17292 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

■ f. On page 14332, in paragraph (a)(15) rulemaking process to prohibit PWC use continued PWC use must promulgate a on lines 14 and 15 remove the word throughout the National Park System. In park-specific special regulation. The ‘‘east’’ and add, in its place, the word response to the petition, the NPS settlement agreement acknowledged ‘‘west’’. proposed a specific PWC regulation that the NEPA analysis must, at a Dated: March 27, 2003. premised on the notion that PWC use minimum, evaluate PWC impacts on should be evaluated by the individual water quality, air quality, soundscapes, James M. Farley, park area to determine if the use is an wildlife, wildlife habitat, shoreline Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the appropriate use of the park (63 FR vegetation, visitor conflicts, and visitor Port Tampa. 49312, Sept. 15, 1998). safety. [FR Doc. 03–8523 Filed 4–8–03; 8:45 am] The NPS envisioned the servicewide In 2001 the National Park Service BILLING CODE 4910–15–P regulation as an opportunity to evaluate adopted its revised NPS Management impacts from PWC use before Policies (NPS 2001) for the National authorizing the use. The preamble to the Park System. The policy document DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR servicewide regulation calls the included a provision addressing PWC regulation a ‘‘conservative approach to use in park units and the need for National Park Service managing PWC use’’ considering the proper evaluation before authorizing use resource concerns, visitor conflicts, in a specific park unit (8.2.3.3). The 36 CFR Part 7 visitor enjoyment, and visitor safety. policy states that the use should be RIN 1024–AC91 During a 60-day comment period, the evaluated based on the park’s enabling NPS received nearly 20,000 comments. legislation, resources, values, other park Personal Watercraft Use at Lake Mead After reviewing the public comments uses, and overall management strategies. National Recreation Area and further review, the NPS On September 5, 2002, the National promulgated a final regulation that Park Service published a draft rule for AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. prohibited PWC use in all units, until the operation of PWC at Lake Mead ACTION: Final rule. the individual park areas determine NRA (67 FR 56785–94). The proposed PWC appropriateness for continued use rule for PWC use was based on SUMMARY: This rule designates areas (36 CFR 3.24(a), 65 FR 15077–90, Mar. alternative C (the preferred alternative) where personal watercraft (PWC) may 21, 2000). The final rule provided a 2- in the Draft Environment Impact be used in Lake Mead National year grace period for 21 parks. Statement/Lake Management Plan Recreation Area, Nevada and Arizona. Specifically, the regulation allowed the (DEIS/LMP). The 60-day public This rule implements the provisions of NPS to designate PWC areas and to comment period on the proposed rule the National Park Service (NPS) general continue PWC use by promulgating a ran from September 5 to November 4, regulation authorizing parks to allow special regulation in park areas, 2002. the use of PWC by promulgating a including Lake Mead National Overview of Recreational Use and special regulation. The NPS Recreation Area. Ten NRA’s were given Personal Watercraft Management Policies 2001 provides that an additional option of authorizing PWC individual parks should determine use through the units’ superintendents’ The NPS is granted broad statutory whether PWC use is appropriate for a compendium (36 CFR 3.24(b)), but only authority under various acts of Congress specific park area based on an if the requirements of 36 CFR 1.5 were to manage and regulate water activities evaluation of that area’s enabling met. This additional designation in areas of the National Park System, 16 legislation, resources and values, other method was provided for in the units U.S.C. 1, 1a–2(h) and 3. The NPS visitor uses, overall management because of their congressional Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq., objectives, and consistent with the designation as national recreation areas authorizes the NPS to ‘‘* * * regulate criteria of the NPS for managing visitor and specific congressional intent to the use of Federal areas known as use. This rule authorizes the use of PWC provide for motorized watercraft use in national parks, monuments, and at Lake Mead National Recreation Area these parks. reservations * * * by such means and consistent with the Record of Decision In response to the PWC final measures as conform to the fundamental for Lake Management Plan. regulation, Bluewater Network sued the purpose of the said parks * * * which EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes NPS. The organization challenged the purpose is to conserve the scenery and effective April 9, 2003. National Park Service decision to the natural and historic objects and the provide a 2-year grace period allowing wildlife therein and to provide for the ADDRESSES: Mail Inquiries to: Jim enjoyment of the same in such manner Holland, Management Assistant, Lake continued PWC use in 21 park units and by such means as will leave them Mead National Recreation Area, 601 while prohibiting PWC use in other park unimpaired for the enjoyment of future Nevada Way, Boulder City, Nevada units. In addition, the organization also generations.’’ Congress has also 89005. disputed the National Park Service decision to allow 10 park units the emphasized that the ‘‘*** FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kym additional option of authorizing authorization of activities shall be Hall, Regulations Program Manager, continued PWC use after 2002 using the construed and the protection, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, procedures of the superintendents’ management, and administration of NW., Room 7413, Washington, DC compendium (36 CFR 1.5), which these areas shall be conducted in light 20240. Phone: (202) 208–4206. would not require the opportunity for of the high public value and integrity of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: public input through a notice and a the national park system and shall not comment rulemaking process. be exercised in derogation of the values Personal Watercraft Use and In response to the suit, the National and purposes for which these various Regulatory Background Park Service and the environmental areas have been established, except as In May 1998 the Bluewater Network, group negotiated a settlement. The may have been or shall be directly and a coalition of more than 70 resulting settlement agreement accepted specifically provided by Congress.’’ 16 organizations, filed a petition urging the by the court on April 12, 2001, required U.S.C. 1a–1. The appropriateness of a National Park Service to initiate the each of those parks authorizing visitor use or recreational activity will

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 17293

vary from park to park. NPS time, PWC were manufactured by four In response to comments from the Management Policies states that ‘‘*** companies, the first PWC magazines States of Arizona and Nevada, the the laws do give the Service the were published and the typical cost of proposed 100-foot flat wake zone management discretion to allow impacts a PWC was $6,600. around the entire lakes has been revised to park resources and values when From the mid-1980s through the to a 200-foot flat wake zone around necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 1990s, sales grew rapidly, then leveled beaches occupied by bathers, around purposes of a park, so long as the impact off starting in the mid-1990s. According boats at the shoreline and a person in does not constitute impairment of the to visitor use surveys in 1993, the use the water or at the shoreline. This affected resources and values’’ (1.4.3). of PWCs at Lake Mead NRA during this revision is more closely aligned with NPS Management Policies provide time constituted 15% of the boats on the existing Nevada boating law and allows further that, ‘‘* * * preserving park water at any one time. A rapid increase the NPS to move toward the goal of resources and values unimpaired is the in PWCs was observed in 1994, when providing unified boating law for the core, or primary responsibility of NPS their use jumped to 30% of the boats on interstate waters of Lakes Mead and managers * * *. In cases of doubt as to the water at any one time. Mohave. impacts of activities on park natural Today monitoring shows that PWC There are a number of actions that resources, the Service will decide in use constitutes 35% of the boats on the will require subsequent rulemaking in favor of protecting the natural water at any one time. There are 11,000 the implementation of the Lake resources.’’ (4: 1). PWC registered in Clark County, Nevada Management Plan. This rule has been The Organic Act and the other and thousands more in the region tailored specifically to address PWC statutory authorities of the NPS vest us surrounding Lake Mead NRA. The operation in response to the general with substantial discretion in highest densities are observed in the regulation in 36 CFR 3.24 prohibiting determining how best to manage park urban interface areas of Lake Mead and PWC use except by special regulation. resources and provide for park visitors. in the southern portions of Lake The National Park Service focused ‘‘Courts have noted that the Organic Act Mohave. specifically on PWC to prevent or is silent as to the specifics of park minimize the period that PWC use management and that under such Changes to the Final Rule would be restricted at Lake Mead NRA. circumstances, the NPS has broad Some changes have been made in the It is the National Park Service’s discretion in determining which Lake Management Plan/Final intention to move ahead with the avenues best achieve the Organic Act’s Environmental Impact Statement. Five additional rulemaking that will apply mandate * * *. Further, the NPS is percent of the park waters will be the flat-wake rule to all watercraft and to implement other aspects of the empowered with the authority to managed for primitive and determine what uses of park resources approved Lake Management Plan (LMP). semiprimitive recreational settings. This are proper and what proportion of the is an increase of three percent over the Discussion of Economic Effects of PWC park resources are available for each acreage in the draft rule. PWC use is Use use’’ Bicycle Trail Council of Marin v. prohibited in primitive and Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1454 (9th Cir. From an economic perspective, both semiprimitive zones. 1996), quoting National Wildlife alternative C (the continued use of PWC Federation v. National Park Service, 669 Bonelli Bay in the southern portion of in 95% of Lake Mead and other F. Supp. 384, 390 (D. Wyo. 1987). In the Virgin Basin was added to the restrictions as presented in this reviewing a challenge to NPS semiprimitive zone on Lake Mead, as rulemaking) and alternative D, which regulations at Everglades National Park, was the Lake Mead confluence with the would permit all two stroke engines and the court stated, ‘‘The task of weighing Muddy River. These two areas account PWC in all of Lake Mead, resulted in the the competing uses of Federal property for the increased acreage in the highest quantified net benefits, with have been delegated by Congress to the semiprimitive zoning over the draft alternative D resulting in a slightly Secretary of the Interior * * *. plan. The Overton Wildlife Management higher amount of net quantified Consequently, the Secretary has broad Area boundary defines the benefits. However, the National Park discretion in determining how best to semiprimitive area of the Muddy River Service chose alternative C because protect public land resources.’’ confluence and it is presently managed certain costs could not be quantified in Organized Fisherman of Florida v. during the waterfowl hunting season as the net economic benefits. Those costs, Hodel, 775 F.2d 1544, 1550 (11th Cir. a flat wake area. This revision prohibits relating to non-PWC use, aesthetics, 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1169 the use of PWC in the Overton Wildlife ecosystem protection, human health and (1986). Management Area year-round. safety, congestion, or non-use values, Over the years, NPS areas have been The recreational zoning in Black would likely be greater for alternative D impacted with new, and what often Canyon has been modified to allow than for alternative C. Given that the prove to be controversial, recreational additional boating access for five days quantified net benefits of alternatives C activities. These activities tend to gain per week during the peak boating season and D are already similar (see the table a foothold in NPS areas in their infancy, between Memorial Day and Labor Day below), further inclusion of these non- before a full evaluation of the possible each year. During this period the canyon quantified costs could reasonably result impacts and ramifications that will be managed as rural natural zone in alternative C having the greatest level expanded use will have on the area can with no special speed or horsepower of net benefits. Therefore, based on be initiated, completed and considered. restrictions. PWC use in the canyon is these factors, alternative C was PWC use fits this category. authorized during this period. The considered to provide the greatest level PWC use is a relative new recreational remainder of the year Black Canyon will of net benefits. activity at Lake Mead NRA. PWC, be managed for semiprimitive primarily stand-up models, were first conditions with a 65-horsepower Benefits observed on Lakes Mead and Mohave in maximum. As proposed in the LMP/ Alternative A, the no action the mid-1970s. In the 1980s, the first sit- DEIS, Black Canyon will be managed as alternative, represents the baseline down models were available with one- a primitive setting two days per week conditions of this rulemaking. Under or two-person capacities. During this (Sunday and Monday) year round. that alternative, all PWC use would be

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 17294 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

prohibited from the park. Alternatives B use PWCs and the businesses that producer surplus gains. Consumer and C would permit PWC use with provide services to PWC users such as surplus measures the net economic certain restrictions, and alternative D rental shops, restaurants, gas stations, benefit obtained by individuals from would permit PWC use as currently and hotels. Additional beneficiaries participating in their chosen activities, managed in the park. The benefits of include individuals who use PWCs while producer surplus measures the any alternative are measured relative to outside the park where PWC users net economic benefit obtained by the baseline conditions, which are displaced from the park may decide to businesses from providing services to represented by alternative A. Therefore, ride if PWC use within the park were individuals. These benefits, projected there are no incremental benefits prohibited. Benefits accruing to over a 10-year horizon, are summarized associated with alternative A. The individual PWC users are called in the table below. primary beneficiaries of alternatives B, consumer surplus gains, and those C, and D would be the park visitors who accruing to businesses are called

PRESENT VALUE OF PROJECTED INCREMENTAL BENEFITS UNDER ALTERNATIVES B, C, AND D, 2002–2012 [dollars]

PWC users Businesses Total

Alternative B: Discounted at 3% ...... 74,112,030 2,031,990–11,232,060 76,144,020–85,344,090 Discounted at 7% ...... 59,006,910 1,617,850–8,942,800 60,624,760–67,949,710 Alternative C: Discounted at 3% ...... 100,580,610 2,477,690–12,863,370 103,058,300–113,443,980 Discounted at 7% ...... 80,080,800 1,972,710–10,241,630 82,053,510–90,322,430 Alternative D: Discounted at 3% ...... 105,874,320 2,597,680–13,426,400 108,472,000–119,300,720 Discounted at 7% ...... 84,295,580 2,068,240–10,689,900 86,363,820–94,985,480

Costs PRESENT VALUE OF PROJECT NPS PRESENT VALUE OF QUANTIFIED NET As with the benefits described above, ENFORCEMENT COSTS UNDER AL- BENEFITS UNDER ALTERNATIVES B, the costs of any alternative are measured TERNATIVES B, C, AND D, 2001– C, AND D, 2002–2012—Continued relative to the baseline conditions, 2012—Continued [dollars] which are represented by alternative A. [dollars] Therefore, there are no incremental Discounted at 98,863,120–109,248,800 costs associated with alternative A. The Alternative D: 3%. Discounted at 78,728,420–86,997,340 primary group that would incur costs Discounted at 3% ...... 5,202,030 Discounted at 7% ...... 4,123,110 7%. under alternatives B, C, and D are the Alternative D: park visitors who do not use PWCs and Discounted at 103,269,970–114,098,690 whose park experiences would be Quantified Net Benefits 3%. negatively affected by PWC use within Discounted at 82,240,710–90,862,370 the park. At Lake Mead, non-PWC uses The quantified net benefits associated 7%. include boating, canoeing, fishing, and with alternatives B, C, and D are hiking. Additionally, the public could presented in the table below. These net Summary of Comments benefits do not account for the costs to incur costs associated with impacts A proposed rule was published for from alternatives B, C, and D to non-PWC users, or those relating to aesthetics, ecosystem protection, human public comment on September 5, 2002 aesthetics, ecosystem protection, human (67 FR 56785–94), with the comment health and safety, congestion, and non- health and safety, congestion, or non- use values due to a lack of available period lasting until November 4, 2002. use values. However, these costs could The NPS received 1,696 timely written not be quantified for all alternatives due data. Therefore, these net benefit estimates do not represent all costs. If responses regarding the proposed to a lack of available data. regulation. Of the responses, 1,636 were There are other costs associated with all costs could be incorporated, the indicated net benefits for each form letters in 3 separate form letter alternatives B, C, and D relating to NPS formats and 60 were individual letters. alternative would be lower. enforcement of PWC restrictions. Those There were 1,060 electronic mailings. Nevertheless, these estimates present a costs, projected over a 10-year horizon, Responses received included 51 from likely range of net benefits that can be are summarized in the table below. individuals, 2 from businesses, 5 from estimated from available information. organizations and 2 from public PRESENT VALUE OF PROJECT NPS agencies. ENFORCEMENT COSTS UNDER AL- PRESENT VALUE OF QUANTIFIED NET Within the analysis, the term TERNATIVES B, C, AND D, 2001– BENEFITS UNDER ALTERNATIVES B, ‘‘commenter’’ refers to an individual, 2012 C, AND D, 2002–2012 business, or organization that [dollars] [dollars] responded. The term ‘‘comments’’ refers to statements made by a commenter. Alternative B: Alternative B: General Comments Discounted at 3% ...... 3,523,950 Discounted at 72,620,070–81,820,140 Discounted at 7% ...... 2,793,080 3%. 1. There were a variety of Alternative C: Discounted at 57,831,680–65,156,630 commenters, including the Personal Discounted at 3% ...... 4,195,180 7%. Watercraft Industry Association and Discounted at 7% ...... 3,325,090 Alternative C: United States Coast Guard (USCG), who

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 17295

proposed the flat wake zone should specifically included in the final NPS Response: The ‘‘Introduction’’ apply to all motorized vessels. rulemaking. section of the ‘‘Environmental NPS Response: The National Park 4. Numerous commenters stated that Consequences’’ chapter under Service concurs with the commenters. the National Park Service is suggesting ‘‘Summary of Laws and Policies’’ in the The preferred alternative in the LMP has that one type of recreational experience draft and final EIS summarizes the three been modified and clearly applies the is more meaningful than another. overarching laws which guide the NPS flat wake zone to all motorized vessels. NPS Response: The NPS disagrees in making decisions concerning The intention of the flat wake zone is to that we place a higher value on a one protection of park resources. These provide a safe shoreline environment for type of recreational experience over laws, as well as others, are also reflected water recreation. The Lake Management another. The implication is that we in the NPS Management Policies. In Plan has been modified based on public place less value on PWC use than other addition, in the ‘‘Methodology’’ section comment and consultation with the forms of recreation. The Organic Act under the heading ‘‘Impairment respective states of Nevada and Arizona and the Lake Mead enabling legislation Analysis,’’ the EIS explains how the to read, ‘‘A 200-foot flat wake zone will are the standards by which the National NPS applied these laws and policies to be applied to all beaches occupied by Park Service manages recreational analyze the effects of PWC on Lake bathers, boats at the shoreline, activities. For Lake Mead NRA we have Mead park resources and values. swimmers in the water or persons at the evaluated PWC use and are authorizing An impairment to a particular park shoreline.’’ A future rulemaking will their continued use throughout 95% of resource or park value occurs when in extend this provision to all boats. the park waters. the professional judgment of the 2. The PWIA requested that PWC used 5. Many commenters believed they responsible NPS manager the impact for water-skiing and wakeboarding be should be able to use their USCG legal would harm the integrity of park permitted to launch from the shoreline boat in every waterway where similar resources or values, including the like other motorized boats. motorized boating activity occurs (i.e. opportunity that otherwise would be NPS Response: The NPS agrees. The water skiing, wake boarding, speed present for the enjoyment of those intention the Lake Management Plan is boating, etc.) They suggested the Lake resources or values. In making these to afford PWC the same setting for beach Mead regulation should be based on determinations, the NPS managers must consider the provisions of the park’s starts for water-skiing purposes as other engine type not hull design. enabling legislation. For each resource motorized boats. Persons operating NPS Response: The National Park topic, the draft and final EIS establishes boats would need to be at flat wake Service definition of PWC as noted in thresholds or indicators of magnitude of speed only if they are within 200-feet of the draft and final EIS under the impact. Should the impact approach a a beach occupied by bathers, a boat at ‘‘Purpose of and Need for the Plan’’ ‘‘major’’ level of intensity, it is one the shoreline or a person in the water or chapter, ‘‘Background’’ section under indication that impairment could result. at the shoreline. It is the intention to ‘‘Personal Watercraft Use Regulatory For each impact topic, when the apply this rule to all boats and this will Background’’ is as follows: Personal intensity approached ‘‘major,’’ the team be accomplished with a separate watercraft refers to a vessel, usually less would consider mitigation measures to rulemaking as described in the than 16-feet in length, which uses an reduce the potential for ‘‘major’’ preceding comment response. inboard, internal combustion engine impacts, thus reducing the potential for 3. There were a number of comments powering a water jet pump as its impairment. stating that restricted PWC use should primary source of propulsion. The In response to growing concern be permitted in Black Canyon. vessel is intended to be operated by a regarding potential impacts from PWC, NPS Response: The preferred person or persons sitting, standing, or the National Park Service began an alternative in the final environmental kneeling on the vessel, rather than extensive review and regulation process. impact statement (EIS) has been revised within the confines of the hull. While comments were received for recreational use of Black Canyon, As presented in the description of the opposing continued use of the vessel allowing restricted PWC use. The final alternatives in the draft and final EIS, within units of the park system, other EIS states, ‘‘In this area, temporal zoning the National Park Service evaluated and comments supported its use with would be applied, providing a range of chose the best regulatory approach in certain conditions designed to protect recreational settings. The area would be the preferred alternative in order to park resources and values. Recognizing managed for a primitive setting two maintain the opportunities for various that some units needed to complete days per week on a year-round basis. types of recreation while protecting the more local planning and analysis of Between Labor Day and Memorial Day, resources of the Lake Mead NRA. Some impact was needed, the final the area would be managed for a elements of the final EIS modified servicewide PWC regulation provided semiprimitive setting five days per preferred alternative/final rule, such as for specified local decision-making on a week. During the summer months the proposed recreational opportunity park by park basis. between Memorial Day and Labor Day, zoning, regulate PWC separately from The servicewide regulation the area would be managed for a rural other motorcraft, while other aspects, recognized the need for park areas natural setting with only houseboats, such as the flat wake zone and phase- wishing to continue PWC use to waterskiing, and wakeboarding out of old engine technology, regulates undertake and complete an analysis of prohibited. PWC use is consistent with engine type instead of hull design. the impacts to park resources and values the rural natural setting. However, due 6. We received numerous comments that could result from continued use. to the narrow canyon setting in Black citing the Organic Act and the mission In the draft and final EIS, three of the Canyon (zones 8 and 9), PWC use would of the National Park Service to leave the four alternatives analyzed various PWC be monitored during this period and resources and wildlife under its care scenarios, along with other vessel restricted if the safety of lake users ‘‘unimpaired for the enjoyment of future management and recreational objectives. becomes an issue. This would be generations.’’ We received a number of The alternatives also consider means to determined by observed/reported letters stating, federal law clearly mitigate the effects of PWC on park conflict information and boating prohibits activities that impair or resources and values, including limiting incidents.’’ This authorization has been derogate the NPA’s resources or values. use in areas where management

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 17296 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

objectives strive to create a visitor NRA (NPS 2002), use 2012 as engine for people to consider engine experience without these vessels or phase-in date when all two-stroke and compliance when making a purchase. where sensitive park resources must be four-stroke engines would have to Comments Related to Safety and Visitor protected. The modified preferred become fuel injected, in accordance Conflicts alternative in the final EIS includes with EPA regulations. This date would mitigation measures to protect other cover the current life expectancy 9. There were numerous comments park users from potential conflicts with specified by the Personal Watercraft stating that ‘‘much attention has been PWC (see the modified preferred Industry Association of 5 to 7 years and given to so-called ‘cleaner and quieter’ alternative in the ‘‘Environmental the EPA estimate of 10 years. Under PWC.’’ They say these machines do not Consequences’’ section of the FEIS), as alternative C (the modified preferred), solve all problems associated with the well as other measures to protect the National Park Service assumes that, PWC and cite recent research studies species of special concern, water, and as a result of PWC restrictions, that find that the new technology emits air resources. businesses could experience a 5% as much or more carbon monoxide and The conclusion of the modified reduction in PWC sales, service, and nitrogen oxide. preferred alternative in the final EIS, rentals related to the park. Some of this NPS Response: The NPS agrees that was that continued PWC use, would not impact could occur as a result of engine- the new technology will not solve all result in an impairment of park type restrictions, but there are also the problems, but they do provide major resources and values for which the Lake geographic restrictions proposed under improvements in a number of areas Mead Recreation Area was established this alternative that were taken into specifically in air quality and water to protect for future generations. account. However, even under quality. Although the cleaner four- 7. We received one comment from an alternative A, as detailed in the draft stroke and two-stroke direct injected individual who suggested we establish a and final EIS, where there would be a engines will emit more nitrogen oxide Citizens Recreational Taskforce to 100% reduction in PWC revenues due to a higher ratio of fuel actually address the future management of related to the park, the impact on the being burned, they emit less recreational use at Lake Mead NRA. regional economy would be very small, hydrocarbons, which reduces the NPS Response: The rule takes a less than 0.1% of total economic likelihood of ozone formation. The balanced approach to the management activity. newer engine technology will not of PWC use within Lake Mead NRA. It The National Park Service expects reduce impacts to wildlife from factors takes into consideration resource that by 2012, most boat owners would such as noise or use of the craft in close impacts, conflicts with other visitors’ already be in compliance with the 2006 proximity to wildlife but this problem is use and enjoyment and safety concerns. EPA marine engine standards. The common to all vessels to various It requires promulgation of park-specific impact from the engine standards on extents. However, phasing in of the new regulation which is the same regulatory boat owners is expected to be minimal. technology would reduce impacts to approach the National Park Service has PWC manufacturers currently offer aquatic and shoreline species by greatly taken to manage off-road vehicle use (36 some models that are compliant with reducing the discharge of fuel CFR 4.10), aircraft, including powerless EPA’s 2006 standards and PWC components such as benzene, toluene, hang-gliders (36 CFR 2.17), and use of purchased after 2006 would be made ethyl benzene, and BTEX into the water bicycles outside of developed areas (36 compliant. Because the life of a PWC is as stated in the draft and final EIS in the CFR 4.30(b)). This rule prohibits PWC estimated at 5 to 10 years (see final EIS, ‘‘Methodology’’ section in the use in areas where their use is the ‘‘Introduction’’ section in the ‘‘Environmental Consequences’’ inconsistent with the management ‘‘Purpose and Need for the Plan’’ chapter. objectives based on the Organic Act, chapter), it is expected that the majority The safety record of PWC at Lake enabling legislation, resources, values, of noncompliant PWCs would no longer Mead can be improved by measures and other visitor uses. The National Park Service met with a be in operation when the engine such as boater safety education. The wide variety of user groups concerning restrictions proposed under alternative preferred alternative in the draft EIS and the management of recreational use of C take effect in 2012. In addition, the modified preferred alternative in the park waters. A listing of these meetings according to industry reports, it appears final EIS proposes a requirement of and organizations is included in the that the trend for conversion is toward boater safety training for all vessel final EIS. These meetings represent the the four-stroke model engines instead of operators born after 1983. States such as National Park Service approach to direct injection two-stroke models. California report operator inexperience seeking specific user group input into According to the PWIA, the two top as the leading cause of PWC-related the planning and decision making selling PWC models for 2002 accidents (NTSB 1998). Boater process. Because the park plans to incorporated the four-stroke technology. education incorporating PWC-specific continue this process, we do not think Also, in discussions with PWC retailers instruction has been shown to reduce that a citizen’s recreational taskforce is in the vicinity of Lake Mead, NPS has PWC accidents in Connecticut and necessary. been informed that the majority of new Michigan (NTSB 1998). PWC purchases have been four-stroke The industry’s conversion to the four- Comments Related to Socioeconomic engines. stroke technology and the use of Resources It may be reasonable to assume that resonators is reducing the noise. 8. There were one or more people shopping before 2006 for new Manufacturers are using noise absorbing commenters who expressed concern for watercraft would only consider foam and rubber padding in the the impact of the rule on the local purchasing those models with construction of PWCs. Consequently, economies of Laughlin/Bullhead City compliant engines in response to the the newer technology used in PWC and the Las Vegas area. public announcement that only 2006- construction is addressing noise NPS Response: The estimates (under compliant engines would be allowed at concerns and improvements are being alternative C) presented in the Lake Mead NRA after 2012. It is the NPS observed at Lake Mead NRA. Economic Analysis of Personal intention that the 10-year advance 10. There were additional comments Watercraft Regulations in Lake Mead notice will provide ample opportunity concerning the safety record of PWC.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 17297

NPS Response: Safety is an issue for use will be limited to flat wake speeds But if less than 100% of the PWCs in all boaters, including PWC users. and/or electric trolling motors. 2012 are the new technology reduced Boating safety issues for the Lake Mead emission PWCs, then the PWC Comments Related to the Phaseout of NRA are described in the ‘‘Recreational restriction will take effect and ensure Carbureted Two-Stroke Engines Use of the Lake’’ section of the that the resources of the park will be ‘‘Affected Environment’’ of the FEIS. 12. Some commenters cited the protected. Under the modified preferred inefficiency of the carbureted two-stroke Comments Related to General alternative, unified boating laws for engines. Environmental Impacts Lake Mead and Lake Mohave are NPS Response: We are concerned proposed, including the requirement of about pollution in any form, and 14. Some commenters were concerned boater safety education for any boater exhaust gasses from two-stroke marine that the Service often lacks site-specific born after 1983. When applicable, the engines is no exception. We recognize studies upon which to base a sound operator of a boat/vessel would be that a certain amount of exhaust smoke judgement on PWC use at Lake Mead. required to have in his/her possession, and smell is inherent with any two- The commenters also pointed out that proof of completion of a safety course cycle engine and that the comments the National Park Service appears to meeting the requirements of the addressed excessive amounts from overlook important studies which detail National Association of Boating Law PWC. We acknowledge the findings of the damage these machines cause to the Administrators while operating a boat/ the Environmental Protection Agency’s environment and wildlife. (EPA) 1991 study that indicate two- vessel. NPS Response: The NPS utilized site stroke engines lose roughly 25% of the Safety is further addressed under the specific studies to evaluate air quality, fuel they consume unburned into the modified preferred alternative in the water quality, cultural resources and water, resulting in high levels of final EIS, where a 200-foot flat wake visitor use in the LMP/FEIS. Shoreline hydrocarbon emissions from these zone would apply to beaches occupied vegetation in this arid setting is engines. The excessive smoke and smell by swimmers, boats at the shoreline, primarily composed of exotic salt cedar from PWC could be attributed to unique and people at the shoreline or in the so site specific inventories were limited operational characteristics of those water. Coordination with the states of vessels. PWCs are often operated with to sensitive inflow areas. Specific Nevada and Arizona would be required throttle settings that transition from idle studies were not initiated for the in order to achieve the desired to full throttle and back to idle, typically wildlife and soundscape analyses. uniformity of the proposed boating in a rapid and repeated sequence. In The NPS determined that site-specific regulations. response to these concerns, the rule will studies of PWC impacts on wildlife When implemented, these safety phase out the carbureted two-stroke were not necessary given the limited measures would increase the safety of engines over a 10-year period. extent of native shoreline vegetation and participating in all forms of recreation at 13. There were comments that its limited value to wildlife. As stated in Lake Mead NRA. Consequences of the suggested the 2012 prohibition on the ‘‘Natural and Cultural Resources’’ preferred alternative in relation to PWC carbureted two-stroke engines is section of the ‘‘Affected Environment’’ safety are described in the unnecessary. chapter of the draft and final EIS ‘‘*** ‘‘Environmental Consequences’’ section NPS Response: As noted in alternative the majority of the shoreline in the of the draft and final EIS. C in the draft and final EIS, two-stroke recreation area contains nonnative salt 11. We received comments that cited PWC and outboard vessels would be cedar (Tamarix spp.), with relatively user conflicts. Specific incidents barred from Lake Mead NRA beginning few areas supporting native vegetation. included conflicts between PWC and in 2012 as a result of the prohibition on Fluctuating water levels along the kayakers, fishermen, and swimmers. A carbureted two-stroke engines. shoreline make restoration of vegetation few PWC supporters said these conflicts However, even with the increasing communities impossible in most resulted from a minority of availability of new technology four- situations.’’ inconsiderate PWC operators and that stroke and direct injection two-stroke In those few areas where there is we should regulate inappropriate engines, it is estimated by EPA that by shoreline habitat that is valuable for behavior or enforce existing regulations 2012, they would only comprise wildlife, such as in the willow scrub rather than prohibit PWC use. approximately 50 percent of PWC in use inflow areas of the Virgin and Muddy NPS Response: The National Park at that time. Rivers where neotropical migratory Service is pursuing specific measures to According to the Personal Watercraft songbirds potentially nest, primitive provide a safe shoreline environment Industry Association, PWC models on and semiprimitive zones are proposed and to minimize conflict between user the market today include the new under the modified preferred alternative groups. Specifically, a 200-foot flat wake technology reduced-emissions vessels which would prohibit PWC use, zone is proposed around beaches (http://www.pwia.org waterskiing, and wakeboarding. Given occupied by bathers, boats at the facts_release.htm#qa) and the two top the overall lack of wildlife habitat along shoreline and people in the water or at selling models in 2002 were four-stroke most of the remainder of the National the water’s edge. This rule is designed models. The NPS has also learned in Recreational Area’s shoreline, and the to improve the shoreline environment discussion with local PWC retailers that fact that PWC would be prohibited in on both reservoirs. the majority of new PWC purchases the few areas that are deemed valuable In addition, 5% of the park waters have been four-stroke engines. The for wildlife, the park has identified have been zoned as primitive or industry shows this trend, combined sensitive vegetation and shoreline semiprimitive where the management with the relatively short operating life of habitat and has incorporated objectives are for a more quiet and PWC, which range from 5 to 10 years appropriate mitigation measures into tranquil setting. Visitors seeking this (depending on the source), would result the modified preferred alternative in the environment can visit these areas with in only a small number of PWC users final EIS. Regarding fisheries of Lake some expectation of slower speeds and who would be displaced when the Mead NRA, the modified preferred quieter boat operations. In these areas restrictions go into effect. The NPS alternative in the final EIS proposes to PWCs are prohibited and other boating hopes the industry prediction is correct. use temporal shoreline zonings to

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 17298 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

reduce and/or prevent impacts to shoreline when PWC were refueled by is the discharge of unburned gasoline shallow water spawning areas. owners/operators at sites other than fuel and gasoline additives from The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service docks. conventional carbureted two-stroke Biological Opinion is included in the NPS Response: The refueling of boats engines, as well as the spilling of such final EIS in Appendix F. The biological at the shoreline is legal. Illegal refueling components during refueling (National opinion has concurred with the occurs when the refueling results in the Park Rulemaking at page 56790, DLMP/ National Park Service determination pollution or contamination of park EIS (Lake Management Plan/Draft EIS) that the preferred alternative is not waters. As noted in the final EIS under at pages 102, 133, 124, 188). PWC likely to jeopardize the continued alternative C, ‘‘Resource Protection’’ emissions in the Lake Mead area have existence of the Southwestern willow section, the spillage of fuel during already been reduced 25% below the flycatcher, bonytail chub, razorback shoreline operations is a concern at 1998 baseline conditions. sucker, or desert tortoise, and is not Lakes Mead and Mohave. Polluting or NPS Response: We agree that water likely to destroy or adversely modify contaminating park waters during quality impacts from PWC and other designated critical habitat for bonytail, refueling, including fuel spillage, is a carbureted two-stroke engines have razorback, or tortoise. In addition, the citable offense under 36 CFR, 2.14(a)(6). declined since 1998 due to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed Safe refueling practices need to be conversion of carbureted two-stroke with the determination of no effect on included in boating safety courses. The engine technology to cleaner the bald eagle and Yuma clapper rail. National Park Service will recommend technology. However, our goals for the The mitigation adopted under the the States of Nevada and Arizona reduction of emissions cannot be modified preferred alternative in the include these procedures as part of the achieved without the proposed 2012 final EIS includes measures to protect boating education curriculum. restrictions. spawning and nesting areas. 16. A single commenter stated, the The final EIS addresses impacts from There is no definitive literature proposed rule, at page 56790, states that PWC use as well as all watercraft on describing scientific measurements of ‘‘based on fuel consumption estimates, Lake Mead and Lake Mohave. Four PWC noise (see DEIS, p. 144). To between 11⁄2 and 3 gallons of fuel is alternatives were analyzed. Alternative address this lack of scientific data, the discharged into the water during a two- A would continue the prohibition of use National Park Service contracted noise hour ride on a PWC.’’ The rule goes on of PWC in the Lake Mead NRA. measurements of motorized vessels, to say that during the summer weekends Alternative B would prohibit all including PWC, at Glen Canyon in 2001. in high use areas, there are as many as carbureted two-stroke engines beginning The noise source data from this study 1,700 PWCs on the lakes, which ‘‘could in 2004. Alternative C assumes a ban on was used in the Lake Mead draft and result in 1,275 and 3,400 gallons of two-stroke carbureted engines for all final EIS soundscape analysis because unburned fuel discharged per hour into vessels, including PWC, after 2012. the results were not dependent upon or Lakes Mead and Mohave combined.’’ Alternative D assumes that no ban influenced by park geology or other The commenter goes on to say that these would take place and that two-stroke environmental factors. statements are nonsense and supported engines would be converted in At Glen Canyon, sound measurements by no technical information. accordance with the Environmental were made of a number of boats and NPS Response: The National Park Protection Agency’s assumptions (40 PWC as they passed by a microphone Service is concerned about pollution in CFR parts 89–91, ‘‘Air Pollution mounted above the front of an any form and exhaust gasses from two- Control; Gasoline Spark-Ignition and instrumented boat. As stated in the stroke marine engines is no exception. Spark-Ignition Engines, Exemptions;’’ technical report (NPS, 2002 or HMMH, We recognize that a certain amount of rule, 1996). Alternative C (the modified 2002—Draft Technical Report on Noise: exhaust smoke and smell is inherent preferred alternative) is compared to Personal Watercraft and Boating with any two-stroke engine and that the alternative D because alternative D Activities at Glen Canyon National comment addressed excessive amounts allows for a mix of older model-two Recreation Area), controlled pass-by from PWC. We acknowledge the stroke carbureted engines with the EPA measurements of three PWC and one findings of the Environmental compliant cleaner engine models (two motorboat were conducted at several Protection Agency’s (EPA) 1991 study stroke fuel injected and four stroke different speeds. Many boats and PWC that indicate two stroke engines lose engines) through the life of the plan. A were also randomly measured. In all roughly 25% of the fuel they consume brief summary of the analysis of surface cases, a radar gun was used to unburned into the water, resulting in water quality impacts to Lakes Mead determine speed and a laser range finder high levels of hydrocarbon emissions and Mohave found in the Final EIS for was used for distance. After normalizing from these engines. The smoke and alternatives C and D are described measurements to a common distance, smell from PWC could be attributed to below. maximum sound levels were computed unique operational characteristics of The approach to evaluating surface both for 15 and 25 meters, the distance those vessels. PWC are often operated water quality impacts is found in at which National Park Service with throttle settings that transition Appendix G of the Final EIS. Engine watercraft noise emission regulations from idle to full throttle and back to conversion, restriction by engine type, apply. One of the conclusions from the idle, typically in a rapid and repeated and the total boating capacity used to measurements at Glen Canyon was that, sequence. These are the basis for the calculate impacts varies between except for the boats with V–8 engines above analysis. While some PWC are alternatives C and D. Alternative C uses (which were louder), no significant converting to the new technology, the a combined total boating capacity of differences were found in the sound percentage of the PWC fleet has not yet boats for both Lakes Mead and Mohave levels produced by PWC and the other made the conversion to the more of 5,055 boats at one time, while boats that were measured in the study. efficient models. Consequently, the alternative D uses a combined total calculation of the potential discharge is boating capacity of 5,800 boats at one Comments Related to Water Quality valid. time. These boating capacities reflect 15. Some comments expressed 17. One comment stated, the primary the heaviest use period of the summer. concern about the amount of raw fuel water quality concern that has been The threshold volumes required to meet spilled into the water or on the identified regarding continued PWC use water quality standards at Lake Mead

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 17299

under alternative C are 48% less than alternative D in 2012 because of the analysis are found in the water quality alternative D in 2012. The threshold combination of fewer boats on the water section of the Environmental volumes required to meet water quality in alternative C and the ban on two- Consequences section of the Final EIS standards at Lake Mohave under stroke carbureted engines after 2012. and in appendix H of the Final EIS. alternative C are 61% less than Complete results of the water quality

IMPACTS OF ALL WATERCRAFT ON SURFACE WATER QUALITY—THRESHOLD VOLUME OF WATER NEEDED TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS [In acre-feet]

Ecological benchmark Arizona Human health criteria standards for fish consumption Alt/Year Benzo Benzo (a)pyrene Naphthalene 1-methyl Benzene MTBE Benzo (a)pyrene Benzene (fuel and Naphthalene (a)pyrene (fuel and exhaust) (fuel and exhaust exhaust)

Lake Mead (assuming minimum pool elev. 1,150 feet, volume above thermocline 2,085,000 acre-feet)

C–2004 4,047 1,602 4,554 1,836 58 28,331 12,878 198,900 D–2004 4,593 1,818 5,167 2,083 66 32,149 14,613 225,702 C–2012 1,754 694 1,973 795 25 12,275 5,580 86,179 D–2012 3,371 1,334 3,793 1,529 48 23,597 10,726 165,662

Lake Mohave (assuming minimum pool elev. 634 feet, volume above thermocline 687,800 acre-feet)

C–2004 3,352 1,326 3,771 1,520 48 23,461 10,664 164,706 D–2004 3,925 1,553 4,416 1,780 56 27,473 12,488 192,874 C–2012 1,035 410 1,165 470 15 7,247 3,294 50,877 D–2012 2,652 1,049 2,983 1,203 38 18,561 8,437 130,307

18. One commenter stated, EPA has 19. There were a number of commenter’s (Personal Watercraft confirmed that studies show most commenters concerned that the Industry Association) assertion is unburned gasoline and gasoline changeover to four-stroke and two- principally based on confidential, additives emitted from two-stroke stroke direct injection PWC engines to proprietary PWC sales and forecast data marine engines evaporate from water meet the requirements of the EPA 2006 prepared by PWC manufacturers. This within the first hour and 15 minutes and CARB 2008 emission standards is proprietary data was not supplied with after they are released. More occurring much more rapidly than EPA the comment, and therefore has not specifically, at 86 degrees Fahrenheit and National Park Service has been available to the NPS. 84% of the unburned gasoline/additive estimated. Amounts of unburned fuel The commenter states that the data mix released into the water evaporated released at Lake Mead and Lake Mohave indicates that the conversion of PWC within 75 minutes. will accordingly continue to decline models to cleaner engines is occurring rapidly, achieving a reduction of more rapidly than anticipated in the NPS Response: We generally agree approximately 90% from the 1998 1996 EPA analysis of the effects of the with this comment. The commenter baseline levels by 2012. conversion rule. While the National includes a quantitative discussion of the NPS Response: In the water quality Park Service has no reason to doubt that volatility of many of the components analysis presented in the Final EIS, the PWC conversions and sales may be found in gasoline and gasoline additives assumption was made that clean proceeding at a greater rate than forecast emitted from carbureted two-stroke technology engines (any engine not by EPA, there is no survey or similar engines. As stated in the Final using carbureted two-stroke technology) data available at this time that indicates Environmental Impact Statement, many would be 90% cleaner than the that the engine mix at Lake Mead is organic pollutants that are initially carbureted two-stroke engines. Under proceeding at a faster or slower rate than dissolved in the water volatilize to the alternative C, conversion to all clean the EPA forecast. Therefore, use of the atmosphere, especially if they have high technology engines would be completed EPA rates is considered appropriate in vapor pressures, are lighter than water, by 2012, while alternative D uses the disclosing potential impacts to water and mixing occurs at the air/water rate of conversion of the engines from quality. interface (Final EIS, Methodology carbureted two-stroke to clean engines 20. One commenter stated the section, under Water Resources, consistent with the EPA rule, ‘‘Final National Park Service committed to Assumptions for Evaluating Impacts Rule for New Gasoline Spark-Ignition investigate the extent of oil and gas from Marine Engines, Including Marine Engines’’ (US EPA, 1996). The spills at refueling operations in the Lake Personal Watercraft). Therefore, NPS NPS used the EPA data where it was Mead NRA, and to mitigate the impacts analyses accounts for evaporative rates assumed that 21.6% of the carbureted from these activities. This will further in its methodology and believes it has two-stroke engines in use in 1998 would reduce the amount of unburned fuel accurately portrayed potential effects to be replaced by 2004 and that 58.4% released into the waters of the Lake water quality. would be replaced by 2012. One of the Mead NRA from PWC use. Expected

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 17300 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

reductions in PWC emission of which is considered preliminary In addition, according to industry unburned fuel and mitigation to limit chronic water quality criteria, of 51,000 reports, it appears that the trend for spills from refueling operations will µg/l was used. The table found in conversion is toward the four-stroke serve to alleviate any continuing response to Comment Number 17 shows model engines instead of direct concern regarding the possibility of a negligible impact from MTBE under injection two-stroke models. According surface oil sheen in areas of the modified preferred alternative to the PWIA, the two top selling PWC concentrated boating activity. (alternative C) and the baseline models for 2002 incorporated the four- NPS Response: As stated in the Final (alternative D). We are aware California stroke technology, which have shown to EIS in the Environmental Consequences has mandated removal of MTBE from produce fewer PAH emissions. Also, in section, under Impacts of Alternatives gasoline by next year, and the EPA is discussions with PWC retailers in the A, B, C, and D, Water Resources, considering doing the same within the vicinity of Lake Mead, NPS has been Impacts, the National Park Service near future. informed that the majority of new PWC provides best management practices for 22. One commenter is concerned that purchases have been four-stroke the handling of fueling areas and boat recent studies show that PAH emissions engines. If this trend in sales is realized maintenance for concessioners and the and it continues, PAH emissions would might increase as carbureted two-stroke boating public. The purpose of these be less than indicated in the analysis. PWC engines are replaced by direct practices is to reduce the pollutants injection two-stroke models and that Comments Related to Air Quality entering the lakes due to fueling and increased PAH emissions will have boat maintenance activities. With the 23. One commenter stated the adverse impacts on aquatic organisms in management requirements and public National Park Service analysis does not the Lake Mead NRA. The Kado study education reducing the levels of these reflect the dramatic decrease in PWC measured only PAH air emissions from impacts, the impacts would be expected hydrocarbon plus nitrogen oxides the test chamber while the outboard to be minor. NPS has agreed to evaluate (HC+NOX) emissions projected to occur engine ran in a water tank. The study the operations of all fueling facilities on over the next ten years that strongly Lakes Mead and Mohave. says nothing about what levels of PAHs suggests that the National Park Service’s 21. One commenter was concerned were deposited in water. It therefore can proposed ban on the use of carbureted that the USGS sampling data showed provide no basis whatsoever for two-stroke models after 2012 is the presence of the gasoline additive suggesting that the use of current and unnecessary. MTBE. The federal government, Nevada future direct injection two-stroke PWC NPS Response: As part of the Final or Arizona have not established engines present a risk to aquatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) standards or maximum contaminant organisms or will impair water for the Lake Management Plan, the levels for MTBE. EPA has adopted an resources in the Lake Mead NRA. National Park Service prepared a advisory level of 20–40 µg/l for drinking NPS Response: PAHs were addressed quantitative analysis of air quality water. The highest sample measured by in the draft and final EIS in the issues impacts for each of the proposed USGS was 4.16 µg/l, well below this and impact topics and water quality alternatives. The Final EIS analysis EPA advisory level. The reduction in section of Environmental Consequences. addressed emissions of all watercraft, PWC engine emissions (as well as Text in the draft EIS impact analysis including PWC, on Lakes Mead and emissions from other marine engines) at (alternatives B, C and D) was changed in Mohave. Four alternatives were Lake Mead since the sample was the final EIS to read, ‘‘* * * changing analyzed. Alternative A would continue measured in 1999 is not likely to be from carbureted two-stroke engines to the prohibition of PWC in the Lake repeated. two-stroke fuel-injected engines may Mead NRA. Alternative B would NPS Response: The water intake that result in increases of airborne prohibit all carbureted two-stroke delivers drinking water to the Las Vegas particulate-associated PAH. Further engines beginning in 2004. Alternative Valley is located at an elevation of 1,050 research, outside the scope of this C assumes a ban on two-stroke feet above mean sea level in Lake Mead, planning effort, is needed to identify carbureted engines for all vessels, while the elevation of the lake surface what impact this would have on PAH including PWC, after 2012. Alternative is usually above 1,180 feet. This puts concentrations in water.’’ However, the D assumes that no ban would take place the intake at a depth of 130 feet or more. preferred alternative, which bans two- and that two-stroke engines would be Gasoline compounds have not been stroke carbureted engines after 2012, converted in accordance with the detected in water samples regularly would greatly reduce the impact of Environmental Protection Agency’s taken near the water intake by staff of petroleum emissions on water quality. assumptions (40 CFR parts 89–91, ‘‘Air the Southern Nevada Water System. In PWC would contribute 19% of total Pollution Control; Gasoline Spark- addition, the testing at water intake hydrocarbon pollution in Lake Mead in Ignition and Spark-Ignition Engines, facilities has shown that levels of these 2012. Given the volume of available Exemptions;’’ rule, 1996 ). The Final EIS compounds do not exceed advisory water in Lake Mead for mixing these emission projections for HC and NOX standards. compounds, NPS concludes the impact for alternatives C and D are shown in In the analysis presented in the Final to water quality and aquatic organisms the table below. Emission forecasts for EIS in Table 50, Toxicity Benchmarks, is minor and would not result in other pollutants and for alternatives A the ecological benchmark for MTBE, impairment to park resources. and B are included in the Final EIS.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 17301

ESTIMATED HYDROCARBON AND NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS FOR ALTERNATIVES C AND D [Tons per year]

Alternative C 1 Alternative D 2 Difference 3 2004 2012 2004 2012 2012

Percent of carbureted two-stroke engines replaced ...... 21.6% 100% 21.6% 58.4% All All All All All Pollutant watercraft PWC watercraft PWC watercraft PWC watercraft PWC watercraft PWC

Hydrocarbons (HC)...... 904 689 360 199 918 701 659 467 299 268 Nitrogen oxides (NOX) ...... 159 16 186 40 161 16 174 28 ¥12 ¥12 HC+NOX ...... 1063 705 546 239 1079 717 833 495 287 256 1 Alternative C (modified preferred alternative): After 2012, all boats on the lakes would be compliant with the EPA 2006 emission standards. 2 Alternative D (baseline alternative): By 2012, 58.4% of carbureted two-stroke engines on the lakes would be compliant with the EPA 2006 emission standards. Using EPA’s assumptions, by 2025, 75% of engines on the lakes would be compliant with the EPA emission standards. 3 Difference between alternative C and alternative D in 2012. Negative values indicate an increase in NOX emissions.

Note that in 2004 the conversion of assumes a faster conversion. The reductions targeted by the EPA for 2006 carbureted two-stroke engines to cleaner commenter assumes that emissions be achieved in California by 2001. The engines is assumed to be the same for would be reduced because a significant California rule then requires further both alternatives C and D, but the portion of PWC would be cleaner than emission reductions by 2004 and 2008 emissions for alternative D would be EPA requirements due to compliance (title 13, California Code of Regulations, higher than for alternative C. This with the more restrictive California sections 2440–2448). The commenter would occur because alternative D requirements. However, our goals for assumes that 50% of the PWC users at would allow more watercraft to be in the reduction of emissions can not be Lake Mead will be from California and operation, compared to alternative C. achieved without the proposed 2012 all will have CARB-compliant The important result shown in the restrictions. watercraft, and that, because of above table is that in 2012, alternative 24. One commenter expressed manufacturing and sales efficiencies C would result in 287 fewer tons per concern that PWC emissions are outside of California, an additional 25% year of HC+NOX than alternative D. declining faster than forecast by the of the Lake Mead PWC users will have Alternative C proposed elimination of EPA. The existing fleet of PWC has CARB-compliant watercraft. The these annual emissions through the life achieved a 25% reduction in the pre- National Park Service concurs that of the plan (2003 through 2023) would 1999 baseline of HC+NOX emissions, many watercraft users at Lake Mead be a significant contribution to the and will achieve over an 80% reduction have California-registered PWC, and efforts to reduce ozone concentrations by 2012. that they will meet the California Air in the region. This is because even NPS Response: The comment is Resources Board standards. though the cleaner four-stroke and two- principally based on two assumptions There is no data relative to PWC at stroke direct injected engines will emit made by the commenter. The first is Lake Mead to confirm the 75% figure based on confidential, proprietary PWC assumed by the commenter. The more NOX due to a higher ratio of fuel actually being burned, they emit less sales and forecast data prepared by PWC National Park Service emissions hydrocarbons which reduces the manufacturers. No supporting data was calculations are conservative only in the supplied with the comment. The likelihood of ozone formation. sense that it does not specifically commenter states that the data indicates account for watercraft that have already Emission levels shown in the table that the conversion of PWC models to or will be converted to meet California above are not directly comparable with cleaner engines is occurring more Air Resources Board standards. This is the emission levels submitted by the rapidly than anticipated in the 1996 not considered ‘‘overly’’ conservative commenter because the National Park EPA analysis of the effects of the because 50% of the park visitors Service—Air Quality Division calculates conversion rule. While the National originate from California, and a certain emissions on an annual basis, and the Park Service has no reason to doubt that percentage of these visitors will have commenter’s calculations are for an PWC conversions and sales may be PWC that are compliant with the EPA average boating day during the boating proceeding at a greater rate than forecast 2006 rule. There is currently no data to season. Some assumptions made for by EPA, there is no survey or similar support or refute this 75% estimate. National Park Service calculations are data available at this time indicating the Under the preferred alternative, the more conservative than those used for engine conversion at Lake Mead is engines would be 100% compliance commenter’s calculations. The National proceeding at a faster or slower rate than after 2012. Park Service assumed that the the EPA forecast. Therefore, use of the 25. One commenter stated that PWC conversions from carbureted two-stroke EPA rates is considered appropriate— emissions of HC+NOX at Lake Mead engines to cleaner engines would occur and use of an accelerated rate may be during the boating season were 3.9 tons at the rate forecast by the Environmental considered speculative without per day prior to 1999, and are estimated Protection Agency. As shown in the additional supporting data. at 2.9 tons per day for 2002 and 0.7 tons table above for tons per year of The second assumption by the per day in 2012. Clark County, Nevada estimated hydrocarbon and nitrogen commenter is that 75% of the PWC at emissions are estimated at 450 tons per oxides emissions for alternatives C and Lake Mead will have engines that day. Therefore, PWC emissions at Lake D, 21.6% conversion is assumed from comply with the California (CARB) Mead pose no public health risks. 1998 levels by 2004, and 58.4% conversion rule for all years, which NPS Response: The NPS-estimated conversion by 2012. The commenter requires that marine engine emission emissions are a small fraction of Clark

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 17302 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

County emissions. The NPS-estimated acknowledges in the final EIS that Lake Mead NRA, and are known to nest emissions are on the same order of further research is needed to identify in certain areas. Monitoring has been magnitude as those presented by the what effect the conversion of two-stroke conducted by the San Bernardino commenter, even though the NPS carburated engines to two stroke fuel County Museum, the Bureau of estimates a larger amount of emissions. injected engines would have on PAH Reclamation, and the National Park The argument that a single source has concentrations in water. Service. The most recent published negligible impact because of its small In speaking with local PWC report (McKernan and Braden 2002) for size compared to all the sources in the businesses the NPS was informed that the 2001 field season found flycatchers region is not valid. This point was the majority of newer PWC models at the Virgin River-Lake Mead delta. In effectively stated in Kings County Farm being sold are four-stroke engines, not addition, since 1997, flycatchers have Bureau v. City of Hanford, a 1990 two-stroke fuel injected engines, but no been observed breeding along the lower California case that has been widely specific data is available. These Muddy River on the Overton Wildlife publicized and used in subsequent comments concerning four-stroke sales Management Area, within Lake Mead environmental analyses. The Kings are consistent with statements made by NRA. There have also been flycatchers County case also addressed the impacts PWIA that nationally the two top-selling observed in the lower Grand Canyon, of ozone-forming pollutants, and PWC models are four-stroke models. adjacent to the recreation area, in emphasized that each source is Nevertheless, while conversion of some suitable habitat at Lake Mohave. important when considering cumulative carbureted two-stroke engines to direct- As stated in the draft and final EIS impacts. injected two-stroke engines would result under the ‘‘Affected Environment’’ Clark County is currently in in increased PAH emissions, the section, much of the shoreline areas of attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone concurrent conversion to four-stroke Lakes Mead and Mohave have riparian standard. The EPA has not yet made engines would result in reduced PAH stands that are comprised of non-native attainment designations for the 8-hour emissions. As shown by the commenter, tamarisk, or are too young to provide ozone standard that was promulgated in using Kado data, the combined PAH suitable nesting habitat. However, 1997 but was delayed by litigation in emissions of one direct-injected two- several areas have been determined implementation. Preliminary data stroke engine and one four-stroke engine suitable, and nest sites have been indicates that Clark County might not would be slightly less than the PAH located. Of particular importance are the attain the 8-hour ozone standard (http:/ emissions of the two carbureted two- sensitive inflow areas, which will be /www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqa/ozone/areas/ stroke engines that would be replaced. protected by zoning for primitive and maps/nv8hr.gif). Therefore, reduction of Therefore, the increase or decrease of semi-primitive settings. In addition, if emissions from all sources in the county PAH emissions as carbureted two-stroke surveys find nesting pairs elsewhere is an issue. engines are converted to cleaner engine along Lakes Mead and Mohave, closing As shown in the previous responses, types would depend on the relative the area under temporal zoning could be the proposed elimination of two-stroke numbers of the types of cleaner engines. implemented to protect these sites. carbureted engines from Lake Mead The speculation of the mix of engine 29. One commenter takes issue with NRA after 2012 would result in a types would not appreciably change the impact discussion on shorebirds and substantial reduction in emissions, and NPS conclusions made in the final EIS. other wildlife. They state, ‘‘on the basis would contribute to the improvement of 27. Continued PWC use on Lake Mead of anecdotal evidence (chiefly testimony air quality in Clark County. under the proposed rule will not pose from park staff) the proposed rule 26. National Park Service notes that any adverse health risks for park visitors concludes that PWCs could disturb recent studies suggest changing from under even the ‘‘worst case’’ airborne wildlife through the interruption of two-stroke carbureted to two-stroke PAH concentrations that could normal activities, alarm or flight, direct injection PWC engines might theoretically be generated by the avoidance and displacement of habitat, increase PAH emissions. A study by vessels. and nest abandonment. The term Norman Y. Kado et al, Airborne Particle NPS Response: A relevant study ‘‘could’’ demonstrates that National Emissions from 2- and 4-stroke concluded that there are some health Park Service has not obtained evidence Outboard Marine Engines: Polycyclic effects associated with PAH emissions. that such disturbance actually occurs at Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Bioassay (See Environmental and Occupational Lake Mead NRA.’’ Analysis, (Kado study) quantified PAH Exposure to Toxic Air Pollutants from NPS Response: There are many concentrations in airborne particulate Winter Snowmobile Use in Yellowstone studies that relate to the impacts of emissions. The Kado study showed that National Park (Kado, Kuzmicky, and motorized vessels, including PWC, on the PAH emissions from the direct- Okamoto)). Therefore the NPS cannot shorebirds, bald eagles, and other injected two-stroke engines tested were support a conclusion as the commenter wildlife. These studies were considered greater than from carbureted two-stroke suggests, that PWC use at Lake Mead in the development of the draft and final engines. The direct-injected two-stroke would pose no adverse health risks from EIS. Buffer zones to protect foraging and outboard engine used in that study was toxic air pollutant emissions; however loafing waterbirds from disturbance by a 1999 model and represented very early the final EIS does acknowledge that the personal watercraft in Florida (Rodgers technology, and the results of the study impact would likely be minor. 2000) determined that a buffer zones for are not applicable to newer model motorized vessels would protect direct-injection outboard engines, much Comments Related to Wildlife and waterbirds. Effects of Motorboats and less PWC engines. Wildlife Habitat Personal Watercraft on Flight Behavior NPS Response: The commenter rejects 28. One commenter questions the over a Colony of Common Terns (Burger the applicability of the Kado study to occurrence of the Southwestern willow 1998) showed disturbance responses newer engines including PWC engines. flycatcher at the inflow areas of the from the use of motorized vessels, and However, since no comparable data for Muddy and Virgin Rivers and stated recommended speed and distance newer engines was presented, and many that no Southwestern willow flycatchers restrictions close to tern colonies. older engines would be allowed to nest within Lake Mead NRA. Effects of Recreational Activities on operate at the recreation area through NPS Response: Southwestern willow Wintering Bald Eagles (Stalmaster and 2012, the Kado study is relevant. NPS flycatchers have been recorded within Kaiser 1998) showed that high

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 17303

recreational use, including foot traffic spawning habitats of the razorback known to spawn in April and May, it and motorized vessels, can disrupt sucker, given that the fish spawn can be hypothesized that some feeding activities. between January and April, when few disturbance impacts from recreational In addition, National Park Service people visit Lake Mead NRA. use could temporarily affect the bonytail biologists provided information related NPS Response: Fish species have been chub spawning activities. In addition, to disturbance from motorized vessels to shown to be negatively affected by bony tail chub are known to spawn in birds and other wildlife, and motorized watercraft emissions (Oris, et the southern portion of Lake Mohave, information pertaining to the sensitive al. 1998). As stated in the draft and final just north of Katherine Landing. This shoreline areas around Lakes Mead and EIS, temporary disturbance to spawning area receives increased use starting in Mohave. This information was used in razorback suckers from the use of May, when spawning activities are the draft and final EIS for developing motorized vessels has been observed by known to occur. mitigation and monitoring activities, biologists conducting fish monitoring Fish species have also been shown to and in establishing protective measures activities (Marsh 2001). Visitation is be negatively affected by motorized for wildlife within the recreation area. currently low during spawning, and is watercraft emissions (Oris, et al. 1998). These measures, including establishing likely to remain low between January Reduced water quality could harm primitive and semi-primitive zones in and April, when the fish are spawning. aquatic organisms through algae blooms, the selected shoreline areas, will protect Therefore, the impact from the suspended solids and turbidity, and sensitive bird species from disturbance continued use of motorized vessels is oxygen depletion. However, Lake associated with the use of motorized considered not likely to adversely affect Mohave holds an immense amount of vessels, including noise that flushes the the razorback sucker, and is not likely water, with a large volume of water birds, and wakes that disrupt nests. to jeopardize the continued existence of flowing through the system. Therefore, 30. There was concern expressed this species. In addition, under the even though there are contaminants about the occurrence of the Yuma mitigation outlined in the U.S. Fish and entering the system from motorized clapper rail. One commenter references Wildlife Service Biological Opinion and vessels and from other sources such as the draft rule where it states that while in the draft and final EIS, biologists fuel spills and parking lot runoff, these the inflow areas of the Muddy and from Lake Mead NRA will continue to contaminants have not been recorded at Virgin Rivers contain habitat that might work with the Native Fish Work Group concentrations that are known to result support the endangered Yuma clapper to monitor fish species and visitation to in impairment to the aquatic system or rail, no confirmed sightings have determine if temporal zoning of to human health. occurred within the recreation area. The spawning areas is necessary to further The National Park Service is required EIS concurs with this statement. protect razorback suckers and their by law and policy to survey for, protect, However, on page 56788, the proposed habitat. The Native Fish Workgroup is and strive to recover all species native rule contradicts itself, and states composed of representative of Federal incorrectly that the Yuma clapper rail and State agencies as well as scientists to the national park system units that resides at Lake Mead NRA. with the respective state universities. are listed under the Endangered Species Clearly, the Yuma clapper rail cannot 32. One commenter noted the Act (Management Polices 2001). The be said to ‘‘occupy’’ the shoreline or proposed rule claims that use of policy further states that the National habitat of Lake Mead NRA if no one has motorized vessels, including PWCs Park Service will undertake active ever seen it at the lake. This mistake ‘‘likely’’ disturbs bonytail chubs management programs to inventory, should be corrected in the final rule. attempting to spawn in Lake Mead NRA. monitor, restore, and maintain listed NPS Response: Suitable habitat for the Again, no technical studies have been species’ habitats, including controlling Yuma clapper rail does occur within the conducted to support these hypotheses. detrimental visitor access, and recreation area, in particular, in the NPS Response: According to the U.S. enhancing critical habitat. The National inflow areas of the Muddy and Virgin Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Rivers. The commenter is correct that no Opinion, appendix G of the final EIS, Wildlife Service have determined that Yuma clapper rail have been recorded the largest remaining populations of the temporal zoning which could be within the recreation area. They have bonytail chub in the wild are in Lake imposed around spawning habitat been recorded nearby in the Virgin Mohave and in Lake Havasu. Both would protect these species, and could River area. This has been corrected in populations are the result of stocking enhance critical habitat. As stated in the the final rule. young fish born from the existing Biological Opinion, the use of temporal 31. There was one comment on the broodstock into the declining wild zoning will not be imposed until razorback sucker. The commenter points populations. Efforts are underway by recommended by Federal biologists out the proposed rule states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and working in consultation with the Native biologists have studied the effect of the Bureau of Reclamation to refine Fish Workgroup. motorized vessels on razorback sucker rearing techniques and develop Comments Related to Soundscape spawning areas at Lake Mead NRA for additional rearing facilities to increase 10 years, and have concluded that such production. 33. One commenter suggested the vessels, when passing through these While it is true that no technical National Park Service should insist that areas interrupt spawning and generally studies have been conducted to study all watercraft have the quieter four- interfere with the reproductive process. the impacts of recreational use on the stroke engines. Nor do they include the studies or their bonytail chub, as stated in the draft and NPS Response: The final rule would data as appendices. As a result, the final EIS, scientists who have studied phase out the carbureted two-stroke public and other scientists have no native fish in the recreation area in the engines over a 10-year period. The rule ability to determine whether the past 10 years have observed that would only allow the use of direct conclusions drawn by the ‘‘biologists’’ motorized use around spawning areas of injection two-stroke engines and four- are valid. This is poor science. In razorback suckers can temporarily stroke engines. Direct inject two-stroke addition, it appears that the proposed disrupt spawning activities, and the and four-stroke engines have been rule may be overstating the effects of same is likely true for bonytail chub shown to be quieter than the carbureted PWCs and other vessels on the (Marsh 2001). Since bonytail chub are two-stroke engines. The NPS does not

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 17304 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

believe it is necessary to require only alternative of the final EIS would dBA at 4 feet. Other conditions that four-stroke engines. provide for a peaceful and tranquil could contribute to PWC noise of 102 34. We received a number of visitor experience. In areas such as dBA at distances greater than 4 feet comments citing a variety of concerns Black Canyon, where a diverse range of would be PWC operation without a over the noise associated with PWC use. visitors use a variety of nonmotorized muffler or with a faulty muffler, and if In almost all cases this noise was and motorized watercraft, the National the noise was measured when the PWC characterized as ‘‘annoying’’. Specific Park Service would temporally zone this was airborne. This response is not to concerns included the constant and unique area to accommodate all users imply that 102 dBA is a typical PWC repeated fluctuation in engine tone and and provide experiences that range from noise, but to indicate that while a data pitch as PWCs enter and exit the water tranquil to more rural and mechanized. point of 102 dBA without description is while jumping wakes, changing speed All alternatives include plans and of little value. and performing other quick maneuvers policies for enforcement of noise 38. One commenter stated, ‘‘The along with the persistent noise regulations. These elements of the National Marine Manufacturers associated with remaining in one Environmental Impact Statement are Association has published a Model general location rather than traveling consistent with NPS Management Noise Act for use by state legislatures or from point-to-point. Policies. other agencies with jurisdiction over the NPS Response: National Park Service 35. One commenter stated, testing at manufacture and operation of Management Policies for Soundscapes, the Glen Canyon National Recreation watercraft. The Model Noise Act as stated in Management Policies 2001 Area indicate that the maximum noise promotes regulation or legislation that (4.9), require superintendents to levels for PWC are lower than the would prohibit the operation of ‘‘identify what levels of human-caused maximum noise levels for other watercraft in a manner to exceed 75 sound can be accepted within the motorized vessels. dBA at the shoreline. The model noise management purposes of parks. The NPS Response: It is more appropriate act would also promote regulation or sound considered acceptable will vary to say that maximum noise levels for legislation that would prohibit the throughout the park, being generally PWC were found to be similar to manufacture of watercraft that could not greater in developed areas and generally outboards and inboards of similar size operate in compliance with the 75 dBA lesser in undeveloped areas * * *. The and power. The Glen Canyon test data standard.’’ service will take action to prevent or show that, except boats with V–8 NPS Response: The 75 dBA shoreline minimize all noise that * * * exceeds engines (V–8 ‘‘muscle boats’’), which noise level limit is consistent with a levels that have been identified as being were clearly louder than all other craft, relatively recent state of Nevada acceptable to, or appropriate for, visitor at a given speed, the noise levels of standard that will be enforced at Lake uses at the sites being monitored.’’ PWC were sometimes greater and Mead (Nevada Administrative Code Management Policies for Visitor Use sometimes less than those of other Section 488.460). The National Park (8.2) indicate that unless mandated by watercraft. Service is currently revising boating 36. One commenter stated, since statute, the National Park Service will regulations and is proposing to adopt 1998, PWC engine sound levels have not allow visitors to conduct activities the 75 dBA standard and will encourage that would unreasonably interfere with been reduced by up to 70%. the state of Arizona to adopt a similar the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, NPS Response: NPS has standard. or the natural soundscape maintained in acknowledged that the newer model wilderness and natural, historic, or PWC are quieter than the older models. Drafting Information One might interpret a reduction from commemorative locations within the The principal authors of this final rule 100 to 30 decibels (dBA) as a 70% park. are: Jim Holland, Management As written in the enabling legislation, reduction. A noise level reduction of 5.2 Assistant, Lake Mead NRA; Kevin the management purpose of Lake Mead dBA results from a 70% reduction in Hendricks, Assistant Chief Ranger, Lake is to provide public recreation, benefit, noise sources, for example if one had 10 Mead NRA; Nancy Hendricks, Resource and use in a manner that will preserve, like machines running, and turned off 7 Management Specialist, Lake Mead develop, and enhance, so far as of them. It is commonly accepted that NRA; Kym Hall, Regulations Program practicable, the recreation potential and people perceive a 10 dBA reduction in Manager, National Park Service; and preserve the scenic, historic, scientific, noise as about half (50%) as loud, such Michael Tiernan, Office of the Solicitor, and important features of the area. that a 70% reduction by perception Department of the Interior. Recreational uses specifically listed in would be something greater than 10 the act include bathing, boating, dBA. However the NPS can not state the Compliance with Other Laws camping, and picnicking. Various levels exact percentage of sound emissions Regulatory Planning and Review of sound are associated with some of between the various models. those uses, such as boating and PWC, 37. The commenter notes opponents (Executive Order 12866) and are consistent with the park’s of PWC have claimed that the vessels This document is a significant rule purpose as defined by the legislation. emit noises as high as 102 decibels, and has been reviewed by the Office of To provide a ‘‘peaceful and tranquil’’ without specifying distances or the Management and Budget under experience in some locations, PWC use method of sound measurement. These Executive Order 12866. would be prohibited within the unsubstantiated claims are refuted by (1) This rule will not have an effect of primitive and semiprimitive the National Park Service’s recent $100 million or more on the economy. recreational opportunity zones. These testing at Glen Canyon, and cannot be It will not adversely affect in a material zones also place restrictions on wake reproduced under accepted sound way the economy, productivity, speed and identify acceptable motor measurement standards. competition, jobs, the environment, types, such as electric trolling motors in NPS Response: As noted in the public health or safety, or State, local, primitive zones. These prohibitions or comment, no distance was specified for or tribal governments or communities. restrictions in alternatives B and C (the the 102-decibel (dBA) measurement. A This determination is based upon the preferred alternative) of the draft and noise source of 76 dBA at 82 feet, which findings in a report prepared by the final EIS and the modified preferred was measured for a PWC, would be 102 National Park Service entitled

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 17305

‘‘Economic Analysis of Personal Small Business Regulatory Enforcement National Environmental Policy Act Watercraft Regulations in Lake Mead Fairness Act (SBREFA) The National Park Service has National Recreation Area’’ (Law This rule is not a major rule under 5 analyzed this rule in accordance with Engineering and Environmental U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business the criteria of the National Services, Inc., March 2002). The focus of Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Environmental Policy Act and has this study was to document the impact The National Park Service has prepared a draft Environmental Impact of this rule on a variety of small entities completed an economic analysis to Statement (EIS). The draft EIS was made including PWC dealerships and repair make this determination. This rule: available for public review and shops, PWC rental business, and other a. Does not have an annual effect on comment on April 24, 2002, and the local businesses that provide services to the economy of $100 million or more. final EIS was made available for public PWC users. The Economic Analysis may b. Will not cause a major increase in review on January 10, 2003. A copy of be viewed on the Lake Mead Web site costs or prices for consumers, the LMP/FinalEIS is available on the at http://www.nps.gov/lame. individual industries, Federal, State, or Lake Mead NRA Web page (http:// local government agencies, or www.nps.gov/lame/planning), at (2) This rule will not create a serious geographic regions. inconsistency or otherwise interfere regional libraries or a copy may be c. Does not have a significant adverse obtained by contacting the with an action taken or planned by effect on competition, employment, Superintendent, Lake Mead NRA. another agency. Actions taken under investment, productivity, innovation, or this rule will not interfere with other the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to Government-to-Government agencies or local government plans, compete with foreign-based enterprises. Relationship With Tribes policies, or controls. This is an agency Unfunded Mandates Reform Act In accordance with the President’s specific rule. memorandum of April 29, 1994, This rule does not impose an (3) This rule does not alter the ‘‘Government to Government Relations unfunded mandate on State, local, or budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, with Native American Tribal tribal governments or the private sector Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512 user fees, or loan programs or the rights of more than $100 million per year. The or obligations of their recipients. This DM 2: We have evaluated potential rule does not have a significant or effects on federally recognized Indian rule will have no effects on unique effect on State, local or tribal entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan tribes and have determined that there governments or the private sector. This are no potential effects. programs or the rights or obligations of rule is an agency specific rule and their recipients. No grants or other imposes no other requirements on other Administrative Procedures Act forms of monetary supplements are agencies, governments, or the private This final rule will be effective upon involved. sector. publication in the Federal Register. In (4) This rule raises novel legal or Takings (Executive Order 12630) accordance with the Administrative policy issues. This rule is among the Procedures Act, specifically, 5 U.S.C. In accordance with Executive Order first of its kind for managing PWC use 553 (d)(1), this rule (36 CFR 7.48 (g)) is 12630, the rule does not have significant in National Park Units and the first for exempt from the requirement of takings implications. A taking managing use in a National Recreation publication of a substantive rule not less implication assessment is not required. Area. The National Park Service than 30-days before its effective date. No taking of personal property will published general regulations (36 CFR As discussed in the preamble of this occur as a result of this rule. 3.24) in March 2000, requiring rule, the final rule is a part 7 special individual park areas to adopt special Federalism (Executive Order 13132) regulation for Lake Mead National regulations to authorize PWC use. The In accordance with Executive Order Recreation Area that relieves the implementation of the requirements of 13132, the rule does not have sufficient restrictions imposed by the general the general regulation continues to federalism implications to warrant the regulation, 36 CFR 3.24. The general generate interest and discussion from preparation of a Federalism Assessment. regulation, 36 CFR 3.24, prohibits the the public concerning the overall effect This proposed rule only affects use of use of personal watercraft in units of the of authorizing PWC use and National NPS administered lands and waters. It national park system unless an Park Service policy and park has no outside effects on other areas by individual park area has designated the management. allowing PWC use in specific areas of use of personal watercraft by adopting a the park. part 7 special regulation. The proposed Regulatory Flexibility Act rule was published in the Federal Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order Register (67 FR 56,785) on September 5, The Department of the Interior 12988) 2002, with a 60-day period for notice certifies that this document will not In accordance with Executive Order and comment consistent with the have a significant economic effect on a 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 (b). The substantial number of small entities determined that this rule does not Administrative Procedures Act, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 unduly burden the judicial system and pursuant to the exception in (d)(1), U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The preferred meets the requirements of sections 3(a) waives the section 553 (d) 30-day alternative C, which would allow PWC and 3(b)(2) of the Order. waiting period when the published rule use in 95% of Lake Mead, is expected ‘‘grants or recognizes an exemption or to result in net economic benefits to Paperwork Reduction Act relieves a restriction.’’ In this rule the those small businesses in the Lake Mead This regulation does not require an NPS is authorizing the use of PWCs, area that rent or sell personal watercraft. information collection from 10 or more which is otherwise prohibited by 36 This net benefit is compared to the parties and a submission under the CFR 3.24. As a result, the 30-day baseline, or alternative A, which is a Paperwork Reduction Act is not waiting period does not apply to the complete ban of PWC in the Lake Mead required. An OMB form 83-I is not Lake Mead National Recreation Area National Recreation Area. required. final rule.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 17306 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

The Attorney General’s Manual on the Register and provided 60 days for PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, Administrative Procedures Act, public comments. The public comments AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK explained that the ‘‘reason for this received are summarized and analyzed SYSTEM exception would appear to be that the in this rule. Also as part of this process, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 7 con- persons affected by such rules are the park prepared an environmental tinues to read as follows: benefited by them and therefore need no impact statement (EIS) that was made time to conform their conduct so as to available to the public on April 24, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), avoid the legal consequences of 2002, for public review and comment. 462(k); sec. 7.96 also issued under DC Code 8–137(1981) and DC Code 40–721 (1981). violation. The fact that an interested The EIS evaluated the various person may object to such issuance, alternatives for managing PWC use at ■ 2. Section 7.48 is amended by adding amendment, or repeal of a rule does not Lake Mead, including an alternative paragraph (g) to read as follows: change the character of the rule as being with no PWC use. This rule will now one ‘‘granting or recognizing exemption § 7.48 Lake Mead National Recreation implement the preferred alternative Area. or relieving restriction’’, thereby identified in the EIS with some changes exempting it from the thirty-day as a result of the public comments * * * * * (g) Personal Watercraft (1) A person requirement.’’ This rule is within the received on both the proposed rule and scope of the exception as described by may launch and operate a personal the draft EIS. the Attorney General’s Manual and the watercraft in park waters or beach a 30-day waiting period should be ‘‘In determining whether to invoke personal watercraft on park lands, waived. See also, Independent U.S. the exception, the agency is ‘required to except in the following areas: Tanker Owners Committee v. Skinner, balance the necessity for immediate (i) In the designated Primitive area 884 F.2d 587(DC Cir. 1989). In this case, implementation against principles of known as the Gypsum Beds, which is the court found that (d)(1) is a statutory fundamental fairness which require that described as Arizona T31N; R20W exception that applies automatically for all affected persons be afforded a Portions of sections 2, 3, 10 and 11; and substantive rules that relieves a reasonable time to prepare for the (ii) In the designated Primitive area restriction and does not require any effective date of its ruling.’’’ The known as the Virgin River, which is justification to be made by the agency. Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel, 808 described as Nevada T36N; R68E ‘‘In sum, the good cause exception must F.2d 741, 752 (10th Cir. 1987). Since the Portions of Sections 25, 26, 34, 35, 36; be invoked and justified; the (d)(1) primary purpose of the 30-day waiting and exception applies automatically’’ at 591. period is so the public can prepare for (iii) In the designated Primitive/ The facts are that Lake Mead National the changes caused by the new rule. Semiprimitive area in Black Canyon, Recreation Area is promulgating this This rule authorizes the continued use from the Willow Beach Harbor to special regulation for the purpose of of PWCs at Lake Mead National Hoover Dam, prohibited from the first relieving the restriction, prohibition of Recreation Area and will not require Tuesday following Labor Day weekend PWC use, imposed by 36 CFR 3.24 and any changes that will require a 30-day through Friday of Memorial Day weekend; and prohibited only on therefore, the (d)(1) exception applies to waiting period for the public to prepare Sundays and Mondays from the Sunday this rule. itself. Because of the ongoing grace In accordance with the of Memorial Day weekend through the period, PWC use has been allowed to Administrative Procedures Act, this rule Monday of Labor Day weekend, which continue at Lake Mead despite the is also excepted from the 30-day waiting is described as Nevada T22S; R65E prohibition in 36 CFR 3.24. The intent period by 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3) and is Portions of Sections 32; T23S; R65E effective upon publication in the of the grace period was to provide time Portions of Sections 5, 8, 17, 20, 21, 28, for parks, such as Lake Mead National Federal Register. As discussed above, 29, 34; T231⁄2S; R65E Portions of the purpose of this rule is to comply Recreation Area, to promulgate special Sections 34; T23S; R65E Portions of with 36 CFR 3.24 requirement for regulations without having the Sections 1, 2, and 12. Arizona T30N; authorizing PWC use in park areas by prohibition of 36 CFR 3.24 take effect R23W Portions of Sections 3, 10, 15, 22, promulgating a special regulation. ‘‘The and, for other parks that decided not to 27, 34; T29N; R23W Portions of Sections legislative history of the APA reveals promulgate special regulations 2, 12, 13; T29N; R22W Portions of that the purpose for deferring the authorizing PWC use such as Cape Cod Sections 18, 19, 20, 29; and effectiveness of a rule under section National Seashore and Delaware Water (iv) In the designated Semiprimitive 553(d) was ‘to afford persons affected a Gap National Recreational Area, to give area known as the Muddy River reasonable time to prepare for the people additional time to adjust their Confluence with Lake Mead (Overton effective date of a rule or rules or to take recreational use patterns, i.e., find Wildlife Management Area), which is other action which the issuance may alternative places to use their PWCs. described as Nevada T16S; R68E prompt.’ S.Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st There is no need to utilize the 30-day Portions of Sections 28, 29, 32, 33 and Sess.15 (1946); H.R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th waiting period for the benefit of the 34 and T17; R68E; and Cong., 2d Sess. 25 (1946).’’ United affected parties, instead there is good (v) In the designated Semiprimitive States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, cause for making this rule effective area known as Grand Wash Bay, which 1104 (8th Cir. 1977). The persons upon publication so that affected parties is described as Arizona T33N; R16W affected by this rule are PWC users and can continue using PWCs. Portions of Sections 16, 17, 21, 22, 27, delaying the implementation of this rule 28, 29, 33 and 34, and T321⁄2 N; R16W for 30-days will not benefit them; but List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 Portions of Sections 32 and 33; and instead will be counterproductive by District of Columbia, National parks, (vi) In the designated Semiprimitive denying them, for an additional 30-days, Reporting and recordkeeping area known as Bonelli Bay, which is the benefits of the rule. requirements. described as Arizona T31N; R20W The rule has been developed in full Portions of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, compliance with section 553(b) and (c) ■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 18, 19, 20, 21, 29 and 30. rulemaking requirements. The proposed National Park Service amends 36 CFR (2) A person may not operate a rule was published in the Federal part 7 as follows: personal watercraft at a speed in excess

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 17307

of flat wake speed within 200 feet of any Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone added to 40 CFR part 180 in the Federal beach occupied by bathers, boats at the number: (703) 308–6422; e-mail address: Register issue of February 19, 2003, (68 shoreline, or persons in the water or at [email protected]. FR 7939) (FRL–7178–6). Inadvertently, the shoreline. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the tolerance exemption for decanoic (3) After December 31, 2012, no one acid was assigned § 180.1223, which may operate a personal watercraft that I. General Information had previously been assigned to another does not meet the 2006 emission A. Does this Action Apply to Me? pesticide which was published in the standards set by EPA for the Federal Register issue of February 14, The Agency included in the final rule manufacturing of two-stroke engines. A 2003 (68 FR 7433) (FRL–7291–3). This a list of those who may be potentially person operating a personal watercraft document corrects the section number affected by this action. If you have that meets the EPA 2006 emission for the Decanoic acid tolerance questions regarding the applicability of standards through the use of direct- exemption. this action to a particular entity, consult injection two-stroke or four-stroke the person listed under FOR FURTHER III. Why is this Correction Issued as a engines, or the equivalent thereof, is not INFORMATION CONTACT. Final Rule? subject to this prohibition and will be allowed to operate as described in this B. How Can I Get Copies of this Section 553 of the Administrative section. Document and Other Related Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. (4) The Superintendent may limit, Information? 553(b)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that notice restrict, or terminate access to the areas 1. Docket. EPA has established an designated for PWC use after taking into and public procedure are impracticable, official public docket for this action unnecessary or contrary to the public consideration public health and safety, under docket identification (ID) number natural and cultural resource protection, interest, the agency may issue a final OPP–2002–0272. The official public rule without providing notice and an and other management activities and docket consists of the documents objectives. opportunity for public comment. EPA specifically referenced in this action, has determined that there is good cause * * * * * any public comments received, and for making today’s technical correction Dated: March 28, 2003. other information related to this action. final without prior proposal and Paul Hoffman, Although a part of the official docket, opportunity for comment, because EPA Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and the public docket does not include is merely correcting the section number Wildlife and Parks. Confidential Business Information (CBI) that was inadvertently assigned to the [FR Doc. 03–8546 Filed 4–8–03; 8:45 am] or other information whose disclosure is Decanoic acid tolerance exemption. EPA restricted by statute. The official public BILLING CODE 4310–70–P finds that this constitutes good cause docket is the collection of materials that under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records IV. Do Any of the Statutory and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Executive Order Reviews Apply to this AGENCY Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Action? 40 CFR Part 180 Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket This final rule implements a technical facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., correction to the CFR, and it does not [OPP–2002–0272; FRL–7296–9] Monday through Friday, excluding legal otherwise impose or amend any holidays. The docket telephone number requirements. As such, the Office of Decanoic Acid; Exemption from the is (703) 305–5805. Management and Budget (OMB) has Requirement of a Pesticide Tolerance; 2. Electronic access. You may access determined that a technical correction is Technical Correction this Federal Register document not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ AGENCY: Environmental Protection electronically through the EPA Internet subject to review by OMB under Agency (EPA). under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at Executive Order 12866, entitled http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR ACTION: Final rule; technical correction. frequently updated electronic version of 51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does this SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// final rule contain any information Federal Register of February 19, 2003, www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/ collection requirements that require _ _ _ establishing an exemption from the cfrhtml 00/Title 40/40cfr180 00.html, review and approval by OMB pursuant requirement of a tolerance for residues a beta site currently under development. to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 of decanoic acid (capric acid) in or on An electronic version of the public (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). all foods when applied/used as a docket is available through EPA’s Since the Agency has made a ‘‘good component of a food contact surface electronic public docket and comment cause’’ finding that this action is not sanitizing solution in food handling system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA subject to notice-and-comment establishments. This document makes a Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ requirements under the APA or any technical correction to the exemption to submit or view public comments, other statute (see Unit III.), this action from the requirement of a tolerance for access the index listing of the contents is not subject to provisions of the decanoic acid to correct typographical of the official public docket, and to Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 errors. access those documents in the public U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 docket that are available electronically. and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates DATES: This document is effective on Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’ Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public February 19, 2003. then key in the appropriate docket ID Law 104–4). In addition, this action FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: number. does not significantly or uniquely affect Adam Heyward, Antimicrobials small governments or impose any Division, (7510C), Office of Pesticide II. What Does this Correction Do? enforceable duty or contain any Programs, Environmental Protection An exemption from the requirement unfunded mandate as described under Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., of a tolerance for decanoic acid was Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

VerDate Jan<31>2003 15:33 Apr 08, 2003 Jkt 200002 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM 09APR1