21434 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

floodplain areas. Potential impacts will

be assessed for the long-term operation

of each alternative and the short-term

construction period. Measures to avoid,

minimize, or mitigate any significant

adverse impacts will be identified.

V. FTA Procedures

The EIS process will be performed in

accordance with applicable laws and

Federal Transit Administration

regulations and guidelines for preparing

an Environmental Impact Statement.

The impacts of the project will be

assessed, and, if necessary, the scope of

the project will be revised or refined to

minimize and mitigate any adverse

impacts. After its publication, the draft

EIS will be available for public review

and comment. One or more public

hearings will be held during the draft

EIS public comment period. On the

basis of the draft EIS and comments

received, the project will be revised or

further refined as necessary and the

final EIS prepared.

Issued On: April 24, 2001.

Jerry Franklin,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–10670 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Innovative Grants To Support

Increased Seat Belt Use Rates

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Announcement of grants to

support innovative and effective

projects designed to increase seat belt

use rates.

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA)

announces the third year of a grant

program under Section 1403 of the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA–21) to provide funding to

States for innovative projects to increase

seat belt use rates. Consistent with last

year, the goal of this program is to

increase seat belt use rates across the

nation in order to reduce the deaths,

injuries, and societal costs that result

from motor vehicle crashes. 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 2002.

Detailed application instructions are

provided in the Application Contents

and Grant Criteria section of this Notice.

The Section 157 Innovative grants will

be awarded to States that comply with

the criteria set out in the Application

Contents and Grant Criteria Section of

this Notice.

DATES: Applications must be received

by the office designated below on or

before June 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be

submitted to the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Office of

Traffic Injury Control Programs,

Occupant Protection Division, (NTS–

12), ATTN: Janice Hartwill-Miller, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Room 5118,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions relating to this grant program

should be directed to Janice HartwillMiller, Office of Traffic Injury Control

Programs, Occupant Protection Division

(NTS–12), NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Room 5118, Washington, DC

20590, by e-mail at jhartwillmiller@nhtsa.dot.gov, or by phone at

(202) 366–2684. For legal issues contact

Mr. John Donaldson, Office of Chief

Counsel, NCC–30, NHTSA, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Room 5118, Washington,

DC 20590, by phone at (202) 366–1834.

Interested applicants are advised that no

separate application package exists

beyond the contents of this

announcement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century (TEA–21), Pub.L. 105–178,

was signed into law on June 9, 1998.

Section 1403 of TEA–21 contained a

safety incentive grant program regarding

seat belt usage rates in the States. Under

this program, funds are allocated each

fiscal year from 1999 until 2003 to

States that exceed the national average

seat belt use rate or that improve their

State seat belt use rate, based on certain

required determinations and findings.

Section 1403 provided that, beginning

in 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 2002 under this provision.

TEA–21 imposes several requirements

under the innovative projects funding

provision. Specifically, to be eligible to

receive an allocation, a State must

develop a plan for innovative projects to

promote increased seat belt use rates

statewide and submit the plan to the

Secretary of Transportation (by

delegation, to NHTSA). NHTSA was

directed to establish criteria governing

the selection of State plans that are to

receive allocations and was further

directed to ‘‘ensure, to the maximum

extent practicable, demographic and

geographic diversity and a diversity of

seat belt use rates among the States

selected for allocations.’’ Finally,

subject to the availability of funds,

TEA–21 provides that the amount of

each grant under a State plan is to be

not less than $100,000.

In the following sections, the agency

describes the application and award

procedures for receipt of funds under

this provision, including requirements

related to the contents of a State’s plan

for innovative projects and the criteria

the agency will use to determine

whether a State will receive an award.

To assist the States in formulating plans

that meet these criteria, we have

provided an extensive discussion of

strategies for increasing seat belt use

and of the ways in which States might

meet the criteria for an award.

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. (For

a discussion of Strategies that have

proven effective in increasing seat belt

use, see Appendix A.)

As in previous years, to be considered

for an award of funds under this

program in FY 2002, the State’s

innovative project plan must be based

on a core component of highly visible

enforcement of its seat belt use law or

on a non-enforcement approach that has

the potential of increasing the seat belt

use rate statewide. The project plan also

must have a media program designed to

make the public aware of this

enforcement effort and it must include

a comprehensive plan to evaluate the

program in terms of changes in both

public awareness and observed seat belt

use. In addition, the State’s efforts must

be statewide. If a State is already

pursuing a significant and visible

enforcement effort, the innovative

aspects of the plan must detail

components that support, expand,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21435

complement, and evaluate the existing

enforcement effort.

States submitting a proposal designed

to increase seat belt use in only a

limited number of jurisdictions, one that

lacks a strong enforcement or media

effort, or one that does not include an

evaluation component designed to

measure both public awareness and

changes in seat belt usage will be

rejected in the evaluation process,

unless the non-enforcement strategy

provides a strong rationale for the

proposed approach, preferably research

based. This alternative should address

how this proposed approach can be

expected to increase seat belt use.

NHTSA will carefully review 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. Finding new

and more effective ways to make the

public aware of the enforcement effort

(e.g. a paid media effort) would

demonstrate innovation. Additionally,

innovation may be demonstrated by

using new methods for gaining essential

support (e.g. of the Governor or other

key officials); by establishing statewide

coordination groups to plan, implement

and monitor the enforcement, media,

outreach, or evaluation efforts; by

implementing statewide enforcement

training or orientation programs; or by

proposing comprehensive ways to

determine the impact of the program on

diverse and low use groups. For States

that already are engaged in substantial

enforcement efforts, innovation can be

demonstrated by expanding these

efforts. This might include finding more

effective ways to reach rural, urban, or

diverse groups with strategies designed

to address 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 law. For States with

secondary enforcement laws, where a

motorist must be stopped for another

offense before being cited for failure to

buckle up, innovation may be

demonstrated by integrating the

enforcement of the seat belt law with

enforcement of other traffic safety laws

(e.g., speed limits or right-of-way

violations). Many opportunities for

innovation exist, regardless of the

State’s current seat belt use rate or its

ongoing efforts to increase it.

Specific examples of various

innovative activities that can be used in

support of a core component of

enforcement include:

—Expanding participation in the semiannual national seat belt enforcement

mobilizations (i.e., Operation ABC

conducted in May and November);

—Implementing efforts to train,

motivate, and recognize law

enforcement officers for participation

in the program;

—Implementing a training or orientation

program for prosecutors and judges to

make them aware of the program and

of the importance of consistently

prosecuting and adjudicating

occupant protection law violations;

—Mounting a highly visible program to

implement newly enacted legislation

that upgrades the State’s seat belt or

child passenger safety law;

—Initiating or expanding public

information and education programs

designed to complement newly

upgraded legislation and/or enhanced

enforcement efforts;

—Strengthening public information

efforts by adding a paid advertising

component to support earned (i.e.,

news) and public service media

efforts;

—Adopting a more focused message that

brings attention to the ongoing

enforcement effort (e.g., adopting a

‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ campaign

message);

—Establishing new partnerships and

coalitions to support ongoing

implementation of legislation or

enforcement efforts (e.g., health care

and medical groups, partnerships

with diverse groups, businesses and

employers);

—Initiating or expanding public

awareness and outreach efforts to

reach specific populations that have

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

parents of children 0–15 years old;

minority populations, including

Native Americans; rural communities;

males 15–24 years old; occupants of

light trucks and sport utility vehicles,

etc.);

—Initiating or expanding standardized

child passenger safety training of

police officers and/or child passenger

safety checks and/or clinics across

broad geographical areas (e.g.,

statewide, in major metropolitan

areas, and/or in rural areas of the

State);

—Initiating or expanding enforcement

of other traffic laws (e.g., driving

while intoxicated laws) as a means for

implementing highly visible

enforcement of seat belt use laws.

Self-Evaluations of Programs,

Management and Resources

Meaningful and timely selfevaluations of each State’s innovative

programs, management, and associated

resources are essential to improving the

effectiveness of programs supported by

this grant program. On an annual basis,

grantees and NHTSA will generate and

report objective documentation of the

effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of

the various program elements

(particularly enforcement, paid media,

enforcement-related messaging, etc.)

supported under this grant program.

Proposed program evaluation and

reporting will be important factors in

the evaluation of each State’s

application for funding (See Application

Contents and Grant Criteria Section of

this Federal Register Notice.) Program

evaluation should constitute 10–20

percent of requested grant funds. An

overall evaluation model must include

efforts to measure changes in public

awareness and use rates at various

stages of the program. It also must

include the use of pre/post statewide

observational and telephone surveys

and must include the use of periodic

mini-observational surveys (which

constitute sub-samples of the statewide

survey sampling plan) and motorist

surveys (e.g., Department of Motor

Vehicles (DMV) surveys) during the

various program phases. These

components allow for an assessment of

change at each phase of the program.

Protocols and templates specific to the

telephone and motorist surveys are

available from NHTSA, upon request. It

is strongly suggested that grantees

consider using the complete model,

with each of the components described

above, in the evaluation of their

innovative programs. Other evaluation

approaches will be considered, but they

must be described and justified.

NHTSA Involvement

In support of the activities undertaken

by this grant program, NHTSA will:

1. Provide a Regional Office Point of

Contact (POC) 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 POC.

3. Provide suggestions, protocols, and

templates for evaluation components.

21436 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

Availability of Funds and Period of

Support

The efforts solicited in this

announcement will be supported

through the award of grants to a number

of States, on the basis of the Grant

Criteria identified below. The number of

grants awarded will depend upon the

number of applications that meet the

requirements of this notice. The amount

of the awards available in fiscal year

2002, will be based upon the formula

described below. However, the

minimum amount of an individual grant

award to a State will be no less than

$400,000, subject to availability of

funds. The $400,000 minimum is

derived from experience gained over the

first two years of this innovative grant

program, and reflects NHTSA’s best

judgment of the resources needed to

implement effective statewide seat belt

campaigns.

In fiscal year 2001, forty-three

Innovative grants were awarded and

grants ranged from $204,000 to $2.9

million. At this time, neither the exact

amount of funds available nor the

number and proposed costs of

qualifying State applications can be

determined. There is no assurance that

the number of grant awards in FY 2002

will be the same or similar to the

number of awards in FY 2000 or FY

2001, nor is there any assurance that

those States that received awards in FY

2000 and FY 2001 will receive awards

in FY 2002. There is no cost-sharing

requirement under this program. The

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.

This year’s grant proposals will be

reviewed based solely on whether or not

the State’s proposal complies with all of

the required Grant Criteria specified in

this Federal Register Notice. Only

applicants who comply with all of the

required elements, will be considered

for award. Once it is determined by the

evaluation committee that an applicant

has met all of the criteria and the State

has satisfied any additional clarification

questions about the proposal, a State

will qualify for an award. Since this

year’s awards will be determined on a

formula basis, a State must prepare and

submit a budget, in support of the

proposed plan. The dollar amount of

these awards will be based on the same

formula that applies to the annual

award for Section 402 funds (i.e., 75%

based on population and 25% on

roadway miles), subject to any

adjustment needed to ensure

compliance with the requirement to

award at least $400,000 to every

qualifying State. Appendix B shows the

approximate amount that is expected to

be awarded to each State, assuming (1)

current estimates of available funds for

FY 2002 and (2) all fifty-two eligible

jurisdictions apply and qualify for an

award. NHTSA estimates that the award

of Section 157 Innovative Grants for

fiscal year 2002 will occur during

January 2002.

Allowable Uses of Federal Funds

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. In

addition, allowable uses of Federal

funds shall be governed by the relevant

allowable cost section and cost

principles referenced in 49 CFR part

18—Department of Transportation

Uniform Administrative Requirements

for Grants and Cooperative Agreements

to State and Local Governments.

Eligibility Requirements

Only the 50 States, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico, through

their Governors’ Representatives for

Highway Safety, will be considered

eligible to receive funding under this

grant program.

Application Procedures

Each applicant must submit one

original and two copies of the

application package to: NHTSA, Office

of Traffic Injury Control Programs,

Occupant Protection Division (NTS–12),

ATTN: Janice Hartwill-Miller, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Room 5118,

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 and adhere to the

requirements of the Application

Contents and Grant Criteria Section

below. Only application packages

submitted by a State’s Governor’s

Representative for Highway Safety and

received on or before June 29, 2001, will

be considered.

Application Contents and Grant

Criteria

To be eligible for a grant under the

section 157 (b) statute, a State must

include a description and/or

documentation that all of the following

elements are included, and will be

implemented, as part of the State’s

section 157 (b) grant program. This year,

each State’s application must include

the following information and a budget

based on State estimates for award as

specified in Appendix B, regardless of

previous awards.

1. Introduction—

A brief general description of the

State’s population geographic

distribution, 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.

2. Certifications—

A signed statement by the State that:

(i) It will use the funds awarded under

this grant program exclusively to

implement an innovative program in

accordance with the requirements of

Section 157(b) of Pub Law 105–178

(TEA–21); (ii) It will administer the

funds in accordance with 49 CFR part

18 and OMB Circular A–87; (iii) It will

provide to the NHTSA Regional

Administrator no later than 15 months

after the grant award a report of

activities carried out with grant funds

and accomplishments to date; and (iv)

The State will comply with all

applicable laws and regulations,

financial and programmatic

requirements.

3. Program Elements

(a) Seat Belt Use Goals—During the 12

month period (to be covered by these

grant funds), set a goal to increase seat

belt use by: (1) At least 8–10 percentage

points, if the seat belt use rate is

currently less than 75%; or (2) at least

3–5 percentage points, or higher if the

seat belt use rate is currently between

75% and 85%; or (3) at least 1–3

percentage points, if the seat belt use

rate is currently 85% or higher.

(b) Law Enforcement Participation—

Obtain a commitment from the State

Patrol/Police (if any) and the local and/

or county law enforcement agencies that

serve at least 75% of the State’s

population to participate actively in

highly visible seat belt enforcement

efforts consisting of checkpoints,

saturation patrols or other enforcement

tactics.

(c) Strategies to Increase Seat Belt

Use—(Minimum of one):

(1) Conduct no fewer than 2-four

week high-visibility seat belt

enforcement campaigns, which include

at least 7 days of aggressive enforcement

during each campaign. These campaigns

should complement and support the

BUA/Operation ABC National

Mobilizations (May and November) to

the maximum extent possible;

(2) Conduct continuous high-visibility

seat belt enforcement year round (i.e. 7

days week/24 hours per day model); or

(3) Implement a non-enforcement

program that has the potential to reach

the safety belt use goals as stated above

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21437

in Program Element 3a. If a State selects

this option, it must provide a strong

rationale for the proposed approach,

preferably, research based rationale

(e.g., a summary of evidence of

effectiveness in the related areas)

regarding the potential for the overall

program to increase the State’s seat belt

use rate.

(d) Personnel—A full-time program

coordinator to manage the planning,

implementation, and evaluation of

enforcement, media, outreach, training

and diversity efforts and if a law

enforcement strategy is proposed, one or

more law enforcement liaison(s) on staff

or under contract to coordinate the seat

belt enforcement (or other proposed)

efforts and data collection.

(e) Public Information and Education

Strategy—A statewide public

information and education (PI&E)

strategy for focusing public attention on

the enforcement (or other proposed)

effort. A combination of paid, public

service and earned media may be

considered as meeting this requirement,

for the overall PI&E strategy.

4. Evaluation Elements

A technically competent evaluator

must be on staff or under contract to

manage and coordinate the following

required activities:

(a) Observational Surveys—a

minimum of three statewide

observational surveys conducted

throughout the year (e.g., before the first

mobilization, at mid-year, and following

the last mobilization) to assess statewide

changes in observed seat belt usage;

(b) Telephone Surveys—a minimum

of three statewide telephone surveys

conducted throughout the year (e.g.,

before the first mobilization, at midyear, and following the last

mobilization) to assess statewide

changes in public awareness and

acceptance of program activities;

(c) Intermediate Measures—

Intermediate measures of observed

usage and motorist awareness of the

program must also be obtained or an

alternative means for assessing program

impact at various phases must be used.

These measures must consist of

conducting sub-samples of the State’s

observational survey and conducting

motorist awareness and opinion surveys

(e.g. surveys of license applicants,

Appendix C) during the various phases

of the program (e.g., before and after the

paid media begins if paid media is being

used and during the enforcement effort.)

The results of the sub-sample

observational surveys conducted during

the program should be combined with

the observations for these same sites in

the pre/post statewide surveys to obtain

a continuous index of changes in usage

rates beginning before the program is

implemented and continuing through its

completion. The motorist awareness and

opinion surveys, usually conducted in

the same general locations (e.g.

counties) as the sub-sample

observational surveys, should be used to

provide continuous information

regarding public awareness and

perceptions.

(d) Media Analysis—Documentation

regarding the characteristics of the

media component of the program

including quantitative and qualitative

information regarding the mix of paid,

earned, and public service media

employed, the message used, media

markets and groups targeted, exposure

levels, etc.; and

(e) Enforcement Analysis—

Documentation regarding the

characteristics of the enforcement

component of the program, including

quantitative and qualitative information

regarding the mix of enforcement

approaches employed (e.g., checkpoints,

saturation patrols), the number of waves

and/or enforcement events, the number

and amount of mini-grants awarded,

agency recognition efforts, the number

of agencies actively participating;

number of hours of enforcement

involved; the number of contacts made;

warnings and citations issued for seat

belt and child passenger safety

violations for each of the mobilization

periods; pertinent training received by

law enforcement personnel to assist in

enforcing the occupant protection laws;

and PI&E activities conducted by law

enforcement.

(f) Other Components (Not

Required)—Other innovative and/or key

components of your overall program,

most notably innovative outreach efforts

to reach special lower-use groups.

5. Reporting Requirements and

Deliverables

(a) Quarterly Reports—The quarterly

reports should include a summary of

enforcement and other activities and

accomplishments for the preceding

period, significant problems

encountered or anticipated, a brief

itemization of expenditures made

during this 6 month time period, and

proposed activities for the upcoming

reporting period. Any decisions and

actions required in the upcoming

program period should be included in

the report.

(b) Draft Final Report—A Draft Final

Report that includes a summary of the

impact of program efforts in the

preceding period as well as an

assessment of the year-long program. It

should include 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 Regional POC 60 days prior to the

end of the performance period. The

Regional POC will review the draft

report and provide comments to the

grantee within 30 days of receipt of the

document.

(c) Final Report—A Final Report to

reflect the Regional POC’s comments.

The final report shall be delivered to the

Regional POC 15 days before the end of

the performance period. The grantee

shall supply the Regional POC:

—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

for the general layout and design,

Power point for charts, and yet

another format 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.

Application Review Procedures

All applications will be reviewed by

an Evaluation Committee to ensure that

the application contains all of the

information required by the Application

Contents and Grant Criteria section of

21438 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices

the Federal Register notice. This

evaluation process may include

submission of technical or program

questions from the evaluation

committee to the applicants, to

determine eligibility. This process could

extend over the course of several

months, and applicants may expect

correspondence of this nature

throughout this time period. Once it has

been determined which applicants have

met the grant criteria, NHTSA will

determine the final award amounts

based on the amount of remaining funds

from the general incentive portion of the

Section 157 Grant program and the

formula as described under the

Availability of Funds and Period of

Support Section. It is anticipated that

awards will be made in January 2002.

Rose A. McMurray,

Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety

Programs.

Appendix A

Strategies That Have Proven Effective in

Increasing Seat Belt Use

In previous years, the Federal Register

Notice for the Section 157 Innovative Grants

provided a history of programs that have

been documented to increase seat belt usage

in the United States and Canada over the past

two decades (for copies of those Federal

Register notices contact person listed below).

In those summaries of the seat belt history,

the agency explained that nearly every

example of significant increases in statewide

usage rates since 1984 resulted from: (a)

Enactment and implementation of a State

seat belt usage law; (b) a legislative upgrade

from a secondary to a primary (i.e., standard)

enforcement law; or (c) a highly visible effort

to enforce such laws.

The intent of the section 157 innovative

grant legislation was to provide support for

innovative programs that would be effective

in increasing seat belt usage rates in the

States. Since all States but one already have

enacted seat belt use laws, and since the

intent of this legislation was not to support

lobbying efforts to obtain primary

enforcement laws, the focus of this grant

program has been on innovative and effective

ways to develop, implement, support, and

evaluate highly visible enforcement

programs.

Again, aside from the implementation of

seat belt use laws, these programs are the

only efforts that have consistently been

shown to be effective in increasing seat belt

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

70% by ’92 program and in specific statewide

efforts undertaken in North Carolina,

Georgia, Maryland, New York, Michigan, and

several other States). These documented

successes generally have involved Special

Traffic Enforcement Programs (or STEPs), in

which waves of enforcement and media are

carefully scheduled to gain maximum public

awareness. The potential effectiveness of

these STEP programs recently has been

enhanced as a result of the ability of States

to use paid media, in addition to news stories

and public service announcements, to

increase public awareness. Their potential for

success has also been increased by the

national enforcement mobilizations (i.e.

Operation ABC) conducted twice annually by

the private-sector funded Air Bag & Seat Belt

Safety Campaign (AB&SBSC), in cooperation

with NHTSA. These mobilizations involve

extensive efforts to contact and obtain the

participation of State and local police

agencies in all of the States and to initiate

focused media efforts in major markets to

make the public aware of the mobilizations.

This innovative grant program greatly

increases the potential effectiveness of the

national enforcement mobilizations and the

overall Buckle Up America program, and vice

versa.

Since 1999, there have been several notable

successes in which large States, such as

Michigan and New York, have significantly

increased seat belt usage. In Michigan, the

increases resulted from a combination of

enacting a primary seat belt usage law and

implementing a highly visible program to

enforce that law. In New York, which already

had a primary seat belt law, significant

increases in seat belt usage resulted from a

highly visible statewide enforcement

program, funded in part by the AB&SBSC

and coordinated by the New York State

Police. Maryland enacted a primary seat belt

law and following a 3 month Chiefs’

Challenge enforcement program, experienced

a major increase in seat belt use. Oklahoma

enacted a primary seat belt law and

experienced a modest increase in seat belt

usage. Later, a paid media program resulted

in an additional increase. Florida, which has

introduced but failed to enact primary seat

belt legislation, has enhanced its statewide

seat belt enforcement program and its use of

law enforcement liaisons (LELs). As a result,

Florida recently experienced a 5 percentage

point increase in usage statewide. These

examples represent some of the most

significant recent increases in usage in the

States and they represent a mixture of private

sector, Section 402, and Section 157 funded

efforts.

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

statewide program is the South Carolina

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

November 2000. The term ‘‘fully

implemented’’ refers to the fact that the

combination of enforcement and media

efforts was sufficient to make 75–80 percent

of the public aware of the program. The

South Carolina program included several

innovative and effective components,

including statewide management of more

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

checkpoints) over a two-week period, use of

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

or Ticket) delivered by means of a

combination of earned and paid media, full

coordination with the Operation ABC

mobilization periods, a diversity outreach

program that reached African Americans via

churches and schools to make them aware of

the enforcement effort, and a comprehensive

evaluation program, which included

measurement of both the public awareness of

the program and changes in observed seat

belt usage at each phase of the program (e.g.

during the kickoff and news media phase, the

paid media phase), and the enforcement

phase, as well as before and after the program

was implemented. As a result of this effort,

South Carolina was able to document a 9

percentage point increase in seat belt usage

statewide. Further, it was able to show that

the paid media effort contributed

significantly to public awareness and

changes in seat belt usage. The State was able

to document the extent to which groups with

traditionally lower seat belt usage rates (e.g.,

male, rural, and African American motorists)

were impacted.

Currently, more than a dozen States are

using Section 157 Innovative grant funds,

each in slightly different ways, to fully

implement and evaluate similar STEP

programs during the May 2001 mobilization

period. These States are establishing

statewide coordinating committees for

enforcement, media, outreach, and

evaluation efforts; making selective use of

paid media efforts; using unambiguous

enforcement messages; finding innovative

ways to reach high risk groups such as young

males and occupants of light trucks to make

them aware of the planned enforcement

activity; and implementing comprehensive

evaluation efforts, similar to those used in

the South Carolina program, to measure

impact at each phase of the program. This

evaluation model consists of statewide

observational and telephone surveys

conducted before and after the program, as

well as mini-observational surveys and

motorist surveys during each phase of the

program. NHTSA will provide, upon request,

protocols and templates for both the

telephone surveys and the motorist surveys,

as well as descriptions of how these surveys

are being used in conjunction with the State’s

approved observational surveys to evaluate

Section 157 program efforts. You may contact

Janice Hartwill-Miller, Office of Traffic Injury

Control Programs, Occupant Protection

Division (NTS–12), NHTSA, 400 7th Street,

S.W., Room 5118, Washington, DC 20590, by

e-mail at jhartwill-miller@nhtsa.dot.gov, or

by phone at (202) 366–2684, for this

information.

The dramatic recent successes in the States

add further credibility to NHTSA’s position

that highly visible enforcement is an

important foundation upon which any

effective program funded under Section 157

should be based. In addition, the recent

examples of States focusing on fullyimplemented enforcement and public

information efforts, designed to reach 75–80

percent of the populace and selectively using

paid media to make the public aware of the

enforcement activity are very encouraging.

Also encouraging is the recent focus in the

States on developing a comprehensive

evaluation effort to measure changes in both

public awareness and seat belt use at various

stages of the program.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Notices 21439

Appendix B

FY2002 STATE ESTIMATES FOR

SECTION 157 INNOVATIVE AWARDS

State FY2002

estimates

Alabama ...................................... $810,000

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

Arizona ........................................ 650,000

Arkansas ..................................... 595,000

California ..................................... 4,480,000

Colorado ..................................... 685,000

Connecticut ................................. 500,000

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

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

Florida ......................................... 2,070,000

Georgia ....................................... 1,195,000

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

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

Illinois .......................................... 1,930,000

Indiana ........................................ 1,015,000

Iowa ............................................ 695,000

Kansas ........................................ 715,000

Kentucky ..................................... 710,000

Louisiana .................................... 740,000

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

Maryland ..................................... 730,000

Massachusetts ............................ 910,000

Michigan ..................................... 1,600,000

Minnesota ................................... 965,000

Mississippi .................................. 555,000

Missouri ...................................... 1,040,000

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

Nebraska .................................... 480,000

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

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

New Jersey ................................. 1,140,000

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

New York .................................... 2,740,000

North Carolina ............................ 1,175,000

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

Ohio ............................................ 1,790,000

Oklahoma ................................... 745,000

Oregon ........................................ 575,000

Pennsylvania .............................. 1,940,000

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

South Carolina ............................ 655,000

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

Tennessee .................................. 905,000

Texas .......................................... 3,140,000

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

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

Virginia ........................................ 1,035,000

Washington ................................. 885,000

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

Wisconsin ................................... 980,000

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

Puerto Rico ................................. 515,000

Appendix C

The Division of Motor Vehicles is assisting

in a study about seat belts in (insert State

name). Your answers to the following

questions are voluntary and anonymous.

Please complete the survey and then put it

in the drop box.

1. Your sex: b Male b Female

2. Your age: b Under 21 b 21–25

b 26–39 b 40–49 b 50–59 b

60 Plus

3. Your race: b White b Black b

Asian b Native American b

Other

4. Are you of Spanish/Hispanic origin? b

Yes b No

5. Your Zip Code: llll

6. About how many miles did you drive last

year?

b Less than 5,000 b 5,000 to 10,000

b 10,001 to 15,000 b More than

15,000

7. What type of vehicle do you drive most

often?

b Passenger car b Pickup truck b

Sport utility vehicle b Mini-van

b Full-van b Other

8. How often do you use seat belts when you

drive or ride in a car, van, sport utility

vehicle or pick up?

b Always b Nearly always b

Sometimes b Seldom b Never

9. What do you think the chances are of

getting a ticket if you don’t wear your

seat belt?

b Always b Nearly Always b

Sometimes b Seldom b Never

10. Do you think the Highway Patrol enforce

the seat belt law:

b Very strictly b Somewhat strictly

b Not very strictly b Rarely b

Not at all

11. Do you think local police enforce the seat

belt law:

b Very strictly b Somewhat strictly

b Not very strictly b Rarely b

Not at all

12. Have you ever received a ticket for not

wearing your seat belt?

b Yes b No

13. In the past month, have you seen or heard

about a checkpoint where police were

looking at seat belt use?

b Yes b No

14. In the past month, have you gone through

a checkpoint where police were looking

at seat belt use?

b Yes b No

15. Have you recently read, seen or heard

anything about seat belts in (insert State

name)?

b Yes

If yes, where did you see or hear about it?

(Check all that apply):

b Newspaper b Radio b TV b

Poster b Brochure b Police

checkpoint b Other

If yes, what did it say?llllll

b No

16. Do you know the name of any seat belt

enforcement program(s) in (insert State

name)? (check all that apply):

b No Excuses, Buckle Up b Buckle Up

(insert State Name) b Click It or

Ticket b Operation 35, Buckle Up

Stay Alive

[FR Doc. 01–10667 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety;

Notice of Applications for Exemptions

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: List of applicants for

exemptions.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

procedures governing the application

for, and the processing of, exemptions

from the Department of Transportation’s

Hazardous Materials Regulations (49

CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is

hereby given that the Office of

Hazardous Materials Safety has received

the applications described herein. Each

mode of transportation for which a

particular exemption is requested is

indicated by a number on the ‘‘Nature

of Application’’ portion of the table

below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—

Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo

aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying

aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 30, 2001.

Address Comments to: Records

Center, Research and Special Programs

Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.

Comments should refer to the

application number and be submitted in

triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of

comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing

the exemption application number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the applications (See Docket

Number) are available for inspection at

the New Docket Management Facility,

PL–401, at the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Nassif Building, 400 7th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 or at

http://dms.dot.gov.

This notice of receipt of applications

for new exemptions is published in

accordance with part 107 of the Federal

hazardous materials transportation law

(49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 24,

2001.

J. Suzanne Hedgepeth,

Director, Office of Hazardous Materials

Exemptions and Approval.