Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices 21817

data and to consult with other agencies

as it deems appropriate. Further, the Act

mandates, that in issuing any FMVSS,

the agency should consider whether the

standard is reasonable, practicable and

appropriate for the particular type of

motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle

equipment for which it is prescribed,

and whether such standards will

contribute to carrying out the purpose of

the Act. The Secretary is authorized to

revoke such rules and regulations as

deemed necessary to carry out this

subchapter. Using this authority, the

agency issued the initial FMVSS No.

115, Vehicle Identification Number,

specifying requirements for vehicle

identification numbers to aid the agency

in achieving many of its safety goals.

The standard was amended in August

1978 by extending its applicability to

additional classes of motor vehicles and

by specifying the use of a 30-year, 17-

character Vehicle Identification Number

(VIN) for worldwide use. The standard

was amended in May 1983 by deleting

portions of FMVSS No. 115 and

reissuing those portions as a general

agency regulation, Part 565.

Subsequently, the standard was

amended again in June 1996 transferring

the text of the FMVSS No. 115 to Part

565, without making any substantive

changes to the VIN requirements as a

result of the proposed consolidation.

The provision of the Part 565 (amended)

regulation requires vehicle

manufacturers to assign a unique VIN to

each new vehicle and to inform NHTSA

of the code used in forming the VIN.

These regulations apply to all vehicles:

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger

vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers,

incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles.

Part 541

The Motor Vehicle Information and

Cost Savings Act was amended by the

Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–

519.) The enacted Theft Act states that

passenger motor vehicles, multipurpose

passenger vehicles, and light-duty

trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating

of 6,000 pounds or less be covered

under the Theft Prevention Standard.

Each major component part must be

either labeled or affixed with the VIN

and its replacement component part

must be marked with the DOT symbol,

the letter (R) and the manufacturers’

logo.

Part 567

This part specifies the content and

location of, and other requirements for,

the certification label or tag to be affixed

to motor vehicles and motor vehicle

equipment. Specifically, the VIN is

required to appear on the certification

label. Additionally, this certificate will

provide the consumer with information

to assist him or her in determining

which of the Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standards are applicable to the

vehicle or equipment, and its date of

manufacturer.

Estimated Annual Burden: 456,212.

Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Issued on: April 26, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety,

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–10844 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Discretionary Cooperative Agreements

To Support Seat Belt Enforcement

With State Associations of Chiefs of

Police

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT

ACTION: Announcement of Cooperative

Agreements in conjunction with the

Buckle Up America Campaign to

increase seat belt enforcement with the

State Associations of Chiefs of Police.

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA)

announces a cooperative agreement

program to solicit support for the Buckle

Up America (BUA) campaign. NHTSA

solicits applications from the State

Associations of Chiefs of Police to

participate in the BUA campaign, by

mobilizing law enforcement agencies to

increase the use of seat belts and child

safety seats, the most effective safety

devices for reducing injuries and

fatalities in traffic crashes. Only

applications submitted by the State

Associations of Chiefs of Police will be

considered. The State Associations of

Chiefs of Police will take a leadership

role in involving the law enforcement

agencies in their state in increasing

enforcement of seat belt and child safety

seat laws by participating in the

mobilization periods, high visibility

enforcement, training officers and

public information and education.

DATES: Applications must be received

no later than June 1, 2001, at 2 p.m.,

Eastern Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be

submitted to the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Office of

Contracts and Procurement (NAD–30),

ATTN: Ross S. Jeffries, 400 7th Street,

SW., Room 5301, Washington, DC

20590. All applications submitted must

include a reference to NHTSA

Cooperative Agreement Program No.

DTNH22–01–R–05143.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

General administrative questions may

be directed to, Ross S. Jeffries, Office of

Contracts and Procurement at (202)

366–6283. Programmatic questions

should be directed to Sandy Richardson,

Traffic Law Enforcement Division,

NTS–13, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW.,

Washington DC 20590 by e-mail

srichardson@nhtsa.dot.gov or by phone

(202) 366–4294. Interested applicants

are advised that no separate application

package exists beyond the contents of

this announcement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

It’s a fact: On America’s roads,

someone is killed every 13 minutes and

someone is injured every nine seconds

in traffic crashes. It takes only a few

seconds to fasten a seat belt. Yet this

simple action, repeated every time you

get into a motor vehicle, may be the

most significant driving-related

behavior change you can make to extend

your life. Wearing a seat belt

dramatically increases your chance of

surviving a crash.

Each year, approximately 41,000

Americans die in traffic crashes and

another three million are injured. Sadly,

many of these deaths and injuries could

have been prevented if the victims had

been wearing seat belts or were properly

restrained in child safety seats.

Research has found that lap/shoulder

safety belts, when used, reduce the risk

of fatal injury to front seat passenger car

occupants by 45 percent and the risk of

moderate to critical-injury by 50

percent. For light truck occupants,

safety belts reduce the risk of fatal

injury by 60 percent and moderate to

critical-injury by 65 percent. No other

safety device has as much potential for

immediately preventing deaths and

injuries in motor vehicle crashes. From

1975 through 1999, an estimated

123,213 lives were saved by seat belts.

But, seat belt use rates and the

resulting savings could be much higher.

In June 2000, the average observed use

rate reported by states with secondary

enforcement laws was 63 percent,

compared to 77 percent in states with

primary enforcement laws. Many States

in the U.S. are still well below the goal

of 85 percent for the year 2000 and

thirteen States had use rates below 60

percent in 2000. On the other hand, use

rates of 85–90 percent are a reality in

most developed nations with seat belt

use laws, and seven States achieved use

rates greater than 80 percent in 1999. A

21818 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices

national use rate of 90 percent, among

front seat occupants of all passenger

vehicles, would result in prevention of

an additional 5,500 deaths and 121,000

injuries annually. This would translate

into an $8.8 billion reduction in societal

costs, including 356 million for

Medicare and Medicaid.

In April 1997, the Buckle Up America

(BUA) campaign established ambitious

national goals: (a) to increase seat belt

use to 85 percent and reduce child

fatalities (0–4 years) by 15 percent by

the year 2000; and (b) to increase seat

belt use to 90 percent and reduce child

fatalities by 25 percent by the year 2005.

This campaign advocates a four part

strategy: (1) Building public-private

partnerships; (2) enacting strong

legislation; (3) maintaining high

visibility law enforcement; and (4)

conducting effective public education.

Central to this Campaign’s success is the

implementation of two major

enforcement mobilizations each year

(Memorial Day and Thanksgiving

holidays).

Objectives: To help achieve the new

national seat belt goals, NHTSA seeks to

establish cooperative efforts between

NHTSA and State Associations of Chiefs

of Police to increase the use of seat belts

and child safety seats. Specific

objectives for this cooperative

agreement program will be to support

the Buckle Up America campaign by

increasing periodic waves of high

visibility enforcement and by promoting

participation in Operation ABC’s

national mobilizations (May and

November).

1. Periodic ‘‘Waves’’ of High Visibility

Enforcement: The history of efforts to

increase seat belt use in the U.S. and

Canada suggests that highly visible

enforcement of seat belt laws must be

the core of any successful program to

increase seat belt use. No State has ever

achieved a high seat belt use rate

without such a component.

Canada currently has a national seat

belt use rate above 90 percent. Nearly

every province first attempted to

increase seat belt use through voluntary

approaches involving public

information and education. These

efforts were effective in achieving only

very modest usage rates (no higher than

30 percent). By 1985, it became obvious

to Canadian and provincial officials that

additional efforts would be needed to

achieve levels of 80 percent or greater.

These efforts, mounted from 1985 to

1995, centered around highly publicized

‘‘waves’’ of enforcement, a technique

that had already been shown to increase

seat belt use in Elmira, New York. When

these procedures were implemented in

the Canadian provinces, seat belt use

generally increased from about 60

percent to well over 80 percent, within

a period of 3–5 years.

The Canadian successes using

periodic, highly visible ‘‘waves’’ of

enforcement, as well as successes of

such efforts implemented in local

jurisdictions in the U.S., prompted

NHTSA to implement Operation Buckle

Down (also called the ‘‘70 by ‘‘92’’

Program) in 1991. This two-year

program focused on Special Traffic

Enforcement Programs (sTEPs) to

increase seat belt use. It was followed by

a national usage rate increase from

about 53 percent in 1990 to 62 percent

by the end of 1992 (as measured by a

weighted aggregate of State surveys).

Neither the level of enforcement nor its

public visibility was uniform in every

State. Had these ‘‘waves’’ of

enforcement been implemented in a

more uniform fashion in every state, the

impact would likely have been much

greater.

Several states have experienced

considerable success in reaching higher

levels of occupant protection usage rates

though campaigns which focus on high

visibility enforcement combined with a

targeted public information and

education campaign which highlights

the zero tolerance message of the

enforcement component. In order to

demonstrate the potential of periodic,

highly visible enforcement in a more

controlled environment, the State of

North Carolina implemented its Click-It

or Ticket program in 1993. In this

program, waves of coordinated and

highly publicized enforcement efforts

(i.e., checkpoints) were implemented in

every county. As a result, seat belt use

increased statewide, from 65 percent to

over 80 percent, in just a few months.

This program provided the clearest

possible evidence to demonstrate the

potential of highly visible enforcement

to increase seat belt use in a large

jurisdiction. South Carolina has recently

achieved similar successes. NHTSA

now seeks to replicate this program

throughout its various Regions. High

consideration will be given to those

applicants that develop an approach

that is compatible or consistent with

this strategy.

2. National Mobilizations: National

law enforcement mobilizations have

also proven effective in increasing seat

belt use. The BUA campaign supports

two national mobilizations each year

(Memorial Day and Thanksgiving

holidays). During the November 2000

mobilization period conducted

throughout the week surrounding

Thanksgiving, over 10,000 law

enforcement agencies participated in

Operation ABC. Their efforts were

covered by several hundred national

and local television organizations in all

major media markets. More than 1,500

print articles were written in response

to the mobilization.

Period of Support

Cooperative agreements may be

awarded for a period of support of (1)

year. The application should address

what is proposed and can be

accomplished during the funding period

(12 months). Subject to the availability

of funds, the agency anticipates

awarding up to 3 cooperative

agreements in the amount of $50,000

each, totaling $150,000. Federal funds

should be viewed as seed money to

assist the Associations in working with

local law enforcement agencies in the

development of traffic safety initiatives.

NHTSA may choose to extend the

period of performance under this

agreement for an additional 12 months,

subject to the availability of funds. If

NHTSA elects to do so, it will notify the

recipients within 60 days prior to the

expiration of this agreement and the

recipients will submit a proposal for an

additional 12 months of performance.

Eligibility Requirements

In order to be eligible to participate in

this cooperative agreement program, an

applicant must be a State Association of

Chiefs of Police, and must meet the

following requirements:

—Have the ability to provide funding to

law enforcement agencies in the state.

—Have written support and approval

from the applicant’s chief executive

officer to conduct seat belt

enforcement programs to participate

in and encourage local law

enforcement participation in the

Operation ABC Campaign and in

other seat belt enforcement programs.

(Include copy with proposal.)

—Obtain written support from the

Governor’s Representative or his/her

designee in the State Highway Safety

Office (SHSO) demonstrating that the

applicant’s proposal is partnered with

the State’s program. (Include copy

with proposal.)

Application Procedure

Each applicant must submit one

original and two copies of their

application package to: NHTSA, Office

of Contracts and Procurement (NAD–

30), ATTN: Ross S. Jeffries, 400 7th

Street, SW., Room 5301, Washington,

DC 20590. Only complete application

packages received by the due date will

be considered. Submission of four

additional copies will expedite

processing, but is not required.

Applications must be typed on one side

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices 21819

of the page only. Applications must

include a reference to NHTSA Program

No. DTNH22–01–R–05143 . The

applicant shall specifically identify any

information in the application for which

confidential treatment is requested, in

accordance with the procedures of 49

CFR Part 512, Confidential Business

Information.

Only complete packages received on

or before June 1, 2001, 2 p.m. Eastern

Standard Time will be considered.

Application Contents

The application package must be

submitted with OMB Standard Form

424 (Rev. 4–88, including 424A and

424B), Application for Federal

Assistance, with the required

information filled in and the

certifications and assurances included.

While the Form 424–A deals with

budget information, and section B

identifies Budget Categories, the

available space does not permit a level

of detail which is sufficient to provide

for a meaningful evaluation of the

proposed costs. A supplemental sheet

should be provided which presents a

detailed breakdown of the proposed

costs, as well as any costs which the

applicant proposes to contribute in

support of this effort. The budget should

be a 1-year plan. Also included shall be

a program narrative statement which

addresses the following:

1. A description of the project to be

pursued which provides:

a. A detailed explanation of the

proposed strategy to support the

enforcement efforts, including methods

for gaining support (both within the

community and law enforcement

leadership) for ‘‘waves’’ of highly

publicized seat belt enforcement and for

mobilization efforts. In addition, an

explanation of the strategies to fund

local law enforcement agencies to

participate in the national

mobilizations, and to conduct ‘‘waves’’

of highly publicized seat belt

enforcement. A description of efforts to

address training needs (e.g., differential

enforcement or diversity sensitivity) of

law enforcement jurisdictions and how

training will be marketed to these

jurisdictions.

b. The goals, objectives, and the

anticipated results and benefits of the

project (supporting documentation from

concerned interests other than the

applicant can be used.)

c. Written evidence of approval by the

applicant’s Chief Executive Officer.

d. An explanation demonstrating the

need for assistance.

e. Description of any extraordinary

social/community involvement.

f. A discussion of the criteria to be

used to evaluate the results (e.g. number

of citations, number of officers trained,

seat belt use surveys, level of earned

media coverage, etc.).

2. A list of the proposed activities in

chronological order to show the

schedule of accomplishments and their

target dates.

3. Identification of the proposed

program coordinator for participation in

the proposed project effort.

4. A description of the applicant’s

previous experience related to this

proposed program effort (i.e. past

participation in highly publicized

enforcement or participation in the

Operation ABC national seat belt

mobilizations).

5. A statement of any technical

assistance which the applicant may

require of NHTSA in order to

successfully complete the proposed

project.

Application Review Process and

Evaluation Factors

Initially, each application will be

reviewed to confirm that the applicant

meets the eligibility requirements and

that the application contains all of the

information required by the Application

Contents section of this notice. Each

complete application from an eligible

recipient will then be evaluated by a

Technical Evaluation Committee. The

applications will be evaluated using the

following criteria:

1. The potential of the proposed

project effort to increase seat belt use.

(40%)

The likeliness and feasibility of the

applicant’s projects to increase

enforcement by law enforcement

jurisdictions of proper seat belt and

child safety seat use. The degree to

which the applicant has identified

jurisdictions that might benefit from

training opportunities concerning

proper seat belt and child safety seat

use, and effectiveness of the applicant’s

plan for providing that training. The

overall soundness and feasibility of the

applicant’s approach to participating

and successfully seeking law

enforcement participation in

mobilization efforts, public information

campaigns concerning seat belt and

child safety seat use, and child safety

seat clinics.

2. The applicant’s proposed strategy

for participating and seeking the

participation of local law enforcement

agencies in the Buckle Up America

National seat belt mobilizations. (40%)

The likeliness and feasibility of the

Association’s proposal, as described in

its innovative project plan, to assist

smaller law enforcement agencies in

participating in the Buckle Up America

National seat belt mobilizations. The

degree to which the applicant has

demonstrated a complete understanding

of the requirements for successful

participation in the Operation ABC

national seat belt mobilizations. The

overall soundness and feasibility of the

applicant’s proposed strategy and

demonstrated ability to involve and

coordinate this project with smaller law

enforcement agencies.

3. The applicant’s ability to

demonstrate support and coordination

with local government and the State

Highway Safety Office. (15%)

The degree to which the proposal

describes efforts and commitment to

obtain the support from local

government officials throughout the

State. The likeliness and feasibility of

the applicant’s proposal for reaching

local and state government executives

throughout the state, including

suggested methods for generating

interest, making initial contacts and

reasons for taking this approach as

opposed to others.

4. The adequacy of the organizational

plan for accomplishing the proposed

project effort through the experience

and technical expertise of the proposed

personnel. (5%)

Program management and technical

expertise will be estimated by reviewing

the qualifications and experience of the

proposed personnel, and the relative

level of effort of the staff. Consideration

will be given to the adequacy of the

organizational plan for accomplishing

the proposed project effort.

Consideration will also be given to the

Association’s resources and how it will

provide the program management

capability and personnel expertise to

successfully perform the activities in its

plan.

NHTSA Involvement

The NHTSA will be involved in all

activities undertaken as part of the

cooperative agreement program and

will:

1. Provide a Contracting Officer’s

Technical Representative (COTR) to

participate in the planning and

management of the cooperative

agreement and to coordinate activities

between the selected State Associations

of Chiefs of Police and NHTSA;

2. Provide information and technical

assistance from government sources,

within available resources and as

determined appropriate by the COTR;

3. Provide liaison between the

selected State Associations of Chiefs of

Police and other government and

private agencies as appropriate; and

21820 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Notices

4. Stimulate the exchange of ideas and

information among cooperative

agreement recipients through periodic

meetings.

Terms and Conditions of Award

1. Prior to award, the recipient must

comply with the certification

requirements of 49 CFR Part 29—

Department of Transportation

Government-wide Debarment and

Suspension (Non-procurement) and

Government-wide Requirements for

Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).

2. During the effective period of the

cooperative agreement(s) awarded as a

result of this notice, the agreement(s)

shall be subject to NHTSA’s General

Provisions for Assistance Agreements

(7–95).

Reporting Requirements

1. The recipient shall submit brief

quarterly reports documenting the

project effort to date, which will include

information on accomplishments,

obstacles and problems encountered,

and noteworthy activities. Quarterly

reports shall be due 15 days after the

end of each quarter, and a final report

summarizing the project effort shall be

due within 30 days after the completion

of the project. An original and three

copies of each of these reports shall be

submitted to the COTR.

2. The recipient may be requested to

conduct an oral presentation of project

activities for the COTR and other

interested NHTSA personnel. For

planning purposes, assume that these

presentations will be conducted at the

NHTSA Office of Traffic and Injury

Control Programs, Washington, D.C or at

a conference identified by the COTR. An

original and three copies of briefing

materials shall be submitted to the

COTR.

Rose A. McMurray,

Associate Administrator for Traffic, Safety

Programs.

[FR Doc. 01–10818 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001–9036; Notice 1]

Mazda Motor Corporation, Receipt of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Mazda Motors Corporation has

determined that certain 1994 model

Mazda Navajos and 1994 through 2000

model Mazda B-Series trucks do not

meet the labeling requirements of

paragraphs 5.2(a) and 5.2(c) of Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

No. 120, ‘‘Tire Selection and Rims for

Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger

Cars’’. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)

and 30120(h), Mazda has petitioned for

a determination that this

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety and has filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

Part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’

This notice of receipt of an

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgment concerning the

merits of the application.

Mazda states that approximately

218,000 vehicles were manufactured

with tire rims that do not include the

letter ‘‘T’’ identifying TRA as the source

of the nominal dimensions of the rims.

Also, the rims on these vehicles do not

include the ‘‘DOT’’ symbol, indicating

certification of compliance with the

substantive requirements of the

standard.

Mazda states that the noncompliances

are inconsequential to motor vehicle

safety because, with the exception of the

cited missing markings, the

noncomplying rims do comply with all

other federal requirements. The missing

markings identifying the source of the

rim dimensions have no effect on the

tire/rim performance. According to

Mazda, the tires and rims on the

affected vehicles are properly matched

and are appropriate for the load carrying

characteristics of these vehicles. Mazda

indicates that selection of an incorrect

replacement rim is possible, but not

likely to result in a safety problem.

Mazda states that a comparison of rim

dimensions by several other designates

listed in S5.2(a) indicated that

dimensions for the size and type of the

rims in question are essentially identical

to the rims designed by TRA, the source

for the noncompliant rims. Therefore,

correctly sized rims with dimensions

from other designates would be

appropriate for these vehicles. With

respect to the DOT symbol marking,

Mazda states that the rims comply with

all federal requirements that may have

an impact on motor vehicle safety and

therefore, it does not consider this

noncompliance with S5.2(c) to be a

safety problem.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments on the application described

above. Comments should refer to the

docket number and be submitted to:

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested that two copies be

submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

After the Agency has determined that

the application will be granted or

denied, a notice will be published in the

Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below. Comment

closing date: (30 days after Publication

Date).

(49 U.S.C. 301118, 301120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and .501.8)

Issued on: April 26, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–10797 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001–9426; Notice 1]

Mazda Motor Corporation, Receipt of

Application for Decision of

Inconsequential Noncompliance

Mazda Motor Corporation has

determined that certain 2000 Mazda

MPVs do not meet the labeling

requirements of paragraphs S5.1 and

S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 120 ‘‘Tire

Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles

Other than Passenger Cars’’. Pursuant to

49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Mazda

has petitioned for a determination that

this noncompliance is inconsequential

to motor vehicle safety and has filed an

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR

Part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance

Reports.’’

This notice of receipt of an

application is published under 49

U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not

represent any agency decision or other

exercise of judgment concerning the

merits of the application. Mazda states

that the noncompliance are

inconsequential as related to motor

vehicle safety and requests exemption

from the notification and recall

requirements.

Mazda manufactured 19,569 model

year 2000 MPVs equipped with 15-inch

tires with an incorrect maximum load

rating marked on the sidewall.

According to Mazda, the maximum load

marked on the tires is 635 kg, whereas