Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Veterans Affairs Department

CFR Citation: 36 CFR Part 7

RIN ID: RIN 1024-AD11

NOTICE: Part VIII

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Special Regulations; Areas of the National Park System

DATES: This regulation is effective December 11, 2003.

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

SUMMARY: Interior Department, National Park Service,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

The National Park Service (NPS) has been managing winter use issues in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), Grand Teton National Park (GTNP), and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway (the Parkway) for several decades. In 1997, the Fund for Animals and others filed suit, alleging that the NPS failed to: Consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on impacts of winter use on threatened and endangered species; prepare an EIS concerning winter use; and evaluate the effects of grooming on wildlife and other park resources. The suit was resolved with a settlement agreement in October 1997 which, among other things, required the NPS to prepare a new winter use plan for the three park units. On October 10, 2000, a Winter Use Plans Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published for YNP, GTNP, and the Parkway. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by Intermountain Regional Director Karen Wade on November 22, 2000, and subsequently distributed to interested and affected parties. The ROD selected FEIS Alternative G, which eliminated both snowmobile and snowplane use from the parks by the winter of 20032004, and provided access via an NPSmanaged, masstransit snowcoach system. This decision was based on a finding that the snowmobile and snowplane use existing at that time, and the snowmobile use analyzed in the FEIS alternatives, impaired park resources and values, thus violating the statutory mandate of the NPS.

Implementing aspects of this decision required a special regulation for each park unit in question. Following publication of a proposed rule and the subsequent public comment period, a final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001 (66 FR 7260). The rule became effective on April 22, 2001.

On December 6, 2000, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the National Park Service and others in the Department of the Interior and the NPS were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by the International Snowmobile Manufacturers' Association and several groups and individuals. The State of Wyoming subsequently intervened on behalf of the plaintiffs. Following promulgation of final regulations, the original complaint was amended to also challenge the regulations. The lawsuit asked for the decision contained in the ROD be set aside. The lawsuit alleged that NPS failed to give legally mandated consideration to all of the alternatives, made political decisions outside the public process and contrary to evidence and data, failed to give the public appropriate notice and participation, failed to adequately consider and use the proposals and expertise of the cooperating agencies, failed to properly interpret and implement the parks' purpose, discriminated against disabled visitors, and improperly adopted implementing regulations. A procedural settlement was reached on June 29, 2001, under which, NPS prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). In accordance with the settlement, the SEIS incorporated ``any significant new or additional information or data submitted with respect to a winter use plan.'' Additionally, the NPS provided the opportunity for additional public participation pursuant to NEPA. A Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2001 (66 FR 39197).

A draft SEIS was published on March 29, 2002, and distributed to interested and affected parties. NPS accepted public comments on the draft for 60 days, and 357,405 pieces of correspondence were received. The draft SEIS examined four additional alternatives: Two alternatives that would allow some form of snowmobile access to continue; a no action alternative, that would implement the November 2000 ROD; and another alternative that would implement the noaction alternative one year later to allow additional time for phasing in snowcoachonly travel. The SEIS focused its analysis only on the issues relevant to allowing recreational snowmobile and snowcoach use in the parks. These impact topics included: Air quality and air quality related values, employee health and safety, natural soundscapes, public health and safety, socioeconomics, wildlifebison and elk, and visitor experience. The SEIS did not include reevaluating the decision to ban snowplane use on Jackson Lake because this had not been an issue in the lawsuit, and was not an aspect of the resulting settlement.

On November 18, 2002, the NPS published a final rule (67 FR 69473) based on the FEIS, which generally postponed for one year
implementation of the phaseout of snowmobiles in the parks under the January 2001 regulation. This rule allowed for additional time to plan and implement the NPSmanaged masstransit, snowcoachonly system outlined in the FEIS as well as time for completion of the SEIS. The rule delayed the implementation of the daily entry limits on snowmobiles until the winter of 20032004 and the complete prohibition on snowmobiles until 20042005. The transitional requirement under the 2001 regulation that snowmobile parties use an NPSpermitted guide was also delayed until the 20032004 winter use season.

Other provisions under the January 2001 regulation concerning licensing requirements, limits on hours of operation, and the ban on snowplane use remained effective for the winter use season of 2002 2003. The rule also closed to snowmobiles 14 miles of roads that had been previously opened to snowmobile use.

The Notice of Availability for the Final SEIS was published on February 24, 2003 (68 FR 8618). The Final SEIS included a new alternative, alternative 4, consisting of elements which fell within the scope of the analyses contained in the Draft SEIS and which [[Page 69269]]
was identified as the preferred alternative. In addition, the final SEIS included changes to the alternatives, changes in modeling assumptions and analysis, and it incorporated additional new information. Intermountain Regional Director Karen Wade signed a Record of Decision for the SEIS, which became effective on March 25, 2003. In the ROD she stated: ``[that there is] broad discretion afforded under the applicable laws and policies to the Service in the operation of these units'' * * * [T]here is no single decision mandated by these laws and policies. This is reflected in my ROD from November 2000 * * * and the decision I made herein today * * * ''' The Regional Director selected Final SEIS alternative 4 for implementation, and enumerated specific modifications to that alternative. The Final SEIS and ROD each concluded that implementation of Final SEIS alternatives 1a, 1b, 3, or 4 would not be likely to impair park resources or values resulting from motorized oversnow recreation. Promulgation of this rule is necessary to implement the March 25, 2003, ROD. Absent the promulgation of these new regulations, the existing regulations which reduce the numbers of snowmobiles that may be used in the parks during the winter of 2003 2004, but without air and sound emissions requirements, will continue to apply. A detailed description of the background of this regulation is contained in the proposed regulation.

Summary of and Responses to Comments

The NPS published a proposed rule on August 27, 2003 (68 FR 51526) and took comment for 49 days. The NPS received 104,802 documents commenting on the proposed rule, including 90,624 in electronic form, 12,584 in hard copy, and 1,594 in other formats. The comments were categorized into one of four possible positions on the proposed regulations: (1) Pro Rulethe commentor generally supports the proposed rule; (2) Anti Rule, Too Strongcommentor generally objects to the proposed rule because it places too much of a burden on snowmobilers; (3) Anti Rule, Weakcommentor generally objects to the proposed rule because it does not adequately protect park resources due to the presence of snowmobiles; (4) Uncleargeneral position concerning the proposed rule is unclear.

Approximately 91% of all commentors believed the proposed regulation does not adequately protect park resources due to the presence of snowmobiles. These commentors generally believe that the National Park Service should not implement this proposed rule and instead allow the current regulations to take effect, which would eliminate snowmobiles in favor of mass transit snowcoaches. About 8% of all commentors generally supported the proposed regulation, arguing that the NPS has correctly balanced visitor use with preserving park resources. Nearly 2% of commentors offered comments within the scope of the rulemaking, but they were generally unclear as to their position. Less than 1% of commentors generally believed the rule imposed too great of a burden on snowmobilers due to the restrictions associated with the regulation.

The following is a summary of substantive comments on the proposed rule and our responses to them.

Snowmobile BAT

Issue: Many commentors raised concerns that 2004 snowmobile models are more polluting than 2002 modelyear machines, despite the NPS' expectations that snowmobile technology will continue to improve. They asserted that the snowmobile industry cannot be relied upon to provide innovative clean and quiet machines in a market that seeks faster and more powerful snowmobiles.

NPS Response: NPS analysis indicates that some snowmobiles' emissions in the 2004 model year have increased slightly since the 2002 model year. 2004 snowmobile models that have been certified as Best Available Technology (BAT) have slightly increased carbon monoxide emissions, relative to the tests on the 2002 models. This is likely due to an increase in horsepower. For hydrocarbon emissions, one manufacturer has slightly decreased emissions since 2002, but another manufacturer has slightly increased emissions. This increase is likely the result of the 2002 snowmobile being a prototype machine, which was significantly altered. In any event, these snowmobiles are still better than the BAT requirement of 90% reduction of hydrocarbons and 70% reduction of carbon monoxide. Sound emissions have been relatively level between 20022004 model years. The BAT requirements of this rule may encourage a niche market for a handful of snowmobile models. This may also provide incentives for some manufacturers to design snowmobiles that are cleaner and quieter than our BAT requirements, as future adaptive management decisions will be based in part on noise and air emissions.

Issue: The rule does not recognize permeation emissions from snowmobile fuel systems. Permeation losses from snowmobiles stand to be a source of significant air pollution under the current rule, yet there is no proposed means for testing or regulating this form of pollution.

NPS Response: We agree that permeation emissions could be a source of pollution in the parks. However, the EPA has promulgated regulations that will govern permeation emissions from snowmobile tanks. This is primarily a summer issue when temperatures are higher (as the report cited by the commentor indicates). We feel it is more appropriate to rely on these regulations for controlling permeation emissions. We will monitor air quality in the parks, and continue to evaluate this issue. Should we detect that permeation emissions lead to unacceptable air quality impacts, we will take action under the adaptive management provisions of this regulation.

Issue: Several individuals believe the rule should require that snowmobiles produce the same emissions per passenger as snowcoaches. They recommended that snowmobiles would have to emit, at most, one sixth the amount of pollution and noise as the cleanest and quietest snowcoaches.

NPS Response: We are trying to provide a range of appropriate activities in the parks, while protecting park resources and values. Use of snowcoaches has definite emissions benefits, relative to snowmobiles, because of their overall lower emissions and their ability to carry as many as seven times the number of passengers. However, we believe it is more appropriate to require that all snowmobiles in the park utilize BAT, which is demonstrably cleaner and quieter than conventional snowmobiles and allows for a range of activities in a manner that ensures protection of park resources and values.

Issue: One commentor recommended including a new section requiring BATcertified snowmobiles to be visually marked with a sticker or stamp demonstrating BAT compliance. Another commentor questioned how NPS will ensure that each snowmobile has not been modified by the owner in such a way that would increase emissions.

NPS Response: Entrance station personnel will be given information to identify BAT compliant snowmobiles. The requirements that 80 percent of all snowmobilers be accompanied by commercial guides operating under a concessions contract will also provide further assurances that BAT snowmobiles are used. Further, snowmobile engines will already be [[Page 69270]]
labeled with emissions information in compliance with the EPA's snowmobile regulation. NPS will evaluate the need for additional measures as this rule is implemented. If NPS determines that additional measures are necessary, these could be required through the adaptive management framework of this rule. We also considered suggestions of installing remote sensing devices at each entrance, which would detect snowmobile emissions and indicate if they exceed the 15 and 120 g/kWhr requirements. However, we believe instituting this system as it currently exists is impractical because of the burden on visitors and cost. The final regulation has also been clarified to include language that using a snowmobile or snowcoach which has been modified in such a way as to increase air or sound emissions is prohibited. This provision will provide NPS with sufficient assurance that snowmobiles will not be modified in ways that increase emissions.

Issue: There should be a date by which the park will identify makes, models and year of manufacture of snowmobiles meeting BAT.

NPS Response: The NPS wishes to be as flexible as possible and not have an arbitrary date for determining which snowmobiles are BAT compliant. We will certify snowmobiles as BAT when we have received sufficient information from snowmobile manufacturers concerning the emissions of machines. We recognize that potential customers want to know if a machine is BAT compliant before they order that machine for the upcoming winter season. Consumer demand may provide incentives to the snowmobile manufacturers to disclose emissions information early in the year, so potential customers will know which machines will be BAT and can make appropriate choices in determining which machines to purchase. We strongly encourage anyone who wishes to purchase a snowmobile for the parks to check with the manufacturer to insure it is BAT compliant.

BAT Snowmobile Sound Emissions

Issue: One commentor noted that the proposed rule sets BAT for snowmobiles at 73 dB(A) and the SAE J192 test procedures allows a +2 decibel error range. They claimed this represented no improvement over twostroke snowmobiles, which typically perform at 7578 dB(A). Another commentor suggested that we change the BAT requirement to 75 dB(A), since we already allow the 2 dB(A) error range.

NPS Response: The BAT sound requirements established by this rule are noticeably quieter than conventional two strokesnowmobiles; a 35 dB difference represents a doubling of sound emissions. Monitoring will provide NPS with additional data concerning noise impacts, and we may make changes under adaptive management. In addition, if improved technology becomes available, BAT sound requirements could be adjusted accordingly. We are continuing to use 73 dB(A) as our BAT requirement, as we wish to base it on SAE test procedures. If we changed this to 75 dB(A), we would need to eliminate the 2 dB(A) margin of error provided in the SAE J192 testing procedures.

Issue: Several commentors noted that the data NPS relied on to establish the proposed BAT sound requirement was not in full accordance with SAE J192 (March 1985) test method cited in the proposed regulation. Specifically, the atmospheric pressure during the test runs was outside the range specified in the test method. One commentor suggested that final BAT limits should be based on test data that fully complies with the applicable test method and that the test method be a standard SAE procedure. Another commentor recommended revising part 7.13 (l)(4)(ii) to disclose that the J192 test procedure was modified using Yellowstone elevations/barometric pressure.

NPS Response: We recognize that the test procedures used, in part, to determine the BAT sound requirement were based on testing done at Yellowstone National Park, where the atmospheric pressure is lower than the SAE J192 requirements due to the park's elevation. Initial testing data indicates that snowmobiles may test quieter at high elevation, and likewise be able to pass our BAT requirements at higher elevations but fail our requirements near sea level. Therefore, the NPS is initially allowing testing to be performed at reduced barometric pressure, recognizing that snowmobiles will be used in these conditions. The regulatory text has been clarified to note that snowmobile manufacturers may test at any barometric pressure above or equal to 23.4 inches Hg (uncorrected). We are interested in transitioning to the standard SAE J192 test as sufficient test data becomes available.

Issue: The test specified in the proposed rule (SAE J192, 1985 revision) was revised in March 2003. The BAT requirement should be based on this newer test.

NPS Response: We are continuing to use the SAE J192 test, 1985 revision, for several reasons. Most importantly, our BAT requirement was established using the 1985 test procedures along with industry information and modeling. At the time this testing occurred, the J192 testing procedures that were used were the most up to date (revised 1985). However, after that initial testing and after the SEIS was finalized, the SAE updated J192 test procedures in March 2003. The changes from the 1985 procedures to the 2003 procedures could alter the results. For instance, because of technical changes to sound meter settings, snowmobiles may yield slightly quieter test results using the 2003 test procedures. In addition, the rolling start called for in the new procedure may also generate higher sound levels due to increased speed. Therefore, to be consistent with our BAT requirements, we must continue to use the 1985 test. We are interested in transitioning to the March 2003 J192 test because it is a more current procedure, and we will continue to evaluate this issue after these regulations are implemented.

Issue: One commentor recommended that the BAT sound requirement should be adjusted upward by 3 dB(A) to reflect the effects of different atmospheric pressures between Yellowstone and the SAE J192 test procedures.

NPS Response: We believe the BAT sound requirement of 73 dB(A) is appropriate and should not be altered. As noted above, we are allowing manufacturers to test at any barometric pressure above 23.4 inches Hg (uncorrected). Currently, there are two snowmobile manufacturers that have demonstrated compliance with this BAT requirement. Testing for one of these snowmobiles indicates that it is well within our BAT requirement even when tested in the Midwest at approximately 1,000 feet in elevation. This snowmobile yields sound emissions of 71.75 dB(A), well below our BAT requirements. If tested at higher elevation in Yellowstone National Park, we believe this snowmobile would yield sound emissions even below 71 dB(A). If the BAT requirement was increased by 3 dB(A), to 76 dB(A), it would only be 2 dB(A) quieter than the maximum snowmobile sound emissions allowed for any snowmobile. A BAT requirement of 76 dB(A) would be far too high to achieve our goal of insuring that soundscapes are protected.

Issue: One commentor suggested the SAE J2567 test be used for snowmobile sound.

NPS Response: We have no information at this time about the comparability of this test to the SAE J192 test, and the commentor does not provide any further data or information about this test. Accordingly, we have not made this change in the regulation. [[Page 69271]]

BAT Snowmobile Air Emissions

Issue: One commentor was concerned that the 5mode engine dynamometer is not reasonable since it includes a full throttle measurement while snowmobiles are not allowed to operate at full throttle because of speed limits. Another commentor suggested that we use this test since it is the industry standard.

NPS Response: The 5mode engine dynamometer is the industry standard test for measuring emissions. It is also the test used by snowmobile manufacturers in determining compliance with the EPA's regulation on snowmobile emissions. Relying on the same testing will simplify compliance procedures for snowmobile manufacturers, as the manufacturers will be able to provide NPS with a copy of their emissions data generated to comply with EPA's rule. Further, snowmobiles used in the park are often operated by users at full throttle during acceleration, even though speed limits are in place. Many fourstroke machines also operate near full throttle when going 45 mph, especially when they are going up hills, weighted with two riders or luggage or other gear, or pulling a tow sled. Eliminating the full throttle mode within the 5mode test would also amount to a de facto increase in total emissions in the parks.

Issue: One commentor provided a report by an independent firm reviewing the SEIS air quality analysis, which alleged that the SEIS overestimated the air quality impacts resulting from snowmobiles. They requested that NPS reanalyze the air quality impacts of snowmobiles and factor in the new analysis to the final regulation.

NPS Response: The NPS believes the SEIS conclusions concerning air quality impacts resulting from snowmobiles are accurate. While the modeling may have overestimated one emissions factor, others were underestimated. However, specific questions related to the SEIS analysis are beyond the scope of this rule. Further, it would be impossible to reanalyze the air quality impacts of snowmobiles and still publish this final rule prior to the start of the 20032004 winter season. The NPS will conduct ongoing monitoring to determine the accuracy of the SEIS analysis.

Issue: One commentor recommended harmonization of the NPS BAT program with EPA's November 2002 regulation. The commentor also suggested that NPS use the EPA's 2012 snowmobile emissions limits as the BAT requirements.

NPS Response: We wish to make the administrative burden for complying with our BAT requirements as simple as possible. Therefore, we are requiring through the final regulation that manufacturers submit to the NPS their Family Emissions Limit (FEL) application, which complies with EPA's regulations. This should minimize the need for snowmobile manufacturers to conduct any additional testing or analysis to demonstrate their compliance with the NPS'' air emissions requirements. Generally, engine families contain only a single engine, which are then used in a variety of snowmobile body styles or models. Snowmobile engines that have significant emissions related modifications are categorized as a different engine family. For instance, a fourstroke with a turbo charger would constitute a separate engine family, and require a separate FEL, than the same engine without a turbo charger.

Using FELs will harmonize the process for determining BAT compliance with EPA's regulation. However, we do not believe EPA's Tier 3 emissions limits, which reduce hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by 50%, will sufficiently protect air quality in the parks, where snowmobile use is highly concentrated. Therefore, the final regulation relies on the proposed BAT requirements of a 90% reduction in hydrocarbons and a 70% reduction in carbon monoxide.

Issue: BAT limits as proposed should only be applied to the average emissions of individual snowmobile models. Thus, BAT limits in the proposed regulation should be compared to Official Test Results (OTR).

NPS Response: When initially contemplated, the NPS intended for the BAT requirements to represent the maximum emissions a snowmobile could emit while still being allowed to enter the parks. Several statements regarding BAT in the ROD and SEIS indicate that ``any recreational snowmobile entering YNP must achieve emissions below 15 g/kWhr for hydrocarbons and 120 g/kWhr for carbon monoxide.'' (ROD p. 14) We believe that we can use FEL to demonstrate compliance with BAT and achieve this purpose. If we instead relied on Official Test Results to determine compliance with BAT, some snowmobiles could have emissions greater than our BAT requirements, which could result in an overall increase in emissions in the parks.

Issue: One commentor said the use of OTR as an emission standards basis is not as reliable as the use of FELs, nor is it consistent with EPA's current practice for developing emission standards. They concluded that NPS should base its numerical limits on the use of FEL values.

NPS Response: We agree with these comments and we are adopting the FEL method of demonstrating compliance with BAT in the final regulation. The use of FEL has several advantages. First, use of FEL will ensure that all individual snowmobiles entering the parks achieve our emissions requirements, unless modified or damaged (under the final regulation, snowmobiles which are modified in such a way as to increase air or sound emissions will not be in compliance with BAT and not permitted to enter the parks). For this reason, FEL is the best mechanism to protect park air quality. Use of FEL will also represent the least amount of administrative burden on the snowmobile manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with NPS BAT requirements. Further, the EPA has the authority to insure that manufacturers' claims on their FEL applications are valid. EPA also requires that manufacturers conduct production line testing (PLT) to demonstrate that machines being manufactured actually meet the certification levels. If PLT indicates that emissions exceed the FEL levels, then the manufacturer is required to take corrective action. Through EPA's ability to audit manufacturers' emissions claims, NPS will have sufficient assurance that emissions information and documentation will be reviewed and enforced by the EPA. FEL also takes into account other factors, such as the deterioration rate of snowmobiles (some snowmobiles may produce more emissions as they age), labtolab variability, testtotest variability, and production line variance. In addition, under the EPA's regulations, all snowmobiles manufactured must be labeled with FEL air emissions information. This will help to ensure that our emissions requirements are consistent with these labels and the use of FEL will avoid potential confusion for consumers.

Issue: One commentor stated that the EPA baseline emissions assumptions for conventional twostroke snowmobiles (400 g/kWhr for CO; 150 g/kWhr for HC) were determined based on the average test results of several snowmobile models. They were not intended to reflect the FEL. Therefore, NPS should rely on OTR.

NPS Response: NPS recognizes that the EPA baseline assumptions represent the emissions of an ``average'' snowmobile. However, EPA ties this assumption to their FEL requirements. For instance, the EPA regulation requires that all snowmobiles achieve a
[[Page 69272]]
50 percent reduction for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by 2012 . This reduction is demonstrated with the manufacturer's FEL and is a reduction from the baseline snowmobile assumption. This is the purpose of the FEL `` to ensure that snowmobiles are consistently under the certification values, with the difference in emissions benefiting the environment in the form of further emission reductions.

Issue: One commentor said that in developing the appropriate FEL, NPS should not use the current BAT values, which were based on OTR. These do not account for test variability, durability effects, and other inherent sources of variability. When these effects are accounted for (i.e., with a 1520 percent margin), the BAT values should be adjusted to 18 g/kWhr for HC and 144 g/kWhr for CO.

NPS Response: We believe that the BAT requirements identified in the proposed rule are appropriate. As noted elsewhere, these were intended to represent the maximum emissions a snowmobile would be allowed to produce. For instance, one snowmobile manufacturer is currently producing a snowmobile that is certified by EPA at a FEL of 10 g/kWhr for hydrocarbons and 115 g/kWhr for carbon monoxide. This is 33.3% better than our hydrocarbon requirements and 4.2% better than our carbon monoxide requirements. Thus, it is clear the industry is currently able to meet our BAT requirements given technology presently used in snowmobiles.

Issue: Snowmobile manufacturers and the public must have significant advance notice before changes are made to BAT requirements. Significant changes in emissions performance require modifications to basic engine and chassis design features. NPS should allow 4 years leadtime before BAT requirements are changed, which is the amount of time EPA generally allows before modifying emissions requirements.

NPS Response: We agree that snowmobile manufacturers must have sufficient advance notice before changes to BAT requirements are enacted. Therefore, the final rule will require that any changes to the BAT requirements will be published in the Federal Register and the public will be notified in accordance with 36 CFR 1.7(a). Through this process, snowmobile manufacturers and the public will be notified on the timeframe for changes to BAT requirements in light of the technology that is available at the time, environmental needs, and whatever changes might be proposed. Additional details about the adaptive management process are contained in the response to comments in the adaptive management section. The BAT requirements are not a restriction on what snowmobile manufacturers may produce, but an end use restriction on which commercially produced snowmobiles may be used in the parks.

BAT Certification Issues

Issue: One commentor noted that the certification process is the responsibility of the snowmobile manufacturers, not the guides and outfitters. Another commentor stated that manufacturers should be allowed to use existing documentation and test methods to certify snowmobiles as BAT compliant. For emissions certification, relevant sections of the current EPA certification template for snowmobiles should be used. The relevant sections include the family information form, the test results form, and the certified models form. This information on the EPA template is subject to audit by EPA and the manufacturer certifies it is correct when submitted to EPA. Production line testing, required by EPA, ensures the units being produced exhibit emission characteristics consistent with the certification values.

NPS Response: We agree that the snowmobile manufacturers have the primary responsibility for documenting compliance with BAT, although guides and outfitters have a responsibility to insure their snowmobiles are BAT compliant and are wellmaintained. We also agree that manufacturers should be permitted to use information submitted in accordance with EPA's regulation to document compliance with the NPS BAT requirements. We will accept this application information from manufacturers in support of conditionally certifying a snowmobile as BAT, pending ultimate review and certification by EPA at the same emissions levels identified in the application. Should EPA certify the snowmobile at a level that would no longer meet BAT requirements, this snowmobile would no longer be considered to be BAT compliant and would be phasedout according to a schedule determined by the NPS to be appropriate.

Issue: For sound testing, NPS should confirm compliance with the BAT requirements by using the existing Snowmobile Safety and Certification Committee (SSCC) sound level certification form. Under the SSCC machine safety standards program, snowmobiles are certified by an independent testing company as complying with all SSCC safety standards, including sound standards.

NPS Response: We agree that snowmobile manufacturers should be allowed to use the existing SSCC sound level certification form to demonstrate compliance with NPS BAT requirements. Our regulation does not require this form specifically, as there could be other acceptable documentation in the future. The NPS will work cooperatively with the snowmobile manufacturers on appropriate documentation.

Issue: One commentor suggested that NPS should develop an alternative test method in addition to the manufacturer certification process should a BAT snowmobile be modified.

NPS Response: The primary method for documenting compliance with BAT is the FEL method. All recreational snowmobiles used in the park that are 2005 or later model years must be certified by EPA with an FEL at or below the NPS BAT requirement. However, an individual may modify a snowmobile already approved by the NPS as a BAT machine, so long as these modifications do not increase air or sound emissions. The responsibility to demonstrate that such modifications did not increase emissions would be on the owner. Thus, if aftermarket emissions reduction equipment became available, a snowmobile owner could install it only on machines already BAT approved.

Snowcoach BAT

Issue: Many commentors said that snowcoaches should be treated the same as snowmobiles for determining compliance with BAT. Snowcoaches should be BAT compliant at the same time snowmobiles are required to be BAT compliant. Many of these individuals do not feel it is fair to exempt historic snowcoaches. Many also said that snowcoaches should not be allowed to operate at 2 dB higher than snowmobiles with speed measured at 25 mph as opposed to full throttle.

NPS Response: The SEIS and EIS air quality analyses indicate that the vast majority of air pollution generated in the parks results from the historic use levels and types of snowmobiles. Little pollution is generated by snowcoaches as a whole, partly because their numbers are far fewer relative to snowmobiles, and also because they are far cleaner on both grams of CO and particulate matter emissions per mile and greater passenger capacity relative to snowmobiles. For sound emissions, the SEIS soundscape analysis noted that a group of 4 BAT snowmobiles, carrying up to 8 people total, has a distance to audibility of 5,810 feet in open terrain under average background conditions. A
[[Page 69273]]
comparable BAT snowcoach, potentially carrying even more passengers, is audible for only 2,630 feet under the same conditions. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow snowcoaches to be somewhat louder individually, because they can carry many more passengers than a single snowmobile. In addition, the NPS is allowing additional time to phasein BAT requirements for snowcoaches because of the substantial investment required to upgrade snowcoach technology. Historic snowcoaches are being initially exempted because the NPS wishes to provide incentives to continue operation of these machines to maintain the character of winter touring, as they add to the overall winter experience. Further, there are not very many of these vehicles operating in the parks, (approximately 29) and they provide additional options for visitors.

Issue: One commentor recommended that 2004 engine technology should be required as it becomes phasedin. They stated that replacement of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) equipment on older snowcoaches does not necessarily result in reduced emissions due to openloop operation of emission control technology.

NPS Response: The NPS intends to work with operators to better understand snowcoach emissions and how they can be reduced. This recommendation could be part of adaptive management, recognizing a phasein requirement due to the potentially significant investment.

Issue: A commentor asked the NPS to elaborate on how EPA's Tier 2 standards will significantly reduce the open loop mode of operation for snowcoaches.

NPS Response: New 2004 and later medium and heavy duty vehicles ( or snowcoaches) will be cleaner and operate more often in closedloop mode because of the new EPA rules in effect for 2004 and beyond. Manufacturers now have equipment and engine controls that will keep their engines operating in closed loop for more of their power curve, cutting down on the area where these engines would operate in a period of ``enrichment'' (open loop). Because the engine controls have not been implemented yet, there is some uncertainty about how much the open loop mode will be reduced.

General BAT

Issue: One commentor recommended that part 7.13 (l)(1) include a term defining BAT.

NPS Response: The regulatory text does not use the term ``BAT''. Therefore we have not defined it in the regulation.

Adaptive Management

Issue: Several commentors suggested there should be a written plan of what monitoring will be done at the minimum, and how, where, and when it will be conducted.

NPS Response: The Final SEIS and ROD included information (Table 12 and Appendix A, respectively) related to monitoring and adaptive management. We will periodically report to the public on the results of monitoring and adaptive management. Administrative details of monitoring are beyond the scope of this rule. We will continue to work with state regulatory agencies in our monitoring programs.

Issue: Several commentors expressed concerns regarding the timeframe for changes under adaptive management. One commentor recommended taking management actions for future winters in August or September, as opposed to July 1 as specified in the preamble of the proposed rule. Adequate time for appropriate analyses of monitoring results must occur. They suggested that a July 1 date does not allow sufficient time for collecting and reporting environmental monitoring data or for the installation of any updated vehicle equipment.

NPS Response: NPS recognizes that monitoring data can take several months to fully analyze. The winter season ends approximately the first week of March. This provides for over 3 months to complete data analysis and provide results to the NPS. At the same time, gateway communities, concessioners, and the public should have adequate notice before any changes are made to the management of winter use. Thus, it is our goal to notify the public of changes in winter use management by July 1. However, if monitoring results are not available by that time, notice could come at a later time.

Issue: One commentor noted that the adaptive management provisions of this rule will not allow for the public to comment on changes in management of winter use. Another commentor requested that in implementing adaptive management, the NPS consult with the cooperating agencies involved in the SEIS process. Another commentor questioned how substantive changes that might have impacts to the human environment can be accomplished through the adaptive management process. Several commentors suggested that the final regulation be more specific in outlining specific procedures entailed in the Parks' adaptive management process.

NPS Response: The public will be notified of all changes under adaptive management, and the regulation has been clarified to reflect the process we will use to provide the public with notice. Some changes to winter use under adaptive management will be published in the Federal Register to provide notice to the public. Specifically, we will provide notice in the Federal Register and through one or more of the methods identified in 36 CFR 1.7(a) for changes to BAT air and sound emissions requirements, the commercial: noncommercial guiding ratio, new snowcoachonly routes, and the daily entry limits. The public will be notified of changes to other elements of this regulation, such as group size requirements, and hours of park operation, through one or more of the methods in 36 CFR 1.7(a). New snowmobile routes would be promulgated as a special regulation in accordance with 36 CFR 2.18(c). This is in keeping with the philosophy of adaptive management and will provide park managers with the flexibility necessary to respond quickly to changing circumstances and conditions. We will involve our partners, gateway communities, former cooperating agencies, and the public, as appropriate throughout the adaptive management process.

Issue: One commentor stated that if the adaptive management thresholds identified in the ROD are not violated, there will be significant pressure on NPS to relax the daily entry limits, BAT requirements, or guiding requirements. Another commentor stated that the proposed rule does not define what ``unacceptable impacts'' are under the adaptive management provisions, and it avoids establishing any criteria which would, if met or exceeded, require the

Superintendent to impose new management strategies.

NPS Response: NPS will only take action under adaptive management when it is warranted based on resource conditions and visitor experience. Preliminary thresholds, and what constitutes ``unacceptable impacts'' were established in the SEIS and ROD (Table 12 and Appendix A, respectively) to protect park resources. The thresholds are not intended to necessarily automatically trigger action. Instead, these thresholds would be used by park managers, as would other factors, in a larger context of determining when adjustments in winter use management are appropriate.

Issue: The SEIS demonstrated that impacts of this rule already exceed the thresholds set for air quality, visibility, human health, natural soundscapes, wildlife, and visitor experience.

[[Page 69274]]

NPS Response: While NPS does not agree with this blanket statement, actual monitoring will tell the NPS if the thresholds are exceeded. It is not possible to exceed the thresholds set by the ROD until the rule is actually implemented. Further, the SEIS impact analysis was based on models, projections, and expert judgements. While each of these have inherent limitations, they provide the best estimate of impacts. The models' fundamental purpose is to allow comparisons to be made among the alternatives.

Issue: One commentor said it is unacceptable to wait until a ``future winter season'' to make changes based on adaptive management. They said it should not take a full year to remedy health problems.

NPS Response: Existing regulations ensure that the Superintendent may take emergency action for safety (including health problems), resource protection, or other reasons under the authority of 36 CFR 1.5. For nonemergency adaptive management actions, we would ordinarily announce changes by July 1. These changes would be implemented in a future winter season. For some changes, this could be the following winter season, beginning that December (six months after the announcement). Other changes, which might require a phasein, could be implemented in December of the following year (an 18month phasein). Daily Entry Limits

Issue: There is no emissionsrelated basis for the specific limits on snowmobiles proposed in the regulations. The Final SEIS air quality analysis indicates the modeled levels of CO and PM10 will be well below the NAAQS limits. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration increment consumptions under these alternatives were below that permitted under the Clean Air Act. Emissions from snowmobiles do not result in a situation inconsistent with the NPS mission.

NPS Response: The parks are designated as Class I airsheds under the Clean Air Act, which requires that their air quality be the most pristine in the nation. The BAT requirements and daily entry limits are a necessary alternative to eliminating all snowmobile use in the parks.

Issue: One commentor requested that the NPS reconsider the requirement to count commercial guides towards the daily entry limits.

NPS Response: Exempting commercial guides from the daily entry limits would cause a substantial increase in the number of snowmobiles operating in the parks. This increase would not be supported by the SEIS' analysis of impacts. Through adaptive management, daily entry limits could be subject to review and change.

Issue: One commentor questioned how the 40 snowmobiles allowed per day on Jackson Lake will be monitored, and if they would need a reservation.

NPS Response: The NPS will monitor the amount of snowmobile use on Jackson Lake through ranger patrols and visual observation by park staff. Entry to the lake is only at two locations, which may be readily monitored. Snowmobiles will have to be trailered to these two locations as there is no direct access to the lake from points where snowmobiles are otherwise permitted. The operational details of the monitoring are beyond the scope of this rule. If monitoring shows that the number of snowmobiles using Jackson Lake is sufficient to warrant a more stringent monitoring and/or reservation system, a reservation system will be developed as needed (in accordance with 36 CFR 1.5(d) and 1.6).

Issue: Several commentors stated the proposed restrictions on the number of snowmobiles allowed into YNP each day will increase, not decrease, the total number of snowmobiles permitted in the parks throughout a winter season.

NPS Response: This is the first time there has been a limit on snowmobiles in the parks. Therefore, it is inappropriate to compare daily entry limits with historic averages. Additionally, the limits are set below peak usage in the Parks, so they may reduce visitation on particular days. The daily entry limits do not automatically constitute an ``increase'' from historic visitation. First, it is uncertain at best if visitors will redistribute themselves to other entrances or to other days of the week because their preferred entrance and/or day are already fully utilized. Second, snowmobile visitation numbers for the past 10 years have not exhibited significant growth, nor are there any factors that lead NPS to conclude this trend will change (EIS 184 and SEIS 132).

Guiding

Issue: Some commentors suggested that NPS should not require that all snowombilers travel in groups of at least two snowmobiles. These commentors believed photographers and other individuals wishing to travel alone should be permitted to do so.

NPS Response: We have removed group size limitations from the final regulation. This will allow the Superintendent the flexibility to determine group size requirements based on adaptive management. Changes to group size requirements would be announced using one or more of the methods identified in 1.7 of this section. Initially, we will allow groups of 111 snowmobiles, which will permit individuals traveling by themselves to do so. The goal of establishing a minimum group size of two snowmobiles was to concentrate snowmobilers into groups, thus reducing the overall number of snowmobilewildlife encounters. However, after taking into account public comments and further assessing visitor use patterns, we believe our interest in concentrating snowmobiles will be best achieved by other means. First, the requirement that 80% of all visitors travel with a commercial guide will concentrate groups together, because it is more economical for a guide to offer services with more snowmobiles in the group. Past practice in Yellowstone indicates that most commercially guided groups contain 811 snowmobiles. We believe this practice will continue. Further, only a very small number of snowmobile visitors travel by themselves (about 2% according to a 20022003 visitor survey). NPS believes this small number of additional groups would have negligible impacts to wildlife. Finally, visitor experience will be enhanced by allowing visitors the opportunity to have a solitary experience on snowmobiles.

Issue: Some commentors suggested that the NPS should adopt different ratios of commercial and noncommercial guides.

NPS Response: We are initially requiring that 80% of all entries be accompanied by a commercial guide, and 20% be accompanied by a non commercial guide. Through adaptive management, we may alter this ratio. However, at this time we believe it to be prudent to maintain the 80/20 ratio, which was analyzed in the SEIS, selected in the ROD, and specified in the proposed rule in order to retain some opportunity for the public to view the park outside of a commercial group.

Issue: One commentor suggested that the noncommercial guide training should not be too cumbersome, and should be offered through the Internet or by mail. Another commentor suggested that the NPS invest the time and resources into making the noncommercial training program work and give it 23 years to work out any issues before making any changes.

NPS Response: NPS is currently developing the noncommercial guide training program. We have previously stated a goal to have the training be
[[Page 69275]]
partially offsite (i.e., through the mail or Internet). Details of the implementation of this program are outside the scope of this regulation. NPS agrees that elements of this regulation, including the noncommercial guiding program, will likely require at least two seasons of monitoring to determine their effectiveness before changes are made.

Issue: If some of the daily commercially guided entries are not fully utilized on a given day, they should be reallocated for non commercially guided use. The reverse should also be true.

NPS Response: Guiding requirements are in place primarily to protect wildlife and visitor health and safety. Professional, commercial guides typically have greater snowmobiling expertise than noncommercial guides. Therefore, this final rule caps the number of noncommercial guides at 20 percent of the daily entries in Yellowstone, and we will not allow unused commercially guided entries to be reallocated to noncommercial entries. In addition, it would be impractical at this time to fairly reallocate unused noncommercial entries to commercial guides given the number of concessionaires that we may potentially have operating in the parks. Further, this potentially would prevent visitors from obtaining sameday non commercially guided reservations. Through adaptive management, however, these details could be changed to enhance visitor experience or protect park resources.

Issue: One commentor asserted that stretching a group of 10 snowmobiles over \1/3\ mile (about 160 feet between snowmobiles) is very difficult to monitor. They suggested requiring each snowmobiler to keep a distance of 75100 feet between machines.

NPS Response: This comment is consistent with the regulation. Outfitters may suggest or require clients to keep a distance of 75100 feet between machines as appropriate, as long as all the group members stay within a maximum distance of \1/3\ mile of the first snowmobile in the group. We want to insure that snowmobilers maintain a safe following distance and that guides have suitable control over (and actually accompany) their parties. The \1/3\ mile requirement provides both.

Issue: A commentor said NPS should allow commercial guides to operate on the CDST and Jackson Lake and should offer a prospectus for commercial guiding purposes.

NPS Response: The issue of whether or not the NPS should offer a prospectus for commercial guiding operations on the CDST is outside the scope of this rule. However, the rule does not prohibit commercial guiding on the CDST or Jackson Lake, and the Superintendent of Grand Teton National Park could issue a prospectus for such commercial activities.

Licensing, Registration

Issue: Several commentors did not agree with the requirement that only people with valid driver's licenses be allowed to operate a snowmobile in the parks. There is no evidence that children with a learner's permit cause problems driving snowmobiles.

NPS Response: In ordinary circumstances with automobiles, individuals possessing learner's permits are required to be accompanied by a fully licensed driver. Learner's permits are intended to allow student drivers the opportunity to safely learn positive driving habits while in the presence of an adult. However, operation of snowmobiles in Yellowstone is a totally different environment. Even if an adult was a passenger on the same sled as the learner it is very difficult if not impossible to communicate with the driver over the noise of the snowmobile. Most riders wear helmets and many wear ear plugs. In fact, past experience is that children with learner's permits often will ride on a sled by themselves, with adults on other snowmobiles that would be out of earshot and potentially out of sight. The park and visitors will be safer by requiring that all snowmobile operators have driver's licenses.

Issue: The proposed rule requires that snowmobilers display a State registration sticker from any State in the U.S. This is a change from existing language. What registration is acceptable for Canadian visitors?

NPS Response: We have updated the final regulations to allow visitors to operate snowmobiles registered in Canada in the parks. Otherwise these regulations clarify prior regulations concerning registration.

Entry Passes

Issue: Many commentors said that only allowing one snowmobile to enter the park with an annual pass discriminates against families.

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

Side Roads

Issue: Many commentors required that NPS reopen the Firehole Canyon Drive, North Canyon Rim Drive, and Riverside Drive to snowmobile use.

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

Reservations

Issue: Several commentors said the reservation fee is too expensive.

NPS Response: This issue is beyond the scope of this regulation. However, NPS is working to keep fees reasonable and recover only the costs of administering the reservation system.

Issue: Several commentors stated that people obtaining an entrance reservation under the 20 percent of noncommercially guided daily snowmobile entries should not be allowed to resell their entrance reservations for profit, i.e., ``scalping'' should not be allowed.

NPS Response: NPS agrees with these comments. The passes are not transferable without NPS authorization, and the Superintendent will determine procedures for transfer and publicize them appropriately. Passes that have been transferred without prior authorization are invalid.

Issue: It should be illegal for individuals or groups to purchase snowmobile entrance reservations without the intent to use them.

NPS Response: It would be difficult if not impossible to know if individuals intended to actually use their snowmobile entrance reservations. Further, we have no evidence to date to indicate that this is a problem. Therefore, we are not attempting to regulate this issue through this final rule, but we will address it in the future if needed.

Alcohol Restrictions

Issue: Several commentors noted that the policy of preventing anyone who
[[Page 69276]]
has ever received a DUI from being a guide is discriminatory. It would be impossible for concessionaires to know if one of their guides had ever received a DUI and could create undue liability for these concessionaires. In addition, people should not be penalized for mistakes made far in their past. This would also be difficult to enforce and manage.

NPS Response: We have eliminated this stipulation from these regulations.

Issue: One commentor said the term snowcoach ``operator'' is unclear in the regulation as it pertains to alcohol restrictions for individuals driving a snowcoach, as concessionaires are sometimes referred to as ``operators.'' Concessionaires should not lose their licenses to operate in the parks because of an infraction by an employee, which this language implies. They suggested that NPS change the language to snowcoach ``driver.''

NPS Response: We have made this change in the regulatory text.

Issue: The Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) requirements for guides should parallel the requirements for commercial drivers. Federal and State rules pertaining to BAC threshold for someone with a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) is .04. If .04 is appropriate for someone with a CDL (semi trucks over 26,000 pounds, buses, etc.), then .02 seems to be an unreasonable standard for a snowmobile guide or coach operator when compared to vehicles being operated by bus or truck drivers.

NPS Response: The NPS agrees and we have changed the BAC maximum for guides to be .04 grams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood or .04 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

Cross Country Skiing, Etc.

Issue: One commentor questioned the validity of the assertion that 20% of the winter visitors use cross country skis.

NPS Response: As discussed on page 135 of the final SEIS, visitor surveys indicate that 20% of visitors participate in cross country skiing while visiting Yellowstone, although they may enter the park by other means, including snowmobile, snowcoach, or automobile.

Issue: One commentor stated that the NPS should promote human powered activities in winter, such as skiing and snowshoeing, in order to satisfy the June 20, 2002, Executive Order signed by President Bush to promote personal fitness, and not allow snowmobiling.

NPS Response: The management of the parks in winter provides ample opportunity for people to pursue physical fitness goals by skiing or snowshoeing. The parks groom ski trails, lead snowshoe walks, and there are hundreds of miles of ungroomed trails available for visitors. Grand Teton National Park's Inner Park Road was also closed in 20022003 to snowmobiles and is now groomed for cross country skiing.

Natural Soundscapes Issues

Issue: To protect natural soundscapes, one commentor suggested concentrating the departure times from motorized tour groups, so there are significant periods during each day when visitors are likely to be free of noise impacts.

NPS Response: This could be considered under adaptive management if necessary and if evidence indicated it would be effective in improving the natural soundscape. This action would do little to protect the natural soundscape for visitors riding snowmobiles if they were part of a group that was departing at a concentrated time with many other snowmobile groups. However, as the commentor notes, it could result in more periods of quiet for visitors seeking a nonmotorized experience.

Issue: Getting away from crowds, peace and tranquility, and quiet are perhaps expectations that cannot be totally met with a destination as popular as Yellowstone. NPS is not obligated to ensure the existence of natural soundscapes along and proximate to road systems.

NPS Response: The NPS is required by law to protect the values of Yellowstone National Park, which include these attributes. These are among the fundamental purposes for the existence of the parks. The natural soundscapes are one of the intrinsic elements of the environment that are associated both with the purpose of the parks and with their natural ecological functioning. The soundscape is an inherent component of the ``scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife'' protected by the NPS Organic Act. The NPS policy is to facilitate, to the fullest extent practicable, the protection, maintenance, or restoration of the natural soundscape in a condition unimpaired by inappropriate noise sources. Visitors seeking wildernessdependent experiences have expectations for natural quiet. Visitors viewing wildlife or scenery along park roads also have an expectation for natural quiet that must be accommodated, although perhaps to a lesser degree than visitors in the backcountry. The adaptive management thresholds identified in Table 12 of the SEIS and Appendix A of the ROD recognize these distinctions by instituting different thresholds for different zones. We will be monitoring the soundscape conditions along park roads and in the backcountry to ensure the desired conditions and thresholds identified in the SEIS are being achieved.

Snowcoaches

Issue: Several commentors stated that snowcoaches must offset any declines in total snowmobile use.

NPS Response: NPS agrees that snowcoaches are a critical part of the winter experience and may increase opportunities for access to the parks in winter. We are working to develop a new generation snowcoach, which will substantially improve touring in the parks.

Laws, Policies, Executive Orders

Issue: Many commentors believe the rule is inconsistent with the NPS Organic Act, the General Authorities Act as amended by the Redwood Act, the Clean Air Act, the NPS general snowmobiling regulations (36 CFR 2.18), executive orders, NPS Management Policies, and OSHA regulations to protect employee and visitor health.

NPS Response: The NPS disagrees. This rule will protect park resources and values in an unimpaired condition through adaptive management, daily entry limits, guiding, and BAT requirements. This regulation reflects the NPS' commitment to: provide protection of park resources and values; allowing appropriate levels of visitor use, while recognizing that winter in the parks is a unique experience; and work closely and cooperatively with gateway communities. The NPS believes there is no single decision mandated by the laws and policies governing the national parks, and that these laws and policies provide broad discretion to the NPS in the operation of the parks. Requirements for BAT and snowmobile daily entry limits will substantially improve air quality conditions relative to the current situation of unregulated snowmobile use. This rule will protect public health by establishing air and sound emissions requirements, daily entry limits, and requirements for guides. Finally, the provisions for adaptive management will allow park managers to make adjustments in winter operations to protect park resources and values.

Consistency With Other Regulations

Issue: Some letters stated that the NPS has exempted snowmobiling in the parks from 36 CFR 2.18 through the proposed regulation. They stated that this provision, among other things, prohibits snowmobiling in national
[[Page 69277]]
parks except where designated and only when their use is consistent with the park's natural, cultural, scenic and aesthetic values, safety considerations, park management objectives, and will not disturb wildlife or damage park resources. The routes designated by this rule are not subject to 36 CFR 2.18(c), and hence exempt from disturbing wildlife. However, new routes would be subject to the language in 36 CFR 2.18(c). This can only be interpreted as an admonition by NPS that snowmobiling cannot coexist in Yellowstone without causing disturbance to wildlife. The NPS should retain the prohibition of wildlife disturbance by snowmobiles in the final rule.

NPS Response: The int

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT John Sacklin, Planning Office, Yellowstone National Park, 3073442021.