[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1062-1067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-268]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Discretionary Incentive Grants To Support Increased Seat Belt Use
Rates
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Announcement of discretionary grants to support innovative seat
belt projects designed to increase seat belt use rates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
announces a discretionary grant program under Section 1403 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to provide funding to
States for innovative projects to increase seat belt use rates. The
goal of this program is to increase seat belt use to a high level in
States 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, through their Governors'
Representatives for Highway Safety, for funds to be made available in
fiscal year 2000.
DATES: Applications must be submitted to the office designated below on
or before April 7, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Contracts and Procurement
(NAD-30), ATTN: Amy Poling, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 5301, Washington,
DC 20590. All applications submitted must include a reference to NHTSA
Grant Program No. DTNH22-99-G-05050.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General administrative questions may
be directed to Amy Poling, Office of Contracts and Procurement at (202)
366-9552. Programmatic questions relating to this grant program should
be directed to Phil Gulak, Occupant Protection Division (NTS-12),
NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 5118, Washington, DC 20590, by e-mail
at pgulak@nhtsa.dot.gov, or by phone at (202) 366-2725. Interested
applicants are advised that no separate application package exists
beyond the contents of this announcement.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 9, 1998, Congress enacted the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21). Section 1403 of TEA-21 contains a new safety
incentive grant program for use of seat belts. Under this program,
funds are allocated each fiscal year from 1999 until 2003 to States
that exceed the national average seat belt use rate or that improve
their State seat belt use rate, based on certain required
determinations and findings. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, any funds
remaining unallocated in a fiscal year after the determinations and
findings related to seat belt use rates 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 2000 under this
latter provision.
TEA-21 imposes several requirements under the innovative projects
funding provision. Specifically, in order to be eligible to receive an
allocation, a State must develop a plan for innovative projects to
promote increased seat belt use rates and submit the plan to the
Secretary of Transportation (by delegation, to NHTSA) by March 1. (TEA-
21 contemplated issuance of this guidance by December 1, 1998, which
would have allowed the States 90 days for submission of plans by March
1, 1999. In order to afford the States the full 90-day period, NHTSA
will accept applications until April 7, 1999. NHTSA is directed to
establish criteria governing the selection of State plans that are to
receive allocations and is further directed to ``ensure, to the maximum
extent practicable, demographic and geographic diversity and a
diversity of seat belt use rates among the States selected for
allocations.'' Finally, subject to the availability of funds, TEA-21
provides that the amount of each grant under a State plan is to be not
less than $100,000.
In the following sections, the agency describes the application and
award procedures for receipt of funds under this provision, including
requirements related to the contents of a State's plan for innovative
projects and the criteria the agency will use to evaluate State plans
and make selections for award. In order to assist the States in
formulating plans that meet these criteria, we have provided an
extensive discussion of strategies for increasing seat belt use and of
the ways in which States might demonstrate innovation.
Objective of This Grant Program
Seat belts, when properly used, are 45 percent effective in
preventing deaths in potentially fatal crashes and 50 percent effective
in preventing serious injuries. No other safety device has as much
potential for immediately preventing deaths and injuries in motor
vehicle crashes. The current level of seat belt use across the nation
prevents more than 9,500 deaths and well over 200,000 injuries
annually. Through 1997, more than 100,000 deaths and an estimated 2.5
million serious injuries have been prevented by seat belt use.
But, seat belt use rates and the resulting savings could be much
greater. As of 1998, the average use rate among States in the U.S. is
still well below the goal of 85 percent announced by the President for
the year 2000 and at least a dozen States have use rates below 60
percent. On the other hand, use rates of 85-95 percent are a reality in
most developed nations with seat belt use laws, and at least six U.S.
States and the District of Columbia achieved use rates greater than 80
percent in 1998. A national use rate of 90 percent (the President's
goal for 2005), among front seat occupants of all passenger vehicles,
would result in the prevention of an additional 5,500 deaths and
130,000 serious injuries annually. This would translate into a $9
billion reduction in societal costs, including $356 million for
Medicare and Medicaid.
The objective of this grant program is to increase 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 may be included among the innovative efforts
in a State's plan.
Recent seat belt use increases in California, North Carolina,
Louisiana, Georgia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia (see
discussion in next section), as well as increases following national
mobilizations (Operation ABC, conducted in May and November of 1998),
have demonstrated the
[[Page 1063]]
tremendous potential of highly visible enforcement of strong laws to
increase seat belt and child seat use. Given the dramatic results of
these programs, NHTSA believes that highly visible enforcement is an
important foundation upon which any effective program should be based.
An extensive review of the efforts in both the United States and Canada
demonstrates that, without a core of highly visible enforcement
efforts, high usage rates have not been achieved in any major
jurisdiction. (Some of that literature is reviewed in the next
section.)
In view of these findings, to be considered for award of funds
under this program, the State's innovative project plan should be based
on a core component of highly visible enforcement of its seat belt use
law. Other components of the plan should support the core enforcement
component. If a State is already pursuing a significant and visible
enforcement effort, the innovative project plan should detail
components that support, expand, or complement the existing enforcement
effort. States submitting an innovative project plan with a core
component (and supporting components) based on an approach other than
enforcement should provide a strong rationale for the proposed
approach, preferably accompanied by research evidence, demonstrating
the significant potential for increasing seat belt use across the
State. NHTSA will carefully consider this rationale in its evaluation
of the proposal.
Strategies That Have Proven To Be Effective in Increasing Seat Belt
Use
The history of efforts to increase seat belt use in the U.S. and in
Canada suggests that highly visible enforcement of a strong seat belt
law must be at the core of any effective program. No State has ever
achieved a high seat belt use rate without such a component. Most
States that have achieved rates greater than 70 percent have also had
laws that allow for primary (standard) enforcement procedures.
Canada currently has a national seat belt use rate well above 90
percent. Nearly every province first attempted to increase seat belt
use through voluntary approaches involving public information and
education. These efforts were effective in achieving only very modest
usage rates (no higher than 30 percent). Even the enactment of primary
enforcement seat belt laws, without intense and highly visible
enforcement, generally was not sufficient to achieve usage rates
greater than 60-65 percent. By 1985, it became clear to Canadian and
provincial officials that additional efforts would be needed to achieve
levels of 80 percent or greater. These efforts, mounted from 1985
through 1995, centered around highly publicized ``waves'' of
enforcement, a technique that had already been shown to increase seat
belt use in Elmira, New York. When these procedures were implemented in
the Canadian provinces, seat belt use generally increased from about 60
percent to well over 80 percent, within a period of 3-5 years.
The U.S. experience has been similar. Prior to 1980, many attempts
were made to increase seat belt use through voluntary, persuasive, or
educational methods. Most of these efforts were initiated at local,
county, or state levels. Nationally, seat belt use remained very low,
reaching only about 11 percent. From 1980-1984, efforts to increase
seat belt use emphasized networking with various public and private
groups to implement public education programs, incentives, and seat
belt use policies. While there were some small gains documented in
individual organizations, these efforts did not result in any
significant increases in seat belt use in any large city or in any
State. By the end of 1984, the national usage rate, as measured by a
19-city observational survey, was only about 15 percent.
In 1984, New York enacted the first mandatory seat belt use law
and, from 1985 to 1990, at least 37 other States enacted such laws.
Most of these laws were secondary enforcement laws that required an
officer to observe another traffic violation before stopping and citing
a driver for failure to wear a seat belt. During this period of time,
the 19-city index of seat belt use increased from about 15 percent to
nearly 50 percent. However, as was the case in Canada, the enactment of
laws, by itself, was not sufficient to achieve high usage rates.
The Canadian successes using periodic, highly visible ``waves'' of
enforcement, as well as scores of such efforts implemented in local
jurisdictions in the U.S., prompted NHTSA to implement Operation Buckle
Down (also called the ``70 by '92'' Program) in 1991. This two-year
program focused on Special Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEPs) to
increase seat belt use. It was followed by a national usage rate
increase from about 53 percent in 1990 to 62 percent by the end of 1992
(as measured by a weighted aggregate of State surveys). Neither the
level of enforcement nor its public visibility was uniform in every
State. Had these ``waves'' of enforcement been implemented in a more
uniform fashion in every state, the impact would likely have been much
greater.
In order to demonstrate the potential of periodic, highly visible
enforcement in a more controlled environment, the State of North
Carolina implemented its Click-It or Ticket program in 1993. In this
program, waves of coordinated and highly publicized enforcement efforts
(i.e., checkpoints) were implemented in every county. As a result, seat
belt use increased statewide, from 65 percent to over 80 percent, in
just a few months. This program provided the clearest possible evidence
to demonstrate the potential of highly visible enforcement to increase
seat belt use in a large jurisdiction (i.e., an entire State).
On the west coast, the State of California expended much effort
over the years to enforce its secondary enforcement law. These efforts
were successful in increasing the statewide usage rate to about 70
percent, where it plateaued. In 1993, California became the first state
to upgrade its seat belt law from secondary to primary enforcement. As
a result, the rate of seat belt usage increased by 13 percentage points
(from 70 percent to 83 percent) in the first year after the law was
upgraded.
The California success was a major factor in rekindling interest
among safety officials to upgrade their secondary enforcement laws as a
way to increase seat belt use. In 1995, Louisiana became the second
State to upgrade from secondary to primary enforcement. As a result, it
experienced an 18 percentage point increase (from 50 percent to 68
percent) over the next two years. Next, Georgia upgraded its law and
experienced a 15 percentage point increase (from 53 percent to 68
percent). After mounting a highly visible enforcement effort in 1998
(Operation Strap 'N Snap), Georgia's usage increased by another 10
percentage points. Similarly, Maryland upgraded its seat belt law in
1997, immediately mounted a two-month enforcement effort, and
experienced a 13 percentage point increase in usage. Most recently, the
District of Columbia reported a 24 percentage point gain in usage (from
58% to 82%) after enacting one of the strongest seat belt use laws in
the nation and implementing several waves of highly visible
enforcement. Taken together, the experiences of North Carolina,
California, Louisiana, Georgia, Maryland and the District of Columbia
have clearly demonstrated that highly visible enforcement of strong
laws has tremendous potential for increasing seat belt use rates.
Visible enforcement of strong laws also appears to be an essential
[[Page 1064]]
component of any effective program to increase the use of child safety
seats. This is important since, as previously discussed, early use of
child safety seats contributes to the later use of seat belts by
children and young adults. The relationship between child safety seat
use and seat belt use works in the opposite direction as well. Studies
conducted in several States have found that child safety seat use is
nearly three times as high when a driver is buckled up as when a driver
is not buckled up. Thus, efforts to persuade adults to buckle up may be
the single most important way to get young children protected. However,
with child safety seats, correct use is a major concern and the
training of police officers, parents, and advocates is needed to
minimize incorrect use and to ensure age-appropriate graduation to seat
belts among young children who have outgrown safety seats. Clearly,
efforts to increase the use of seat belts and child safety seats are
interdependent and complementary.
Prior to the 1977 passage of the Child Passenger Safety (CPS) law
in Tennessee, very little progress was made to get young children
buckled up. Nationally, child safety seat use was less than 15 percent
at the time. However, the Tennessee law was followed by the enactment
of primary enforcement CPS laws in all States by 1985. This wave of
legislation resulted in a major increase in child restraint use. By
1990, usage was estimated to be above 80 percent for infants and about
60 percent for toddlers.
Unfortunately, problems such as child seat misuse, premature
graduation to seat belt use, and variation in age coverage continue to
exist. The most recent issue to emerge has been the potential danger
posed by passenger side air bags to unrestrained and improperly
restrained children. This has led to a new emphasis on programs to
increase the proper use of child restraint seats and revitalized law
enforcement efforts in this area.
Obstacles to Increasing Seat Belt Use
Over the years, all of the States and many public and private
sector organizations have been active participants in efforts to
increase seat belt use. Public information and education efforts have
been the dominant programs funded over the past two decades. Many
States have identified major obstacles to enacting primary seat belt
laws or implementing highly visible enforcement programs, even though
such programs have been shown to result in high usage rates. Most
frequently, State (and local) officials have identified a lack of
resources for law enforcement as the single greatest barrier to
implementing more intense, highly visible enforcement efforts. This
lack of resources extends to funding, human resources, and public
information support to conduct such campaigns. Over the past five
years, many officials have indicated that, if they had the kind of
resources provided to States like North Carolina for the Click It or
Ticket program, they too would be able to mount similar programs and
achieve similar results. The significant amount of funding likely to
become available under this grant program, combined with the additional
new resources available under other TEA-21 programs, should drastically
reduce this obstacle.
The second most frequently mentioned obstacle to mounting highly
visible enforcement programs is a lack of support from key State and
local leaders. Experience with the national mobilizations (Operation
ABC) and with jurisdictions such as North Carolina, Georgia, Maryland
and the District of Columbia suggest that this obstacle can be overcome
to a significant degree by proactive efforts to gain the understanding,
support and endorsement of various public and private organizations.
Including a broad spectrum of such organizations as coalition members
in the State's occupant protection program can be very effective in
obtaining the commitment of key persons (e.g., the governor) and in
gaining the support that is essential for sustained, highly visible
enforcement efforts. Much innovation can be demonstrated in the way of
developing public and official support for strong enforcement efforts.
Another obstacle frequently voiced by State and local enforcement
officials is a lack of judicial and prosecutorial support for the
enforcement of seat belt and child passenger safety laws. It has
frequently been pointed out that an enforcement program can be
undermined quickly if prosecutors fail to prosecute seat belt and child
safety seat citations and judges repeatedly dismiss such cases. This
can be overcome to some extent by educating prosecutors and judges
across the State and urging them to value occupant protection laws as
highly as any other traffic safety law.
Buckle Up America Campaign
In October 1997, the Buckle Up America (BUA) Campaign established
ambitious national goals: (a) To increase seat belt use to 85 percent
and reduce child-related fatalities (0-4 years) by 15 percent by the
year 2000; and (b) to increase seat belt use to 90 percent and reduce
child-related fatalities by 25 percent by the year 2005. This Campaign
advocates a four part strategy: (1) Building public-private
partnerships; (2) enacting strong legislation; (3) maintaining high
visibility law enforcement; (4) and conducting effective public
education. Central to this Campaign's success is the encouragement of
primary seat belt use laws and the implementation of two major
enforcement mobilizations each year (Memorial Day and Thanksgiving
holidays). During the 1998 mobilizations conducted throughout the week
surrounding Memorial Day and the week surrounding Thanksgiving, between
4,000 and 5,000 law enforcement agencies participated in Operation ABC.
Their efforts were covered by several hundred national and local
television organizations in all major media markets. More than 1,500
print articles were written in response to each mobilization. As a
result of the May mobilization, seat belt use increased significantly
nationwide as more than 6,000,000 motorists were convinced to buckle
up. Since that time, seat belt use has continued to increase
significantly. The BUA Campaign and the efforts of the Air Bag and Seat
Belt Safety Campaign (including Operation ABC) provide a useful
framework for the implementation of this grant program. They provide a
blueprint for projects that States may wish to implement, using funds
to be made available in accordance with this notice. Conversely, this
grant program provides an unprecedented opportunity to achieve the
ambitious goals established under the BUA Campaign.
Examples of Effective Innovative Strategies
A State may demonstrate innovation in its enforcement efforts in a
number of ways. If a State is not currently engaged in any form of
highly visible enforcement of its occupant protection laws,
implementation of such a program, in and of itself, would be innovative
to that State. Additionally, innovation may be demonstrated in gaining
essential support, implementing statewide training programs, and
planning the logistics for wide scale enforcement and public
information activities. For States that already are engaged in
substantial enforcement efforts, innovation can be demonstrated by
expanding these efforts. This might include finding more effective ways
to reach rural, urban, or diverse groups with public information
messages designed to address the problem of low seat belt use among
those groups. States
[[Page 1065]]
that have upgraded their laws recently to allow for primary enforcement
may wish to initiate innovative ways to implement, enforce, and
publicize their newly enacted legislation. For States with secondary
enforcement laws, where a motorist must be stopped for another offense
before being cited for failure to buckle up, innovation may be
demonstrated by integrating the enforcement of the seat belt law with
enforcement of another traffic safety law (e.g., an alcohol impaired
driving law). Many opportunities for innovation exist, regardless of
the State's current seat belt use rate or its ongoing efforts to
increase it.
Following are some examples of innovative activities in support of
a core component of enforcement:
--Initiate, or expand in novel ways, the operation of existing
State or local enforcement-related campaigns;
--Implement highly visible seat belt and child safety seat
enforcement efforts in major urban areas, in rural areas, or throughout
the State;
--Expand participation across the State in semi-annual national
seat belt enforcement mobilizations (i.e., Operation ABC conducted in
May and November);
--Plan and support statewide efforts to train and motivate law
enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges to consistently enforce,
prosecute and adjudicate occupant protection law violations;
--Mount a highly visible program to implement newly enacted
legislation which upgrades the State's seat belt or child passenger
safety law;
--Initiate or expand public information and education programs
designed to complement newly upgraded legislation and/or enhanced
statewide enforcement efforts;
--Establish new partnerships and coalitions to support ongoing
implementation of legislation or enforcement efforts (e.g., health care
and medical groups, partnerships with diverse groups, businesses and
employers);
--Initiate or expand public awareness campaigns targeted to
specific populations that have low seat belt use (e.g., part-time
users; parents of children 0-15 years old; minority populations,
including Native Americans; rural communities; males 15-24 years old;
occupants of light trucks and sport utility vehicles);
--Implement a statewide program to train law enforcement personnel
on the importance of seat belt use, the specifics of the State's seat
belt use law, and the importance of enforcing such law to increase
usage rates;
--Initiate or expand standardized child passenger safety training
of police officers and/or child passenger safety checks and/or clinics
across broad geographical areas (e.g., statewide, in major metropolitan
areas, in rural areas of the State);
--Initiate, or expand in novel ways, campaigns which use
enforcement of other traffic laws (e.g., driving while intoxicated
laws) as a means for implementing highly visible enforcement of seat
belt use laws.
If a State wishes to submit a plan proposing a core component other
than enforcement, it should demonstrate innovation by proposing to
perform similar supporting activities. The State should demonstrate
that these activities have the potential to increase seat belt use
across the State.
NHTSA Involvement
In support of the activities undertaken under this grant program,
NHTSA will:
1. Provide a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR)
to coordinate activities between the Grantee and NHTSA during grant
performance.
2. Provide information and technical assistance from government
sources within available resources and as determined appropriate by the
COTR.
3. The COTR will serve as a liaison between NHTSA Headquarters,
NHTSA Regional Offices and the grantee.
Availability of Funds and Period of Support
The efforts solicited in this announcement will be supported
through the award of grants to a number of States, on the basis of the
evaluation criteria identified below. The number of grants awarded will
depend upon the merits of the applications received, the amount of
funds available in fiscal year 2000, and the size of the grants awarded
to individual States. The total amount of funds to be made available is
not known at this time, as it is dependent upon appropriations by the
Congress and the amount of allocations to States based on State seat
belt use rates achieved (see discussion in Background section, above).
However, the agency estimates that in excess of $20 million might
become available for this program in fiscal year 2000.
In accordance with TEA-21, the minimum amount of an individual
grant award to a State will be $100,000, subject to the availability of
funds. However, NHTSA may make individual awards in amounts greater
than $100,000, subject to the availability of funds and consistent with
the merits of a State's application. For example, a State may choose to
submit an innovative project plan detailing ambitious activities for
the upcoming year that require a significant commitment of resources
during that year. Alternatively, a State may describe a comprehensive
effort that is resource-intensive because the activities will take
place over the course of several years. (This latter multi-year
approach is permissible because TEA-21 provides that funds awarded to a
State under this program are available for obligation in the State for
a period of three years beyond the fiscal year during which the funds
are awarded.) In either case, NHTSA may decide, subject to the
availability of funds and consistent with the merits of the State's
application, to award an amount of funds greater than $100,000 to a
State. Consequently, States desiring to implement ambitious innovative
project plans requiring a significant commitment of resources for a
single year or a multi-year period of performance (up to four years,
until the end of fiscal year 2003) are encouraged to do so, provided
the necessary budget information is provided to support such a plan. In
making award determinations, NHTSA may choose to fund portions of a
plan (e.g., some but not all activities within a plan or some but not
all years of a multi-year plan) or to reject a plan, after review in
accordance with the evaluation criteria. There is no cost-sharing
requirement under this program.
Allowable Uses of Federal Funds
Allowable uses of Federal funds shall be governed by the relevant
allowable cost section and cost principles referenced in 49 CFR Part
18--Department of Transportation Uniform Administrative Requirements
for Grants and Cooperative Agreement to State and Local Governments.
Funds provided to a State under this grant program shall be used to
carry out the activities described in the State's plan for which the
grant is awarded.
Eligibility Requirements
Only the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico,
through their Governors' Representatives for Highway Safety, will be
considered eligible to receive a grant under this program.
Application Procedures
Each applicant must submit one original and two copies of the
application package to: NHTSA, Office of Contracts and Procurement
(NAD-30), ATTN: Amy Poling, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 5301, Washington,
DC 20590. An additional three copies will facilitate the review
process, but are not required.
[[Page 1066]]
Applications must be typed on one side of the page only.
Applications must include a reference to NHTSA Grant Program No.
DTNH22-99-G-05050. Only complete application packages submitted by a
State's Governor's Representative for Highway Safety on or before April
7, 1999 will be considered.
Application Contents
1. The application package must be submitted with OMB Standard Form
424, (Rev. 7-97 or 4-88, including 424A and 424B), Application for
Federal Assistance, with the required information provided and the
certified assurances included. While the Form 424-A deals with budget
information, and section B identifies Budget Categories, the available
space does not permit a level of detail which is sufficient to provide
for a meaningful evaluation of the proposed costs. A supplemental sheet
should be provided which presents a detailed breakdown of the proposed
costs (direct labor, including labor category, level of effort, and
rate; direct materials, including itemized equipment; travel and
transportation, including projected trips and number of people
traveling; subcontracts/subgrants, with similar detail, if known; and
overhead), as well as any costs the applicant proposes to contribute or
obtain from other sources in support of the projects in the innovative
project plan. Where a multi-year effort is proposed, the estimated
costs should be separated and proposed on the basis of individual
Federal fiscal years, i.e., beginning October 1, 1999 through September
30, 2000; October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001; etc.
2. Applications shall include a State plan detailing innovative
projects to increase seat belt use rates. The State plan must provide
the following information:
a. An Introduction section with a brief general description of the
State's population density, any unique diversity characteristics, a
short summary of the status of seat belt/child safety seat legislation
in the State, and the pattern of estimated seat belt/child safety seat
use rates for the State.
b. A Discussion section that presents the principal goals and
objectives of the proposed plan and articulates the potential to
increase seat belt use rates, with supporting rationale. This section
should also identify any proposed partnerships, coalitions, or
leveraging of resources that will be employed as a means to implement
integrated key enforcement, public information, or educational
activities. Any known barriers to implementation of the State's plan
should be identified, with a discussion of how such barriers will be
overcome. Relevant data based on planning studies should be included or
footnoted. Supporting documentation from concerned interests other than
the applicant may be included. Documentation of existing public and/or
political support may be included (e.g. endorsement of the Governor,
State Police or Patrol, State Association of Chiefs of Police, State
Medical Society, etc).
c. A Project Description section, with a detailed description of
the innovative projects to be undertaken by the State under the plan,
including, for each activity:
(1) The key strategies to be employed to achieve a significant use
rate increase across the State (e.g., enforcement, public information
and education, training, incentive/reward efforts);
(2) The innovative features (e.g. new participants, expanded
efforts, unique resources, design or technological innovations,
reductions in cost or time, integration with existing State efforts,
extraordinary community involvement); and
(3) A work plan listing milestones in chronological order to show
the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
d. A Personnel section, which identifies the proposed program
manager, key personnel and other proposed personnel considered critical
to the successful accomplishment of the activities under the State's
plan. A brief description of their qualifications and respective
responsibilities shall be included. The proposed level of their effort
and contributions to the various activities in the plan shall also be
identified. Each organization, corporation, or consultant who will work
on the innovative project plan shall be identified, along with a short
description of the nature of the effort or contribution and relevant
experience.
e. An Evaluation section, with a description of how the State will
evaluate and measure the outcomes of the activities in its innovative
project plan. This section should describe the methods for assessing
actual results achieved under the plan. Outcomes can be documented in a
number of ways. Increases in observed seat belt and child safety seat
use provide the ultimate measure of success. However, intermediate
measures also may be used to measure progress. These measures may
include: (i) increases in the number of law enforcement personnel
trained to enforce occupant protection laws; (ii) increased statewide
participation in semi-annual enforcement mobilizations (Operation ABC);
(iii) increased public perception of ongoing enforcement and public
education activities; (iv) increased numbers of public and private
sector partners involved in implementing the statewide programs; (v)
incentive programs to complement enforcement efforts; or (vi) extent of
integration of occupant protection enforcement activities with other
State enforcement activities. Data sources should be identified and
collection and analysis approaches should be described.
Application Review Procedures and Evaluation Criteria
Initially, all applications will be reviewed to confirm that the
applicant is an eligible recipient and to assure that the application
contains all of the information required by the Application Contents
section of the notice. Each complete application from an eligible
recipient then will be evaluated by an Evaluation Committee. The
applications will be evaluated using the following criteria, which are
listed in descending order of importance:
1. The goal(s) the State proposes to achieve, as described in its
innovative project plan, the overall soundness and feasibility of the
plan for achieving the goal(s), and the potential effectiveness of the
proposed activities in the plan for increasing seat belt use. The
extent to which the plan details a significant and comprehensive
enforcement effort or, where another approach is selected, provides
evidence supporting the effectiveness of the proposed approach will be
considered.
2. The organizational resources the State will draw upon, and how
the State will provide the program management capability and personnel
expertise to successfully perform the activities in its innovative
project plan. The adequacy of the proposed personnel (including
subcontractor and subgrantee personnel) to successfully perform the
proposed activities, including qualifications and experience, the
various disciplines represented and the relative level of effort
proposed for the professional, technical and support staff, will be
considered.
Depending upon the results of the evaluation process, NHTSA may
suggest revisions to applications as a condition of further
consideration to ensure the most efficient and effective performance
consistent with the objectives of achieving increased seat belt use.
Special Award Selection Factors
After evaluating all applications received, in the event that
insufficient funds are available to award all
[[Page 1067]]
requested amounts to all meritorious applicants, NHTSA may consider the
following special award factors in the award decision:
1. Every effort will be made to provide grants to a diverse group
of States representing a broad range of geographic, demographic, and
use rate characteristics. Thus, preference may be given to an applicant
which fits the need for such diversity.
2. Preference may be given to an applicant on the basis that its
application is effectively integrated and coordinated with other
ongoing efforts in the State, resulting in additional opportunity for
immediately increasing usage rates. This could include proposed cost-
sharing strategies, and/or the use of other federal, State, local and
private funding sources to complement those available under this
announcement.
Terms and Conditions of the Award
1. Prior to award, each grantee must comply with the certification
requirements of 49 CFR Part 20, Department of Transportation New
Restrictions on Lobbying, and 49 CFR Part 29, Department of
Transportation Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-
procurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug Free Workplace
(Grants).
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.
b. Draft Final Report: The grantee shall prepare a Draft Final
Report that includes a description of the innovative projects
conducted, including partners, overall program implementation,
evaluation methodology and findings from the program evaluation. In
terms of information transfer, it is important to know what worked and
what did not work, under what circumstances, and what can be done to
avoid potential problems in future projects. The grantee shall submit
the Draft Final Report to the COTR 60 days prior to the end of the
performance period. The COTR will review the draft report and provide
comments to the grantee within 30 days of receipt of the document.
c. Final Report: The grantee shall revise the Draft Final Report to
reflect the COTR's comments. The revised final report shall be
delivered to the COTR 15 days before the end of the performance period.
The grantee shall supply the COTR:
--A camera ready version of the document as printed.
--A copy, on appropriate media (diskette, Syquest disk, etc.), of
the document in the original program format that was used for the
printing process.
Note: Some documents require several different original program
languages (e.g., PageMaker was the program format for the general
layout and design and Power point was used for charts and yet
another was used for photographs, etc.). Each of these component
parts should be available on disk, properly labeled with the program
format and the file names. For example, Power point files should be
clearly identified by both a descriptive name and file name (e.g.,
1994 Fatalities--chart1.ppt).
--A complete version of the assembled document in portable document
format (PDF) for placement of the report on the world wide web (WWW).
This will be a file usually created with the Adobe Exchange program of
the complete assembled document in the PDF format that will actually be
placed on the WWW. The document would be completely assembled with all
colors, charts, side bars, photographs, and graphics. This can be
delivered to NHTSA on a standard 1.44 diskette (for small documents) or
on any appropriate archival media (for large documents) such as a CD
ROM, TR-1 Mini cartridge, Syquest disk, etc.
--Four additional hard copies of the final document.
3. During the effective performance period of grants awarded as a
result of this announcement, the grant shall be subject to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's General Provisions for
Assistance Agreements, dated July 1995.
Issued on: December 31, 1998.
Susan G. McLaughlin,
Acting Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs.
[FR Doc. 99-268 Filed 1-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
