Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 20921

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

2001–08–20 McDonnell Douglas:

Amendment 39–12197. Docket 99–NM–

276–AD.

Applicability: Model DC–8 series airplanes,

as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin DC8–24A068, Revision 01, dated

November 1, 1999; certificated in any

category; except those airplanes that have

been converted from a passenger to a cargocarrying (‘‘freighter’’) configuration, without

toilet flushing systems and associated

equipment installed.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent overheating of the flush pump

motor, which could result in damage to the

flush pump motor cover, and consequent

smoke in the lavatory area, accomplish the

following:

Replacing Circuit Breakers and Marking of

Nameplate

(a) Within 2 years after the effective date

of this AD, replace the toilet flushing circuit

breakers of the lavatory with new circuit

breakers, and mark applicable nameplates, in

accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert

Service Bulletin DC8–24A068, Revision 01,

dated November 1, 1999.

Note 2: Replacements and markings

accomplished prior to the effective date of

this AD in accordance with McDonnell

Douglas DC–8 Service Bulletin 24–68, dated

February 14, 1984; are considered acceptable

for compliance with the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this AD.

Spares

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install a 2 amp toilet flushing

circuit breaker, part number MP1503–DC8,

on any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Los Angeles ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(e) The actions shall be done in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin DC8–24A068, Revision 01, dated

November 1, 1999. This incorporation by

reference was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be

obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft

Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood

Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846,

Attention: Data and Service Management,

Dept. C1–L5A (D800–0024). Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

May 31, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 17,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–9938 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 1240

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–4494]

RIN 2127–AH38

Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat

Belts—Allocations Based on State

Seat Belt Use Rates

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule adopts,

without change, the regulations that

were published in an interim final rule

to implement a new grant program

established by the Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21), and

codified at section 157 of Title 23,

United States Code. The final rule

establishes procedures for allocating

Federal grant funds to States whose seat

belt use rates meet certain requirements.

Under the statute, funds are to be

allocated to States whose seat belt use

rates exceed either the national average

seat belt use rate or the State’s highestachieved seat belt use rate during

certain years. Allocations are to be

based on savings in medical costs to the

Federal Government resulting from

these seat belt use rates. The procedures

in this final rule implement these

statutory requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 29,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons at the U.S.

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590—In NHTSA: Wendi Wilson-John,

State and Community Services, NSC–01,

(202) 366–2121; John Donaldson, Office

of the Chief Counsel, NCC–30, (202)

366–1834. In FHWA: Byron E. Dover,

Office of Safety Design, HSA–10, (202)

366–2161; Raymond W. Cuprill, Office

of the Chief Counsel, HCC–30, (202)

366–0791.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 1403 of the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–

21) (Public Law 105–178) added a new

section 157 to Title 23 of the United

States Code, replacing a predecessor

Section 157. The new section (hereafter

section 157) authorizes a State seat belt

20922 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

incentive grant program covering fiscal

years (FYs) 1999 through 2003. Under

this program, the Secretary of

Transportation (the Secretary) is

directed to allocate funds each fiscal

year, starting in FY 1999, to States that

achieve certain seat belt use rates. A

State can satisfy the requirement by

meeting one of two conditions: First, if

the State’s seat belt use rate in each of

the preceding two calendar years

exceeded the national average seat belt

use rate for those years; or second, if the

State’s seat belt use rate in the previous

calendar year exceeded its ‘‘base seat

belt use rate.’’ Section 157 defines the

‘‘base seat belt use rate’’ as the ‘‘highest

State seat belt use rate for the State for

any calendar year during the period of

1996 through the calendar year

preceding the previous calendar year.’’

For example, for allocations to be made

in FY 2001 (on or about October 1,

2000), the base seat belt use rate would

be the State’s highest seat belt use rate

during the period from calendar year

(CY) 1996 through CY 1998, and the

State would meet the second condition

if the State’s CY 1999 seat belt use rate

exceeds this base rate for the CY 1996

through CY 1998 period. Section 157

further provides that a State that meets

the first condition must receive an

allocation only under the first condition

(even if the State also meets the second

condition). Hence, a State may receive

an allocation under the second

condition only if it meets that condition

and fails to meet the first condition.

A State that meets the first condition

described above is to receive an

allocation of funds that reflects the

‘‘savings to the Federal Government’’

due to the amount by which the State

seat belt use rate for the previous

calendar year exceeds the national

average seat belt use rate for that year.

A State that meets the second condition

(and not the first condition) is to receive

an allocation that reflects the ‘‘savings

to the Federal Government’’ due to the

amount by which the State seat belt use

rate for the previous calendar year

exceeds the State’s base seat belt use

rate. Section 157 defines ‘‘savings to the

Federal Government’’ as ‘‘the amount of

Federal budget savings relating to

Federal medical costs (including savings

under the medicare and medicaid

programs under titles XVIII and XIX of

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395

et seq.)), as determined by the

Secretary.’’ States may use these

allocated funds for any projects eligible

for assistance under Title 23, United

States Code. (Section 157 provides for

the further distribution of funds, if any

funds remain unallocated after the

required allocations related to seat belt

use rates are made, but today’s action

does not address those provisions.)

B. Information Requirements and

Determinations

A State’s eligibility for an allocation

of funds under the first condition during

each fiscal year is dependent on State

seat belt use rate information from two

contiguous prior calendar years.

Specifically, to make the determinations

necessary to allocate funds in a given

fiscal year under the first condition,

section 157 requires the use of seat belt

use rate information submitted by the

States for the ‘‘previous calendar year’’

and the ‘‘year preceding the previous

calendar year.’’ For example, FY 2000

allocations (on or about October 1, 1999)

are dependent on CY 1997 and CY 1998

information, and FY 2001 allocations

(on or about October 1, 2000) are

dependent on CY 1998 and CY 1999

information. A State’s eligibility for an

allocation of funds under the second

condition during each fiscal year (if it

fails to meet the first condition) is

dependent on seat belt use rate

information from earlier calendar years

beginning with CY 1996 and ending

with the ‘‘previous calendar year.’’ For

example, FY 2000 allocations (on or

about October 1, 1999) are dependent on

CY 1996 through CY 1998 information,

and FY 2001 allocations (on or about

October 1, 2000) are dependent on CY

1996 through CY 1999 information.

Section 157 provides that CY 1996

and CY 1997 information submitted by

the States is to be weighted by the

Secretary to ensure national consistency

in methods of measurement. However,

for CY 1998 and thereafter, section 157

requires States to measure seat belt use

rates following criteria established by

the Secretary, to ensure that the

measurements are ‘‘accurate and

representative.’’ In accordance with this

latter mandate, NHTSA published a

companion rule to today’s rule, the

Uniform Criteria for State Observational

Surveys of Seat Belt Use (23 CFR Part

1340—Interim final rule, 63 FR 46389,

September 1, 1998; final rule, 65 FR

13679, March 14, 2000) (hereafter, the

Uniform Criteria), establishing the

criteria to be followed by States in

measuring seat belt use rates for CY

1998 and beyond.

For all calendar years during which

State seat belt use rates must be

measured, NHTSA must calculate the

national average seat belt use rate to use

in eligibility and allocation

determinations. Additionally, for each

State determined to be eligible for an

allocation (based on a seat belt use rate

that exceeds either the national average

seat belt use rate or the State’s own base

seat belt use rate), NHTSA must

calculate the amount of medical savings

to the Federal Government due to the

State’s higher seat belt use rate, to

determine the amount of the allocation.

These steps, and the information

requirements necessary to accomplish

them, were set forth in detail in an

interim final rule published in the

Federal Register on October 29, 1998

(63 FR 57904). The interim final rule set

forth detailed procedures governing the

determination of State seat belt use

rates, the national average seat belt use

rate, and the Federal medical savings—

all prerequisites to making allocations of

funds to eligible States each fiscal year.

Today’s final rule responds to

comments to that interim final rule, and

promulgates final requirements and

procedures that apply to the allocation

of funds based on seat belt use rates.

This final rule is being issued jointly by

NHTSA and the FHWA (hereafter, the

agencies), because the agencies share

responsibility for this grant program.

C. Comments on the Interim Final Rule

The interim final rule solicited

comments from interested parties and

noted that the agencies would respond

to all comments and, if appropriate,

amend the provisions of the rule. The

agencies received comments from State

agencies in Michigan, Missouri, New

York, and Washington, from Advocates

for Highway and Auto Safety, and from

one private citizen. As explained below

in the discussion addressing each of

these comments, the agencies have

made no changes to the rule.

The Washington Traffic Safety

Commission (Washington) and

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

(Advocates) both expressed support for

the interim final rule without change.

Washington termed the procedures and

formulas for allocation of funding

‘‘reasonable and fair.’’ Advocates

endorsed the incentive grant program as

a ‘‘significant financial incentive’’ and a

‘‘novel approach’’ that might lead States

to actively pursue strategies to increase

seat belt use. Advocates supported the

interim final rule as providing ‘‘a

reasonable basis for making the

determinations of state use rates and a

national average seat belt use rate

required by the statute.’’ Although it

expressed concern that surveys, as

opposed to ‘‘more scientifically

conducted studies,’’ could yield inflated

seat belt use rates, Advocates believed

that the interim final rule and the

Uniform Criteria, together, were

reasonably calculated to provide

comparative seat belt use rates that

would be acceptable for determining

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 20923

relative increases in seat belt use rates

under this program.

The Michigan Department of State

Police (Michigan) recommended that

the formula for allocating incentive

funds to States be ‘‘weighted to

recognize the difficulty of achieving,

and the benefit of sustaining, safety belt

use rates above the national average.’’

According to Michigan, as seat belt use

increases, additional protection is

provided to at-risk drivers who are

traditionally unbelted, and for each

percentage point of increase at higher

seat belt use levels, there should be a

greater increase in the number of lives

saved and serious injuries prevented.

Michigan concluded that savings in

medical costs to the Federal

Government should be greater per

percentage point increase at levels

above the national average. Michigan

also recommended that States whose

seat belt use rates have increased, but

remain below the national average,

should continue to receive incentive

funds to encourage aggressive seat belt

programs.

The agencies agree with Michigan’s

comment that, as seat belt use rates

increase, and at-risk drivers who are

traditionally unbelted (and overrepresented in crashes) begin to use seat

belts, savings in medical costs will be

even greater, due to decreases in injuries

and fatalities among these at-risk

drivers. In fact, the process used to

calculate medical savings under the

interim final rule (see ‘‘Appendix E—

Determination of Federal Medical

Savings’’ and the report cited therein)

accounts for these beneficial impacts as

marginal seat belt use rates increase

when seat belt use is already at a high

level. The agencies are confident that

the process established in the interim

final rule results in an accurate estimate

of the medical cost savings associated

with increased seat belt use at all levels.

Consequently, we have made no

changes to the rule in response to this

comment.

Michigan’s concern that States whose

seat belt use rates have increased but

remain below the national average

should continue to receive funds is

accommodated under the existing

language of the rule, to the full extent

allowed by the statute. In accordance

with section 157, a State whose seat belt

use rate is below the national average

will receive an allocation of funds

provided its rate exceeds its ‘‘base seat

belt use rate,’’ which was defined in the

statute and in the interim final rule as

‘‘the highest State seat belt use rate for

the State for any calendar year during

the period from 1996 through the

calendar year preceding the previous

calendar year.’’ Accordingly, a State will

receive an allocation of funds based on

improvements in seat belt use rates,

even if the rate remains below the

national average, provided only that the

improvement is measured against a

baseline of the highest previously

achieved seat belt use rate during the

time period specified in the statute. No

changes have been made to the rule in

response to this comment.

The New York Department of Motor

Vehicles (New York) requested that the

interim final rule be modified to

explicitly extend previous approvals

granted under the section 153 program

(23 U.S.C. 153) for seat belt use survey

designs. (This was one of several

comments from New York directed at

the companion rule, the Uniform

Criteria. In the preamble to the final rule

for the Uniform Criteria, NHTSA

explained that the comment was outside

the scope of that rule, and would be

addressed in today’s action.)

The interim final rule provided a

procedure, applicable only to CY 1998

surveys, under which a State that had

received previous written approval

under Section 153 for a survey design

could certify that the survey remained

unchanged, except for the addition of

elements required to comply with

Section 157. Such a certification would

serve in lieu of the otherwise required

survey review and approval process. In

crafting this exception, the agencies

were mindful of the great burden

imposed on the States by the short lead

times that occurred at the inception of

this program. We do not believe it

appropriate to extend this exception to

the later years of this program, as

sufficient time has elapsed to allow all

States to develop surveys that satisfy the

requirements of the Uniform Criteria.

Moreover, NHTSA has worked closely

with the States to ensure that their

surveys meet these requirements and, at

this time, all States that have chosen to

submit surveys are able to meet the

requirements. Consequently, we decline

to adopt New York’s request, and we

have made no changes to the rule in

response to this comment. States will

continue to be required to submit

documentation of their survey

procedures to NHTSA each year for

verification of compliance with the

requirements of the Uniform Criteria.

Mr. William C. Hickey, a private

citizen, urged the agencies to require

mandatory seat belt use in buses with a

capacity of 37 to 45 seats. Today’s

action, conducted under the authority of

23 U.S.C. 157, does not relate to buses,

nor does it mandate seat belt use in any

category of vehicles. Mr. Hickey’s

comment falls outside the authority of

the statute and the scope of this action.

Consequently, the agencies have made

no changes to the rule in response to

this comment.

The Missouri Department of Public

Safety (Missouri) expressed

dissatisfaction with the procedures

adopted under the interim final rule to

estimate seat belt use rates when State

data was missing and to account for seat

belt use in pickup trucks. Missouri

stated that the requirements of the

Uniform Criteria were incorporated

immediately into its CY 1998 survey.

However, according to Missouri, the

timetable of the grant program did not

allow it to submit seat belt use rate

information for the FY 1998 grant

process. (The agencies assume that

Missouri refers to the grant process

leading to FY 1999 allocations.)

Missouri explained that, ‘‘[i]n lieu of the

1997 use rate figure,’’ it submitted its

1996 seat belt use rate, with the result

that NHTSA used the CY 1996

information to ‘‘formulate’’ a CY 1997

seat belt use rate, and that the numbers

for both years then were adjusted under

the interim final rule to account for

pickup trucks.

Missouri characterized the

‘‘formulated’’ CY 1997 seat belt use rate

as improbably high and ‘‘suspect in

terms of overall reliability,’’ particularly

when compared with the new

methodology, which was used to

calculate the CY 1998 seat belt use rate.

According to Missouri, ‘‘the basic

unfairness with this process is that we

are comparing a 1997 rate formulated

from a 1996 survey that does not

include pickup trucks, with the actual

1998 rate which includes pickup truck

information.’’ Missouri believes that this

approach led to its loss of eligibility for

‘‘nearly $1 million’’ in FY 2000, and

requested that Missouri’s ‘‘1996 and

1997 revised use rates be revisited to

more accurately show the impact of the

pickup trucks.’’

Missouri noted that the definition of

passenger vehicle in the agencies’

interim final rule is inconsistent with

the State’s own definition, because the

interim final rule includes pickup

trucks. The result, according to

Missouri, is that a portion of the seat

belt use rate under the interim final rule

includes vehicles in which, under most

circumstances, occupants are not

required to use seat belts in Missouri.

Missouri asserted that the inclusion of

pickup trucks in the determination of

seat belt use rates resulted in a

reduction in Missouri’s overall

percentage of belt usage and a ‘‘skewed’’

national average. According to Missouri,

this disparity will hurt Missouri’s

20924 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

ability to qualify for incentive grants

under this program in the future.

On the subject of the seat belt survey

requirements, Missouri stated that

implementing the new methodology

was ‘‘arduous and expensive,’’ requiring

460 survey sites instead of the 18 the

State had used in previous years.

Missouri claimed that many States were

dissatisfied with the increased number

of survey sites, and that many States

requested and were granted exceptions

to the new survey process, raising

questions about the ‘‘inherent fairness

that the new survey was designed to

create.’’

Missouri recommended several

approaches to ‘‘level the playing field’’

and assure fairness. Specifically,

Missouri suggested that all States

should arrive at their light truck data in

the same way; that pickup truck data

should not be considered for purposes

of the FY 1999 grant; that the ‘‘policy’’

of granting exceptions should be

discontinued; and that all States should

implement seat belt surveys without

deviation from the NHTSA

methodology. As a final point, Missouri

suggested that the agencies should

‘‘simply disseminate funding to all

states [and] fix the problems in the

process design * * * in time to

implement a valid process for FY 2000.’’

The agencies recognize that the early

implementation of this grant program

presented difficult problems. TEA–21,

which introduced the new section 157,

was enacted in mid-1998, but it

established a framework under which

the first allocations of funds (during FY

1999) were to be based on seat belt use

rate information from prior years—CY

1996 and CY 1997. Recognizing that

these two calendar years had already

ended, and could not be the subject of

uniform guidance or criteria, Congress

required that available information from

the States for these earlier years be

‘‘weighted by the Secretary to ensure

national consistency in methods of

measurement.’’ For CY 1998 and

beyond, Congress required that

information submitted by the States be

in accordance with criteria established

by the Secretary.

Given these circumstances, the

agencies were faced with the task of

using the best seat belt use information

available from the States for CY 1996

and CY 1997 and applying reasonable

procedures to ensure consistent

treatment from State-to-State, as

required by section 157. If seat belt use

rate information was missing for a

calendar year (as was the case for

Missouri in CY 1997), the agencies used

the most reliable methods at hand to

estimate the missing information or to

extrapolate it from other available

sources. The inclusion of pickup trucks

in the determination of the seat belt use

rate is a statutory requirement.

Consequently, if information on pickup

trucks was missing (as was the case for

Missouri in CY 1996 and CY 1997), it

too had to be derived from other

sources. The interim final rule set forth

detailed procedures governing the

agencies’ treatment of these various

contingencies for CY 1996 and CY 1997,

including procedures to adjust for

incomplete State-submitted information

and procedures for making estimates

where State data for a given year was

missing entirely.

The agencies recognize that any

estimation procedure introduces

potential uncertainties. However,

section 157 requires the agencies to

evaluate seat belt use rate information

from two contiguous prior calendar

years in order to determine a State’s

eligibility for an allocation, and

Missouri provided information only for

CY 1996. The agencies could not make

the statutorily required determinations

based on Missouri’s submission of CY

1996 seat belt use information ‘‘in lieu

of’’ the CY 1997 information, but

required information from both of those

years.

Similarly, the agencies were bound by

the statute to account for pickup trucks

in the determination of seat belt use

rates. The estimation procedures of the

interim final rule were applied carefully

and consistently to all States with

incomplete or missing data. We are

unaware of a process that would allow

the CY 1996 and CY 1997 seat belt use

rates to ‘‘more accurately show the

impact of the pickup trucks,’’ as

Missouri requests, and Missouri does

not detail an alternative process.

Missouri’s comment that the

inclusion of pickup trucks in the

determination of seat belt use rates

resulted in a ‘‘skewed’’ national average,

because its own seat belt use law

exempts most of these vehicles,

misconceives the purpose of this grant

program. Section 157 does not dictate

which vehicles State laws should cover,

and it does not seek to allocate funds to

a State based on the State’s level of

compliance with its own laws. Rather,

the statute measures performance

against a uniform standard, and that

standard precisely defines the universe

of covered vehicles, which includes

pickup trucks. Hence, it is a

requirement imposed by the Congress

that Missouri’s seat belt use rate (and

that of any other State seeking to qualify

for an allocation of funds) must take

pickup trucks into account (all pickup

trucks—not simply pickup trucks which

are not exempt), irrespective of the

breadth of the State’s legal

requirements. Similarly, the national

average seat belt use rate must be based

on inclusion of pickup trucks. The

Federal requirement to include pickup

trucks is an integral part of the incentive

structure of this grant program.

Missouri’s various comments that the

estimation methods of the interim final

rule and the inclusion of pickup trucks

in the determination of seat belt use

rates reduced the State’s ability to

qualify for incentive grants reflect a

misunderstanding of the mechanics of

the allocation process. For the years at

issue, Missouri’s seat belt use rate

(irrespective of adjustments under the

interim final rule) has remained

somewhat below the national average

seat belt use rate. Therefore, unless the

State experiences a substantial increase

in seat belt use so as to exceed the

national average seat belt use rate,

Missouri must hope to qualify for an

allocation under this program by

achieving a seat belt use rate that

exceeds its base seat belt use rate. This

approach would not entitle Missouri to

receive ‘‘nearly $1,000,000’’ in FY 2000,

as the State’s comments suggest. Rather,

the allocation in each fiscal year would

equal the Federal medical savings

attributable to the amount by which it

has exceeded its base seat belt use rate.

In FY 1999, Missouri received an

allocation because the agency

determined that the State had achieved

a seat belt use rate in CY 1997 of 62.6

percent, which exceeded its agencyadjusted base seat belt use rate in CY

1996 of 58.3 percent. The allocation

amounted to $986,100, which reflected

the full value of the Federal medical

savings attributable to that increase. As

a result, 62.6 percent became Missouri’s

new base seat belt use rate, and

Missouri would not be entitled to

another allocation until its seat belt use

rate exceeds 62.6 percent (and then only

for an amount equal to the Federal

medical savings attributable to the

specific increase above that base rate).

In FY 2000, Missouri did not receive an

allocation, because its CY 1998 seat belt

use rate was 60.4 percent, which did not

exceed the new base seat belt use rate

of 62.6 percent.

While the agency stands by the

estimates that it developed under the

interim final rule, it is worth noting

that, even if the agency-estimated CY

1997 seat belt use rate for Missouri was

overstated, Missouri did not suffer as a

result of this calculation. For example,

had Missouri’s seat belt use rate in CY

1997 been estimated to be lower, and

had Missouri reached 62.6 percent more

gradually (after a period of two years),

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 20925

rather than all at once (in a single year),

according to the agency’s estimates, the

State would have received allocations

during two fiscal years (i.e., in FY 1999

and FY 2000) instead of one. However,

the sum of those individual allocations

essentially would have equaled the

single allocation it actually received in

FY 1999. (Any slight deviation that may

have resulted would have been

attributable to inflation adjustment

factors and other minor differences in

the year-to-year calculation of Federal

medical savings.) In summary, contrary

to Missouri’s assertions, its standing

under this grant program has not been

harmed by the estimation process used

under the interim final rule.

The agencies recognize that the

implementation of seat belt survey

requirements in conformance with the

requirements of the Uniform Criteria

was administratively difficult for some

States. However, all States were subject

to these same criteria and, contrary to

Missouri’s assertions, no exceptions or

deviations were made.

Missouri’s recommended approaches

to ‘‘level the playing field,’’ that all

States should arrive at their light truck

data in the same way and that seat belt

use surveys be implemented without

deviation from the NHTSA

methodology, relate to how seat belt use

surveys are conducted. These issues are

the subject of the companion rule, the

Uniform Criteria. For a detailed

discussion of issues related to

conducting the surveys, Missouri is

directed to the Federal Register notice

implementing the final rule for the

Uniform Criteria (65 FR 13679, March

14, 2000). Missouri can rest assured that

the procedures contained in the

Uniform Criteria stand as prerequisites

for eligibility under this grant program,

and that no deviations are permitted.

Missouri made two other

recommendations (now moot due to the

passage of time) that are not within the

agencies’ statutory authority.

Specifically, Missouri recommended

that pickup truck data not be considered

for purposes of the FY 1999 grant and

that the agencies ‘‘simply disseminate

funding to all states [and] fix the

problems in the process design * * * in

time to implement a valid process for

FY 2000.’’ As previously discussed, the

inclusion of pickup trucks in the

determination of seat belt use rates is a

statutory requirement and the agencies

are not free to disregard it. Similarly, the

agencies are not free to disseminate

funds to all States, without evaluation.

The agencies must comply with the

specific requirements defined by statute

in making allocations. The agencies do

not agree with Missouri that there are

‘‘problems’’ in the interim final rule that

must be ‘‘fixed.’’ Rather, we believe that

the process developed under the interim

final rule, and continued in today’s

action, is a reasoned and fair approach

to the collection, evaluation, and

adjustment of data, and to the allocation

of funds under this incentive grant

program. Consequently, the agencies

have made no changes in response to

Missouri’s comments.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism):

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

13132, and it has been determined that

it does not have sufficient Federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism assessment.

Accordingly, a Federalism Assessment

was not prepared.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice

Reform): This rule will not have any

preemptive or retroactive effect. The

enabling legislation does not establish a

procedure for judicial review of final

rules promulgated under its provisions.

There is no requirement that individuals

submit a petition for reconsideration or

pursue other administrative proceedings

before they may file suit in court.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

This action has been determined to be

‘‘significant’’ under Executive Order

12866 and under the Department of

Transportation Regulatory Policies and

Procedures because it is likely to result

in significant economic impacts.

Accordingly, a Final Economic

Assessment (FEA) was prepared, which

describes the economic effects of this

rulemaking action in detail. A copy of

the FEA has been placed in the docket

for public inspection.

Following is a summary of the cost

and benefit information for this rule.

The total annual cost of conducting

surveys following the procedures of this

rule and of a recently published

companion rule (63 FR 46389) (if each

State conducted one) is estimated to be

$1.9 million. However, most States

already conduct surveys similar to those

that would be required in order to

qualify for funds under section 157,

after FY 1999. The FEA concludes that

there will be a one-time redesign cost

totaling $160,000 for those States that

currently conduct annual surveys, but

whose surveys require revision, and an

annual cost totaling $192,750 for those

States that currently do not conduct

annual surveys.

NHTSA believes that incentives

provided by section 157 could result in

safety efforts that would increase seat

belt use rates by an average of 1 to 4

percentage points. If such an increase is

achieved, from 232 to 940 lives would

be saved annually, from 5,700 to 23,000

nonfatal injuries would be prevented,

and medical costs would decline by $64

million to $258 million. To raise seat

belt use rates, States will have to initiate

enforcement efforts and public

education programs or enact legislation

to upgrade current seat belt use laws to

provide for primary enforcement.

NHTSA estimates that the level of

expenditure needed to raise seat belt use

rates by 1 to 4 percentage points

nationwide is approximately $200,000

per State, or $10.4 million (based on the

fifty States, the District of Columbia,

and Puerto Rico).

The FEA recognizes that a State may

be eligible for an allocation of funds

during each of fiscal years 2000 through

2003 if it conducts a survey of seat belt

use during each of calendar years 1998

through 2001, and may be eligible for an

allocation of funds during fiscal year

1999 without conducting a survey.

Eligibility is dependent on whether the

results of the survey meet certain

statutory criteria. In FY 1999, 38 States,

the District of Columbia, and Puerto

Rico received a total of $52,648,000, and

in FY 2000, 33 States, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico received a

total of $54,610,700 in incentive grant

funds under this program. Allocations

available to the States for the remaining

years of this program, provided they

meet the statutory criteria, total

$102,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and

$112,000,000 for each of fiscal years

2002 and 2003. During the course of this

program, the exact amount of funds

allocated to States that meet the

statutory criteria will vary, depending

on their seat belt use rate. It is unlikely

that all available funds will be allocated

under this rule, because not all States

will meet the statutory criteria and seat

belt use rates of complying States will

vary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: In

compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the

agencies have evaluated the effects of

this action on small entities. States will

be the recipients of any funds awarded

under the section 157 program, and they

are not small entities. We hereby certify

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act: The State

seat belt use surveys that are required to

be submitted by this rule are considered

to be information collection

requirements, as defined by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) in 5

20926 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

CFR part 1320. This information

collection requirement has been

submitted to and approved by OMB,

pursuant to the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.). The requirement has been

approved through February 2, 2002:

OMB Control No. 2127–0597.

National Environmental Policy Act:

The agencies have reviewed this action

for the purpose of compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and have

determined that it will not have a

significant effect on the human

environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: The

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4) requires agencies to

prepare a written assessment of the

costs, benefits and other effects of final

rules that include a Federal mandate

likely to result in the expenditure by

State, local or tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

more than $100 million annually. This

final rule does not meet the definition

of a Federal mandate. It is a voluntary

program, in which States can choose to

participate at their option. The costs to

States to participate in this program will

not exceed the $100 million threshold.

Moreover, States that choose to

participate in this program will receive

allocations of Federal funds for

activities that are eligible under Title 23,

United States Code.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1240

Grant programs—Transportation,

Highway safety, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the interim final rule

published in the Federal Register on

October 29, 1998, 63 FR 57904, adding

a new part 1240 to chapter II,

subchapter B of the Code of Federal

Regulations, is adopted as final.

Issued on: April 19, 2001.

Vincent F. Schimmoller,

Deputy Executive Director.

L. Robert Shelton,

Executive Director, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10448 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01–01–047]

RIN 2115–AA97

Safety Zone: Naval Force Protection,

Bath Iron Works, Bath, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

establishing a temporary safety zone to

close a portion of the Kennebec River to

waterway traffic in a 400 foot radius

around Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine

for the protection of Naval Forces, from

7 a.m. April 4, 2001 to 12 p.m. June 16,

2001. Entry into this safety zone is

prohibited unless authorized by the

Captain of the Port.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

from 7 a.m. April 4, 2001 to 12 p.m.

June 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to: Commanding Officer, U.S.

Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, 103

Commercial St., Portland Maine 04101–

4726. The Response and Planning

Department, Coast Guard Marine Safety

Office maintains the public docket for

this rule making. Comments and

material received from the public, as

well as documents indicated in this

preamble as being available in the

docket, will become part of this docket

and will be available for inspection or

copying at the Coast Guard Marine

Safety Office between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except for

Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant E. J. Doucette, Chief of

Response and Planning, Captain of the

Port, Portland at (207) 780–3251.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553, a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

was not published for this regulation.

Good cause exists for not publishing a

NPRM and for making this regulation

effective in less than 30 days after

Federal Register publication. Due to the

complex planning and coordination

involved, final details for the closure

were not provided to the Coast Guard

until April 2, 2001, making it

impossible to publish a NPRM or a final

rule 30 days in advance. Any delay

encountered in this regulation’s

effective date would be contrary to

public interest since immediate action is

needed to safeguard the Naval vessels

moored to the Bath Iron Works facility,

the public and the surrounding area

from sabotage or other subversive acts,

accidents, or other causes of a similar

nature.

Background and Purpose

The safety zone will occur from 7 a.m.

April 4, 2001 to 12 p.m. June 16, 2001

at Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine. This

regulation establishes a safety zone in

the waters of the Kennebec River. This

safety zone is required to protect the

Naval persons, facilities, and vessels

from the hazards associated with

terrorism. Entry into this zone will be

prohibited unless authorized by the

Captain of the Port.

Regulatory Evaluation

This temporary final rule is not a

significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under

section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget under that

order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this proposal to be so minimal

that a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

This safety zone involves only a 400-

foot radius around Bath Iron Works. The

effect of this regulation will not be

significant for several reasons: The

safety zone is limited in duration, the

safety zone is limited in area, allowing

mariners to transit in the river channel

outside of the safety zone, and maritime

advisories will be made in advance of

and during the effective date of the

safety zone.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities may include (1)

small businesses and not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields and (2)

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

For the reasons addressed under the

Regulatory Evaluation above, the Coast

Guard expects the impact of this

regulation to be minimal and certifies

under section 605(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that