FR 2020-28464

The National Park Service (NPS) has implemented a final rule that impacts how motor vehicles can be used within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. This rule, set to take effect on February 16, 2021, introduces a permit system for off-road vehicle operation, designates specific routes and areas for off-road vehicles, and sets noise and speed restrictions to protect natural resources while still facilitating recreational activities.

General Summary

The rule establishes a new management structure for motor vehicle use in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. It requires permits for off-road driving and specifies certain locations where off-road vehicles can operate. The goal seems to be balancing the area's natural protection with public enjoyment. Key provisions of the rule become effective in February, with others starting in April of 2021, and it empowers the superintendent of the area to make additional closures or impose restrictions as needed.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the main concerns revolves around the rule's lack of clarity on the cost structure for the permits. It doesn’t specify how fees will be calculated or ensure transparency in the cost recovery process, potentially causing public concern. Another issue is the superintendent's discretion over some decisions, which might lead to inconsistent enforcement based on who holds the position at any given time.

Also, there could be unintended outcomes from mixing different vehicle types (like street-legal ATVs with regular cars), without enough clarity on how safety will be managed. The public comments raised noise disturbance as a potential issue, especially in areas previously marked as quiet.

Additionally, there might be confusion due to overlapping local, state, and federal regulations on vehicle standards, particularly around noise levels and what makes a vehicle street-legal.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, these changes mean navigating a new permit system, which could be both a financial and procedural burden, especially without clear information about costs and fees. The rule facilitates a broader range of recreational activities but also places restrictions on where and how vehicles can be used.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Stakeholders such as local businesses could see mixed impacts. Businesses catering to motorized recreation might benefit from streamlined processes and clearer regulations boosting visitor numbers. In contrast, companies focused on more traditional, non-motorized recreational activities may worry about increased noise or environmental disturbances deterring their clientele.

Local authorities will also have to adjust to these changes, potentially bearing increased responsibilities for enforcing the new rule, particularly where state and local laws intersect with federal regulations. Environmental groups may welcome efforts to control noise and vehicle activity, but may question the efficacy of these measures given the discretion left to the area’s superintendent.

Overall, while the intent is to provide structured, safe enjoyment of the area, the rule relies heavily on administrative mechanisms that may not yet be fully transparent or consistently applied.

The Federal Register document titled "Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; Motor Vehicles" brings significant attention to the financial implications associated with new regulations on motor vehicle use in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. The National Park Service (NPS) has outlined several rules, including requirements for special use permits when operating off-road vehicles (ORVs), which involve financial transactions and potential cost recovery measures that warrant detailed discussion.

Financial Impact and Cost Recovery

The document asserts that the rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This statement suggests that while the rule involves financial components, its impact is not substantial enough to significantly sway the broader economy. Additionally, the rule does not impose an unfunded mandate exceeding $100 million annually on state, local, tribal governments, or the private sector. This implies that the rule is designed to avoid placing excessive financial burdens on these entities, maintaining compliance with federal budgetary constraints.

Permit Program Costs

One of the pivotal aspects of this rule is the introduction of a permit program for off-road vehicle use. However, specific details related to the costs of obtaining these permits are not clearly defined in the document. The lack of detail concerning how the permit fees will be calculated or adjusted over time is a notable omission that could lead to concerns about cost recovery and transparency. The National Park Service indicates that a permit fee will be used to recover costs associated with administering the Off-Road Vehicle program. These costs might include permit processing, education, enforcement, and resource management activities. Therefore, the document suggests that the permit fees will cover, at least partially, the expenses associated with implementing and managing the program. However, the exact amount stakeholders should expect to pay remains unspecified, leading to potential concerns from the public and affected parties about the transparency and fairness of the fee structure.

Implementation and Administration

The rule states that the fees collected from the permits will not entirely recover the full costs of managing the ORV program. This reveals a financial gap that the National Park Service expects to address through other funding mechanisms. However, no specific funds or budget allocations, besides permit fees, are referenced as a means to cover these additional costs. This could raise questions about how the financial shortfall will be managed and whether additional federal aid or reallocations might be necessary in the future.

Issues and Overarching Financial Concerns

The issues section also highlights potential financial and operational concerns, such as the superintendent's ability to impose discretionary measures that could affect how funds are spent and managed. The superintendent's discretion could lead to inconsistent application of rules, which might impact permit revenue if frequent changes dissuade public use or cause confusion. Furthermore, the possibility of sound measurements and enforcement challenges might require additional financial resources, such as training for personnel and equipment acquisition, which would need adequate financial planning and budget allocations.

The complexities surrounding the overlapping local, state, and federal regulations also suggest a need for financial resources to ensure compliance and public understanding. There's an implicit financial consideration here regarding resources needed for public education and engagement to implement these rules successfully.

In summary, while the document outlines the intended minimal financial impact on the broader economy, the specific costs and financial strategies for implementing the permit program and addressing administrative needs are not comprehensively detailed. This leaves a degree of financial uncertainty for both the administering agency and the public.