29876 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

‘‘what constitutes a safe stopping

distance depends on factors such as

speed, weight of the load carried by the

vehicle, traffic, road and weather

conditions, * * *’’ This is consistent

with the guidelines for maintaining an

adequate distance from other traffic,

based on speed and the relative size and

weight of the vehicles, in the Ohio

Commercial Driver Handbook, p. 2–27

(Version 2.0).

A driver is trained to vary his distance

from other vehicles based on speed and

traffic conditions. Any driver will have

difficulty maintaining a specified

distance from other vehicles, or other

vehicles carrying hazardous materials,

especially in the absence of a uniform

requirement. Without specific notice, as

speed limit signs might provide, a driver

may have difficulty recalling the

requirement that applies to the specific

situation, from among the variations

that exist for explosives (500 feet from

other explosives in the City but 300 feet

under the Ohio Fire Code in other parts

of Ohio), or other hazardous materials

(300 feet), or when he might be in

Montevallo, Alabama (150 feet). See IR–

32, 55 FR at 36744. It is impractical to

try to train drivers to cover many

different situations, even if the City’s

separation distance requirements apply

only when the ‘‘other’’ vehicle is

placarded (although, by their terms,

these requirements appear to apply in

certain situations when the other

vehicle carrying hazardous materials is

not required to have placards).

If the City never actively enforces its

separation distance requirements,

drivers lack the ‘‘reasonable notice’’ that

the City must provide of any local traffic

control. Id., 55 FR at 36745. Even with

some information that these

requirements exist, a total lack of

enforcement fosters uncertainty as to

their scope and subjects drivers to

possible arbitrary enforcement actions,

as stated by RSCC. Actual enforcement,

even of a separation distance

requirement that had ‘‘limited

enforceability’’ as in IR–3, would

provide drivers with some more specific

understanding of how to comply with

the requirement. A requirement that is

never actively enforced can be, by its

very nature, an obstacle to

accomplishing and carrying out the

Federal hazardous materials

transportation law and the HMR. This

sort of requirement frustrates the

framework of the HMR that is designed

to achieve the safe transportation of

hazardous materials through specific

rules for how hazardous materials are to

be transported and specific prohibitions

against certain practices.

Because the City’s separation distance

requirements in City Code 394.07(b) and

387.08(b) are not enforced and are

incapable of being followed by drivers

who lack full understanding of their

intended scope and application, these

requirements create an obstacle to

accomplishing and carrying out the

Federal hazardous material

transportation law and the HMR. For

these reasons, these requirements are

preempted by 49 U.S.C. 5125(a)(2).

IV. Ruling

Federal hazardous material

transportation law preempts:

1. Cleveland City Code section

394.06(b) prohibiting the transportation

of hazardous materials in the Downtown

Area between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., except

Saturday and Sunday, preempted with

respect to radiopharmaceuticals only.

There is insufficient information to find

that this prohibition is preempted with

respect to other hazardous materials.

2. Cleveland’s uncodified

requirements for a transporter of

explosives to notify the Fire Prevention

Bureau 24 hours in advance of any pickup or delivery, to specify the route to be

taken within the City, and to have a

police escort if more than 250 pounds

are transported.

3. Cleveland City Code sections

387.08(b) and 394.07(b) specifying

separation distance requirements for

vehicles transporting explosives or other

hazardous materials.

V. Petition for Reconsideration/Judicial

Review

In accordance with 49 CFR 107.211(a)

and 397.223(a), any person aggrieved by

this decision may file a petition for

reconsideration within 20 days of

publication of this decision in the

Federal Register. Any party to this

proceeding may seek review of this

decision ‘‘in an appropriate district

court of the United States * * * not

later than 60 days after the decision

becomes final.’’ 49 U.S.C. 5125(f).

This decision will become the final

decision of RSPA and FMCSA 20 days

after publication in the Federal Register

if no petition for reconsideration is filed

within that time. The filing of a petition

for reconsideration is not a prerequisite

to seeking judicial review of this

decision under 49 U.S.C. 5125(f).

If a petition for reconsideration of this

decision is filed within 20 days of

publication in the Federal Register, the

action by RSPA and FMCSA on the

petition for reconsideration will be the

final agency decision. 49 CFR

107.211(d), 397.223(d).

Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 29,

2001.

Robert A. McGuire,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety, Research and Special

Administration.

Julie Anna Cirillo,

Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–13799 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Innovative Grants To Support

Increased Seat Belt Use Rates

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Re-issuance of announcement of

grants to support innovative and

effective projects designed to increase

seat belt use rates.

SUMMARY: On April 30, 2001, the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) published an

announcement of grants to support

innovative and effective projects

designed to increase seat belt use rates.

After the announcement was published,

the agency decided that it contained a

number of requirements that might be

burdensome to the grant applicants.

Accordingly, the announcement

published on April 30, 2001 is

cancelled. That announcement has been

revised and is being re-issued in its

entirety in this notice.

In this notice, NHTSA announces the

third year of a grant program under

Section 1403 of the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–

21) to provide funding to States for

innovative projects to increase seat belt

use rates. Consistent with last year, the

goal of this program is to increase seat

belt use rates across the nation in order

to reduce the deaths, injuries, and

societal costs that result from motor

vehicle crashes. However, unlike the

first two years, when funds were

determined and administered in a

process similar to that of a contract, for

this third year, selection for these

Innovative Grants will be determined

based on established criteria, and the

distribution of funds will be

administered in a fashion similar to

other highway safety grants, including

use of the Grant Tracking System (GTS).

This notice solicits applications from

the States, the District of Columbia and

Puerto Rico, through their Governors’

Representatives for Highway Safety, for

funds to be made available in fiscal year

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29877

(FY) 2002. Detailed application

instructions are provided in the

Application Contents and Grant Criteria

section of this notice. The Section 157

Innovative Grants will be awarded to

States that comply with the criteria set

out in the Application Contents and

Grant Criteria Section of this notice.

DATES: Applications must be received

by the appropriate NHTSA Regional

Office on or before August 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Each State must submit its

application to the appropriate NHTSA

Regional Office, to the attention of the

Regional Administrator, on or before

Wednesday, August 1, 2001. Addresses

of the ten Regional Offices are listed in

Appendix A.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions relating to this grant program

should be directed to Philip Gulak,

Occupant Protection Division (NTS–12),

Office of Traffic Injury Control

Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Room 5118, Washington, DC

20590, by e-mail at

pgulak@nhtsa.dot.gov, or by phone at

(202) 366–2725. For legal issues, contact

Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, Office of Chief

Counsel, NCC–30, NHTSA, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Room 5118, Washington,

DC 20590, by phone at (202) 366–1834.

Interested applicants are advised that no

separate application package exists

beyond the contents of this

announcement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century (TEA–21), Pub. L. 105–

178, was signed into law on June 9,

1998. Section 1403 of TEA–21

contained a safety incentive grant

program regarding seat belt usage rates

in the States. Under this program, funds

are allocated each fiscal year from 1999

until 2003 to States that exceed the

national average seat belt use rate or that

improve their State seat belt use rate,

based on certain required

determinations and findings. Section

1403 provided that, beginning in FY

2000, any funds remaining unallocated

in a fiscal year after the determinations

and findings related to seat belt use

rates have been made are to be used to

‘‘make allocations to States to carry out

innovative projects to promote

increased seat belt use rates.’’ Today’s

notice solicits applications for funds

that will become available in FY 2002

under this provision.

TEA–21 imposes several requirements

under the innovative projects funding

provision. Specifically, to be eligible to

receive an allocation, a State must

develop a plan for innovative projects to

promote increased seat belt use rates

statewide and submit the plan to the

Secretary of Transportation (by

delegation, to NHTSA). NHTSA was

directed to establish criteria governing

the selection of State plans that are to

receive allocations and was further

directed to ‘‘ensure, to the maximum

extent practicable, demographic and

geographic diversity and a diversity of

seat belt use rates among the States

selected for allocations.’’ Finally,

subject to the availability of funds,

TEA–21 provides that the amount of

each grant under a State plan is to be

not less than $100,000.

In the following sections, the Agency

describes the application and award

procedures for receipt of funds under

this provision, including requirements

related to the contents of a State’s plan

for innovative projects and the criteria

the agency will use to determine

whether a State will receive an award.

To assist the States in formulating plans

that meet these criteria, we have

provided (in Appendix B) a discussion

of recent strategies which have been

effective in increasing seat belt use and

the ways in which States might meet the

criteria for an award. Clearly, efforts

undertaken over the past few years have

not resulted in major increases in seat

belt usage rates in several States. In

some cases, it appears that States have

reached plateaus, beyond which

additional increases will be difficult to

achieve. For States with usage rates

lower than 70 percent, the question

remains as to why past efforts have not

been more effective in increasing usage.

For States with usage rates of 70 percent

or above, a different problem exists.

Here, additional gains will be relatively

more difficult and will require more

powerful interventions than have been

used in the past.

When usage rates do not increase

following the implementation of a seat

belt program, it is difficult for a State to

determine if the lack of impact is the

result of strategies which have little

potential for change or if it is the result

of strategies that have not been

implemented with sufficient strength to

realize their potential. Objective

evaluations that measure both public

awareness and changes in seat belt

usage are essential for a State to

determine which programs or program

components are having an impact, and

to provide an opportunity to enhance

program strategies. Thus, all States

receiving grants are required to conduct

at least a basic evaluation of the impact

of their programs on public awareness

and seat belt use. An adequate plan for

evaluation must be submitted as part of

the State’s application. However,

NHTSA acknowledges that more indepth evaluation will be necessary to

accurately assess which program

components and which levels of

intensity are effective in increasing seat

belt use. The level and scope of effort

required for such in-depth evaluations

may be beyond the ability, resources or

perceived need of some States. Thus, in

this solicitation, States are not required

to, but may propose a plan for more indepth evaluation, for which additional

funds will be awarded to a limited

number of States. NHTSA will award up

to $4 million to fund the in-depth

evaluations. Appendix C discusses

issues relating to in-depth evaluations.

Recent NHTSA surveys show that

only about 30 percent of the public

across the nation are aware of national,

state, or community efforts to increase

seat belt use. However, States which

have recently experienced significant

increases in seat belt usage and have

evaluated their efforts (e.g., Michigan

and South Carolina), have shown that

more than 70 percent of the public were

aware of the program efforts (including

law changes) which contributed to such

changes. These evaluations suggest that

the lack of public awareness may be a

major reason why usage rates in many

States have not been increasing. In

States like Georgia, Maryland,

Oklahoma, Michigan, Alabama, and

New Jersey, recent primary law

legislation has been a key factor in

increasing public awareness. In other

States, like New York, North Carolina

and South Carolina, enforcement efforts

were publicized to a sufficient degree to

result in a high level of public

awareness.

Objective of This Grant Program

The objective of this grant program is

to increase State seat belt use rates, for

both adults and children, by supporting

the implementation of innovative

projects that build upon strategies

known to be effective in increasing seat

belt use rates. Because one of the best

ways to ensure that children develop

the habit of buckling up is for parents

to properly restrain them in child safety

seats, efforts to increase the use of child

safety seats, in addition to seat belts,

may be included among the innovative

efforts in a State’s plan. However, efforts

to increase seat belt use rates must

remain the focus of the State’s plan. (For

a discussion of Strategies that have

proven effective in increasing seat belt

use, see Appendix B.)

To be considered for an award under

this program in FY 2002, the State’s

innovative project plan must be based

on a core component of highly visible

enforcement of its seat belt use law or

29878 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

on a non-enforcement approach that has

significant and documented potential

for increasing the seat belt use rate

statewide. If a State proposes a nonenforcement approach, the application

must include an acceptable, preferably

research-based, rationale describing its

potential for impact. The application

also must describe a media program

designed to make the public aware of

the proposed intervention. In addition,

the State’s proposed efforts must be

statewide. If a State is already pursuing

a significant and visible enforcement

effort, the innovative aspects of the plan

must detail components that support,

expand, complement, and evaluate the

existing enforcement effort. These

essential and coordinated elements of

the project plan have been effective in

increasing seat belt use.

States submitting a proposal designed

to increase seat belt use in only a

limited number of jurisdictions, one that

lacks a strong enforcement or credible

non-enforcement effort, or one that does

not include an evaluation component

designed to measure both public

awareness and changes in seat belt

usage will be rejected in the evaluation

process.

A State may demonstrate innovation

in its enforcement efforts in a number of

ways. If a State is not currently engaged

in any form of highly visible

enforcement of its occupant protection

laws, implementation of such a

program, in and of itself, would be

innovative to that State. Finding new

and more effective ways to make the

public aware of the enforcement effort

(e.g., a paid media effort) would

demonstrate innovation. Additionally,

innovation may be demonstrated by

using new methods for gaining essential

support (e.g., of the Governor or other

key officials); by establishing statewide

coordination groups to plan, implement

and monitor the enforcement, media,

outreach, or evaluation efforts; by

implementing statewide enforcement

training or orientation programs; or by

proposing comprehensive ways to

determine the impact of the program on

diverse and low use groups. For States

that already are engaged in substantial

enforcement efforts, innovation can be

demonstrated by expanding these

efforts. This might include finding more

effective ways to reach rural, urban, or

diverse groups with strategies designed

to address low seat belt use among those

groups. States that have upgraded their

laws recently to allow for primary/

standard enforcement may wish to

initiate innovative ways to implement,

enforce, and publicize their newly

enacted law. For States with secondary

enforcement laws, where a motorist

must be stopped for another offense

before being cited for failure to buckle

up, innovation may be demonstrated by

integrating the enforcement of the seat

belt law with enforcement of other

traffic safety laws (e.g., impaired driving

or speed limit). Many opportunities for

innovation exist, regardless of the

State’s current seat belt use rate or its

ongoing efforts to increase it.

Specific examples of various

innovative activities that can be used in

support of a core component of

enforcement include:

—Expanding participation in the semiannual national seat belt enforcement

mobilizations (i.e., Operation ABC

conducted in May and November);

—Implementing efforts to train,

motivate, and recognize law

enforcement officers for participation

in the program;

—Implementing a training or orientation

program for prosecutors and judges to

make them aware of the program and

of the importance of consistently

prosecuting and adjudicating

occupant protection law violations;

—Mounting a highly visible program to

implement newly enacted legislation

that upgrades the State’s seat belt or

child passenger safety law;

—Initiating or expanding public

information and education programs

designed to complement newly

upgraded legislation and/or enhanced

enforcement efforts;

—Strengthening public information

efforts by adding a paid advertising

component to support earned (i.e.,

news) and public service media

efforts;

—Adopting a more focused message that

brings attention to the ongoing

enforcement effort (e.g., adopting a

‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ campaign

message);

—Establishing new partnerships and

coalitions to support ongoing

implementation of legislation or

enforcement efforts (e.g., health care

and medical groups, partnerships

with diverse groups, businesses and

employers);

—Initiating or expanding public

awareness and outreach efforts to

reach specific populations that have

low seat belt use (e.g., part-time users;

parents of children 0–15 years old;

minority populations, including

Native Americans; rural communities;

males 15–24 years old; occupants of

light trucks and sport utility vehicles,

etc.);

—Initiating or expanding standardized

child passenger safety training of

police officers and/or child passenger

safety checks and/or clinics across

broad geographical areas (e.g.,

statewide, in major metropolitan

areas, and/or in rural areas of the

State);

—Initiating or expanding enforcement

of other traffic laws (e.g., impaired

driving laws) as a means for

implementing highly visible

enforcement of seat belt use laws.

Self-Evaluations of Programs,

Management and Resources

Meaningful and timely selfevaluations of each State’s innovative

programs, management, and associated

resources are essential to improving the

effectiveness of programs supported by

this grant program. On an annual basis,

grantees and NHTSA will provide a

complete description of the program

activities that were carried out

(particularly enforcement, paid media

and enforcement-related messaging) and

of the effectiveness (or lack of

effectiveness) of its overall program in

creating public awareness and in

increasing seat belt use. States may

apply and qualify for additional funds,

which can be used to conduct more indepth evaluations in order to better

determine the impact of the overall

program or the contribution of specific

program elements (e.g., individual

enforcement waves, paid media, earned

media and incentives). Such in-depth

evaluation would be desirable for any

State proposing the use of paid media in

its program, particularly if $100,000 or

more is to be spent for that purpose.

Availability of Funds and Period of

Support

The efforts solicited in this

announcement will be supported

through the award of grants to a number

of States, on the basis of the Grant

Criteria identified subsequently in this

notice. The number of grants awarded

will depend upon the number of

applications that meet the requirements

of this notice. The amount of the awards

(for other than the optional in-depth

evaluation activities) available in FY

2002, will be based upon the formula

described below. However, the

minimum amount of an individual grant

award to a State will be no less than

$400,000, subject to the availability of

funds. The $400,000 minimum has been

derived based on experience gained

over the first two years of this

Innovative Grant program, and reflects

NHTSA’s best judgment about the

amount of resources needed to

implement effective statewide seat belt

campaigns that include enforcement,

media and a basic level of evaluation.

The amounts to be awarded for in-depth

evaluation activities will be determined

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29879

based on each applicant’s budget, as

described below.

In FY 2001, forty-three Innovative

Grants were awarded and grants ranged

from $204,000 to $2.9 million. At this

time, neither the exact amount of funds

available nor the number of qualifying

State applications can be determined.

There is no assurance that the number

of grant awards in FY 2002 will be the

same or similar to the number of awards

in FY 2000 or FY 2001, nor is there any

assurance that those States that received

awards in FY 2000 and FY 2001 will

receive awards in FY 2002. There is no

cost-sharing requirement under this

program. The planned period for grant

activity under this program will be a

total of 15 months, with 12 months of

plan implementation, and three months

for evaluation and preparation of the

annual report. Any funds remaining at

the end of that period can be carried

forward to the next year.

In the past two years, some States

have expressed concern about the time

taken to evaluate the proposals and

arrive at award decisions. This year’s

proposals will be reviewed on the basis

of whether or not the State’s application

complies with all of the required Grant

Criteria specified in this Federal

Register notice. Only applicants who

comply with all of the required

elements will be considered for award.

Once it is determined by the evaluation

committee that an applicant has met all

of the criteria and the State has satisfied

any additional clarification questions

about the proposal, a State will qualify

for an award. The dollar amount of

these awards (not including funds for

in-depth evaluation) will be based on

the same formula that applies to the

annual award for Section 402 funds (i.e.,

75% based on population and 25% on

roadway miles), subject to adjustments

needed to ensure that: (1) Each

qualifying State is awarded at least

$400,000; and (2) up to $4 million will

be used to fund in-depth evaluations.

Appendix D shows the estimated

amount that would be awarded to each

State, not including funds for in-depth

evaluation, based on current projections

of available funds for FY 2002,

assuming that all fifty-two eligible

jurisdictions apply and qualify for an

award, and assuming that a total of $4

million is used to fund in-depth

evaluations.

Any State that qualifies for a grant

and is interested in receiving additional

funds to support an in-depth evaluation

may apply for such funds by including

in its application detailed information

specified below under the heading

Applications for Additional Funds to

Conduct an In-depth Evaluation. These

applications for additional funds will be

reviewed and approved or disapproved

on the basis of the scientific soundness

of the approach to evaluation and on the

reasonableness of the proposed budget

for the in-depth evaluation. Please note

that, if a State’s request for additional

funds for in-depth evaluation is

rejected, the State may still qualify for

a grant, provided that an acceptable

basic evaluation plan is included in the

application. Final grant amounts will be

determined so that all available funds

will be awarded. Subject to the

availability of funds, NHTSA estimates

that the award of section 157 Innovative

Grants for FY 2002 will occur during

November 2001.

Allowable Uses of Federal Funds

In FY 2002, the section 157

Innovative Grants will be administered

in a fashion similar to other highway

safety grants. Funds will be tracked

through the GTS. Funds provided to a

State under this grant program shall be

used to carry out the activities described

in the State’s application for which the

grant is awarded. In addition, allowable

uses of Federal funds shall be governed

by the relevant allowable cost section

and cost principles referenced in 49

CFR Part 18—Department of

Transportation Uniform Administrative

Requirements for Grants and

Cooperative Agreements to State and

Local Governments.

Eligibility Requirements

Only the 50 States, the District of

Columbia and Puerto Rico, through their

Governors’ Representatives for Highway

Safety, will be considered eligible to

receive funding under this grant

program.

Application Procedures

Each applicant must submit one

original and two copies of the

application package to the appropriate

NHTSA Regional Office (see Appendix

A) to the attention of the Regional

Administrator.

Applications must be typed on one

side of the page only and adhere to the

requirements of the Application

Contents and Grant Criteria Section

below. Appendix E provides a checklist

to facilitate the preparation of the

proposals. Only application packages

submitted by a State’s Governor’s

Representative for Highway Safety and

received in the appropriate Regional

Office on or before August 1, 2001, will

be considered.

Application Contents and Grant

Criteria

To be eligible for a grant under the

section 157 (b) statute, a State must

include a description and/or

documentation that all of the following

elements are included, and will be

implemented, as part of the State’s

section 157 (b) grant program. This year,

each State’s application must include

the following information.

1. Introduction

A brief description of the State’s

geographic and demographic population

distribution, and any other unique

characteristics (e.g., how the seat belt

use rate varies within the State by

vehicle type and by ethnic populations)

that are relevant to the State’s plan to

increase seat belt use. The introduction

should also include a problem

identification statement that describes

the State’s usage rates.

2. Certifications

A signed statement by the State that:

(i) It will use the funds awarded under

this grant program exclusively to

implement a statewide seat belt program

in accordance with the requirements of

Section 157(b) of P.L. 105–178 (TEA–

21); (ii) It will administer the funds in

accordance with 49 CFR Part 18 and

OMB Circular A–87; (iii) It will provide

to the NHTSA Regional Administrator

no later than 15 months after the grant

award a report of activities carried out

with grant funds and accomplishments

to date; and (iv) The State will comply

with all applicable laws and regulations,

financial and programmatic

requirements.

3. Program Elements

(a) Seat Belt Use Goals—Describe the

State’s current goal for seat belt use and

its intent to increase this goal based on

this application.

(b) Strategies to Increase Seat Belt

Use—Describe the State’s plan for

increasing seat belt use statewide by

choosing one or more of the following

strategies:

(1) Conduct two or more highvisibility seat belt enforcement

campaigns, which include at least 7

days of aggressive enforcement during

each campaign and which should be

preceded and accompanied by a highly

visible media campaign. These

campaigns should complement and

support the BUA/Operation ABC

National Mobilizations (conducted in

May and November) to the maximum

extent possible;

(2) Conduct continuous high-visibility

seat belt enforcement year round (i.e., 7

days week/24 hours per day model); or

29880 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

(3) Implement a non-enforcement

program that has the potential to reach

the safety belt use goals as stated above

in Program Element 3a. If a State selects

this option, it must provide an

acceptable (preferably research-based)

rationale for the proposed approach

(e.g., a summary of evidence of

effectiveness), regarding the potential of

the non-enforcement program to

increase the State’s seat belt use rate.

Strategies could involve (but are not

limited to) new and innovative

messages for high risk groups, new

delivery mechanisms for seat belt

programs, new implementation

partners, or new or unusual approaches

to seat belt enforcement. States opting to

take a non-enforcement approach

should lay out an acceptable rational

foundation for why they believe that the

approach will work, including a

detailed problem identification

component. Research-based approaches

are preferred.

(c) Statewide Program—If the State

proposes an enforcement-based strategy

to increase seat belt use, the application

must describe/demonstrate a

commitment from the State Patrol/

Police (if any), and local law

enforcement agencies that must serve

the majority of the population, to

participate actively in highly visible seat

belt enforcement efforts consisting of

checkpoints, saturation patrols or other

enforcement operations. For example,

describe the State’s preliminary

enforcement plan, existing enforcement

participants representing State and local

enforcement agencies, or letters of

commitment. If the State proposes a

non-enforcement strategy to increase

seat belt use, the application must

describe/demonstrate a commitment to

implement the strategy in communities

serving the majority of the population.

For example, describe the State’s

preliminary implementation plan,

existing communities participating in

the non-enforcement strategy, or letters

of commitment.

(d) Personnel—Describe management

and staffing adequate to implement the

Strategies to Increase Seat Belt Use, that

includes planning and coordination of

enforcement, media/public information

and evaluation.

(e) Public Information and Education

Strategy—Describe the State’s plan for a

statewide public information and

education (PI&E) strategy to focus public

attention on the enforcement (or other

proposed) effort. A combination of paid,

public service and earned media may be

considered as meeting this requirement

for the overall PI&E strategy.

4. Evaluation Elements

In its application, the State must

describe how, where and when it will

conduct a basic evaluation of the

activities supported by this grant. It

must also include a description of how

the evaluation effort will be

implemented and managed.

The basic evaluation must, at a

minimum, include at least one

statewide public awareness survey, in

addition to the State’s annual

observational survey of statewide seat

belt use.

NHTSA recognizes that many States

already have comprehensive efforts

underway to evaluate their total

occupant protection programs. NHTSA

encourages the State to integrate the

evaluation of this program with those

broader efforts. NHTSA is prepared to

offer technical assistance for evaluation,

including providing survey protocols

and instruments to any State upon

request and, to the extent possible, data

analysis support.

5. Budget for the Innovative Program

With Basic Evaluation:

Each State’s application must include

a budget totaling the amount specified

for that State in Appendix D. A budget

that exceeds the specified amount for a

program with only basic evaluation will

not be accepted. The budget shall

include the following categories:

a. Strategies to Increase Seat Belt

Use—Estimate the funds devoted to the

proposed strategy (e.g., sub-grants to law

enforcement agencies, mini-grants,

consultants or other strategies).

b. Personnel—Include the estimated

total cost for personnel.

c. Public Information and

Education—Estimate the funds devoted

to each key element of the PI&E

component, which may or may not

include the following:

—Public relations consultants;

—Campaign events;

—Paid media;

—Materials and incentives; and

—Other PI&E costs.

d. Basic Evaluation—Include the

estimated cost for conducting a basic

evaluation (i.e., at least one

measurement of statewide public

awareness of the program during the

period of performance).

Applications for Additional Funds To

Conduct an In-Depth Evaluation

A State wishing to apply for

additional funds to conduct a more indepth evaluation of its grant activities

must prepare a more detailed evaluation

plan and budget and submit this plan

and budget along with the plan and

budget for a program including only a

basic evaluation. At a minimum, this

optional in-depth evaluation plan must

include measurement of the impact of

the program on public awareness and on

seat belt use on at least three occasions,

as the program progresses through its 12

month period of performance. A more

complete evaluation capable of

estimating the impact of specific

program components should measure

public awareness and seat belt use at

various phases of multi-phased

programs. Such an approach would be

essential for any State proposing to

include a significant paid media

component in a multi-wave program

strategy. States may submit more than

one in-depth evaluation plan, with a

budget for each alternative plan.

However, no more than one in-depth

evaluation plan will be funded for any

one State. Appendix C outlines some

issues relevant to in-depth evaluation.

Interested States are encouraged to

adapt these ideas, evaluation tools and

guidelines to their own unique

programs and situations.

Reporting Requirements and

Deliverables

Each successful applicant will be

responsible for providing the following

reports:

Quarterly Reports—The quarterly

reports should include a summary of

enforcement and other activities and

accomplishments for the preceding

period, significant problems

encountered or anticipated, a brief

itemization of expenditures made

during this 3 month time period, and

proposed activities for the upcoming

reporting period. Please note: Many

States will be continuing to spend funds

awarded during the first two years of

this Section 157 Innovative Grant

program after these third year funds are

awarded. NHTSA does not intend nor

desire that States submit separate

Quarterly Reports for the various

funding years. Activities carried out

during a reporting period under all three

years of funding should be documented

in the same report. However, the State

should include a tabulation of how

much funds were expended during the

reporting period from each year. Also,

during the first two years, a number of

States modified their grants to change

from Quarterly to Monthly reporting.

Those States should continue to submit

Monthly Reports during the third year,

at least until all first year and second

year funds have been spent. Any

decisions and actions required in the

upcoming program period should be

included in the report.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29881

Final Report—A Final Report that

includes a summary of the impact of the

year-long program. It should include a

complete description of the innovative

activities conducted, including the

involvement of partners; overall

program implementation; evaluation

methodology and findings from the

program evaluation, including all

measurements of public awareness and

seat belt use. These measurements must

include at least one measure of

statewide public awareness and the

measure of statewide seat belt use. In

terms of information transfer, it is

important to know what worked and

what did not work, under what

circumstances, and what can be done to

avoid potential problems in future

projects. The grantee shall submit three

copies of the Final Report to the

Regional Office within fifteen months

following grant award.

Application Review Procedures

All applications will be reviewed to

ensure that the application contains all

of the information required by the

Application Contents and Grant Criteria

section of the Federal Register notice.

This evaluation process may include

submission of technical or program

questions to the applicants, to

determine eligibility. Once it has been

determined which applicants have met

the grant criteria, NHTSA will

determine the final award amounts

based on the amount of remaining funds

from the Section 157 Incentive Grant

program, the formula as described under

the Availability of Funds and Period of

Support Section and the budgets for

approved in-depth evaluation plans. It

is anticipated that awards will be made

in November 2001.

Marilena Amoni,

Acting Associate Administrator for Traffic

Safety Programs.

Appendix A—NHTSA Regional Offices

REGION I (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT), Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center 55

Broadway, Kendall Square, Code 903,

Cambridge, MA 02142

REGION II (NJ, NY, PR), 222 Mamaroneck

Avenue, Suite 204, White Plains, NY 10605

REGION III (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), 10

South Howard Street, Suite 4000,

Baltimore, MD 21201

REGION IV (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC,

TN), Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW., Suite 17T30, Atlanta, GA

30303

REGION V (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), 19900

Governors Drive, Suite 201, Olympia

Fields, IL 60461

REGION VI (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), 819

Taylor Street, Room 8A38, Fort Worth, TX

76102–6177

REGION VII (IA, KS, MO, NE), 901 Locust

Street, Room 466, Kansas City, MO 64106

REGION VIII (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), 555

Zang Street, Room 430, Lakewood, CO

80228

REGION IX (AZ, CA, HI, NV), 201 Mission

Street, Suite 2230, San Francisco, CA

94105

REGION X (AK, ID, OR, WA), 3140 Jackson

Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue,

Seattle, WA 98174

Appendix B—Strategies That Have

Proven Effective in Increasing Seat Belt

Use

In previous years, Federal Register notices

for Section 157 Innovative Grants provided a

history of programs that have been

documented to increase seat belt usage in the

United States and Canada over the past two

decades (for copies of those Federal Register

notices, contact the person listed below). In

the summary of the history of seat belt

programs, the Agency explained that nearly

every example of significant increases in

statewide usage rates since 1984 resulted

from: (a) Enactment and implementation of a

State seat belt usage law; (b) a legislative

upgrade from a secondary to a primary/

standard enforcement law; or (c) a highly

visible effort to enforce seat belt laws.

The intent of the section 157 Innovative

Grant legislation was to provide support for

innovative programs that would be effective

in increasing seat belt usage rates in the

States. Since all States but one already have

enacted seat belt use laws, and since the

intent of this legislation was not to support

lobbying efforts to obtain primary

enforcement laws, the focus of this grant

program has been on innovative and effective

ways to develop, implement, support, and

evaluate highly visible enforcement

programs.

Again, aside from the implementation of

seat belt use laws, these programs are the

only efforts that have consistently been

shown to be effective in increasing seat belt

usage rates statewide (e.g., as in the national

70% by ’92 program and in specific statewide

efforts undertaken in North Carolina,

Georgia, Maryland, New York, Michigan, and

several other States). These documented

successes generally have involved Special

Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEPs), in

which waves of enforcement and media are

carefully scheduled to gain maximum public

awareness. The potential effectiveness of

these STEP programs recently has been

enhanced as a result of the ability of States

to use paid media, in addition to their use

of news stories and public service

announcements, to increase public awareness

of the enforcement efforts. Their potential for

success has been increased also by the

national enforcement mobilizations (i.e.,

Operation ABC) conducted twice annually by

the private-sector funded Air Bag & Seat Belt

Safety Campaign (AB&SBSC), in cooperation

with NHTSA. These mobilizations involve

extensive efforts to contact and obtain the

participation of State and local law

enforcement agencies in all of the States and

to initiate focused media efforts in major

markets to make the public aware of the

enforcement mobilizations. This Innovative

Grant program greatly increases the potential

effectiveness of the national enforcement

mobilizations and the overall Buckle Up

America program.

Since 1999, there have been several notable

successes, in which large States, such as

Michigan and New York, have increased seat

belt usage significantly. In Michigan, the

increases resulted from a combination of

enacting a primary seat belt usage law and

implementing a highly visible program to

enforce that law. In New York, which already

had a primary seat belt law, significant

increases in seat belt usage resulted from a

highly visible statewide enforcement

program, funded in part by the AB&SBSC

and coordinated by the New York State

Police. Maryland enacted a primary seat belt

law and, following a two month Chiefs’

Challenge enforcement program, experienced

a major increase in seat belt use. Oklahoma

enacted a primary seat belt law and

experienced a modest increase in seat belt

usage. Later, a paid media program resulted

in an additional increase. Florida, which has

introduced but failed to enact primary seat

belt legislation, has enhanced its statewide

seat belt enforcement program and its use of

law enforcement liaisons (LELs). As a result,

Florida recently experienced a five

percentage point increase in usage statewide.

These examples represent some of the most

significant recent increases in usage in the

States and they represent a mixture of private

sector, Section 402, 405, 2003(b) and Section

157 Incentive and Innovative Grants funded

efforts.

One of the clearest examples of a fullyimplemented, innovative and effective

statewide program is the South Carolina

‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ program, implemented in

November 2000. The term ‘‘fully

implemented’’ refers to the fact that the

combination of enforcement and media

efforts was sufficient to make 75–80 percent

of the public aware of the program. The

South Carolina program included several

innovative and effective components,

including statewide management of more

than 3,000 enforcement events (i.e.,

checkpoints) over a two-week period, use of

an explicit enforcement message (i.e., Click It

or Ticket) delivered by means of a

combination of earned and paid media, full

coordination with the Operation ABC

mobilization periods, a diversity outreach

program that included reaching African

Americans via churches and schools to make

them aware of the enforcement effort, and a

comprehensive evaluation program, which

included measurement of both the public

awareness of the program and changes in

observed seat belt usage at each phase of the

program (e.g., during the kickoff and news

media phase, the paid media phase and the

enforcement phase), as well as before and

after the program was implemented. As a

result of this effort, South Carolina was able

to document a nine percentage point increase

in seat belt usage statewide. Further, it was

able to show that the paid media effort

clearly contributed significantly to public

awareness and changes in seat belt usage.

The State was able to document the extent to

which groups with traditionally lower seat

belt usage rates (e.g., male, rural, and African

American motorists) were impacted.

29882 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

More than a dozen States are using Section

157 Innovative Grant funds, each in slightly

different ways, to fully implement and

evaluate similar STEP programs during the

May 2001 mobilization period. These States

established statewide coordinating

committees for enforcement, media, outreach

and evaluation efforts; made selective use of

paid media efforts; used unambiguous

enforcement messages; found innovative

ways to reach high risk groups such as young

males and occupants of light trucks to make

them aware of the planned enforcement

activity; and implemented comprehensive

evaluation efforts, similar to those used in

the South Carolina program, to measure

impact at each phase of the program. This

evaluation model consisted of statewide

observational and telephone surveys

conducted before and after the program, as

well as mini-observational surveys and

motorist surveys during each phase of the

program. NHTSA will provide, upon request,

protocols and templates for both the

telephone surveys and the motorist surveys,

as well as descriptions of how these surveys

are being used in conjunction with the State’s

approved observational surveys to evaluate

Section 157 Innovative Grant program efforts.

Interested States should contact Philip Gulak,

Occupant Protection Division (NTS–12),

Office of Traffic Injury Control Programs,

NHTSA, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 5118,

Washington, DC 20590, by e-mail at

pgulak@nhtsa.dot.gov, or by phone at (202)

366–2725, for this information.

The dramatic recent successes in the above

mentioned States add further credibility to

NHTSA’ position that highly visible

enforcement is an important foundation upon

which any effective program funded under

Section 157 should be based. A recent review

by an independent Task Force supported by

the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention provides even more credibility for

the effectiveness of high visibility

enforcement efforts (as well as for primary

seat belt laws). The recent examples of States

that have ‘‘fully-implemented’’ enforcement,

conducted public information efforts

designed to reach 75–80 percent of the

populace, and selectively used paid media to

make the public aware of the enforcement

activity are very encouraging. Also

encouraging are the recent efforts in some

States to develop comprehensive evaluation

efforts, which measure changes in both

public awareness and seat belt use at various

stages of the program.

Appendix C—Guidelines Relating to

Proposed In-Depth Evaluation

The fundamental objectives for in-depth

evaluation are to accurately measure

shoulder belt use by drivers and front seat

outboard passengers in passenger motor

vehicles and to measure public awareness of

the intervention program at various stages

throughout the program. Many States may

also wish to determine the public’s attitude

toward the program as it progresses through

its various phases.

Nearly every State has a seat belt

observational survey protocol that conforms

to NHTSA’s ‘‘Uniform Criteria for State

Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use,’’

published in the Federal Register on

Tuesday, March 14, 2000. That protocol

provides a useful foundation for designing

the observational survey component of an indepth evaluation. Perhaps the most rigorous

option would be for the State to conduct its

full, official statewide survey each time a

measurement of seat belt use is taken.

However, this would likely be far too

expensive for most States to do. An

acceptable alternative would be to conduct

mini-surveys for some or all of the

measurements of seat belt use throughout the

program. A mini-survey consists of

observations taken at a sub-sample of the

sites employed in the full, official statewide

survey. The sub-sample of sites should be

selected in a way that provides coverage of

important segments of the State (e.g., rural

and urban, racial and ethnic diversity), as

well as populations or geographical areas

targeted by the intervention. This same subsample of sites should be used for each minisurvey and observations should be conducted

following specified procedures, which are

the same each time the mini-survey is

administered. NHTSA has used such minisurveys in past evaluations and will, upon

request, provide technical assistance to States

in selecting appropriate sub-samples.

However, it is ultimately up to the States to

determine how many and which sites should

be used for the mini-surveys. The value of

using a sub-sample of the State’s official

survey for such measurements is that this

sub-sample will continue to be part of the

annual surveys and, thus, seat belt use at

these same sites can be tracked over time.

To measure public awareness (and

attitudes), NHTSA recommends using either

telephone surveys (statewide, or for targeted

populations) or motorist surveys conducted

at motor vehicle licensing centers, or a

combination of the two. Motorist surveys are

generally less expensive than telephone

surveys but they are also less representative

of the entire state. NHTSA has developed

both a protocol and a survey instrument for

each type of awareness and attitude survey.

NHTSA will, upon request, provide these

instruments to any State wishing to use them.

The State may propose alternative

strategies for measuring seat belt use or

public awareness, if it feels that such

strategies would adequately meet the

requirements of a scientific evaluation.

NHTSA anticipates that most applicants

for grants in FY 2002 will submit program

strategies in which the core intervention (e.g.,

intensified enforcement) is applied in several

distinct phases over the course of the year.

For example, on two or more occasions

during the 12-month period of performance,

a State would conduct an enforcement wave,

including a kickoff or earned media phase

followed by the enforcement phase. In some

States, it is anticipated that there will also be

a paid media phase, usually implemented

between the earned media and enforcement

phases. At a minimum, an in-depth

evaluation of a total program would measure

seat belt use and public awareness (and

attitudes) on at least three occasions,

including before the first intervention or

wave, midway through the 12-month

performance period, and after the last

intervention or wave. Such a design would

not permit the State to determine how much

a particular component or set of components

of a wave (i.e., the earned media, the paid

media or the enforcement) contributed to

public awareness or seat belt use, but it

would measure the contribution of the

program as a whole. And, such an approach

would be superior to the basic evaluation

that is required for this grant program, (i.e.,

where only one seat belt use and public

awareness measurement is taken over the

course of a year). A more complete

evaluation design would apply multiple

measurements of seat belt use and public

awareness during each unique phase of each

wave, as well as before and after each wave.

In this way, the contributions of at least some

of the individual components could be

assessed. This would be extremely important

for a State employing a paid media

component. Such an approach would result

in a survey schedule as follows:

Pre-wave Earned media Paid media Enforcement Post-wave

Surveys Surveys Surveys Surveys Surveys

Such a design would require considerably

more effort and resources, but it also would

enable the State to estimate how much

selected components of its program

contributed to changes in public awareness

and seat belt use.

NHTSA will carefully consider all

proposed approaches to more in-depth

evaluation, ranging from measurements taken

at three points during the year to a more

comprehensive approach designed to

measure change during specific phases of the

program. States may also propose approaches

to in-depth evaluation that differ from those

described in this Appendix. In addition,

States may submit two or more alternative

plans for in-depth evaluation, with a

corresponding budget for each. However, no

more than one in-depth evaluation plan will

be funded for any one State.

Appendix D—FY2002 State Estimates

for Section 157 Innovative Awards*

State FY 2002

estimates

Alabama ...................................... $735,000

Alaska ......................................... 400,000

Arizona ........................................ 585,000

Arkansas ..................................... 535,000

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29883

State FY 2002

estimates

California ..................................... 4,045,000

Colorado ..................................... 620,000

Connecticut ................................. 450,000

Delaware ..................................... 400,000

District of Columbia .................... 400,000

Florida ......................................... 1,870,000

Georgia ....................................... 1,080,000

Hawaii ......................................... 400,000

Idaho ........................................... 400,000

Illinois .......................................... 1,745,000

Indiana ........................................ 915,000

Iowa ............................................ 625,000

Kansas ........................................ 645,000

Kentucky ..................................... 640,000

Louisiana .................................... 670,000

Maine .......................................... 400,000

Maryland ..................................... 660,000

Massachusetts ............................ 820,000

State FY 2002

estimates

Michigan ..................................... 1,440,000

Minnesota ................................... 870,000

Mississippi .................................. 500,000

Missouri ...................................... 940,000

Montana ...................................... 400,000

Nebraska .................................... 430,000

Nevada ....................................... 400,000

New Hampshire .......................... 400,000

New Jersey ................................. 1,030,000

New Mexico ................................ 400,000

New York .................................... 2,475,000

North Carolina ............................ 1,060,000

North Dakota .............................. 400,000

Ohio ............................................ 1,620,000

Oklahoma ................................... 670,000

Oregon ........................................ 520,000

Pennsylvania .............................. 1,750,000

Rhode Island .............................. 400,000

State FY 2002

estimates

South Carolina ............................ 590,000

South Dakota .............................. 400,000

Tennessee .................................. 815,000

Texas .......................................... 2,835,000

Utah ............................................ 400,000

Vermont ...................................... 400,000

Virginia ........................................ 935,000

Washington ................................. 800,000

West Virginia .............................. 400,000

Wisconsin ................................... 880,000

Wyoming ..................................... 400,000

Puerto Rico ................................. 465,000

* The number of States receiving awards will

depend upon the number of applications that

meet the requirements of this Federal Register notice. Final grant amounts will be adjusted so that all available funds will be

awarded.

Appendix E—Application Checklist

State State contact person

Check Off: Application and Grant Criteria:

1 ........................ Introduction:

a. ll a. Brief description of geographic and demographic population distribution.

b. ll b. Any unique population characteristics (optional).

c. ll c. Problem identification statement describing State’s seat belt use.

2 ........................ Certifications—A signed statement that the State will:

(i) use the funds awarded under this grant program exclusively to implement an innovative program in accordance with

the requirements of Section 157(b) of P.L. 105–178 (TEA–21).

(ii) administer the funds in accordance with 49 CFR Part 18 and OMB Circular A–87.

(iii) provide to the NHTSA Regional Administrator no later than 15 months after grant award a report of activities carried out with grant funds and accomplishments to date.

(iv) comply with all applicable laws and regulations, financial and programmatic requirements.

3 ........................ Program Elements:

a. ll a. Goal: Description of State’s current goal for seat belt use and intent to increase the goal based on this application.

b. ll b. Strategies to Increase Seat Belt Use: Description of the State’s plan for increasing seat belt use statewide employing one or more of the following strategies: (1) at least two 4-week high-visibility enforcement campaigns; (2) continuous

high-visibility seat belt enforcement year round; or (3) a non-enforcement program that has the potential to reach the

safety belt use goals.

c. ll c. (if applicable) Rationale: Discussion demonstrating the potential of the proposed non-enforcement program to increase the State’s seat belt use rate.

d. ll d. Statewide Program:

• If the program is enforcement-based: description or demonstration of commitment from the State Patrol/Police (if

any), and local law enforcement agencies that serve the majority of the State’s population.

• If the program is non-enforcement based: description or demonstration of commitment from communities serving the

majority of the State’s population.

e. ll e. Personnel: Description of management and staffing adequate to implement the program which includes Strategies to

Increase Seat Belt Use, Media, Budget and Evaluation.

f. ll f. Public Information and Education Strategy: Description of the State’s plan for a statewide public information and education strategy to focus public attention on the proposed effort.

4 ........................ Basic Evaluation Elements:

a. ll a. Measurement: Description of how, where and when statewide public awareness of the program and statewide seat

belt usage will be measured (must be at least once during the project period).

5 ........................ Budget:

a. ll a. Strategies to Increase Belt Use: Estimate of the funds devoted to the proposed strategy (e.g., sub-grants to law enforcement, mini-grants, consultants, etc.).

b. ll b. Personnel: Estimate of the total cost for personnel.

c. ll c. Public Information and Education: Estimate of the funds to be devoted to media and advertising (e.g., public relations consultants, campaigns, paid media, materials, incentives, etc.).

d. ll d. Basic Evaluation: Estimate of the cost for conducting the basic evaluation (minimum of one measurement of public

awareness).

e. ll e. Total: Verification that budget totals amount specified in Appendix D.

OPTIONAL IN-DEPTH EVALUATION APPLICATION CHECKLIST

In-Depth Evaluation Elements:

29884 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

OPTIONAL IN-DEPTH EVALUATION APPLICATION CHECKLIST—Continued

a. ll a. Measurement: Description of how, where and when statewide public awareness of the program and statewide seat belt

usage will be measured (must be at least three times during the project period), as well as any other measures that will be

taken.

b. ll b. Management and Implementation: Description of how the evaluation effort will be implemented, managed and documented.

Budget for the In-Depth Evaluation:

c. ll c. Cost of observational surveys.

d. ll d. Cost of telephone surveys.

e. ll e. Cost of other surveys (if applicable).

f. ll f. Cost of other data collection activities (if applicable).

g. ll g. Cost of data analysis.

h. ll h. Other In-Depth Evaluation Cost Elements.

[FR Doc. 01–13790 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB review; comment

request

May 25, 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 July 2, 2001 to be

assured of consideration.

U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE (CUS)

OMB Number: 1515–0155.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Approval of Commercial

Gaugers and Accreditation of

Commercial Laboratories.

Description: The accreditation of

commercial testing laboratories;

approval of commercial gaugers are

used by individuals or businesses

desiring Customs approval to measure

bulk products or analyze importations

may apply to Customs by letter. This

recognition is required of businesses

wishing to perform such work on

imported merchandise.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

250.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

250 hours.

Clearance Officer: J. Edgar Nichols (202)

927–1426 or Tracey Denning (202)

927–1429, U.S. Customs Service,

Information Services Branch, Ronald

Reagan Building 1300 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C,

Washington, DC 20229

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. 01–13722 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

[Docket No. 918; ATF O 1130.21]

Delegation Order—Delegation of the

Director’s Authorities in 27 CFR Part

13, Labeling Proceedings

To: All Bureau Supervisors

1. Purpose. This order delegates

certain authorities of the Director to

subordinate ATF officers.

2. Background. Under current

regulations, the Director has authority to

take final action on matters relating to

the procedure and practice in

connection with the issuance, denial,

and revocation of certificates of label

approval, certificates of exemption from

label approval, and distinctive liquor

bottle approvals. We have determined

that certain of these authorities should,

in the interest of efficiency, be delegated

to a lower organizational level.

3. Delegations. Under the authority

vested in the Director, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, by

Treasury Department Order No. 120–01

(formerly 221), dated June 6, 1972, and

by 26 CFR 301.7701–9, this ATF Order

delegates certain authorities to take final

action prescribed in 27 CFR Part 13 to

subordinate officers. Also, this ATF

Order prescribes the subordinate ATF

officer’s with whom appeals and other

documents required by 27 CFR Part 13,

which are not ATF forms, are filed. The

attached table identifies the regulatory

sections, documents and authorized

ATF officers. The authorities in the

table may not be redelegated. An ATF

organization chart showing the

directorates involved in this delegation

order has been attached.

4. Questions. Any questions

concerning this order should be directed

to the Regulations Division at 202–927–

8210.

Bradley A. Buckles,

Director.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, DOCUMENTS

TO BE FILED, AND AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS

Regulatory section

Officer(s) authorized

to act or receive document.

Section 13.11 (Definition of Liquor bottle).Specialist, Alcohol

Labeling and Formulation Division

(ALFD).

§ 13.20(a) .................. Chief, ALFD.

§ 13.21(b) .................. Specialist, ALFD.

§ 13.23 ....................... Specialist, ALFD.

§ 13.25 ....................... Specialist or Assistant

to the Division

Chief, ALFD.

§ 13.26(a)&(b) ........... Assistant to the Division Chief, ALFD.

§ 13.27 ....................... Chief, ALFD.

§ 13.41 ....................... Chief, ALFD.

§ 13.42 ....................... Assistant to the Division Chief, ALFD.

§ 13.43 ....................... Chief, ALFD.

§ 13.44 ....................... Assistant Director (Alcohol and Tobacco).

§ 13.45 ....................... Assistant Director (Alcohol and Tobacco).

§ 13.52 ....................... Assistant to the Division Chief, ALFD.

§ 13.53 ....................... Chief, ALFD.

§ 13.54 ....................... Chief, ALFD.

§ 13.61(b) .................. Chief, ALFD.