[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33875-33881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13099]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 33876]]


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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#761706191a1f181136181e0205175812190258111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96f7e6f9fafff8f1d6f8fee2e5f7b8f2f9e2b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#59293e2c3538321937312d2a38773d362d773e362f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84f4e3f1e8e5efc4eaecf0f7e5aae0ebf0aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>, 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

[[Page 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 self-evaluations 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.

[[Page 33878]]

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
    <bullet> The approximate dates when each wave will occur
    <bullet> How long each wave will last (i.e., duration of actual 
intensified enforcement)
    <bullet> The number of law enforcement agencies that are expected 
to participate in each wave
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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.)
    <bullet> The number of officers that will participate
    <bullet> The number of hours, on average, each officer will 
participate during each wave
    <bullet> The number of law enforcement contacts, on average, each 
officer is expected to make per hour during each wave
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> Seat belt use rates
    <bullet> Level of actual ticketing, other enforcement activities 
and activity to generate support for enforcement
    <bullet> Public awareness of ticketing and other enforcement 
efforts
    <bullet> Public support for seat belt and child passenger safety 
enforcement.
    <bullet> Encouraging specific enforcement-related 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 sub-factors:
    (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).

[[Page 33880]]

    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,

[[Page 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>