Special Regulations; Areas of the National Park System, National Capital Region, 13224-13227 [E7-5112]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13224
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules
§ 100.35–T05–020, Delaware River,
Delaware City, DE.
The Committee will meet on
Thursday, April 5, 2007, beginning at 3
p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Ft. Mason Officers’ Club, Building 1,
Upper Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA.
Written comments may be sent to:
Superintendent, GGNRA, Ft. Mason,
Bldg. 201, San Francisco, CA 94123,
Attn: Negotiated Rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Project information line at 415–561–
4728, or go to the Web site at
www.parkplanning.nps.gov/goga and
select Negotiated Rulemaking for Dog
Management at GGNRA.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Committee was established pursuant to
the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990
(5 U.S.C. 561–570) to consider
developing a special regulation for dog
walking at GGNRA. Although the
Committee may modify its agenda
during the course of its work, the
proposed agenda for this meeting is as
follows: Introductions, approval of the
meeting summary for the previous
meeting, updates since the previous
meeting, update on the concurrent
NEPA process, report from the
Technical Subcommittee on progress to
date, next steps, public comment.
The Committee meeting is open to the
public and opportunity will be provided
for public comment during the meeting.
To request a sign language interpreter,
lease call the park TDD line (415) 556–
2766, at lease a week in advance of the
meeting. Please note that federal
regulations prohibit pets in public
buildings, with the exception of service
animals.
DATES:
(a) Regulated area. The regulated area
includes all waters of the Delaware
River within 500 yards either side of a
line drawn southwesterly from a point
near the shoreline at Pea Patch Island,
at latitude 39°35′08″ N, 075°34′18″ W,
thence to latitude 39°34′43.6’’ N,
075°35′13″ W, a position located near
the Delaware City Wharf, Delaware City,
DE. All coordinates reference Datum
NAD 1983.
(b) Definitions:
(1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander
means a commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer of the Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay.
(2) Official Patrol means any vessel
assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay with
a commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
(c) Special local regulations:
(1) Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the
regulated area shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when
directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any Official
Patrol.
(d) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced from 5:30 a.m. to 10:30
a.m. on June 9, 2007.
Dated: March 9, 2007.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7–5144 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
Dated: March 2, 2007.
Bernard C. Fagan,
Acting Chief, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 07–1371 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BILLING CODE 4312–FN–M
National Park Service
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
36 CFR Chapter I
National Park Service
Meeting of Negotiated Rulemaking
Advisory Committee for Dog
Management at Golden Gate National
Recreation Area
National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.
L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1,
10), notice is hereby given of the sixth
meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking
Advisory Committee for Dog
Management at Golden Gate National
Recreation Area (GGNRA).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Mar 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024–AD40
Special Regulations; Areas of the
National Park System, National Capital
Region
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The National Park Service
(NPS) proposes to add a regulation
governing parking violations. The
addition is needed to address situations
in which the vehicle’s operator is absent
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
when the vehicle is illegally parked.
The proposed amendment provides that
a parking citation is subject to fine,
allows the citation to name the
registered owner if the operator is not
present, and creates a rebuttable prima
facie presumption that the registered
owner of the illegally parked vehicle
was the person who committed the
violation. This proposed rule is similar
to provisions in the parking laws of the
District of Columbia, Virginia, and
Maryland.
Comments must be received by
May 21, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the number RIN 1024–
AD40, by any of the following methods:
—Federal rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
—E-mail Sean Doyle, Park Ranger,
National Park Service at
Sean_Doyle@nps.gov. Use RIN 1024–
AD40 in the subject line.
—Mail or hand delivery to Sean Doyle,
Park Ranger, National Park Service
National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio
Drive SW., Room 236, Washington,
DC 20242.
—Fax to: (202) 260–9582.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Lee, Special Assistant, 1849 C
St., NW., Room 3319, Washington, DC
20240, jennifer_lee@nps.gov, 202–219–
1689.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Parking violations on Federal
parkland administered by the NPS in
the National Capital Region are
regulated by 36 CFR 4.12 (traffic control
devices). This section provides that
‘‘Failure to comply with the directions
of a traffic control device is prohibited
unless otherwise directed by the
superintendent.’’ Prohibitions included
within 36 CFR 4.12 are violations of
handicapped parking signs, no parking,
parking times limitations, and parking
outside of marked parking spaces. This
regulation is routinely used by United
States Park Police officers and National
Park Service law enforcement
commissioned rangers. When a citation
is issued and the operator is not
identified on the notice, it results in the
violation being dismissed if the
registered owner fails to appear at trial
and the court declines to proceed.
Parking spaces on parkland are
limited in number and are intended to
provide visitors with safe, convenient,
and legal areas to park while they visit
the parks. In urbanized areas of parks in
the National Capital Region, violation
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
notices have been dismissed because the
operator has not been identified. This is
a concern as the U.S. Park Police have
documented instances of operators
repeatedly parking illegally without
consequence, which denies others the
ability to legally use the parking places.
Description of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to this problem, the
National Park Service proposes to
amend the National Capital Region
special regulations to establish an
enforcement process for parking
violation notices issued under 36 CFR
4.12. The proposed rule:
1. Provides that a parking violation
notice is subject only to a fine;
2. Provides that the violation notice
will name the registered owner if the
operator is not present; and
3. Creates a prima facie presumption
that the registered owner of the illegally
parked vehicle was the person who
committed the violation.
The prima facie presumption,
however, remains rebuttable if the
owner comes forward with evidence
that someone else was operating the
vehicle. This proposed rule is similar to
provisions that already exist in the
parking laws of many jurisdictions,
including the District of Columbia,
Virginia, and Maryland (D.C. Code Ann.
§ 50–2303.03(c) (2004); Va. Code Ann.
§ 46.2–1220 (2004); Md. Trans. Code
Ann. § 26–302(b)(2002)).
Prima facie presumption is a
reasonable and standard provision
found in parking codes of many
jurisdictions. The connection between
the registered owner of an automobile
and its operation is a natural one.
Indeed, courts have noted, not only the
practical impossibility of a police
agency to keep a watch over all parked
vehicles to ascertain who in fact
operates them, but that a traffic
regulation’s prima facie presumption of
responsibility on the registered owner is
reasonable, and places neither too great
an inconvenience nor an unreasonable
hardship if the owner desires to make
an explanation. This presumption has
been generally upheld by the courts if,
as the Park Service proposes here, it also
allows the owner to come forward with
evidence that someone else was
operating the vehicle in order to rebut
the inference that the registered owner
was responsible. Such parking
regulation presumptions have also been
upheld as consistent with due process.
The National Park Service proposes to
amend 36 CFR 7.96 by adding a new
paragraph (f)(5), that provides that a
violation of a traffic control device
regulating parking under 36 CFR 4.12 is
punishable by a fine. Proof that the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Mar 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
described vehicle was parked in
violation, together with proof that the
defendant was at the time the registered
owner of the vehicle, shall constitute a
prima facie presumption that the
registered owner of the vehicle was the
person who committed the violation.
This presumption allows the owner to
come forward with evidence that
someone else was operating the vehicle
in order to rebut the presumption that
the registered owner was responsible.
Compliance With Other Laws
13225
registered owner if the operator is not
present, as well as create a prima facie
presumption that the registered owner
of the illegally parked vehicle was the
person who committed the violation.
The prima facie presumption, however,
remains rebuttable if the owner comes
forward with evidence that someone
else was operating the vehicle. Since the
prima facie presumption is both a
reasonable and standard provision
found in the parking codes of many
jurisdictions, this rule will not raise
novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Order 12866)
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the criteria in
Executive Order 12866, the Office of
Management and Budget makes the final
determination as to the significance of
this regulatory action and it has
determined that this document is not a
significant rule and is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of
$100 million or more on the economy.
It will not adversely affect in a material
way the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local,
or tribal governments or communities.
This rule will only affect those drivers
who park illegally in areas administered
by the National Park Service in the
National Capital Region, and are issued
a citation as a result. Based upon the
number of parking violation citations
currently being issued, and the nominal
fine associated with a citation, there
will not be an annual economic effect of
$100 million or more. This rule will not
adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or
other units of government since the rule
will have no impact at all for those
drivers parking legally in these areas.
(2) This rule will not create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency. This rule will result in
establishing consistency with other
agencies’ actions, since it is similar to
provisions already existing in the
parking laws of many jurisdictions,
including District of Columbia, Virginia,
and Maryland law.
(3) This rule does not alter the
budgetary effects of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights
or obligations of their recipients. This
rule has no effect on entitlements,
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the
rights and obligations of their recipients.
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal
or policy issues. The rule provides that
a parking citation is subject only to a
fine, that the citation will name the
The Department of the Interior
certifies that this document will not
have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The primary purpose
of this rule is to establish consistency
between the parking laws already
existing in the local jurisdictions, and
the parking laws in adjoining parklands
administered by the National Park
Service in the National Capital Region.
There will not be a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities, since the rule will only affect
those drivers who park illegally in areas
administered by the National Park
Service in the National Capital Region,
and are issued a citation as a result. All
parties have the ability to completely
avoid any economic effect simply by
parking legally in these areas.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.
This rule will only affect those drivers
who park illegally in areas administered
by the National Park Service in the
National Capital Region, and are issued
a violation notice as a result. Based
upon the number of parking violation
notices currently being issued, and the
nominal fine associated with a
violation, there will not be an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions. No costs will be
incurred by any parties unless a parking
violation is issued for parking illegally
in areas administered by the National
Park Service in the National Capital
Region. All parties have the ability to
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
13226
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules
completely avoid any increase in cost
simply by parking legally in these areas.
c. Does not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises.
The primary purpose of this rule is to
establish consistency between the
parking laws already existing in the
local jurisdictions, and the parking laws
in adjoining parklands administered by
the National Park Service in the
National Capital Region. This rule will
not change the ability of United States
based enterprises to compete in any
way.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of more than $100 million per year. The
rule does not have a significant or
unique effect on State, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. This
rule does not impose any unfunded
mandate on industry, state, local or
tribal governments, or the private sector.
This rule applies only to Federal
parkland administered by the National
Park Service in the National Capital
Region, and no costs will be incurred by
any parties unless a parking violation
notice is issued for parking illegally in
these areas. This rule will establish
consistency between the parking laws
already existing in the local
jurisdictions, and the parking laws in
adjoining lands administered by the
National Park Service in the National
Capital Region. As a result, there will
not be any ‘‘significant or unique’’ affect
on State, local or tribal governments or
the private sector.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order
12630, the rule does not have significant
takings implications. Since this rule
does not apply to private property, or
cause a compensable taking, there are
no takings implications.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, the rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The provisions of this rule apply to land
under the jurisdiction of the United
States. This rule does not relate to the
structure and role of the States, nor will
it have direct, substantial, and
significant effects on States. This rule
imposes no requirements on any
governmental entity other than the
National Park Service.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Mar 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order
12988)
In accordance with Executive Order
12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation does not require an
information collection from 10 or more
parties and a submission under the
Paperwork Reduction Act is not
required. An OMB form 83–I is not
required.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed the proposed rule
in accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act and
516 DM. It does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment, and
can be Categorically Excluded under
NPS exclusion 3.4 A (8) ‘‘Modifications
or revisions to existing regulations, or
the promulgation of new regulations for
NPS-administered areas, provided the
modifications, revisions, or new
regulations do not:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of
compromising the nature and character
of the area or cause physical damage to
it.
(b) Introduce non-compatible uses
that might compromise the nature and
characteristics of the area or cause
physical damage to it.
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships
or land uses.
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent
owners or occupants.’’
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government to Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512
DM 2:
We have evaluated potential effects
on federally recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that there are no
potential effects. As this rule only
applies to parkland administered by the
National Park Service in the National
Capital Region, there will not be any
effect on Federally recognized Indian
tribes.
Clarity of Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write regulations that are easy
to understand. We invite your
comments on how to make this rule
easier to understand, including answers
to questions such as the following: (1)
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Are the requirements in the rule clearly
stated? (2) Does the rule contain
technical language or jargon that
interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the
format of the rule (grouping and order
of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to
read if it were divided into more, but
shorter sections? (5) Is the description of
the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of the preamble
helpful in understanding the proposed
rule? What else could we do to make the
rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that
concern how we could make this rule
easier to understand to: Office of
Regulatory Affairs, Department of the
Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Drafting Information: The primary
authors of this regulation were Sean
Doyle, Park Ranger, National Park
Service, National Capital Region, and
Jerry Case and Jennifer Lee, Regulations
Program, WASO.
Public Participation: If you wish to
comment, you may submit your
comments by any one of several
methods. You may mail or hand deliver
comments to Sean Doyle, National Park
Service, National Capital Region, 1100
Ohio Drive SW, Room 236, Washington,
DC 20242, or fax to (202) 260–9582.
Comments may also be submitted on the
Federal rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments,
and identify comments by RIN 1024–
AD40. You may also submit comments
by e-mail to Sean_Doyle@nps.gov. Use
RIN 1024–AD40 in the subject line.
Public Availability of Comments:
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comments, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
Parking violation notice, prima facie
presumption, traffic control device.
For reasons stated in the preamble,
the National Park Service proposes to
amend 36 CFR Part 7 as follows:
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules
PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS,
AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK
SYSTEM
1. The authority for part 7 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q),
462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code
8–137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981).
2. Add new paragraph (f)(5) to § 7.96
to read as follows:
§ 7.96
National Capital Region.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(5) Parking. Violation of a traffic
control device regulating parking is
punishable by fine. In any violation of
a traffic control device regulating
parking, proof that the described vehicle
was parked in violation, together with
proof that the defendant was at the time
the registered owner of the vehicle, shall
constitute a prima facie presumption
that the registered owner of the vehicle
was the person who committed the
violation.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 9, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7–5112 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–70–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2006–0920,
FRL–8290–1]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Low Emission Vehicle Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is proposing to approve a New
Jersey state implementation plan
revision that adopts California’s second
generation low emission vehicle
program for light-duty vehicles, LEV II.
Clean Air Act section 177 sets forth
requirements by which other states may
adopt new motor vehicle emissions
standards that are identical to
California’s standards. Specifically, the
State’s implementation plan revision
adopts changes to its existing light duty
vehicle rule by incorporating
California’s LEV II program. The
intended effect of this action is to
approve, as consistent with section
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Mar 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, a control
strategy that will help New Jersey
achieve attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for
ozone.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 20, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02–
OAR–2006–0920, by one of the
following methods: https://
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
Fax: 212–637–3901.
Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007–1866.
Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner,
Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007–
1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office’s normal
hours of operation. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2006–
0920. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13227
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Laurita,
laurita.matthew@epa.gov at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
NY 10007–1866, telephone number
(212) 637–3895, fax number (212) 637–
3901.
Copies of the State submittals are
available at the following addresses for
inspection during normal business
hours:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007–1866.
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Public
Access Center, 401 East State Street 1st
Floor, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Description of the SIP Revision
A. Background
B. What are the relevant EPA and CAA
requirements?
C. What is the California LEV Program?
D. What is the history and current content
of the New Jersey LEV Program?
II. Proposed EPA Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Description of the SIP Revision
A. Background
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments of 1990, all 21 counties in
New Jersey were designated as
nonattainment with respect to the
former 1-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
counties were divided into four separate
nonattainment areas with ozone
attainment deadlines varying by area;
however, no counties in New Jersey
were redesignated to attainment prior to
the revocation of the 1-hour ozone
standard on June 15, 2005. On June 15,
2004 all 21 counties in New Jersey were
designated as nonattainment with
respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as
part of either the New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT or
the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City, PA–NJ–MD–DE moderate
nonattainment areas. Both of these areas
have attainment dates of no later than
June 2010.
To bring the state into attainment
New Jersey adopted, among other
measures, the National Low Emission
E:\FR\FM\21MRP1.SGM
21MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13224-13227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5112]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024-AD40
Special Regulations; Areas of the National Park System, National
Capital Region
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to add a regulation
governing parking violations. The addition is needed to address
situations in which the vehicle's operator is absent when the vehicle
is illegally parked. The proposed amendment provides that a parking
citation is subject to fine, allows the citation to name the registered
owner if the operator is not present, and creates a rebuttable prima
facie presumption that the registered owner of the illegally parked
vehicle was the person who committed the violation. This proposed rule
is similar to provisions in the parking laws of the District of
Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 21, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number RIN 1024-
AD40, by any of the following methods:
--Federal rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
--E-mail Sean Doyle, Park Ranger, National Park Service at Sean--
Doyle@nps.gov. Use RIN 1024-AD40 in the subject line.
--Mail or hand delivery to Sean Doyle, Park Ranger, National Park
Service National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio Drive SW., Room 236,
Washington, DC 20242.
--Fax to: (202) 260-9582.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Lee, Special Assistant, 1849
C St., NW., Room 3319, Washington, DC 20240, jennifer_lee@nps.gov,
202-219-1689.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Parking violations on Federal parkland administered by the NPS in
the National Capital Region are regulated by 36 CFR 4.12 (traffic
control devices). This section provides that ``Failure to comply with
the directions of a traffic control device is prohibited unless
otherwise directed by the superintendent.'' Prohibitions included
within 36 CFR 4.12 are violations of handicapped parking signs, no
parking, parking times limitations, and parking outside of marked
parking spaces. This regulation is routinely used by United States Park
Police officers and National Park Service law enforcement commissioned
rangers. When a citation is issued and the operator is not identified
on the notice, it results in the violation being dismissed if the
registered owner fails to appear at trial and the court declines to
proceed.
Parking spaces on parkland are limited in number and are intended
to provide visitors with safe, convenient, and legal areas to park
while they visit the parks. In urbanized areas of parks in the National
Capital Region, violation
[[Page 13225]]
notices have been dismissed because the operator has not been
identified. This is a concern as the U.S. Park Police have documented
instances of operators repeatedly parking illegally without
consequence, which denies others the ability to legally use the parking
places.
Description of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to this problem, the National Park Service proposes to
amend the National Capital Region special regulations to establish an
enforcement process for parking violation notices issued under 36 CFR
4.12. The proposed rule:
1. Provides that a parking violation notice is subject only to a
fine;
2. Provides that the violation notice will name the registered
owner if the operator is not present; and
3. Creates a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of
the illegally parked vehicle was the person who committed the
violation.
The prima facie presumption, however, remains rebuttable if the
owner comes forward with evidence that someone else was operating the
vehicle. This proposed rule is similar to provisions that already exist
in the parking laws of many jurisdictions, including the District of
Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland (D.C. Code Ann. Sec. 50-2303.03(c)
(2004); Va. Code Ann. Sec. 46.2-1220 (2004); Md. Trans. Code Ann.
Sec. 26-302(b)(2002)).
Prima facie presumption is a reasonable and standard provision
found in parking codes of many jurisdictions. The connection between
the registered owner of an automobile and its operation is a natural
one. Indeed, courts have noted, not only the practical impossibility of
a police agency to keep a watch over all parked vehicles to ascertain
who in fact operates them, but that a traffic regulation's prima facie
presumption of responsibility on the registered owner is reasonable,
and places neither too great an inconvenience nor an unreasonable
hardship if the owner desires to make an explanation. This presumption
has been generally upheld by the courts if, as the Park Service
proposes here, it also allows the owner to come forward with evidence
that someone else was operating the vehicle in order to rebut the
inference that the registered owner was responsible. Such parking
regulation presumptions have also been upheld as consistent with due
process.
The National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR 7.96 by adding a
new paragraph (f)(5), that provides that a violation of a traffic
control device regulating parking under 36 CFR 4.12 is punishable by a
fine. Proof that the described vehicle was parked in violation,
together with proof that the defendant was at the time the registered
owner of the vehicle, shall constitute a prima facie presumption that
the registered owner of the vehicle was the person who committed the
violation. This presumption allows the owner to come forward with
evidence that someone else was operating the vehicle in order to rebut
the presumption that the registered owner was responsible.
Compliance With Other Laws
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, the
Office of Management and Budget makes the final determination as to the
significance of this regulatory action and it has determined that this
document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities. This rule will only affect those drivers who park
illegally in areas administered by the National Park Service in the
National Capital Region, and are issued a citation as a result. Based
upon the number of parking violation citations currently being issued,
and the nominal fine associated with a citation, there will not be an
annual economic effect of $100 million or more. This rule will not
adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of government since the rule will have no
impact at all for those drivers parking legally in these areas.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This rule
will result in establishing consistency with other agencies' actions,
since it is similar to provisions already existing in the parking laws
of many jurisdictions, including District of Columbia, Virginia, and
Maryland law.
(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of
their recipients. This rule has no effect on entitlements, grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. The rule
provides that a parking citation is subject only to a fine, that the
citation will name the registered owner if the operator is not present,
as well as create a prima facie presumption that the registered owner
of the illegally parked vehicle was the person who committed the
violation. The prima facie presumption, however, remains rebuttable if
the owner comes forward with evidence that someone else was operating
the vehicle. Since the prima facie presumption is both a reasonable and
standard provision found in the parking codes of many jurisdictions,
this rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The primary purpose of this rule is to establish consistency between
the parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the
parking laws in adjoining parklands administered by the National Park
Service in the National Capital Region. There will not be a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, since the
rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in areas
administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital
Region, and are issued a citation as a result. All parties have the
ability to completely avoid any economic effect simply by parking
legally in these areas.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more. This rule will only affect those drivers who park illegally in
areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital
Region, and are issued a violation notice as a result. Based upon the
number of parking violation notices currently being issued, and the
nominal fine associated with a violation, there will not be an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. No costs will be incurred by any
parties unless a parking violation is issued for parking illegally in
areas administered by the National Park Service in the National Capital
Region. All parties have the ability to
[[Page 13226]]
completely avoid any increase in cost simply by parking legally in
these areas.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The
primary purpose of this rule is to establish consistency between the
parking laws already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the
parking laws in adjoining parklands administered by the National Park
Service in the National Capital Region. This rule will not change the
ability of United States based enterprises to compete in any way.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State,
local or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule does not
impose any unfunded mandate on industry, state, local or tribal
governments, or the private sector. This rule applies only to Federal
parkland administered by the National Park Service in the National
Capital Region, and no costs will be incurred by any parties unless a
parking violation notice is issued for parking illegally in these
areas. This rule will establish consistency between the parking laws
already existing in the local jurisdictions, and the parking laws in
adjoining lands administered by the National Park Service in the
National Capital Region. As a result, there will not be any
``significant or unique'' affect on State, local or tribal governments
or the private sector.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications. Since this rule does not apply to
private property, or cause a compensable taking, there are no takings
implications.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment. The provisions of this rule apply to land under
the jurisdiction of the United States. This rule does not relate to the
structure and role of the States, nor will it have direct, substantial,
and significant effects on States. This rule imposes no requirements on
any governmental entity other than the National Park Service.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation does not require an information collection from 10
or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is
not required. An OMB form 83-I is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed the proposed rule in accordance with the criteria
of the National Environmental Policy Act and 516 DM. It does not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment, and can be Categorically Excluded under NPS
exclusion 3.4 A (8) ``Modifications or revisions to existing
regulations, or the promulgation of new regulations for NPS-
administered areas, provided the modifications, revisions, or new
regulations do not:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the area or cause physical damage to it.
(b) Introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature
and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it.
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses.
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.''
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2:
We have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian
tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. As this
rule only applies to parkland administered by the National Park Service
in the National Capital Region, there will not be any effect on
Federally recognized Indian tribes.
Clarity of Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to read if it were divided into
more, but shorter sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in
understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule
easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Drafting Information: The primary authors of this regulation were
Sean Doyle, Park Ranger, National Park Service, National Capital
Region, and Jerry Case and Jennifer Lee, Regulations Program, WASO.
Public Participation: If you wish to comment, you may submit your
comments by any one of several methods. You may mail or hand deliver
comments to Sean Doyle, National Park Service, National Capital Region,
1100 Ohio Drive SW, Room 236, Washington, DC 20242, or fax to (202)
260-9582. Comments may also be submitted on the Federal rulemaking
portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments, and identify comments by RIN 1024-AD40. You may
also submit comments by e-mail to Sean--Doyle@nps.gov. Use RIN 1024-
AD40 in the subject line.
Public Availability of Comments: Before including your address,
phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information
in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment--
including your personal identifying information--may be made publicly
available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold
your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
Parking violation notice, prima facie presumption, traffic control
device.
For reasons stated in the preamble, the National Park Service
proposes to amend 36 CFR Part 7 as follows:
[[Page 13227]]
PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
1. The authority for part 7 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also
issued under D.C. Code 8-137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).
2. Add new paragraph (f)(5) to Sec. 7.96 to read as follows:
Sec. 7.96 National Capital Region.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Parking. Violation of a traffic control device regulating
parking is punishable by fine. In any violation of a traffic control
device regulating parking, proof that the described vehicle was parked
in violation, together with proof that the defendant was at the time
the registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute a prima facie
presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person who
committed the violation.
* * * * *
Dated: February 9, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7-5112 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
