Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33875

and approval of NHTSA and will

describe the following:

(1) The personnel and hardware

resources required to perform the data

linkage.

(2) The process for obtaining the

different files required for linkage.

(3) The process for accelerating the

data processing schedule, if necessary,

so that the state/area-wide data are

available in a timely manner for the

linkage.

(4) The process for verifying the data

and performing additional edits on the

linkage variables.

(5) The process for resolving problems

expected during linkage and their

proposed solutions.

(6) The process for documenting the

content of the various linked data files,

programs used for editing, and the

linkage process itself.

(7) The milestones for completing the

various phases of the probabilistic

linkage and validation processes.

(8) The milestones for proposed

meeting schedules and actions by the

Board of Directors and Advisory Group.

(9) Date(s) for providing the linked

data to NHTSA.

(10) The process for identifying the

limitations of the final linked database

or applications of the linked data, if any.

(11) The process for ensuring access

to the linked data as demand for

information increases.

(12) The process for choosing those

applications of linked data that will

have the most impact on reducing

death, injury, and costs of injuries

related to motor vehicle crashes.

(13) The milestones for implementing

the applications.

(14) The benefits expected from the

applications of the linked data.

b. Quarterly Progress Report. During

the performance, the grantee will

provide letter-type written reports to the

NHTSA COTR. These reports will

compare what was proposed in the Plan

of Action with actual accomplishments

during the past quarter; what

commitments have been generated;

what follow-up and state-level support

is expected; what problems have been

experienced and what may be needed to

overcome the problems; and what is

specifically planned to be accomplished

during the next quarter. These reports

will be submitted seven days after the

end of each quarter.

c. Board of Directors and Advisory

Group Meetings. Copies of the agenda

and minutes for each Board of Directors

and Advisory Group Meeting will be

attached to the Progress Report

submitted to NHTSA immediately

following the meeting.

d. Institutionalization Plan. The

grantee shall deliver to NHTSA, by the

end of the 15th month of funding, a

long-range plan and schedule to

institutionalize data linkage and the use

of linked data for highway safety and

injury control decision-making within

the state.

e. Project Report. The grantee shall

deliver to NHTSA, at the end of the

project, a final report describing the

results of the data linkage process, and

the applications of the linked data. The

report shall include the following:

(1) A description of the state/area

wide linked crash and injury data;

(2) A description of the file

preparation;

(3) A description of the linkage,

validation processes and results;

(4) A description of the extent of the

documentation and how the

documentation will facilitate linkage in

subsequent years;

(5) A discussion of the limitations of

the linked data and subsequent

applications of these data;

(6) A description of the applications

of linked data implemented for

decision-making and results of the

decision-making;

(7) A description of how the data

linkage and use of linked data for

decision making has been

institutionalized for decision-making;

(8) A description of the

documentation created to facilitate

repeating of the linkage process and an

estimate of how much time is needed to

repeat the linkage in subsequent years;

(9) A copy of the public-use formats

that were successful for incorporating

linked data into the decision-making

processes for highway safety and injury

control; and

(10) A copy of the management

reports prepared using the standardized

format for the national CODES report.

f. CODES Linked Database. The

grantee shall deliver to NHTSA after

linkage, at the date specified in the

Action Plan, the CODES linked

databases. NHTSA will use the data to

help facilitate the development of data

linkage capabilities at the state/areawide level and to encourage use of the

linked data for decision making.

The deliverables will include:

(1) The database in an electronic

media and format acceptable to NHTSA,

including all persons, regardless of

injury severity (none, fatal, non-fatal),

involved in a reported motor vehicle

crash for any two calendar years of

available data since 1996, and including

medical and financial outcome

information for those who are linked.

(2) A copy of the file structure for the

linked data file.

(3) Documentation of the definitions

and file structure for each of the data

elements contained in the linked data

files.

(4) An analysis of the quality of the

linked data and a description of any

data bias which may exist based on an

analysis of the false positive and false

negative linked records.

3. During the effective performance

period of Cooperative Agreements

awarded as a result of this

announcement, the agreement as

applicable to the grantee shall be subject

to the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration’s General Provisions for

Assistance Agreements, dated July 1995.

Issued: May 19, 2000.

Joseph Kanianthra,

Acting Associate Administrator for Research

and Development, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–13100 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Discretionary Incentive Grants To

Support Increased Seat Belt Use Rates

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Announcement of discretionary

grants to support innovative projects

designed to increase seat belt use rates.

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA)

announces the second year of a

discretionary 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. 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 FY 2001. Detailed

application instructions are provided in

the Application Contents section of this

Notice. The Section 157 Innovative

grants will be awarded competitively

based upon the evaluation results of the

applications received. Detailed

information on the evaluation criteria is

provided in the Application Review

Procedures and Evaluation Criteria

section of this Notice.

33876 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

DATES: Applications must be received

by the office designated below on or

before July 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be

submitted to the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Office of

Contracts and Procurement (NAD–30),

ATTN: Amy Poling, 400 7th Street, SW,

Room 5301, Washington, DC 20590. All

applications submitted must include a

reference to NHTSA Grant Program No.

DTNH22–00–G–09200

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

General administrative questions may

be directed to Amy Poling, Office of

Contracts and Procurement by e-mail at

apoling@nhtsa.dot.gov. or by phone at

(202) 366–9552. Programmatic questions

relating to this grant program should be

directed to Philip Gulak, Occupant

Protection Division (NTS–12), NHTSA,

400 7th Street, SW, Room 5118,

Washington, DC 20590, by e-mail at

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

(202) 366–2708. 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 enacted on June 9, 1998. Section

1403 of TEA–21 contained a safety

incentive grant program for use of seat

belts. 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 fiscal

year 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

fiscal year 2001 under this latter

provision.

TEA–21 imposes several requirements

under the innovative projects funding

provision. Specifically, in order to be

eligible to receive an allocation, a State

must develop a plan for innovative

projects to promote increased seat belt

use rates 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 evaluate State

plans and make selections for award. To

assist the States in formulating plans

that meet these criteria, we have

provided an extensive discussion of

strategies for increasing seat belt use

and of the ways in which States might

demonstrate innovation. Please refer to

the Appendix at the end of this Notice

for additional background information

about strategies that have been used in

the past to increase belt use.

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 a

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.

Examples of Effective Innovative

Strategies

Recent seat belt use increases in

California, North Carolina, Louisiana,

Georgia, Maryland, and the District of

Columbia (see discussion in next

section), as well as increases following

national mobilizations, have

demonstrated the tremendous potential

of highly visible enforcement of strong

laws to increase seat belt and child seat

use. Given the dramatic results of these

programs, NHTSA believes that highly

visible enforcement is an important

foundation upon which any effective

program should be based. An extensive

review of the efforts in both the United

States and Canada demonstrates that,

without a core of highly visible

enforcement efforts, high usage rates

have not been achieved in any major

jurisdiction.

In view of these findings, to be

considered for award of funds under

this program, the State’s innovative

project plan should be based on a core

component of highly visible

enforcement of its seat belt use law with

the clear intent of increasing the State’s

seat belt use rate. A proposal to increase

seat belt use in only a limited number

of jurisdictions, that would have a

questionable impact on the overall state

seat belt use rate, may be rejected during

the evaluation process. Other

components of the plan should support

the core enforcement component. If a

State is already pursuing a significant

and visible enforcement effort, the

innovative project plan should detail

components that support, expand, or

complement the existing enforcement

effort. States submitting an innovative

project plan with a core component (and

supporting components) based on an

approach other than enforcement

should provide a strong rationale for the

proposed approach, preferably

accompanied by research evidence,

demonstrating the significant potential

for increasing the State’s seat belt use

rate. NHTSA will carefully consider this

rationale in its evaluation of the

proposal.

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. Additionally,

innovation may be demonstrated in

gaining essential support, implementing

statewide training programs, and

planning the logistics for wide scale

enforcement supported by public

information activities. 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 the problem of low seat belt

use among those groups. States that

have upgraded their laws recently to

allow for primary enforcement may

wish to initiate innovative ways to

implement, enforce, and publicize their

newly enacted legislation. 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 another traffic safety law

(e.g., an alcohol impaired driving law).

Many opportunities for innovation exist,

regardless of the State’s current seat belt

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33877

use rate or its ongoing efforts to increase

it.

Following are some examples of

innovative activities in support of a core

component of enforcement:

—Initiate, or expand in novel ways, the

operation of existing State or local

enforcement-related campaigns;

—Implement highly visible seat belt and

child safety seat enforcement efforts

in major urban areas, in rural areas, or

throughout the State;

—Expand participation across the State

in semi-annual national seat belt

enforcement mobilizations (i.e.,

Operation ABC conducted in May and

November);

—Plan and support efforts to train and

motivate law enforcement officers,

prosecutors and judges to consistently

enforce, prosecute and adjudicate

occupant protection law violations;

—Mount a highly visible program to

implement newly enacted legislation

which upgrades the State’s seat belt or

child passenger safety law;

—Initiate or expand public information

and education programs designed to

complement newly upgraded

legislation and/or enhanced

enforcement efforts;

—Establish 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);

—Initiate or expand public awareness

campaigns targeted to 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);

—Implement a program to train law

enforcement personnel on the

importance of seat belt use, the

specifics of the State’s seat belt use

law, and the importance of enforcing

such law to increase usage rates;

—Initiate or expand 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, in rural

areas of the State);

—Initiate, or expand in novel ways,

campaigns which use enforcement of

other traffic laws (e.g., driving while

intoxicated laws) as a means for

implementing highly visible

enforcement of seat belt use laws.

If a State wishes to submit a plan

proposing a core component other than

enforcement, it should demonstrate

innovation by proposing to perform

supporting activities similar in scope to

those listed above. The State should

demonstrate that the proposed activities

have the potential to increase the State’s

seat belt use rate.

Self-Evaluations of Programs,

Management and Resources

Meaningful and timely selfevaluations of each State’s innovative

programs, management, and associated

resources are very important to

improving programs in subsequent

years. On an annual basis, grantees and

NHTSA need to generate the most

useful insights and most valuable

lessons possible from the 157 program.

Consequently, program evaluation will

be a necessary component of each award

(see Application Contents, Section

C.2.e.).

NHTSA Involvement

In support of the activities undertaken

by this grant program, NHTSA will:

1. Provide a Contracting Officer’s

Technical Representative (COTR) to

coordinate activities between the

Grantee and NHTSA during grant

performance, and to serve as a liaison

between NHTSA Headquarters, NHTSA

Regional offices and the grantee.

2. Provide information and technical

assistance from government sources

within available resources and as

determined appropriate by the COTR.

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 evaluation

criteria identified below. The number of

grants awarded will depend upon the

merits of the applications received, the

amount of funds available in fiscal year

2001, and the size of the grants awarded

to individual States. The total amount of

funds to be made available is not known

at this time, as it is dependent upon

appropriations by the Congress and the

amount of allocations to States based on

State seat belt use rates achieved (see

discussion in Background section,

above). However, the agency estimates

that as much as $25–$30 million may

become available for this program in

fiscal year 2001.

In accordance with TEA–21, the

minimum amount of an individual grant

award to a State will be $100,000,

subject to the availability of funds.

However, NHTSA may make individual

awards in amounts significantly greater

than $100,000, subject to the availability

of funds and consistent with the merits

of a State’s application. In fiscal year

2000, forty-six Innovative grants were

awarded. Those grants ranged from

$121,500 to $1,557,608. At this time,

neither the exact amount of funds

available nor the number and proposed

costs of meritorious State applications

can be determined. There is no

assurance that the number of grant

awards in FY 2001 will be the same or

similar to the number of awards in FY

2000, nor is there any assurance that

those States that received awards in FY

2000 will receive awards in FY 2001. In

addition, NHTSA may choose to fund

an entire plan, or portions of a plan or

it may choose to reject a plan, after

review based on the evaluation criteria.

There is no cost-sharing requirement

under this program. The period of

support for a grant 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.

NHTSA estimates that the award of

Section 157 Innovative Grants for fiscal

year 2001 will occur during January

2001.

Allowable Uses of Federal Funds

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. Funds

provided to a State under this grant

program shall be used to carry out the

activities described in the State’s plan

for which the grant is awarded.

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: NHTSA, Office

of Contracts and Procurement (NAD–

30), ATTN: Amy Poling, 400 7th Street,

SW, Room 5301, Washington, DC 20590.

An additional three copies will facilitate

the review process, but are not required.

Applications must be typed on one

side of the page only. Applications must

include a reference to NHTSA Grant

Program No. DTNH22–00–G–09200.

Only complete application packages

submitted by a State’s Governor’s

Representative for Highway Safety on or

before July 26, 2000 will be considered.

33878 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

Application Contents

This year, the required contents of

each State’s application will be based

upon the State’s application and award

results for FY 2000 under this grant

program.

A. If a State received an award based

on a one-year proposal and would like

to continue the same or similar work, it

may submit an updated or modified

version of that proposal. The State is

encouraged to modify or strengthen its

proposal as appropriate to increase its

effectiveness in raising its seat belt use

rate. An evaluation component must be

included. A Continuation Application

using the SF 424 must be submitted

which confirms that the same effort will

be continued, or indicates what changes

are proposed, along with the itemized

budget for the proposed effort.

B. If a State received an award based

on a proposal that requested funding for

several years, and the State wishes to

continue the same effort, the State need

only re-submit the part of its proposal

(or a modified version of such), that

relates to FY 2001. The State is

encouraged to modify or strengthen its

proposal to increase its effectiveness in

raising its seat belt use rate. An

evaluation component must be

included. If there are any changes,

additions, or deletions to the original

scope of work identified and budgeted

for the second year, a Continuation

Application using the SF 424 must be

submitted which provides a narrative

explanation of the proposed differences,

along with an itemized budget for the

proposed effort.

C. If a State is applying for the first

time, or if a State applied and did not

receive an award in FY 2000, or if the

State is proposing a completely new

effort, the State must include in its

application all of the contents listed

below:

l. The application package must be

submitted with OMB Standard Form

424, (Rev. 7–97 or 4–88, including 424A

and 424B), Application for Federal

Assistance, with the required

information provided and the certified

assurances included. While the Form

424–A deals with budget information,

and section B identifies Budget

Categories, the available space does not

permit a level of detail which is

sufficient to provide for a meaningful

evaluation of the proposed costs. A

supplemental sheet should be provided

which presents a detailed breakdown of

the proposed total project effort,

including evaluation and reporting,

(direct labor, including labor category,

level of effort, and rate; direct materials,

including itemized equipment; travel

and transportation, including projected

trips and number of people traveling;

subcontracts/subgrants, with similar

detail, if known; and overhead). and

costs the applicant proposes to

contribute or obtain from other sources

in support of the projects in the

innovative project plan.

2. All applications shall include a

State plan detailing innovative projects

to increase seat belt use rates. The State

plan must provide the following

information:

a. An Introduction section with a brief

general description of the State’s

population density, any unique

population characteristics, a short

summary of the status of the seat belt

use law in the State, and the pattern of

estimated seat belt use rates for the

State.

b. A Discussion section that presents

the principal goals and objectives of the

proposed plan and articulates the

potential to increase State seat belt use

rates, with supporting rationale. This

section should also identify any

proposed partnerships, coalitions, or

leveraging of resources that will be

employed as a means to implement a

comprehensive and significant

enforcement effort, as well as public

information or educational activities.

Any known barriers to implementation

of the State’s plan should be identified,

with a discussion of how such barriers

will be overcome. Relevant data based

on studies of the program should be

included or footnoted. Supporting

documentation from concerned interests

other than the applicant may be

included.

Documentation of existing public

and/or political support may be

included (e.g. endorsement of the

Governor, State Police or Patrol, State

Association of Chiefs of Police, State

Medical Society, etc).

c. A Project Description section, with

a detailed description of the innovative

projects to be undertaken by the State

under the plan, including, for each

activity:

(1) the key strategies to be employed

to achieve a significant seat belt use rate

increase (e.g., enforcement, public

information and education, training,

incentive/reward efforts);

(2) the innovative features (e.g. new

participants, expanded efforts, unique

resources, design or technological

innovations, reductions in cost or time,

integration with existing State efforts,

extraordinary community involvement);

and

(3) a work plan listing milestones in

chronological order to show the

schedule of expected accomplishments

and their target dates. For example, in

a work plan based on an enforcement

component, the State should provide

the following information:

A description of the proposed

enforcement waves (if a sTEP–type

enforcement activity is included in the

State’s proposal), detailing

• The approximate dates when each

wave will occur

• How long each wave will last (i.e.,

duration of actual intensified

enforcement)

• The number of law enforcement

agencies that are expected to participate

in each wave

• The approximate cumulative

percentage of the State’s population

served by the participating local law

enforcement agencies, and what affect

this population could have on the

State’s seat belt use rate

• The kinds of law enforcement

activities and strategies that will take

place in each wave (e.g., checkpoints,

saturation patrols, foot patrols at

selected intersections, etc.)

• The number of officers that will

participate

• The number of hours, on average,

each officer will participate during each

wave

• The number of law enforcement

contacts, on average, each officer is

expected to make per hour during each

wave

• The percentage of these contacts, on

average, that are expected to result in a

citation for a seat belt or child passenger

safety violation.

A State that proposes a component

other than enforcement should provide

a similarly comprehensive work plan

containing all relevant milestones.

d. A Personnel section, which

identifies the proposed program

manager, key personnel and other

proposed personnel considered critical

to the successful accomplishment of the

activities under the State’s plan. A brief

description of their qualifications and

respective responsibilities shall be

included. The proposed level of their

effort and contributions to the various

activities in the plan shall also be

identified. Each organization,

corporation, or consultant who will

work on the innovative project plan

shall be identified, along with a short

description of the nature of the effort or

contribution and relevant experience.

e. An Evaluation section, with a

description of how the State will

evaluate and measure the outcomes of

the activities in its innovative project

plan. It is critically important that the

innovative programs funded as a result

of this announcement be carefully

evaluated so that others may learn the

relative strengths and weaknesses of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33879

strategies and approaches undertaken

and what effects they have on seat belt

use rates. The evaluation section should

describe the methods for assessing

actual results achieved under the plan.

Outcomes can be documented in a

number of ways. Increases in observed

seat belt use and reductions in motor

vehicle crash fatalities and injuries

provide the ultimate measure of success.

However, intermediate measures also

may be used to measure progress. For a

program based on an enforcement

component, these measures may

include: (i) Increases in the number of

law enforcement personnel trained to

enforce occupant protection laws; (ii)

increased statewide participation in

semi-annual enforcement mobilizations

(Operation ABC); (iii) increased public

perception of ongoing enforcement and

public education activities; (iv)

increased numbers of public and private

sector partners involved in

implementing the Statewide programs

that support enforcement efforts; (v) the

number of incentive programs,

including those that complement

enforcement efforts; or (vi) extent to

which occupant protection enforcement

activities are integrated with other State

enforcement activities. Data sources

should be identified, and collection and

analysis approaches should be

described. In particular, the State’s

proposal should describe how the State

intends to assess the effectiveness of its

project with respect to:

• Seat belt use rates

• Level of actual ticketing, other

enforcement activities and activity to

generate support for enforcement

• Public awareness of ticketing and

other enforcement efforts

• Public support for seat belt and

child passenger safety enforcement.

• Encouraging specific enforcementrelated media efforts

For a program based on a component

other than enforcement, the State

should provide a similar level of detail

in measuring progress and assessing

outcomes.

f. An Options section, in which the

state may choose to propose either

optional tasks or activities in addition to

the core set of tasks or activities, or

optional levels of effort. For either type

of option, the State must include a

separate budget which clearly delineates

the costs associated with each optional

task or level of effort. For example, a

State may propose a project plan that

includes five week-long enforcement

waves with the annual project budget,

as well as an optional level of effort for

an additional sixth enforcement wave

and its associated costs. Doing this will

allow maximum flexibility in the

amount of funding awarded to a State

based on funds available.

Application Review Procedures 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. Each

complete application from an eligible

recipient then will be evaluated by an

Evaluation Committee. Incomplete

applications will be rejected without

further review. This evaluation includes

a process of reviewing all grant

applications; submitting technical,

program and budget questions about the

proposals to applicants, where

necessary; reviewing answers to these

questions; and engaging in negotiations

where appropriate. This process is

expected to extend over the course of

several months, and applicants may

expect correspondence of this nature

throughout this time period. Using this

process, the applications will be

evaluated in accordance with the

following criteria:

1. Evaluation Criterion 1 (80% of total

score): The goal(s) the State proposes to

achieve, as described in its innovative

project plan. The overall soundness and

feasibility of the plan for achieving the

goal(s), and the potential effectiveness

of the proposed activities in the plan for

increasing the State’s seat belt use rate.

The extent to which the plan details a

significant and comprehensive

enforcement effort or, where another

approach is selected, provides evidence

supporting the effectiveness of the

proposed approach. Regardless of

method, the goal must be to increase the

State’s seat belt use rate. Under this first

criterion, all applications will be

evaluated using the following subfactors:

(a) Is the State’s plan sound and

feasible to effectively achieve the stated

goal(s) for increasing the State’s seat belt

use rate?

(b) Does the plan detail a significant

and comprehensive enforcement effort

or, if another approach is proposed, is

there evidence supporting the

effectiveness of the approach?

(c) Are the data collection

methodologies and analytical

approaches adequately described in the

evaluation plan and will the plan

effectively measure the outcomes of the

proposed activities?

2. Evaluation Criterion 2 (20% of total

score): The organizational resources the

State will draw upon, and how the State

will provide the program management

capability and personnel expertise to

successfully perform the activities in its

innovative project plan. The adequacy

of the proposed personnel (including

subcontractor and subgrantee personnel)

to successfully perform the proposed

activities, including qualifications and

experience, the various disciplines

represented and the relative level of

effort proposed for the professional,

technical, and support staff, will be

considered.

Each application will be reviewed and

rated in accordance with the evaluation

criteria outlined above. If an application

receives a low rating, NHTSA may

eliminate it from further consideration

for award without discussions with an

offeror. For applications that are not

eliminated during this initial review,

NHTSA may suggest revisions as a

condition of further consideration,

during the negotiation process described

above, to ensure the most efficient and

effective performance consistent with

the objectives of achieving increased

State seat belt use rates. It is anticipated

that awards will be made in January

2001.

Special Award Selection Factors

After evaluating all applications

received, in the event that insufficient

funds are available to award all

requested amounts to all meritorious

applicants, NHTSA may consider the

following special award factors in the

award decision:

1. Every effort will be made to provide

grants to a diverse group of States

representing a broad range of

geographic, demographic, and use rate

characteristics. Thus, preference may be

given to an applicant that fits the need

for such diversity.

2. Preference may be given to an

applicant on the basis that its

application is effectively integrated and

coordinated with other ongoing efforts

in the State, resulting in additional

opportunity for immediately increasing

seat belt use rates. This could include

proposed cost-sharing strategies, and/or

the use of other federal, State, local and

private funding sources to complement

those available under this

announcement.

Terms and Conditions of the Award

1. Prior to award, each grantee must

comply with the certification

requirements of 49 CFR part 20,

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).

33880 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

2. Reporting Requirements and

Deliverables:

a. Quarterly Progress Reports should

include a summary of the previous

quarter’s enforcement and other

activities and accomplishments,

significant problems encountered or

anticipated, a brief itemization of

expenditures made during the quarter,

and proposed activities for the

upcoming quarter. Any decisions and

actions required in the upcoming

quarter should be included in the

report.

b. Draft Final Report: The grantee

shall prepare a Draft Final Report that

includes a complete description of the

innovative projects conducted,

including partners, overall program

implementation, evaluation

methodology and findings from the

program evaluation. 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 the Draft Final Report to

the COTR 60 days prior to the end of the

performance period. The COTR will

review the draft report and provide

comments to the grantee within 30 days

of receipt of the document.

c. Final Report: The grantee shall

revise the Draft Final Report to reflect

the COTR’s comments. The revised final

report shall be delivered to the COTR 15

days before the end of the performance

period. The grantee shall supply the

COTR :

—A camera ready version of the

document as printed.

—A copy, on appropriate media

(diskette, Syquest disk, etc.), of the

document in the original program

format that was used for the printing

process.

Note: Some documents require several

different original program languages (e.g.,

PageMaker was the program format for the

general layout and design and Power point

was used for charts and yet another was used

for photographs, etc.). Each of these

component parts should be available on disk,

properly labeled with the program format

and the file names. For example, Power point

files should be clearly identified by both a

descriptive name and file name (e.g., 1994

Fatalities—chart1.ppt).

—A complete version of the

assembled document in portable

document format (PDF) for placement of

the report on the world wide web

(WWW). This will be a file usually

created with the Adobe Exchange

program of the complete assembled

document in the PDF format that will

actually be placed on the WWW. The

document would be completely

assembled with all colors, charts, side

bars, photographs, and graphics. This

can be delivered to NHTSA on a

standard 1.44 diskette (for small

documents) or on any appropriate

archival media (for large documents)

such as a CD ROM, TR–1 Mini cartridge,

Syquest disk, etc.

—Four additional hard copies of the

final document.

3. During the effective performance

period of grants awarded as a result of

this announcement, the grant shall be

subject to the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration’s General

Provisions for Assistance Agreements,

dated July 1995.

Issued on: May 19, 2000.

Rose A. McMurray,

Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety

Programs.

Appendix: Strategies That Have Proven

Effective in Increasing Seat Belt Use

Seat belts, when properly used, are 45

percent effective in preventing deaths in

potentially fatal crashes and 50 percent

effective in preventing serious injuries. No

other safety device has as much potential for

immediately preventing deaths and injuries

in motor vehicle crashes. The current level of

seat belt use across the nation prevents more

than 9,500 deaths and well over 200,000

injuries annually. Through 1997, more than

100,000 deaths and an estimated 2.5 million

serious injuries have been prevented by seat

belt use.

But, seat belt use rates and the resulting

savings could be much greater. As of 1999,

the average use rate among States in the U.S.

was still well below the goal of 85 percent

announced by the President for the year 2000

and at least a dozen States have use rates

below 60 percent. On the other hand, use

rates of 85–95 percent are a reality in most

developed nations with seat belt use laws,

and at least six U.S. States and the District

of Columbia achieved use rates greater than

80 percent in 1999. A national use rate of 90

percent (the President’s goal for 2005), among

front seat occupants of all passenger vehicles,

would result in the prevention of an

additional 5,500 deaths and 130,000 serious

injuries annually. This would translate into

a $9 billion reduction in societal costs,

including $356 million for Medicare and

Medicaid.

Effective Enforcement Based Strategies

The history of efforts to increase seat belt

use in the U.S. and in Canada suggests that

highly visible enforcement of a strong seat

belt law must be at the core of any effective

program. No State has ever achieved a high

seat belt use rate without such a component.

Most States that have achieved rates greater

than 70 percent have also had laws that allow

for primary (standard) enforcement

procedures.

Canada currently has a national seat belt

use rate well above 90 percent. Nearly every

province first attempted to increase seat belt

use through voluntary approaches involving

public information and education. These

efforts were effective in achieving only very

modest usage rates (no higher than 30

percent). Even the enactment of primary

enforcement seat belt laws, without intense

and highly visible enforcement, generally

was not sufficient to achieve usage rates

greater than 60–65 percent. By 1985, it

became clear to Canadian and provincial

officials that additional efforts would be

needed to achieve levels of 80 percent or

greater. These efforts, mounted from 1985

through 1995, centered around highly

publicized ‘‘waves’’ of enforcement, a

technique that had already been shown to

increase seat belt use in Elmira, New York in

1985. When these procedures were

implemented in the Canadian provinces, seat

belt use generally increased from about 60

percent to well over 80 percent, within a

period of 3–5 years.

The U.S. experience has been similar. Prior

to 1980, many attempts were made to

increase seat belt use through voluntary,

persuasive, or educational methods. Most of

these efforts were initiated at local, county,

or state levels. Nationally, seat belt use

remained very low, reaching only about 11

percent. From 1980–1984, efforts to increase

seat belt use emphasized networking with

various public and private groups to

implement public education programs,

incentives, and seat belt use policies. While

there were some small gains documented in

individual organizations, these efforts did not

result in any significant increases in seat belt

use in any large city or in any State. By the

end of 1984, the national usage rate, as

measured by a 19-city observational survey,

was only about 15 percent.

In 1984, New York enacted the first

mandatory seat belt use law and, from 1985

to 1990, at least 37 other States enacted such

laws. Most of these laws were secondary

enforcement laws that required an officer to

observe another traffic violation before

stopping and citing a driver for failure to

wear a seat belt. During this period of time,

the 19-city index of seat belt use increased

from about 15 percent to nearly 50 percent.

However, as was the case in Canada, the

enactment of laws, by itself, was not

sufficient to achieve high usage rates.

The Canadian successes using periodic,

highly visible ‘‘waves’’ of enforcement, as

well as scores of such efforts implemented in

local jurisdictions in the U.S., prompted

NHTSA to implement Operation Buckle

Down (also called the ‘‘70 by ‘92’’ Program)

in 1991. This two-year program focused on

Special Traffic Enforcement Programs

(STEPs) to increase seat belt use. It was

followed by a national usage rate increase

from about 53 percent in 1990 to 62 percent

by the end of 1992 (as measured by a

weighted aggregate of State surveys). Neither

the level of enforcement nor its public

visibility was uniform in every State. Had

these ‘‘waves’’ of enforcement been

implemented in a more uniform fashion in

every State, the impact likely would have

been much greater.

In order to demonstrate the potential of

periodic, highly visible enforcement in a

more controlled environment, the State of

North Carolina implemented its Click-It or

Ticket program in 1993. In this program,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33881

waves of coordinated and highly publicized

enforcement efforts (i.e., checkpoints) were

implemented in every county. As a result,

seat belt use increased statewide, from 65

percent to over 80 percent, in just a few

months. This program provided the clearest

possible evidence to demonstrate the

potential of highly visible enforcement to

increase seat belt use in a large jurisdiction

(i.e, an entire State).

On the west coast, the State of California

had expended much effort over the years to

enforce its secondary enforcement law. These

efforts were successful in increasing the

statewide usage rate to about 70 percent,

where it plateaued. In 1993, California

became the first State to upgrade its seat belt

law from secondary to primary enforcement.

As a result, the rate of seat belt usage

increased by 13 percentage points (from 70

percent to 83 percent) in the first year after

the law was upgraded.

The California success was a major factor

in rekindling interest among safety officials

in upgrading their secondary enforcement

laws as a way to increase seat belt use. In

1995, Louisiana became the second State to

upgrade from secondary to primary

enforcement. As a result, it experienced an

18 percentage point increase (from 50 percent

to 68 percent) over the next two years. Next,

Georgia upgraded its law and experienced a

15 percentage point increase (from 53 percent

to 68 percent). After mounting a highly

visible enforcement effort in 1998 (Operation

Strap ‘N Snap), Georgia’s usage increased by

another 10 percentage points. Similarly,

Maryland upgraded its seat belt law in 1997,

immediately mounted a two-month

enforcement effort, and experienced a 13

percentage point increase in usage. In 1998,

the District of Columbia reported a 24

percentage point gain in usage (from 58% to

82%) after enacting one of the strongest seat

belt use laws in the nation and implementing

several waves of highly visible enforcement.

Following a 1999 three-week enforcement

effort in Elmira, New York, belt use increased

to 90 percent. Taken together, the

experiences of North Carolina, California,

Louisiana, Georgia, Maryland, the District of

Columbia and most recently Elmira, New

York have clearly demonstrated that highly

visible enforcement of strong laws has

tremendous potential for increasing seat belt

use rates.

Visible enforcement of strong laws also

appears to be an essential component of any

effective program to increase the use of child

safety seats. This is important since early use

of child safety seats contributes to the later

use of seat belts by children and young

adults. There is also a strong relationship

between child safety seat use. Studies

conducted in several States have found that

child safety seat use is nearly three times as

high when a driver is buckled up as when

a driver is not buckled up. Thus, efforts to

persuade adults to buckle up may be the

single most important way to get young

children protected. However, with child

safety seats, correct use is a major concern

and the training of law enforcement officers,

parents, and advocates is needed to minimize

incorrect use and to ensure age-appropriate

graduation to seat belts among young

children who have outgrown safety seats.

Clearly, efforts to increase the use of seat

belts and child safety seats are

interdependent and complementary.

Prior to the 1977 passage of the Child

Passenger Safety (CPS) law in Tennessee,

very little progress was made to get young

children buckled up. Nationally, child safety

seat use was less than 15 percent at the time.

However, the Tennessee law was followed by

the enactment of primary enforcement CPS

laws in all States by 1985. This wave of

legislation resulted in a major increase in

child restraint use. By 1990, usage was

estimated to be above 80 percent for infants

and about 60 percent for toddlers.

Unfortunately, problems such as child seat

misuse, premature graduation to seat belt use

that skips the important step of booster seat

use, and variation in age coverage continue

to exist. Another issue to emerge has been the

danger posed by passenger side air bags to

unrestrained and improperly restrained

children. This has led to NHTSA’s

publication of a final rule for advanced air

bags and a new emphasis on programs to

increase the proper use of child safety seats

and revitalized law enforcement efforts in

this area.

Obstacles to Increasing Seat Belt Use

Over the years, all of the States and many

public and private sector organizations have

been active participants in efforts to increase

seat belt use. Public information and

education efforts have been the dominant

programs funded over the past two decades.

Many States have identified major obstacles

to enacting primary seat belt laws or

implementing highly visible enforcement

programs, even though such programs have

been shown to result in high usage rates.

Most frequently, State (and local) officials

have identified a lack of resources for law

enforcement as the single greatest barrier to

implementing more intense, highly visible

enforcement efforts. This lack of resources

extends to funding, human resources, and

public information support to conduct such

campaigns. Over the past five years, many

officials have indicated that, if they had the

kind of resources provided to States like

North Carolina for the Click It or Ticket

program, they too would be able to mount

similar programs and achieve similar results.

The significant amount of funding that has

become available under this grant program,

combined with the additional new resources

available under other TEA–21 programs,

should drastically reduce this obstacle.

The second most frequently mentioned

obstacle to mounting highly visible

enforcement programs is a lack of support

from key State and local leaders. Experience

with the national mobilizations (Operation

ABC) and with jurisdictions such as North

Carolina, Georgia, Maryland and the District

of Columbia suggests that this obstacle can be

overcome to a significant degree by proactive

efforts to gain the understanding, support

and endorsement of various public and

private organizations. Including a broad

spectrum of such organizations as coalition

members in the State’s occupant protection

program can be very effective in obtaining

the commitment of key persons (e.g., the

governor) and in gaining the support that is

essential for sustained, highly visible

enforcement efforts. Much innovation can be

demonstrated in the way of developing

public and official support for strong

enforcement efforts.

Another obstacle frequently voiced by

State and local enforcement officials is a lack

of judicial and prosecutorial support for the

enforcement of seat belt and child passenger

safety laws. It has frequently been pointed

out that an enforcement program can be

undermined quickly if prosecutors fail to

prosecute seat belt and child safety seat

violations and judges repeatedly dismiss

such cases. This can be overcome to some

extent by educating prosecutors and judges

across the State and urging them to value

occupant protection laws as highly as any

other traffic safety law.

Buckle Up America Campaign

In October 1997, the Buckle Up America

(BUA) Campaign established ambitious

national goals: (a) to increase seat belt use to

85 percent and reduce child-related fatalities

(0–4 years) by 15 percent by the year 2000;

and (b) to increase seat belt use to 90 percent

and reduce child-related fatalities by 25

percent by the year 2005. This Campaign

advocates a four part strategy: (1) building

public-private partnerships; (2) enacting

strong legislation; (3) maintaining high

visibility law enforcement; (4) and

conducting effective public education.

Central to this Campaign’s success is the

encouragement of primary seat belt use laws

and the implementation of two major

enforcement mobilizations each year

(Memorial Day and Thanksgiving holidays).

During the November 1999 mobilization

conducted throughout the week surrounding

Thanksgiving, over 7,100 police agencies

from all 50 states participated in Operation

ABC.

The BUA Campaign and the efforts of the

Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign

(including Operation ABC) provide a useful

framework for the implementation of this

grant program. They provide a blueprint for

projects that States may wish to implement,

using funds to be made available in

accordance with this notice. Conversely, this

grant program provides an unprecedented

opportunity to achieve the ambitious goals

established under the BUA Campaign.

[FR Doc. 00–13099 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

International Standards on the

Transport of Dangerous Goods; Public

Meetings

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), Department of

Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.