boundary of 
the Parkway.
    (iv) The Superintendent may open or close these routes, or portions 
thereof, for snowmobile travel after taking into consideration the 
location of wintering wildlife, appropriate snow cover, public safety 
or other factors. Notice of such opening or closing shall be provided 
by one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (v) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users authorized by the Superintendent.
    (vi) Maps detailing the designated oversnow routes will be 
available from Park Headquarters.
    (8) What routes are designated for snowcoach use? (i) Authorized 
snowcoaches may only be operated on the route designated for snowmobile 
use in paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section. No other routes are open 
to snowcoach use.
    (ii) The Superintendent may open or close this oversnow route, or 
portions thereof, or designate new routes for snowcoach travel after 
taking into consideration the location of wintering wildlife, 
appropriate snow cover, public safety, and other factors. Notice of 
such opening or closing shall be provided by one or more of the methods 
listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (iii) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowcoach 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users authorized by the Superintendent.
    (9) Will I be required to use a guide while snowmobiling in the 
Parkway? Beginning in the winter of 2004-2005, all snowmobile operators 
using the oversnow route along U.S. Highway 89/287 from Flagg Ranch to 
the northern boundary of the parkway must be accompanied by a guide 
that has successfully completed an NPS-approved training program. A 
guide is not required in other portions of the Parkway. During the 
winter of 2003-2004 only, the twenty percent (20%) of the authorized 
daily snowmobile entries that are allocated to the general public do 
not require a guide.
    (10) What other requirements apply to the use of snowmobile guides? 
Eighty percent (80%) of the authorized daily snowmobile use on U.S. 
Highway 89/287 from Flagg Ranch to the northern boundary of the Parkway 
is allocated under concessions contracts for commercial guiding 
services while the remaining twenty percent (20%) of the authorized 
daily snowmobile entries are allocated to the general public for non-
commercially guided parties.
    (i) Non-commercial guides are required to successfully complete a 
training program approved by the Superintendent to include training on 
Parkway rules, safety considerations, and appropriate actions to 
minimize impacts to wildlife and other Parkway resources.
    (ii) Snowmobile parties must travel in a group, including the 
guide. Maximum or minimum group size may be designated by the 
Superintendent. Notice of group size requirements shall be provided by 
one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (iii) It is prohibited for non-commercial guides, or anyone else, 
to receive fees or other forms of compensation for non-commercial 
guiding services.
    (iv) Guided parties must travel together within a maximum of one-
third mile of the first snowmobile in the group.
    (v) The Superintendent may change requirements related to guiding, 
including the commercial to non-commercial guide ratio. Except for 
emergency situations, changes to guiding requirements may be made on an 
annual basis and the public will be notified of those changes through 
publication in the Federal Register and by one or more of the 
procedures listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (11) Are there limits established for the numbers of snowmobiles 
permitted to enter the Parkway each day? Snowmobiles allowed to enter 
the Parkway each day will be limited to a specific number per road 
segment. The initial limits are listed in the following table:

                         Table 1 to Sec.   7.21.--Initial Daily Snowmobile Entry Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of    Number of non-
                                                                   commercially-   commercially    Total  number
                   Park entrance/road segment                         guided          guided            of
                                                                    snowmobiles     snowmobiles     snowmobiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) GTNP and the Parkway--Total Use on CDST \2\.................             N/A             N/A          \3\ 75
(ii) Parkway--Total Use Grassy Lake Road........................             N/A             N/A          \3\ 75
(iii) Flagg Ranch to Yellowstone South Entrance.................             200              50            250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail lies within both GTNP and the Parkway. The 75 daily snowmobile use
  limit applies to total use on this trail in both parks.
\3\ These users do not have to be accompanied by a guide.

    (iv) The limits established in Table 1 to this section apply until 
modified by the Superintendent. The Superintendent may establish 
different limits, after taking into consideration the effectiveness of 
air and sound emissions requirements, the state of technology, 
monitoring results, or other relevant information. The public will be 
made aware of new limits through publication in the Federal Register 
and using one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this 
chapter.
    (12) When may I operate my snowmobile or snowcoach? The

[[Page 69287]]

Superintendent will determine operating hours and dates. Except for 
emergency situations, changes to operating hours or dates may be made 
annually and the public will be notified of those changes through one 
or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (13) What other conditions apply to the operation of oversnow 
vehicles? (i) The following are prohibited:
    (A) Idling an oversnow vehicle more than 5 minutes at any one time.
    (B) Operating an oversnow vehicle while the operator's state motor 
vehicle license or privilege is suspended or revoked by any state.
    (C) Allowing or permitting an unlicensed driver to operate an 
oversnow vehicle.
    (D) Operating an oversnow vehicle in willful or wanton disregard 
for the safety of persons, property, or Parkway resources or otherwise 
in a reckless manner.
    (E) Operating an oversnow vehicle without a lighted white headlamp 
and red taillight.
    (F) Operating an oversnow vehicle that does not have brakes in good 
working order.
    (G) The towing of persons on skis, sleds or other sliding devices 
by oversnow vehicles, except in emergency situations.
    (ii) The following are required:
    (A) All oversnow vehicles that stop on designated routes must pull 
over to the far right and next to the snow berm. Pullouts must be 
utilized where available and accessible. Oversnow vehicles may not be 
stopped in a hazardous location or where the view might be obscured, or 
operating so slowly as to interfere with the normal flow of traffic.
    (B) Oversnow vehicle operators must possess a valid motor vehicle 
operator's license. The license must be carried by the operator at all 
times. A learner's permit does not satisfy this requirement.
    (C) Equipment sleds towed by a snowmobile must be pulled behind the 
snowmobile and fastened to the snowmobile with a rigid hitching 
mechanism.
    (D) Snowmobiles must be properly registered and display a valid 
registration from the United States or Canada.
    (iii) The Superintendent may impose other terms and conditions as 
necessary to protect Parkway resources, visitors, or employees. The 
public will be notified of any changes through one or more methods 
listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (iv) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users authorized by the Superintendent.
    (14) What conditions apply to alcohol use while operating an 
oversnow vehicle? In addition to the regulations in 36 CFR 4.23, the 
following conditions apply:
    (i) Operating or being in actual physical control of an oversnow 
vehicle is prohibited when the driver is under 21 years of age and the 
alcohol concentration in the driver's blood or breath is 0.02 grams or 
more of alcohol per 100 milliliters or blood or 0.02 grams or more of 
alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
    (ii) Operating or being in actual physical control of an oversnow 
vehicle is prohibited when the driver is a guide or a snowcoach driver 
and the alcohol concentration in the driver's blood or breath is 0.04 
grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.04 grams or 
more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
    (iii) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users authorized by the Superintendent.
    (15) Do other NPS regulations apply to the use of oversnow 
vehicles? (i) The use of oversnow vehicles in the Parkway is not 
subject to Sec. Sec.  2.18(d) and (e) and 2.19(b) of this chapter.
    (ii) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users authorized by the Superintendent.
    (16) Are there any forms of non-motorized oversnow transportation 
allowed in the Parkway? (i) Non-motorized travel consisting of skiing, 
skating, snowshoeing, or walking are permitted unless otherwise 
restricted pursuant to this section or other provisions of 36 CFR Part 
1 provided you follow all applicable regulations.
    (ii) The Superintendent may designate areas of the Parkway as 
closed, reopen such areas or establish terms and conditions for non-
motorized travel within the Parkway in order to protect visitors, 
employees or park resources.
    (iii) Dog sledding or ski-jorring is prohibited.
    (17) May I operate a snowplane in the Parkway? The operation of a 
snowplane in the Parkway is prohibited.
    (18) Is violating any of the provisions of this section prohibited? 
Violating any of the terms, conditions or requirements of paragraphs 
(a)(2) through (a)(17) of this section is prohibited. Each occurrence 
of non-compliance with these regulations is a separate violation.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  7.22 to revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  7.22  Grand Teton National Park.

* * * * *
    (g)(1) What is the scope of this regulation? The regulations 
contained in paragraphs (g)(2) through (g)(20) of this section are 
intended to apply to the use of recreational and commercial 
snowmobiles. Except where indicated, paragraphs (g)(2) through (g)(20) 
do not apply to non-administrative snowmobile or snowcoach use by NPS 
or concessioner employees who live or work in the interior of 
Yellowstone.
    (2) What terms do I need to know? All the terms in Sec.  7.13(l)(2) 
of this part apply to this section. This paragraph also applies to non-
administrative snowmobile use by NPS, contractor or concessioner 
employees, or other non-recreational users authorized by the 
Superintendent.
    (3) May I operate a snowmobile in Grand Teton National Park? You 
may operate a snowmobile in Grand Teton National Park in compliance 
with use limits and entry passes, operating hours and dates, equipment, 
and operating conditions established in this section. The 
Superintendent may establish additional operating conditions and shall 
provide notice of those conditions in accordance with Sec.  1.7(a) of 
this chapter or in the Federal Register.
    (4) May I operate a snowcoach in Grand Teton? Operate a snowcoach 
in Grand Teton National Park is prohibited.
    (5) Must I operate a certain model of snowmobile in the park? Only 
commercially available snowmobiles that meet NPS air and sound 
emissions requirements may be operated in the park. The Superintendent 
will approve snowmobile makes, models, and year of manufacture that 
meet those requirements. The public will be made aware of any new air 
or sound emissions requirements through publication in the Federal 
Register and using one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of 
this chapter. Any snowmobile model not approved by the Superintendent 
may not be operated in the park.
    (6) How will the Superintendent approve snowmobile makes, models, 
and year of manufacture for use in Grand Teton? (i) Beginning with the 
2005 model year, all snowmobiles must be certified under 40 CFR part 
1051, to a Family Emission Limit no greater than 15 g/kW-hr for 
hydrocarbons and to a Family Emission Limit no greater than 120 g/kW-hr 
for carbon monoxide.
    (A) 2004 model year snowmobiles may use measured air emissions 
levels

[[Page 69288]]

(official emission results with no deterioration factors applied) to 
comply with the air emission limits specified in paragraph (g)(6)(i) of 
this section.
    (B) Snowmobiles manufactured prior to the 2004 model year may be 
operated only if they have shown to have air emissions no greater than 
the requirements identified in paragraph (g)(6)(i) of this section.
    (C) The snowmobile test procedures specified by EPA (40 CFR 1051 
and 1065) shall be used to measure air emissions from model year 2004 
and later snowmobiles. Equivalent procedures may be used for earlier 
model years.
    (ii) For sound emissions, snowmobiles must operate at or below 
73dB(A), as measured at full throttle according to Society of 
Automotive Engineers J192 test procedures (revised 1985). Snowmobiles 
may be tested at any barometric pressure equal to or above 23.4 inches 
Hg uncorrected.
    (iii) These air and sound emissions requirements shall not apply to 
snowmobiles while in use to access lands authorized by paragraphs 
(g)(16) and (g)(18) of this section.
    (iv) Snowmobiles not operating under a concessions contract are 
exempt from air and sound emissions requirements for the winter 2003-
2004 only.
    (v) The Superintendent may prohibit entry into the park of any 
snowmobile that has been modified in a manner that may affect air or 
sound emissions.
    (7) Where must I operate my snowmobile? You must operate your 
snowmobile only upon designated oversnow routes established within the 
park in accordance with 36 CFR 2.18(c). The following oversnow routes 
are so designated for snowmobile use:
    (i) The frozen water surface of Jackson Lake for the purposes of 
ice fishing only. Those persons accessing Jackson Lake for ice fishing 
must possess a valid Wyoming state fishing license and the proper 
fishing gear.
    (ii) The Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail along U.S. 26/287 from 
Moran Junction to the eastern park boundary and along U.S. 89/287 from 
Moran Junction to the north park boundary.
    (iii) The Superintendent may open or close these routes, or 
portions thereof, for snowmobile travel and may establish separate 
zones for motorized and non-motorized use on Jackson Lake, after taking 
into consideration the location of wintering wildlife, appropriate snow 
cover, public safety and other factors. Notice of such opening or 
closing shall be provided by one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  
1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (iv) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users authorized by the Superintendent.
    (v) Maps detailing the designated oversnow routes will be available 
from Park Headquarters.
    (8) Will I be required to use a guide while snowmobiling in Grand 
Teton? (i) You will not be required to use a guide while snowmobiling 
in Grand Teton.
    (ii) The Superintendent may establish requirements related to the 
use of guides, including requirements for commercial and/or non-
commercial guides. Changes to guiding requirements may be made annually 
and the public will be notified of those changes through publication in 
the Federal Register and by one or more of the procedures listed in 
Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (9) Are there limits established for the numbers of snowmobiles 
permitted to operate in Grand Teton each day? Snowmobiles allowed to 
enter the park each day will be limited to a specific number per road 
segment or area. The initial limits are listed in the following table:

                         Table 1 to Sec.   7.22.--Initial Daily Snowmobile Entry Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of    Number of non-
                                                                   commercially-   commercially    Total number
                                                                      guided          guided       of snowmobile
                   Park entrance/road segment                       snowmobile      snowmobile       entrance
                                                                     entrance        entrance         passes
                                                                      passes          passes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) GTNP and the Parkway--Total Use on CDST \4\.................             N/A             N/A          \5\ 75
(ii) Jackson Lake...............................................             N/A             N/A         \5\ 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail lies within both GTNP and the Parkway. The 75 daily snowmobile use
  limit applies to total use on this trail in both parks.
\5\ These users do not have to be accompanied by a guide.

    (iii) The limits established in Table 1 to this section apply until 
modified by the Superintendent. The Superintendent may establish 
different limits after taking into consideration the effectiveness of 
air and sound emissions requirements, the state of technology, 
monitoring results, or other relevant information. The public will be 
made aware of new limits through publication in the Federal Register 
and using one or more of the methods listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this 
chapter.
    (10) When may I operate my snowmobile? The Superintendent will 
determine operating hours and dates. Except for emergency situations, 
changes to operating hours or dates may be made annually and the public 
will be notified of those changes through one or more of the methods 
listed in Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (11) What other conditions apply to the operation of oversnow 
vehicles? (i) The following are prohibited:
    (A) Idling an oversnow vehicle more than 5 minutes at any one time.
    (B) Operating an oversnow vehicle while the operator's state motor 
vehicle license or privilege is suspended or revoked by any state.
    (C) Allowing or permitting an unlicensed driver to operate an 
oversnow vehicle.
    (D) Operating an oversnow vehicle in willful or wanton disregard 
for the safety of persons, property, or park resources or otherwise in 
a reckless manner.
    (E) Operating an oversnow vehicle without a lighted white headlamp 
and red taillight.
    (F) Operating an oversnow vehicle that does not have brakes in good 
working order.
    (G) The towing of persons on skis, sleds or other sliding devices 
by oversnow vehicles, except in emergency situations.
    (ii) The following are required:
    (A) All oversnow vehicles that stop on designated routes must pull 
over to the far right and next to the snow berm. Pullouts must be 
utilized where available and accessible. Oversnow vehicles may not be 
stopped in a hazardous location or where the view might be obscured, or 
operating so

[[Page 69289]]

slowly as to interfere with the normal flow of traffic.
    (B) Oversnow vehicle operators must possess a valid motor vehicle 
operator's license. The license must be carried by the operator at all 
times. A learner's permit does not satisfy this requirement.
    (C) Equipment sleds towed by a snowmobile must be pulled behind the 
snowmobile and fastened to the snowmobile with a rigid hitching 
mechanism.
    (D) Snowmobiles must be properly registered and display a valid 
registration from the United States or Canada.
    (iii) The Superintendent may impose other terms and conditions as 
necessary to protect park resources, visitors, or employees. The public 
will be notified of any changes through one or more methods listed in 
Sec.  1.7(a) of this chapter.
    (iv) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users authorized by the Superintendent.
    (12) What conditions apply to alcohol use while operating an 
oversnow vehicle? In addition to the regulations in 36 CFR 4.23, the 
following conditions apply:
    (i) Operating or being in actual physical control of an oversnow 
vehicle is prohibited when the driver is under 21years of age and the 
alcohol concentration in the driver's blood or breath is 0.02 grams or 
more of alcohol per 100 milliliters or blood or 0.02 grams or more of 
alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
    (ii) Operating or being in actual physical control of an oversnow 
vehicle is prohibited when the driver is a commercial guide or a 
snowcoach driver and the alcohol concentration in the driver's blood or 
breath is 0.04 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 
0.04 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
    (iii) This paragraph also applies to non-administrative snowmobile 
use by NPS, contractor or concessioner employees, or other non-
recreational users authorized by the Superintendent.
    (13) Do other NPS regulations apply to the use of oversnow 
vehicles? The use of oversnow vehicles in Grand Teton is not subject to 
Sec. Sec.  2.18(d) and (e) and 2.19(b) of this chapter.
    (14) Are there any forms of non-motorized oversnow transportation 
allowed in the park? (i) Non-motorized travel including skiing, 
skating, snowshoeing, or walking are permitted unless otherwise 
restricted pursuant to this section or other provisions of 36 CFR Part 
1 provided you follow all applicable regulations.
    (ii) The Superintendent may designate areas of the park as closed, 
reopen such areas or establish terms and conditions for non-motorized 
travel within the park in order to protect visitors, employees or park 
resources.
    (iii) Dog sledding or ski-jorring is prohibited.
    (15) May I operate a snowplane in Grand Teton National Park? The 
operation of a snowplane in Grand Teton National Park is prohibited.
    (16) May I continue to access public lands via snowmobile through 
the park? Reasonable and direct access, via snowmobile, to adjacent 
public lands will continue to be permitted on designated routes through 
the park. Requirements established in this section related to 
snowmobile operator age, air and sound emissions, guiding and licensing 
do not apply on these oversnow routes. The following routes only are 
designated for access via snowmobile to public lands:
    (i) From the parking area at Shadow Mountain directly along the 
unplowed portion of the road to the east park boundary.
    (ii) Along the unplowed portion of the Ditch Creek Road directly to 
the east park boundary.
    (17) For what purpose may I use the routes designated in paragraph 
(g)(16) of this section? You may use those routes designated in 
paragraph (g)(16) of this section only to gain direct access to public 
lands adjacent to the park boundary.
    (18) May I continue to access private property within or adjacent 
to the park via snowmobile? Until such time as the United States takes 
full possession of an inholding in the park, the Superintendent may 
establish reasonable and direct access routes via snowmobile, to such 
inholding, or to private property adjacent to park boundaries for which 
other routes or means of access are not reasonably available. 
Requirements established in this section related to air and sound 
emissions, snowmobile operator age, licensing, and guiding do not apply 
on these oversnow routes. The following routes are designated for 
access to properties within or adjacent to the park:
    (i) The unplowed portion of Antelope Flats Road off U.S. 26/89 to 
private lands in the Craighead Subdivision.
    (ii) The unplowed portion of the Teton Park Road to the piece of 
land commonly referred to as the ``Clark Property''.
    (iii) From the Moose-Wilson Road to the land commonly referred to 
as the ``Barker Property''.
    (iv) From the Moose-Wilson Road to the land commonly referred to as 
the ``Wittimer Property''.
    (v) From the Moose-Wilson Road to those two pieces of land commonly 
referred to as the ``Halpin Properties''.
    (vi) From the south end of the plowed sections of the Moose-Wilson 
Road to that piece of land commonly referred to as the ``JY Ranch''.
    (vii) From Highway 26/89/187 to those lands commonly referred to as 
the ``Meadows'', the ``Circle EW Ranch'', the ``Moulton Property'', the 
``Levinson Property'' and the ``West Property''.
    (viii) From Cunningham Cabin pullout on U.S. 26/89 near Triangle X 
to the piece of land commonly referred to as the ``Lost Creek Ranch''.
    (ix) Maps detailing designated routes will be available from Park 
Headquarters.
    (19) For what purpose may I use the routes designated in paragraph 
(g)(18) of this section? Those routes designated in paragraph (g)(18) 
of this section are only to access private property within or directly 
adjacent to the park boundary. Use of these roads via snowmobile is 
authorized only for the landowners and their representatives or guests. 
Use of these roads by anyone else or for any other purpose is 
prohibited.
    (20) Is violating any of the provisions of this section prohibited? 
Violating any of the terms, conditions or requirements of paragraphs 
(g)(2) through (g)(19) of this section is prohibited. Each occurrence 
of non-compliance with these regulations is a separate violation.

David P. Smith,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-30755 Filed 12-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-CX-U