[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