29376 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Notices

devices from being effective protection

against theft.

On the basis of comparison, Ford has

concluded that the antitheft device

proposed for its vehicle line is no less

effective than those devices in the lines

for which NHTSA has already granted

full exemptions from the parts-marking

requirements.

Based on the evidence submitted by

Ford, the agency believes that the

antitheft device for the Mercury Grand

Marquis vehicle line is likely to be as

effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as compliance with

the parts-marking requirements of the

theft prevention standard (49 CFR part

541).

The agency believes that the device

will provide four of the five types of

performance listed in 49 CFR part

543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;

preventing defeat or circumvention of

the device by unauthorized persons;

preventing operation of the vehicle by

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the

reliability and durability of the device.

As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and

49 CFR part 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the

agency finds that Ford has provided

adequate reasons for its belief that the

antitheft device will reduce and deter

theft. This conclusion is based on the

information Ford provided about its

antitheft device.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby grants in full Ford Motor

Company’s petition for an exemption for

the MY 2002 Mercury Grand Marquis

vehicle line from the parts-marking

requirements of 49 CFR part 541.

If Ford decides not to use the

exemption for this line, it must formally

notify the agency, and, thereafter, must

fully mark the line as required by 49

CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of

major component parts and replacement

parts).

NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in

the future to modify the device on

which this exemption is based, the

company may have to submit a petition

to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d)

states that a part 543 exemption applies

only to vehicles that belong to a line

exempted under this part and equipped

with the antitheft device on which the

line’s exemption is based. Further,

§ 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission

of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to

permit the use of an antitheft device

similar to but differing from the one

specified in that exemption.’’ The

agency wishes to minimize the

administrative burden that § 543.9(c)(2)

could place on exempted vehicle

manufacturers and itself. The agency

did not intend in drafting part 543 to

require the submission of a modification

petition for every change to the

components or design of an antitheft

device. The significance of many such

changes could be de minimis. Therefore,

NHTSA suggests that if the

manufacturer contemplates making any

changes, the effects of which might be

characterized as de minimis, it should

consult the agency before preparing and

submitting a petition to modify.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: May 23, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–13553 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. RSPA–00–8026 (PDA–26(R))]

Application by Boston & Maine Corp.

for a Preemption Determination as to

Massachusetts’ Definitions of

Hazardous Materials

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice extending rebuttal period

for public comment.

SUMMARY: RSPA is extending the period

for interested parties to submit rebuttal

comments on an application by Boston

& Maine Corporation for an

administrative determination whether

Federal hazardous materials

transportation law preempts the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’

definitions of ‘‘hazardous materials’’ as

applied to hazardous materials

transportation.

DATES: Rebuttal comments received on

or before June 12, 2001, will be

considered before an administrative

ruling is issued by RSPA’s Associate

Administrator for Hazardous Materials

Safety. Rebuttal comments may discuss

only those issues raised by comments

received during the initial comment

period and may not discuss new issues.

ADDRESSES: The application and all

comments received may be reviewed in

the Dockets Office, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001. The application and all

comments are also available on-line

through the home page of DOT’s Docket

Management System, at ‘‘http://

dms.dot.gov.’’

Comments must refer to Docket No.

RSPA–00–8026 and may be submitted

to the docket either in writing or

electronically. Send three copies of each

written comment to the Dockets Office

at the above address. If you wish to

receive confirmation of receipt of your

written comments, include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard. To submit

comments electronically, log onto the

Docket Management System website at

http://dms.dot.gov, and click on ‘‘Help

& Information’’ to obtain instructions.

A copy of each comment must also be

sent to (1) Robert B. Culliford, Esq.,

Corporate Counsel, Boston & Maine

Corporation, Iron Horse Park, North

Billerica, MA 01862, and (2) Ginny

Sinkel, Esq., Assistant Attorney General,

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office

of the Attorney General, One Ashburton

Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108–

1698. A certification that a copy has

been sent to these persons must also be

included with the comment. (The

following format is suggested: ‘‘I certify

that copies of this comment have been

sent to Mr. Culliford and Ms. Sinkel at

the addresses specified in the Federal

Register.’’)

A list and subject matter index of

hazardous materials preemption cases,

including all inconsistency rulings and

preemption determinations issued, are

available through the home page of

RSPA’s Office of the Chief Counsel, at

‘‘http://rspa-atty.dot.gov.’’ A paper copy

of this list and index will be provided

at no cost upon request to Ms. Christian,

at the address and telephone number set

forth in ‘‘For Further Information

Contact’’ below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karin V. Christian, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Research and Special Programs

Administration (Tel. No. 202–366–

4400), Room 8407, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590–

0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 16, 2000, RSPA published a

notice in the Federal Register inviting

interested parties to submit comments

on an application by Boston & Maine

Corporation for an administrative

determination of whether Federal

hazardous materials transportation law

preempts the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts’ definitions of

‘‘hazardous materials’’ as applied to

hazardous materials transportation. See

65 FR 69365.

RSPA extended the period for

commenting on the preemption

determination application twice after

receiving two requests from the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thus,

RSPA extended the comment period to

April 13, 2001, and the rebuttal

comment period to May 29, 2001.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Notices 29377

On May 21, 2001, Boston & Maine

Corporation sent a letter to RSPA

requesting a two-week extension to June

12, 2001, to file rebuttal comments. In

its letter, Boston & Maine Corporation

states that the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts has assented to the

request for an extension of time.

Accordingly, RSPA is extending the

rebuttal comment period to June 12,

2001.

Rebuttal comments should address

whether and how Massachusetts’

definitions of ‘‘hazardous material’’ are

applied and enforced by the State with

respect to transportation that is subject

to the HMR.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 24,

2001.

Robert A. McGuire,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 01–13554 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

May 22, 2001.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before June 29, 2001 to

be assured of consideration.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms (BATF)

OMB Number: 1512–0525.

Form Number: ATF F 5300.38.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Application for an Amended

Federal Firearms License.

Description: This form is used when

a Federal firearms licensee makes

application to change the location of the

firearms business premises. The

applicant must certify that the proposed

new business premises will be in

compliance with State and local law for

that location, and forward a copy of the

application to the chief law enforcement

officer having jurisdiction over the new

premises.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

18,000.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 1 hour, 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

22,500.

OMB Number: 1512–0526.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Implementation of Public Law

103–322, The Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

Description: These regulations

implement the provisions of Public Law

103–322 by restricting the manufacture,

transfer, and possession of certain

semiautomatic assault weapons and

large capacity ammunition feeding

devices.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, Individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 2,107,000.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent/Recordkeeper:

Reporting—6 minutes

Recordkeeping—2 hours, 42

minutes

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 458,942 hours.

Clearance Officer: Frank Bowers,

(202) 927–8930, Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, Room 3200, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20226.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt,

(202) 395–7860, Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10202, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503.

Mary A. Able,

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–13469 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

May 15, 2001.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before June 29, 2001 to

be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545–0041.

Form Number: IRS Form 966.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Corporate Dissolution or

Liquidation.

Description: Form 966 is filed by a

corporation whose shareholders have

agreed to liquidate the corporation. As

a result of the liquidation, the

shareholders receive the property of the

corporation in exchange for their stock.

The IRS uses Form 966 to determine if

the liquidation election was properly

made and if any taxes are due on the

transfer of property.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 26,000.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent/Recordkeeper:

Recordkeeping—5 hr., 1 min.

Learning about the law or the form—

24 min.

Preparing and sending the form to the

IRS—29 min.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 153,920 hours.

OMB Number: 1545–0754.

Regulation Project Number: LR–255–

81 Final.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Substantiation of Charitable

Contributions.

Description: Congress intended that

the IRS prescribe rules and

requirements to assure substantiation

and verification of charitable

contributions. The regulations serve

these purposes.

Respondents: Individuals or

households, Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Recordkeepers:

26,000,000.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Recordkeeper: 5 minutes.

Estimated Total Reporting/

Recordkeeping Burden: 2,158,000 hours.

OMB Number: 1545–0782

Regulation Project Number: LR–7

Final (TD 6629).

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Limitation on Reduction in

Income Tax Liability Incurred to the

Virgin Islands.

Description: The Tax Reform Act of

1986 repealed the mandatory reporting

and recordkeeping requirements of

section 934(d) (1954 Code). The prior

exception to the general rule of section