An end to Bar Cars?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 9:23 am

I'm sure that we were in mind, if not the actual trigger, for the following.

Proposed Supplementary Rules for the Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada Relating to the Unlawful Use of Alcohol and Drugs

[Federal Register: May 3, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 24185-24188]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03my04-110]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[WO-120-04-1630-PD]

Proposed Supplementary Rules for the Public Lands Administered by
the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada Relating to the Unlawful Use of
Alcohol and Drugs

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
[[Page 24186]]
ACTION: Proposed supplementary rules for public lands within the State of Nevada.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is establishing these proposed supplementary rules for application to the public lands within the State of Nevada. The rules relate to the illegal use of alcohol and drugs on public lands. The BLM needs supplementary rules to protect natural resources and the health and safety of public land users. These supplementary rules will allow BLM Law Enforcement Officers to enforce regulations pertaining to alcohol and drug laws on public lands in a manner consistent with current State of Nevada State Laws as contained in the Nevada Revised Statutes.

DATES: Send your comments by July 2, 2004. In developing final rules, the BLM may not consider comments postmarked or received in person or by electronic mail after this date.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Erika Schumacher, Bureau of Land Managment , Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd. Reno, Nevada 89502 or to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donette Gordon, BLM Nevada State
Office, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520-0006, 775-861-6667.

I. Discussion of the Supplementary Rules

These proposed supplementary rules would apply to all BLM-administered public lands within the State of Nevada. In keeping with the BLM's performance goal to reduce threats to public health and safety and property, these proposed supplementary rules are necessary to protect the natural resources and to provide for safe public recreation and public health. Alcohol-related offenses are a growing problem on the public lands. Unlawful consumption of alcohol and drugs, and abuses of alcohol and drugs, such as driving under the influence, poses a significant health and safety hazard to users and uses of the public lands. This may result in the destruction of natural resources and property, and/or cause physical injury or death. In addition, drug related offenses, including the possession of drug paraphernalia, may encourage the illegal use of controlled substances by making the drug culture more visible and enticing. Further, the presence of drug paraphernalia on public lands may tend to promote, suggest, or increase the public acceptability of the illegal use of controlled substances. These proposed supplementary rules will assist BLM in reducing illegal use of drugs and alcohol on public lands. These proposed supplementary rules would allow BLM Law Enforcement Officers to enforce on public lands regulations pertaining to alcohol and drug laws in a manner patterning current State of Nevada laws as contained in the Nevada Revised Statues in an effort to further the working relationship and partnerships forms with numerous Sheriff's Departments throughout Nevada and the Nevada Highway Patrol.

II. Procedural Information (omitted by theCryptofishist for space reasons)

Author

The principal author of these supplementary rules is State Staff
Ranger Erika Schumacher of the Nevada State Office, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior.
Under the authority of 43 CFR 8365.1-6, 43 U.S.C. 1733a, the Nevada
State Director, Bureau of Land Management, issues supplementary rules
for public lands in Nevada.

Supplementary Rules on Possession and Use of Drugs and Alcohol on
Public Lands

The Nevada State Office issues these supplementary rules under the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1740 and 43
CFR 8365.1-6. The State law as it pertains to driving under the
influence, minors in possession, open container and drug paraphernalia
that is now or later to be in effect is adopted and made part of the
regulation.

1. Definitions

The following definitions will apply to the proposed supplementary rules, unless modified within a specific part or regulation:
a. Drug paraphernalia means equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance to include diluting agents or substances.
b. Motor vehicle means any vehicle that is self-propelled by a non-living power source, including a vehicle that is propelled by electric power. Exempt from this definition are motorized wheelchairs.
c. Operator means any person who operates, drives, controls, or otherwise has charge of a mechanical mode of transportation or any other mechanical equipment.
d. Public lands means any lands and interests in lands owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management without regard to how the United States acquired ownership. This includes, but is not limited to a paved or unpaved parking lot or other paved or unpaved area where vehicles are parked or areas where the public may drive a motorized vehicle, paved or unpaved roads, roads, routes or trails.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 9:26 am

2. Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs

a. You must not operate or be in actual physical control of a motor
vehicle on public lands while:
i. Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation of that vehicle; or
ii. The alcohol concentration in your blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 210 liters of breath. If the State of Nevada establishes by statute a more restrictive standard of alcohol concentration than that defined in this supplemental rule, that more restrictive standard is hereby adopted and made a part of this supplemental rule and supersedes the standard specified in the preceding sentence.
a. At the request or direction of a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that you as an operator of a motor vehicle within public lands have violated a provision of paragraph (a) of this section, you must submit to one or more tests of the blood, breath, saliva or urine for the purpose of determining blood alcohol and drug content.
b. Refusal by an operator to submit to a test is prohibited and proof of refusal may be admissible in any related judicial proceeding.
c. Any test or tests for the presence of alcohol and drugs will be determined by and administered at the direction of an authorized person.
d. Any test will be conducted by using accepted scientific methods and equipment of proven accuracy and reliability operated by personnel certified in its use.
e. The results of chemical or other quantitative tests are intended to supplement the elements of probable cause used as the basis for the arrest of an operator charged with a violation of paragraph (a)(i) of this section. If the alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath at the time of testing is

[[Page 24188]]

less than alcohol concentrations specified in paragraph (a)(ii) of this section, this fact does not give rise to any presumption that the operator is or is not under the influence of alcohol.
f. The provisions of paragraph (d) of this section are not intended to limit the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question of whether the operator, at the time of the alleged violation, was under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof.

3. Open Container of Alcoholic Beverage

a. You must not carry or store a bottle, can or other receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage that is open, or has been opened, or whose seal is broken or the contents of which have been partially removed, within a motor vehicle on public lands.
b. Each person within a motor vehicle is responsible for complying with the provision in this section that pertains to carrying an open container. The operator of a motor vehicle is the person responsible for complying with the provisions of this section that pertain to the storage of an open container.
c. This section does not apply to:
i. An open container stored in the trunk of a motor vehicle or, if a motor vehicle is not equipped with a trunk, to an open container stored in some other portion of the motor vehicle designed for the storage of luggage and not normally occupied by or readily accessible to the operator or passengers; or
ii. An open container stored in the living quarters of a motor home or camper; or
iii. Unless otherwise prohibited, an open container carried or stored in a motor vehicle that is parked and the vehicle's occupant(s) are camping.
iv. For the purpose of paragraph (c)(i) of this section, a utility compartment or glove compartment is deemed to be readily accessible to the operator and passengers of a motor vehicle.

4. Possession of Alcohol by Minor

a. The following are prohibited:
i. Consumption or possession of any alcoholic beverage by a person under 21 years of age on public lands.
ii. Selling, offering to sell, or otherwise furnishing or supplying any alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age on public lands.
b. This section does not apply to the selling, handling, serving or transporting of alcoholic beverages by a person in the course of his lawful employment by a licensed manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer of alcoholic beverages.

5. Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

a. Possession of drug paraphernalia by any person on public lands is prohibited.
b. Drug paraphernalia is defined as equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance.

Penalties

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1733(a), if you violate or fail to comply with these supplementary rules. You may be subjected to imprisonment for not more than 12 months, or a fine in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, other penalties in accordance with 43 U.S.C. 1733 or both.

Robert V. Abbey,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 04-9961 Filed 4-30-04; 8:45 am]

Hard to know exactly how this will play out, but I'm reading tighter drug enforcement.
Full text at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/ ... /i9961.htm

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Mon May 03, 2004 9:33 am

If it says what I believe it says, I'm thinking these are good laws to protect the public safety. Driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is a bad idea. The open container law could easily be managed by ensuring that all alcohol is on a trailer or otherwise physically separated from the driving cab of the vehicle. I'd like to see that fleshed out a bit more to make sure that an enclosed cab is considered separate from the rest of the vehicle, but since they allow for the backs of RVs I would certainly think they could allow most of our bar cars.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 11:06 am

Alpha--
I agree with the safety concerns, but as I read it, anything driving, except if the open container locked in the trunk--or a simeler space would be included. And I find the the drug stuff just blanket--heaven forbid some insulen dependent diabatic gets pulled over. That will take some sorting out. But yes, I'm all in favor of not having drunks driving mutant vehicles. And like a lot of law, it will end up depending on the officers and thier choices.

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Mon May 03, 2004 11:33 am

I went through ALL of Nevada's driving laws last month after the new DMV rules were posted. There was a part under the open container section that exempted from the open container law vehicles that were used to "transport for hire" (ie- limo's). IMHO - that was the "loophole" for bar cars before. Interesting that the BLM proposed rules don't have such an exemption (I guess there's not a whole lot of limo's that want to drive on BLM land).

Also interesting that they want to be able to test the driver on reasonable suspicion - I wonder if they follow someone (a stranger to you) that they have previously observed to be breaking the law get on your vehicle, if that would constitute "reasonable cause" (this tactic has been used by police in big cities when bums that the police know are on drugs ask for change from people walking by that the police want to stop ("hippies")- since you are now having a "conversation" with a known drug addict, you now can be legally stopped & searched). Also, I wonder if the "test" will be done locally at BRC, or if they will haul you to Reno then not return you (assuming a pass) like they do for "other crimes".

regards, Jafe

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Mon May 03, 2004 11:41 am

So, I'm envisioning a giant bar car, lot's of alcohol (maybe even the driver getting crocked), NO DMV sticker, no attempt at making it look cool, ride on the esplanade, into Centercamp, anywhere in the city, etc AT WILL.

The trick would be to make it people powered! Everyone sits on a bicycle and pedals - then all of these new rules wouldn't apply!

regards, Jafe

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Mon May 03, 2004 12:03 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:I agree with the safety concerns, but as I read it, anything driving, except if the open container locked in the trunk--or a simeler space would be included.

I took the phrase "not normally occupied by or readily accessible to the operator or passengers" to loosely exempt a separated cab but I agree that it's ambiguous because of the "passengers" clause. And a "for hire" clause wouldn't go very far at an anti-commerce event.

Can anyone submit comments? The deadline is July 2, 2004.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon May 03, 2004 12:06 pm

A little of thread yet... stupidity should be painful.

Passengers Tip Boat Trying to See Nudists
Mon May 3,10:02 AM ET

AUSTIN, Texas - Partygoers apparently hoping to catch a glimpse of nude sunbathers crowded on one side of a floating barge, prompting the ship to capsize and dump all 60 people into Lake Travis.

Two people were hospitalized with minor injuries Sunday after the rented double-decker barge sank near Hippie Hollow, a lakeside park and the only public nude beach in Texas.

The accident occurred during Splash Day, a semiannual event hosted at the clothing-optional area by the Austin Tavern Guild, a gay and lesbian bar association.

Witnesses said that all of the people aboard the barge moved to one side as it neared Hippie Hollow, creating uneven distribution and making it tilt. It sank in 50-foot-deep water.

Krista Umscheid, a spokeswoman for the Lower Colorado River Authority, said that although everyone aboard was accounted for, Travis County sheriff's divers were checking compartments of the sunken pontoon boat as a precaution.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 12:09 pm

Ordinarily I would say that anyone can submit comments because it looks like a document covered by the National Environmental Policy Act--one of the few places in our government where public participation must be listened to by law. . . IN the stuff I ommitted, they was something about it not affecting the environment and therefore not being a NEPA document or something. I would follow the link and read that passage carefully. Then I'd ask some questions of the contact person named in the document. I believe an e-mail address is provided, and find out exactly what they are trying to do.
So a provisional yes.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 12:12 pm

Dang Joel--
Was that oogling straights looking at queers? Oogling queers looking at straights? Or oogling queers looking at queers?
Should teach them to live in a state with only one nude beach. How much Gulf coastline does Texas have anyway?

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon May 03, 2004 12:16 pm

correction "thread drift"... typing before thinking once again...

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon May 03, 2004 12:48 pm

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/coastal/prese ... 1_2000.pdf

the answer lies somewhere in this 71 page report on the condition of Texas' gulf coast...

The boat "mishap" took place at a man-made lake, Lake Travis

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish/infish ... ake_id.htm

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Mon May 03, 2004 1:25 pm

My comments to the author of the document:

Ms. Schumacher,

I read the document entitled "Proposed Supplementary Rules for the Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada Relating to the Unlawful Use of Alcohol and Drugs" and would like the opportunity to comment on said document. I'm not familiar with BLM's procedures or whether the general public is permitted to comment (particularly non-Nevada residents) however my comments are below.

I'm concerned about the ambiguity of the open container clause with respect to the variety of art cars that are brought to the Burning Man festival in the Black Rock Desert. I agree wholeheartedly that driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs should be strictly prohibited, and open container laws are a necessary part of ensuring that law enforcement officers can be certain that a driver does not have access to alcohol. As I'm sure you know, many Burning Man participants bring vehicles that have been modified for the event. It is common for modified trucks, buses and trailers to permit alcohol consumption by passengers that are physically separated from the driver.

Since Burning Man is the single largest event on Nevada BLM land, I would like to see the document specifically address this issue. If it is your intent to to outlaw alcohol consumption by any passenger of any motorized art car, this should be made explicit so as to eliminate confusion by participants of the event. If, on the other hand, you intend to allow open containers so long as the driver cannot access them, perhaps the "motor home or camper" clause could be modified to include trailers and passenger compartments that are not accessible to the driver.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 2:19 pm

Alpha--
A well thought out comment.
Thank you.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 2:22 pm

Joel--
Embarressingly enough, I was actually born in Travis County, and know it's a land locked area. My comment was just a sort of shock that with all that prime ocean front property there's no nude beach. It's hard to imagine them in Alabama, Louisiana or Florida. What does that leave, the Carribean vacation isles? Not a naturist activist, but that does seem thin on the ground to me.

Oh well.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon May 03, 2004 2:35 pm

Haulover Beach, Florida http://www.haulover.org/.

A nice place to hang our, literally and figuratively.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 2:46 pm

Well, I suppose that I could get snotty and say that MiamiDade aint the Gulf Coast, but that's only going to look really really petty.

I suppose there's got to be some on the Keys as well.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon May 03, 2004 2:49 pm

I did a search, Florida has about 5 nude beaches... but because I am at work, it is inappropriate to surf those sites.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 2:50 pm

Understood.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon May 03, 2004 2:51 pm

I obviously phrased my search wrong--I ended up with this.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/st ... /mapFL.htm

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon May 03, 2004 3:02 pm

landsharks?

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Mon May 03, 2004 3:02 pm

Assuming the worst (open container in any car now outlawed), what options exist?

a) totally seperate driver area - locked? (possibly an option?)

b) person powered vehicle (intrigueing if difficult)

c) no drinks (and no drinking - to be safe, no drinks like water or soda offered or allowed at all)

d) only serve drinks when you are parked (have to disable the vehicle somehow for this to work) and remove all alcohol before you start moving.

I see huge issues even if you don't serve any alcohol - a passenger sneaks a flask on board and you could be busted. Could lead to strip searches before you are allowed to board a vehicle...(now that could get interesting!)

This will definately tend to make it even harder to get a ride on a vehicle for a stranger. Who wants to take the risk that they might whip out a flask and condemn the driver?

Maybe we could make a vehicle that drives by computer - that way the "driver" couldn't access the alcohol! Or a remote control system so the driver is physically removed from the vehicle. That would be safer, sure!

Yep, unless this goes un-enforced or is defeated by the legislature, this seems like the end of the bar cars as we know them now. One more nail in the coffin of Burningman. Of course, Burningman can survive without bar cars, but it won't be the same. Safer? maybe. But not the same.

regards, Jafe

Captain Goddammit · Post by **Captain Goddammit** » Mon May 03, 2004 3:35 pm

I only serve drinks while parked, I wonder if this is okay if I lock the booze up during travel?
Of course, the bright side is that I could save a lot of money if I shut down the bar.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Mon May 03, 2004 3:40 pm

From my reading it is unclear if it would apply to a vehicle towing a trailer, or a truck with a bed and a closed of drivers compartment.

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Mon May 03, 2004 3:47 pm

Captain Goddammit wrote:I only serve drinks while parked, I wonder if this is okay if I lock the booze up during travel?
Of course, the bright side is that I could save a lot of money if I shut down the bar.

But what if one of your passengers keeps their drink after you lock-up the bar? Or even worse, if you don't serve drinks but a passenger brings one on board? Open container = violation for driver unless there is a loophole somewhere (no where does it say the driver has to be the one drinking).

regards, Jafe

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon May 03, 2004 6:15 pm

re: bar cars

Boohoo. Boo. Hoo.

re: signatory of the BLM notice

Bob... Abbey???

re:
Motor vehicle means any vehicle that is self-propelled by a non-living
power source, including a vehicle that is propelled by electric power.
Exempt from this definition are motorized wheelchairs.

Woohoo!!! Woo!!! Hoo!!!
Giddyap, you good for nothin' llamas!!! [bbuuiicckk...]

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Mon May 03, 2004 7:03 pm

1 ) Believe it or not, bicyclists are under the same rules of the road as anyone else. I actually know someone who got ticketed for DUI while riding his bike through a field coming home from a party. So the bicycle bar "car" wouldn't work out.

2) I <i><b>don't want</i></b> to leave Babylon and come to the Playa just to get plastered by a drunken bar car (or any-car) driver. I'm fairly certain a lot of people don't, either. Quoting the warning about risking serious injury or death while attending costs three Honor points and if there's any cosmic justice at all, the quoter would be the next one to get nailed.
Not talking about Disneyfication, but I don't think anyone wants to see Black Rock City turn into a present-day Roman Circus, either.

3) Technically, bar cars can come under the "for hire" clause. Hire — what? Barter bars on wheels? Louisiana has a rule that only the driver cannot indulge in alcohol, everyone else in the car can.

4) Maybe not a total ban, but perhaps a moratorium with a grandfather clause? Bar cars are fun, but personally I'd rather see more mutant vehicles.

Or screw it. Draka is Goddess. Let's just have Draka

Captain Goddammit · Post by **Captain Goddammit** » Mon May 03, 2004 7:08 pm

Looks like I'll be changing my post-signature-thingie.
And saving money.

Force · Post by **Force** » Mon May 03, 2004 10:34 pm

Alpha wrote:
theCryptofishist wrote:I agree with the safety concerns, but as I read it, anything driving, except if the open container locked in the trunk--or a simeler space would be included.
I took the phrase "not normally occupied by or readily accessible to the operator or passengers" to loosely exempt a separated cab but I agree that it's ambiguous because of the "passengers" clause. And a "for hire" clause wouldn't go very far at an anti-commerce event.

Can anyone submit comments? The deadline is July 2, 2004.

dragonfly Jafe wrote:I went through ALL of Nevada's driving laws last month after the new DMV rules were posted. There was a part under the open container section that exempted from the open container law vehicles that were used to "transport for hire" (ie- limo's). IMHO - that was the "loophole" for bar cars before. Interesting that the BLM proposed rules don't have such an exemption (I guess there's not a whole lot of limo's that want to drive on BLM land).

It's really very simple- just have two bowls with pennies in them. One bowl says "Take a penny!"

The other says; "Taxi rides just 1 penny!"

Viola! Your barcar has been magically transformed into a "transport for hire" vehicle! (bows)

Ivy · Post by **Ivy** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:54 am

It's really very simple- just have two bowls with pennies in them. One bowl says "Take a penny!"

The other says; "Taxi rides just 1 penny!"

Viola! Your barcar has been magically transformed into a "transport for hire" vehicle! (bows)

That's nice, but it's also commerce.

An end to Bar Cars?

An end to Bar Cars?

Bar Cars II