[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40381-40386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14750]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Discretionary Cooperative Agreements To Support the Demonstration 
of a Model Impaired Driving Records Information System

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

ACTION: Announcement of discretionary cooperative agreements to support 
the demonstration of a model impaired driving records information 
system and to evaluate its efficacy and effectiveness.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
announces a discretionary cooperative agreement to solicit support for 
the demonstration of a model impaired driving records information 
system and to evaluate its efficacy and effectiveness. NHTSA is 
concerned that without a current and accurate record of driver 
information, it is difficult for law enforcement agencies, licensing 
agencies, the criminal justice system, and others to make sound 
decisions on how to respond to and take the appropriate action against 
drivers demonstrating unsafe behavior on the roadways. This cooperative 
agreement is to support the demonstration of a model impaired driving 
records information system and to evaluate its efficacy and 
effectiveness. NHTSA solicits applicable State agencies (i.e., law 
enforcement agencies, the judiciary (judges, probation officers and 
prosecutors), Motor Vehicle Administrations or Departments of Motor 
Vehicles (DMVs), highway safety offices, and others, or a consortium of 
the above.

DATES: Applications must be received no later than July 29, 2002, at 3 
p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Contracts and Procurement 
(NAD-30), ATTN: Rose Watson, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 5301, 
Washington, DC 20590. All applications must include reference to NHTSA 
Cooperative Agreement Program No. NTS-01-2-05088.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General administrative questions may 
be directed to Rose Watson, Office of Contracts and Procurement at 
(202) 366-9557 or by e-mail: [email protected]. Programmatic 
questions should be directed to J. De Carlo Ciccel, Impaired Driving 
Division, NHTSA, NTS-11, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, 
facsimile (202) 366-2766, or by e-mail: [email protected]. 
Interested applicants are advised that no separate application packages 
exist beyond the contents of this announcement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) is to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting 
from motor vehicle crashes. Each year, more than 1.4 million drivers 
are arrested for alcohol-impaired driving in the U.S. States bear the 
primary responsibility for enacting impaired driving laws and 
enforcing, adjudicating, and imposing sanctions against offenses. The 
driver license and licensing process provides a basis for driver 
control measures. During the 1950's, all States implemented an 
examination with road test as a condition of obtaining a driver 
license. License actions have become a central component of efforts to 
deter drinking and driving. Driver license sanctions are now almost 
universally used either administratively or through the judicial 
system. The effects of license suspension/revocation are short and 
long-term. The loss of the offender's privilege to drive by suspending 
or revoking a license for driving while intoxicated (DWI) has proven 
successful in reducing drinking and driving behavior. Although vehicle-
based sanctions (e.g., ignition interlock devices and the forfeiture or 
impoundment of offenders' vehicles) hold great promise as deterrent 
measures, States rely heavily on removal of the offender's license as a 
primary penalty for driving under the influence (DUI), because it is 
the most cost-effective sanction available, particularly when applied 
to first-time offenders.
    There are also instances in some States where license withdrawal is 
required as a penalty for offenses that lie outside the ambit of 
typical motor vehicle laws (e.g., use of a motor vehicle in the 
commission of a felony, motor vehicle theft, discharging a firearm from 
a motor vehicle, committing an immoral act in which a motor vehicle was 
used, advocating the overthrow of the government, defacing public or 
private property, non-payment of child support, withdrawal from high 
school, and illegal use of alcohol and other drugs). Often these 
violations and other driver history information are not transmitted to 
relevant agencies within state jurisdictions or between the States. 
This omission hinders roadside enforcement, the identification of 
problem drivers, and ultimately, the safety of others.
    While the transmission of this type of information is critical, it 
must be timely, accurate, reliable, and complete to be effective. 
Timely and accurate information is essential to the adjudication 
process. Decisions regarding licensing actions and penalties need to be 
based on an individual's complete driving history. Persons previously 
convicted of a variety of traffic offenses and violations should be 
sanctioned differently than those with no or otherwise minor traffic 
offenses. A fully developed driver history records information system 
for impaired driving would be a powerful tool for States to assist in 
developing an effective system of deterrence for the impaired driver. 
Yet, few States have such a system. For example, delays in reporting or 
exchanging information regarding the disposition of traffic citations 
between the courts and licensing agencies commonly last six months or 
longer--sufficient time for a driver to commit additional traffic 
offenses. ``At-risk'' drivers continue to drive virtually undetected, 
putting others at risk of death, injury, or loss of property.
    NHTSA is concerned that without a current and accurate record of 
driver information, it is difficult for law

[[Page 40382]]

enforcement agencies, licensing agencies and others in the criminal 
justice system to make sound decisions on how to respond to drivers 
demonstrating unsafe behavior on the roadways. To correct this 
deficiency, NHTSA developed a model for an Impaired Driving Records 
Information System and an implementation guide that allows for 
accurate, reliable, and timely exchange and transmission of data 
between the law enforcement agencies, the courts, and the DMVs. In 
addition, model requirements identify core and essential data elements, 
relevant records, and performance standards to receive, store, and 
transmit data.
    Many states have some form of a judiciary-based citation or case-
based impaired driving tracking system. However, as states have 
increasingly enacted administrative license and vehicle sanctions for 
impaired driving, DMVs have taken on an increasingly important role in 
managing these sanctions through the driver licensing systems. With the 
advent of electronic citation systems and technologies that allow 
immediate access by patrol officers to driver license and vehicle 
registration information, enforcement agencies also have an 
increasingly important role in developing and managing an Impaired 
Driving Records Information System. The system includes impaired 
driving-related information that is collected and managed by the 
system's stakeholders. Key system stakeholders in all states include 
law enforcement agencies, the criminal justice system (i.e., judges, 
probation officers, and prosecutors), DMVs, and highway safety offices. 
Within most states, other stakeholders may include treatment and 
correctional agencies, which may also maintain offender-based 
information systems. A model was developed for implementation within 
and among states for use as a collective resource and to curb the 
installation of costly and duplicative record systems.
    The project under this cooperative agreement encompasses the 
totality of a State's efforts to generate, transmit, store, update, 
link, manage, report, and retrieve information on impaired driving 
offenders and citations. Through the use of up-to-date technology and 
cooperative arrangements between the stakeholders, a Model Impaired 
Driving Records Information System provides for electronic access to 
driver history and vehicle information, electronic collection of data, 
electronic transmission of data between stakeholders, and on-line 
access to complete, accurate, and timely information on impaired 
driving cases. The system must provide access, as required, by all key 
stakeholders and address their needs.

Objective

    The objective of this demonstration project is for States to 
implement a Model Impaired Driving Records Information System (for 
model requirements, see section titled: Model Impaired Driving Records 
Information System Requirements) and evaluate its efficacy and 
effectiveness. A Model Impaired Driving Records Information System 
enables a State to effectively perform the following functions:
    (1) Appropriately identify, charge and sanction impaired driving 
offenders, based on their driving history;
    (2) Manage impaired driving cases from arrest through the 
completion of court and administrative sanctions;
    (3) Identify target populations and trends, evaluate 
countermeasures, and identify problematic components of the overall 
impaired driving control system;
    (4) Provide stakeholders with adequate and timely information 
necessary to fulfill their responsibilities; and
    (5) Reduce administrative costs for system stakeholders and 
increase system efficiencies. While this effort is directed at impaired 
drivers, it is understood that data on the behavior of all problem 
drivers will result from use of such a system.

Availability of Funds and Period of Support

    A total of $1.45 million is currently available to support 
demonstration efforts during the first year of performance. The 
government anticipates the award of up to 3 cooperative agreements for 
a total performance period not to exceed 3 years, subject to the 
availability of funds. Obligation of funds for the second and third 
years will be accomplished under a separate action. Offerors should 
submit projects and associated budgets for each twelve-month cycle. 
Individual awards may range from $100 thousand to a maximum of 
$1,450,000, if only one award is made.

NHTSA Involvement

    NHTSA will be involved in all activities undertaken as part of the 
cooperative agreement program and will:
    1. Provide a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) 
to participate in the planning and management of each cooperative 
agreement and to coordinate activities between the Grantee and NHTSA.
    2. Provide information and technical assistance from other 
government sources and available resources as determined appropriate by 
the COTR.
    3. Serve as a liaison between NHTSA Headquarters, Regional Offices, 
and other (Federal, State, and local agencies) interested in a Model 
Impaired Driving Records Information System, and the grantee as 
appropriate.
    4. Stimulate the transfer of information among cooperative 
agreement recipients and others engaged in alcohol program activities, 
specifically designed to address driver history records and impaired 
driving information systems.
    5. Review and approve draft and final versions of the deliverables.

Eligibility Requirements

    Applicants are limited to key State agencies (e.g., law enforcement 
agencies, Department of Motor Vehicle Administrations, highway safety 
offices, and other applicable State agencies or a consortium of the 
above). To be deemed eligible, each application package must include a 
letter of endorsement from the Governor's Highway Safety Representative 
and a letter of cooperation and participation from key system 
stakeholders, including at a minimum: the State Supreme Court 
Administrator; the Administrator of the DMV; the Chief Executive of the 
State Police or Highway Patrol agencies; and the President of the 
State's Association of Chief's of Police and/or the President of the 
State's Sheriff's Association. The State Police Chief's Association and 
Sheriff's Association should agree to solicit the support of the local 
law enforcement agencies to also participate is this project. 
Interested applicants are advised that no fee or profit will be allowed 
under this cooperative agreement program.

Application Procedures

    Each applicant must submit one original and three copies of the 
application package to: NHTSA, Office of Contracts and Procurement 
(NAD-30), ATTN: Rose Watson, 400 7th Street SW., Room 5301, Washington, 
DC 20590. Submission of two (2) additional copies will expedite 
processing, but is not required. The application may be single spaced, 
must by typed on one side of the page only, and must include reference 
to NHTSA Cooperative Agreement No. NTS-01-2-05088. Unnecessarily 
elaborate applications beyond what is sufficient to present a complete 
and effective response to this invitation are not desired. Only

[[Page 40383]]

complete application packages received on or before due date, (See DATE 
above) will be considered. Only one award per State will be made.

Application Contents

    1. The application package must be submitted with OMB Standard Form 
(SF) 424 (Rev. 4-88, including 424A and 424B) Application for Federal 
Assistance, with the required information filled in and certifications 
and assurances signed. OMB forms are available for downloading and 
printing on the Internet at: www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants/index.html 
site. While the SF 424A deals with budget information, and Section B 
identifies Budget Categories, the available space does not permit a 
level of detail sufficient to provide meaningful evaluation of the 
proposed total costs. A supplemental sheet shall be provided which 
presents a detailed breakdown of the proposed costs, as well as any 
costs which the applicant indicates will be contributed locally as 
matching funds, in support of the demonstration project.
    2. The application shall include a project narrative statement 
which provides the following information in separately labeled 
sections:
    (a) A summary of State DWI laws and processes;
    (b) The identity of major stakeholders in the State's impaired 
driving system (include the court system and indicate whether it is 
unified or not). Describe each stakeholder's existing system for 
collecting and transmitting impaired driving information, including 
system components and capabilities, its strengths, deficiencies, and 
any improvements planned or underway.
    (c) A description of the current degree of uniformity within and 
across agencies in collecting and managing information, (i.e., among 
the courts, enforcement agencies, and DMVs). Describe the existing 
citation information flow-process from law enforcement to the 
prosecutors/courts to the State DMV. This must include identification 
of specific problems that delay or hinder the citation information 
flow-process. Include whether or not all or some enforcement agencies 
use a uniform traffic ticket (UTT) or uniform citation form (i.e., 
either an identical form or a form with exactly the same data 
elements). If different citation forms are used, describe the 
differences and the impact those differences might have on tracking 
citations through the court system(s) to the DMVs. Similarly, include 
whether or not all courts or some courts use the same forms and/or 
terminology.
    (d) Evidence of any systematic assessment or documentation of the 
impaired driving information system, including a Traffic Records 
Assessment, and any long-term improvement plans.
    (e) A description of the extent to which the State currently meets 
the ten specific features of the model system and challenges and/or 
barriers.
    (f) A detailed project plan, including timetables and milestones. 
Describe the proposed model improvements/innovations in detail and 
explain what percent of the system will be affected (e.g., all courts, 
half of enforcement agencies, etc.). Explain how each model specific 
feature will be addressed by each system improvement/innovation. 
Explain how the proposal fits into the State's long-term plans for 
improving information systems.
    (g) A list of specific innovations to hardware or software and 
methods to be employed, including costs.
    (h) A designated lead agency and project director. The application 
shall identify the proposed project director and any personnel 
considered critical to the successful documentation of the proposed 
project. Describe the roles and responsibilities of each and describe 
the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder agency. Specify a 
mechanism for ensuring participation or buy-in of the stakeholders 
throughout the project (e.g., an interagency advisory board). The 
proposed level of effort in performing various activities shall also be 
identified. A staffing plan and resume for all key project personnel 
shall be included in the application. Briefly outline the 
organizational resources and specify funds the applicant will draw 
upon, and how the applicant will provide the project management 
capability and personnel expertise to successfully perform the 
activities states herein. Include staffing titles and a 1-2 sentence 
description of the position duties. The budget should segregate 
documentation project costs from implementation and evaluation costs, 
and how the funds should be allocated. For each activity, identify 
costs by direct labor with a breakdown of costs by proposed staffing; 
direct materials/equipment with a breakdown of major cost items; total 
travel costs with an explanation of the relationship to the project; 
implementation and evaluation costs; and overhead. Clearly identify any 
financial resources by the applicant organization or other supporting 
organizations to support the project.
    (i) Letters of endorsement from the key stakeholder agencies that 
clearly state their buy-in and cooperation. Include the DMV, the State 
Supreme Court Administrators (or lower court equivalent), the Chief 
Executive of the State Police or Highway Patrol agencies, and/or the 
President of the State's Association of Chief's of Police and the 
President of the State's Sheriff's Association.
    (j) Evidence that the State has had a history of supporting 
improvements to the impaired driving information system and using up-
to-date technologies and innovations.

Model Impaired Driving Records Information System Requirements

    The Model Impaired Driving Records Information System that 
applicants are expected to implement under this program contain 
elements that provide for the following five functions: (1) Tracking 
each impaired driving offender from arrest through dismissal or 
sentence completion; (2) providing aggregate data, for example, numbers 
of arrests, convictions, BAC distribution, and offender demographics; 
(3) conforming to national standards and system performance standards; 
(4) ensuring that data is accurate, complete, and reliable; and (5) 
maintaining quality control and security features that will prevent 
core and essential data elements and/or impaired driving records from 
being compromised or corrupted.
    The model system has the following ten specific features.
    (1) Statewide coverage (i.e., DMV, all courts adjudicating impaired 
driving cases, all law enforcement agencies).
    (2) ``Real-time'' electronic access--the ability of law enforcement 
officers, DMVs, and the courts, including judges and prosecutors, to 
directly access driver license history information (e.g., license 
history and current status; vehicle registration status; applicable 
criminal history, and outstanding warrants) intrastate and potentially 
interstate, without relying on a dispatcher or other intermediary.
    (3) An electronic citation system that is used by officers at the 
roadside and/or at the police station and that supports the use of bar-
code, magnetic striping, or other technologies to automatically capture 
driver license and registration information on the citation and other 
standard legal forms, such as an implied consent form.
    (4) A citation tracking system that accepts electronic citation 
data (and other standard legal forms) from enforcement agencies; 
provides real-time tracking from the distribution of citation forms, to 
issuance by police officers, through final adjudication, and the 
imposition and completion of administrative and judicial sanctions; 
provides access by citation number and

[[Page 40384]]

by offender; and allows on-line access by stakeholders.
    (5) Immediate electronic transmission of data from enforcement 
agencies and the judicial process to the driver license system to 
permit immediate and automatic imposition of administrative sanctions, 
if applicable, and the recordation of convictions on the driver 
license.
    (6) Electronic reporting to the courts and DMVs by probation, 
treatment, or correctional agencies, as applicable, with regard to 
compliance or non-compliance with administrative or court sanctions.
    (7) Linkage of information from the incident/case tracking system 
and the offender-based DMV license, treatment, and probation systems to 
develop a complete record for each offender, including driver history.
    (8) Timely access by all stakeholders, including the highway safety 
office, periodic to statistical reports needed to support agency 
operations and to manage the impaired driving control system, identify 
trends, and support problem identification, policy development, and 
evaluation of countermeasures.
    (9) Flexibility to include additional data and technological 
innovations.
    (10) Compliance with national standards developed by, for example, 
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and 
the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
    The core data elements in the system include the following:

 Driver identifying information to include: name, address, 
driver license number, date of birth, and physical characteristics 
(i.e., gender, height, eye color, etc.),
 Driver license class and endorsements, status (valid, 
suspended, revoked, cancelled, hardship, commercial driver license 
(CDL), etc.), and restrictions,
 Vehicle license plate number and state of registration, status 
(e.g., registered, impounded, stolen), Vehicle Identification Number 
(VIN), and DOT carrier identification number for commercial vehicles,
 Relevant criminal history,
 Outstanding warrants and other administrative actions,
 In accordance with state policies for posting and retaining 
information on the driver record, offender's history or prior non-
impaired driving traffic convictions and associated penalties, impaired 
driving convictions and/or pre-conviction administrative actions and 
associated penalties, crashes, current accumulated license penalty 
points, and administrative license actions,
 Outstanding citations or arrests,
 Arrest/citation information,
     citation number(s), date, time of day, roadway location 
and jurisdiction,
     arresting officer (LEA identifier),
     violation(s) charged,
     crash involvement, severity, number of passengers,
     alcohol test result: refusal, alcohol concentration 
(blood, breath, or other), or missing,
     drug test result: refusal, drugs detected, or missing,
     results of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and other 
field tests, as applicable.
 Pre-conviction administrative license and vehicle penalties 
imposed,
     type and length of sanction,
     date imposed,
 Prosecution/adjudication data,
     court case identifier and specific identifiers for the 
court, judge, and jurisdiction,
     date of arraignment,
     date of disposition,
     completion or non-completion of pre-conviction or pre-
sentence deferral program (court deferred sentencing or conviction 
pending offender's completion of alcohol or other drug treatment 
program and/or other conditions),
     final disposition of charge (dismissed, acquitted, plea to 
reduced charge (specify), convicted of original charge after trial, 
diversion program, adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, pending, 
etc.),
     court penalties imposed (jail sentence, fines and 
penalties, probation, substance abuse assessment/treatment, ignition 
interlock device, community service, house arrest, dollar amount of 
fines, fees, and for victim restitution, vehicle forfeiture, license 
revocation or suspension, and other),
     probation report and/or pre-sentence assessment 
information, if applicable by law,
 Subsequent violations, including driving while suspended/
revoked, during license suspension period and resulting penalties,
 Completion of treatment/assessment (start and finish dates),
 Completion/non-completion of court and/or administrative 
sanctions,
 Penalties for failure to complete court and/or administrative 
sanctions or violations of probation, including license suspension/
revocation,
 Whether license reinstated and if so, date of reinstatement,
    A Model Impaired Driving Information system represents a collective 
effort involving DMVs, law enforcement agencies, the courts, and other 
agency stakeholders to ensure each organization has ready access to the 
information needed to plan and manage its work effectively and 
efficiently. The system also enables the highway safety office, the 
legislature, and other legitimate users in the highway safety community 
to obtain periodic and special statistical reports on the impaired 
driving system. The following are examples of the types of data that 
would be periodically generated or available on an ad hoc basis through 
a user-friendly protocol to the extent that state laws and policies 
permit:
 Referral rates to treatment statewide, by jurisdiction, and 
court and rate of treatment completion/non-completion,
 Conviction rate, BAC refusal rate, age and gender of offender 
statewide and by jurisdiction,
 Number of first and repeat offenders statewide and by 
jurisdiction,
 BAC distribution statewide and by jurisdiction, enforcement 
agency, etc.,
 Plea bargain rates statewide and by jurisdiction,
 Sentence or adjudication diversions/deferrals, if applicable,
 Referrals to treatment by first-time and repeat offenders,
 Numbers of license and vehicle sanctions imposed by DMV
 Average time from arrest to first court appearance, 
conviction, and sentencing, statewide, by jurisdiction, and by court
 Numbers of warrants issued for failure to appear, etc., 
statewide and by jurisdiction
 Subsequent violations, including driving while suspended/
revoked, and resulting penalties during suspension/revocation

Review Procedures, Criteria and Evaluation Factors

    Upon receipt of the application package, each package will 
initially be reviewed to ensure eligibility and that the application 
contains all of the items specified in the Application Contents Section 
of this announcement. An Evaluation Committee using the criteria 
outlined below will then review applications.
    The application package must concisely address the following 
criteria:

[[Page 40385]]

    1. The history of improvements to the impaired driving information 
system and the use of up-to-date technological innovations. (5 percent)
    2. The range of DWI laws and systems (e.g., unified versus non 
unified court system, criminal versus civil offense, rural versus 
urban, complicated versus simple laws). Include range of DWI laws, 
systems, and innovative approaches proposed. (15 percent)
    3. The extent to which proposed innovations leverage/build upon/
complement existing efforts. (10 percent)
    4. The extent to which technological innovations can be transferred 
to other states. (5 percent)
    5. The extent to which the State has documented and assessed 
current system(s) and developed short and long-term plans for 
improvement. This includes but is not limited to: (a) how citations are 
provided to the court system (i.e., mailed, hand-carried, faxed, 
electronic transfer, etc.); and (b) the approximate length of time (for 
90% of drivers charged with alcohol-related driving offenses) from 
citation issuance or arrest through adjudication, from adjudication to 
the State DMV, then posted to the driver's license record and made 
available to law enforcement and the court system. (15 percent)
    6. How technological innovations will improve system(s). (5 
percent)
    7. How the system improvements meet the five functions and ten 
features of the model system, described above. (20 percent)
    8. The proposal's feasibility, realism, and the ability of the lead 
agency, with stakeholder cooperation and buy-in, to implement a 
statewide model impaired driving information system. (10 percent)
    9. The clarity and soundness of the project management structure, 
budget and the delineation of partners and stakeholders role in the 
project. The project personnel will be reviewed in terms of 
qualifications and experience. The staffing of the project should be 
adequate to manage and implement the project. Clearly identify 
estimated costs and provide sound rationale for the proposed budget. 
This includes how funding will be used to improve the existing system, 
including but not limited to existing citation information flow 
problems, if indicated. Financial contributions from stakeholder 
sources will be evaluated. Among equally-rated proposals, preference 
will be given to applicants with matching state funds. (15 percent)

Terms and Conditions of Award

    1. Prior to award, each grantee must comply with the certification 
requirements of 49 CFR part 20, Department of Transportation New 
Restrictions on Lobbying, and 49 CFR part 29, Debarment of 
Transportation government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-
procurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug Free Workplace 
(Grants).
    2. Reporting Requirement and Deliverables:
    a. Quarterly Progress Reports should include a summary of the 
previous quarter's activities and accomplishments, as well as the 
proposed activities for the upcoming quarter. Any decisions and actions 
required in the upcoming quarter should be included in the report. The 
grantee shall provide a progress report to the Contracting Office's 
Technical Representative (COTR) every ninety (90)-days following date 
of award, except when a final report is due.
    b. Project Work Plan, Implementation, and Evaluation Plan, with 
timelines to include critical path, major and minor milestones, and 
system checks. The grantee shall submit project work plan, 
implementation plan and evaluation plans with timelines incorporating 
comments received from the NHTSA COTR no more than 2 months after award 
of this agreement. This involves identification and resolution of 
potential technical problems and critical issues related to successful 
completion of this project. Briefly outline a specific work plan to 
document your project's history, how to implement a similar project, 
and a plan to evaluate its efficacy and effectiveness to include 
lessons-learned, best practices, organizational support, and costs. 
This outline should identify specific tasks required to accomplish the 
goals and objectives of the project, detailing how the system will be 
documented for replication by another agency. The specific innovations, 
interventions, and activities must be included in the work plan.
    c. Draft Final Report. The grantee shall prepare a Draft Final 
Report that includes a description of the implemented project or 
system, partners, system design and innovations, evaluation methodology 
and findings, and recommendations for system improvements. In terms of 
ability to transfer the technology or the system to another State, it 
is important to know what worked and did not work, under what 
circumstances, and what can be done to avoid potential problems in 
future projects. The grantee shall submit the Draft Final Report to the 
COTR 90 days prior to the end of the performance period. The COTR will 
review the draft report and provide comments to the grantee within 30 
days of receipt of the document.
    d. Final Report. The grantee shall revise the Draft Final Report to 
reflect the COTR's comments. The revised final report shall be 
delivered to the COTR one (1) month before the end of the performance 
period. The grantee shall supply the COTR one-camera ready version of 
the document, as printed and one copy, on appropriate media (diskette, 
etc.) of the document in the original program format that was used for 
the printing process. Some documents require several different original 
program languages (e.g., PageMaker for general layout and design, 
PowerPoint for charts, Project for project timeline management, and 
another for photographs, etc.). Each of these component parts should be 
available on disk, properly labeled with the program format and the 
file names. For example, PowerPoint files should be clearly identified 
by both a descriptive name and file name (e.g., 2000 Fatalities--
chart1.ppt). The document must be completely assembled with all colors, 
charts, sidebars, photographs, and graphics. This can be delivered to 
NHTSA on a standard 1.44 floppy diskette (for small documents) or on 
any appropriate archival media (for larger documents) such as a CD ROM, 
TR-1 Mini cartridge, Syquest disk, etc. The grantee shall provide four 
additional hard copies of the final document.
    e. Briefings, Presentations and System Demonstrations. The Grantee 
shall make a briefing and system demonstration to NHTSA officials and 
other invited parties in Washington, DC at the completion of the 
project. The Grantee shall make a presentation concerning the project 
at a minimum of one national meeting (e.g., American Association of 
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) or the National Association of 
Governor's Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR)). The Grantee shall 
prepare an article and submit it for publication in a professional 
journal. An initial briefing, an interim briefing approximately midway 
through the period of performance, in addition to a final briefing, may 
be required. All articles, briefings, and presentations/demonstrations 
will be submitted to NHTSA initially in draft format for review and 
comment. The Grantee shall submit drafts to the COTR 60 days before the 
event date or publication submission date. The COTR will review the 
draft report and provide comments to the Grantee within 15 calendar 
days of receipt of the documents.
    3. During the effective performance period of cooperative 
agreements

[[Page 40386]]

awarded as a result of this announcement, the agreement shall be 
subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's General 
Provisions for Assistance Agreements, dated July 1995.

Rose A. McMurray,
Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs.
[FR Doc. 02-14750 Filed 6-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-12-P