[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38911-38918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17993]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1345

[Docket No. NHTSA-01-10154]
RIN 2127-AH40


Occupant Protection Incentive Grants

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces that the regulations that were 
published in an interim final rule to implement an occupant restraint 
program established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA 21) will remain in effect, with some modifications. Under 
the final rule, States can qualify for incentive grant funds if they 
adopt and implement effective programs to reduce highway deaths and 
injuries resulting from individuals riding unrestrained or improperly 
restrained in motor vehicles.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on July 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Joan Tetrault, Office of State and 
Community Services, NSC-01, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington 
DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2121; or Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, Office of 
Chief Counsel, NCC-30; telephone (202) 366-1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA 21), Pub. L. 105-178, was signed into law on June 9, 1998. 
Section 2003 of the Act established a new incentive grant program under 
Section 405 of Title 23, United States Code (Section 405). Under this 
program, States may qualify for incentive grant funds by adopting and 
implementing effective programs to reduce highway deaths and injuries 
resulting from individuals riding unrestrained or improperly restrained 
in motor vehicles. The program was designed to stimulate increased seat 
belt, child safety seat and booster seat use.

Background

Effectiveness of Occupant Protection Systems

    Injuries caused by motor vehicle traffic crashes in America are a 
major health care problem and are the leading cause of death for people 
aged 5 to 35. Each year injuries caused by traffic crashes in the 
United States claim approximately 41,000 lives and cost Americans an 
estimated $150 billion. Seat belts are an effective means of reducing 
fatalities and serious injuries when traffic crashes occur. Seat belts 
are estimated to save nearly 11,000 lives each year. Lap and shoulder 
belts reduce the risk of fatal injury to front seat passenger car 
occupants by 45 percent and the risk of moderate to critical injury by 
50 percent. For light truck occupants, seat belts reduce the risk of 
fatal injury by 60 percent and moderate to critical injury by 65 
percent.
    Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury in a crash by 71 
percent for infants (less than 1 year old) and by 54 percent for 
toddlers (1-4 years old). In 1999, there were 550 occupant fatalities 
among children under 5 years of age. Of those 550 fatalities, an 
estimated 291 (53 percent) were totally unrestrained. From 1975 through 
1999, an estimated 4,500 lives were saved by the use of child 
restraints (child safety seats or adult belts). In 1999, an estimated 
307 children under age 5 were saved as a result of child restraint use.

America's Experience With Seat Belts and Child Safety Seats

    The first seat belts were installed by automobile manufacturers in 
the 1950s. Until the mid-1980s, seat belt use was very low--only 10 to 
15 percent nationwide. From 1984 through 1987, belt use increased from 
14 percent to 42 percent, as a result of the passage of seat belt use 
laws in 31 States. Belt use is now mandated in 49 States, the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Territories (which include the 
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands), but only 17 States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Territories allow law enforcement 
officials to stop a vehicle solely on the basis of observing a seat 
belt violation. Most States require that another violation must first 
be observed (i.e., secondary enforcement) before seat belt law 
violators can be stopped and issued a citation. Under these conditions, 
national seat belt usage has reached its current (2000) level of 71 
percent, and is increasing slowly (currently about 2 percentage points 
per year).

[[Page 38912]]

    The first law requiring children to be in child safety seats was 
enacted in 1978 in Tennessee. By 1985, all 50 States and the District 
of Columbia had passed child passenger laws. Statewide reported usage 
rates currently range between 60 and 90 percent, depending on the age 
of the child. Most safety seats, however, are used improperly to some 
degree.

Presidential Initiative To Increase Seat Belt and Child Safety Seat 
Usage

    In 1997, NHTSA was directed by a Presidential Initiative to 
Increase Seat Belt Usage Nationwide (Presidential Initiative) to 
achieve a seat belt use rate of 85 percent by the year 2000 and a 90 
percent seat belt use rate by 2005. The agency was further directed to 
reduce child occupant fatalities (0-4 years) by 15 percent in the year 
2000 and by 25 percent in 2005. The national seat belt use rate reached 
71 percent and the number of child occupant fatalities (0-4 years) were 
reduced by more than 15 percent by 1999 and by more than 17 percent by 
2000. The agency continues to work toward achieving a seat belt use 
rate of 90 percent and reducing child occupant fatalities an additional 
8 percent by 2005.
    The Presidential Initiative contained a four-point strategy to meet 
its goals. The first point in the strategy is to build public/private 
partnerships to address the issue of seat belt and child safety seat 
use. In addition, the strategy calls for States to enact strong laws 
and to embrace active, high-visibility enforcement. Finally, the 
strategy calls for public and private partners to conduct well-
coordinated, effective public education. The occupant protection 
incentive grant program enacted by Congress as part of TEA 21 
reinforces these elements by encouraging States to adopt and strengthen 
seat belt use laws (including laws that provide for primary, or 
standard, enforcement) and child safety seat use laws, conduct high 
visibility enforcement, and establish education programs.

TEA 21 Section 405 Program

    Section 405 provides that the Secretary of Transportation shall 
make grants to States that adopt and implement effective programs to 
reduce highway deaths and injuries resulting from individuals riding 
unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor vehicles.

Interim Final Rule

    On October 1, 1998, NHTSA published an interim final rule in the 
Federal Register to implement the Section 405 program. The interim 
final rule explained that, to qualify for funding under the Section 405 
program, a State must adopt or demonstrate at least four of the 
following six criteria: a seat belt use law; a primary (standard 
enforcement) seat belt use law; minimum fines or penalty points against 
the driver license of an individual for a violation of the State's seat 
belt use law and for a violation of the State's child passenger 
protection law; a special traffic enforcement program; a child 
passenger protection education program; and a child passenger 
protection law. The interim final rule defined the elements of the 
grant criteria and the manner in which States must demonstrate 
compliance, as described below.

Grant Criteria

1. Seat Belt Use Law
    A State must have in effect a seat belt use law that makes unlawful 
throughout the State the operation of a passenger motor vehicle 
whenever an individual (other than a child who is secured in a child 
restraint system) in the front seat of the vehicle (and, beginning in 
fiscal year 2001, in any seat in the vehicle) does not have a seat belt 
properly secured about the individual's body.
2. Primary Seat Belt Use Law
    A State must provide for the primary (or standard) enforcement of 
its seat belt use law. Under a primary enforcement law, law enforcement 
officials have the authority to enforce the law without, for example, 
the need to show that they had probable cause or had cited the offender 
for a violation of another offense.
3. Minimum Fine or Penalty Points
    A State must impose a minimum fine or provide for the imposition of 
penalty points against the driver's license of an individual for a 
violation of the seat belt use law of the State and for a violation of 
the child passenger protection law of the State. The interim 
regulations provided that the minimum fine shall mean a total monetary 
penalty of at least $25.00, which may include fines, fees, court costs 
or any other monetary assessments collected.
4. Special Traffic Enforcement Program
    A State must provide for a statewide Special Traffic Enforcement 
Program for occupant protection that emphasizes publicity for the 
program. The term ``Special Traffic Enforcement Program'' (STEP) 
references a model program that NHTSA recommends for State and 
community implementation because it has proven to be effective in 
increasing seat belt use at both statewide and community levels. STEPs 
combine public education, publicity and intensified enforcement to 
increase seat belt and child safety seat use rates.
5. Child Passenger Protection Education Program
    A State must plan to implement a statewide comprehensive child 
passenger protection education program that includes education programs 
about proper seating positions for children in air bag equipped motor 
vehicles and instruction on how to reduce the improper use of child 
restraint systems.
6. Child Passenger Protection Law
    A State must have in effect a law that requires minors who are 
riding in a passenger motor vehicle to be properly secured in a child 
safety seat or other appropriate restraint system.
    A more detailed discussion of the six elements described above is 
contained in the interim final rule (63 FR 52592-95).

Terms Governing the Incentive Grant Funds

    The interim final rule indicated that a total of $68 million has 
been authorized for the Section 405 program over a period of five 
years, beginning in fiscal year 1999. Specifically, TEA 21 authorized 
$10 million for fiscal year 1999, $10 million for fiscal year 2000, $13 
million for fiscal year 2001, $15 million for fiscal year 2002 and $20 
million for fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 1999, 38 States, the 
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and 3 U.S. territories received 
grants totaling $9.5 million and, in fiscal year 2000, 38 States, the 
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and 2 U.S. territories received 
grants totaling $9.5 million.
    Under Section 405, States are required to match the grant funds 
they receive as follows: the Federal share cannot exceed 75 percent of 
the cost of implementing and enforcing the occupant protection program 
adopted to qualify for these funds in the first and second fiscal years 
the State receives funds; 50 percent in the third and fourth fiscal 
years it receives funds; and 25 percent in the fifth and sixth fiscal 
years.
    No grant may be made to a State unless the State certifies that it 
will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for its 
occupant protection programs at or above the average level of such 
expenditures in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 (either State or federal 
fiscal year 1996 and 1997 can be used). As was stated in the interim 
final rule, the agency will accept soft matching in Section 405's 
administration, meaning that the State's share may be satisfied by the 
use of

[[Page 38913]]

either allowable costs incurred by the State or the value of in-kind 
contributions applicable to the period to which the matching 
requirement applies.

Award Procedures

    To receive a grant in any fiscal year, the interim final rule 
indicated that each State is required to submit an application to 
NHTSA, through the appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator, which 
demonstrates that the State meets the requirements of the grant being 
requested. In addition, the State must submit a certification. A more 
detailed discussion regarding the contents of the certifications is 
contained in the interim final rule (63 FR 52595-96).
    The interim final rule indicated that in both the first and in 
subsequent years, once a State has been informed that it is eligible 
for a grant, the State must include documentation in the State's 
Highway Safety Plan, prepared under Section 402, that indicates how it 
intends to use the grant funds. The documentation must include a 
Program Cost Summary (HS Form 217) obligating the section 405 funds to 
occupant protection programs.
    To be eligible for grant funds in fiscal year 1999, the interim 
rule provided that States had to submit their applications no later 
than August 1, 1999. To be eligible for grant funds in any subsequent 
fiscal years, States must submit their applications no later than 
August 1 of the fiscal year in which they are applying for funds. The 
agency strongly encouraged States to submit all of these materials in 
advance of the regulatory deadlines.
    As the agency explained in the interim final rule, the release of 
the full grant amounts under Section 405 shall be subject to the 
availability of funding for that fiscal year.
    If there are expected to be insufficient funds to award full grant 
amounts to all eligible States in any fiscal year, NHTSA stated in the 
interim final rule that it may release less than the full grant amounts 
upon initial approval of the State's application and documentation, and 
the remainder of the full grant amounts up to the State's proportionate 
share of available funds, before the end of that fiscal year.
    However, based on the agency's experience administering this grant 
program as well as the other grant programs that were authorized under 
TEA 21 in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, NHTSA has determined that it is 
not necessary to release funds in two stages. Accordingly, in FY 2001 
and in each fiscal year thereafter, all Section 405 funds will be 
released at the same time. Since applications for Section 405 funds are 
due each fiscal year by August 1, the funds will be awarded near the 
end of each fiscal year (no later than September 30).
    If there are insufficient funds to award the full grant amounts to 
all eligible States in any fiscal year, NHTSA will award each State its 
proportionate share of available funds. As stated in the interim final 
rule, project approval, and the contractual obligation of the Federal 
government to provide grant funds, shall be limited to the amount of 
funds released.
    As explained in the interim final rule, if any funds remain 
available under 23 U.S.C. Sections 405, 410 and 411 at the end of a 
fiscal year, the Secretary may transfer these funds to the amounts made 
available under any other of these programs to ensure, to the maximum 
extent possible, that each State receives the maximum incentive funding 
for which it is eligible.

Request for Comments

    The agency requested comments from interested persons on the 
interim final rule that was published in October 1, 1998. Comments were 
due by November 30. The agency stated in the interim final rule that 
all comments submitted to the agency would be considered and that, 
following the close of the comment period, the agency would publish a 
document in the Federal Register responding to the comments and, if 
appropriate, would make revisions to the provisions of Part 1345.

Comments Received

    The agency received submissions from seven commenters in response 
to the interim final rule. Comments were received from Henry M. Jasny, 
General Counsel for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) 
and six states. The State comments were submitted by Betty J. Mercer, 
Division Director, Office of Highway Safety Planning, Michigan 
Department of State Police (Michigan); Albert E. Goke, Chief of the 
Montana Traffic Safety Bureau, Governor's Representative for Highway 
Traffic Safety (Montana); Ken Carpenter, State of New York, Governor's 
Traffic Safety Committee, Department of Motor Vehicles (New York); 
Thomas E. Bryer, P.E., Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Highway 
Safety & Traffic Engineering (Pennsylvania); James R. Grate, Manager, 
West Virginia Highway Safety Program (West Virginia); and Charles H. 
Thompson, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation 
(Wisconsin). The comments, and the agency's responses to them, are 
discussed in detail below.
1. General Comments
    Some of the comments received in response to the interim final rule 
were positive. For example, Montana welcomed the addition of this 
incentive grant program and Advocates stated that it is ``supportive of 
any legislative or agency initiated efforts to increase seat belt use 
rates. Seat belt use is the most effective means of ensuring occupant 
protection in most crash modes.'' Advocates stated also that it 
``generally supports NHTSA's approach in the interim final rule and the 
criteria adopted by NHTSA in this rule.''
    Additional comments related to the specific requirements that 
States must meet to qualify for a grant. These comments, and the 
agency's response to them, are discussed specifically below.
2. Seat Belt Use Law Criterion
    The interim final rule provided that, to meet the seat belt use law 
criterion beginning in FY 2001, a State's seat belt use law must 
require seat belt use in all seating positions in a vehicle. Michigan 
commented that resistance to seat belt use laws will make it difficult 
for many States to upgrade laws to all seating positions. Although 
Michigan recognized that the requirement for such laws was included in 
the statute, it asserted that ``NHTSA should recognize that States will 
need considerable assistance in strategic planning and garnering 
general public support if upgraded belt laws are to become a reality in 
this country.''
    The agency agrees that States may need technical assistance, such 
as data on injuries and fatalities involving unbelted occupants riding 
in rear seating positions, to help gain public support for such laws 
and the agency is prepared to provide such assistance. However, the 
purpose of the Section 405 program, and the seat belt use law 
criterion, was not merely to reward the status quo, but rather to 
provide an incentive for States to strengthen their laws and improve 
their programs. Moreover, even if States are not able to pass enhanced 
seat belt use laws, they still may qualify for funds under Section 405 
by meeting four out of the remaining five criteria.
    The interim rule indicated that the agency had decided to permit 
exceptions in seat belt use laws for persons with medical excuses; 
postal, utility and other commercial drivers who make frequent stops in 
the course of their business; emergency vehicle operators and 
passengers; persons riding in positions not equipped with seat

[[Page 38914]]

belts; persons in public and livery conveyances; persons riding in 
parade vehicles; and persons in the custody of police.
    Advocates supported some of these exceptions, but disagreed with 
the agency's decision to permit exceptions for utility and other 
commercial drivers who make frequent stops in the course of their 
business. Advocates stated that, ``despite the adoption of such an 
exemption in some state laws, this exemption is vague, since the term 
`frequent stops' is not defined, and is based on convenience rather 
than necessity. Exemptions from safety regulations should not be based 
on practical convenience, especially where the exceptions may undermine 
the general requirement.''
    As the agency noted in the interim final rule, prior to the 
issuance of that document, the agency had reviewed existing State 
occupant protection laws to determine whether they contained any 
exceptions. We determined that a number of States made it unlawful for 
an individual to ride unrestrained in a motor vehicle, but provided an 
exception for utility or other commercial drivers who make frequent 
stops in the course of their business.
    Although the Section 405 statute did not specifically provide for 
such an exception, the agency did not believe it was Congress' intent 
that the statute be read so literally as to penalize every State whose 
laws contained any exceptions at all. Accordingly, the agency 
considered whether this exception, and the others found in State laws 
at that time, would either be incompatible with the language of the 
statute or would so severely undermine the safety considerations 
underlying the statute so as to render a State whose law contains the 
exception ineligible from the incentive grant program.
    In the agency's view, the exception that permits utility or other 
commercial drivers to ride unrestrained is limited and addresses a 
legitimate need for convenience in certain circumstances. In addition, 
we believe that this exception is not inconsistent with the language of 
the statute and would not severely undermine the safety considerations 
underlying the statute. We continue to believe that such an exception 
should be permitted.
    Accordingly, this portion of the interim regulation is adopted 
without change.
3. Primary Seat Belt Use Law Criterion
    Michigan commented that it will be difficult for States with 
secondary enforcement laws to upgrade to primary enforcement laws and 
that many States will be unable to meet the primary belt use law 
criterion within the period of eligibility. Michigan stated that 
``resources and expertise should be gathered to develop a workable 
successful approach to attaining a national change in attitude among 
the general public about these laws.''
    Advocates, on the other hand, supported the primary seat belt use 
law criterion. It stated that ``such laws are generally considered the 
single most effective means of increasing state seat belt use rates, 
especially when combined with heightened enforcement and publicity.''
    The agency firmly believes that primary seat belt use laws, 
especially when they are actively enforced with high visibility, 
represent the most effective means of increasing seat belt use rates. 
Studies indicate that, overall, States with primary seat belt use laws 
achieve significantly higher seat belt use rates (NHTSA, 1999). For 
example, the June 2000 National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) 
shows that the average seat belt use rate in States with primary 
enforcement laws was 77 percent, while the average seat belt use rate 
in States with secondary enforcement laws was only 63 percent.
    Further, the public's support for primary enforcement of seat belt 
laws appears to be increasing. According to a 1998 NHTSA survey on 
attitudes toward the enforcement of State seat belt laws, 58 percent of 
those surveyed believed that law enforcement officials should be 
allowed to stop a vehicle if a seat belt violation is observed, an 
increase from 52 percent in 1996 (Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey, 
1998). In addition, a survey conducted in 1997 by Public Opinion 
Strategies found that 61 percent of those surveyed supported primary 
enforcement of seat belt use laws.
    Moreover, as stated previously regarding the seat belt use law 
criterion of the Section 405 program, the purpose of the program, and 
the primary seat belt use law criterion, was not merely to reward the 
status quo, but rather to provide an incentive for States to strengthen 
their laws and improve their programs. In addition, even if States are 
not able to enact enhanced seat belt use laws, they may still qualify 
for funds under Section 405 by meeting four out of the remaining five 
criteria.
    For all of these reasons, this portion of the interim regulation is 
adopted without change.
4. Minimum Fine or Penalty Points Criterion
    To qualify under the minimum fine or penalty points criterion, a 
State must impose a minimum fine or provide for the imposition of 
penalty points against the driver's license of an individual for a 
violation of the seat belt use law of the State and for a violation of 
the child passenger protection law of the State. The interim final rule 
provided that the term ``minimum fine'' means ``a total monetary 
penalty that may include fines, fees, court costs, or any other 
additional monetary assessments collected.'' The interim rule provided 
further that the minimum fine must amount to ``not less than $25.00.''
    The agency received three comments objecting to the $25 minimum 
fine set by the agency. Wisconsin commented that ``the interim final 
rule arbitrarily establishes $25 as the minimum monetary penalty * * 
*'' It recommended instead that each State should be allowed to set its 
own minimum fine and stated that the minimum fine ``should be set at 
the lowest non-zero monetary penalty being used by any State,'' which 
it believed to be $10. Wisconsin indicated that ``relative to many 
traffic law violations, both $10 and $25 are rather nominal monetary 
penalties, and the difference between the two figures is hardly worth 
the political capital that would be required to convince a state 
legislature to increase the fine from the lower level to the higher 
level. The interim final rule should not penalize states that have had 
`a' monetary penalty, albeit under $25, in place for many years.''
    Montana also objected to the $25 minimum fine, stating that 
``significant fines in rural states surely are not as high as those 
imposed in highly urban areas. Typically, rural states with lower 
incomes and lesser densities enact fines suited to their own 
conditions.'' Montana noted that a $20 fine is the average fine imposed 
in that State for a variety of traffic penalties. Further, Montana 
stated that ``you remember when Montana was known for its $5.00 energy 
conservation fine imposed on drivers for speeding. That small fine was 
sufficient to maintain deterrence in our driving majority to avoid 
speeding, to remind the public of its driving responsibilities, and I 
believe to contribute to our success in achieving safety restraint 
usage rates at a high level of compliance.'' Montana proposed that the 
minimum fine level be set at $20, which would allow it to comply with 
the minimum penalty requirement.
    West Virginia commented that ``NHTSA has overstepped their 
authority by interpreting what Congress meant by the term `minimum' and 
setting that minimum amount at $25.'' The State expressed its belief 
that

[[Page 38915]]

Congress' intent was to allow each individual State to decide what its 
minimum fine should be.
    By contrast, Advocates asserted that the minimum $25 fine was 
insufficient. It stated that, ``such a low penalty threshold sends the 
message that seat belt and child restraint laws are trivial matters * * 
*.'' Advocates stated that it was ``not convinced that fines of $25, 
even when accompanied by court fees and costs, comprise a sufficient 
deterrent to violations of belt and child restraint use laws.'' It 
asserted that the agency should not ``merely adopt a minimum fine level 
that represents the current lowest common denominator in existing 
practice,'' but instead should adopt a minimum fine level that will 
``encourage States to achieve higher standards of belt use through 
tougher State law requirements, including sanctions.''
    Advocates argued also that because the interim regulation allowed a 
State to demonstrate compliance with the minimum fine criterion through 
laws, regulations or binding policy directives, or ``as a matter of 
general judicial practice without specification in state law,'' the 
criterion could be met ``by nearly any State law and does not require 
improvements in State action or enforcement.''
    Lastly, Advocates asserted that low level monetary fines are not an 
equivalent to penalty points on a license. Although Advocates 
recognized that the statute allows State laws to qualify if they 
establish a minimum fine, it stated that this ``does not mean that the 
regulatory criteria should specify a fine that is minimal.''
    After considering carefully all of the comments received regarding 
this criterion, NHTSA has decided that it will not change the $25.00 
minimum fine requirement. As indicated in the interim final rule, the 
agency believes that it would be inconsistent with Congressional intent 
to allow States who provide for nominal or insignificant penalties to 
qualify for incentive grant funds with this criterion. At the same 
time, the agency does not want to set a minimum fine level that would 
prohibit rural States or States with higher poverty levels from 
reasonably meeting this criterion. During its review of State laws, the 
agency found that many States set a maximum fine level but did not 
establish a minimum fine for seat belt or child restraint violations. 
The agency determined that setting a $25 minimum fine level would 
challenge States to establish stronger standards for seat belt and 
child restraint violations, without imposing unreasonable burdens. 
While the regulation sets forth minimum penalties for seat belt use and 
child restraint violations, States are free to enact more severe 
penalties.
    With respect to Advocates' comments regarding the importance of 
penalty points, the agency agrees that penalty points are an effective 
sanction for individuals who fail to use seat belts and child 
restraints. However, as Advocates acknowledged, the statute 
specifically provides that States may qualify under the minimum fine or 
penalty points criterion by assessing either a minimum fine or penalty 
points or both. Accordingly, the agency is not at liberty to require 
that States assess penalty points to qualify for a Section 405 grant.
    Two States (New York and Pennsylvania) questioned whether their 
practice of waiving fines imposed for violations of the child passenger 
protection law, in cases where a violator presents proof of purchase of 
a child restraint system, would be permitted under the agency's 
regulations. During its review of FY 1999 grant applications, the 
agency determined that a State whose law contained such an exception 
would not be rendered ineligible from qualifying for a grant under the 
minimum fine or penalty points criterion if the State's law otherwise 
met the elements of this criterion. We have added language to the final 
rule, to reflect this determination.
5. Special Traffic Enforcement Program Criterion
    The interim final rule provided that, to qualify under the Special 
Traffic Enforcement Program criterion, a State must provide for a 
statewide Special Traffic Enforcement Program for occupant protection 
that emphasizes publicity for the program. The interim rule indicated 
that the term ``Special Traffic Enforcement Program'' (STEP) references 
a model program that NHTSA recommends for State and community 
implementation because it has proven to be effective in increasing seat 
belt use at both statewide and community levels.
    Michigan commented that the Section 405 statute does not emphasize 
``Special Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP), but uses the term 
`special traffic enforcement program' which could mean any number of 
statewide programs conducted in a manner other than the NHTSA STEP 
enforcement model.'' Although it expressed its support for the 
requirement that STEP programs must reach 70% of a State's population 
and that States must describe the statewide nature of their programs, 
it asserted that ``requiring a STEP model be implemented, however, does 
not permit the states the flexibility needed to tailor such a program 
to the needs and political climate of the state.'' It asserted that 
``the STEP approach has not been documented to be effective in all 
locations in the country, especially those states without standard 
enforcement laws or without the ability to conduct enforcement 
checkpoints.''
    Michigan recommended that the criterion should be modified to allow 
States to qualify ``by demonstrating there is a special statewide 
enforcement program, i.e., `belt saturation patrol', in place that 
reaches a specified population base and includes a statewide publicity 
campaign, not require that it follow a STEP enforcement model.''
    Advocates expressed its support for the STEP criterion, stating 
that ``we believe that STEP activities are reasonably calculated to 
improve safety belt use rates and, if properly conducted based on the 
requirements set forth in the interim final rule, should serve to 
improve seat belt use rates in the near term. We believe that such 
programs have previously proven effective because they focus states 
resources and activities on seat belt use and achieving a specific 
goal.''
    As we stated in the interim final rule, States may conduct any 
enforcement activity, including saturation patrols, as long as the 
State's enforcement efforts call for specified periods of intensified 
enforcement in defined patrol areas, coupled with statewide publicity 
to draw attention to the enforcement efforts, and are carried out in 
jurisdictions that reach 70% of the State's population.
    The agency believes that the requirements in the interim rule are 
sufficiently flexible to ensure that States are permitted to use any 
enforcement strategy available to them. Accordingly, we will not make 
any changes to the interim regulations in response to Michigan's 
comment.
    The agency notes that this portion of the regulation uses the term 
``police.'' Recognizing that law enforcement activities are conducted 
by police and also by law enforcement officials who perform their 
duties under other titles, the agency has replaced the term ``police'' 
each time it appears in this portion of the regulation with the phrase 
``law enforcement officials.'' No other changes have been made to this 
portion of the regulation in this final rule.
6. Child Passenger Protection Education Program Criterion
    The interim final rule provided that, to qualify under the child 
passenger protection education program criterion,

[[Page 38916]]

a State must plan to implement a statewide child passenger protection 
education program that meets the following elements: (1) The program 
must provide information to the public about proper seating positions 
for children in air bag equipped motor vehicles, the importance of 
restraint use, and instruction on how to reduce the improper use of 
child restraint systems; (2) the program must provide for child 
passenger safety training and retraining to establish or update child 
passenger safety technicians, police officers, fire and emergency 
personnel and other educators to function at the community level for 
the purpose of educating the public about proper restraint use and to 
teach child care givers how to install a child safety seat correctly, 
and the training should encompass the goals and objectives of NHTSA's 
Standardized Child Passenger Safety Technician Curriculum; (3) the 
program must provide for periodic child safety seat clinics conducted 
by State or local agencies (health, medical, hospital, enforcement, 
etc.); and (4) each of the State's program activities (with the 
exception of the training and retraining activities) must cover at 
least 70% of the State's population; that is, the public information 
and clinic components of State programs must reach counties or other 
subdivisions of the State that collectively contain at least 70% of the 
State's population.
    Advocates asserted that the agency needed to ``provide some 
objective performance goals'' under this criterion. It stated that, 
``while this aspect of the program is well intentioned, none of the 
requirements stated in the interim final rule, with the exception of 
the need to cover 70% of the state population, have quantifiable goals 
or objective threshold levels against which performance can be 
assessed.'' As a result, Advocates asserted that, ``this criterion is 
easy for a state to meet but difficult for the agency to evaluate in 
terms of effectiveness and performance.''
    The agency believes that the requirements contained in the interim 
final rule are sufficient to ensure that the States establish 
meaningful child passenger protection programs. As Advocates 
acknowledged in their comments, each of the State's program activities 
(with the exception of the training and retraining activities) is 
required to cover at least 70% of the State's population. In addition, 
to demonstrate compliance with the public information program component 
in the first fiscal year in which a State wishes to qualify for a grant 
based on this criterion, it must submit a sample or synopsis of the 
content of planned public information program and the strategy that it 
plans to use to reach 70% of the targeted population. To demonstrate 
compliance with the training component, the State must submit a 
description of the activities it will use to train and retrain child 
passenger safety technicians and others, and it must provide the 
durations and locations of such training activities. Also, States must 
estimate the approximate number of people who will participate in the 
training and retraining activities and submit a plan for conducting 
clinics that will serve at least 70% of the population.
    Additional requirements are imposed on States in subsequent fiscal 
years. To demonstrate compliance with the child passenger program 
criterion after the first fiscal year a State receives a grant based on 
this criterion, States must submit an updated plan for conducting a 
child passenger protection education program in the following year and 
information documenting that the prior year's plan was effectively 
implemented. The information must document that a public information 
program, training and child safety seat clinics were conducted; 
identify which agencies were involved; and indicate the dates, 
durations and locations of these programs.
    The agency believes that these criteria are sufficient to ensure 
that meaningful child passenger protection education programs will be 
established. These requirements also will enable the agency to 
determine whether a State's child passenger safety initiatives are 
broad based and serve populations most in need of child passenger 
safety information. Accordingly, the agency has decided not to add any 
new compliance criteria in response to Advocates' comments.
    Michigan commented that ``the NHTSA Standardized Child Passenger 
Safety technical training has been in place for a relatively short 
period of time. Because training for certification takes considerable 
time, the reality is that States will not be in a position to have the 
required number of instructors needed to reach 70% of the population in 
the first years of the eligibility period.'' To better accommodate the 
time needed to develop a network of trained child passenger safety 
instructors, Michigan encouraged the agency to adopt a more graduated 
approach to reaching the targeted population. Michigan encouraged the 
agency to amend the interim regulations to require that in fiscal year 
2000, the State's training programs reach 50% of the targeted 
population; in fiscal year 2001, the State's programs reach 60% of the 
State's population; and in fiscal year 2002, the State's programs reach 
70% of the State's population.
    The interim final rule did not require that a State's training and 
retraining activities cover 70% of the State's population. The interim 
regulations provided that a State's public information and clinic 
programs must reach 70% of the State's population, but they 
specifically excluded the training component of a State's child 
passenger education program from this requirement. Moreover, as of 
January 2001, there were more than 14,000 certified child passenger 
safety technicians trained under the NHTSA/AAA Standardized child 
passenger safety (CPS) training course, and more than 850 technician 
instructors. Accordingly, the agency is confident that the 
infrastructure of trained and certified CPS professionals is sufficient 
to meet the needs throughout the country. NHTSA has provided funding to 
States to help develop this infrastructure and States are continuing to 
dedicate highway safety grant funds to expand CPS training, education 
and outreach, as needed. Accordingly, the agency did not modify the 
interim final rule in response to this comment.
    Pennsylvania questioned the requirement that States submit a sample 
or synopsis of the contents of the planned public information program 
and the strategy that will be used to ``reach 70% of the targeted 
population.'' Specifically, Pennsylvania requested that the agency 
clarify the meaning of the term ``targeted population.''
    The agency agrees that this portion of the interim final rule 
should be clarified. The agency believes that the public information 
component of a State's child passenger protection program should cover 
70% of the State's total population and that the clinic component 
should cover 70% of a targeted population. The agency recognizes that 
70% of a State's total population does not have children of child 
safety seat or booster seat age. Accordingly, States should not be 
required to conduct clinics reaching 70% of their total population.
    The agency has modified the regulation to require that a State's 
clinic program be designed to reach at least 70% of a targeted 
population, and the term ``targeted population'' has been defined to 
mean ``a specific group of people chosen by the State to receive 
instruction on proper use of child restraint systems.'' The regulation 
also has been modified to require that States identify the target 
population for their clinic programs and provide a rationale for 
choosing a specific group, supported

[[Page 38917]]

by data, where possible. For example, a State may choose to target all 
parents and care givers of children child safety seat age or booster 
seat age if data identify a statewide problem. Alternatively, a State 
may design its clinic program to focus on a lack of restraint use or 
high misuse rate among a specified minority, low-income or rural 
population, if data show a disproportionately high problem among that 
population as compared to data for the rest of the State.
    We have determined, however, that the public information component 
of the State's child passenger protection education program should 
reach 70% of the State's total population. The public information 
campaign should be designed to raise awareness among the population as 
a whole of the importance of child restraint use.
    We believe that these changes will give States flexibility in 
determining how to best structure their child passenger protection 
education programs and ensure that those groups most in need of 
instruction on the proper use of child restraint systems will receive 
this information.
    In addition, the agency notes that this portion of the regulation 
also uses the term ``police.'' As stated previously, law enforcement 
officials perform their duties under a variety of titles, not limited 
to the title ``police.'' Accordingly, the agency has replaced the term 
``police'' each time it appears in this portion of the regulation with 
the phrase ``law enforcement officials.''
7. Child Passenger Protection Law Criterion
    The interim final rule provided that, to qualify under this 
criterion, a State must make unlawful the operation of a passenger 
motor vehicle whenever an individual who is less than 16 years of age 
is not properly secured in a child safety seat or other appropriate 
restraint system in any seating position of the vehicle. The agency 
noted in the interim final rule that some States currently allow some 
children under age 16 to ride unrestrained if they are in the rear seat 
of passenger vehicles or if they ride in certain excepted vehicles. The 
agency stated in the interim rule that it believes the intent of the 
legislation was to eliminate these gaps in coverage.
    In its comments, Advocates agreed with the agency that the intent 
of this criterion was to close the gaps in current State laws and 
Advocates asserted that ``no exceptions should be permitted in order to 
qualify under this criterion.''
    The agency has considered exceptions under this criterion very 
carefully, and only limited exceptions have been permitted, such as 
when children under the age of 16 ride on a school bus or when children 
under age 16 have a medical or physical condition that would prevent 
appropriate restraint and their condition is certified by a physician.
    Accordingly, this portion of the interim regulation is adopted 
without change.
8. Limitation on Grant Amounts
    The interim final rule provided that no grant may be made to a 
State unless the State certifies that it will maintain its aggregate 
expenditures from all other sources for its occupant protection program 
at or above the level of such expenditures in fiscal years 1996 and 
1997. Pennsylvania questioned what the agency meant by the term ``all 
other sources'' and recommended that the agency clarify this provision.
    The agency recognizes that, in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, some 
States expended unusually large sums of money on their occupant 
protection programs and that these sums were from special funding 
sources that are no longer available. In particular, many States 
experienced a transfer of funds in fiscal year 1995, under the Section 
153 program, because they did not have in effect conforming motorcycle 
helmet or seat belt use legislation. Some of these States chose to use 
these funds to upgrade their occupant protection programs and, in many 
cases, the funds that had been transferred in fiscal year 1995 were 
expended in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
    The agency believes that the maintenance of effort requirement 
contained in the Section 405 program was intended to ensure that States 
maintain their ordinary spending on their occupant protection programs 
and that the funds they receive under the Section 405 program will 
supplement those expenditures and not replace them. The agency does not 
believe the requirement was intended to match special or unusual 
funding resources, such as the Section 153 transfer or other funds made 
available to States under Chapter 1 of Title 23 of the United States 
Code, some or all of which a State may choose to use also to supplement 
its ordinary spending in this area. The agency believes that the 
inclusion of these special funding sources in the maintenance of effort 
requirement would impose a hardship on the States and would not result 
in the most effective use of these resources.
    Accordingly, the regulation has been modified to clarify that 
States must maintain their aggregate expenditures from all other 
sources, except those authorized under Chapter 1 of Title 23 of the 
United States Code, for their occupant protection programs at or above 
the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
9. Section 2003(b)
    TEA 21 established a new incentive grant program under Section 
2003(b) to promote child passenger protection education and training. 
Section 2003(b) provides federal funds for activities that are designed 
to prevent deaths and injuries to children; educate the public 
concerning the design, selection, placement, and installation of child 
restraints; and train and retrain child passenger safety professionals, 
police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, and other 
educators concerning all aspects of child restraint use.
    Wisconsin questioned why the agency's interim final rule was silent 
about the eligibility criteria that will be applied for States seeking 
grants under 2003(b).
    The agency announced the availability of grants under Section 
2003(b) in notices published in the Federal Register on September 20, 
1999 (64 FR 50861) and on November 6, 2000 (65 FR 66582). The specific 
eligibility criteria for the grants were discussed in these notices.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This final rule will 
not have any preemptive or retroactive effect. The enabling legislation 
does not establish a procedure for judicial review of final rules 
promulgated under its provisions. There is no requirement that 
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.
    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures: The agency has examined the impact 
of this action and has determined that it is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures.
    This action will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or adversely affect in a material way a sector of the 
economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, 
or State, local or tribal governments or communities. It will not 
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency, and it will not materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

[[Page 38918]]

or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act: In compliance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agency has 
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based on the 
evaluation, we certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. States are the 
recipients of any funds awarded under the Section 405 program, and they 
are not considered to be small entities, as that term is defined in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    Paperwork Reduction Act: This final rule contains information 
collection requirements, as that term is defined by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part 1320. Accordingly, these 
requirements have been submitted previously to and approved by OMB, 
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). 
These requirements have been approved under OMB No. 2127-0600, through 
February 28, 2002.
    National Environmental Policy Act: The agency has analyzed this 
action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it will not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of more than $100 million annually. This final rule does not 
meet the definition of a Federal mandate, because the resulting annual 
expenditures will not exceed the $100 million threshold. In addition, 
this incentive grant program is completely voluntary and States that 
choose to apply and qualify will receive incentive grant funds.
    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This action has been analyzed 
in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 13132, and it has been determined that this action does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment. Accordingly, the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment is not warranted.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1345

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

    In consideration of the foregoing, the interim final rule published 
in the Federal Register of October 1, 1998, 63 FR 52592, adding a new 
Part 1345 to chapter II of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
is adopted as final, with the following changes:

PART 1345--INCENTIVE GRANT CRITERIA FOR OCCUPANT PROTECTION 
PROGRAMS

    1. The authority citation for Part 1345 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Pub. L. 105-178; 23 U.S.C. 405; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


    2. Section 1345.3 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 1345.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (f) Targeted population means a specific group of people chosen by 
a State to receive instruction on proper use of child restraint 
systems.

    3. Section 1345.4 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(iv) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 1345.4  General requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) It will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other 
sources, except those authorized under Chapter 1 of Title 23 of the 
United States Code, for its occupant protection programs at or above 
the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 
(either State or federal fiscal year 1996 and 1997 can be used);
* * * * *

    4. Section 1345.5 is amended as follows:
    a. A new paragraph (c)(4) is added;
    b. Paragraph (d)(2) is amended by removing the word ``police'' and 
adding in its place ``law enforcement officials''; and paragraph (d)(5) 
is amended by removing the word ``police'' and adding in its place 
``law enforcement'';
    c. Paragraph (e)(1)(iv) is revised; paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and 
(e)(2)(ii) are amended by removing the term ``police officers'' each 
time it appears and adding in its place ``law enforcement officials''; 
and paragraph (e)(2)(i) is amended by removing the word ``targeted'' 
and adding in its place ``State's''.
    The addition and revision read as follows:


Sec. 1345.5  Requirements for a grant.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) If a State has in effect a law that provides for the imposition 
of a fine of not less than $25.00 or one or more penalty points for a 
violation of the State's child passenger protection law, but provides 
that imposition of the fine or penalty points may be waived if the 
offender presents proof of the purchase of a child safety seat, the 
State shall be deemed to have in effect a law that provides for the 
imposition of a minimum fine or penalty points, as provided in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) The States's public information program must reach at least 
70% of the State's total population. The State's clinic program must 
reach at least 70% of a targeted population determined by the State and 
States must provide a rationale for choosing a specific group, 
supported by data, where possible.
* * * * *

    Issued on: July 13, 2001.
L. Robert Shelton,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 01-17993 Filed 7-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P