36012 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices

comparison with similar data collected

at the close of the campaign. If

approved, the proposed survey would

assist NHTSA in establishing policy

related to the expansion of the

education campaign to the larger driving

community.

Description of the Likely Respondents

(Including Estimated Number, and

Proposed Frequency of Response to the

Collection of Information)—The

information collection described in this

notice would be a self-administered

paper-and-pencil survey requiring

approximately 20 minutes to complete.

It would be administered to up to 2,000

shift workers (average of about 100 per

site), both male and female, ages 18 and

older. Survey participants will be

identified by the 15 to 20 employers

who will have been awarded grants to

participate in the conduct and

evaluation of the educational program.

Each individual would be surveyed

twice during the course of the program:

prior to the start of the campaign and

again at the close of the campaign.

Estimate of the Total Annual

Reporting and Record Keeping Burden

Resulting from the Collection of

Information—NHTSA estimates that

each respondent in the sample would

require an average of 20 minutes to

complete the survey. Thus, the number

of estimated reporting burden hours a

year on the survey participants (2,000

participants multiplied by 2 survey

administrations multiplied by 20

minutes) would be 1,333 person-hours

for the proposed survey. The

respondents would not incur any

reporting cost from the data collection.

The respondents also would not incur

any record keeping burden or record

keeping cost from the information

collection.

James L. Nichols,

Acting Associate Administrator for Traffic

Safety Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–17512 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Discretionary Cooperative Agreement

in Support of a Large City/Jurisdiction

Demonstration and Evaluation

Program for Pedestrian Safety

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Announcement of a

discretionary cooperative agreement in

support of a large city/jurisdiction

demonstration and evaluation program

for pedestrian safety.

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA)

announces a discretionary cooperative

agreement program to demonstrate and

evaluate the effectiveness of a

comprehensive behavioral and

engineering-based countermeasures

program for reducing the occurrence of

crashes involving pedestrians of all

ages. Past Departmental research efforts

typically have focused on developing

and, when possible, assessing

countermeasures for a single target

group, such as school-age children. The

idea here is to determine the combined

effects of various crash prevention

approaches to maximize the safety

benefits to all pedestrians. The study

will use a recently developed

methodology for identifying land areas

(or zones) within jurisdictions

containing concentrations of crashes for

specific target groups. Subsequently,

existing, refined, and, as needed, newly

developed countermeasures will be

directed within these zones at

pedestrians of all ages, especially those

at high risk of crash involvement. To the

extent possible, the program also will

determine the impact of

countermeasures directed at one or

more diverse racial or ethnic group

known to have a traffic safety problem.

This notice solicits applications from

public and private, non-profit, for profit

and not-for-profit organizations,

governments and their agencies, or a

consortium of these organizations that

are interested in implementing and

evaluating the safety zones and

countermeasures program within a large

jurisdiction. Preference will be given to

those applications which help NHTSA

meet its needs to obtain an urban

diverse mix, potential for replication in

other communities, and/or other factors

deemed relevant by NHTSA.

NHTSA anticipates awarding one

demonstration and evaluation project

for a period of four years as a result of

this announcement. In the event

additional money becomes available a

second award may be made during

FY’99 or FY 2000.

DATES: Applications must be received at

the office designated below on or before

July 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be

submitted to the NHTSA, Office of

Contracts and Procurement (NAD–30),

ATTN: Lamont Norwood, 400 7th

Street, SW, Room 5301, Washington, DC

20590. All applications submitted must

include a reference to NHTSA

Cooperative Agreement Program No.

DTNH22–98–H–05183. Interested

applicants are advised that no separate

application package exists beyond the

contents of this announcement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

General administrative questions may

be directed to Lamont Norwood, Office

of Contracts and Procurement, at (202

366–8573) or by e-mail to

LNorwood@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Programmatic questions relating to this

cooperative agreement program should

be directed to Marv Levy, Traffic Safety

Programs, NHTSA, NTS–31, 400

Seventh Street S. W., Washington, D.C.

20590 (202 366–5597), or by e-mail at

mlevy@nhtsa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Problem

On average, a pedestrian is killed in

a traffic crash every 97 minutes, and

injured every six minutes. In 1996, 5412

pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes

in the U.S. and 82,000 were injured. The

economic costs of these crashes are

substantial, costing billions of dollars

each year. The Department of

Transportation, via the Secretarial

Initiative for Pedestrians and Bicyclists,

has targeted a decrease in the number of

pedestrian crashes of 10 percent by the

year 2000. This demonstration will

support the Departmental effort.

Why a Large City or Jurisdiction is

Needed

In 1996 seventy-one percent of

pedestrian fatalities occurred in urban

areas. For example, in 1996, cities with

high percentages of pedestrian fatalities

among all traffic related deaths included

New York (52.7 percent), Baltimore

(47.1 percent), Buffalo (44.8 percent),

Miami (43.1 percent), Honolulu (41.7

percent), Long Beach (41.7 percent), and

San Jose (40.0 percent).

Target Groups of Interest

Over the past twenty-five years

NHTSA and the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) collected data

on pedestrians most likely to be

involved in crashes. These data suggest

that three groups are most at risk: young

children, alcohol impaired adults, and

older pedestrians. In 1996, nearly onethird (31 percent) of all children

between the ages of five and nine years

who were killed in traffic crashes were

pedestrians, more than one-fifth (22

percent) killed under the age of 16 were

pedestrians, and 7 percent of all traffic

injuries under the age of 16 were

pedestrians. Older pedestrians (ages

65+) accounted for 22.4 percent of all

pedestrian fatalities; however, this

group constitutes only 12.8 percent of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices 36013

the population. Older adults have the

highest pedestrian fatality rate among

all ages. Excessive drinking is a major

traffic safety problem facing pedestrians.

In 1996, 36 percent of all pedestrian

fatalities (16 years of age or older), were

intoxicated, with blood alcohol

concentrations of 0.10 grams per

deciliter or greater. Recent study

findings suggest the alcohol crash

problem for pedestrians crosses both

racial and ethnic groups. The problem is

not confined to white Americans but

extends to groups such as Afro

-Americans, Hispanic Americans, and

Native Americans. As with drinking

drivers, most victims are male, and the

crashes occur primarily at night and on

weekends.

Preventing Pedestrian Crashes

Within the Department of

Transportation both NHTSA and FHWA

have responsibilities in the area of

pedestrian safety. NHTSA is primarily

responsible for developing and testing

public information and education,

training, legislative, and enforcement

based countermeasures, whereas the

FHWA is primarily responsible for

improving pedestrian safety by

developing and testing engineering

applications. The types of

countermeasures developed and

implemented by both Agencies typically

complement each other. For example,

crash reduction effects have been

achieved at intersection locations for

older pedestrians in Phoenix, AZ by

combining behavioral advice in

conjunction with engineering activities.

FHWA sponsored improvements to the

physical environment at selected

intersections within a set of ‘‘safety

zones’’ containing concentrations of

crashes. These improvements included

removal of visual ‘‘screens,’’ which

blocked pedestrians and drivers from

viewing each other, and adding new

traffic signs explaining the meaning of

different signal phases such as flashing

‘‘Don’t Walk’’. NHTSA, on the other

hand, sponsored the development of

educational materials for use with older

pedestrians. Door hangers were

prepared containing information about

what pedestrians should do at

intersections and what they should do

as drivers to avoid crash involvement.

Some of the advice provided

specifically discussed the meaning of

pedestrian signals, including ‘‘Don’t

Walk’’. Thus, the materials and

environmental changes likely had the

effect of ‘‘positively reinforcing’’ each

other. Findings from this recently

completed study reported a forty-six

percent decrease in crashes involving

older pedestrians within the zones. This

was in contrast to an increase in crashes

involving older pedestrians outside the

zones during the program period.

Tools for Problem Identification

Jurisdictions seeking to counter

pedestrian traffic safety problems have

to deal with key issues such as

determining the nature and extent of the

problem and ways to impact identified

problems in an efficient manner due to

limited resources. Past Departmental

research has developed methodologies

that may be used to (1) identify areas

(zones) within jurisdictions where

countermeasures may be implemented

for maximum impact and (2) identify

the specific types of crashes occurring

within these zones. This approach

permits existing, refined or newly

developed countermeasures which

address the major pedestrian traffic

safety problems to be disseminated in a

cost effective manner.

Zoning Methodology

Jurisdictions have used school safety

zones for years as a means of preventing

crashes. In these zones, young children

are protected by a combination of

behavioral advice, enforcement of traffic

laws, and engineering activities. Rather

than using a facility, i.e., a school, for

identifying where a zone should be

located, recent research found that

zones could be identified by locating

areas within a jurisdiction where

concentrations of crashes have occurred.

A mapping methodology (either manual

or incorporating a geographic

information system) has been used to

identify concentrations of crashes for

older pedestrians and for pedestrian

crashes involving alcohol. Once

identified, countermeasures can be

disseminated efficiently within the

zones which comprise just a fraction of

the entire jurisdiction or city land area.

In Phoenix, for example, all of the zones

comprised less than 5% of the land area.

Use of such an approach can save

thousands of dollars by focusing the

countermeasures where they can do the

most benefit. It is anticipated that the

grantee will use this approach for

identifying different sets of zones, each

for a different subpopulation of

pedestrians.

Crash Typing

Within identified zones, different

kinds or types of crashes occur. These

need to be identified so that appropriate

countermeasures can be applied to

impact them. During the 1970s, NHTSA

identified more than thirty pedestrian

crash types. This research went beyond

simple identification of the normal

demographic data available (e.g., time of

day, day of week, gender, age of victim)

to include information on the dynamics

leading to the crash. Both predisposing

factors (alcohol consumption, parked

vehicles along the street) and

precipitating factors (e.g., inadequate

search, detection, or reaction by the

pedestrian and driver) were identified

that distinguished each crash type.

Subsequent work was conducted

during the 1980s which permitted the

identification of the various crash types

by use of a process called Manual

Accident Typing (MAT). With this tool,

coders, by responding to a series of

items, could readily classify crashes into

their respective types. By using this

process, a jurisdiction is able to identify

its most significant pedestrian problems.

Once identified, countermeasures can

be used to impact predisposing and

precipitating conditions so as to reduce

the occurrence of these crashes. A

software program called the Pedestrian

and Bicyclist Crash Analysis Tool

(PBCAT) is currently being prepared

under the sponsorship of the FHWA and

NHTSA. This tool, scheduled to be

available by December 1998, will

automatically classify crashes, build a

data base and produce reports for use by

the jurisdiction.

Countermeasure Ideas, and Materials

Developed for Impacting Pedestrian

Safety

Over the years, NHTSA and FHWA

have developed a variety of

countermeasures that can be used with

specific target groups. Most of these

address the problems of children, older

pedestrians, and adults. Some address

alcohol impaired pedestrians. Several of

these countermeasures were conceptual

in nature and not developed; others

were developed but not tested in the

field for positive behavioral change, and

their crash reduction effects; still others

were tested in the field for their

effectiveness. It is anticipated that

existing countermeasures may need to

be refined, and that new

countermeasures may need to be

developed in support of this

demonstration. For example, a

jurisdiction or city may have a specific

problem that has not been addressed in

past Departmental work, e.g., alcoholimpaired pedestrians involving diverse

racial/ethnic groups. Also, other

existing countermeasures will be

considered for implementation which

can be justified to the government. The

following provides a partial listing of

products that were produced in the

Department or elsewhere which are

consistent with NHTSA/FHWA

research. These and other products, as

designed by the COTR, will be used by
36014 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices

the successful applicant in fulfilling the

requirements of this agreement.

Preschool Children

Walking in Traffic Safely

A pedestrian safety program for

preschoolers involving parents,

teachers, and preschoolers. Safe areas

(sidewalks) are distinguished from

unsafe areas (roadways). Parents and

other caretakers are instructed to be

with the child or children when

crossing the roadway. Materials are

provided for parents, and teachers, and

a set of storybooks with a safety theme

are provided for children of different

ages.

School-Age Children

Walk Ride Walk Getting to School Safely

These materials are based on research

conducted by NHTSA. A school bus/

pedestrian safety kit is available through

the National Safety Council. It is a

comprehensive safety program that

covers walking to and from the bus stop,

waiting for the bus, crossing the street

to the bus, boarding the bus, etc. A set

of teacher guides, videotapes and a

poster are available, as are parent and

bus driver materials.

Stop and Look With Willy Whistle and

Walking With Your Eyes

These videos contain traffic safety

advice for school age children from K–

6th grade. The first video ‘‘Stop and

Look with Willy Whistle’’ provides

information on what steps are involved

in safely crossing the street. The second

video—‘‘Walking with Your Eyes’’—is

geared to the older school-age child and

provides information on how to cross

the street at intersections, especially

when signals are present. For example,

information is provided on how to deal

with turning vehicles, such as right turn

on red and the meaning of lights and

signals, such as the ‘‘Don’t Walk’’ sign.

The contents of these videos were tested

in the field and associated with a

substantial reduction in crashes.

Alcohol-Impaired Adults

Walk Smart Baltimore Program

This ongoing study developed TV and

radio public service announcements

(PSAs) and print materials (flyers,

posters, etc.) that provided pedestrian

safety advice; used engineering

improvements such as nighttime

lighting, analysis of parking setback

violations, special pedestrian alert signs,

and program banners; developed a

police training video; and, provided

retroreflective caps.

Older Pedestrians

Walking Through the Years

This brief paper describes the traffic

safety problems facing older pedestrians

and provides safety advice for older

pedestrians and motorists. Information

from this paper was incorporated in

AAA materials, including a brochure, a

flyer and a slide presentation.

Pedzone Study Materials

Public information and education

(PI&E) materials included a video,

‘‘Walking Through the Years’’, that

offers pedestrian safety advice for older

pedestrians, five TV PSAs, and a set of

13 flyers for both pedestrians and

motorists. There were also brochures,

posters, bus cards, bumper stickers,

radio PSAs and slides. These materials

are the outgrowth of a rigorous research

process to highlight behavioral errors

that are amenable to change. Specific

pedestrian risks addressed were turning

cars, multiple threat and other visual

screens, looking before entering the

roadway, backing cars, parking lots,

conspicuity, the fresh green signal,

driveways and alleyways, and the

meaning of flashing ‘‘Don’t Walk’’ signs.

Engineering activities included

installing overhead pedestrian warning

signs, improving crosswalks, installing

signs explaining the meaning of the

signal phases, etc. A Zone Guide,

currently in draft form, will describe the

process of conducting a zoning analysis.

It is anticipated this product will be

published by November, 1998.

Caminado a Traves de los Anos-Segurid

Para Peatones de Tercera Edad (65+)

(Walking Through the Years—

Pedestrian Safety for Older (65+) Adult).

Pedestrian safety program materials

include ‘‘La Cita telenovela’’, an

illustrated brochure, a detailed report,

and a slide show and presenter’s guide

that identifies pedestrian risks and

suggested actions that can be taken to

avoid crashes. These materials were

specifically designed for use with

spanish speaking audiences.

Objectives

Under this cooperative agreement the

effectiveness of the combined

pedestrian countermeasures program

shall be demonstrated and evaluated to

determine the impacts on reducing the

traffic related injuries and associated

costs within a large jurisdiction or city.

Specific objectives of this cooperative

agreement are as follows:

1. Conduct Complete Analysis of

Pedestrian Safety Problem

Fulfilling this objective will involve

applying the Zoning Process to identify

concentrations of crashes within a large

city or jurisdiction for different target

groups. Once the zoning process is

completed, common crash types will be

identified by applying the MAT or, if

available, PBCAT.

2. Use of Traditional and NonTraditional Partners

One of the key components of this

study is to assemble a cadre of partners

that are dedicated to reducing crashes

among pedestrians at the local level.

These partners will be involved in all

aspects of the demonstration, from

analyzing the scope of the pedestrian

problem, to identifying appropriate

countermeasures, to monitoring the

field evaluation and analyzing the data.

Both traditional partners (e.g., State and

local DOTs, including traffic engineers,

national organizations, enforcement

agencies, study design and evaluation

specialists, local PTAs) and nontraditional (local public health

organizations, hospitals, alcohol

rehabilitation, etc.) shall be considered

for inclusion. It should be mentioned

that use of subcontractors to administer

and/or evaluate the findings is

acceptable.

3. Implement a Program To Reduce

Traffic Related Injuries

The focus of the study is to reduce

crashes among pedestrians. The partners

shall develop a program that will be

broad based in scope and that has the

potential to impact all of the residents

of the jurisdiction or city.

Representatives within the

jurisdiction or city will design their own

unique countermeasures program.

Existing behavioral and engineering

countermeasures will be examined and

if appropriate applied as is. Other

countermeasures will be refined or

developed as needed. The key here is

that the countermeasures developed

will be designed to impact specific

behavioral, engineering or

environmental problems related to

common crash situations or types.

4. Evaluate the Effectiveness of the

Program

A process analysis as well as an

impact analysis will be conducted to

determine the effectiveness of the

demonstration program. What worked

and did not work during

implementation is important for other

jurisdictions interested in setting up a

program of their own. A power analysis

shall be conducted as part of the study
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices 36015

design activities. At a minimum,

information on the effectiveness of the

program for reducing crashes overall

and within specific subpopulations, eg.,

school age children, older pedestrians,

shall be provided.

Availability of Funds

A total of $400K will be made

available to fund this program. Of this

amount, $250K will be made available

in FY’98 and the remaining funds

($150K) will be provided in FY’99,

subject to available funds, for this

demonstration and evaluation program.

Of the total funds awarded, at least,

$20,000 must be used to fund an on-site

staffer who is dedicated to achieving the

goals of this study. Also, at least 25% of

the awarded amount must be devoted to

evaluation activities. Additional funds

may become available to fund a second

demonstration project in FY’99 or

FY’2000. This demonstration project

will be conducted for a period of up to

four years. Given the amount of funds

available for this effort, applicants are

strongly encouraged to seek other

funding sources to supplement the

federal funds and include cost sharing

plans and commitments.

Period of Performance

Performance of this cooperative

agreement will be four years (48

months) from the effective date of

award.

NHTSA Involvement

NHTSA will be involved in all

activities undertaken as part of the

cooperative agreement and will:

1. Provide a Contracting Officer’s

Technical Representative (COTR) to

participate in the planning and

management of this Cooperative

Agreement and to coordinate activities

between the Grantee and NHTSA.

2. Provide information and technical

assistance from government sources

within available resources and as

determined appropriate by the COTR.

3. Serve as a liaison between NHTSA

Headquarters, Regional Offices and

others (Federal state and local)

interested in the application of this

comprehensive pedestrian program and

the activities of the grantee.

4. Stimulate the transfer of

information among those engaged in

pedestrian traffic safety activities.

Eligibility and Other Applicant

Requirements

A sufficient number of pedestrian

crashes per year is required so that

appropriate statistical techniques can be

used to determine the effectiveness of

various countermeasures for reducing

crashes and injuries overall, and among

various subpopulations within the city

or jurisdiction.

Therefore, only cities or jurisdictions

with at least 500,000 people will be

considered for inclusion in this

demonstration. Applicants may, in

conjunction with representatives from a

large city or jurisdiction, submit a

proposal to conduct this demonstration

study. Applications may be submitted

by public and private, non-profit, and

not-for-profit organizations, and

governments and their agencies or a

consortium of the above. Thus,

universities, colleges, research

institutions, other public and private

oganizations and state and local

governments are eligible to apply.

Interested applicants are advised that no

fee or profit will be allowed under this

cooperative agreement program. This

demonstration project will require

extensive collaboration among the

various organizations to achieve the

program objectives.

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: Lamont Norwood, 400 7th

Street, SW., Room 5301, Washington,

DC 20590. Submission of three

additional copies will expedite

processing but is not required.

Applications must be typed on one side

of the page only, and must include a

reference to NHTSA Cooperative

Agreement No. DTNH22–98–H–05183.

Only complete packages received on or

before 4 p.m. on July 31, 1998 will be

considered.

Application Contents

Applications for this program must

include the following information:

1. The application package must be

submitted with OMB Standard Form

424 (Rev. 4–88, including 424A and

424B), application for Federal

Assistance, with the required

information filled in and certified

assurances signed. While form 424 deals

with budget information, and Section B

identified Budget Categories, the

available space does not permit a level

of detail which is sufficient to provide

for a meaningful evaluation of the

proposed total costs. A supplemental

sheet shall be provided which presents

a detailed breakdown of the proposed

costs, as well as any costs which the

applicant indicates will be contributed

by other sources in support of the

demonstration study.

2. The application shall include a

narrative which addresses the following

items.

a. A statement of goals and objectives

of the project as interpreted by the

applicant.

b. A description of the city in which

the applicant proposes to work. For the

purposes of this program, a large city is

defined here as a city with a population

of 500,000 or more. It should be large

enough so that the program can support

an impact evaluation and yield

meaningful results. The description

should include city demographics,

including any information on diverse

racial/ethnic groups, three years of data

on the city’s overall traffic safety

problem, a listing of available data

sources, the types of data collected, e.g.,

police files, hospital or trauma center

records, and how the data will be

accessed.

c. A description of the city’s overall

pedestrian crash problem and for

different subgroups, e.g., older and

younger pedestrians. Data shall include

both fatality and injury data. Also, a

description of the procedure that will be

used to conduct a zoning analysis and

identification of concentrations of

crashes for different target groups,

including young children, older

pedestrians and alcohol involved

pedestrians. As part of the application

the applicant shall identify and describe

the qualifications of the person

conducting this analysis. For more

information, see Reporting

Requirements and Deliverables section

(b) Problem Identification Report.

d. An Implementation Plan that

describes the types of interventions or

activities proposed to achieve the

objectives of the demonstration project.

How will priorities be set for the

different interventions? How will the

respective roles of the various parties be

determined, monitored and modified if

needed? What types of interventions

will be considered? How will

government-provided materials be used

in countermeasure implementation? The

implementation plan shall also address

prospects for program continuation

beyond the period of Federal assistance.

A milestone chart with proposed

deadlines (weeks after award) shall be

included as part of the Implementation

Plan.

e. A proposed Evaluation Plan that at

a minimum shall contain the following:

1. The study design proposed and

whether a control or matching

procedure will be used;

2. The types of process and impact

data collected;
36016 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices

3. The duration of the data collection

period, including predelivery, delivery

(of countermeasures), and post delivery;

4. What the (outcome) measures are

expected to be and how they will be

measured;

5. How often the data will be

collected, and how the data will be

analyzed;

6. How action undertaken by the

community will be linked with the

outcome measures;

7. How the collected data may be

disaggregated to provide relevant

population; and subpopulation data.

(For more information see Objectives,

Item 4, Evaluate the Effectiveness of the

Program.)

f. A description of the full working

partnership that has been or will be

established to conduct the

Comprehensive Pedestrian Safety

program. The application shall describe

all the partners that will participate in

the program (e.g., local city and state

government, law enforcement,

education, media) and what the role for

each partner will be. A complete set of

letters of commitment, written by major

partners, organizations, and groups

proposed for study involvement, shall

detail what each partner is willing to do

over the course of the program (provide

data, staff, in-kind resources, etc.). Form

letters that do not specifically address

these issues will not be acceptable.

Letters from owners of the data required

for successful completion of this project

also must be submitted. These letters

must indicate that the data required for

the project are accessible to the project

team.

g. A description of how the project

will be managed both at the grantee

level and at the local level. The

application shall identify the proposed

project manager and any support

personnel considered critical to the

successful accomplishment of the

project objectives, including a

description of their qualifications and

respective organizational

responsibilities. The roles and

responsibilities of the grantee, the local

level staff and any others included in

the application package also shall be

specified. The proposed level of effort in

performing the various activities shall

be identified. A staffing plan and

resume for all key personnel shall be

included in the application.

h. A dissemination plan that describes

how the results from this demonstration

may be shared with other interested

parties. The plan should include

materials, e.g., a how-to guide for

developing and implementing a

comprehensive pedestrian safety

program in other communities, and

delivery mechanisms. Also, proposed

presentations and submission of articles

to peer review journals shall be

included as part of the plan.

i. A separately labeled section of the

document shall be prepared with

information demonstrating that the

applicant meets all of the following

special competencies.

1. Knowledge and experience

accessing and using relevent data

sources such as police crash reports,

hospital data collection procedures, and

to the extent possible, injury cost data

(e.g., costs of injuries in the city).

2. Experience in designing

comprehensive program evaluations,

collecting and analyzing both

qualitative and quantitative data and

synthesizing, summarizing and

reporting evaluation results which are

readily understandable to lay and

technical audiences. Also, demonstrated

experience in designing comprehensive

program manuals or guides. An example

of a manual or guide produced should

be submitted, if available.

3. Experience in field research, and in

working cooperatively in partnerships

with governmental agencies, media,

local organizations and others in

implementing solutions to traffic safety

problems.

4. Experience in implementing

pedestrian crash reduction programs at

the local level.

j. A dissemination plan that describes

how the results from this demonstration

may be shared with other interested

parties. The plan should include

materials, e.g., a how-to guide for

developing and implementing a

comprehensive pedestrian safety

program in other communities, and

delivery mechanisms. Also,

presentations and submissions of

articles to peer reviewed journals shall

be part of the plan.

Application Review Process and

Evaluation Factors

Each application package will

initially be reviewed for eligibility (See

Eligibility and Other Applicant

Requirements section of this

announcement). Each complete

application from an eligible recipient

will subsequently be reviewed by an

evaluation committee. The applications

will be assessed using the following

criteria:

1. Goals, Objectives and Implementation

Plan (25%)

The extent to which the applicant’s

goals are clearly articulated, the

objectives are time-phased, specific,

measurable and achievable and the

goals and objectives relate to identified

problems. The extent to which the

implementation plan will achieve an

outcome-oriented result that will reduce

pedestrian related injuries and, to the

extent possible, costs to the city. The

implementation plan will be evaluated

in terms of its feasibility, realism, and

ability to achieve the desired outcomes

as well as prospective plans for program

continuation beyond the period of

Federal assistance. For more

information, see application contents,

items 2a and d.

2. Understanding Pedestrian Safety

Problem and Problem Identification

(15%)

The applicant’s capacity to

demonstrate an understanding of the

theory and findings of NHTSA’s and

FHWA’s research efforts relating to

pedestrian crash typing and the zoning

process for identifying concentrations of

pedestrian crashes within the city. Also,

the applicant’s ability to identify the

significance of the pedestrian safety

problem within the overall traffic safety

problem and to identify among the

residents involved in pedestrian-related

crashes the populations involved, types

and locations of crashes, types of

vehicles, and the types of injuries

incurred. For more information, see

application contents, item 2c.

3. Collaboration (15%)

The extent to which the applicant has

demonstrated experience in a full

working partnership for data acquisition

and analysis, design, implementation

and evaluation of a city/community

based program; and the extent to which

such a partnership has been established

among the applicant and critical

components in the city/community

representing various elements within

and outside of the traditional traffic

safety community. The extent to which

commitment has been demonstrated by

the various partners and the roles of

each are specified. For more

information, see application contents,

item 2f.

4. Evaluation Plan (15%)

How well the applicant describes the

proposed evaluation plan design and

the methods for measuring the processes

and outcomes of the proposed

interventions (countermeasures). How

well the measures described provide

useful information on the effectiveness

of the comprehensive pedestrian

countermeasures program? Does the

applicant provide sufficient evidence

that the proposed partners are

sufficiently committed to evaluation?

Are there sufficient resources or

capacity to ensure access to needed
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices 36017

data, and the collection and analysis of

qualitative and quantitative data for

measuring the effectiveness of the

comprehensive pedestrian

countermeasure program? See

application contents, item 2e, for more

information.

5. Special Competencies (15%)

The extent to which the applicant has

demonstrated knowledge and

experience accessing and using relevant

data sources, designing and

implementing comprehensive program

evaluations, implementing problem

identification and countermeasure

development and test programs, and

working in partnerships with others on

the local (city) level. For more

information, see application contents,

item 2i.

6. Project Management and Staffing

(15%)

The extent to which the proposed

staff, including management, program

staff and local (city) partners are clearly

described, appropriately assigned, and

have adequate skills and experiences.

The extent to which the applicant has

the capacity and facilities to design,

implement, and evaluate a complex and

comprehensive local (city) program. The

extent to which the applicant provides

details regarding the level of effort and

allocation of time for each staff position.

See application contents, item 2g, for

more information.

Special Award Selection Factors

Applicants are strongly encouraged to

seek funds for the purpose of costsharing from other Federal, State, local

and private sources to augment those

available under this announcement.

Applications which include a

commitment of such funds will be given

additional consideration.

Terms and Conditions of 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).

2. Reporting Requirements and

Deliverables:

a. Quarterly Progress Reports should

include a summary of the previous

quarter’s activities and

accomplishments, as well as the

proposed activities for the upcoming

quarter. Any decisions and actions

required in the upcoming quarter

should be included in the report. The

grantee shall supply the progress report

to the Contracting’s Officer’s Technical

Representative (COTR) every ninety (90)

days following the date of award.

b. Problem Identification Report: The

grantee shall submit a Problem

Identification Report within six months

after award. This report will describe

the overall pedestrian safety problem,

within the city and by subpopulation.

Subpopulations to be described will

include at a minimum, school age

children, older pedestrians (65+ years of

age and older) and crashes involving

alcohol-impaired pedestrians. Also,

information on crashes involving

different racial and ethnic groups shall

be presented as part of the report. A

crash typing analysis will be conducted

to determine the types of crashes

occurring within the city. This analysis

will be based on the MAT coding

procedure or, if available, the software

package containing the (PBCAT).

The grantee shall conduct a zone

analysis to determine those areas within

the city that contain the highest

concentration of crashes. The zone

process will be applied to each target

group of significance using the crash

analysis tool. The Problem

Identification Report will contain the

grantee’s recommendations on the most

critical groups of pedestrians within the

city that require a comprehensive

countermeasures program as well as

information on the areas within the city

where pedestrian crashes occur most

often. The NHTSA COTR will review

and comment on this report.

c. Program Implementation and

Evaluation Plan (PIEP): Within nine

months the grantee shall submit a

refined Program Implementation and

Evaluation Plan. This plan will describe

the approach recommended for

determining the effectiveness of the

Comprehensive Pedestrian

Countermeasures program. Information

will be provided on target groups to be

addressed, partners involvement, the

types of countermeasures (e.g.,

behavioral, engineering and

enforcement) that will be used during

field implementation, the extent of

countermeasure refinement and

development, the dissemination

mechanisms that will be used, the areas

within the city receiving

countermeasures. A set of refined

milestones will be presented with a

listing of countermeasures and expected

dates of administration. This PIEP shall

be submitted to the COTR and within 30

days comments will be received from

the government and incorporated in the

PIEP.

d. Draft Final Report and Draft ‘‘HowTo’’ Manual: The grantee shall prepare

a draft final technical report that

includes a description of the city, and

its pedestrian traffic safety problem,

overall and for different subgroups, the

partners, intervention strategies,

program implementation activities,

evaluation methodology and findings

from the program evaluation. The

grantee shall answer the question: Did

the program impact the pedestrian

safety problem and, if so, to what

extent? Also, what was the impact of the

countermeasures program on crashes

among different subgroups such as

young children, older adults and

alcohol impaired pedestrians.

The grantee shall also prepare a Draft

‘‘How-To’’ Manual that describes what

happened in the community in

establishing the Comprehensive

Pedestrian Countermeasures program

and provides advice on ways to set up

a similar program in different

communities. Included in this manual

will be information on the use of crash

typing and zoning methodologies as

precursors to countermeasure

development; the types of

countermeasures needed, the process

used to decide which countermeasures

to pursue; the dissemination

mechanisms used; the extent to which

the countermeasures were implemented;

the reactions of those who were

responsible for disseminating the

countermeasures; and if possible, those

impacted by these countermeasures.

Also, advice shall be presented on what

worked and what did not work; how the

various partners interacted; and the

lessons learned to avoid potential

problems in other communities. The

grantee shall submit four copies of the

Draft Final Report and Draft How-To

Manual to the COTR 90 days prior to the

end of the performance period. The

COTR will review the draft document

and provide comments to the grantee.

e. Final Report and Final Version of

‘‘How-to’’ Manual: The grantee shall

revise the Draft Final Technical Report

and Draft How-to Manual to reflect the

COTR’s comments. The final

documents, as revised, shall be

delivered to the COTR on or before the

end of the performance period. The

grantee shall submit to the COTR one

camera ready copy and four additional

hard copies of each final document. In

addition, the grantee shall prepare these

publications for printing and

incorporation into the World Wide Web.

(See attached printing and web

guidance.)

f. Meetings and Briefings. The grantee

shall plan to participate in two working

sessions per year in Washington, DC.
36018 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 /Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / Notices

These meetings will last up to four

hours. The exact dates shall be decided

by mutual consent of the COTR and

grantee. In addition, the grantee shall

plan for a presentation at one national

meeting (e.g., Lifesavers, Pro-Bike ProWalk) per year.

g. Professional Journal Paper: The

grantee shall prepare and submit at least

one paper for publication in a

professional journal if deemed

appropriate by the COTR.

3. During the effective performance

period of the cooperative agreement

awarded as a result of this

announcement, the agreement shall be

subject to the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration’s General

Provisions for Assistance Agreements.

James Nichols,

Acting Associate Administrator for Traffic

Safety Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–17511 Filed 6–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. RSPA–98–3891; Notice 12]

Pipeline Safety: Intent To Approve

Project and Environmental

Assessment for the Mobil Pipe Line

Company Pipeline Risk Management

Demonstration Program

AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety,

Research and Special Programs

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Approve

Project and Environmental Assessment.

SUMMARY: As part of its Congressional

mandate to conduct a Risk Management

Demonstration Program, the Office of

Pipeline Safety (OPS) has been

authorized to conduct demonstration

projects with pipeline operators to

determine how risk management might

be used to complement and improve the

existing Federal pipeline safety

regulatory process. This is a notice that

OPS intends to approve Mobil Pipe Line

Company (Mobil) as a participant in the

Pipeline Risk Management

Demonstration Program. This also

provides an environmental assessment

of Mobil’s demonstration project. Based

on this environmental assessment, OPS

has preliminarily concluded that this

proposed project will not have

significant environmental impacts.

This notice explains OPS’s rationale

for approving this project, and

summarizes the demonstration project

provisions (including affected locations,

risk control and monitoring activities,

and regulatory exemptions) that would

go into effect once OPS issues an order

approving Mobil as a Demonstration

Program participant. OPS seeks public

comment on the proposed

demonstration project so that it may

consider and address these comments

before approving the project. The Mobil

demonstration project is one of several

projects OPS plans to approve and

monitor in assessing risk management

as a component of the Federal pipeline

safety regulatory program.

ADDRESSES: OPS requests that

comments to this notice or about this

environmental assessment be submitted

on or before July 31, 1998 so they can

be considered before project approval.

However, comments on this or any other

demonstration project will be accepted

in the Docket throughout the 4-year

demonstration period. Comments

should be sent to the Dockets Facility,

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590–0001, or you can

E-Mail your comments to

ops.comments@rspa.dot.gov. Comments

should identify the docket number

RSPA–98–3891. Persons should submit

the original comment document and one

(1) copy. Persons wishing to receive

confirmation of receipt of their

comments must include a self-addressed

stamped postcard. The Dockets Facility

is located on the plaza level of the

Nassif Building in Room 401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC.

The Dockets Facility is open from 10:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Callsen, OPS, (202) 366–4572,

regarding the subject matter of this

notice. Contact the Dockets Unit, (202)

366–5046, for docket material.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is

the federal regulatory body overseeing

pipeline safety. As a critical component

of its federal mandate, OPS administers

and enforces a broad range of

regulations governing safety and

environmental protection of pipelines.

These regulations have contributed to a

good pipeline industry safety record by

assuring that risks associated with

pipeline design, construction,

operations, and maintenance are

understood, managed, and reduced.

Preserving and improving this safety

record is OPS’s top priority. On the

basis of extensive research, and the

experience of both government and

industry, OPS believes that a risk

management approach, properly

implemented and monitored, offers

opportunities to achieve:

(1) Superior safety, environmental

protection, and service reliability;

(2) Increased efficiency and reliability

of pipeline operations; and

(3) Improved communication and

dialogue among industry, the

government, and other stakeholders.

A key benefit of this approach is the

opportunity for greater levels of public

participation.

As authorized by Congress, OPS is

conducting a structured Demonstration

Program to evaluate the use of a

comprehensive risk management

approach in the operations and

regulation of interstate pipeline

facilities. This evaluation will be

performed under strictly controlled

conditions through a set of

Demonstration Projects to be conducted

with interstate pipeline operators. A

Presidential Directive to the Secretary of

Transportation (October 16, 1996) stated

that in implementing the Pipeline Risk

Management Demonstration Program:

‘‘The Secretary shall require each

project to achieve superior levels of

public safety and environmental

protection when compared with

regulatory requirements that otherwise

would apply.’’ Thus, the process to

select operators for this Demonstration

Program involves a comprehensive

review to ensure that the proposed

project will provide the superior safety

and environmental protection required

by this Directive. OPS may exempt a

participating operator from particular

regulations if the operator needs such

flexibility in implementing a

comprehensive risk management

program; however, regulatory

exemption is neither a goal nor

requirement of the Demonstration

Program. This document summarizes

the key points of this review for Mobil’s

demonstration project, and evaluates the

safety and environmental impacts of

this proposed project.

2. OPS Evaluation of Mobil’s

Demonstration Project Proposal

Using the consultative process

described in Appendix A of the

Requests for Application for the

Pipeline Risk Management

Demonstration Program (62 FR 14719),

published on March 27, 1997, OPS has

reached agreement with Mobil Pipe Line

Company on the provisions for a

demonstration project to be conducted

at a crude oil storage tank facility in

Patoka, Illinois.

Company History and Record

Mobil Pipe Line Company currently

owns approximately 5409 miles of