Special Regulations; Areas of the National Park System, National Capital Region, 54841-54843 [E7-18940]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 187 / Thursday, September 27, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedure; and related management
system practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–
4370f), and have concluded that there
are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion
under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis
Check List’’ and ‘‘Categorical Exclusion
Determination’’ are available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
I For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
I 2. A new temporary § 165.T09–119 is
added as follows:
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
I
17:45 Sep 26, 2007
(a) Location. The following area is a
temporary safety zone: All waters of the
Detroit River, Detroit, MI, within a two
hundred ten foot radius of the fireworks
launch site located at position 42°21.2′
N; 82°58.4′ W. (DATUM: NAD 83). This
position is located in the Detroit River
directly in front of the Roostertail
restaurant at 100 Marquette in Detroit,
MI.
(b) Enforcement period. This
regulation will be enforced from 7:30
p.m. to 9 p.m. on September 23, 2007.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in section 165.23
of this part, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Detroit or his onscene representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the Captain of the Port
Detroit or his on-scene representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
the Captain of the Port is any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been designated by the
Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
The on-scene representative of the
Captain of the Port will be aboard either
a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary
vessel.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone shall
contact the Captain of the Port Detroit
or his on-scene representative to obtain
permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port or his on-scene representative may
be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(5) Vessel operators given permission
to enter or operate in the safety zone
must comply with all directions given to
them by the Captain of the Port Detroit
or his on-scene representative.
Dated: September 5, 2007.
P.W. Brennan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. E7–19059 Filed 9–26–07; 8:45 am]
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
§ 165.T09–119 Safety zone; Schoenith
Family Foundation Fireworks, Detroit River,
Detroit, MI.
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024–AD40
Special Regulations; Areas of the
National Park System, National Capital
Region
AGENCY:
PO 00000
National Park Service, Interior.
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
54841
Final rule.
SUMMARY: The National Park Service
(NPS) is adding 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
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 rule is
similar to provisions in the parking laws
of the District of Columbia, Virginia,
and Maryland.
DATES: This regulation becomes
effective October 29, 2007.
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
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 Rulemaking
In response to this problem, the
National Park Service is amending the
E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM
27SER1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
54842
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 187 / Thursday, September 27, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
National Capital Region special
regulations to establish an enforcement
process for parking violation notices
issued under 36 CFR 4.12. The 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 rule is similar to
provisions that already exist in the
parking laws of many jurisdictions,
including the District of Columbia,
Virginia, and Maryland (DC 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 is
amending 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 Sep 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On March 21, 2007 the National Park
Service published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) governing parking
violations in the National Capital
Region (72 FR 13224). The comment
period was open for 60 days. No public
comments were received.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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
E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM
27SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 187 / Thursday, September 27, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 Sep 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54843
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 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.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
District of Columbia, National parks.
For reasons stated in the preamble, the
National Park Service amends 36 CFR
part 7 as follows:
I
PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS,
AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK
SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 7
continues to read as follows:
I
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:
I
§ 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: September 7, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7–18940 Filed 9–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–JK–P
E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM
27SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 187 (Thursday, September 27, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54841-54843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18940]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is adding 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 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 rule is similar to
provisions in the parking laws of the District of Columbia, Virginia,
and Maryland.
DATES: This regulation becomes effective October 29, 2007.
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 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 Rulemaking
In response to this problem, the National Park Service is amending
the
[[Page 54842]]
National Capital Region special regulations to establish an enforcement
process for parking violation notices issued under 36 CFR 4.12. The
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 rule is similar to provisions that already exist in the
parking laws of many jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia,
Virginia, and Maryland (DC 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 is amending 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.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On March 21, 2007 the National Park Service published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) governing parking violations in the National
Capital Region (72 FR 13224). The comment period was open for 60 days.
No public comments were received.
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 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
[[Page 54843]]
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 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 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.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
District of Columbia, National parks.
0
For reasons stated in the preamble, the National Park Service amends 36
CFR part 7 as follows:
PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
0
1. The authority citation 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).
0
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: September 7, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7-18940 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-JK-P