[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20921-20926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 1240

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4494]
RIN 2127-AH38


Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts--Allocations Based 
on State Seat Belt Use Rates

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule adopts, without change, the regulations that 
were published in an interim final rule to implement a new grant 
program established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21), and codified at section 157 of Title 23, United 
States Code. The final rule establishes procedures for allocating 
Federal grant funds to States whose seat belt use rates meet certain 
requirements. Under the statute, funds are to be allocated to States 
whose seat belt use rates exceed either the national average seat belt 
use rate or the State's highest-achieved seat belt use rate during 
certain years. Allocations are to be based on savings in medical costs 
to the Federal Government resulting from these seat belt use rates. The 
procedures in this final rule implement these statutory requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590--In NHTSA: Wendi Wilson-John, State and Community Services, NSC-
01, (202) 366-2121; John Donaldson, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
30, (202) 366-1834. In FHWA: Byron E. Dover, Office of Safety Design, 
HSA-10, (202) 366-2161; Raymond W. Cuprill, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-0791.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Section 1403 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA-21) (Public Law 105-178) added a new section 157 to Title 23 of 
the United States Code, replacing a predecessor Section 157. The new 
section (hereafter section 157) authorizes a State seat belt

[[Page 20922]]

incentive grant program covering fiscal years (FYs) 1999 through 2003. 
Under this program, the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) is 
directed to allocate funds each fiscal year, starting in FY 1999, to 
States that achieve certain seat belt use rates. A State can satisfy 
the requirement by meeting one of two conditions: First, if the State's 
seat belt use rate in each of the preceding two calendar years exceeded 
the national average seat belt use rate for those years; or second, if 
the State's seat belt use rate in the previous calendar year exceeded 
its ``base seat belt use rate.'' Section 157 defines the ``base seat 
belt use rate'' as the ``highest State seat belt use rate for the State 
for any calendar year during the period of 1996 through the calendar 
year preceding the previous calendar year.'' For example, for 
allocations to be made in FY 2001 (on or about October 1, 2000), the 
base seat belt use rate would be the State's highest seat belt use rate 
during the period from calendar year (CY) 1996 through CY 1998, and the 
State would meet the second condition if the State's CY 1999 seat belt 
use rate exceeds this base rate for the CY 1996 through CY 1998 period. 
Section 157 further provides that a State that meets the first 
condition must receive an allocation only under the first condition 
(even if the State also meets the second condition). Hence, a State may 
receive an allocation under the second condition only if it meets that 
condition and fails to meet the first condition.
    A State that meets the first condition described above is to 
receive an allocation of funds that reflects the ``savings to the 
Federal Government'' due to the amount by which the State seat belt use 
rate for the previous calendar year exceeds the national average seat 
belt use rate for that year. A State that meets the second condition 
(and not the first condition) is to receive an allocation that reflects 
the ``savings to the Federal Government'' due to the amount by which 
the State seat belt use rate for the previous calendar year exceeds the 
State's base seat belt use rate. Section 157 defines ``savings to the 
Federal Government'' as ``the amount of Federal budget savings relating 
to Federal medical costs (including savings under the medicare and 
medicaid programs under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.)), as determined by the Secretary.'' States may 
use these allocated funds for any projects eligible for assistance 
under Title 23, United States Code. (Section 157 provides for the 
further distribution of funds, if any funds remain unallocated after 
the required allocations related to seat belt use rates are made, but 
today's action does not address those provisions.)

B. Information Requirements and Determinations

    A State's eligibility for an allocation of funds under the first 
condition during each fiscal year is dependent on State seat belt use 
rate information from two contiguous prior calendar years. 
Specifically, to make the determinations necessary to allocate funds in 
a given fiscal year under the first condition, section 157 requires the 
use of seat belt use rate information submitted by the States for the 
``previous calendar year'' and the ``year preceding the previous 
calendar year.'' For example, FY 2000 allocations (on or about October 
1, 1999) are dependent on CY 1997 and CY 1998 information, and FY 2001 
allocations (on or about October 1, 2000) are dependent on CY 1998 and 
CY 1999 information. A State's eligibility for an allocation of funds 
under the second condition during each fiscal year (if it fails to meet 
the first condition) is dependent on seat belt use rate information 
from earlier calendar years beginning with CY 1996 and ending with the 
``previous calendar year.'' For example, FY 2000 allocations (on or 
about October 1, 1999) are dependent on CY 1996 through CY 1998 
information, and FY 2001 allocations (on or about October 1, 2000) are 
dependent on CY 1996 through CY 1999 information.
    Section 157 provides that CY 1996 and CY 1997 information submitted 
by the States is to be weighted by the Secretary to ensure national 
consistency in methods of measurement. However, for CY 1998 and 
thereafter, section 157 requires States to measure seat belt use rates 
following criteria established by the Secretary, to ensure that the 
measurements are ``accurate and representative.'' In accordance with 
this latter mandate, NHTSA published a companion rule to today's rule, 
the Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use 
(23 CFR Part 1340--Interim final rule, 63 FR 46389, September 1, 1998; 
final rule, 65 FR 13679, March 14, 2000) (hereafter, the Uniform 
Criteria), establishing the criteria to be followed by States in 
measuring seat belt use rates for CY 1998 and beyond.
    For all calendar years during which State seat belt use rates must 
be measured, NHTSA must calculate the national average seat belt use 
rate to use in eligibility and allocation determinations. Additionally, 
for each State determined to be eligible for an allocation (based on a 
seat belt use rate that exceeds either the national average seat belt 
use rate or the State's own base seat belt use rate), NHTSA must 
calculate the amount of medical savings to the Federal Government due 
to the State's higher seat belt use rate, to determine the amount of 
the allocation.
    These steps, and the information requirements necessary to 
accomplish them, were set forth in detail in an interim final rule 
published in the Federal Register on October 29, 1998 (63 FR 57904). 
The interim final rule set forth detailed procedures governing the 
determination of State seat belt use rates, the national average seat 
belt use rate, and the Federal medical savings--all prerequisites to 
making allocations of funds to eligible States each fiscal year. 
Today's final rule responds to comments to that interim final rule, and 
promulgates final requirements and procedures that apply to the 
allocation of funds based on seat belt use rates. This final rule is 
being issued jointly by NHTSA and the FHWA (hereafter, the agencies), 
because the agencies share responsibility for this grant program.

C. Comments on the Interim Final Rule

    The interim final rule solicited comments from interested parties 
and noted that the agencies would respond to all comments and, if 
appropriate, amend the provisions of the rule. The agencies received 
comments from State agencies in Michigan, Missouri, New York, and 
Washington, from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and from one 
private citizen. As explained below in the discussion addressing each 
of these comments, the agencies have made no changes to the rule.
    The Washington Traffic Safety Commission (Washington) and Advocates 
for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) both expressed support for the 
interim final rule without change. Washington termed the procedures and 
formulas for allocation of funding ``reasonable and fair.'' Advocates 
endorsed the incentive grant program as a ``significant financial 
incentive'' and a ``novel approach'' that might lead States to actively 
pursue strategies to increase seat belt use. Advocates supported the 
interim final rule as providing ``a reasonable basis for making the 
determinations of state use rates and a national average seat belt use 
rate required by the statute.'' Although it expressed concern that 
surveys, as opposed to ``more scientifically conducted studies,'' could 
yield inflated seat belt use rates, Advocates believed that the interim 
final rule and the Uniform Criteria, together, were reasonably 
calculated to provide comparative seat belt use rates that would be 
acceptable for determining

[[Page 20923]]

relative increases in seat belt use rates under this program.
    The Michigan Department of State Police (Michigan) recommended that 
the formula for allocating incentive funds to States be ``weighted to 
recognize the difficulty of achieving, and the benefit of sustaining, 
safety belt use rates above the national average.'' According to 
Michigan, as seat belt use increases, additional protection is provided 
to at-risk drivers who are traditionally unbelted, and for each 
percentage point of increase at higher seat belt use levels, there 
should be a greater increase in the number of lives saved and serious 
injuries prevented. Michigan concluded that savings in medical costs to 
the Federal Government should be greater per percentage point increase 
at levels above the national average. Michigan also recommended that 
States whose seat belt use rates have increased, but remain below the 
national average, should continue to receive incentive funds to 
encourage aggressive seat belt programs.
    The agencies agree with Michigan's comment that, as seat belt use 
rates increase, and at-risk drivers who are traditionally unbelted (and 
over-represented in crashes) begin to use seat belts, savings in 
medical costs will be even greater, due to decreases in injuries and 
fatalities among these at-risk drivers. In fact, the process used to 
calculate medical savings under the interim final rule (see ``Appendix 
E--Determination of Federal Medical Savings'' and the report cited 
therein) accounts for these beneficial impacts as marginal seat belt 
use rates increase when seat belt use is already at a high level. The 
agencies are confident that the process established in the interim 
final rule results in an accurate estimate of the medical cost savings 
associated with increased seat belt use at all levels. Consequently, we 
have made no changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    Michigan's concern that States whose seat belt use rates have 
increased but remain below the national average should continue to 
receive funds is accommodated under the existing language of the rule, 
to the full extent allowed by the statute. In accordance with section 
157, a State whose seat belt use rate is below the national average 
will receive an allocation of funds provided its rate exceeds its 
``base seat belt use rate,'' which was defined in the statute and in 
the interim final rule as ``the highest State seat belt use rate for 
the State for any calendar year during the period from 1996 through the 
calendar year preceding the previous calendar year.'' Accordingly, a 
State will receive an allocation of funds based on improvements in seat 
belt use rates, even if the rate remains below the national average, 
provided only that the improvement is measured against a baseline of 
the highest previously achieved seat belt use rate during the time 
period specified in the statute. No changes have been made to the rule 
in response to this comment.
    The New York Department of Motor Vehicles (New York) requested that 
the interim final rule be modified to explicitly extend previous 
approvals granted under the section 153 program (23 U.S.C. 153) for 
seat belt use survey designs. (This was one of several comments from 
New York directed at the companion rule, the Uniform Criteria. In the 
preamble to the final rule for the Uniform Criteria, NHTSA explained 
that the comment was outside the scope of that rule, and would be 
addressed in today's action.)
    The interim final rule provided a procedure, applicable only to CY 
1998 surveys, under which a State that had received previous written 
approval under Section 153 for a survey design could certify that the 
survey remained unchanged, except for the addition of elements required 
to comply with Section 157. Such a certification would serve in lieu of 
the otherwise required survey review and approval process. In crafting 
this exception, the agencies were mindful of the great burden imposed 
on the States by the short lead times that occurred at the inception of 
this program. We do not believe it appropriate to extend this exception 
to the later years of this program, as sufficient time has elapsed to 
allow all States to develop surveys that satisfy the requirements of 
the Uniform Criteria. Moreover, NHTSA has worked closely with the 
States to ensure that their surveys meet these requirements and, at 
this time, all States that have chosen to submit surveys are able to 
meet the requirements. Consequently, we decline to adopt New York's 
request, and we have made no changes to the rule in response to this 
comment. States will continue to be required to submit documentation of 
their survey procedures to NHTSA each year for verification of 
compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Criteria.
    Mr. William C. Hickey, a private citizen, urged the agencies to 
require mandatory seat belt use in buses with a capacity of 37 to 45 
seats. Today's action, conducted under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 157, 
does not relate to buses, nor does it mandate seat belt use in any 
category of vehicles. Mr. Hickey's comment falls outside the authority 
of the statute and the scope of this action. Consequently, the agencies 
have made no changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    The Missouri Department of Public Safety (Missouri) expressed 
dissatisfaction with the procedures adopted under the interim final 
rule to estimate seat belt use rates when State data was missing and to 
account for seat belt use in pickup trucks. Missouri stated that the 
requirements of the Uniform Criteria were incorporated immediately into 
its CY 1998 survey. However, according to Missouri, the timetable of 
the grant program did not allow it to submit seat belt use rate 
information for the FY 1998 grant process. (The agencies assume that 
Missouri refers to the grant process leading to FY 1999 allocations.) 
Missouri explained that, ``[i]n lieu of the 1997 use rate figure,'' it 
submitted its 1996 seat belt use rate, with the result that NHTSA used 
the CY 1996 information to ``formulate'' a CY 1997 seat belt use rate, 
and that the numbers for both years then were adjusted under the 
interim final rule to account for pickup trucks.
    Missouri characterized the ``formulated'' CY 1997 seat belt use 
rate as improbably high and ``suspect in terms of overall 
reliability,'' particularly when compared with the new methodology, 
which was used to calculate the CY 1998 seat belt use rate. According 
to Missouri, ``the basic unfairness with this process is that we are 
comparing a 1997 rate formulated from a 1996 survey that does not 
include pickup trucks, with the actual 1998 rate which includes pickup 
truck information.'' Missouri believes that this approach led to its 
loss of eligibility for ``nearly $1 million'' in FY 2000, and requested 
that Missouri's ``1996 and 1997 revised use rates be revisited to more 
accurately show the impact of the pickup trucks.''
    Missouri noted that the definition of passenger vehicle in the 
agencies' interim final rule is inconsistent with the State's own 
definition, because the interim final rule includes pickup trucks. The 
result, according to Missouri, is that a portion of the seat belt use 
rate under the interim final rule includes vehicles in which, under 
most circumstances, occupants are not required to use seat belts in 
Missouri. Missouri asserted that the inclusion of pickup trucks in the 
determination of seat belt use rates resulted in a reduction in 
Missouri's overall percentage of belt usage and a ``skewed'' national 
average. According to Missouri, this disparity will hurt Missouri's

[[Page 20924]]

ability to qualify for incentive grants under this program in the 
future.
    On the subject of the seat belt survey requirements, Missouri 
stated that implementing the new methodology was ``arduous and 
expensive,'' requiring 460 survey sites instead of the 18 the State had 
used in previous years. Missouri claimed that many States were 
dissatisfied with the increased number of survey sites, and that many 
States requested and were granted exceptions to the new survey process, 
raising questions about the ``inherent fairness that the new survey was 
designed to create.''
    Missouri recommended several approaches to ``level the playing 
field'' and assure fairness. Specifically, Missouri suggested that all 
States should arrive at their light truck data in the same way; that 
pickup truck data should not be considered for purposes of the FY 1999 
grant; that the ``policy'' of granting exceptions should be 
discontinued; and that all States should implement seat belt surveys 
without deviation from the NHTSA methodology. As a final point, 
Missouri suggested that the agencies should ``simply disseminate 
funding to all states [and] fix the problems in the process design * * 
* in time to implement a valid process for FY 2000.''
    The agencies recognize that the early implementation of this grant 
program presented difficult problems. TEA-21, which introduced the new 
section 157, was enacted in mid-1998, but it established a framework 
under which the first allocations of funds (during FY 1999) were to be 
based on seat belt use rate information from prior years--CY 1996 and 
CY 1997. Recognizing that these two calendar years had already ended, 
and could not be the subject of uniform guidance or criteria, Congress 
required that available information from the States for these earlier 
years be ``weighted by the Secretary to ensure national consistency in 
methods of measurement.'' For CY 1998 and beyond, Congress required 
that information submitted by the States be in accordance with criteria 
established by the Secretary.
    Given these circumstances, the agencies were faced with the task of 
using the best seat belt use information available from the States for 
CY 1996 and CY 1997 and applying reasonable procedures to ensure 
consistent treatment from State-to-State, as required by section 157. 
If seat belt use rate information was missing for a calendar year (as 
was the case for Missouri in CY 1997), the agencies used the most 
reliable methods at hand to estimate the missing information or to 
extrapolate it from other available sources. The inclusion of pickup 
trucks in the determination of the seat belt use rate is a statutory 
requirement. Consequently, if information on pickup trucks was missing 
(as was the case for Missouri in CY 1996 and CY 1997), it too had to be 
derived from other sources. The interim final rule set forth detailed 
procedures governing the agencies' treatment of these various 
contingencies for CY 1996 and CY 1997, including procedures to adjust 
for incomplete State-submitted information and procedures for making 
estimates where State data for a given year was missing entirely.
    The agencies recognize that any estimation procedure introduces 
potential uncertainties. However, section 157 requires the agencies to 
evaluate seat belt use rate information from two contiguous prior 
calendar years in order to determine a State's eligibility for an 
allocation, and Missouri provided information only for CY 1996. The 
agencies could not make the statutorily required determinations based 
on Missouri's submission of CY 1996 seat belt use information ``in lieu 
of'' the CY 1997 information, but required information from both of 
those years.
    Similarly, the agencies were bound by the statute to account for 
pickup trucks in the determination of seat belt use rates. The 
estimation procedures of the interim final rule were applied carefully 
and consistently to all States with incomplete or missing data. We are 
unaware of a process that would allow the CY 1996 and CY 1997 seat belt 
use rates to ``more accurately show the impact of the pickup trucks,'' 
as Missouri requests, and Missouri does not detail an alternative 
process.
    Missouri's comment that the inclusion of pickup trucks in the 
determination of seat belt use rates resulted in a ``skewed'' national 
average, because its own seat belt use law exempts most of these 
vehicles, misconceives the purpose of this grant program. Section 157 
does not dictate which vehicles State laws should cover, and it does 
not seek to allocate funds to a State based on the State's level of 
compliance with its own laws. Rather, the statute measures performance 
against a uniform standard, and that standard precisely defines the 
universe of covered vehicles, which includes pickup trucks. Hence, it 
is a requirement imposed by the Congress that Missouri's seat belt use 
rate (and that of any other State seeking to qualify for an allocation 
of funds) must take pickup trucks into account (all pickup trucks--not 
simply pickup trucks which are not exempt), irrespective of the breadth 
of the State's legal requirements. Similarly, the national average seat 
belt use rate must be based on inclusion of pickup trucks. The Federal 
requirement to include pickup trucks is an integral part of the 
incentive structure of this grant program.
    Missouri's various comments that the estimation methods of the 
interim final rule and the inclusion of pickup trucks in the 
determination of seat belt use rates reduced the State's ability to 
qualify for incentive grants reflect a misunderstanding of the 
mechanics of the allocation process. For the years at issue, Missouri's 
seat belt use rate (irrespective of adjustments under the interim final 
rule) has remained somewhat below the national average seat belt use 
rate. Therefore, unless the State experiences a substantial increase in 
seat belt use so as to exceed the national average seat belt use rate, 
Missouri must hope to qualify for an allocation under this program by 
achieving a seat belt use rate that exceeds its base seat belt use 
rate. This approach would not entitle Missouri to receive ``nearly 
$1,000,000'' in FY 2000, as the State's comments suggest. Rather, the 
allocation in each fiscal year would equal the Federal medical savings 
attributable to the amount by which it has exceeded its base seat belt 
use rate.
    In FY 1999, Missouri received an allocation because the agency 
determined that the State had achieved a seat belt use rate in CY 1997 
of 62.6 percent, which exceeded its agency-adjusted base seat belt use 
rate in CY 1996 of 58.3 percent. The allocation amounted to $986,100, 
which reflected the full value of the Federal medical savings 
attributable to that increase. As a result, 62.6 percent became 
Missouri's new base seat belt use rate, and Missouri would not be 
entitled to another allocation until its seat belt use rate exceeds 
62.6 percent (and then only for an amount equal to the Federal medical 
savings attributable to the specific increase above that base rate). In 
FY 2000, Missouri did not receive an allocation, because its CY 1998 
seat belt use rate was 60.4 percent, which did not exceed the new base 
seat belt use rate of 62.6 percent.
    While the agency stands by the estimates that it developed under 
the interim final rule, it is worth noting that, even if the agency-
estimated CY 1997 seat belt use rate for Missouri was overstated, 
Missouri did not suffer as a result of this calculation. For example, 
had Missouri's seat belt use rate in CY 1997 been estimated to be 
lower, and had Missouri reached 62.6 percent more gradually (after a 
period of two years),

[[Page 20925]]

rather than all at once (in a single year), according to the agency's 
estimates, the State would have received allocations during two fiscal 
years (i.e., in FY 1999 and FY 2000) instead of one. However, the sum 
of those individual allocations essentially would have equaled the 
single allocation it actually received in FY 1999. (Any slight 
deviation that may have resulted would have been attributable to 
inflation adjustment factors and other minor differences in the year-
to-year calculation of Federal medical savings.) In summary, contrary 
to Missouri's assertions, its standing under this grant program has not 
been harmed by the estimation process used under the interim final 
rule.
    The agencies recognize that the implementation of seat belt survey 
requirements in conformance with the requirements of the Uniform 
Criteria was administratively difficult for some States. However, all 
States were subject to these same criteria and, contrary to Missouri's 
assertions, no exceptions or deviations were made.
    Missouri's recommended approaches to ``level the playing field,'' 
that all States should arrive at their light truck data in the same way 
and that seat belt use surveys be implemented without deviation from 
the NHTSA methodology, relate to how seat belt use surveys are 
conducted. These issues are the subject of the companion rule, the 
Uniform Criteria. For a detailed discussion of issues related to 
conducting the surveys, Missouri is directed to the Federal Register 
notice implementing the final rule for the Uniform Criteria (65 FR 
13679, March 14, 2000). Missouri can rest assured that the procedures 
contained in the Uniform Criteria stand as prerequisites for 
eligibility under this grant program, and that no deviations are 
permitted.
    Missouri made two other recommendations (now moot due to the 
passage of time) that are not within the agencies' statutory authority. 
Specifically, Missouri recommended that pickup truck data not be 
considered for purposes of the FY 1999 grant and that the agencies 
``simply disseminate funding to all states [and] fix the problems in 
the process design * * * in time to implement a valid process for FY 
2000.'' As previously discussed, the inclusion of pickup trucks in the 
determination of seat belt use rates is a statutory requirement and the 
agencies are not free to disregard it. Similarly, the agencies are not 
free to disseminate funds to all States, without evaluation. The 
agencies must comply with the specific requirements defined by statute 
in making allocations. The agencies do not agree with Missouri that 
there are ``problems'' in the interim final rule that must be 
``fixed.'' Rather, we believe that the process developed under the 
interim final rule, and continued in today's action, is a reasoned and 
fair approach to the collection, evaluation, and adjustment of data, 
and to the allocation of funds under this incentive grant program. 
Consequently, the agencies have made no changes in response to 
Missouri's comments.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This action has been analyzed 
in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 13132, and it has been determined that it does not have 
sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism assessment. Accordingly, a Federalism Assessment was not 
prepared.
    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rule will not 
have any preemptive or retroactive effect. The enabling legislation 
does not establish a procedure for judicial review of final rules 
promulgated under its provisions. There is no requirement that 
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other 
administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.
    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures: This action has been determined to 
be ``significant'' under Executive Order 12866 and under the Department 
of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures because it is 
likely to result in significant economic impacts. Accordingly, a Final 
Economic Assessment (FEA) was prepared, which describes the economic 
effects of this rulemaking action in detail. A copy of the FEA has been 
placed in the docket for public inspection.
    Following is a summary of the cost and benefit information for this 
rule. The total annual cost of conducting surveys following the 
procedures of this rule and of a recently published companion rule (63 
FR 46389) (if each State conducted one) is estimated to be $1.9 
million. However, most States already conduct surveys similar to those 
that would be required in order to qualify for funds under section 157, 
after FY 1999. The FEA concludes that there will be a one-time redesign 
cost totaling $160,000 for those States that currently conduct annual 
surveys, but whose surveys require revision, and an annual cost 
totaling $192,750 for those States that currently do not conduct annual 
surveys.
    NHTSA believes that incentives provided by section 157 could result 
in safety efforts that would increase seat belt use rates by an average 
of 1 to 4 percentage points. If such an increase is achieved, from 232 
to 940 lives would be saved annually, from 5,700 to 23,000 nonfatal 
injuries would be prevented, and medical costs would decline by $64 
million to $258 million. To raise seat belt use rates, States will have 
to initiate enforcement efforts and public education programs or enact 
legislation to upgrade current seat belt use laws to provide for 
primary enforcement. NHTSA estimates that the level of expenditure 
needed to raise seat belt use rates by 1 to 4 percentage points 
nationwide is approximately $200,000 per State, or $10.4 million (based 
on the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
    The FEA recognizes that a State may be eligible for an allocation 
of funds during each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003 if it conducts a 
survey of seat belt use during each of calendar years 1998 through 
2001, and may be eligible for an allocation of funds during fiscal year 
1999 without conducting a survey. Eligibility is dependent on whether 
the results of the survey meet certain statutory criteria. In FY 1999, 
38 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico received a total 
of $52,648,000, and in FY 2000, 33 States, the District of Columbia, 
and Puerto Rico received a total of $54,610,700 in incentive grant 
funds under this program. Allocations available to the States for the 
remaining years of this program, provided they meet the statutory 
criteria, total $102,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $112,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003. During the course of this program, 
the exact amount of funds allocated to States that meet the statutory 
criteria will vary, depending on their seat belt use rate. It is 
unlikely that all available funds will be allocated under this rule, 
because not all States will meet the statutory criteria and seat belt 
use rates of complying States will vary.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act: In compliance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the agencies have evaluated the 
effects of this action on small entities. States will be the recipients 
of any funds awarded under the section 157 program, and they are not 
small entities. We hereby certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Paperwork Reduction Act: The State seat belt use surveys that are 
required to be submitted by this rule are considered to be information 
collection requirements, as defined by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) in 5

[[Page 20926]]

CFR part 1320. This information collection requirement has been 
submitted to and approved by OMB, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The requirement has 
been approved through February 2, 2002: OMB Control No. 2127-0597.
    National Environmental Policy Act: The agencies have reviewed this 
action for the purpose of compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and have determined that it will 
not have a significant effect on the human environment.
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of more than $100 million annually. This final rule does not 
meet the definition of a Federal mandate. It is a voluntary program, in 
which States can choose to participate at their option. The costs to 
States to participate in this program will not exceed the $100 million 
threshold. Moreover, States that choose to participate in this program 
will receive allocations of Federal funds for activities that are 
eligible under Title 23, United States Code.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1240

    Grant programs--Transportation, Highway safety, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the interim final rule 
published in the Federal Register on October 29, 1998, 63 FR 57904, 
adding a new part 1240 to chapter II, subchapter B of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, is adopted as final.

    Issued on: April 19, 2001.
Vincent F. Schimmoller,
Deputy Executive Director.
L. Robert Shelton,
Executive Director, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-10448 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P