[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