The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 1 of 13

Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs

BIL Implementation Webinar Questions and Answers

March 20, 2023

In February 2023, NHTSA hosted a series of webinars on the Uniform Procedures for 

State Highway Safety Grant Programs. This document presents the questions from

those webinars and provides NHTSA's responses. Some questions have been edited 

for readability or to provide context.

For specific responses to any questions related to specific project expenses and 

allowability, States are encouraged to compile relevant project details for NHTSA to 

review. The thoroughness and specificity of the information provided will dictate 

NHTSA's ability to provide constructive feedback. 

Table of Contents

Application Process ................................................................................................................... 1

Performance Measures.............................................................................................................. 3

Public Participation and Engagement......................................................................................... 3

Annual Grant Application ........................................................................................................... 8

Local Expenditures ...................................................................................................................10

Section 405 National Priority Incentive Grants ..........................................................................11

Other.........................................................................................................................................13

Application Process

Question 1: Is triennial HSP approval due 60 days from July 1 or 60 days from when 

each State submits? (Some States submit early).

Response: NHTSA has 60 calendar days to review the triennial HSP from the 

submission date, consistent with the statute. 23 CFR §1300.11(c). The review window 

will commence upon receipt of the triennial Highway Safety Plan. For example, 

NHTSA's review of a triennial HSP submitted on June 30, 2023, must be completed on 

or before August 29, 2023.
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 2 of 13

Question 2: Does the 60 days review apply to the submission of the triennial HSP or 

the annual grant application?

Response: Both the triennial HSP and the annual grant application are subject to a 60-

day review period. 23 CFR § 1300.11(c) and §1300.12(c). However, NHTSA may 

extend the review period for the triennial HSP no more than 90 days to facilitate a 

request for additional information from a State, as necessary. 23 CFR 1300.11(c)(2). 

Question 3: Will the deadline for promised projects be adjusted since NHTSA has 60 

days to review the annual grant application? 

Response: No, the deadline for promised projects remains the same. See 23 CFR § 

1300.41(b). 

Question 4: Will NHTSA create an updated guide for the triennial HSP and annual 

grant application?

Response: NHTSA will not create a guide for the triennial HSP and annual grant 

application. The final regulation presents all required information in an easy-to-follow 

manner. 

Question 5: Does the triennial Highway Safety Plan (HSP) need to be signed by a 

designated person in the SHSO?

Response: 23 CFR Part 1300 does not require a formal signature for the triennial HSP. 

However, States are reminded that the triennial HSP, in conjunction with the annual 

grant application, is a legal grant application document and may require a signature 

under State laws and regulations in order to be a valid submission. In addition, the 

triennial HSP is intrinsically connected to the annual grant application, which requires 

the Governor's Representative (GR) signature via the certifications and assurances. 

The annual grant application must align with the State's triennial HSP. In signing the 

certifications and assurances for the annual grant application, the GR is also certifying 

that the contents of the triennial HSP, as updated in the annual grant application, are 

true and accurate. Further, States are reminded that the Governor's Representative 

(GR) for Highway Safety is accountable for all aspects of the highway safety program. 

The absence of a signature on the triennial HSP does not excuse the lack of proper 

internal controls to ensure GR review and approval before submission. 
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 3 of 13 

Performance Measures

Question 6: Will guidance be provided to States on how to set performance targets? 

For example, what is the best practice for modeling for three years out for the triennial 

HSP when States currently have 2020 FARS data? Is there a chart or resource that 

States can use to update their models when setting performance measures? What 

equations or models are considered best practices under BIL? 

Response: States can use any evidence-based method to establish safety performance 

targets demonstrating constant or improved performance, which the State deems 

appropriate. States should review State-specific data sets and trends and consider 

internal and external factors such as miles traveled, laws, and investments that may 

affect its performance targets. NHTSA will provide a sample chart that States may use 

as an optional model for their triennial HSP Performance Plan. NHTSA will offer 

additional training on setting performance targets for the triennial HSP. 

Question 7: Does the US DOT have performance measures?

Response: NHTSA and the US DOT are committed to performance management. The 

Federal Department of Transportation has performance measures for itself. For 

additional information: FY 2022-26 US DOT Strategic Plan | US Department of 

Transportation. 

[Note: NHTSA received several additional questions relating to performance measures, 

but will be addressing those questions in an upcoming training webinar.]

Public Participation and Engagement

Question 8: How will NHTSA determine if public engagement was meaningful? Can 

NHTSA provide any concrete examples of meaningful public engagement or 

participation? 

Response: NHTSA's determination of whether of a State’s public participation and 

engagement activities is meaningful will be based on whether the information that a 

State submits consistent with 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2) shows that 1) the State 

implemented a public engagement program that provided full and good faith efforts by 

the State to ensure that affected communities are identified and have sufficient and 

tangible opportunities to influence the development and implementation of the State's 

highway safety program and that 2) the State gave meaningful consideration to the 

feedback received. During the Public Participation and Engagement Part 2 training 

NHTSA provided strategies and scenarios of meaningful engagement. Also referenced 

in this training was the US DOT Promising Practices for Meaningful Public Involvement 

in Transportation Decision-Making. Highway Safety Offices are encouraged to refer to 

these resources for additional information. Examples of what is meaningful public 
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 4 of 13

engagement may vary by State. Please confer with your Regional Office on specific 

engagement opportunities you are considering. NHTSA will then advise if planned 

efforts align with the statutory and regulatory intent of meaningful engagement that 

informs a State's highway safety programming.

Question 9: What is the minimum requirement to meet the public engagement 

requirement, especially in year one? What is the expectation for describing public 

participation outcomes in the first year of a triennial HSP when sub-recipient 

applications were submitted before the final rule was issued?

Response: All requirements under the BIL take full effect for FY24 grants; this includes 

the public participation and engagement requirements.

In a situation where a State has already closed applications for subawards, States must 

still demonstrate that the program is informed by public participation. This may require

that States have the ability to seek additional applications for subawards if necessary,

after conducting their engagement activities. 

Question 10: Can subaward proposals be submitted in languages other than English? 

If yes, how should those proposals be managed by HSOs to ensure compliance with 

Title VI?

Response: Yes, potential subrecipients may submit proposals in languages other than 

English. Federal financial assistance (FFA) recipients, like SHSOs and their

subrecipients, are subject to Federal nondiscrimination requirements, including those 

applicable to the provision of federally assisted services to persons who possess 

Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

Recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their 

programs and activities by persons who are LEP. While designed to be a flexible and 

fact-dependent standard, the starting point is an individualized assessment that 

balances the following four factors: (1) the number or proportion of persons who are 

eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by a program, activity, or service of the 

recipient or grantee; (2) the frequency with which persons who are LEP come in contact 

with the program; (3) the nature and importance of the program, activity, or service 

provided by the recipient to people's lives; and (4) the resources available to the 

recipient and costs. If, after applying the 4-factor analysis, the State determines that 

translation is the appropriate language assistance measure, then the State must assess 

the translated application in the same manner as all other applications, regardless of 

language. The flexibility that States have in addressing the needs of the LEP 

populations they serve does not diminish, and should not be used to minimize, the 

obligation that those needs be addressed. 
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 5 of 13 

Please refer to DOT’s Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients' Responsibilities to 

Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons, 70 FR 74087, which clarifies existing legal 

requirements. Additional resources are available at www.LEP.gov. 

Question 11: Could you clarify what accessibility means in the context of PP&E? What 

types of accessibility measures are recommended or required?

Response: The Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the 

Federal Workforce (EO 14035), defines "accessibility" as the design, construction, 

development, and maintenance of facilities, information and communication technology, 

programs, and services so that all people, including people with disabilities, can fully 

and independently use them. Accessibility includes the provision of accommodations 

and modifications to ensure equal access to employment and participation in activities 

for people with disabilities, the reduction or elimination of physical and attitudinal 

barriers to equitable opportunities, a commitment to ensuring that people with 

disabilities can independently access every outward-facing and internal activity or 

electronic space, and the pursuit of best practices such as universal design." For 

examples of potential accessibility measures in the public participation and engagement 

context, please refer to the public participation and engagement webinars parts I and II. 

Additional resources to support accessibility measures are included on the 'Resources 

to Support Meaningful Public Engagement' info sheet. These resources may all be 

found on NHTSA’s website at: [INSERT LINK TO HOST PAGE]. NHTSA will provide 

further guidance on this topic in the future.

Question 12: Will NHTSA reject an engagement outcome if a planned program 

conflicts with public input? For example, what if the public input is inconsistent with what 

best practices dictate or what problem ID identifies as the most critical problem? 

Response: NHTSA does not expect States to accept or implement every 

recommendation exactly as received in engagement opportunities. Instead, States must 

demonstrate that they provided sufficient public engagement opportunities structured to 

solicit feedback and that they have considered that feedback while planning and 

implementing their programs. Feedback can and should be viewed in the context of 

data, applicable laws and other rules, available resources, and the State's expertise. 

If a State finds that its public engagement opportunities are not leading to actionable 

public input because only a very vocal minority of stakeholders are participating, the 

State should use that experience to inform its plans for future engagement to broaden 

its reach to obtain full representation from communities.

For feedback beyond the scope of HSO activities (e.g., infrastructure projects), States 

are encouraged to consider the input creatively and share feedback with appropriate 

partners whenever possible.
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 6 of 13 

Question 13: Will online sessions (webinars) and/or online surveys be accepted as a 

means of public engagement?

Response: The format in which engagement is conducted should be determined based 

on the problem ID and the needs of the communities identified. Online surveys and 

sessions are a useful engagement option to use alongside in-person engagement 

opportunities. The purpose of engagement is to solicit feedback from community 

members that will inform your program. Technology, including online sessions and/or 

surveys, can be a valuable tool to reach a community. States should consider 

technology and access limitations when using online sessions and surveys to ensure 

equitable engagement with all community members, including individuals with limited 

access to the internet, WiFi, cellphone data plans, computers, or smart phones; 

individuals with disabilities; and individuals who are LEP. As a result, an engagement 

program that consists only of online engagement will not be considered sufficient. 

Additionally, online webinars and surveys should provide ample opportunity for 

individuals to provide feedback that the SHSO can use to shape their program. 

Individual efforts that States may consider are fact-specific, and States should compile 

relevant details and reach out to NHTSA for assistance if needed. The thoroughness 

and specificity of the information provided will impact NHTSA's ability to provide 

constructive feedback.

Question 14: What recommendations does NHTSA have for small SHSOs and their 

ability to facilitate meaningful public engagement?

Response: Small SHSOs are encouraged to utilize their existing networks, including 

partners working across elements of the Safe System Approach, to assist with or to 

collaborate on public engagement initiatives. Additionally, it is recommended that 

SHSOs also build capacity where possible. This could look like onboarding staff or 

engaging contractors dedicated to meaningful public engagement. To work through your 

specific SHSO's situation, please reach out to your regional office and/or contact 

nhtsaropdprogramquestions@dot.gov.

Question 15: Can you speak to the ability to compensate community engagement 

participants for their time and efforts?

Response: Whether a specific cost is an allowable use of funds is highly fact-specific 

and subject to many different Federal laws and regulations. Differences in State laws 

and regulations may also affect whether a State may compensate participants in public 

engagement efforts; if State rules prohibit compensation of participants, NHTSA grant 

funds cannot be used for that purpose. If State rules allow such compensation, then

these costs are potentially allowable uses of grant funds. NHTSA will work with States 

to determine whether specific participation costs are allowable. Any State that wishes to 

compensate community engagement participants is encouraged to reach out to its 

regional office and/or to contact nhtsaropdprogramquestions@dot.gov with more 
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 7 of 13 

details. Useful information to provide may include: type of engagement, who are the 

participants who will be compensated, whether those participants are subrecipients, 

why compensation is necessary to ensure desired engagement, amount of 

compensation, and how that amount was determined. 

Question 16: Can States use grant funds to purchase food and/or drinks at public 

participation and engagement meetings?

Response: Food and/or drinks may be an allowable cost if the State determines that 

they are necessary to increase participation in or the effectiveness of the engagement 

opportunity and if those costs would be allowable under State rules. Any such 

expenditures must be supported by an analysis of the necessity for food and/or drinks 

and the costs for the food and/or drink must be reasonable. Alcoholic beverages are 

never allowable (2 CFR 200.423). SHSOs are encouraged to consult with their Regional 

Offices before purchasing food and/or drink using NHTSA grant funds. 

Question 17: Do all the costs from focus groups or asking a grantee to conduct a 

survey come out of Planning & Administration (P&A) funds? Or can we use other 

funding areas?

Response: Public participation and engagement costs are planning and administration 

costs and therefore can only be funded with Section 402 P&A funds. NHTSA increased 

the State’s allowance for P & A costs to 18% in order to ensure that States have 

sufficient resources to fully implement the planning and public engagement 

requirements of the BIL. 

While States may not use program funds to pay for public participation and engagement 

opportunities, NHTSA does encourage States to integrate feedback opportunities into 

program activities and to consider that feedback during program planning. 

Question 18 Can States purchase items for games and contests or do we have to seek 

out donations or alternate sources to fund them?

Response: As a general rule, no, States may not use grant funds to purchase prizes for 

games or contests. See NHTSA guidance on the Use of NHTSA Highway Safety Grant 

Funds for Certain Purchases. The allowability of such costs is highly fact specific; 

States are encouraged to reach out to their Regional Office with more details about 

specific costs.
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 8 of 13

Question 19: Expand on the concept of identifying underserved and overrepresented 

communities. Is NHTSA suggesting that States should/must systematically identify all 

such groups in a State based on what can be gleaned from potentially multiple data 

sets? How should States efficiently approach that project and structure such a report in 

the triennial HSP?

Response: NHTSA expects States to identify affected and potentially affected 

communities, with a particular emphasis on communities underserved or 

overrepresented, as indicated by the data, as it relates to the upcoming triennial HSP. 

States should consider utilizing various data sources to determine the issues they seek 

to address in the forthcoming triennial HSP. States should also seek to understand 

where traffic safety issues are occurring and who may be directly or indirectly impacted. 

This analysis will assist States with identifying specific community groups that the State 

can work with through targeted and meaningful public engagement and program 

delivery. The depth and breadth of this effort will vary based on the data and each 

State's identified needs and capabilities. Please refer to the ‘Resources to Support 

Meaningful Public Engagement' info sheet and the Public Participation and Engagement 

Part 2 webinar for potential data sources to utilize.

Annual Grant Application

Question 20: What does it mean to link a project to a countermeasure strategy in the 

annual grant application?

Response: The annual grant application must demonstrate alignment with the State’s 

triennial HSP by providing project and subrecipient information that is sufficient to carry 

out the countermeasure strategies laid out in triennial HSP to help States meet their 

performance targets. To help States demonstrate this alignment, 23 CFR 

1300.12(b)(2)(ix) provides that States must identify the countermeasure strategy or 

strategies that the project will support. 

Question 21: Many States don't have their subrecipient lists ready on August 1. Will 

that now be a requirement? When do project agreements have to be signed?

Response: The project and subrecipient information component is a significant part of 

your annual grant application that is due on August 1. States are required to submit 

subrecipient information with the annual grant application; however, they may amend 

this information later in the year when project agreements are finalized. See 23 CFR 

1300.32. States do not need to have signed project agreements at the time of 

application; project agreement numbers may be added via an amendment to the annual 

grant application prior to beginning project performance. See 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2) and 

23 CFR 1300.32. NHTSA cannot approve an annual grant application unless the 

project and subrecipient information aligns with your approved triennial HSP and is 

sufficient to carry out the countermeasures in the triennial HSP to meet your targets. 
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 9 of 13

Question 22: Can NHTSA provide a definition of "Eligible Use of Funds" as it applies to 

identifying project and subrecipient information in 23 CFR 1300.22 (b)(2)(vi)? 

Response: Eligible use of funds refers to specific activities that can be reimbursed with 

NHTSA grant funds. Eligible use of funds varies by funding source. For example, there 

are six specific eligible uses of Section 405(b) Occupant Protection Grants. See 23 CFR 

1300.21(g)(1). For projects on occupant protection training, States should notate this 

specific eligible use as Occupant Protection Training. This same eligible use notation 

would apply to projects using Section 402 grant funds for occupant protection training. 

As another example, there are two eligible uses of Section 402 grant funds for 

automated traffic enforcement (school zone or work zone). See 23 CFR 1300.13(g). 

Projects using Section 402 grant funds for automated traffic enforcement in a school 

zone should notate the eligible use as Automated Traffic Enforcement—school zone 

and ensure that the project description includes the appropriate information per 

1300.12(b)(2)(i). If a State is uncertain about a specific use of funds, we encourage the 

State to reach out to the Region for assistance.

Question 23: How do we document the eligible use of funds on vouchers? Does it have 

to be documented monthly? What info is needed? Please provide examples.

Response: As States set up their projects in GTS for FY2024 they should be mindful of 

how they plan to meet this requirement. Eligible uses are required for each voucher that 

is submitted. States that have used GTS on a program area level basis are familiar with 

the process of uploading documentation to show which projects are included in a 

voucher. This documentation, usually in the form of a project level spreadsheet, can be 

modified to include the costs for each eligible use by project. States should use the 

GTS codes to identify the eligible uses. GTS codes correspond to the eligible uses 

identified in BIL. States that organize GTS on a project-by-project basis may not be 

familiar with the upload function within GTS. It is located under the Transaction header 

in the main menu. States submitting on a project-by-project basis will need to upload a 

spreadsheet outlining the eligible use costs if there is more than one eligible use for 

their projects. If a State organizes GTS on a project-by-project level basis and none of 

their projects have more than one eligible use, then there is no need to upload a 

spreadsheet, as long as the proper GTS codes are used to set up each project. States 

can find all the codes for eligible uses in the "program area" report (Q) in GTS. More 

information will be available soon – including updated codes for expanded BIL eligible 

uses. Note, the eligible use of funds provided in a voucher must match an eligible use of 

funds provided for the project in the annual grant application project information.
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 10 of 13

Local Expenditures

Question 24: Can you clarify ways that political subdivisions can identify a need and 

request benefit from the State to implement a media buy on their behalf in order to 

leverage economies of scale? 

Response: There are two ways that a State can document a political subdivision’s 

identification of need and request expenditure on its behalf by the State consistent with 

23 CFR 1300.13(b)(3). In one scenario, a local political subdivision could submit a 

written request, demonstrating a traffic safety need within its jurisdiction and requesting 

that the State provide an awareness campaign targeted to that safety issue within its 

borders during relevant times (i.e., if there is a significant increase in speed-related 

crashes surrounding a specific sporting event, the political subdivision could request a 

media campaign related to speed during those times). The State would have to obtain 

written acceptance by the political subdivision of the planned activity prior to 

implementation of the project. If the activity is part of a larger agreement, the State must 

be able to separate out proportional costs attributable to the requested activity to count 

those funds as local expenditure. The key in all situations the connection between the 

need and activity requested by the political subdivision and the project that the State, or 

another entity, carries out on the political subdivision's behalf. Regional Offices can 

work with States on specific examples to assist with determining qualification.

Question 25: Is an acknowledgment (letter) from League of Cities, Chiefs of Police and 

Sheriff's Associations acceptable documentation to satisfy the local expenditure 

requirement? 

Response: Political subdivision includes associations comprised of representatives 

from political subdivisions acting in their official capacities. As a result, a group of 

localities represented by a League of Cities, Chiefs of Police and Sheriff's associations

qualify as a political subdivision. Direct expenditures or expenditures by the State on 

behalf of such groups may therefore count towards the State’s local expenditure 

requirement, provided they meet the requirements set out in 23 CFR 1300.13(b). An 

acknowledgement letter, on its own, is insufficient to document State expenditures on 

behalf of a political subdivision. See the response to Question 24, above, for an 

example of how a State can document expenditures on behalf of a political subdivision. 

Regional Offices can work with States on specific examples to assist with determining 

qualification.

Question 26: Does funding to non-profits no longer count as local expenditure if the 

non-profit is not a subrecipient of a political subdivision?

Response: States may use an agreement with a non-profit entity to carry out 

expenditures on behalf of political subdivisions provided sufficient documentation, 

consistent with 23 CFR 1300.13(b)(3) to demonstrate that the political subdivision(s) 

was involved in identifying its traffic safety needs and provided input into the 
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 11 of 13 

implementation of the activity. The key to determining whether an expenditure may 

count towards the State’s 40% local expenditure requirement is the documentation of 

the required input from the political subdivision. 

Section 405 National Priority Incentive Grants

Question 27: Are there resources for child passenger safety (CPS) technicians in the 

field in languages other than English and Spanish?

Response: NHTSA is exploring ways to provide additional CPS resources in 

languages. Colorado offers resources for CPS technicians to use for people with limited 

English proficiency. Please see How to Install a Car Seat Right — in 18 Languages — 

Colorado Department of Transportation (codot.gov). 

Question 28: What is the review period for any Impaired Driving Strategic Plan 

submitted on August 1 of the next Fiscal Year (delayed submission under S405(d))?

Response: NHTSA will review and approve/disapprove impaired driving plans 

submitted after August 1, 2023, and before August 1, 2024, within 60 days of receipt. 

Question 29: For the distracted driving awareness grant, what if a State only has one 

sample distracted driving question on its exam? Must the question(s) on license exam 

be specific to call/text/phone distraction or can they ask about other types of distractions 

(ex: eating and drinking)? 

Response: NHTSA requires States to submit at least one sample distracted driving 

question from its driver's license examination. Distracted driving is any activity that 

diverts attention from driving, including talking or texting on your phone, eating and 

drinking, talking to people in your vehicle, fiddling with the stereo, entertainment, or 

navigation. Eligible questions can cover any form of distraction. 

Use of Funds

Question 30: May Highway Safety Offices award NHTSA-funded subawards to Federal 

entities?

Response: Yes. Highway Safety Offices may enter into subawards with Federal entities 

(for example, the National Park Service and Department of Defense). 2 CFR 200.1

defines a subrecipient as an "entity, usually but not limited to non-Federal entities that 

receives a subaward from a pass-through entity to carry out part of a Federal award.” 

This allows States (using Federal grant funds) to partner with other Federal entities. 

States must apply the same rules to Federal agency subrecipients as any other nonFederal sub-recipient.
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 12 of 13

Question 31: Purchase and deployment of digital alert technology is an allowable cost 

under the new Preventing Roadside Deaths incentive grant. Can Section 402 funds (or 

incentive grant funds that may be used for Section 402 purposes) be used for such 

purposes as well? 

Response: Purchase and deployment of digital alert technology is eligible for NHTSA 

reimbursement under the new Preventing Roadside Deaths incentive grant and Section 

402, provided that the State offers a problem identification and is part of a broader 

strategy to address roadside fatalities and injuries as identified in the State's problem 

identification. Costs must be reasonable, follow all rules related to equipment, and 

generally proportionate to the problem ID.

Question 32: What is NHTSA's official position on the LEL program? Is there any 

movement by NHTSA in not allowing it to be funded in the future?

Response: NHTSA fully supports State law enforcement liaison (LEL) programs. States 

may continue to use Section 402 funding to pay for activities supporting the LEL 

program. 

Question 33: Are law enforcement checkpoints allowed with grant funding? 

Response: Yes. Law enforcement checkpoints are an eligible use of funds for select 

grant programs. For example, impaired driving countermeasure (Section 405(d)) grant 

funds may be used for sobriety checkpoints and/or saturation patrols conducted in a 

highly visible manner and supported by publicity through paid or earned media (i.e., 

high visibility enforcement efforts). However, States may not use NHTSA grant funds for 

programs to create checkpoints to check motorcycle helmet usage or that specifically 

target motorcyclists. 

Question 34: What is the dollar threshold for required media surveys? 

Response: There are no media surveys that are required as part of the NHTSA 

highway safety grant program.

 

Question 35: Can Section 402 grant funds be used to fund activities (e.g., education 

campaigns) for All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV Safety)? 

Response: All uses of Section 402 funds must be based on problem identification of 

traffic safety problems on public roadways and are subject to any restrictions in 

NHTSA’s grant regulation or the Supercircular’s Cost Principles (Subpart E of 2 CFR 

Part 200). If the data shows that ATV crashes on the roadway are an issue in your 

State, then using Section 402 funds for that purpose is allowable. Similarly, starting in 

FY24, States may use non-motorized safety grant funds for this purpose. Please be 

sure to include such programs in your triennial HSP as either its own program area or 

combined with your non-motorized program. 
The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public 

in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

Page 13 of 13

Other

Question 36: The Safe System Approach is not specifically mentioned in the Final 

Rule, only in the preamble. To what extent is SSA going to be required? 

Response: The Safe System Approach (SSA) is an effective way to address and 

mitigate the risks inherent in our complex transportation system. SSA works by building 

and reinforcing multiple layers of protection to both prevent crashes from happening in 

the first place and minimize the harm caused to those involved when crashes do occur. 

SSA is not specifically required by regulation, but holistic and comprehensive SSA is 

strongly encouraged. States are highly encouraged to coordinate behavioral safety 

countermeasures and activities with other disciplines. For example, are Emergency 

Medical Services personal represented in your highway safety planning processes?

Question 37: How can a State demonstrate compliance with the data-based traffic 

safety enforcement program as provided in the certifications and assurances under 

Section 402? Similarly, how can a State demonstrate that it supported a data-based 

traffic safety enforcement program?

Response: There are two ways that States can demonstrate compliance in program 

documents. First, countermeasure strategies in the triennial HSP and projects in the 

annual grant application should demonstrate that the State is running an evidencebased traffic safety enforcement program as one part of its highway safety program. 

Second, the State must provide the required information in the annual report (23 CFR 

1300.35(b)(3)) to describe the State’s evidence-based enforcement program activities.

Question 38: Will the Regions be encouraged to have follow-up meetings after this 

webinar series is completed to give technical advice and guidance to assist SHSO's?

Response: Regional offices remain committed to providing technical assistance to 

States as needed. SHSOs are encouraged to consult with the Regions in advance of 

submission deadlines to minimize the potential for deficiencies and/or review delays. 

In addition, NHTSA will provide additional training and guidance to support BIL 

implementation. In spring 2023, NHTSA will offer a series of trainings on select grant 

administration and public participation and engagement matters based on request from 

the States.

Question 39: Are the Uniform Guidelines being updated?

Response: Yes. NHTSA is actively updating the Uniform Highway Safety Guidelines. 

When complete, the Uniform Guidelines will be published in the Federal Register and 

NHTSA will seek public comment before finalization.