[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29876-29884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Innovative Grants To Support Increased Seat Belt Use Rates

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

ACTION: Re-issuance of announcement of grants to support innovative and 
effective projects designed to increase seat belt use rates.

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

SUMMARY: On April 30, 2001, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) published an announcement of grants to support 
innovative and effective projects designed to increase seat belt use 
rates. After the announcement was published, the agency decided that it 
contained a number of requirements that might be burdensome to the 
grant applicants. Accordingly, the announcement published on April 30, 
2001 is cancelled. That announcement has been revised and is being re-
issued in its entirety in this notice.
    In this notice, 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. However, unlike the first two years, when 
funds were determined and administered in a process similar to that of 
a contract, for this third year, selection for these Innovative Grants 
will be determined based on established criteria, and the distribution 
of funds will be administered in a fashion similar to other highway 
safety grants, including use of the Grant Tracking System (GTS). 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 fiscal year

[[Page 29877]]

(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 appropriate NHTSA Regional 
Office on or before August 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Each State must submit its application to the appropriate 
NHTSA Regional Office, to the attention of the Regional Administrator, 
on or before Wednesday, August 1, 2001. Addresses of the ten Regional 
Offices are listed in Appendix A.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions relating to this grant 
program should be directed to Philip Gulak, Occupant Protection 
Division (NTS-12), Office of Traffic Injury Control Programs, NHTSA, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5118, Washington, DC 20590, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by phone at (202) 366-2725. For legal issues, 
contact Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-30, NHTSA, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., 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 FY 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 FY 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 (in Appendix B) a discussion 
of recent strategies which have been effective in increasing seat belt 
use and the ways in which States might meet the criteria for an award. 
Clearly, efforts undertaken over the past few years have not resulted 
in major increases in seat belt usage rates in several States. In some 
cases, it appears that States have reached plateaus, beyond which 
additional increases will be difficult to achieve. For States with 
usage rates lower than 70 percent, the question remains as to why past 
efforts have not been more effective in increasing usage. For States 
with usage rates of 70 percent or above, a different problem exists. 
Here, additional gains will be relatively more difficult and will 
require more powerful interventions than have been used in the past.
    When usage rates do not increase following the implementation of a 
seat belt program, it is difficult for a State to determine if the lack 
of impact is the result of strategies which have little potential for 
change or if it is the result of strategies that have not been 
implemented with sufficient strength to realize their potential. 
Objective evaluations that measure both public awareness and changes in 
seat belt usage are essential for a State to determine which programs 
or program components are having an impact, and to provide an 
opportunity to enhance program strategies. Thus, all States receiving 
grants are required to conduct at least a basic evaluation of the 
impact of their programs on public awareness and seat belt use. An 
adequate plan for evaluation must be submitted as part of the State's 
application. However, NHTSA acknowledges that more in-depth evaluation 
will be necessary to accurately assess which program components and 
which levels of intensity are effective in increasing seat belt use. 
The level and scope of effort required for such in-depth evaluations 
may be beyond the ability, resources or perceived need of some States. 
Thus, in this solicitation, States are not required to, but may propose 
a plan for more in-depth evaluation, for which additional funds will be 
awarded to a limited number of States. NHTSA will award up to $4 
million to fund the in-depth evaluations. Appendix C discusses issues 
relating to in-depth evaluations.
    Recent NHTSA surveys show that only about 30 percent of the public 
across the nation are aware of national, state, or community efforts to 
increase seat belt use. However, States which have recently experienced 
significant increases in seat belt usage and have evaluated their 
efforts (e.g., Michigan and South Carolina), have shown that more than 
70 percent of the public were aware of the program efforts (including 
law changes) which contributed to such changes. These evaluations 
suggest that the lack of public awareness may be a major reason why 
usage rates in many States have not been increasing. In States like 
Georgia, Maryland, Oklahoma, Michigan, Alabama, and New Jersey, recent 
primary law legislation has been a key factor in increasing public 
awareness. In other States, like New York, North Carolina and South 
Carolina, enforcement efforts were publicized to a sufficient degree to 
result in a high level of public awareness.

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 the 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 B.)
    To be considered for an award 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

[[Page 29878]]

on a non-enforcement approach that has significant and documented 
potential for increasing the seat belt use rate statewide. If a State 
proposes a non-enforcement approach, the application must include an 
acceptable, preferably research-based, rationale describing its 
potential for impact. The application also must describe a media 
program designed to make the public aware of the proposed intervention. 
In addition, the State's proposed 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, complement, and evaluate the existing enforcement effort. These 
essential and coordinated elements of the project plan have been 
effective in increasing seat belt use.
    States submitting a proposal designed to increase seat belt use in 
only a limited number of jurisdictions, one that lacks a strong 
enforcement or credible non-enforcement 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.
    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 low seat belt use among those 
groups. States that have upgraded their laws recently to allow for 
primary/standard 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., impaired driving 
or speed limit). 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., 
impaired driving 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 provide a complete 
description of the program activities that were carried out 
(particularly enforcement, paid media and enforcement-related 
messaging) and of the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of its 
overall program in creating public awareness and in increasing seat 
belt use. States may apply and qualify for additional funds, which can 
be used to conduct more in-depth evaluations in order to better 
determine the impact of the overall program or the contribution of 
specific program elements (e.g., individual enforcement waves, paid 
media, earned media and incentives). Such in-depth evaluation would be 
desirable for any State proposing the use of paid media in its program, 
particularly if $100,000 or more is to be spent for that purpose.

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 subsequently in this notice. The number of 
grants awarded will depend upon the number of applications that meet 
the requirements of this notice. The amount of the awards (for other 
than the optional in-depth evaluation activities) available in FY 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 the availability of funds. The $400,000 minimum 
has been derived based on experience gained over the first two years of 
this Innovative Grant program, and reflects NHTSA's best judgment about 
the amount of resources needed to implement effective statewide seat 
belt campaigns that include enforcement, media and a basic level of 
evaluation. The amounts to be awarded for in-depth evaluation 
activities will be determined

[[Page 29879]]

based on each applicant's budget, as described below.
    In FY 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 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 planned period for grant activity 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. Any funds 
remaining at the end of that period can be carried forward to the next 
year.
    In the past two years, some States have expressed concern about the 
time taken to evaluate the proposals and arrive at award decisions. 
This year's proposals will be reviewed on the basis of whether or not 
the State's application 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. The dollar amount of these awards (not including funds for in-
depth evaluation) 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 adjustments needed to ensure that: 
(1) Each qualifying State is awarded at least $400,000; and (2) up to 
$4 million will be used to fund in-depth evaluations. Appendix D shows 
the estimated amount that would be awarded to each State, not including 
funds for in-depth evaluation, based on current projections of 
available funds for FY 2002, assuming that all fifty-two eligible 
jurisdictions apply and qualify for an award, and assuming that a total 
of $4 million is used to fund in-depth evaluations.
    Any State that qualifies for a grant and is interested in receiving 
additional funds to support an in-depth evaluation may apply for such 
funds by including in its application detailed information specified 
below under the heading Applications for Additional Funds to Conduct an 
In-depth Evaluation. These applications for additional funds will be 
reviewed and approved or disapproved on the basis of the scientific 
soundness of the approach to evaluation and on the reasonableness of 
the proposed budget for the in-depth evaluation. Please note that, if a 
State's request for additional funds for in-depth evaluation is 
rejected, the State may still qualify for a grant, provided that an 
acceptable basic evaluation plan is included in the application. Final 
grant amounts will be determined so that all available funds will be 
awarded. Subject to the availability of funds, NHTSA estimates that the 
award of section 157 Innovative Grants for FY 2002 will occur during 
November 2001.

Allowable Uses of Federal Funds

    In FY 2002, the section 157 Innovative Grants will be administered 
in a fashion similar to other highway safety grants. Funds will be 
tracked through the GTS. Funds provided to a State under this grant 
program shall be used to carry out the activities described in the 
State's application 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 the appropriate NHTSA Regional Office (see 
Appendix A) to the attention of the Regional Administrator.
    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. Appendix E provides a checklist to facilitate the 
preparation of the proposals. Only application packages submitted by a 
State's Governor's Representative for Highway Safety and received in 
the appropriate Regional Office on or before August 1, 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.

1. Introduction

    A brief description of the State's geographic and demographic 
population distribution, and any other unique characteristics (e.g., 
how the seat belt use rate varies within the State by vehicle type and 
by ethnic populations) that are relevant to the State's plan to 
increase seat belt use. The introduction should also include a problem 
identification statement that describes the State's usage rates.

2. Certifications

    A signed statement by the State that: (i) It will use the funds 
awarded under this grant program exclusively to implement a statewide 
seat belt program in accordance with the requirements of Section 157(b) 
of P.L. 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--Describe the State's current goal for seat 
belt use and its intent to increase this goal based on this 
application.
    (b) Strategies to Increase Seat Belt Use--Describe the State's plan 
for increasing seat belt use statewide by choosing one or more of the 
following strategies:
    (1) Conduct two or more high-visibility seat belt enforcement 
campaigns, which include at least 7 days of aggressive enforcement 
during each campaign and which should be preceded and accompanied by a 
highly visible media campaign. These campaigns should complement and 
support the BUA/Operation ABC National Mobilizations (conducted in 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

[[Page 29880]]

    (3) Implement a non-enforcement program that has the potential to 
reach the safety belt use goals as stated above in Program Element 3a. 
If a State selects this option, it must provide an acceptable 
(preferably research-based) rationale for the proposed approach (e.g., 
a summary of evidence of effectiveness), regarding the potential of the 
non-enforcement program to increase the State's seat belt use rate. 
Strategies could involve (but are not limited to) new and innovative 
messages for high risk groups, new delivery mechanisms for seat belt 
programs, new implementation partners, or new or unusual approaches to 
seat belt enforcement. States opting to take a non-enforcement approach 
should lay out an acceptable rational foundation for why they believe 
that the approach will work, including a detailed problem 
identification component. Research-based approaches are preferred.
    (c) Statewide Program--If the State proposes an enforcement-based 
strategy to increase seat belt use, the application must describe/
demonstrate a commitment from the State Patrol/Police (if any), and 
local law enforcement agencies that must serve the majority of the 
population, to participate actively in highly visible seat belt 
enforcement efforts consisting of checkpoints, saturation patrols or 
other enforcement operations. For example, describe the State's 
preliminary enforcement plan, existing enforcement participants 
representing State and local enforcement agencies, or letters of 
commitment. If the State proposes a non-enforcement strategy to 
increase seat belt use, the application must describe/demonstrate a 
commitment to implement the strategy in communities serving the 
majority of the population. For example, describe the State's 
preliminary implementation plan, existing communities participating in 
the non-enforcement strategy, or letters of commitment.
    (d) Personnel--Describe management and staffing adequate to 
implement the Strategies to Increase Seat Belt Use, that includes 
planning and coordination of enforcement, media/public information and 
evaluation.
    (e) Public Information and Education Strategy--Describe the State's 
plan for a statewide public information and education (PI&E) strategy 
to focus 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

    In its application, the State must describe how, where and when it 
will conduct a basic evaluation of the activities supported by this 
grant. It must also include a description of how the evaluation effort 
will be implemented and managed.
    The basic evaluation must, at a minimum, include at least one 
statewide public awareness survey, in addition to the State's annual 
observational survey of statewide seat belt use.
    NHTSA recognizes that many States already have comprehensive 
efforts underway to evaluate their total occupant protection programs. 
NHTSA encourages the State to integrate the evaluation of this program 
with those broader efforts. NHTSA is prepared to offer technical 
assistance for evaluation, including providing survey protocols and 
instruments to any State upon request and, to the extent possible, data 
analysis support.

5. Budget for the Innovative Program With Basic Evaluation:

    Each State's application must include a budget totaling the amount 
specified for that State in Appendix D. A budget that exceeds the 
specified amount for a program with only basic evaluation will not be 
accepted. The budget shall include the following categories:
    a. Strategies to Increase Seat Belt Use--Estimate the funds devoted 
to the proposed strategy (e.g., sub-grants to law enforcement agencies, 
mini-grants, consultants or other strategies).
    b. Personnel--Include the estimated total cost for personnel.
    c. Public Information and Education--Estimate the funds devoted to 
each key element of the PI&E component, which may or may not include 
the following:

--Public relations consultants;
--Campaign events;
--Paid media;
--Materials and incentives; and
--Other PI&E costs.

    d. Basic Evaluation--Include the estimated cost for conducting a 
basic evaluation (i.e., at least one measurement of statewide public 
awareness of the program during the period of performance).

Applications for Additional Funds To Conduct an In-Depth Evaluation

    A State wishing to apply for additional funds to conduct a more in-
depth evaluation of its grant activities must prepare a more detailed 
evaluation plan and budget and submit this plan and budget along with 
the plan and budget for a program including only a basic evaluation. At 
a minimum, this optional in-depth evaluation plan must include 
measurement of the impact of the program on public awareness and on 
seat belt use on at least three occasions, as the program progresses 
through its 12 month period of performance. A more complete evaluation 
capable of estimating the impact of specific program components should 
measure public awareness and seat belt use at various phases of multi-
phased programs. Such an approach would be essential for any State 
proposing to include a significant paid media component in a multi-wave 
program strategy. States may submit more than one in-depth evaluation 
plan, with a budget for each alternative plan. However, no more than 
one in-depth evaluation plan will be funded for any one State. Appendix 
C outlines some issues relevant to in-depth evaluation. Interested 
States are encouraged to adapt these ideas, evaluation tools and 
guidelines to their own unique programs and situations.

Reporting Requirements and Deliverables

    Each successful applicant will be responsible for providing the 
following reports:
    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 3 month time period, 
and proposed activities for the upcoming reporting period. Please note: 
Many States will be continuing to spend funds awarded during the first 
two years of this Section 157 Innovative Grant program after these 
third year funds are awarded. NHTSA does not intend nor desire that 
States submit separate Quarterly Reports for the various funding years. 
Activities carried out during a reporting period under all three years 
of funding should be documented in the same report. However, the State 
should include a tabulation of how much funds were expended during the 
reporting period from each year. Also, during the first two years, a 
number of States modified their grants to change from Quarterly to 
Monthly reporting. Those States should continue to submit Monthly 
Reports during the third year, at least until all first year and second 
year funds have been spent. Any decisions and actions required in the 
upcoming program period should be included in the report.

[[Page 29881]]

    Final Report--A Final Report that includes a summary of the impact 
of the year-long program. It should include a complete description of 
the innovative activities conducted, including the involvement of 
partners; overall program implementation; evaluation methodology and 
findings from the program evaluation, including all measurements of 
public awareness and seat belt use. These measurements must include at 
least one measure of statewide public awareness and the measure of 
statewide seat belt use. 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 three copies of the Final 
Report to the Regional Office within fifteen months following grant 
award.

Application Review Procedures

    All applications will be reviewed to ensure that the application 
contains all of the information required by the Application Contents 
and Grant Criteria section of the Federal Register notice. This 
evaluation process may include submission of technical or program 
questions to the applicants, to determine eligibility. 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 Section 157 Incentive Grant program, the formula as 
described under the Availability of Funds and Period of Support Section 
and the budgets for approved in-depth evaluation plans. It is 
anticipated that awards will be made in November 2001.

Marilena Amoni,
Acting Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs.

Appendix A--NHTSA Regional Offices

REGION I (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT), Volpe National Transportation 
Systems Center 55 Broadway, Kendall Square, Code 903, Cambridge, MA 
02142
REGION II (NJ, NY, PR), 222 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 204, White 
Plains, NY 10605
REGION III (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), 10 South Howard Street, Suite 
4000, Baltimore, MD 21201
REGION IV (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), Atlanta Federal Center, 
61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 17T30, Atlanta, GA 30303
REGION V (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), 19900 Governors Drive, Suite 201, 
Olympia Fields, IL 60461
REGION VI (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), 819 Taylor Street, Room 8A38, Fort 
Worth, TX 76102-6177
REGION VII (IA, KS, MO, NE), 901 Locust Street, Room 466, Kansas 
City, MO 64106
REGION VIII (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), 555 Zang Street, Room 430, 
Lakewood, CO 80228
REGION IX (AZ, CA, HI, NV), 201 Mission Street, Suite 2230, San 
Francisco, CA 94105
REGION X (AK, ID, OR, WA), 3140 Jackson Federal Building, 915 Second 
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174

Appendix B--Strategies That Have Proven Effective in Increasing Seat 
Belt Use

    In previous years, Federal Register notices for 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 the person listed below). In the summary 
of the history of seat belt programs, 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/standard enforcement law; or (c) a highly 
visible effort to enforce seat belt 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 (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 
their use of news stories and public service announcements, to 
increase public awareness of the enforcement efforts. Their 
potential for success has been increased also 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 law enforcement agencies in all of the States and to 
initiate focused media efforts in major markets to make the public 
aware of the enforcement mobilizations. This Innovative Grant 
program greatly increases the potential effectiveness of the 
national enforcement mobilizations and the overall Buckle Up America 
program.
    Since 1999, there have been several notable successes, in which 
large States, such as Michigan and New York, have increased seat 
belt usage significantly. 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 two 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 five 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, 405, 
2003(b) and Section 157 Incentive and Innovative Grants 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 included reaching 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 nine percentage point increase in seat belt usage 
statewide. Further, it was able to show that the paid media effort 
clearly 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.

[[Page 29882]]

    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 established statewide coordinating committees 
for enforcement, media, outreach and evaluation efforts; made 
selective use of paid media efforts; used unambiguous enforcement 
messages; found 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 implemented comprehensive 
evaluation efforts, similar to those used in the South Carolina 
program, to measure impact at each phase of the program. This 
evaluation model consisted 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 
Innovative Grant program efforts. Interested States should contact 
Philip Gulak, Occupant Protection Division (NTS-12), Office of 
Traffic Injury Control Programs, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 
5118, Washington, DC 20590, by e-mail at [email protected], or by 
phone at (202) 366-2725, for this information.
    The dramatic recent successes in the above mentioned States add 
further credibility to NHTSA' position that highly visible 
enforcement is an important foundation upon which any effective 
program funded under Section 157 should be based. A recent review by 
an independent Task Force supported by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention provides even more credibility for the 
effectiveness of high visibility enforcement efforts (as well as for 
primary seat belt laws). The recent examples of States that have 
``fully-implemented'' enforcement, conducted public information 
efforts designed to reach 75-80 percent of the populace, and 
selectively used paid media to make the public aware of the 
enforcement activity are very encouraging. Also encouraging are the 
recent efforts in some States to develop comprehensive evaluation 
efforts, which measure changes in both public awareness and seat 
belt use at various stages of the program.

Appendix C--Guidelines Relating to Proposed In-Depth Evaluation

    The fundamental objectives for in-depth evaluation are to 
accurately measure shoulder belt use by drivers and front seat 
outboard passengers in passenger motor vehicles and to measure 
public awareness of the intervention program at various stages 
throughout the program. Many States may also wish to determine the 
public's attitude toward the program as it progresses through its 
various phases.
    Nearly every State has a seat belt observational survey protocol 
that conforms to NHTSA's ``Uniform Criteria for State Observational 
Surveys of Seat Belt Use,'' published in the Federal Register on 
Tuesday, March 14, 2000. That protocol provides a useful foundation 
for designing the observational survey component of an in-depth 
evaluation. Perhaps the most rigorous option would be for the State 
to conduct its full, official statewide survey each time a 
measurement of seat belt use is taken. However, this would likely be 
far too expensive for most States to do. An acceptable alternative 
would be to conduct mini-surveys for some or all of the measurements 
of seat belt use throughout the program. A mini-survey consists of 
observations taken at a sub-sample of the sites employed in the 
full, official statewide survey. The sub-sample of sites should be 
selected in a way that provides coverage of important segments of 
the State (e.g., rural and urban, racial and ethnic diversity), as 
well as populations or geographical areas targeted by the 
intervention. This same sub-sample of sites should be used for each 
mini-survey and observations should be conducted following specified 
procedures, which are the same each time the mini-survey is 
administered. NHTSA has used such mini-surveys in past evaluations 
and will, upon request, provide technical assistance to States in 
selecting appropriate sub-samples. However, it is ultimately up to 
the States to determine how many and which sites should be used for 
the mini-surveys. The value of using a sub-sample of the State's 
official survey for such measurements is that this sub-sample will 
continue to be part of the annual surveys and, thus, seat belt use 
at these same sites can be tracked over time.
    To measure public awareness (and attitudes), NHTSA recommends 
using either telephone surveys (statewide, or for targeted 
populations) or motorist surveys conducted at motor vehicle 
licensing centers, or a combination of the two. Motorist surveys are 
generally less expensive than telephone surveys but they are also 
less representative of the entire state. NHTSA has developed both a 
protocol and a survey instrument for each type of awareness and 
attitude survey. NHTSA will, upon request, provide these instruments 
to any State wishing to use them.
    The State may propose alternative strategies for measuring seat 
belt use or public awareness, if it feels that such strategies would 
adequately meet the requirements of a scientific evaluation.
    NHTSA anticipates that most applicants for grants in FY 2002 
will submit program strategies in which the core intervention (e.g., 
intensified enforcement) is applied in several distinct phases over 
the course of the year. For example, on two or more occasions during 
the 12-month period of performance, a State would conduct an 
enforcement wave, including a kickoff or earned media phase followed 
by the enforcement phase. In some States, it is anticipated that 
there will also be a paid media phase, usually implemented between 
the earned media and enforcement phases. At a minimum, an in-depth 
evaluation of a total program would measure seat belt use and public 
awareness (and attitudes) on at least three occasions, including 
before the first intervention or wave, midway through the 12-month 
performance period, and after the last intervention or wave. Such a 
design would not permit the State to determine how much a particular 
component or set of components of a wave (i.e., the earned media, 
the paid media or the enforcement) contributed to public awareness 
or seat belt use, but it would measure the contribution of the 
program as a whole. And, such an approach would be superior to the 
basic evaluation that is required for this grant program, (i.e., 
where only one seat belt use and public awareness measurement is 
taken over the course of a year). A more complete evaluation design 
would apply multiple measurements of seat belt use and public 
awareness during each unique phase of each wave, as well as before 
and after each wave. In this way, the contributions of at least some 
of the individual components could be assessed. This would be 
extremely important for a State employing a paid media component. 
Such an approach would result in a survey schedule as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Pre-wave             Earned media            Paid media            Enforcement             Post-wave
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys                Surveys                Surveys                Surveys                Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Such a design would require considerably more effort and 
resources, but it also would enable the State to estimate how much 
selected components of its program contributed to changes in public 
awareness and seat belt use.
    NHTSA will carefully consider all proposed approaches to more 
in-depth evaluation, ranging from measurements taken at three points 
during the year to a more comprehensive approach designed to measure 
change during specific phases of the program. States may also 
propose approaches to in-depth evaluation that differ from those 
described in this Appendix. In addition, States may submit two or 
more alternative plans for in-depth evaluation, with a corresponding 
budget for each. However, no more than one in-depth evaluation plan 
will be funded for any one State.

Appendix D--FY2002 State Estimates for Section 157 Innovative Awards*

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                FY 2002
                            State                              estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................................    $735,000
Alaska......................................................     400,000
Arizona.....................................................     585,000
Arkansas....................................................     535,000

[[Page 29883]]

 
California..................................................   4,045,000
Colorado....................................................     620,000
Connecticut.................................................     450,000
Delaware....................................................     400,000
District of Columbia........................................     400,000
Florida.....................................................   1,870,000
Georgia.....................................................   1,080,000
Hawaii......................................................     400,000
Idaho.......................................................     400,000
Illinois....................................................   1,745,000
Indiana.....................................................     915,000
Iowa........................................................     625,000
Kansas......................................................     645,000
Kentucky....................................................     640,000
Louisiana...................................................     670,000
Maine.......................................................     400,000
Maryland....................................................     660,000
Massachusetts...............................................     820,000
Michigan....................................................   1,440,000
Minnesota...................................................     870,000
Mississippi.................................................     500,000
Missouri....................................................     940,000
Montana.....................................................     400,000
Nebraska....................................................     430,000
Nevada......................................................     400,000
New Hampshire...............................................     400,000
New Jersey..................................................   1,030,000
New Mexico..................................................     400,000
New York....................................................   2,475,000
North Carolina..............................................   1,060,000
North Dakota................................................     400,000
Ohio........................................................   1,620,000
Oklahoma....................................................     670,000
Oregon......................................................     520,000
Pennsylvania................................................   1,750,000
Rhode Island................................................     400,000
South Carolina..............................................     590,000
South Dakota................................................     400,000
Tennessee...................................................     815,000
Texas.......................................................   2,835,000
Utah........................................................     400,000
Vermont.....................................................     400,000
Virginia....................................................     935,000
Washington..................................................     800,000
West Virginia...............................................     400,000
Wisconsin...................................................     880,000
Wyoming.....................................................     400,000
Puerto Rico.................................................    465,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The number of States receiving awards will depend upon the number of
  applications that meet the requirements of this Federal Register
  notice. Final grant amounts will be adjusted so that all available
  funds will be awarded.

Appendix E--Application Checklist

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                                             State contact person
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check Off:                                   Application and Grant Criteria:
    1......................................  Introduction:
        a. ____                                a. Brief description of geographic and demographic population
                                             distribution.
        b. ____                                b. Any unique population characteristics (optional).
        c. ____                                c. Problem identification statement describing State's seat belt
                                             use.
 
    2......................................  Certifications--A signed statement that the State will:
                                               (i) use the funds awarded under this grant program exclusively to
                                             implement an innovative program in accordance with the requirements
                                             of Section 157(b) of P.L. 105-178 (TEA-21).
                                               (ii) administer the funds in accordance with 49 CFR Part 18 and
                                             OMB Circular A-87.
                                               (iii) provide to the NHTSA Regional Administrator no later than
                                             15 months after grant award a report of activities carried out with
                                             grant funds and accomplishments to date.
                                               (iv) comply with all applicable laws and regulations, financial
                                             and programmatic requirements.
 
    3......................................  Program Elements:
        a. ____                                a. Goal: Description of State's current goal for seat belt use
                                             and intent to increase the goal based on this application.
        b. ____                                b. Strategies to Increase Seat Belt Use: Description of the
                                             State's plan for increasing seat belt use statewide employing one
                                             or more of the following strategies: (1) at least two 4-week high-
                                             visibility enforcement campaigns; (2) continuous high-visibility
                                             seat belt enforcement year round; or (3) a non-enforcement program
                                             that has the potential to reach the safety belt use goals.
        c. ____                                c. (if applicable) Rationale: Discussion demonstrating the
                                             potential of the proposed non-enforcement program to increase the
                                             State's seat belt use rate.
        d. ____                                d. Statewide Program:
                                                If the program is enforcement-based: description or
                                             demonstration of commitment from the State Patrol/Police (if any),
                                             and local law enforcement agencies that serve the majority of the
                                             State's population.
                                                If the program is non-enforcement based: description or
                                             demonstration of commitment from communities serving the majority
                                             of the State's population.
        e. ____                                e. Personnel: Description of management and staffing adequate to
                                             implement the program which includes Strategies to Increase Seat
                                             Belt Use, Media, Budget and Evaluation.
        f. ____                                f. Public Information and Education Strategy: Description of the
                                             State's plan for a statewide public information and education
                                             strategy to focus public attention on the proposed effort.
 
    4......................................  Basic Evaluation Elements:
        a. ____                                a. Measurement: Description of how, where and when statewide
                                             public awareness of the program and statewide seat belt usage will
                                             be measured (must be at least once during the project period).
 
    5......................................  Budget:
        a. ____                                a. Strategies to Increase Belt Use: Estimate of the funds devoted
                                             to the proposed strategy (e.g., sub-grants to law enforcement, mini-
                                             grants, consultants, etc.).
        b. ____                                b. Personnel: Estimate of the total cost for personnel.
        c. ____                                c. Public Information and Education: Estimate of the funds to be
                                             devoted to media and advertising (e.g., public relations
                                             consultants, campaigns, paid media, materials, incentives, etc.).
        d. ____                                d. Basic Evaluation: Estimate of the cost for conducting the
                                             basic evaluation (minimum of one measurement of public awareness).
        e. ____                                e. Total: Verification that budget totals amount specified in
                                             Appendix D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Optional In-Depth Evaluation Application Checklist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     In-Depth Evaluation Elements:

[[Page 29884]]

 
a. ____                a. Measurement: Description of how, where and
                     when statewide public awareness of the program and
                     statewide seat belt usage will be measured (must be
                     at least three times during the project period), as
                     well as any other measures that will be taken.
b. ____                b. Management and Implementation: Description of
                     how the evaluation effort will be implemented,
                     managed and documented.
                     Budget for the In-Depth Evaluation:
c. ____                c. Cost of observational surveys.
d. ____                d. Cost of telephone surveys.
e. ____                e. Cost of other surveys (if applicable).
f. ____                f. Cost of other data collection activities (if
                     applicable).
g. ____                g. Cost of data analysis.
h. ____                h. Other In-Depth Evaluation Cost Elements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-13790 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P