Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29855

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice

announces that the Information

Collection Request (ICR) abstracted

below has been forwarded to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) for

extension of the currently approved

collection. The ICR describes the nature

of the information collection and the

expected burden. The Federal Register

Notice with a 60-day comment period

soliciting comments on the following

collection of information was published

on 2/15/01, pages 10558–10559.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 2, 2001. A comment to

OMB is most effective if OMB receives

it within 30 days of publication.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAA

Desk Officer.

Comments are invited on: Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Department,

including whether the information will

have practical utility; the accuracy of

the Department’s estimates of the

burden of the proposed information

collection; ways to enhance the quality,

utility and clarity of the information to

be collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy

Street on (202) 267–9895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Title: Report of Inspections Required

by Airworthiness Directives, 14 CFR

Part 39.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

OMB Control Number: 2120–0056.

Forms(s): None.

Affected Public: 1029 affected aircraft

owners and operators.

Abstract: The Airworthiness Directive

(AD) is the medium used by the FAA to

provide notice to aircraft owners and

operators that an unsafe condition exists

and to prescribe the conditions and/or

limitations, including inspections,

under which the product may continue

to be operated. AD’s are issued to

require corrective action to correct

unsafe conditions in aircraft engines,

propellers, and appliances. Reports of

inspections are often needed when

emergency corrective action is taken to

determine if the action was adequate to

correct the unsafe conditions.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours:

2,144 hours annually.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 25,

2001.

Steve Hopkins,

Manager, Standards and Information

Division, APF–100.

[FR Doc. 01–13793 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Environmental Impact Statement:

Juneau International Airport, Juneau

Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA). DOT

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration announces that it will

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for implementation of

projects proposed at the Juneau

International Airport.

Responsible Official: Patricia A.

Sullivan, Environmental Specialist,

Federal Aviation Administration,

Alaskan Region, Airports Division, 222

W. 7th Avenue, #14, Anchorage, AK

99513.

Written Comments: Ken Wallace,

Project Manager, SWCA, 230 South 500

East, Suite 380, Salt Lake City, UT

84102. Email: Kwallace@swca.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathryn Collis, Compliance and Process

Coordinator, SWCA, 230 South 500

East, Suite 380, Salt Lake City, UT

84102, phone (801) 322–4307. Email:

ccollis@swca.com.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Aviation Administration will

prepare and consider an EIS for

implementation of proposed projects at

the Juneau International Airport. Major

projects proposed to be assessed in the

EIS include creation of additional

Runway Safety Area (RSA) centered

about the runway that is 500 feet wide

by the length of the runway plus 1,000

feet beyond each runway end;

installation of a Medium Approach

Lighting System with Rails (MALRS) to

improve the approach to Runway 26;

construction of a Snow Removal

Equipment Building to provide needed

storage space for the snow removal fleet;

and construction of an additional

Aviation Development Area to provide

adequate facilities to accommodate the

growing demand and tourism needs of

helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

These projects, along with other

projects proposed to improve safety and

efficiency and accommodate growing

aviation demand, were identified in the

Juneau International Airport Master

Plan. The Juneau International Airport

Board approved the Airport Master Plan

on April 14, 1999. The Master Plan was

accepted by FAA June 27, 2000.

In order to comply with NEPA, an

Environmental Assessment (EA) was

prepared and published in June 2000.

Following the completion of the EA, the

FAA determined that a more thorough

EIS process is necessary for these

proposed projects.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to the proposed projects are

addressed and that all significant issues

are identified, FAA intends to consult

and coordinate with Federal, State and

local agencies that have jurisdiction by

law or have specific expertise with

respect to any environmental impacts

associated with the proposed projects.

FAA will also solicit input from the

public in a public scoping meeting,

which will be held June 20, 2001, from

5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Centennial

Hall, Juneau, Alaska. In addition to

providing input at the public scoping

meetings, the public may submit written

comments on the scope of the

environmental study to the address

identified in FOR.

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Comments should be submitted within

60 days of the publication of this Notice.

Issued in Anchorage, Alaska on May 11,

2001.

Barbara J. Johnson,

Acting Manager, Airports Division, AAL–600,

Alaskan Region.

[FR Doc. 01–13796 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Discretionary Cooperative Agreements

To Support the Demonstration and

Evaluation of Setting and Enforcing

Rational Speed Limits

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Announcement of discretionary

cooperative agreements to support the

demonstration and evaluation of setting

and enforcing rational speed limits.

SUMMARY: The Speed Management Team

of the U.S. Department of

Transportation (U.S. DOT), a multimodal body including members from

FHWA and NHTSA, will fund a number

29856 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

of cooperative agreements with states or

localities to field test the impact of

setting and enforcing rational speed

limits. The goal of the project is to

evaluate a cooperative program in

which engineering, enforcement, and

education are undertaken in a

coordinated manner to manage traffic

speeds. Rational speed limits promote

public safety by providing drivers with

information to help them choose a

reasonable and prudent speed that is

appropriate for the normal traffic,

weather, and roadway conditions.

Speed limits are set with the objective

of achieving a balance between safety

and efficiency. Rational speed limits are

determined through a formal review that

uses the 85th percentile speed of freeflowing traffic combined with

information on roadway geometry, crash

characteristics and land use. This

procedure results in a speed limit that

appears reasonable to most drivers and

thereby results in more uniform speeds.

Previous research has suggested that

speed uniformity is associated with

lower crash risk and that the 85th

percentile falls within the speed range

of lower crash risk. Consequently, strict

enforcement of rational speed limits,

focused on flagrant speed limit violators

and designed to minimize speed

variance, may help in promoting safer

travel. In addition, an effective public

information and education campaign

will help citizens understand how the

speed limits were determined and the

reason for their strict enforcement. Such

a combined approach is expected to

result in strong support from the public,

the police, and the judiciary.

Cooperative agreements will be

awarded to support a number of

communities in developing and

evaluating innovative speed

management projects that adopt such a

rational speed limit approach. The

approach will incorporate the following

steps:

• An engineering and traffic

investigation of existing speed limits.

• Revision of speed limits where

appropriate.

• Education of the public on reasons

for revising speed limits.

• Enforcement of the rational speed

limits fairly and strictly.

• Identification of a separate

community for comparison purposes.

This notice solicits applications from

State and local governments and their

agencies. Two to four cooperative

agreement awards for demonstration

and evaluation projects are anticipated

under this announcement. Interested

applicants must submit an application

package as further described in the

Application Procedures section of this

notice. Applications will be evaluated

on the basis of the criteria identified in

the Evaluation Criteria section of this

notice.

DATES: Applications must be received at

the office designated below on or before

4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 24, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be

submitted to the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Office of

Contracts and Procurement (NAD–30),

ATTN: Maxine Ware, 400 7th Street,

SW., Room 5301, Washington, DC

20590. All applications submitted must

include a reference to NHTSA

Cooperative Agreement Program No.

DTNH22–01–H–05221.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

General administrative questions may

be directed to Maxine Ware, Office of

Contracts and Procurement at (202)

366–4843. Technical questions relating

to this Cooperative Agreement Program

may be directed to Paul J. Tremont,

Ph.D., Office of Research and Traffic

Records (NTS–31), NHTSA, 400 7th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or

by e-mail at

paul.tremont@nhtsa.dot.gov, or by

phone (202) 366–5587. Interested

applicants are advised that no separate

application package exists beyond the

contents of this announcement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Introduction

Speed limits promote public safety by

informing drivers of the maximum

reasonable and prudent speed for each

road segment. The speed limit should

represent a concerted attempt to balance

safety and travel efficiency. As such, it

establishes a rational basis for

enforcement to target violators traveling

at unsafe speeds. Posted speed limits

seek to confine speeds beneath an upper

bound and produce a relatively uniform

speed distribution. Previous research

has suggested that speed uniformity

among vehicles on a roadway is

associated with lower crash risk.

Rational speed limits are primarily

based on existing traffic speed data and

often take into account adjustments for

roadway conditions, crashes, and land

use.

General Principles

A guiding principle for setting

rational speed limits is that they should

provide a high level of compliance and

consequently be largely self-enforcing.

This requires that drivers understand

the basis for the limit and that it appears

to be reasonable. Such rational speed

limits help to establish a reasonable

standard for enforcement and permit

authorities to concentrate enforcement

efforts on those more flagrant speed

limit violators and high-risk drivers who

are likely to create unsafe situations.

Achieving high compliance will require

an effective combination of Public

Information and Education (PI&E) and

dedicated enforcement. For this

cooperative agreement program, the

recipient will be required to determine

rational speed limits using the

engineering study procedure described

in ‘‘Guidelines for Setting Safe and

Reasonable Speed Limits’’. (Appendix

A).

Elements of Speed Management

Managing speeds depends on the

integration of three key elements:

engineering, enforcement, and

education. The prevailing speed

engineering study is frequently cited as

the desired way to achieve high

compliance with what drivers choose as

reasonable speed limits. For this

approach, the 85th percentile of the

distribution of free-flowing vehicle

speeds is used as the starting point for

setting the rational speed limit. To

establish credibility of the rational

speed limits program, a rigorous

enforcement program must be

developed and systematically applied.

Finally, in order to gain full compliance

of rational speed limits, the public must

understand the basis for their setting

and realize that they will be rigorously

enforced. To achieve this, the

community must also develop an

effective PI&E program.

Additional Resources

The following is a list of resources for

information on setting and enforcing

rational speed limits. Copies are

available upon request from Paul

Tremont, the designated technical point

of contact.

• Committee for Guidance on Setting

and Enforcing Speed Limits. (1998)

Managing Speed: Review of Current

Practice for Setting and Enforcing Speed

Limits. Special Report 254.

Transportation Research Board,

National Research Council, National

Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

• Institute for Transportation

Engineers. (1993) Speed Zone

Guidelines: A Proposed Recommended

Practice. Institute of Transportation

Engineers: Washington DC.

Objective

The objective of these demonstration

and evaluation projects is to determine

the extent to which rationally

established, well-publicized, and

rigorously enforced speed limits lead to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29857

higher compliance and improved traffic

flow, without reducing highway safety.

Description of Program Effort

General Requirements. This

cooperative agreement program requires

each recipient to conduct a carefully

planned demonstration of setting and

enforcing rational speed limits. The

recipient shall designate a specific

demonstration community (or group of

communities). A demonstration

community is the geopolitical area

where the rational speed limit

demonstration will take place. This

could be a State, a county, a city, a

township, a borough, or any defined

geographic entity or group of geographic

entities within the United States with a

clear governing body. The recipient will

conduct an engineering study of

selected road segments and revise the

speed limits on those road segments

using a rational speed limits approach

to manage speeds. The recipient will

implement and maintain a speed

enforcement program and provide

public information in the demonstration

community to fully inform drivers of

both the speed management program’s

rationale and the planned enforcement

program. The recipient will collect data

on speeds as well as on public outreach

and enforcement throughout the

demonstration period.

The recipient shall also designate, or

at least suggest, a similar community

with comparable road segments that

could be used as a comparison site

during this demonstration. These two

communities must be separated

geographically so that the

demonstration community’s speed

management program does not

influence driver behavior in the

comparison community. Below is a

listing and description of specific

requirements.

Planning Phase

Task 1. Kickoff Meeting

Within two weeks of award, a one-day

meeting will be held at U.S. DOT

headquarters in Washington, DC, during

which the recipient will conduct an

informal briefing of its demonstration

plan, including a discussion of the

preliminary list of demonstration streets

and highways.

Task 2. Prepare Work Plan

Based on comments from U.S. DOT at

the meeting, the recipient will prepare

and submit a final work plan and

project schedule in accordance with the

schedule of deliverables. The work plan

shall specify type and amount of data to

be collected, procedures and equipment

to be used, and plans for engineering,

enforcement and PI&E. The work plan

shall also include the final list of

demonstration streets and highways

along with the name or route number,

start and end point, mileage, existing

posted speed(s), functional class of road

and area type. The demonstration roads

may include a mix of existing road

types, including arterials, collectors,

and local roads. Interstates and other

controlled access roads are excluded

from this effort.

Task 3. Conduct Engineering Studies

Conduct an engineering and traffic

investigation on the demonstration

roads using the engineering analysis

described in Appendix A and/or other

U.S. DOT approved methods. Speeds

should be collected continuously for at

least 24 hours using automated

equipment capable of recording

individual vehicle speeds and

identifying free flowing vehicles (i.e.

headway or gap greater than 3–5

seconds). Based on the findings from the

engineering study, prepare a speedzoning plan and obtain necessary

approvals for the speed zoning changes.

A copy of the speed zoning plan will be

submitted to the U.S. DOT in

accordance with the schedule of

deliverables.

Task 4. Collect Other Baseline Data

Collect enforcement and other data to

help establish baseline measures,

including:

• Citations for speeding on selected

road segments,

• Crashes for the previous 3–5 years,

including details of crash types,

contributing factors, and citations

issued,

• Average daily traffic volume

corresponding to same years as the

crash data, and

• Public attitudes and perceptions

toward speed limits and enforcement.

A letter report will be prepared

documenting the results this activity.

The letter report will be submitted in

accordance with the schedule of

deliverables.

Implementation Phase

Task 5. Develop and Implement Public

Information and Education (PI&E)

Activities

Each demonstration community will

be required to develop and implement

a PI&E campaign intended to inform the

public of the program, heighten

awareness of the expected benefits, and

encourage compliance with the new

speed limits. The expectation is that

with a more comprehensive

understanding of the rational basis for

the speed limits, drivers will be more

likely to comply with them and less

overall opposition will be encountered

from the community. Accomplishing

the PI&E objective requires that key

public agencies and public figures

support the program and implement it

in an effective manner. The PI&E

campaign for the demonstration

community will include those elements

outlined in ‘‘Guidelines for Public

Information and Education Programs for

Rational Speed Limits’’ (Appendix B).

The recipient is required to prepare a

calendar schedule of PI&E activities

(i.e., press conferences, media materials,

etc.) in accordance with the schedule of

deliverables. All PI&E materials and

products should be presented to the

U.S. DOT for review and comments in

accordance with the schedule of

deliverables.

Task 6. Post Rational Speed Limits

Based on the results of Task 3 above,

the recipient will post revised speed

limits as necessary.

Task 7. Enforce Rational Speed Limits

Prosecutors and judges need to be

well informed of the basis for rational

speed limits and the need for swift and

fair adjudication. U.S. DOT will provide

information for judges and prosecutors

in the demonstration community on

speed management principles, the

purpose of the demonstration project,

and the effects of speeding on traffic

safety. This training may include visits

to the selected roadway segments where

rational speed limits are set and

demonstrations of the speed-measuring

devices used. Enforcement on the

demonstration roads will include those

elements outlined in ‘‘Guidelines for

Enforcement of Safe and Rational Speed

Limits’’ (Appendix C).

Task 8. Collect Post Baseline Data

(Ongoing)

The recipient will collect speed data,

enforcement data, and PI&E data at

various times during the demonstration

period. U.S. DOT will assist the

recipient in determining the exact data

to be collected and the schedule of

collection. Because U.S. DOT intends to

compare effects of different

communities, U.S. DOT will specify the

acceptable data elements and format.

Data shall be provided in accordance

with the schedule of deliverables and

shall include:

a. Speed Data. Appropriate speed data

will be collected by the recipient

quarterly in at least 25% of the speed

zones in a manner that will reveal any

changes in the speed. There will be at

29858 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

least one measurement site on each

demonstration road. Speed data will be

collected in every speed zone on the

demonstration roads at or about one

year after the before data was collected.

For long speed zones (greater than 5

miles in rural areas or 1 mile in urban

areas) multiple locations for speed data

collection may be required. Final

determination of all ‘‘after’’ speed data

collection locations shall be determined

in conjunction with the U.S. DOT. The

speed data shall include: • Individual vehicle speed, • Individual vehicle headway or

arrival time, and

• Measurement location, dates, and

times.

To ensure that the baseline data and

post-intervention data are comparable,

recipients will be expected to collect the

same types of speed data, at the same

locations, in the same manner as was

used in during the traffic and

engineering investigation (see Task 3

above). These data shall be submitted to

U.S. DOT on a schedule to be

determined.

b. Enforcement Data. Enforcement

and safety-related measures are needed

to understand the impact of the level of

enforcement on speeds and safety.

These data should be collected on a

schedule that ensures that the

information accurately reflects police

staffing assignments and other timesensitive information. The data need to

be provided to U.S. DOT quarterly with

the delivery of the speed data. In

accordance with the schedule of

deliverables, the recipient shall provide

enforcement data for the demonstration

road segments on:

• Traffic enforcement person hours,

• Number of speed violation

warnings, and speeding citations (and

cited speeds), • Adjudications, and • Crashes (by crash type). c. Public Information and Education.

Public attitudes and perceptions prior to

and following speed limit and

enforcement changes are linked to the

success of the program, and must be

measured to determine how they may

change. In the demonstration

community, the public attitudes and

perceptions should be surveyed before

and after the program is implemented.

PI&E data will be provided in

accordance with the schedule of

deliverables.

Task 9. Prepare Quarterly Progress

Reports

Progress reports will be provided

quarterly and should include a

summary of the previous quarter’s

activities and accomplishments, as well

as the proposed activities for the

upcoming quarter. Any decisions and

actions required in the upcoming

quarter should be included in the

report. The recipient shall supply the

progress reports to the U.S. DOT in

accordance with the schedule of

deliverables.

Task 10. Prepare Final Report

The recipient will prepare a brief

report (e.g., 25 pages or less), initially in

draft, and upon receipt of comments

from U.S. DOT, submit a final version,

describing the procedures and outcomes

associated with the rational speed limit

approach to speed management. The

report should be prepared according to

the following format:

• Introduction: Identify project

objectives; and describe the

demonstration and comparison

communities and participating agencies;

• Procedures: Describe what was

done;

• Findings: Present descriptive

statistics of the findings regarding

speeds, safety, attitudes, etc.; and

• Lessons Learned: Present any

information that can be used by other

communities when implementing a

similar program.

Task 11. Final Briefing

The recipient will present its findings

to U.S. DOT in Washington, D.C. This

briefing will be presented in accordance

with the schedule of deliverables.

Availability of Funds and Period of

Support

A total of $700,000 is available in

Fiscal Year 2001 to fund from two to

four demonstration and evaluation

projects for a performance period of 20

months. It is anticipated that individual

award amounts, based upon

demonstrated need, will range between

$175,000–300,000. This stated range

does not establish minimum or

maximum funding levels. Given the

amount of federal funds available for

these efforts, applicants are strongly

urged to seek other funding

opportunities to supplement the federal

funds.

U.S. DOT Involvement and

Responsibilities in This Cooperative

Agreement Program

• Provide a Contracting Officer’s

Technical Representative (COTR) to

participate in the planning and

management of each cooperative

agreement and to coordinate activities

between the recipients and U.S. DOT.

• Provide information and technical

assistance as determined appropriate by

the COTR.

• Provide for the collection and

analysis of speed, crash, and

enforcement data from the comparison

community.

• Provide for supplemental analysis

of speed, crash, and enforcement data

from the demonstration community.

Eligibility Requirements

Applications for this Cooperative

Agreement Program are solicited from

State and local governments and their

agencies. These demonstration projects

will require extensive collaboration

among each of the participating state/

community organizations in order to

achieve the program objective.

Application Procedures

Each applicant must submit one

original and two (2) copies of the

application package to: NHTSA, Office

of Contracts and Procurement (NAD–

30), ATTN: Maxine Ware, 400 7th

Street, SW, Room 5301, Washington, DC

20590. Submission of three additional

copies will expedite the evaluation

process, but is not required. The

application may be single spaced, must

be typed on one side of the page only,

and must include a reference to NHTSA

Cooperative Agreement No. DTNH22–

01–H–05221. Only complete application

packages received on or before 4:00 p.m.

on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 will be

considered.

Application Contents

1. The application package must be

submitted with OMB Standard Form

424 (Rev. 7–97, including 424B),

Application for Federal Assistance, with

the required information filled in and

certified assurances signed. Because the

available space on the 424A does not

permit a level of detail that is sufficient

to provide for a meaningful evaluation

of the proposed total costs, a completed

424A is not required. A supplemental

budget must be provided which

presents a summary of the proposed

costs, as well as a detailed breakdown

for each of the ten sections (tasks)

enumerated in the Description of the

Program Effort. The task breakdown

shall identify: direct labor costs for each

labor category, direct material and

equipment costs, travel costs

(explaining the relationship to the

project), and any overhead/indirect

costs. The applicant shall also identify

any financial or in-kind commitment of

resources that will be contributed in

support of the demonstration project.

The SF–424 and 424B may be obtained

from the Office of Management and

Budget website at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/

index.html.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29859

2. The application shall include a

program narrative statement that

describes the technical approach in 25

pages or less and addresses the

following information in separately

labeled sections. Letters of cooperation

and intent, as well as personnel

resumes, will not count against the page

limit.

a. Introduction: A brief overview of

the applicant’s capabilities to organize

and carry out the rational speed limit

project in the proposed demonstration

community. All participating

organizations (e.g., traffic engineering,

law enforcement, public information),

the principal investigator, and other key

personnel shall be identified. The

proposed comparison community and,

if possible, the key coordinating

personnel shall also be identified.

b. Description of Program Effort: The

planned technical approach for

performing each of the efforts listed

below shall be separately described.

(1) Coordination with organizations

within demonstration and comparison

communities. Describe how cooperation

among the various agencies will be

obtained. Include:

(a) Letters of intent from the

participating agencies in the

demonstration community

(b) Letters of intent from the

cooperating agencies in the comparison

community permitting U.S. DOT to

measure speeds and obtain crash and

enforcement data

(c) A letter of coordination from the

Governor’s Highway Safety

Representative and State Traffic

Engineer.

(2) Identification of a preliminary list

of demonstration streets/highways for

rational speed limits and basis for

selection. Identify the length, functional

class, predominant land use of selected

road segments.

(3) Traffic and engineering

investigations to establish rational speed

limits, including speed data collection

procedures and equipment and method

of determining whether speed limits

should be revised.

(4) Implementation of a community

outreach and PI&E program to obtain

public and official support.

(5) Enforcement plan for the new

speed limits.

(6) Collection of data.

c. Program Management and Staffing.

(1) A program organizational chart

identifying proposed staff members

assigned to the project will be provided.

The title and a brief description of each

position’s responsibilities will be

included, as well as the proposed level

of effort and allocation of time for each

position. One person must be identified

as the Project Director. This person will

have full responsibility for managing the

project’s technical progress, staffing and

coordination of organizations, and

serving as the point of contact for U.S.

DOT project staff.

(2) Brief resumes will be provided for

the proposed Project Director and other

key personnel.

Application Review Process and

Evaluation Criteria

Initially, all applications will be

reviewed to confirm that the applicant

is an eligible recipient and to ensure

that the application contains all of the

information required by the Application

Contents section of the notice. To be

considered complete, applications from

eligible applicants must include the

following information to be considered:

(1) The designation of a specific

demonstration community, as well as

the designation, or at least suggestion, of

a similar community that will be used

as a comparison site during the

proposed demonstration; (2) letters of

intent showing that the designated

demonstration community agencies

have the capabilities and are willing to

commit sufficient resources to properly

conduct the proposed demonstration,

including participating highway

engineering departments, law

enforcement agencies, prosecutors and

judges, department of motor vehicles,

public information office, and

community government; (3) letters from

the appropriate authorities within the

comparison community that the

appropriate highway engineering

department, law enforcement officials,

and department of motor vehicles

present in the comparison community

will cooperate in the demonstration

project, and provide U.S. DOT access to

the necessary data; and (4) a letter of

coordination for the proposed

demonstration project from the

Governor’s Highway Safety

Representative and State Traffic

Engineer. Each complete application

from an eligible recipient will be

evaluated by an evaluation panel.

The evaluation panel will be

comprised of government personnel

from NHTSA and FHWA, as well as a

representative from Westat, Inc. Westat,

Inc, a research firm located in Rockville,

Maryland, will serve as a non-voting

member of the evaluation panel and will

be providing support services to U.S.

DOT for this demonstration project

effort. Submission of an application in

response to this notice shall constitute

an authorization for a representative

from Westat, Inc. to review it.

The applications will be evaluated

using the following criteria:

1. Technical Approach (50 percent).

The applicant’s goals are clearly stated

and the objectives are time-phased,

specific, measurable, and achievable.

The application reflects a high

likelihood that the applicant will

achieve an outcome-oriented result that

will revise speed limits using a specific

rational procedure, secure the

cooperation of the necessary

organizations, inform the public, and

provide reliable data from which the

impact of the program can be assessed.

The application clearly describes what

the applicant proposes to develop and

implement, how this will be

accomplished, and the major tasks

necessary for completion. This involves

anticipating potential technical

problems and critical issues related to

successful completion of the project.

The application clearly describes the

planning, scheduling, equipment, and

procedures to be used to measure speed

data at selected road segments within

the demonstration community. An

important determining factor shall be

the extent and type of road segments

included in the demonstration

community, the enforcement proposed,

the extent to which judicial acceptance

is evidenced, and the PI&E campaign

planned.

2. Project Management and Staffing

(30 percent). The applicant has the

capabilities to plan, implement, and

evaluate the proposed project. The

proposed staff are clearly described, are

appropriately assigned, and have

adequate skills and experience. Staff

members with traffic engineering, speed

data collection, enforcement, PI&E, and

data management expertise have been

appropriately allocated. The applicant’s

staffing plan is reasonable for

accomplishing the objectives of the

project within the established time

frame.

3. Cost (20 percent). The budget is

sufficiently detailed to allow U.S. DOT

to determine that the estimated costs are

reasonable and necessary to perform the

proposed effort. The amount of financial

or in-kind commitment of resources by

the applicant organization or other

organizations to support the project has

been clearly identified. For those

applicants that are evaluated as

meritorious for consideration for award,

preference may be given to those that

have proposed cost-sharing strategies

and/or have other proposed funding

sources in addition to those in this

announcement.

Terms and Conditions of Award

1. Prior to award, each recipient must

comply with the certification

requirements of 49 CFR Part 20,

29860 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

Department of Transportation New

Restrictions on Lobbying, and 49 CFR

Part 29, Department of Transportation

Government-wide Debarment and

Suspension (Non-Procurement) and

Government-wide Requirements for

Drug Free Workplace (Grants).

2. Performance Schedule of

Deliverables and Milestones:

Task Activity description Milestone/deliverable Due date after award

1 .............................................. Kickoff meeting ...................... Milestone ................................ 2 weeks.

2 .............................................. Work plan ............................... Revised work plan ................. 4 weeks.

3 .............................................. Conduct Engineering Studies Speed Zoning Plan ................ 12 weeks.

4 .............................................. Data collection ....................... Data ....................................... Quarterly.

5 .............................................. PI&E ....................................... Schedule ................................ 12 weeks.

5 .............................................. PI&E ....................................... PI&E materials ....................... As developed.

8a, 8b, 8c ................................ Speed, enforcement, and

PI&E data.

Data ....................................... Every 3 months with full data provided 17

months after award.

9 .............................................. Submit quarterly progress reports.Quarterly progress reports ..... 10th day of every third month.

10 ............................................ Submit draft of Final Report .. Draft final report ..................... 17 months.

10 ............................................ Submit final version of Final

Report.

Final report ............................. 19 months.

11 ............................................ Final briefing at U.S. DOT

workshop.

Briefing at U.S. DOT .............. 20 months.

Note: Four copies of each product will be submitted to the COTR.

3. During the effective performance

period of the Cooperative Agreements

awarded as a result of this

announcement, the agreement as

applicable to the recipient shall be

subject to the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration’s General

Provisions for Assistance Agreements,

dated July 1995.

Issued on: May 25, 2001.

Marilena Amoni,

Acting Associate Administrator for Traffic

Safety Programs, NHTSA.

Frederick G. Wright, Jr.,

Program Manager, Safety, FHWA.

Appendix A—Guidelines for Setting

Safe and Reasonable Speed Limits

I. Speed Zoning

The purpose of speed zoning is to establish

a speed limit that is the maximum reasonable

and safe speed for a section of road. There

are many factors that affect driving speed and

crash risk including driver, vehicle, roadway,

traffic and environmental factors. The

prevailing speed of traffic reflects the

collective judgement of the driving

population on what appears reasonable and

safe on a given segment of roadway. The

prevailing speed, therefore, provides a

measure that objectively accounts for most

factors affecting safe speed. Changing a speed

limit on a road may, but does not necessarily

change the prevailing speed on the road.

Inconsistencies exist for how speed limits

are determined for speed zones, in part,

because of the subjective nature of the

current practice. If the speed limit is too high

it can lead to driver error; if it is too low it

may result in a lack of compliance and

misallocation of enforcement resources.

Therefore, it is critical that a standard

method for determining the safe and

appropriate speed be identified and

described.

II. 85th Percentile Speed

Section III below describes a method for

establishing speed limits based on the

prevailing speed. Setting speeds using the

85th percentile as a key guideline regulates

against the higher speeds that may be unsafe,

but still includes a very large percentage of

the driving public. Drivers who travel at the

95th percentile speed and above (i.e. fastest

5 percent) have significantly higher crash

rates than those who drive at or near the 85th

percentile (and also those whose speed is

closer to the average speed. Since the

purpose of speed zoning is to facilitate safety

by informing drivers of maximum speeds for

normal conditions, the posted speed limit

should reflect the upper limit of the safest

speeds (i.e., those near the 85th percentile).

III. Engineering and Traffic Survey

Considerations

A. Inventory Road Conditions

Review and document on a site diagram or

speed survey sheet the physical

characteristics of the road (alignment, grade,

roadway width, number of lanes, median

type, intersections, etc.), roadside

development, parking, and pedestrian

activity should. Divide the roadway of

interest into homogeneous sections. A

homogeneous section is one where:

• The roadside development is consistent

(residential vs. commercial; type and

frequency of businesses and driveways, etc.)

• The roadway features are consistent

(lane widths, medians, shoulders, surface

roughness, curvature, intersection spacing,

etc.)

B. Select Measurement Sites

Within each section, select speed

measurement sites. The measurement sites

should be representative of the entire section

of the roadway being zoned. This might

require that the roadway be divided into one

or more zones and that measurement sites be

selected for each zone. In a non-rural area,

select at least two measurement sites per mile

in each direction (i.e., sites spaced

approximately 2000 feet apart). Speed

measurement sites should not be located

within 500 feet of a speed transition zone

(intersection approach, horizontal curve,

etc.). If speed measurement sites are needed

between intersections and the 500-foot

distance cannot be met, use a mid-block

location for the speed measurement station.

Sites for different directions on the same road

do not necessarily need to be in the same

location.

C. Collect Speed Data

Using automated speed collection

measurement techniques, collect 24 hours of

speed data for all lanes at each speed

measurement site. Speed data must be

collected in a manner that does not influence

drivers to change their vehicle’s speed. The

speed measurement technique must also

permit free flowing vehicles (i.e., more than

5 sec. of headway to be distinguished from

non-free-flowing vehicles. This is necessary

to determine the 85th percentile of freeflowing vehicles. Data should be collected

during weekdays and should not be collected

during inclement weather.

D. Select Speed Limit

The following procedure is recommended

by the Federal Highway Administration and

is based on procedures widely used for speed

zoning. Based on the speed data collected,

determine the median (50th percentile) and

85th percentile speed for free-flow vehicles at

each measurement site. Select the 85th

percentile speed rounded to the nearest 5

mph increment as first approximation for the

speed limit. Where there are mitigating

factors (speed related crash history, heavy

non-motorized road user presence, extreme

variance of speeds) the selected speed may be

reduced to a value not lower than the median

speed rounded up to the next highest 5 mph

multiple. If there is a difference of more than

5 mph between two measurement sites,

employ a separate speed zone. If potentially

hazardous conditions exist within the zone,

the conditions should be corrected, or

appropriate warning signs should be

installed with advisory speed plaques based

on the inferred design or ball bank indicator.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29861

1The FHWA is the implementing agency.

For example, if a sharp curve exists within

the zone, do not reduce the speed limit in the

entire zone—remove the sharp curve or add

the appropriate warning sign.

Appendix B—Guidelines for Public

Information and Education (PI&E)

Programs for Rational Speed Limits

I. Introduction

Speeding—driving in excess of the posted

speed limits or driving too fast for

conditions—is a contributing factor in

approximately 30 percent of all fatal traffic

crashes. A comprehensive Public Information

and Education (PI&E) program is essential to

gain motorist compliance with rational speed

limits. All available means that can be used

to effectively carry the awareness message to

the motoring public should be used.

II. Methods and Strategies

A plan should be developed that includes

media analysis and profiles of target

audiences to determine optimum media mix

and timing for the campaign. This plan

should be followed for the duration of the

PI&E program. It should primarily reflect

methods for monitoring the effectiveness of

the PI&E program prior to its initiation and

as it progresses. Improvements in the PI&E

program should be made, as necessary, for

maximum effectiveness.

All materials should be developed in

appropriate languages that reflect the

demographics of the public within the target

project demonstration area. PI&E activities

should be conducted, as appropriate, prior to

and during the speed management project.

PI&E strategies should be developed in the

following areas:

• An overall PI&E awareness program

concerning the new speed management

techniques to ensure motorist acceptance and

compliance. This awareness program should

reflect a unified approach across media while

maximizing the value and effectiveness of

each media program.

• A PI&E event schedule, including special

press activities and press conferences.

• Distributed Materials: Fact sheets,

inserts, flyers, posters, print ads, exhibits and

displays.

• News Media Materials: Press releases,

public service announcements, liveannouncer scripts.

• Press conferences should be used where

appropriate. These conferences should occur

at the initiation of the demonstration project

(and at other key periods) in order to achieve

maximum press coverage. Press conferences,

when practical, shall include participation

from all groups involved in the

demonstration project, (i.e., traffic engineers,

law enforcement officers, prosecutors,

judges).

Appendix C—Guidelines for

Enforcement of Safe and Rational

Speed Limits

Enforcement of traffic laws is successful

primarily through the principle of deterrence.

The fundamental concept is that credible

threats of punishment deter unwanted

behavior.

I. Elements of the Deterrence Process

A. Behavior Must Be Definable,

Understandable and Detectable

The behavior that we want to stop, in this

case, is traveling at unsafe, unacceptable

speeds over the newly established rational

speed limits. Enforcement operations shall

take a top-down approach for establishing the

enforcement threshold. Speed measurements

at the selected road segments shall be used

to determine the top 5 percent of speeds.

This information will be used to establish the

enforcement threshold. The enforcement

threshold should never be less than 5 mph

above the new posted speed limit. This topdown strategy will not overwhelm the law

enforcement officers, the prosecutors, or the

courts. This strategy promotes public and

court acceptance of enforcement by targeting

only the most egregious violators. The overall

goal of the enforcement efforts is motorist

compliance, not issuance of citations.

B. Deterrence Depends Upon the Perceived

Risk of Apprehension

The public must be aware that new speed

limits will be strictly enforced. Highly

visible, highly publicized enforcement efforts

enhance this perception. The involved

enforcement agencies shall commit

additional resources above the norm for

speed enforcement efforts at the selected

roadway segments. This effort will provide a

consistent law enforcement presence without

the appearance of a ‘‘speed trap’’ being in

operation. The strategy should still allow the

enforcement officers to be available to

respond to other law enforcement activities

as necessary.

C. Deterrence Depends on the Swiftness,

Certainty, and Severity of Punishment

Once caught, speeders must be adjudicated

quickly with a high likelihood of significant

penalties.

II. Operational Considerations

A. Officers

Basic enforcement speed-measuring device

(e.g., radar, lidar, vascar, etc.) operator

training programs developed by NHTSA will

be offered by the U.S. DOT for officers

involved in speed enforcement. In addition,

officers involved in speed enforcement are

encouraged to comply with the enforcement

and operational procedures established by

U.S. DOT. Traffic officers assigned to patrol

the demonstration roads should devote a

significant portion of their shift on speed

enforcement.

B. Marked Police Vehicles

It is desirable that speed enforcement on

the selected roadway segments be highly

visible. Marked police vehicles frequently

patrolling the roadway segments provide this

visibility. The use of unmarked vehicles for

speed enforcement should be kept at a

minimum. Unmarked police vehicles tend to

give the public the perception that the

roadway segment is a ‘‘speed trap’’. This

perception should be avoided.

C. Speed-Measuring Devices

All speed-measuring devices used in the

speed enforcement efforts should be listed on

the International Association of Chiefs of

Police (IACP) Consumer Products List (CPL).

In addition, selected speed-measuring

devices should comply with the testing for

accuracy and reliability procedures

established by the IACP Speed-Measuring

Device Testing Program Administration

Guide.

D. Speed Display Trailer

The applicant may use speed display

trailers on the selected roadway segments to

inform the motoring public of their travel

speed on the selected roadway segments.

[FR Doc. 01–13721 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Participation in the Intelligent

Transportation Infrastructure Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for participation.

SUMMARY: The U.S. DOT1 is interested

in working with State and local

governments and an existing private

sector partner to develop an ability to

measure the operating performance of

the roadway system at a regional and

national level and to produce other

valuable streams of information. The

U.S. DOT is interested in assisting State

and local transportation agencies to

have access to real-time and archived

performance data to assist in their

planning, evaluation, and management

activities. To achieve these objectives,

the U.S. DOT is seeking applications

from State and/or local transportation

agencies interested in forming a public/

private partnership, with a private

partner preselected by the U.S. DOT, to

participate in the Intelligent

Transportation Infrastructure Program

(ITIP).

DATES: Applications to participate in the

ITIP must be received by 4 p.m., e.t.,

July 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Applications to participate

in the ITIP should be submitted directly

to the Federal Highway Administration,

Office of Travel Management, HOTM–1,

Attention: Chung Eng, 400 Seventh St.,

SW., Room 3404, Washington, DC

20590. Applications may be submitted

electronically to:

chung.eng@fhwa.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Chung Eng, Office of Travel

Management (HOTM–1), (202) 366–

8043, or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Chief

Counsel Service Business Unit (HCC–

40), (202) 366–0780, Department of