[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21434-21439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10667]


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

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 Hartwill-Miller, 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 [email protected], 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,

[[Page 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 semi-annual 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 self-evaluations 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.

[[Page 21436]]

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

[[Page 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 mid-year, 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

[[Page 21438]]

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 fully-implemented, 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 [email protected], 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 fully-implemented 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.

[[Page 21439]]

Appendix B

        FY2002 State Estimates for Section 157 Innovative Awards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                FY2002
                            State                              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:    {time}  Male    {time}  Female
2. Your age:    {time}  Under 21    {time}  21-25    {time}  26-39    
{time}  40-49    {time}  50-59    {time}  60 Plus
3. Your race:    {time}  White    {time}  Black    {time}  Asian    
{time}  Native American    {time}  Other
4. Are you of Spanish/Hispanic origin?    {time}  Yes    {time}  No
5. Your Zip Code: ________
6. About how many miles did you drive last year?
    {time}  Less than 5,000    {time}  5,000 to 10,000    {time}  
10,001 to 15,000    {time}  More than 15,000
7. What type of vehicle do you drive most often?
    {time}  Passenger car    {time}  Pickup truck    {time}  Sport 
utility vehicle    {time}  Mini-van    {time}  Full-van    {time}  
Other
8. How often do you use seat belts when you drive or ride in a car, 
van, sport utility vehicle or pick up?
    {time}  Always    {time}  Nearly always    {time}  Sometimes    
{time}  Seldom    {time}  Never
9. What do you think the chances are of getting a ticket if you 
don't wear your seat belt?
    {time}  Always    {time}  Nearly Always    {time}  Sometimes    
{time}  Seldom    {time}  Never
10. Do you think the Highway Patrol enforce the seat belt law:
    {time}  Very strictly    {time}  Somewhat strictly    {time}  
Not very strictly    {time}  Rarely    {time}  Not at all
11. Do you think local police enforce the seat belt law:
    {time}  Very strictly    {time}  Somewhat strictly    {time}  
Not very strictly    {time}  Rarely    {time}  Not at all
12. Have you ever received a ticket for not wearing your seat belt?
    {time}  Yes    {time}  No
13. In the past month, have you seen or heard about a checkpoint 
where police were looking at seat belt use?
    {time}  Yes    {time}  No
14. In the past month, have you gone through a checkpoint where 
police were looking at seat belt use?
    {time}  Yes    {time}  No
15. Have you recently read, seen or heard anything about seat belts 
in (insert State name)?
    {time}  Yes
    If yes, where did you see or hear about it? (Check 
all that apply):
    {time}  Newspaper    {time}  Radio    {time}  TV    {time}  
Poster    {time}  Brochure    {time}  Police checkpoint    {time}  
Other
    If yes, what did it say?____________
    {time}  No
16. Do you know the name of any seat belt enforcement program(s) in 
(insert State name)? (check all that apply):
    {time}  No Excuses, Buckle Up    {time}  Buckle Up (insert State 
Name)    {time}  Click It or Ticket    {time}  Operation 35, Buckle 
Up Stay Alive
[FR Doc. 01-10667 Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P