FR 2024-31578

In a recent proposal published by the National Park Service (NPS), new rules have been suggested for powered micromobility devices in national parks. These devices include electric scooters, hoverboards, and Segways, and they are gaining popularity, particularly in urban settings. The proposal aims to establish distinct regulatory guidelines for these devices, differentiating them from traditional motor vehicles and bicycles. The public is invited to submit feedback on the proposed rules until March 17, 2025, providing an opportunity for public participation in shaping these regulations.

The proposal presents several significant issues and questions. One of the primary concerns is the complexity and length of the document. Filled with legal jargon, it could pose challenges for the general public to understand, potentially limiting effective engagement and feedback. This complexity raises concerns about public involvement in the decision-making process and could lead to misunderstandings about what is allowed and what is not.

Another concern is the definition of a "powered micromobility device," which is set to include devices weighing up to 150 pounds. While this weight limit is intended to encompass devices like Segways and adaptive devices for individuals with disabilities, the document does not provide a detailed justification for why this particular weight was chosen. This ambiguity might lead to questions about the criteria used for setting this threshold and whether it appropriately considers safety and park impact concerns.

The proposal also discusses how the new rules might affect small businesses, particularly those operating micromobility rental services. However, it lacks a detailed analysis of the potential impacts on these businesses. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, such analysis could be crucial, as these regulations may have economic implications for service providers operating within or around national parks.

In terms of governance, the proposal grants substantial discretion to park superintendents to determine where powered micromobility devices can be used. While this allows for flexible management tailored to each park's unique environment, it could result in inconsistent application of rules across the national park system, creating confusion for visitors and complicating enforcement efforts.

For the public, these proposed regulations could broadly impact how people use and access national parks, particularly in urban areas where micromobility devices have become commonplace. Enabling use in specific areas can enhance accessibility and reduce some barriers to entry for visitors. However, it could also cause potential user conflicts or environmental impacts without clear guidelines and oversight.

Specific stakeholders, such as micromobility device users, rental businesses, and municipal authorities, may experience both positive and negative effects. Users would benefit from clarified rules and expanded access within parks. Rental companies might face new regulatory hurdles, potentially affecting operations and profitability. Meanwhile, local governments may need to engage in cross-jurisdictional coordination, as these micromobility devices are subject to varying state and local laws, which the proposed rule does not entirely harmonize.

While the proposal aims to modernize the governance of powered micromobility devices in national parks, its success will largely depend on public participation, clear communication, and effective management to ensure that these goals align with preserving park resources and enhancing visitor experiences.

The document in question is a proposed rule by the National Park Service (NPS) addressing the use of powered micromobility devices within the National Park System. It touches upon several areas related to financial implications, though not extensively detailed.

Financial Impact Assessment

The proposed rule explicitly states that it "does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more." This statement suggests that the rule is not expected to generate significant economic changes on a national scale. This is an important point in understanding the scope of the financial impact of the regulation; it is positioned as having a limited economic footprint, avoiding major ripple effects in the broader economy.

Additionally, the rule mentions that it "does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year." This indicates that while there may be costs associated with the rule's implementation, they should not exceed this threshold, which is deemed significant under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Thus, the expectation is that any financial burdens introduced by this rule will be manageable without requiring substantial new funding allocations by affected entities.

Relation to Identified Issues

The document highlights a potential issue in the complexity of the proposed rule, which could deter public engagement due to legal jargon. However, the financial descriptions provided are straightforward, stating the rule’s limited economic impact. Ensuring clarity in how financial impacts are communicated helps in public understanding, potentially addressing concerns about comprehension.

Another identified issue is the lack of a detailed analysis of how small businesses, like micromobility rental operators, might be impacted. The document's assurance that the rule does not equate to a major economic shift seems somewhat at odds with the absence of specific data on this potentially affected sector. A more nuanced financial assessment could help clarify whether the rule might inadvertently create economic challenges for these businesses.

Lastly, the flexibility allowed to superintendents in designating areas for micromobility device use might result in varied local economic impacts. While the overall rule is not deemed to have significant financial consequences, localized decisions may need further scrutiny to ensure no unintended economic strain is placed on specific communities or businesses.

In conclusion, while the proposed rule outlines its financial impact as minimal, the implications for smaller sectors and the local variability stemming from superintendent discretion suggest areas where more detailed economic analysis could be beneficial. This would ensure that all stakeholders are fully informed of any potential financial consequences.