Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0069.000 1998-2000 OJ~tV OF N~k1 Stephen K. Yamashiro \W~ Harry A. Takahashi Moyor Director q•rc, ~oy.r ~ S. K. Schutte r~TE of N~'~ - Dryuty ~Olllltp Of ~A~AII DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 25 Aupuni Sheet, Room 118 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-9252 (808)961-8239 Fax (808)961-8248 December 23, 1998 Honorable James Arakaki, Chairperson and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: Resolutions Authorizing County to Enter into Agreements Enclosed are three resolutions authorizing the Mayor to enter into agreements with the State Department of Transportation for the following: • Sobriety Checkpoint - to conduct DUI roadblocks • Preliminary Breath Testing Device - to purchase 8 preliminary breath testing devices • Seatbelt Enforcement - to conduct seatbelt enforcement and child restraint roadblocks If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call the Police Department. A~ T ahashi Director of 'nance APPROVED: phen K. ashiro Mayor Enc. LL ~ _ ,1 R_F: rv-'i; ~ _ .7i-v~. - Oosn. No. 1'lle Ne. PO L, Ref. Tm F e- I~rr. Dsti DEC 2 s 1see1 APRLICATION i=0r `GHWAY SAFETY PROJECT REt URSEMENT GRANT STATE trr HAVt~AII IIAOTOR VEHICLE SAFEi Y OFFICE PART I k'!3R ~~~r~.~~ Q~S (Applicant Agency to Complete) 1. APPLICANT AGENCY (Name and Address) Pn~eCt NVinbBr Hawaii County Police Department 349 Kapiolani Street ' TItIe H~',pl~ y'B~TF`~T~n~~~~~ Hilo, HI 96720-3998 GOVEINMENTAL UNIT (Name and Address) AtdD "~Cf~E1'~II ' z»Iyt~- County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street 3lartdaCdt3{eu. EffeetiYeISaie 1D-O1-98 Hilo, HI 96720-3998 3. DLRATION (Month, Day, Year-See Schedule C) ~-:Federal I'il4d& Qbfigated A. Gran[ Period B. Project Period From: 10/01/98 From: l0/01/85 FY ~'undB l'~~ zltktent#uttt: Yes I~Itr,,,„„~,,, To: 09130/99 To: 09/30/99 ; BetteFit of ~ i Siaie r,, XX Cvtplkg 4. LOCATION OF PROJECT SA. Type of Application [Check Appropriate Item(s)] Hawaii County Police Department Initial Revision X Continuation 349 Kapiolani Street Hilo, HI 96720-1998 ~B. REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE Telephone: (808) 961-2335 _X Monthly Quarterly 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Schedule A) (See Appendix ,4. Project Prcedures Manual) 7. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND TASKS SUbIMARY FROM SCHEDULE A Hawaii County Police Department will be scheduling DUI roadblocks during major holidays as well as during [he graduation period. Efforts wi ~ be to control youthful drinking during the summer vacation. 8. BUDGET Schedule B) (See Appendix A. Project Procedures Manuaq* 8A. COST C,4TEGORY GRANT PERIOD TOTAL EXPENDITURES PROJECT PERIOD PRIOR YEARS (1) Personal Services $ 31,800.00 $477,058.00 $508,858.00 t2) Consultant Services --0-- --0-- --0-- i3) Commodities --0-- --0-- --0-- ~41 Ocher Direct/Indirect Costs --0-- --0-- --0-- TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS (Inc. Non-Fed. Share) $ 31,800.00 $477,058.00 $508,858.00 86. SOURCE OF FUNDS SC. SPECIFY HOW NON-FEDERAL ll) Federal I % of TOTAL) $ 31,800.00 SHARE WILL BE PROVIDED (2) Applicant Agency of TOTAL) --0-- 9. TIME AND COST (Schedule C) (See Appendix A, Project Procedures Manual) 10. AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMPLIFuNCE (See Schedule D, attached) 1 L ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS It is understood and agreed by the undersigned that a reimbursement grant received as a result of this application is subject [o Public Law 89-564 (Highway Safety Act of 1996) and all administrative regulations governing grants established by the U.S. Deaprtmen[ of transportation and the Stale of Hawaii. It is expressly agreed that this project constitutes an official part of the Hawaii Highway Safety Program and that said applicant agency will meet the requirements a set forth herein, including accompanying schedules A. B, C, & D, which are incorporated herein and made a part of this appica[ion. Authorization to proceed with this Highway Safety Project is requested 11A. PROJECT DIRECTOR 11B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT Signature Signature Name WAYNE G. CARVALHO Name STEPHEN YAMASHIRO Title POLICE CHIEF Title MAYOR, COUNTY OF HAWAII Date Date io PART Lh(Mo[or Vehicle Safety Office to r fete) ~ect Number L ADDENDUM (For MVSO Use Only) i 2. AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED by State Official Responsible to Governor for Administration of the Stale Highway Safety Program. A. Effec[ive Date B. Federal Funds Obligated C. Approval Date D. Signature E. Name F. Tide Highway Safety Manager AL99-02(01-H-02) ALCOHOL ROADBLOCKS AND YOUTH DETERRENCE PROBLEM: National Perspective:' Motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the United States, providing an unprecedented degree of mobility. Yet for all its advantages, deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for persons of every age from 6 to 27 years old (based on 1993 data).Motor vehicle traffic fatalities account for more than 90% of transportation-related fatalities. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a nonoccupant(e.g.,pedestrian) had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in apolice-reported traffic crash. Persons with a BAC of 0.10 g/dl or greater involved in fatal crashes are considered to be intoxicated. This is the legal limit of intoxication in most states (Hawaii's limit is 0.08). Nationwide, traffic fatalities in alcohol-related crashes fell by 1 percent from 1995 to 1996. There were 17,274 alcohol-related fatalities in 1995 (41 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year The 17,126 alcohol-related fatalities in 1996 (40.9 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year) represent a 29 percent reduction from [he 24,045 alcohol-related fatalities reported in 1986 (52.2 percent of the total). In 1997 traffic fatalities in alcohol-related fatal crashes fell six percent to 16,185 (38.6 percent of the [oral traffic fatalities for the year. The 16,189 alcohol- related fatalities in 1997 represent a 32% reduction from the 23,641 alcohol-related fatalities reported in 1987 (51 % of the total).NHTSA estimates that alcohol was involved in 41 percent of fatal crashes and in 7 percent of all crashes in 1996. In 1997 alcohol was involved in 39% of the fatal crashes and 7 % of all crashes. The 1997 record represents an alcohol-related fatality every 32 minutes. In 1996 there was an alcohol-related fatalities every 31 minutes. More than 321,000 persons were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present in 1996. This is highly compared to approximately 300,000 persons in 1995. Approximately 1.4 million drivers were arrested in 1995 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. This is an arrest rate of about 0.7 % of the licensed driver, or DL'I arrest for every 123 licensed drivers in the United States (1996 data not yet available). About 2 in every 5 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives. Hawaii Overview: Crashes Alcohol has been and continues to be a contributing factor in a high percentage of serious traffic crashes. The 1995 FARS data show that 46.6% of fatal crashes in Hawaii had alcohol involvement. In CY 1996 the percent was 40.9, the same as the national average and the lowest for Hawaii since FARS data have been collected (1973). It went down to 38.5% in 1997. The CY' [Traffic Safery Facts 1996, National Center for Statistics & analysis ZTraffic Safety Facts 1997,Nationa] Center for Statistics & Analysis 1990-1996 seven-year average is 49.0%. The state still has a serious alcohol related fatal crash problem, but at least it is improving. Table I Fatal Crashes Verses Alcohol-Related Fatal Crashes Year Honolulu Hawaii Maui Kauai Statewide 1990 77/37 48.1% 44/24 54.5% 24/8 33.3% 9/5 55.6% 154/74 48.1% 1991 Sl/27 52.9% 38/26 68.4% 20/12 60% 10/5 50% 119170 58.8% 1992 64/26 40.6% 26/15 57.7% 21/15 7L3% 10/5 50% l21/6l 50.3% 1993 71/33 46.5% 29/20 69% IS/10 66.7%a 6/2 33.3% 121/65 53.7% 1994 61/26 42.6% 28/13 46.4% 12/4 33.3% 917 77.8% 110/50 45.5% 1995 79/30 38% 20/13 65% l6/11 68.8% 3/1 33.3% 118/55 46.6% 1996 73/21 28.8%a 28/14 50% 24/14 58.3% 715 71.4% 132154 309% 1997 68/24 35.3% 25/IL 44.0% 13/3 23.1% ll/7 63.6% I17i45 38.5% 90-96AVE 68/28.6 42.0% 30.4/17.9 58.7% 18.9/10.6 56.1% 7.714.3 55.6% 125.1/61.3 39% Fatalities Alcohol was involved in 44.4% of the CY 1996 traffic fatalities (Table II). It went up slightly in 1997 to 44.7%. Hawaii County has the highest seven-year average (1990-96) of alcohol related fatalities, although there has been a decrease in the last two years. Since the numbers of fatalities is more a function of the numbers of persons involved in a crash, these numbers are not as good a measure of countermeasure effectiveness as are the numbers of crashes, because alcohol countermeasure activities are generally aimed at preventing crashes rather than reducing the numbers of occupants riding in vehicles. Table II Fatalities Verses Alcohol-Related Fatalities Year Honolulu Hawaii Maui Kauai Statewide 1990 88/43 48.9% 47/27 57.4% 32/10 31.3% 9i5 55.6% 176/85 48.3% 1991 54/28 51.9% 46/31 67.4% 24/13 54.2% ll/6 54.5% 135/78 57.8% 1992 66/27 4Q_9% 27/15 55.6% 25/16 64% LO/5 50% 128/63 49.2% 1993 76/37 48.7% 31/20 64.5% 17/12 70.6% 9/4 44.4% 133/73 54.9% 1994 65/30 46.2% 33/15 45.5% 12/4 33.3% 12/10 83.3% 122/59 48.4% 1995 85/36 42.4% 23/15 65.2% 16/11 68.8% 3/1 33.3% 127/63 49.6% 1996 76/22 28.9% 35/20 SZl% 27/15 55.6% 7/5 71.4% 145/66 44.4% 1997 73/32 38.4% 30/20 46.7% 14/3 21.4% 14/9 64.3% 131/59 44.7% 7-yr ave 72.9/31.9 43.5% 34.7/20.4 59.1% 21.9111.6 52.9% 8.7/5.1 59.0% 138/69 50.0% Enforcement National traffic safety experts informally have accepted as a rule of thumb that before DUI enforcement efforts can be expected to make an impact on traffic crashes, the number of DUI arrests needs to total at least two percent of the total driving population. However, since the 1995 national arrest rate is only 1 arrest per 123 drivers (0.8% of the drivers), a more realistic goal might be one percent. Statewide, DUI arrests increased slightly from about 0/51 % of Hawaii's driving population in 1995 to 0.60% in 1996. It increased again in 1997 to 0.66%. The total number of DUI arrests in the state increased 17.8%, from 3,723 arrests in 1995 to 4,386 in 1996. It increased again in 1997 by 12% to 4,902. This is still 8% below the seven-year average (1990-96) of 5,327 DUI arrests, but it appears that the departments are shifring their focus more on DUI. There is still a statewide need to increase DUI enforcement, especially when it is compared to the 1990 record of 7,933 arrests. Table III DUI Arrests Verses Percent of Driver Population Year Honolulu Hawaii Maui Kauai Sta[ewide 1990 488119/ L24% 82730/ L09% 69751/ 0.76% 37026/ L27% 677626/ 1.17% 6037 899 527 470 7933 1991 501260/ 1.11%a 86[8V 1.00% 73329/ 0.69% 38894/ 1.05% 699664/ 1.05% 5556 865 503 4l0 7334 1992 510901/ 0.69% 89436/ 0.71% 7626 t; 0.53% 39947/ 0.66% 7165451 0.68% 3544 634 402 265 4845 1993 532016/ 0.65% 92264/ 0.63%a 78191/ 0.97% 419[0/ 0.83% 734381/ 0.69% 3406 584 759 346 5095 1994 527756/ 0.44% 94257/ 0.62% 806431 Q94% 42736/ 0.75% 7453921 053% 2319 582 754 319 3974 1995 516780/ 0.41% 94048/ 0.63% 79639/ 0.81% 42041/ 0.86% 732508/ 0.51% 2127 59l 642 363 3723 1996 515780/ 0.55% 94943/ 0.67% 809881 0.82% 417751 0.61% 733486/ 0.60% 2835 632 665 254 4386 1997 517904/ 0.56% 96665/ 0.78% 82217/ 1.24% 42097/ 057% 738865/ 0.66% 2892 755 lOl7 238 4902 90-96 511802/ 0.72% 90551/ 0.76% 76972! 0.76% 40618/ 0.85% 719943/ 0.74% Ave 3689 684 588 347 5327 According to a NHTSA May, 1998 publication, "Impaired Perspectives" (DOT HS 808 211) DUI checkpoints are one of the most effective measures police can use to deter impaired driving. Augmented use of checkpoints and DUI enforcement are needed statewide. A complement to checkpoints is the special DUI patrol. Although these patrols lack the visibility of checkpoints and do not receive as much publicity, they produce more arrests. Identifying and arresting DUI suspects can be made more efficient via the use of tools and procedures. An example of a procedure is the roadside sobriety test battery. A tool that has been found to be a good complement to this battery is a preliminary breath testing instrument. This allows an even more accurate measure of alcohol intoxication than the test battery. The PBT can be used for taking breath samples in the filed or a[ a station during drug use evaluations. The HCPD is lacking funds for augmenting the number of DUI roadblocks that are conducted and inadequate tools (PBTs) to accomplish drug use evaluation. SOLUTION: The Hawaii County Police Department (HCPD) will use federal funds to augment DUI enforcement via overtime officers to expand the use of sobriety checkpoints by 75. Some of these will be youth DUI deterrence checkpoints. Although checkpoints do not result in as many arrests as special DUI patrol units, they appear to have a deterrent effect. The reason for this is that it is a general belief that a person can almost always avoid being detected by police by concentrating very hard on driving in a normal manner, whereas a person does not nee to be driving in an unusual manner to be stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. Lawrence Ross's publication, "The Deterrent Capability of Sobriety Checkpoints: Summary of the American Literature" concludes that all the evidence of effectiveness taken together indicates that road blocks are "capable of reducing the extent of drunk driving and of deaths and injuries on the highways." Thus, it is important that sobriety checkpoints continue to be used to discourage drivers from trying to drive afrer they have been drinking. An account of prior sobriety checkpoints is presented in Tables IV, V and VI. In an effort to make the stops profitable to all drivers, the department will distribute printed matter addressing a highway safety issue, such as seat belt use, or key to detecting a DUI driver, during the DUI roadblocks. Table IV Federally Funded Sobriety Checkpoints Statewide Vehicles Stopped 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Oahu 3,383 3.1 U 6,555 2.730 663 [2,027 Hawaii 9,632 0.657 24?06 1.142 3.924 10.537 Maui 2,900 4,386 5.343 3,563 1,162 x,389 Kauai 3,445 4,487 9,490 11,750 2,725 9,050 Statewide 19,860 27,645 45,594 32,244 8,474 34,003 Checkpoints conducted 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Oahu 54 64 l36 76 19 8l Hawaii 66 60 139 67 30 62 Maui 46 51 56 4I 19 ~7 Kauai 45 45 77 73 34 75 Statewide 211 220 408 257 102 245 Vehicles Stopped Per Checkpoint 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Oahu 72 49 48 36 35 148 Hawaii 146 261 L74 212 l3l 1,897 Maui 63 86 95 87 61 88 Kauai 77 100 123 161 80 L1 Statewide 94 126 112 125 83 139 Table V County Funded Sobriety Checkpoints Statewide Vehicles Stopped 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Oahu 5,330 5.126 13,051 5213 2,443 12,027 Hawaii 8,902 13,308 9.055 7,715 7,593 15,619 Maui 8,571 11,690 7,567 5 521 3,904 1,677 Kauai -0- -0- -0- -0- L482 3.550 Statewide 22,803 30,124 29.673 18,449 15,422 32.873 Checkpoints conducted 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Oahu 468 462 262 190 70 128 Hawaii 61 SI 52 75 51 118 Maui 103 154 92 67 62 50 Kauai -0- -0- -0- -0- I2 19 Statewide 632 667 406 332 195 315 Vehicles Stopped Per Checkpoint 1993 1994 L995 1996 1997 1998 Oahu ll ll 50 27 35 94 Hawaii 146 X61 L74 103 149 132 Maui 83 76 82 82 63 34 Kauai -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 187 Statewide 36 45 73 56 71 104 Table VI, shows the totals of federally funded and county funded sobriety checkpoints. Table VI Total Sobriety Checkpoints Vehicles Stopped 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Oahu 9,213 8,241 19,606 7,943 3,106 24,054 Hawaii 18,534 28,965 33,261 21,916 11,517 26,156 Maui 11,471 16,076 12,910 9,084 5,066 4,066 Kauai 3.445 4,487 9,490 11,750 4,207 12,600 Statewide 42,663 57,769 75,267 52,689 23,896 66,876 Checkpoints conducted 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Oahu 522 526 398 266 89 X09 Hawaii l27 111 191 l42 81 180 Maui l49 205 148 108 8t 77 Kauai 45 45 77 73 46 94 Statewide 843 887 814 589 297 560 Vehicles Stopped Per Checkpoint 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Oahu 18 l6 49 30 35 Il5 Hawaii 146 26l 174 154 142 145 Maui 77 78 87 84 63 53 Kauai 77 100 123 161 91 134 Sta[ewide 51 65 92 89 80 l19 The HCPD DUI sobriety checkpoint program (including holidays) goal is [o conduct approximately 100 checkpoints during FFY 1999. Generally when checkpoints are conducted with people (one sergeant and three officers) work three-hour shifts. One checkpoint requires 12-person hour. Since the value of checkpoints lies not in their production of arrests, but in their development of a perceived possibility of arrest by motorists, increasing the number checkpoints is in harmony withe the objective of deterring drivers from DUI. The locations of checkpoints are very well marked with signs and flares, and a random method of making stops is usually used in accordance with appropriate laws, rules and orders. During FFY 1999 the number of sobriety checkpoints will be 75 using federal funds. Th 402 funds will supplement Hawaii County's enforcement effort during the major holidays checkpoint program. This includes the Prom/Graduation season. Hawaii County also plans to conduct roadside screening projects which will deal with the youth deterrence. EVALUATION: The project will be evaluated on the basis of the number of project sobriety checkpoints conducted. Approximately 75 checkpoints are planned using grant fund. The number of nonproject checkpoints will be 60; therefore, a total of 135 checkpoints will be established during FFY 1999. The following data will be tracked for the project evaluation: The number of federally funded checkpoints. The number of officers and officer hours worked at each federally funded sobriety checkpoint. The number of DUI and other arrests made at federally funded checkpoints. The numbers of citations that are made at the federally funded checkpoints. The number of county funded checkpoints. The number of officers and officer hours worked at each county funded sobriety checkpoint. The number of DUI and other arrests made at county funded checkpoints. The numbers of citations that are made at the county checkpoints. The number of vehicles stopped at all checkpoints. This data will be compared with [he past checkpoints experience (Table IV and V) Alcohol related fatal crashes and fatalities (Table I & II). The county's total number of DUI arrests will be tracked to see if it reaches the one percent level (Table III). SCHEDULE B HAWAII COUNTY" DUI Sobriety Checkpoint/Youth Deterrence 8a (1) Personal Services $31,800.00 DUI Enforcement $16,800.00 Youth Deterrence $15,000.00 (2) Consultant Services __0__ (3) Commodities __0__ (4) Other Direct/Indirect Costs __p__ Total Cost $31,800.00 0 0 SCHEDULE C PART I. Project Number: AL99- 02(01 -0 -01) FISCAL YEAR 199 Project Activiry 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 Cost 8,400 8.400 8,400 8.400 Comments: SCHEDULE D Agreement of Understanding & Compliance Project Number: OP99-05(01-H-02) THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the STATE OF HAWAII by and through its Director of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State", and the Governmemal Uni[ named in this application, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant". WHEREAS, the National Highway Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89564) provides Federal funds ro the STATE for approved highway safety projects, and WHEREAS, STATE may make said funds available to various slate, county or municipal agencies or governments or political subdivisions upon application and approval by STATE and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, and WHEREAS, STATE is obligated to reimburse [he UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION out of its funds for any ineligible or unauthorized expenditures for which Federal funds have been claimed and payment received, and WHEREAS, the above name APPLICANT has submitted an application for Federal funds for highway safety projects. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF MUTUAL PROMISES AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Reimbursement of Eligible Expenditures A. tt is mutually agreed and promised that upon written application by APPLICANT and approval by STATE and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE shall obligate said Federal funds to APPLICANT'S account for reimbursement of eligible expenditures as se[ forth in the application. B. It is mutualy agreed and promised that APPLICANT shall reimburse STATE [or any ineligible or unauthorized expenditures for which Federal funds have been claimed and payment received as determined by a State or Federal audit. Costs are not allowable for construction, rehabilitation. remodeling, or for office furnishings and fixtures -for State, local or private bwldings or structures. The following are examples of items considered as turnishings or fixtures, for which reimbursement is not eligible: Desks Credenzas Storage Cabinets Chairs Bookcases Pottable Pattitions Tables Filing Cabinets Pictures, Wall Clocks Shelving Floor Coverings Draperies Coat Racks Office Planters Fixed Lighting/Lamps C. It is tutther agreed and promised [hat where reimbursement is made to APPLICANT in installments, STATE shall have the right to withhold any installments to make up reimbursemem received for any ineligible or unauthorized expenditures until such time as the ineligible claim is made up or correct by APPLICANT. 1 II. Property Agreement A. It is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT shall immediately notify the STATE if any equipment purchased under this project ceases to be used in the manner as set forth by the project agreemen[. In such event, APPLICANT further agrees to either give credit [o the project cos[ or to another ac[ive Highway Safety project for the residual value of such equipmen[ in an amount to be determined by the STATE, or [o [ransfer or otherwise dispose of such equipment as directed by STATE. B. It is mutually agreed and promised by the APPLICANT that no purchased equipment under this projec[ will be eonveyed, sold, salvaged, transferred, e[c. wi[hout the express written approval of the STATE. C. it is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT shall main[ain or cause to be main[ained for its useful life, any equipmen[ purchased under [his project. ?I. Application of Hatch Act A. [t is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT shall notify all employees of the APPLICANT, whose principal employmen[ is in connection with any Highway Safety project, financed in whole or in pan by loans or ;rants under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, of the provisions of Section l2 (a) of the Hach Act (5 U.S.C. 118K (a)). IV EqualOpponuniry A. I[ is mutually agreed and promised tha[ pursuant [o the requirements of Section 22 (a) of dte Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, Section X04 of the Rehabilitation Ac[ of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), and ehe Age Discrimina[ion Act of 1975, the APPLICANT, as a condition to receiving approval of [his application submiaed under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, hereby gives its assurance that employment in connection with the subject Highway Safety Program project will be provided wi[hout regard to race, color, creed. sex, handicap, age, or national origin. The APPLICANT further agrees tha[, as a condition to receiving approval of this application, it will be subject to, and will comply with, Title V[ of dte Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4 (hereinafrer referred [o as the Act), and al] applicable requirements pursuant to the Regulations of the Department of Commerce (Tide l~, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 8, which have been adopted by the Department of Transportation, and hereinafrer referred to as the Regulations), to the end that, in accordance with [he .4c[ and the Regulations, no person in the United Stales shall on the ground of race, color, creed, sex, handicap, age, or national origin be excluded From panicipa[ion in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under the subject Highway Safety Program or project. B. It is mutually agreed and promised tha[ if the APPLICANT fails or refuses to comply with its undertakine as set forth in [here provisions, the STATE of [he UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION may take any or all of these following actions. t 1) Cancel, [erminate, or suspend in whole or in part the agreement, comract, or other arrangement with respect to which the failure or relitsal occurred; and (2) Refrain trom extending any further Federa( financial assistance to the applican[ agency under the program wi[h respect to which [he failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from the applicant agency. 2 V. ,yon-duplication of Grant Fund Expenditures A. It is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT has no ongoing or completed projec[s under agreement with any other Federal fund source which duplicate or overlap any work contemplated or described in this project. B. It is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT will ei[her revise this projec[ or revise any pending or proposed request for other Federal grant funds which would duplicate or overlap work under this project to exclude any such duplication of grant fund expenditures. C. It is funkier mutually agreed and understood [hat the APPLICANT shall reimburse the STATE OF HAWAII for any such duplicate expenditures for which Federal grant funds have been claimed and payment received as determined by State or Federal audit. VI. Projec[ Income and Applicable Credits A. It is mutually agreed and understood that the APPLICANT shall apply all proceeds or credits generated under the project, such as but no[ restric[ed to: The sale of real or personal property royalties received from copyrights and patens, sale of publications or from personal or incidental services, [o the project in accordance wi[h OMB Circulaz A-87 (FMC 74-7) and NHTSA/FHWA Order 360-4/7510.1. VII. Copyrights and Patents A. [t is mutually agreed [hat any copyrightable materials produced in [he course of a projec[ may be the property of [he State or applicant agency; however, provisions should be made to ob[ain for the United States Government, the Stale Governments and their political subdivisions a royalty-free nonexclusive, and irrevocable license [o use in any manner such copyrightable material. B. It is mutually agreed [hat the ownership of all rights accruing from any patentable discoveries or inven[ions resulting from a project should be covered in the agreement. An irrevocable, nonexclusive, nontransferable, and royalty-free license [o practice each discovery or inven[ion in the manufacture, use and disposition, according to law, of any article or ma[erial, and in the use of any me[hod developed as part of the work under [he agreement should be obtained for the United States Governmen[, the State Governments and their political subdivisions. VIII. Certification Regarding Debarment and Suspension A. Instruc[ions for Certification 1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing [he cerification set out below. 2. The certification in [his clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was piaced when this transaction was en[ered imo. If it is later determined tha[ the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available [o the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction origina[ed may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarmen[. 3. The prospective lowec [ier participan[ shall provide immediate written no[ice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if a[ any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that i[s certi£ca[ion was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 3 4. The terms covered transaction, "debarred," "suspended," "ineligible." "lower tier covered transaction," "participant," "person," "primary covered transaction," "principal," "proposal," and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, have the meanings se[ out in [he Definition and Coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. The prospective Lower tier panicipan[ agrees by submitting [his proposal that, should [he proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower [ier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the depanmen[ or agency with which this transaction originated. 6. The prospective lower [ier patticipan[ further agrees by submiaing [his proposal that is it will include this clause tided "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension. Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion Lower Tier Covered Transaction," without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. (See below) 7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a ceriification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that i[ is not debazred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, uriless it knows [hat the certification is erroneous. A panicipan[ may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each panicipan[ may, but is not requtred to, check [he Nonprocurement List. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith [he certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealinES. 9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a patticipant m a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. [X. Certification Regarding Debazmen[, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -Lower Tier Covered Transactions L The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither i[ nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal depattment or agency. 2. Where the prospective Lower tier panicipan[ is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective panicipants shall attach an explanation to this proposal. X. Minority Business Enterprise Requirements it is the policy of the Department of Transportation that minority business enterprises, as defined in 49 CFR Pan 23, shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in pan with Federal funds under this agreement. Consequently, the MBE requirements of 49 CFR Pan 23 apply [o this agreement. 4 The recipient or i[s con[ractor agrees [o ensure [hat minority business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Part 23 have [he maximum opponuniry to panicipate in [he performance of contracts and subcontracts fmanced in whole or in pan with Federal funds provided under this agreement. In this regard, all recipients or contractors shall take al] necessary and reasonable s[eps in accordance with 49 CFR Pan 23 to ensure tha[ minority business enterprises have the maximum opponuniry to compete for and perform contracts. Recipients and their contractors shall no[ discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the awazd and performance of DOT- assisted contracts. XI. Requirements A. It is mutually agreed and promised that the applicant shall follow the State and Federal requirements and guidelines set forth in the State of Hawaii Project Procedures Manual as amended. All project expenditure records aze to be retained for a[ leas[ three years after the date of the fmal expenditure report. XII. Authorization to Proceed A. (t is mutually agreed between the STATE and the APPLICANT that this AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMPLIANCE shall become effective upon the STATE'S agreemem and authorization [o proceed as set fonh in PART [I(2) of this application. APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY PROaEt~'RF~URSEMHYT GRANT STAT. F HAWAI/ MOTOR V&~INCLF SA IY 0~ PART I 'g~;,<:~;~<~~,, . o.; (Applicant Agency to Complete) ~ ~ ~ .Y., Vo zy 1. APPLICANT AGENCY (Name and Address) .~.a:..~ . Hawaii County Police Department ~ 'a, t, ` 349 Rapiolani Street 'o' ~ _o so Hilo, HI 96720-3998 ~ ;g«r;,F,>. r 2. GOVERNMENTAL UMT (Name and Address) a ~~,~'a a~se4 County Of Hawaii § \ ~ ~ ~ otO a° o "A; ~~yy,,,,HY >o o''o' 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hi 96720-3998 - ~~a' Bo'"~` k:::'" s~u,,.op 3. DURATION (Month,Day,Year-See Schedule C) e~n.~ ' r A. Grant Period B. Projec[ Period ~ `~a~o p ~ r a F' ~ From: 10/01/98 From: 10/01/98 ~ " "~a,°%q ~ ~r~Gyr;~u~r To: 09/30/99 To: 09/30/99 a~ "'~3F~~(~(< a 4 2 I 4. LOCATION OF PROJECT SA. lype of AppBcation [Check Appropriate Item(s)] Hawaii County Police Department Initial Revision Continuation 349 Kapiolani Street Hilo, HI 96720-3998 SB. RSIMBURSEMEIVI' SCHEDULE Telephotte: (808) 961-2225 ~ MonWy Quarterly 6. PROJECT DESCIIIPTION (Schedule A) (See Appendix A, Project Prcedtues Manual) 7. PROJECT' OB.IECITVIS AND TASKS SUMMARY FROM SCHEDULE A Purchase Preliminary Breath Testing Devices for use by patrol officers. 8. BUDGET (Schedule B) (See Appendix A, Project Procedures Manual)' 8A. COST CATEGORY GRANT PERIOD TOTAL EXPI:NDTTURES PROJECT PERIOD PR[OR YEARS I Personal Services S 7,500.00 S 7,500.00 2 Consultant Services -.0_. 3 Commodities (4) Other Directllndirec[ Casts TOTAL ISTIMATED COSTS (Inc. Non-Fed. Share) S 7,500.00 S 7,500.00 SB. SOURCE OF FUNDS SC. SPECIFY HOW NON-FEDERAL (p Federal (100% of TOTAL) S 7,500.00 SHARE WII.L BE PROVIDED (2) Applicant Agency of TOTAL) 9B. TIME AND COST (Schedule C) (See Appendix A, Project Procedures Manual) 10. AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMPLIANCE (See Schedule D, attached) 11. ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS [t is understood and agreed by the uttdersigoed that a reimbursement grant received az a result of this application is subjec[ to Public Law 89-564 (Highway Safety Act of 1996) and all administrative tegdations governing grams established by the U.S. Deapr[ment of transportation and the State of Hawaii. It is expressly agreed that this project constitutes an official part of the Ilawaii Highway Safety Program and that said applicant agency will mee[ the requirements a set forth herein, including accompanying schedules A, B, C, & D, which are incorporated herein and made a part of this application. Authorization to proceed with Utis Highway Safety Project is regtxsted 11A. PROJECT DIRECTOR 11B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT Signature Sigttature Name WAYNE G. CARVALHO Name STI3FIEN YAMASHIRO Tile POLICE CHIEF Title MAYOR, COUNTY OF HAWAD Date Date ' PART II (Motor Vehicle Safety Office r~ ^ompiete) project Number I. ADDENDUM (For MVSO Use Only, 2. AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED by State Official Responsible m Governor for Administration of the Stale Highway Safety Program. A. Effective Date B. Federal Funds Obligated C. Approval Date D. Signature E. Name F. Title Highway Safety Manager SCHEDULE A HAWAII COUNTY PRELIMINARY BREATH TESTING (PBT) DEVICE PURPOSE This grant application is being submitted to purchase Preliminary Breath Testing devices (PBT's) for use in alcohol and drug enforcement by the Hawaii County Police Deparmnent. PROBLEM When a police officer makes a stop on a suspected drunk driver, he goes through a series of observations and procedures to determine the impairment of a driver. Observations include, but are not limited to, red or watery eyes, odor of liquor on subject's breath, slurred speech, poor hand coordination, and presence of liquor containers in the vehicle. Armed with the foregoing indicia of intoxication, the driver can be ordered out of the vehicle to perform several Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST's) to further determine the driver's impairment, the first of which is the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (I-IGN). HGN is the involuntary jerkiness observed when a subject is under the influence of liquor. The severity and onset is usually commensurate with the amount of impairment present. Should the subject state that he has an injury or impairment that would affect his performance of the SFST's, the One Leg Stand and the Walk and Turn would not be performed. Although there are alternate methods such as the Finger Count, Finger to Nose, and Rhomberg Test, their accuracy have not been validated, nor do they give an indication of the actual amount of alcohol present in the subjects blood or breath. The inability of the subject to perform the other two tests hampers the officer's ability to determine the amount of impairment close to, or over the legal per se blood alcohol level of .08%. In 1996, the legal per se limit was changed from .10% to .08%. This also places the subject in a dilemma of possibly being arrested for DUI despite the possibility of having a significantly low blood alcohol content. The Hawaii County Police Department traffic officers and several selected patrol officers have received Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) training and have been certified through attendance in a class and had conducted field examinations and classifications that were later confirmed through a chemical test. One of the steps required in the DEC protocol is to eliminate the presence of liquor in the subject's body through a chemical test. This would normally be done by having the subject blow into an intoxilyzer which is normally in the police station. Having portable breath testing device would satisfy the requirement of discounting the presence or quantity of liquor in the subjects body while out in the field. Once this is completed, the DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) can finish his protocol and make a determination as to the type(s) of drug(s) present in the subject's body. In an effort to discourage underage drinking and reduce alcohol-related deaths of persons under the age of 21, the Hawaii County Police Department has an ongoing program to detect and apprehend minors consuming or possessing liquor. Officers on these underage patrols need a quick, accurate, and accepted method of not only determining the presence of liquor, but quantifying it as well. Being that these underage subjects are not being arrested for DUI, they are not usually subjected to an intoxilyzer test. The degree of impairment is usually not mentioned on the police report because of the inability to test the underage subject. SOLUTION Historically, PBT's weren't used or relied upon very much in the past because of their size and level or accuracy. Over the past few years both problems have been addressed and PBT's have evolved into compact, accurate instruments. They have become accurate enough to be part of the testing protocol in DOT regulations. The solution to the problems mentioned is to utilize a PBT to test for the presence and quantity of liquor. Although the State of Hawaii does not have a statute allowing for their use, it does not proscribe their use. We will request that the next legislature address the use of PBT's in the probable cause portion of an officer's investigation, further requiring that the driver submit to blood or intoxilyzer testing. The California Highway Patrol addresses the statutory problem by informing the subject that the PBT is strictly voluntary and it is not to be considered the required breath test. This admonition can be read from a card carried by the officer and recorded by the in-car video camera and wireless microphone. Although the SFST's are reliable, adding another leg to the evaluation process through the use of PBT's can assist the officer in conducting a better evaluation. This would be particularly true in the event the subject claims that he has some type of physical impairment. A PBT could actually save a subject the psychological trauma of being attested should he or she be a BAC level low enough to release at the scene. The DEC officers can make a quick and efficient use of the PBT's when conducting an evaluation of a subject believed to be under the influence of drugs without having to use the full- sized intoxilyzer. Because of its size, the PBT can be used and carried anywhere. If the PBT were to be used for underage dritking enforcement, it can be attached to a printer that would document the breath test and print the results that can be attached to a report. The degree of impairment has never been known before and we will now be able to study the impact of underage drinking by collecting the BAC's to study trends in alcohol consumption by underage persons. In addition, the PBT will further add to an officer's probable cause to arrest should the subject submit to a voluntary test. The Administrative Driver License Revocation (ADLR) office can consider the PBT result s when determining probable cause for arrest and/or if the subject refused to take a chemical test after being advised of the ADLR sanctions. In 1992, four passive alcohol sensors were purchased under federal funds by the Hawaii County Police Department. These instruments were used in conjunction with the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) along with the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (I-IGN) test. The results showed some promise, however problems with weather conditions, i.e., strong wind and proper placement of the (PAS) was needed to be overcome in order to obtain accurate reading. Although PAS was useful in alcohol detention more sensitive and accurate devices now exist. Funding provided will enable the Hawaii County Police Department to purchase eight (8) PBTs to be distributed to patrol officers who have shown that they are willing and capable of effecting DUI arrests. They would also be able to assist other patrol officers in evaluating a suspected drunk driver. PROJECT EVALUATION This project will be evaluated by tracking the usage of the instruments by patrol officers for alcohol or drug investigations and comparing the PBT results against the results obtained through blood samples or from the intoxilyzer results. Officers using the PBT's will be given an evaluation form to submit comments concerning the use of PBT's in their investigations. Because the State of Hawaii's DUI laws mandates that this is a "one blow state", the data collected from this project will be used to promulgate legislation allowing the use of a PBT prior to an blood or breath test. Our officers are currently admonishing subjects that the PBT test is voluntary and that the Intoxilyzer test or blood test is a required test should they be arrested. The results of PBT usage and acceptance led to used by the Honolulu Police Department and is being considered for use by other police departments in the state as there is a great potential for its use. SCHEDULE B HAWAII COUNTY Preliminary Breath Testing (PBT) Device 8a (I) Personal Services _0_ (2) Consultant Services _0__ (3) Commodities (4) Other Direct/Indirect Costs Purchase of eight (8) Prelhninar_v Breath Testing devices $7,500.00 Total Cost $7,500.00 SCHEDULE C HAWAII COUNTY Preliminary Breath Testing (PBT) Device PART I. PROJECT NUMBER: SEATBELT ENFORCEMENT/CHILD RESTRAINT FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 PROJECT ACTIVITY 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER Purchase of 8 PBTs $ 7,500.00 -0__ -0__ -0__ and calibra[ion equipmen[ Subtotal $ 7,500.00 __0__ _-0__ -0__ COMMENTS: COST $ 7,500. SCHEDULE D Agreement of Understanding & Compliance Project Number: OP99-05(01-H-02) THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the STATE OF HAWAII by and through its Director of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "S[a[e", and the Governmental Uni[ named in this application, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant". WHEREAS, the National Highway Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-564) provides Federal funds to the STATE for approved highway safety projects, and WHEREAS, STATE may make said funds available to vazious state, county or municipal agencies or governments or political subdivisions upon application and approval by STATE and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, and WHEREAS, STATE is obligated to reimburse the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION out of its funds for any ineligible or unauthorized expenditures for which Federal funds have been claimed and payment received, and WHEREAS, the above name APPLICANT has submitted an application for Federal funds for highway safety projects. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF MUTUAL PROMISES AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Reimbursement of Eligible Expenditures A. It is mutually agreed and promised that upon written application by APPLICANT and approval by STATE and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE shall obligate said Federal funds to APPLICANT'S account far reimbursement of eligible expenditures as set forth in the application. B. It is murually agreed and promised that APPLICANT shall reimburse STATE for any ineligible or unauthorized expendimres for which Federal funds have been claimed and payment received as determined by a State or Federal audit. Costs aze not allowable for construction, rehabilitation, remodeling, or for office furnishings and fixtures -for State, local or private buildings or structures. The following are examples of items considered as furnishings or fixtures, for which reimbursemen[ is no[ eligible: Desks Credenzas Storage Cabinets Chairs Bookcases Pottable Partitions Tables Filing Cabinets Pictures, Wall Clocks Shelving Floor Coverings Draperies Coat Racks Office Planters Fixed Lighting/Lamps C. [t is further agreed and promised [hat where reimbursement is made to APPLICANT in installments, STATE shall have the right to wi[hhold any installments to make up reimbursement received for any ine]igible or unauthorized expendimres un[il such time as dte ineligible claim is made up or correct by APPLICANT. 1 II. Properly Agreement A. It is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT shall immediately notify the STATE if any equipment purchased under this project ceases [o be used in the manner as set forth by the project agreement. In such event, APPLICANT further agrees to either give credit to the project cost or to another active Highway Safety project for the residual value of such equipment in an amount to be determined by the STATE, or to transfer or otherwise dispose of such equipment as duetted by STATE. B. It is mutually agreed and promised by the APPLICANT that no purchased equipment under this project will be conveyed, sold, salvaged, transferred, etc. without the express written approval of the STATE. C. It is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT shall maintain or cause to be maintained for its useful life, any equipment purchased under this project. II[. Application of Hatch Act A. It is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT shalt notify all employees of the APPLICANT, whose principal employment is in connection with any Highway Safety project, financed in whole or in part by loans or grants under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, of the provisions of Section 12 (a) of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. I18K (a)). IV. Equal Opportunity A. It is mutually agreed and promised that pursuant to the requirements of Section 22 (a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the APPLICANT, as a condition to receiving approval of this application submitted under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, hereby gives its assurance that employment in connection with the subject Highway Safety Program project will be provided without regazd to race, color, creed, sex, handicap, age, or national origin. The APPLICANT further agrees that, as a condition to receiving approval of this application, it will be subject to, and will comply widt, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and all applicable requirements pursuant to the Regulations of the Deparnment of Commerce (Title I5, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 8, which have been adopted by the Department of Transportation, and hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), to the end that, in accordance with the Act and the Regulations, no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, creed, sex, handicap, age, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under the subject Highway Safety Program or project. B. It is mutually agreed and promised that if the APPLICANT fails or refuses to comply with its undertaking as set forth in these provisions, the STATE of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION may take any or all of these following actions. (1) Cancel, termitta[e, or suspend in whole or in part the agreement, contract, or other arrangement with respect to which the failure or refusal occurred; and (2) Refrain from extending any further Federal financial assistance to the applicant agency under the program with respect to which the failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from the applicant agency. 2 V. Non-duplication of Grant Fund Expenditures A. It is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT has no ongoing or completed projects under agreement with any other Federal fund source which duplicate or overlap any work contemplated or described in [his project. B. It is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT will either revise this project or revise any pending or proposed request for other Federal grant funds which would duplicate or overlap work under this project to exclude any such duplication of gram fund expenditures. C. It is further mutually agreed and understood [hat the APPLICANT shall reimburse dte STATE OF HAWAII for any such duplicate expenditures for which Federal gran[ funds have been claimed and payment received as determined by State or Federal audit. VI. Project Income and Applicable Credits A. It is mutually agreed and understood [hat the APPLICANT shall apply all proceeds or credits generated under the project, such as but not restricted to: The sate of real or personal property royalties received from copyrights and patents, sale of publications or from personal or incidental services, to the project in accordance with OMB Circulaz A-87 (FMC 74-7) and NHTSA/FHWA Order 460-4/7510.1. VII. Copyrights and Patents A. It is mutually agreed that any copyrightable materials produced in the course of a project may be the property of the State or applicant agency; however, provisions should be made to obtain for the United States Government, the State Governments and their political subdivisions aroyalty-free nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to use in any manner such copyrightable material. B. It is mutually agreed that the ownership of all rights accruing from any patentable discoveries or inventions resulting from a project should be wvered in the agreement. An irrevocable, nonexclusive, nontransferable, and royalty-free license to practice each discovery or invention in the manufacture, use and disposition, according to law, of any article or material, and in the use of any method developed as part of the work under the agreement should be obtained for the United States Government, the State Governments and their political subdivisions. VIII. Cettification Regazding Debatment and Suspension A. Instructions for Cettification 1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing [he certification se[ out below. 2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debazment. 3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if a[ any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its cettification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 3 4. The terms covered transaction, "debarred," "stupmded,• "ineligible," "lower tier covered transaction," "participan[," "person," "primary covered transaction," "principal," "proposal," and "voluntazily excluded," as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Defmirion and Coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. _ 5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not Imowingly enter into any lower rier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared i~ligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated. 6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by subtni[ting this proposal that is it will include this clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion Lower Tier Covered Transaction," without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. (See below) 7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective par[icipant in a lower tier covered transaction tha[ it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or vohmtazily excluded from the covered transaction, uNess it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participam may, but is not required [o, check the Nonprocurement List. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The Imowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the oMinary course of business dealings. 9. Except for transactions authorized under pazagraph 5 of these ins[ructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debazmen[. IX. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -Lower Tier Covered Transactions 1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debazred, suspended, proposed for debazmen[, declazed ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by a~ Federal department or agency. 2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is tmable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participants shall attach an explana[ion to this proposal. X. Minority Business Enterprise Requirements It is the policy of the Department of Transportation that minority business enterprises, as defined in 49 CFR Part 23, shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in pan with Federal funds under this agreement. Cottsequently, the MBE requirements of 49 CFR Part 23 apply to this agreemen[. 4 The recipient or its contractor agrees to ensure that minority business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Pan 23 have [he maximum oppom[niry [o participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in pan with Federal funds provided under this agreement. In this regard, all recipients or contractors shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR Part 23 to ensure tha[ minority business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. Recipients and their contractors shall no[ discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the awazd acrd performance of DOT- assisted contracts. X[. Requirements A. It is mutually agreed and promised that the applicant shall follow the State and Federal requirements and guidelines set forth in the State of Hawaii Project Procedures Manual as amended. All project expenditure records are to be retained for at least three years after the date of the final expebeiture [CpOrt. XII. Authorization to Proceed A. It is mutually agreed between the STATE and the APPLICANT that this AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMPLIANCE shall become effective upon the STATE'S agreement and au[horiza[ion [o proceed as se[ forth in PART II(2) of this application. 5 App~~c~no~v Fay ,H~r~v s~~~ p~~~r ~~rt ~~s~~~~vr c~~n~r STATF Gr- Fi,At~VAi! A~1t7TC)R VE~ilCLE St~F~~ ~ C3FFICE PART I FOR MVSO T5E ONZX (Applicant Agenc}' to Complete) _ - 1. APPLICANT AGENCY (Nome and Andres>) -Frnjeet Number -OP49-DSCDI'-H Q21 Hawau Police Deparunen[ 349 Kapiolani Street Title HiPD,A M NT SFATB 'TFNFOR bxFti"" Hilo. HI 96720-3998 - GOVERNMENTAL UNIT (Name and Address) Countv of Hawaii ?5 :Aupuni StreitStandard Amea OP Effeetve Date -'IO-b1-98 Hilo, Hl 96730-3998 - DCRATION iMondtDay.YzarSze Schedule C) Federal Funds ObYigated. SIS OODDD - - Gran[ Penoti B. Prolect Period - - - From~. 10i01i9S From: i0/0 096 :FY Fuuds,I4-. 99. Addeddum: Ye's- Np__ "I'o 09/J0t99 To: 09/30/99 iBenrBt c>f _ r Staze XX :Courtly LOCATION OF PROJECT S.A. Type of Application [Check Appropriate Item(s)J Hawaii County Police Deparmmni Initial Revision X Continuation 319 Kapiolani S[ree[ Hilo, HI 96730-3998 SB. REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE I Telephone: ~308t 961 ?335 X Monthl y Quarterly 6. PROJECT UESCRII'TION Schedule Ai (Sae Appendix A. Prolect Prcedure Marwaq F 7. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND TASKS SUMMARY FROM SCHEDULE A To increase enforcement levals for seat belt and child res¢amt laws donne specific dates. which correlate to national awareness campaigns, to ~ncreasc usage by Providing funds [o pay [or overpme. tl. BUDGET iSchedule B) iSee Appendix A. Project Procedures ~(anuap* SA. COST CATEGORY GRAN"f PERIOD TOTAL EXPENDCfURES PROJECT PERIOD PRIOR YEARS l~ Personal Services S 0,000.00 $194,379.00 5209,379.00 (31 Consul[an[ Services --0-- -0-- 0-- i2) Commodi[ies -0-- --0-- --0-- (al Other Direcv Indirect Coss _p_- --0-- -0-- TOTAL F,STIMATED COSTS Inc. Von-Fed. Share) 5 0.000.00 SI94.379.00 5 0.000.00 86. SOURCE OF FUNDS 8C. SPECIFY HON" NON-FEDERAL I) Federal i l00 "Q 0f 1'0TAL.~ S 0,000.00 SHARK WILL BE PROVIDED ~3i Applicant Agency ~ o of TOTAL) -0-- i ~ 9B. TIME AND COST (Schedule C) (See Appendix A. Project Procedures Manual) ID. AGREEb1ENT OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMPLIANCE 1See Schedule D, a¢ached) 1 I. ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS It Is wtdersmod and agreed by [he undersigned tha[ a reimbursement grant received as a result of dos application u subject w Public Law 39-564 iHighwuy Safety Act of L996) and all ?dminis[rative regulations governing grans es[ablished by the U. S. Deaprtment of transportation and the Sute of Hawaii. rs expressly agreed that this project cons[imtes an official part of [he Hawaii Highway Safety Program and tha[ said apphcan[ agency wdl meet dte requirements a set forth herein, including accompanying schedules A. B. C. & D. which are incorporated herein and made a part of this application. Aurhonzation m proceed wi[h this Highway Safety Prolect is requested 11A. PROJECT DIRECTOR 11 B. AGTHORIZING OFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT S i gnamre Signature Name WAYNE G. CARVALHO Name STEPHEN YAMASHIRO T~.de POLICE CHIEF ride N(AYOR, COUNTY OF HAWAII Dale Dare PART [I iMotor Vehicle Safety Otfice m comple[e) Project Number _ 1. ADDENDUM (For ~1VS0 lase Only) 1GREEMENT .aVD _1UTHORIZATION TO I'ROCEEll by State Official Responsible to Governur for Adminis[ration of the State Highway Safety Program. A. Effective Date B. Federal Funds Obligated C Approval Dale D. Signa[ure Vame F. Tide Highway Safety Manager COUNTY OF HAWAII SEAT BELT AND CHILD RESTRAINT LAWS ENFORCEMENT Schedule A Problem: National Perspective:' Motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the United States, providing an unprecedented degree of mobility. Yet for all its advantages, deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for persons of every age from 6 to 27 years old (based on 1994 data). Traffic fatalities account for more than 90% of transportation- related fatality. Fortunately, the nation is making progress coward reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries. In 1997, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles of travel remained at 1.7, the same since 1993. The average observed belt use rate reported by states with secondary enforcement laws was 62 percent, compared to 79 percent in states with primary enforcement laws. A 69 percent safety belt use rate nationwide and a reduction in the rate of alcohol involvement in fatal crashes to 38.6 percent were significant contributions to maintaining this consistently low fatality. Research has found that lapishoulder safety belts, when used, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seated passenger car occupants by 4~ percent and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by ~0 percent. For light truck occupants, safety belts reduce the risk of fatal injury by 60 percent. Child safety seats reduce fatal injury by 69 percent for infants less than one year old and 47 percent for toddlers aged one through tour years. However, much remains to be done. The economic cost of motor vehicle crashes in 1994 was more than 5150.5 billion. Inpatient costs for crash victims who were not using safety belts were 55 percent higher than for those who were belted. In 1997, 44 percent of passenger car occupants and 49 percent of light truck occupants involved in fatal crashes were unrestrained. 54 percent of children aged four and under in passenger vehicles were unrestrained. In fatal crashes 73 percent of passenger car the car oecupants who were rotally ejected from the vehicle wece killed. Safety belts are effective in preventing total ejections: only one percent of the occupants reported to have been using restraints were totally ejected, compared with 20 percent of unrestrained occupants. Ejection from a vehicle is one of the most injurious events that can happen to a person in a crash. 73 percent of passenger ear occupants who are totally ejected are killed. Local Perspective: Hawaii's front seat belt use rate has been 80% for the last three years. Yet, statewide in 1996, 35 (43.8°b) front seat occupants died sitting on their belts. Furthermore, Hawaii's experience has been that use rates decline over time unless enforcement is maintained at a high level. Unfortunately, no County in the State has been able to achieve a level of enforcement high enough to make a clear and prolonged impact on occupant safety. Research in various States has ~Trajfic Sajety Facts J996, National Caner cor Sta[is[ics & Analvsis 1 shown that the occupant groups that are over involved in crashes (young drivers and alcohol impaired drivers. for example) and are most in need of safety belts, tend not to use them. This is no doubt a factor in Hawaii, where use rate has risen significantly since the mandatory belt use law went into effect, but occupant fatalities have not decreased in a corresponding manner over the years. In fact, when Hawaii's law was passed, it contained a provision that all motorists who had vehicles with sea[ belt would be given a mandatory 10% reduction in insurance rates. The objective was to pass the anticipated savings on to vehicle owners rather than the insurance companies. However, when the State evaluated the subsequent insurance costs, the reduction was not warranted, and the mandatory reduction was discontinued. Observed Seat Belt L'se Rates by County Date Honolulu Hawaii Maui Kauai Statewide Jan 1991 87.7 81.4 80.3 81.4 85.3 Jan 1992 84.9 80.3 77.4 81.4 83.1 Feb 1993 8~.6 83.2 81.6 82.0 84.2 Jan 199 81.3 78.7 75.9 81.E 79.9 Jan 1997 80.3 79.6 76.6 83.6 80.0 ~-Year ,ave. 83.94 80.64 78.36 81.98 82.E Jan 1998 ~ 79.8 81.5 77.9 85.3 80.E Adult Seat Belt lise: The basic problem with seat and child res[raint use is that unless enforcement and public information are sustained, the use rates tend [o drop. "There were more seat belt citations statewide in Hawaii in CY 1989 than ever :34,625 citations were issued. The use rate improved from 718% in January to 80.x% in December. Enforcement continued close to this elevated level through CY 1991 and the use rate went up to 85.3%, the highest in the country. However. in 1992 there was a dramatic decrease in citations issued (25,630). Decreases continued through 1995, when an all-time low of 14,467 was recorded. Although enforcement increased to 16,968 citations in 1996 and 18,195 in 1997, it is still far to short of the number needed to make an impact on the remaining 20% of motorist who do not use belts. Some people need to receive a citation or two before they seriously consider changing their belt use habit, but after the habit is established, it seems to remain regardless of the enforcement level. The dramatic decrease in seat belt citations issued indicates the existence of problems in [he departments. One problem was the early retirement of many officers, which caused a manpower shortage. The early retirement option was made available as a result of t7nancial difficulties in the counties. These lima[ions no doubt caused changes in enforcement priorities. To ensure [hat federal funding of overtime enforcement is no[ construed to supplant county tundin~, the departments need to agree [o meet established criteria prior to receiving federal funding for overtime. The Hawaii county criteria for FFY 1999 is 3,813 seat belt and child restraint citations. This figure is the two-year average of citations issued by County-funded ofticers during the two-year period of FFY 1997 and FFY 1998. Observation survey results serve as indicators of progress made in promoting seat belt use. The goal of all the seat belt use promotion activities is to motivate all occupants to use a seat belt every time they ride in a motor vehicle that has one available. The statewide objective for CY 1996 was to increase the belt use rate by 5.~ percentage points (6.3%) from 79.9% in February, 199 to 8~% by February 28, 1996, and 90% by February of 1997. No survey was conducted in 1996, but the use rate for 1997 was only 80%. Thus, while the rest of [he nation experienced a 14 percentage point increase in belt use from 53% in 1990 to 68% in 1996, Hawaii experienced a 3.8 percentage point gain during that time frame, but then slipped back down to 80%.= The use rate was 80.x% in CY 1998. Seat belt enforcement needs to become adepartment- wide priority in all counties in order to get the statewide use rate up to 90%. County of Hawaii's use ra[e was 81.x% in 1998, slightly higher than its five-year (1991, 199?, 1993, 1995 and ! 9971 use ra[e average of 80.64% and the statewide use ra[e of 80.E Six front sea[ occupants died without a belt in 1997 and seven unbelted front seat occupants died in 1998. The table below provides statewide historical seat belt enforcement data. Police Department and Project Seat Belt Enforcement Federal Fiscal Total CY Driver % of Driver Year Citations Population Population FY 1991 33,277 699.664 4.61% FY 1992 25,630 716,545 3.580 FY 1993 17,139 734,381 2.33 % FY 1994 14,829 745,392 1.99% FY 1995 14,161 732,508 L98% FY 1996 16,968 733,486 2.3t% FY 199'7 13,036 738,865 L76% FY 1998 15,920 738,865 2.15% 199E-98 Ave 18,783 729,963 257% 1'he axt two tables provide similar data for the County of Hawaii. 'As of July, L996 Hawaii was tied [or [he sixth highes[ ra[e in [be nation. New Mexico = 86%; California = 85%; Washing[on = 83%; Vorth Carolina = HI %o; Hawaii & Oregon = 80%. 3 County of Hawaii Seat Belt & Child Restraint Citations FFY 1997 Adult Citations Child Restraint Total Citations Cits. October, 96 291 41 332 November, 96 332 ~9 391 December, 96 327 '7 354 January, 97 174 19 193 February 41~ 55 470 March 316 24 240 April 298 35 333 May 387 ~3 440 June 352 29 381 July 377 26 403 August 386 29 415 September 3l~ 3D 345 To to I 3 , 870 427 4,397 4 County of Hawaii Seat Belt & Child Restraint Citations FFY 1.998 Adult Citations Child Restraint Total Citations Cits. October, 97 369 42 411 November, 97 229 34 263 December, 9? 301 37 338 January, 98 387 32 419 February, 98 -124 33 457 N[arch, 98 232 27 259 April. 98 398 22 420 May. 98 411 29 440 June, 98 327 22 349 July, 98 601 35 636 August, 98 584 31 605 September, 98 467 40 507 Total 4.730 374 5,104 The County of Hawaii has historically reached a higher percent of its driver populations than the state as a whole. The County was most effective during 1990-1993 when department officers issued more citations during regular lime than overtime. Child Safety Seat tisage: Child safety seals are the most effective means of reducing injuries and fatalities to children in automobile crashes. Child seats specifically designed to hold children in place during a crash and prevent them from being smashed against the interior of the vehicle or from being ejected. Correct use of safety seats is estimated to reduce [he risk of fatality by 69% for infants and 47% for toddlers. The risk of injury is reduced by about 67%. The Hawaii child restraint use survey (taken January & February of 1997) results show a usage rate of 31.4%. This is low compared to 1995 (37.0%),1993 (59%),1992 (67%) and 1991 (55%). It is also low compared ro na[ional levels, which according to the July 1995 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety '`Status Report' is 88% for infants and 61% for toddlers aged 1 [0 4 years old. In 1996. NHTSA conducted a national study and found that overall, children aged five years and younger have a use rate of 61.2%. The Hawaii rate for CY 1998 went up to 48.1%. Children less than a year old had a use rate of 84.4%, but children aged 1-4 had only a 37% rate. There was not a fatality to an occupant in the 3 and under age group from CY 1993 through 199. The child that died in a 1996 crash was not properly restrained. The eight-year average (1990-1997) is 0.75 per year. However, unless the child restraint use rate is increased, it is just a matter of time when more unrestrained children will be fatally injured. Since younger passengers do not have the ability to decide whether to buckle up or not, they depend upon their parents and caretakers to take protective action for them. Therefore, enforcement, educational and promotional activities must be aimed at the people who make decisions that affect children who are passengers of motor vehicles. Even persons who make an effort to protect child passengers often do not maximize the child's protection, because they fail to read child safety seat instructions or the vehicle owner manual instructions regarding safety belts. In addition, there are still adults who are unaware that rear-facing child seats should not be placed in the front seat of cars equipped with passenger-side air bags. The impact of a deploying air bag striking a rear-facing child seat can result in serious injury to the child. Investigations by NHTSA indicate that. Out of 63 children who died in crashes involving air bags, 13 were babies riding in infant seats in the vehicles' front seats. Drivers who don't wear safety belts are ~0% more likely ro improperly restrain babies than those who wear belts. Drivers most likely to place their babies at risk tend to be younger and have less formal education. Parents are more likely to follow proper safety procedures as their children age - 2~ incorrectly place 1 to 3 month old infants in the front seat, while only 8% put 10 to 12 month old infants in [he front seat. 20% of parents with and without air bag-equipped vehicles report improperly restraining their infants. Solution Adult Seat Belt tise: The solution to the problem of maintaining a high seat belt use rate is to maintain high level of enforcement and continue educational efforts in all four counties. The fact that the use rate has remained at 80% in spite of a 50% reduction in motorists cited indicates that once the use habit is established, it tends to continue regardless of the level of subsequent enforcement. Since there seems to be about a ~ percentage point reduction in use with a reduction in enforcement, it appears [hat a 90% use rate can be achieved by increasing enforcement until the rate begins moving up. That level of enforcement should be sustained until a rate of 95% is achieved. When the enforcement level is then reduced, the rate will probably drop back to 90%. The first step to achieve an increase in citations, was to ask the police chefs to indicate to all officers in the departments that seat belt law enforcement is important and that everyone should Qive seat belt citations a high priority. This is expected to produce an increase in overall 6 motivation within the department. As a further stimulant to enforcement activities, federal funds will be used to augment enforcement via overtime officers. It is envisioned that overtime will be a financial incentive for officers to become more involved with seat belt enforcement, and the additional experience will help develop a habit of watching for seat belt law violations. This, in turn, is hoped to positively influence their enforcement activities during regular hours. The combined effect is expected to be an increase both in department citations and overall citations. The goal is to bring [he annual citation count to above 30,000 and sustain [hat level of enforcement until the use rate reaches 90%. The County of Hawaii will issue 1,012 seat belt citations with federal funds during FFY 1999. County-funded citations will total at least 3,8li. Child Safety Seat Gsage: As of 1998 Hawaii has an overall restraint use rate among children (0-4 years) of 48.1%. Infant << 1 year) seat use increased from 77.9% in 1997 to 84.4 % in 1998. Among toddlers (1-4 years), restrain[ use increased from 20.8 % in 1997 to 37.0% in 1998. The solution to the problem of an overall low child restraining usage rate is more complex than the adult belt use problem. Vehicles are generally not equipped by the manufacturer with child restraints, and child restraints are more bothersome to use that seat belts. To ensure that motorists are motivated to use the child safety seats that they have, police oft7cers will be encouraged to enforce the child restraint law. Part of this encouragement will come from a [raining program to be provided by a federally funded project with the Department of Health Safe Communities project. The training will be linked to national efforts, such as the Air Bag Safety Campaign and the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the NHTSA Child Passenger Specialist Certification program. The [raining will include information about [he magnitude of the child occupant protection problem, the importance of using child safety seats and seat belts correctly, air bag safety, and enforcement of the child restraint law. Evaluation The MVSO will continue to monitor crash and restraint use data in an effort to relate changes in the statewide belt use rate with changes in injury rates of occupants. The ultimate goal is to increase belt use to 100%. The statewide objective by the end of Calendar Year 1998 was 8~%; i[ was supposed to continue upward to 89.9% by CY 2000. However, since the 1998 objective was not achieved, the objective is revised to 83% by 1999. This project has the specific objective augmenting the enforcement of the seat belt and child restraint laws. The county will receive grant funds for the number of seat belt/child restraint citations that exceed the county total of 3,813 during the grant period. This will ensure that the federal funds are not used to supplant county funds. Only seat belt, child restraint and very serious violations with high potential for imminent danger will be addressed by the activities of this grant. The focus of the overtime hours charges against this ,rant is seat belt and child restraint use. Records of the following items will be made whenever officers are deployed via this project: 1. "the date and district in which enforcement takes place. 2. The time period worked. 7 3. "the number of seat belt law violation citations issued. 4. The number of child restraint law violation citations issued. The numbers of other citations and arrests made. 6. The monthly total numbers of seat belt and child restraint citations issued during regular and overtime hours. 8 SCHEDULE B HAWAII COUNTY Seatbelt Enforcement/Child Restraint Sa (1) Personal Services $15,000 Seatbelt Enforcement 510,000 Child Restraint Enforcement $ x.000 (2) Consultant Services -_0__ (3) Commodities --0-- (4) Other Direct/Indirect Costs __p__ Total Cost $15,000 9 SCHEDULE C HAWAII COUNTY Seatbelt Enforcement/Child Restraint PART I. PROJECT NUMBER: SEATBELT ENFORCEMENT/CHILD RESTRAINT FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 PROJECT ACTIVITY 1ST 3ND 3RD 4TH QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER QUARTER Sea[belt Enforcemen[ S 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 S 2,500.00 Child Restrain[ -0-- S'_,500.00 $ 3,500.00 -0-- Subtotal $ ?,500.00 S 5,000.00 S 5,000.00 $ 3,500.00 COMMENTS: COST $15,000. l0 SCFIEDULE D Agreement of Understanding & Compliance Project Number: OP99-05(01-H-02) THIS AGREEMENT made and en[ered into by and be[ween the STATE OF HAWAII by and through its Director of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State", and [he Governmental Unit named in this application, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant". WHEREAS, the National Highway Safety Ac[ of 1966 (Public Law 59-564) provides Federal funds to the STATE for approved highway safety projects, and WHEREAS, STATE may make said funds available to various state, county or municipal agencies or governments or political subdivisions upon application and approval by STATE and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, and WHEREAS, STATE is obliga[ed to reimburse the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION out of its funds for any ineligible or unau[horized expenditures for which Federal funds have been claimed and paymen[ received, and WHEREAS, the above name APPLICANT has submi[ted an application for Federal funds for highway safety projects. NOW, THEREFORE, W CONSIDERATION OF MUTUAL PROMISES AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: L Reimbursement of Eligible Expenditures A. It is mutually agreed and promised [hat upon writ[en application by APPLICANT and approval by STATE and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. STATE shall obligate said Federal funds [n APPLICANT'S account for reimbursement of eligible expenditures as set forth in the application. B. It is mutually agreed and promised that APPLICANT shall reimburse STATE for any ineligible or unau[horized expenditures for which Federal funds have been claimed and payment received as determined by a Stale or Federal audit. Costs are no[ allowable for construction, rehabilitation, remodeling, or for office furnishings and fixtures -for State. Local or private buildings or structures. The following are examples of items considered as furnishings or fixtures, for which reimbursemen[ is no[ eligible: Desks Credenzas Storage Cabinets Chairs Bookcases Poaable Pani[ions Tables Filing Cabinets Pictures, Wal] Clocks Shelving Fioor Coverings Draperies Coat Racks Office Planters Fixed Lighting/Lamps C. It is Further agreed and promised that where reimbursement is made to APPLICANT in installments, STATE shall have [he righ[ to wi[hhold any installments to make up reimbursemen received for any ineligible or unau[horized expenditures un[il such time as the ineligible claim is made up or correct by APPLICANT. 1 !I. Properry Agreement A. It is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT shall immediately no[ify the STATE if any equipment purchased under this projec[ ceases to be used in the manner as set fonh by the project agreement. In such even[, APPLICANT furher agrees to either give credit to the projec[ cost or to anothec active Highway Safery project for the residual value of such equipment in an amount to be determined by the STATE, or to [ransfer or otherwise dispose of such equipment as directed by STATE. B. It is mutually agreed and promised by the APPLICANT tha[ no purchased equipmen[ under [his projec[ will be conveyed, sold, salvaged, transferred, etc. withou[ the express wri[[en approval of [he STATE. C. II is mutually agreed and promised tha[ the APPLICANT shall maintain or cause to be maintained for its useful fife, any equipmen[ purchased under this project. III. Applica[ion of Hatch Ac[ A. [t is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT shall w[ify all employees of the APPLICANT, whose principal employment is in connection with any Highway Safery projec[, financed in whole or in pan by loans or grans under [he Highway Safery Act of 1966, of the provisions of Section 12 (a) of the Hach Act U.S.C. 1ISK (a)). [V. Equal Opponuniry A. It is mutually agreed and promised that pursuan[ [o the requirements of Section 22 (a) of [he Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, Section X04 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the APPLICANT, as a condition to receiving approval of [his application submitted under the Highway Safery Act of 1966, hereby gives i[s assurance tha[ employment in connection with the subject Highway Safety Program projec[ will be provided withou[ regard to race, color, creed, sex, handicap, age, or national origin. The APPLICANT further agrees tha[, as a condition to receiving approval of this application, it will be subject to, and will comply wi[h, Tile VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Sta[. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d-4 (hereinafter referred to as [he Ac[), and all applicable requirements pursuant to the Regulations of the Department of Commerce (Ti[le 15, Code of Federal Regulations, Pan 8, which have been adopted by the Departmen[ of Transpona[ion, and hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), [o the end that, in accordance with the Act and the Regulations, no person in the Uni[ed Stales shall on [he ground of race, color, creed, sex, handicap, age, or national origin be excluded from panicipa[ion in, be denied the benefi[s of, or be otherwise subjected [o discrimina[ion under the subject Highway Safery Program or project. B. It is mutually agreed and promised that if [he APPLICANT fails or refuses to comply with its undertaking as set fonh in these provisions, the STATE of the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION may lake any or all of these following actions. (1) Cancel, terminate, or suspend in whole or in part the agreement, con[ract, or o[her arrangement with respect to which the failure or refusal occurred; and (2) Retrain from extending any furher Federal financial assis[ance to the applicant agency under the program with respect [o which the failure or refusal occurred un[il satisfactory assurance of furore compliance has been received from the applican[ agency. V. Non-duplication of Grant Fund Expenditures A. It is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT has no ongoing or completed projects under agreement with any other Federal fund source which duplicate or overlap any work contemplated or described in this project. B. is mutually agreed and promised that the APPLICANT will either revise this project or revise any pending or proposed request for other Federal grant funds which would duplicate or overlap work under this project to exclude any such duplication of grant fund expenditures. C. It is further mutually agreed and understood that the APPLICANT shall reimburse the STATE OF HAWAII for any such duplicate expenditures for which Federal grant funds have been claimed and payment received as determined by State or Federal audit. Vt. Project Income and Applicable Credits A. II is mutually agreed and understood that the APPLICANT shall apply all proceeds or credits generated under the project, such as but not restricted co: The sale of real or personal properly royaities received from copyrights and patents, sale of publications or from personal or incidental services, to the project in accordance with OMB Circular A-87 (FMC 74-7) and NHTSA/FHWA Order 460-4/7510.1. VII. Copyrights and Patents .4. II is mutually agreed that any copyrigh[able materials produced in the course of a project may be the property of [he State or applicant agency; however, provisions should be made to obtain for the United States Government, the State Governments and their political subdivisions a royalty-free nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to use in any manner such copyrightable material. B. I[ is mutually agreed that dte ownership of all rights accruing from any pa[entable discoveries or inventions resulting from a project should be covered in the agreement. An irrevocable, nonexclusive, nontransferable, and royalty-free license to practice each discovery or invert[ion in the manufacture, use and disposition, according to law, of any article or material, and in the use of any method developed as pan of the work under the agreement should be obtained for the Utti[ed States Government, the Stale Governments and their political subdivisions. VIII. Certification Regarding Debarmen[ and Suspension A. I~trnctions for Certification 1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below. 2. The certification in [his clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered inro. [f it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participan[ knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available [o the Federal government, the department or agency with which [his transaction origina[ed may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written no[ice [o the person to which [his proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that i[s certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 3 4. The terms covered transaction, "debarred," "suspended," "ineligible," "lower tier covered [ransaction," "participant," "person," "primary covered transaction," "principal," "proposal," and "voluntarily excluded," as used in this clause, have the meanings se[ out in the Defini[ion and Coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contac[ the person to whom this proposal is submi[[ed for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 5. The prospective Lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntazily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated. 6. The prospective Lower tier participant further agrees by submiaing this proposal [hat is it will include this clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarmen[, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion Lower Tier Covered Transac[ion," without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered [ransactions. (See below) 7. A participant in a covered [ransaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered [ransaction that it is no[ debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntazily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that dte certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines [he eligibili[y of its principals. Each panicipan[ may, bu[ is not required to, check [he Nonproeurement Lis[. 8. Nothing contained m [he foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith [he certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed [hat which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph ~ of these instructions, if a participant m a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to ocher remedies available to the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. IX. Certification Regarding Debarment. Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -Lower Tier Covered Transactions 1. The prospective lower tier participant cenifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. 2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participants shall attach an explanation [o this proposal. X. Minority Business Enterprise Requirements It is the policy of [he Department of Transportation that minority business enterprises, as defined in d9 CFR Part ?3, shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in part with Federal funds under [his agreement. Consequently, the MBE requirements of 49 CFR Pan 23 apply to this agreement. 4 The recipient or its contractor agrees [o ensure that minority business enterprises as defined in 49 CFR Par[ 23 have the maximum oppottuniry to participate in [he performance of contracts and subcontracts fmanced in whole or in pan with Federal Funds provided under this agreement. In this regard, all recipients or contractors shall [ake all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49 CFR Patt 23 to ensure that minority business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete For and perform contracts. Recipients and their comractors shall not discrimina[e on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of DOT- assisted contracts. XI. Requirements A. It is mutually agreed and promised that the applicant shall follow the State and Federal requirements and guidelines set for[h in [he State of Hawaii Project Procedures Manual as amended. All project expenditure records are to be retained for at leas[ three years after the date of the fmal expenditure report. XII. Authoriza[ion to Proceed A. I[ is mutually agreed be[ween the STATE and the APPLICANT that this AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMPLIANCE shall become effective upon the STATE'S agreement and authorization to proceed as set forth in PART II(2) of this application. 5