[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 171 (Friday, September 1, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53208-53212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22436]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024-AC80
National Capital Region Parks; Photo Radar Speed Enforcement
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule establishes the use and procedure for photo
radar speed enforcement in the park areas administered by the National
Capital Region of the National Park Service (NPS). The proposed rule
provides for the issuance of a citation to the registered owner of the
speeding vehicle identified by photo radar but allows the owner, if he
or she was not driving the vehicle when the offense occurred, to mail
in a statement of denial whereupon the citation will be dismissed. If
the citation is adjudicated, the proposed rule allows for the admission
of the photo radar photograph under certain conditions, and creates a
rebuttable presumption that the cited registered owner was the driver
of the vehicle at the time of the violation.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 31, 2000.
The NPS may not consider comments received after this date in preparing
the final regulation.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to: Audrey Calhoun,
Superintendent, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Turkey Run Park,
McLean, Virginia 22101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Calhoun, Superintendent, George
Washington Memorial Parkway, Turkey Run Park, McLean, Virginia 22101,
telephone: (703) 289-2500; Randolph J. Myers, Attorney, Branch of
National Parks, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior,
1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20240, telephone: (202) 208-
4338.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
The NPS has major responsibilities and program involvement in
traffic safety and traffic law enforcement on its park roads. The
National Capital Region of the NPS administers some 447 miles of
parkways, primary and secondary roads through Federal parkland in the
Washington metropolitan area. It has four major parkways that form a
scenic entranceway into Washington, D.C. These major parkways are the
George Washington Memorial Parkway, the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway,
the Suitland Parkway, and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
The George Washington Memorial Parkway (the ``Parkway'') contains
one of the most heavily traveled NPS roadways in the United States. The
Parkway comprises 7,146 acres along the western bank of the Potomac
River. The Parkway extends from Mount Vernon, Virginia, at its southern
end to the Great Falls of the Potomac at its northern end. A major
feature of the Parkway is a roadway that winds from Mount Vernon, 38.3
miles northwest to the Capital Beltway.
The initial section of the Parkway, originally known as the Mount
Vernon Memorial Highway, opened in 1932 and stretches from Mount Vernon
to the Memorial Bridge. Over the course of the next several decades,
the Parkway was extended to its present length. Since its inception, a
major purpose of the Parkway has been to honor the first
[[Page 53209]]
President by connecting the sites that marked his life. The Parkway was
also intended to preserve the natural setting along the Potomac River
and to provide a fitting entryway into the nation's Capital. The design
of the Parkway follows these intentions.
The Parkway is not designed as a freeway, and is not intended
solely to provide a direct and efficient route between two points.
Rather, the Parkway is designed as a parkway in the traditional sense--
taking into account scenery, topography, and other natural features--
and providing a means for pleasurable driving between and among park
areas. As such, the Parkway encompasses and affords views of some of
the Capital area's most significant historical, ecological, and
recreational sites. Traveling from Mount Vernon at its southern end,
the Parkway includes such diverse resources as Dyke Marsh, the Navy and
Marine Memorial, and the Lyndon Baines Johnson Grove. Passing the
Memorial Bridge brings views of Robert E. Lee's Home to the west and
the Lincoln and Washington Memorials to the east. Following the Potomac
River past Theodore Roosevelt Island, the Parkway continues to Fort
Marcy just prior to its terminus at the Capital Beltway. Throughout its
entire length, the Parkway offers picnic areas, biking and walking
trails, and sweeping views of the Potomac River.
Since official records have been kept, the vehicle counts on the
Parkway have increased significantly every year. In 1996 alone, the
average daily vehicle traffic volume on the Parkway ranged from 43,446
vehicles at the Route 123 ramp to 81,828 vehicles at Reagan National
Airport. This large amount of traffic, much of which includes commuter
traffic, is mirrored by a significant number of crashes on the Parkway.
For example, in 1996, there were 754 crashes on the Parkway;
resulting in 138 injuries and four fatalities. In 1997, there were 653
crashes on the Parkway; resulting in 112 injuries and seven fatalities.
In 1998, there were 553 crashes on the Parkway; resulting in 95
injuries and one fatality. In 1999, there were 464 crashes on the
Parkway; resulting in 100 injuries and one fatality. The number of
accidents that resulted in property damage during these years was 534
in 1997, 457 in 1998, and 363 in 1999. Between January 1996, and June
2000, a total of 13 deaths has occurred in motor vehicle crashes on the
Parkway.
Further, even though the United States Park Police's speed
enforcement resulted in 11,441 citations for speeding in 1997, 9,107 in
1998 and 7,996 in 1999, traditional enforcement efforts have only been
marginally successful. This may be the result, at least in part, of
inherent limitations on traditional enforcement techniques due to
Parkway configuration, which is designed with scenic beauty as a
primary criterion, and therefore lacks wide shoulders and frequent
turnarounds that are more conducive to traditional police enforcement.
In any event, in spite of the conspicuous posting of speed limit signs,
the issuance of speeding citations by Park Police officers, the
installation of radar message boards that instantly alert drivers of
their speed, and the addition of median barriers in 1997 at a cost of
$1.4 million, speeding remains a safety problem with speed related
crashes and aggressive driving incidents still occurring.
Motor vehicle crashes at each of the other NPS Capital Gateways are
also alarming. On the Baltimore/Washington Parkway in 1996, there were
756 motor vehicle crashes resulting in 151 injuries and two fatalities.
In 1997, there were 769 motor vehicle crashes resulting in 144 injuries
and five fatalities. In 1998, there were 511 crashes with 124 injuries
and seven fatalities. And in 1999, there were 525 crashes with 131
injuries and eight fatalities. On Rock Creek Parkway in 1996, there
were 249 motor vehicle crashes with 56 injuries and one fatality. In
1997, there were 206 crashes with 164 injuries and one fatality. In
1998, there were 188 crashes with 40 injuries. And in 1999, there were
207 with 48 injuries and two fatalities. On the Clara Barton Parkway in
1996, there were 84 motor vehicle crashes with 16 injuries and one
fatality. In 1997, there were 50 crashes with 41 injuries and one
fatality. In 1998, there were 49 crashes resulting in 10 injuries. And
in 1999 there were 40 crashes with nine injuries and one fatality.
Finally, on the Suitland Parkway in 1996, there were 124 crashes with
26 injuries and one fatality. In 1997, there were 114 crashes with 24
injuries and two fatalities. In 1998, there were 96 crashes with 22
injuries. And in 1999, there were 114 crashes with 28 injuries.
The National Research Council's Transportation Research Board,
(Board) has found that excessive speed was involved in 12 percent of
all police reported crashes. The Board has also determined that
achieving better compliance with speed limits has been difficult, that
education and the increased efforts of personnel alone have not been
enough, and that photo radar has proven to be a reliable tool to reduce
speeding. Robert R. Blackman and Daniel T. Gilbert, Transportation
Research Board Photographic Enforcement of Traffic Laws 3 (1995). The
Board's experience is similar to the findings of the NPS, which has
found that speeding was a contributing factor in 10 percent of the
crashes that occurred in 1994-1996.
The NPS believes that speeding and aggressive driving are serious
problems and that a reliable supplemental speed enforcement tool is
necessary. As such, the NPS's George Washington Memorial Parkway has
been working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by
conducting an automated speed enforcement demonstration project on the
Parkway. During the early stage of the demonstration project, the
equipment was tested and data were collected to determine the speed
distribution on the Parkway. The data collected confirms a high
frequency of flagrant speeding violations. As such, the NPS believes
that it is now appropriate to propose a photo radar regulation, which
would ultimately allow the use of photo radar in speed enforcement.
The NPS seeks the views of the public on this proposed rule and
will consider all timely comments. If a final photo radar regulation is
promulgated, it is the NPS's intention not to immediately begin issuing
citations for speed violations identified by unmanned photo radar
devices. Rather, the NPS plans to first educate drivers of the need to
obey the speed limit. As such, it would be the NPS's intention to first
issue warning letters for a reasonable time period, probably for one
month, before citations begin to be issued.
Automated photo enforcement cameras for traffic enforcement are
already used in the Washington metropolitan area. Specifically, the
technology has already been deployed in Fairfax County and the City of
Alexandria, Virginia, in Montgomery and Howard Counties, Maryland, and
in the District of Columbia. Further, photo radar enforcement works.
The City of Portland, Oregon found that their use of photo radar caused
a 27 percent decrease in the percentage of vehicles traveling more than
10 miles per hour over the posted speed, compared to a 12 percent
increase on control streets without photo radar. The Urban
Transportation Monitor reports that where legislatively enacted photo
radar has been installed, there has been a significant reduction in
violations. The City of Paradise Valley, Arizona, reported an accident
rate decrease of 46 percent in the first year of operation of its photo
radar system.
Photo radar devices simply combine a camera with radar technology.
The device projects a radar beam across a
[[Page 53210]]
roadway. When a vehicle passes through the beam exceeding a
preprogrammed speed, the camera is triggered and a photograph or
digital image is created of the vehicle and its license plate. The
photograph also depicts the vehicle's speed, date, time, and location
of the violation. The photograph later can be compared to vehicle
registration records, and a citation can be issued. The device can be
also programmed to photograph cars only if they are exceeding a certain
speed, and this threshold speed can be changed.
Although most photo radar devices use this same basic technology,
the devices can be deployed in the field in a variety of ways. For
example, the device may be mounted in a law enforcement vehicle or it
may be encased in a metal box and mounted on a pole adjacent to a
roadway. However it is deployed, photo radar allows law enforcement
agencies to target flagrant speeders in a safe, reliable and a
nondiscriminatory manner. Indeed, because there are some locations
where it is difficult for drivers and officers to pull over safely, use
of photo radar can be safer for drivers and officers alike. Further,
the NPS believes that a photo radar system is less intrusive and
burdensome, insofar as the driver does not have to be stopped.
NPS regulations already allow the use of radiomicrowaves or other
electrical devices to determine the speed of a vehicle on a park road.
The NPS and its United States Park Police believe that the use of photo
radar, with or without the presence of an observing officer, can be a
safe, impartial and a reliable supplemental tool to decrease speeding
and aggressive driving. And under the NPS's proposed regulation, where
photo radar identifies a vehicle exceeding a preprogrammed speed, a
citation is be issued to a registered owner of the speeding vehicle.
If the cited registered owner was the driver, he or she can mail in
the designated fine. If the cited registered owner was not driving the
vehicle when the offense occurred, the owner may mail in a statement of
denial whereupon the citation will be dismissed. Finally, if the
citation is to be adjudicated, the proposed regulation allows for the
admission of the photo radar photograph under certain conditions, and
creates a presumption that the cited registered owner was the driver of
the vehicle at the time of the violation, but also allows the
registered owner several means to rebut the presumption.
By using photo radar as a supplemental speed enforcement tool, the
NPS hopes to decrease speeding and aggressive driving, and to reduce
fatalities, personal injuries and property damage. The NPS also hopes
that by getting drivers to comply with posted speed limits, it also
will help preserve the historical, ecological, and recreational
attributes of Federal parkland. Indeed, depending on our experiences on
the Parkway, photo radar may be used on the other parkways and park
roads administered by the National Capital Region. However, it would
still be the NPS's plan not to immediately begin issuing citations on
such other park roads for violations identified by unmanned photo radar
devices. Rather, the NPS still would intend to first issue warning
letters, for a reasonable time period, before citations begin to be
issued.
2. Description of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule outlines the use and procedure for photo radar in
park areas administered by the National Capital Region. The proposed
rule does not require the use of any specific type of photo radar
equipment, but rather leaves that decision to the discretion of the
NPS. The proposed rule does provide for the issuance of a citation to
the registered owner of the speeding vehicle but allows the owner, if
he or she was not driving the vehicle when the offense occurred, to
mail in a statement of denial whereupon the citation will be dismissed.
The citation for a violation identified by photo radar would probably
be for failure to comply with the directions of a traffic control
device or for speeding. If the citation is to be adjudicated, the
proposed rule allows for the admission of the photo radar photograph(s)
under certain conditions, and creates a presumption that the registered
owner was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation, but
also allows the registered owner several means to rebut the
presumption.
The preprogrammed speed which triggers the photo radar device to
take a photograph will be selected by the NPS's United States Park
Police. This may be done in several ways. The device may be programmed
to photograph every vehicle exceeding a certain speed or the device may
be programmed to photograph the top, for example, three percent of
speeding vehicles. The Park Police may vary this threshold speed at its
discretion but intends to keep this threshold confidential to avoid
attempts to circumvent the speed limit laws. The Park Police also
intends to monitor average speeds regularly and to adjust the threshold
accordingly.
Once a speeding vehicle and its license plate are photographed by
the photo radar device, the proposed rule allows a citation to be
issued to a registered owner of the vehicle within 15 business days.
Consistent with other photo radar enactments, this time period provides
timely notice of the violation, and allows the registered owner an
ample opportunity to gather witnesses and prepare a defense. A letter
or other explanation accompanies the citation and explains that the
recipient may (1) pay the fine; (2) submit a certificate of innocence
or affidavit; or (3) appear in court for adjudication.
A person issued a citation then has thirty days from the date the
citation was mailed to respond by mail. If the cited registered owner
fails to timely respond by mail, the cited registered owner appears in
court at the time and place designated in the citation. In the
adjudication, the photo radar photograph(s) is accepted as prima facie
evidence, provided that the police officer or other authorized person
testifies as to the camera's placement and that it was properly working
under applicable operation and calibration specifications at the time
of the violation. Further, proof that the vehicle was operated contrary
to law, together with proof that the cited registered owner owned the
vehicle at the time of the violation, constitutes a rebuttable
presumption that the cited registered owner was the person who
committed the violation. However, this presumption will be rebutted if
the cited registered owner either submits a certificate or an
affidavit, or if the registered owner testifies under oath that he or
she was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the violation.
The NPS's proposed rule's rebuttable presumption is similar to
other rebuttable presumptions that have been upheld by the courts,
because there was a ``rational connection'' between the basic facts
proved and the ultimate fact presumed and the latter are ``more likely
than not to flow from'' the former. Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442
U.S. 140 (1979). In that regard, the proposed rule's rebuttable
presumption that the cited registered owner was the driver of the
speeding vehicle is both logical and rational. Further, this rebuttable
presumption is entirely consistent with many State laws that have
similar rebuttable presumption provisions for photo stop light
enforcement and photo radar speed enforcement.
Nevertheless, the NPS's proposed rebuttable presumption provision
can be rebutted in one of two ways. First, a registered owner who
receives a citation
[[Page 53211]]
in the mail is given a mechanism for rebutting the presumption by mail.
If the cited registered owner was not driving the vehicle at the time
of the offense, he or she may rebut the presumption by mailing an
enclosed certificate of innocence or an affidavit stating that he or
she was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged
violation. The certificate of innocence or affidavit must be signed and
be accompanied by a copy of the front and back of the recipient's
driver's license. If the certificate or affidavit is received within
thirty days of the date the citation was mailed, the citation will be
dismissed. Second, in the event of adjudication, the proposed rule
provides that the rebuttable presumption shall be rebutted if the cited
registered owner either submits a certificate or an affidavit, or if
the registered owner testifies under oath that he or she was not the
operator of the vehicle at the time of the violation.
In conclusion, the NPS believes that the proposed photo radar rule
will provide a reliable, impartial, supplemental speed enforcement tool
that will help decrease speeding and aggressive driving and help reduce
fatalities, personal injuries and property damage. The NPS hopes that,
by using photo radar, more drivers will comply with the posted speed
limits.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address from the rule making record, which we will honor to
the extent allowed by law. There also may be circumstances in which we
would withhold from the rule making record a respondent's identity, as
allowed by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address,
you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We
will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their
entirety.
Drafting Information
The following people participated in the drafting of this proposed
rule: Randolph J. Myers, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the
Interior; Audrey Calhoun and Dottie Marshal, George Washington Memorial
Parkway; Major Hugh Irwin, United States Park Police.
Compliance With Other Laws
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
This proposed rule is not a significant regulation and is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866.
(1) This proposed rule will not have an effect of $100 million or
more on the economy. This proposed rule simply creates a supplemental
speed enforcement tool allowing the United States Park Police to help
regulate speeding on Federal parkland. As such, 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.
(2) This proposed rule will not create a serious inconsistency or
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) This proposed rule does not alter the budgetary effects or
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or
obligations of their recipients.
(4) As detailed in the Supplementary Information section, this
proposed rule is consistent with well-established constitutional and
statutory principles and does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this proposed rule
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.). This proposed rule merely creates another enforcement tool
allowing the United States Park Police to regulate speeding on Federal
parkland.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Because this
proposed rule only creates another enforcement tool to regulate
speeding on Federal parkland, it:
a. Does not have 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, local government
agencies or geographic regions.
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.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100
million per year. This proposed rule does not have a significant or
unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private
sector because it only creates another enforcement tool to regulate
speeding on Federal parkland. A statement containing the information
required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is
not required.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule does
not have significant takings implications. A takings implication
assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
The Department of the Interior has determined this proposed rule
conforms to the Federalism principals of Executive Order 13132. It also
certifies that no regulatory preemption occurs. This proposed rule
simply creates a supplemental enforcement tool to help regulate
speeding on Federal parkland and is restricted to the minimum level
necessary to achieve the objectives of 5 U.S.C. 301 under which this
rule is promulgated.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule does not unduly burden
the judicial system and does meet the requirements of section 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no new reporting or record keeping
requirements which require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3510 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
This proposed rule is of an administrative, legal and procedural
nature and therefore is categorically excluded from NEPA. 516 DM 2
Appendix 1.10. This proposed rule also does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. A detailed statement
under the NEPA is not required.
Clarity of This Regulation
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy
[[Page 53212]]
to understand. We invite your comments on whether this rule is easy to
understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1)
Are the requirements in this rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule
contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?
(3) Does the format of this rule (grouping and order of sections, use
of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would
this rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but
shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of this rule in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in
understanding this rule? What else could we do to make this 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, D.C. 20240.
You may also e-mail the comments through the Internet addressed to:
[email protected].
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
National parks, National Capital Region parks.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed to amend 36 CFR
part 7 as follows:
PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for Part 7 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(9), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also
issued under D.C. Code 8-137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).
2. Section 7.96 is amended by adding paragraph (n) which reads as
follows:
Sec. 7.96 National Capital Region.
* * * * *
(n) Regulation of speeding by photo radar. (1) What is photo radar?
Photo radar means a device used for speed limit enforcement, utilizing
a radiomicrowave or low doppler radar unit and camera that
automatically produces a photograph of a vehicle traveling in excess of
the legal speed limit, and listing the vehicle's speed, date, time, and
location of the violation printed on the photograph.
(2) How will a photo radar citation for speeding occur? (i) A
citation for speeding will be issued to the vehicle's registered owner
and sent by registered mail to the owner's address, as listed by the
appropriate department of motor vehicles, within 15 business days of
the violation. The citation will include an explanation describing
photo radar, options available to the registered owner, and a blank
certificate of innocence.
(ii) If the registered owner was not the driver of the vehicle at
the time of the alleged violation, he or she may respond by executing
the certificate or submitting an affidavit stating that fact. The
certificate or affidavit must be signed by the registered owner,
include a copy of the front and back of the registered owner's driver's
license, and be mailed back to the office which issued the citation
within 30 days from the date the citation was mailed. If the cited
registered owner submits a timely certificate or affidavit, the
citation will be dismissed.
(iii) A cited registered owner who does not timely respond must
appear in court at the time and place designated in the citation.
(3) How will a photo radar prosecution for speeding occur? (i) In a
prosecution, photo radar photograph(s) will be accepted as prima facie
evidence in any court, provided that the police officer or other
authorized person testifies as to the camera's placement and that it
was properly working under applicable operation and calibration
specifications at the time of the violation.
(ii) Proof that the vehicle was operated contrary to law, together
with proof that the citation recipient was the registered owner of the
vehicle at the time of the violation, will constitute a rebuttable
presumption that the cited registered owner was the person who
committed the violation.
(iii) This rebuttable presumption will be rebutted if the cited
registered owner submits either a certificate, affidavit, or testifies
under oath that he or she was not the operator of the vehicle at the
time of the violation.
* * * * *
Dated: August 2, 2000.
T. Destry Jarvis,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-22436 Filed 8-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P