Document ID: NHTSA-2022-0036-0058
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs
Posted Date: 2022-09-15T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56756-56846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18995]

[[Page 56755]]

Vol. 87

Thursday,

No. 178

September 15, 2022

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

23 CFR Part 1300

Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 56756]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1300

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0036]
RIN 2127-AM45

Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes revised uniform procedures implementing 
State highway safety grant programs, as a result of enactment of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, also referred to as the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL). It also reorganizes, streamlines 
and updates some grant requirements. The agency requests comments on 
the proposed rule.

DATES: Comments in response to this notice of proposed rulemaking must 
be submitted by October 31, 2022. In compliance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking comment on a new information 
collection. See the Paperwork Reduction Act section under Regulatory 
Analyses and Notices below. Comments concerning the new information 
collection requirements are due October 31, 2022 to NHTSA and to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the 
ADDRESSES section.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by docket number 
or RIN, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West 
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is 
there to help you, please call 202-366-9826 before coming.
    Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should 
be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information collection, 
select ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comment'' or use the 
search function. It is requested that comments sent to the OMB also be 
sent to the NHTSA rulemaking docket identified in the heading of this 
document.
    Instructions: All written submissions must include the agency name 
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public 
Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this document.
    For comments on the proposed collection of information, all 
submissions must include the agency name and docket number for the 
proposed collection of information. Note that all comments received 
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including 
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading 
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket go to http://www.regulations.gov 
at any time or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-
9826.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory 
Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For program issues: Barbara Sauers, Acting Associate Administrator, 
Regional Operations and Program Delivery, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration; Telephone number: (202) 366-0144; Email: 
[email protected].
    For legal issues: Megan Brown, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone number: (202) 366-
1834; Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Comments From the Public Meeting and Request for Comments
III. General Provisions
IV. Triennial Highway Safety Plan and Annual Grant Application
V. National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection
VI. Administration of Highway Safety Grants, Annual Reconciliation 
and Non-Compliance
VII. Request for Comments
VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    We face a crisis on our roadways. NHTSA projects that an estimated 
42,915 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2021.\1\ This projection 
is the largest annual percentage increase in the history of the 
Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Projections for the first quarter 
of 2022 are even bleaker; an estimated 9,560 people died in motor 
vehicle crashes during this period.\2\ If these projections are 
confirmed, this will be the highest number of first-quarter fatalities 
since 2002. Behind each of these numbers is a life tragically lost, and 
a family left behind. This crisis is urgent and preventable. NHTSA is 
redoubling our safety efforts and asking our State partners to join us 
in this critical pursuit. The programs to be implemented under today's 
rulemaking are an important part of that effort. Now, more than ever, 
we all must seize the opportunity to deliver accountable, efficient, 
and data-driven highway safety programs to save lives and reverse the 
deadly trend on our Nation's roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2022, May). 
Early estimates of motor vehicle traffic fatalities and fatality 
rate by sub-categories in 2021 (Crash[middot]Stats Brief Statistical 
Summary. Report No. DOT HS 813 298). National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813298.
    \2\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2022, August). 
Early estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities for the first 
quarter of 2022 (Crash[middot]Stats Brief Statistical Summary. 
Report No. DOT HS 813 337). National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 2021, the President signed into law the 
``Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act'' (known also as the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, or BIL), Public Law 117-58. The BIL 
provides for a once-in-a-generation investment in highway safety, 
including a significant increase in the amount of funding available to 
States under NHTSA's highway safety grants. It introduced expanded 
requirements for public and community participation in funding 
decisions, holding the promise of ensuring better and more equitable 
use of Federal funds to address highway safety problems in the 
locations where they occur. The BIL amended the highway safety grant 
program (23 U.S.C. 402 or Section 402) and the National Priority Safety 
Program grants (23 U.S.C. 405 or Section 405). The BIL significantly 
changed the application structure of the grant programs that were in 
place under MAP-21 and the FAST Act. The legislation replaced the 
current annual Highway Safety Plan

[[Page 56757]]

(HSP), which serves as both a planning and application document, with a 
triennial HSP and Annual Grant Application, and it codified the annual 
reporting requirement. The BIL also made the following changes to the 
Section 405 grant program:
     Maintenance of Effort--Removed the maintenance of effort 
requirement for the Occupant Protection, State Traffic Safety 
Information System Improvements Grants, and Impaired Driving Grants;
     Occupant Protection Grants--Expanded allowable uses of 
funds and specified that at least 10% of grant funds must be used to 
implement child occupant protection programs for low-income and 
underserved populations;
     State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements 
Grants--Streamlined application requirements (e.g., allows 
certification to several eligibility requirements and removes 
assessment requirement) and expanded allowable uses of funds;
     Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants--Expanded 
allowable uses of funds;
     Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants--Added criteria for 
States to qualify for grants (e.g., specified three ways for a State to 
qualify) and amended allocation formula;
     24-7 Sobriety Programs Grants--Amended allocation formula;
     Distracted Driving Grants--Amended definitions, changed 
allocation formula, and amended requirements for qualifying laws;
     Motorcyclist Safety Grants--Added an eligibility criterion 
(i.e., helmet law);
     State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grants--
Discontinued grant;
     Nonmotorized Safety Grants--Amended the definition of 
nonmotorized road user and expanded allowable uses of funds;
     Preventing Roadside Deaths--Established new grant; and
     Driver and Officer Safety Education--Established new 
grant.
    In addition, the BIL amended the racial profiling data collection 
grant authorized under the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU), Sec. 
1906, Public Law 109-59 (Section 1906), as amended by the FAST Act, to 
expand the allowable uses of funds and amend the cap on grant award 
amounts. It also removed the time limit for States to qualify for a 
1906 grant using assurances.
    As in past authorizations, the BIL requires NHTSA to implement the 
grants pursuant to rulemaking. On April 21, 2022, the agency published 
a notification of public meeting and request for comments (RFC). 87 FR 
23780. In that document, the agency sought comment on several aspects 
relating to this rulemaking. Today's action proposes regulatory 
language to implement the BIL provisions and addresses comments 
received at the public meeting and in response to the RFC.
    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes application, 
approval, and administrative requirements for all 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 
grants and the Section 1906 grants, consistent with the requirements 
set forth in the BIL. Section 402, as amended by the BIL, continues to 
require each State to have an approved highway safety program designed 
to reduce traffic crashes and the resulting deaths, injuries, and 
property damage. Section 402 sets forth minimum requirements with which 
each State's highway safety program must comply. Under new procedures 
established by the BIL, each State must submit for NHTSA approval a 
triennial Highway Safety Plan (``triennial HSP'') that identifies 
highway safety problems, establishes performance measures and targets, 
describes the State's countermeasure strategies for programming funds 
to achieve its performance targets, and reports on the State's progress 
in achieving the targets set in the prior HSP. 23 U.S.C. 402(k). Each 
State must also submit for NHTSA approval an annual grant application 
that provides any necessary updates to the triennial HSP, identifies 
all projects and subrecipients to be funded by the State with highway 
safety grant funds during the fiscal year, describes how the State's 
strategy to use grant funds was adjusted based on the State's latest 
annual report, and includes an application for additional grants 
available under Chapter 4. (23 U.S.C. 402(l)) The agency proposes to 
reorganize and rewrite subpart B of part 1300, as well as 23 CFR 
1300.35 to implement these changes.
    As noted above, the BIL expanded the allowable uses of funds for 
many of the National Priority Safety Program grants, amended allocation 
formulas, added criteria for some grants and streamlined application 
requirements for others, deleted one grant, and established two new 
grants. For Section 405 grants with additional flexibility (Occupant 
Protection Grants, State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements 
Grants, Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants, Alcohol-Ignition 
Interlock Law Grants, Distracted Driving Grants, Motorcyclist Safety 
Grants, Nonmotorized Safety Grants, and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection Grants) and for the new grants (Preventing Roadside Deaths 
Grants and Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants), where the BIL 
identified specific qualification requirements, today's action proposes 
adopting the statutory language with limited changes. The agency is 
also proposing aligning the application requirements for all Section 
405 and Section 1906 grants with the new triennial HSP and annual grant 
application framework.
    While many procedures and requirements continue unchanged by 
today's action, this NPRM makes limited changes to administrative 
provisions to address changes due to the triennial framework and 
changes made by revisions to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, 
Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 
200.

II. Comments From the Public Meeting and Request for Comments

    In response to the RFC, the following submitted comments to the 
public docket on www.regulations.gov: Aaron Katz; American Association 
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); Accident Scene 
Management, Inc.; Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety (Advocates); 
Amado Alejandro Baez; American Ambulance Association; American College 
of Surgeons, Committee on Trauma; Art Martynuska; Brandy Nannini (on 
behalf of both Responsibility.org and National Alliance to Stop 
Impaired Driving); Brian Maguire, Scot Phelps, Daniel Gerard, Paul 
Maniscalco, Kathleen Handal, and Barbara O'Neill (Brian Maguire, et 
al.); California Office of Traffic Safety (CA OTS); Center for Injury 
Research and Prevention at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CIRP); 
Connecticut Highway Safety Office (CT HSO); Covington County Hospital 
Ambulance Service; David Harden; Drew Dawson; Emergency Safety 
Solutions, Inc. (ESS, Inc.); Florida Department of Health, Bureau of 
Emergency Medical Oversight (FL DOH); Governor's Highway Safety 
Association (GHSA); Haas Alert; Institute for Municipal and Regional 
Policy at the University of Connecticut (IMRP); International 
Association of Emergency Medical Services Chiefs (IAEMSC); 
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC); Joshua Snider; 
Kathleen Hancock; League of American Bicyclists; Leigh Anderson; Leon 
County, Emergency Medical Services; Lorrie Walker; Louis Lombardo; 
Louisiana Bureau of Emergency Medical Services; Louisiana Highway 
Safety Commission (LA HSC); Love to Ride;

[[Page 56758]]

Mari Lynch; Minnesota Department of Public Safety (MN DPS); National 
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO); National 
Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT); National 
Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA); National Association 
of State Emergency Medical Services Officials (NASEMSO); National 
Safety Council (NSC); National Sheriffs' Association; New York State 
Governor's Traffic Safety Committee (NY GTSC); Oregon Department of 
Transportation Safety Office (OR DOT); Paul Hoffman; Rebecca Sanders; 
Safe Kids Worldwide; Safe Routes Partnership; SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A.; 
Saratoga County, NY Emergency Medical Services (Saratoga County); Scott 
Brody; Pedestrian Safety Solutions; Tom Schwerdt; Transportation Equity 
Caucus; Vision Zero Network; Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WA 
TSC); Wisconsin Bureau of Transportation Safety (WI BOTS); Wisconsin 
Bureau of Transportation Safety, Division of State Patrol (WI BOTS 
Patrol); joint submission by the Departments of Transportation of 
Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming (5-State DOTs); 
and three anonymous commenters. Five of these commenters (5-State DOTs; 
WA TSC; Brandy Nannini; MN DPS; and CT HSO) expressed general support 
for GHSA's comments. The WA TSC also expressed support for the comments 
provided by the MN DPS, CA HSO and NY GTSC.
    NHTSA received communications directly from three organizations 
prior to the Request for Comment. (See letter from Governor's Highway 
Safety Association (GHSA); a letter from Mothers Against Drunk Driving 
(MADD); and a joint letter from Governor's Highway Safety Association, 
Responsibility Initiatives, National Alliance to Stop Impaired Driving, 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, National Safety Council, and Coalition 
of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers.) Because of the substantive nature 
of these communications, NHTSA added them to the docket for this rule.
    In this preamble, NHTSA addresses all comments and identifies any 
proposed changes made to the existing regulatory text in part 1300.\3\ 
In addition, NHTSA makes several technical corrections to cross-
references and other non-substantive editorial corrections necessitated 
by proposed changes to the rule. For ease of reference, the preamble 
identifies in parentheses within each subheading and at appropriate 
places in the explanatory paragraphs the CFR citation for the 
corresponding regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Fourteen commenters submitted comments that are outside the 
scope of this rulemaking, including comments related to 
infrastructure and road design, vehicle and other private 
technologies, NHTSA's Section 403 authorities, suggestions for NHTSA 
research and messaging, substantive requirements for data systems, a 
recommendation that NHTSA mandate cell phone technology, a request 
that NHTSA publish outside entities' research, and general 
statements about the importance of traffic safety. As these comments 
are outside the scope of NHTSA's Section 402 and 405 grant programs, 
they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and will not be 
addressed further in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters provided general input about the rulemaking process 
or to overarching aspects of highway safety that cannot be tied to a 
single regulatory provision. Those comments are discussed below.

A. Rulemaking Process

    Several commenters \4\ stated that NHTSA should ensure fidelity to 
the spirit and letter of Congressional directives, minimize 
administrative burden on States, and provide great flexibility in use 
of funds. They explained that unnecessary administrative burdens shift 
States' focus away from program delivery and discourage subrecipient 
participation. The 5-State DOTs additionally recommended that NHTSA 
strive to avoid duplicative planning and reporting burdens between DOT 
agencies, and to consult with FHWA during the rulemaking process. As 
will be clear throughout this preamble and in the proposed rule itself, 
NHTSA's primary goal in this notice of proposed rulemaking is to 
propose a regulation that will implement the statutory requirements for 
the highway safety grant program. It is not our intention to impose 
unnecessary administrative burdens on States or their subrecipients. 
However, as a grantor agency, we have a responsibility to ensure that 
Federal grant funds are spent for the purposes Congress specifies and 
consistent with all legal requirements. Applicable legal requirements 
include both the Section 402 and 405 statutory text, as well as other 
Federal grant laws and regulation. Those statutory requirements include 
the submission of a triennial plan that sets forth how a state will use 
funds to reduce traffic crashes, fatalities, serious injuries, and 
economic harm through the use of effective countermeasures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ AASHTO, GHSA, MN DPS, NY GTSC, WI BOTS and 5-State DOTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AASHTO, GHSA and SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. all submitted comments 
supporting increased public participation and opportunity to comment in 
NHTSA's rulemaking process. AASHTO encouraged NHTSA to consider all 
comments received, which we do in this action and will continue to do 
throughout the rulemaking process. GHSA expressed support for NHTSA's 
intention to publish a NPRM rather than publishing an Interim Final 
Rule, noting that it will provide opportunity for public comment. And 
SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. expressed appreciation for the public meetings 
NHTSA held as part of its RFC, noting that they provided an opportunity 
to bring different parts of the traffic safety community together. 
NHTSA appreciates these comments and the comments received in response 
to the RFC, and we encourage comments responding to this NPRM. We 
commit to considering all comments carefully and thoughtfully.
    GHSA requested that NHTSA complete the rulemaking process quickly 
in order to facilitate States in their highway safety planning and 
application processes. GHSA specifically sought first, publication of 
the final rule by October 2022, and in a later comment, publication by 
the end of December 2022. NHTSA appreciates the need to finalize the 
rule with sufficient time for States to rely on the rule in completing 
their fiscal year (FY) 2024 triennial HSPs and Annual Grant 
Applications, due July 1 and August 1, 2023, respectively. While it is 
not possible to complete the full rulemaking process, in accordance 
with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), within the 
timeline proposed by GHSA, NHTSA plans to publish a Final Rule with 
sufficient time for States to rely on the rule for their FY24 grant 
applications.
    GHSA further recommended that NHTSA establish an effective date of 
Federal fiscal year 2024 for the rule. Consistent with the BIL, the 
final rule, when published, will be effective for fiscal year 2024 and 
later grants.
    GHSA and the NY GTSC stressed the importance of uniform and 
consistent guidance so that States can rely on the same 
interpretations. AASHTO recommended that the agency focus on providing 
program-level guidance while allowing for effective collaboration and 
coordination of State programs. GHSA further suggested several specific 
NHTSA guidance documents that it would like the agency to review or 
create in light of the statutory changes implemented in the BIL and 
based on past experience. The agency recognizes that some existing 
guidance may require modification or recission as a result of changes 
to the statute and this rule. We intend to begin reviewing existing 
guidance after this rulemaking is complete and will keep the specific

[[Page 56759]]

suggestions provided by GHSA in mind at that time.

B. Equity

    NHTSA received several comments stressing the importance of equity 
in traffic safety programs. The Transportation Equity Caucus noted that 
the concept of public safety may be defined differently in different 
communities and recommended that NHTSA be guided by Executive Order 
13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities 
Through Federal Government. NHTSA strongly supports the policies and 
commitment to equity laid out in the Executive Order and is committed 
to fulfilling our responsibilities under the Order and to following its 
principles. For example, NHTSA's Office of Civil Rights (NCR) recently 
hired a Division Chief to focus on the enforcement of Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of Federal 
financial assistance from discriminating against persons on the basis 
of race, color, or national origin (including limited English 
proficiency). NCR is also hiring a Division Chief to serve as principal 
staff advisor on all activities related to the Americans with 
Disabilities Act and Section and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 
of 1973. Additionally, NHTSA's Office of Grants Management and 
Operations is preparing to hire two program analysts to focus on 
stakeholder engagement, equity in traffic safety, and the needs of 
populations that are overrepresented in traffic fatalities and serious 
injuries.
    In addition, NHTSA was guided, in part, by the Order's requirement 
to increase opportunities for public engagement when we decided to hold 
three hearings and publish an RFC in advance of drafting this notice of 
proposed rulemaking. As a result of those hearings and the RFC, NHTSA 
received numerous comments from groups specifically focused on equity, 
from representatives of non-profit community groups, and from members 
of the public. Many commenters emphasized the importance of equity in 
highway traffic safety, and several made specific recommendations for 
the agency to consider. Many of the comments touch on different areas 
of NHTSA's work that have an impact on the grant program, including 
NHTSA's research and technical assistance activities. A number of the 
comments relate to NHTSA activities that fall outside the scope of the 
rulemaking, which is limited to applications and grant management in 
the highway safety grant program. In recognition of the importance of 
the topic, and in appreciation for the thoughtful consideration that 
went into submission of those comments, we will nonetheless summarize 
and briefly respond to all comments we received relating to equity.
    Many commenters submitted comments asking NHTSA to place less 
emphasis on enforcement as a traffic safety countermeasure \5\ or to 
discontinue funding law enforcement altogether.\6\ Relatedly, several 
commenters expressed concern that NHTSA's grant funds provide support 
for pretextual stops by law enforcement, with several specifically 
mentioning NHTSA's support for the Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and 
Traffic Safety (DDACTS) program.\7\ The commenters expressed serious 
and data-driven concerns about the disparate impacts of policing and 
the incidence of police violence during traffic stops, especially 
during pretextual stops. (See id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ League of American Bicyclists, NACTO, Safe Routes 
Partnerships, and Vision Zero Network.
    \6\ TEC.
    \7\ League of American Bicyclists, NACTO, Transportation Equity 
Caucus, and Vision Zero Network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's partnerships with law enforcement and advocacy communities 
are an important part of traffic safety work, and equity must be at the 
forefront in that work. The public must be able to trust that law 
enforcement will treat all persons fairly, regardless of race, color, 
sex, age, national origin, religion or disability. NHTSA engages in an 
ongoing dialog with the Center for Policing Equity regarding advancing 
equity in traffic safety enforcement. NHTSA is also working to center 
equity in its ongoing relationship with both the National Sheriffs' 
Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, as 
the National Sheriffs' Association recommended in its comment.
    Equally important are the States' partnerships and relationships of 
trust with their own law enforcement resources. Fundamentally, 
recipients of Federal grant funds are prohibited from using the funds 
in a discriminatory manner. As a result, all State grant recipients 
must ensure that the law enforcement agencies to which they provide 
highway safety grant funds have strong equity-based enforcement 
practices. NHTSA's highway safety grant funds may only be used for 
permissible traffic safety purposes. Use of NHTSA grant funds for 
discriminatory practices, including those associated with pretextual 
policing, violates Federal civil rights laws and NHTSA will seek 
repayment of any grant funds that are found to be used for such 
purposes and refer any discriminatory incidents to the Department of 
Justice.
    DDACTS is a law enforcement operational model that integrates 
location-based traffic-crash and crime data to determine the most 
effective methods for deploying law enforcement and other resources. It 
focuses on community collaboration to reinforce the role that 
partnerships play in improving the quality of life in communities and 
encourages law enforcement agencies to use effective engagement and new 
strategies. NHTSA continuously reviews the content of DDACTS training 
and works to ensure that the training focuses on community engagement 
and the appropriate application of fair and equitable traffic 
enforcement strategies. Note, however, that not all DDACTS-related 
activities are eligible uses of NHTSA's highway traffic safety grant 
funds. NHTSA's grant funds may only be used for traffic safety 
activities; any other use of law enforcement is not eligible for 
funding under the highway traffic safety grants. NHTSA will continue to 
evaluate DDACTS to ensure that it promotes only enforcement that is 
implemented fairly and equitably.
    Both the Vision Zero Network and Safe Routes Partnerships stressed 
the importance of meaningful community engagement in designing 
equitable traffic safety programs. The BIL added a requirement for 
States to include meaningful public participation and engagement in 
State highway safety programs. 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B). In addition, 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), as implemented 
through DOT Order 1000.12C, requires that recipients of Federal funding 
submit a Community Participation Plan to ensure diverse views are heard 
and considered throughout all stages of the consultation, planning, and 
decision-making process. NHTSA agrees with the commenters that 
increased community engagement can help ensure that State highway 
safety programs are more equitable, and proposes regulatory provisions 
to implement BIL's requirement along with the Community Participation 
requirements from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.\8\ These 
requirements will be discussed in more detail in the relevant sections 
of this preamble. See 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(2) and 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Vision Zero Network recommended several strategies to rethink 
and expand the ways education and enforcement are utilized in traffic 
safety. Among other things, it

[[Page 56760]]

recommended that NHTSA: research equitable education and enforcement 
strategies; promote alternatives to traditional enforcement strategies, 
criminalization, and fines; educate key influencers in the safe system 
approach; promote safe, sustainable mobility options; and support 
grassroots safety advocacy. NHTSA appreciates these suggestions and is 
already beginning to implement these strategies, including through a 
cooperative agreement with the National Safety Council supporting the 
Road to Zero Coalition's community traffic safety grants. NHTSA 
encourages States to consider these and other strategies when planning 
their highway safety programs and will work with States as they develop 
their triennial Highway Safety Plans. The Vision Zero Network also 
suggested that NHTSA fund State assessments of equity outcomes of 
enforcement work and pilot alternative strategies. Some NHTSA grant 
funds may be used for these purposes. For example, the 1906 grant 
program provides funding for collecting, maintaining, and evaluating 
race and ethnicity data on traffic stops, as well as to develop and 
implement programs to reduce the disparate impacts of traffic stops. In 
addition, the Section 402 grant program provides broad eligible uses of 
funds, including demonstration programs. NHTSA encourages States to 
reach out to their Regional Office to discuss whether a particular 
pilot program may be an eligible use of NHTSA grant funds as these 
determinations are often fact-specific. NHTSA will also work with 
States to share information about best practices and to identify 
effective and allowable uses of funds for equity outcomes in 
enforcement work.
    The NY GTSC recommended some specific actions that the State has 
implemented to support the inclusion of equity in its highway safety 
program, including creation of groups such as the New York State Equity 
Subcommittee, to ensure programming reaches underserved communities 
that are overrepresented in traffic crashes. In addition, New York 
recommended that States expand the data sources they consider, to 
include census and demographic information, as well as anecdotal 
information combined with localized crash data in order to conduct 
outreach efforts. NHTSA appreciates these examples and the efforts that 
the State already has underway. The agency supports all States looking 
into additional ways to identify and reach non-traditional highway 
safety partners and will work to encourage the sharing of effective 
programs among the States.
    The Vision Zero Network recommended that NHTSA take action on the 
equity-related suggestions in the Federal Highway Administration's 
report titled ``Integrating the Safe System Approach with the Highway 
Safety Improvement Program.'' While that report is targeted to FHWA's 
HSIP program, NHTSA nonetheless agrees with the overarching principles, 
including the need to include equity considerations throughout all 
aspects of the highway safety grant program. This proposal supports 
these efforts through the increased emphasis on public participation in 
highway safety planning and through explicitly including demographic 
data as a resource for States to consult during problem identification.
    Finally, the League of American Bicyclists recommended that NHTSA 
consider discriminatory outcomes of countermeasures when promoting our 
Countermeasures That Work guide.\9\ It specifically mentioned the costs 
of discriminatory enforcement and disparate impacts of required fines 
on low-income people. As noted earlier, discriminatory enforcement has 
no place in NHTSA's grant programs or under Federal civil rights laws, 
and NHTSA will take prompt and appropriate action when it becomes aware 
of any such activity under NHTSA grant programs. NHTSA is currently 
working on the next edition of the Countermeasures That Work, and will 
explore the considerations raised by the commenter in the course of 
that undertaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Available online at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2021-09/Countermeasures-10th_080621_v5_tag.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. National Roadway Safety Strategy and the Safe System Approach

    NHTSA appreciates the thoughtful feedback from several commenters 
regarding the Department's implementation of the National Roadway 
Safety Strategy (NRSS) and the Safe System Approach (SSA). While the 
substance of the Department's strategy laid out in the NRSS and the SSA 
is not within the scope of this rulemaking, the activities carried out 
through the grant program play an important role in implementing the 
NRSS and the SSA. The objectives of the NRSS/SSA are inherently 
intertwined with NHTSA's data-driven mission to save lives, prevent 
injuries, and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes through 
education, research, safety standards, and enforcement. To address the 
unacceptable increases in fatalities on our nation's roadways, the 
NRSS/SSA adopts a data-driven, holistic, and comprehensive approach 
focused on reducing the role that human mistakes play in negative 
traffic outcomes and in recognizing the vulnerability of humans on the 
roads. We recognize all the contributing factors involved with a safe 
system approach: equity, engineering, education, enforcement, and 
emergency medical services.
    Four commenters \10\ stated broad support for the principles and 
promise of the NRSS. Six commenters \11\ noted that implementing the 
NRSS will require NHTSA to afford administrative flexibility to States, 
which NHTSA intends to provide consistent with the law. AASHTO stressed 
the need to coordinate behavioral and infrastructure-based traffic 
safety initiatives. This comment is consistent with Congress' clear 
intent. Section 402 requires that a State highway safety program must 
coordinate the highway safety plan, data collection, and information 
systems with the State strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) under 23 
U.S.C. 148(a). NHTSA has long incorporated this requirement into the 
grant program regulation at 23 CFR 1300.4(c)(11). In addition, since 
2016, States have been required to submit and report on identical 
common performance measures in both the HSP and the SHSP, thus ensuring 
that State behavioral and infrastructure-based programs collaborate in 
planning and measuring progress towards those common targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CA OTS, ESS, Inc., League of American Bicyclists and WA 
TSC.
    \11\ Brandy Nannini, CT HSO, GHSA, MN DPS, WI BTS and 5-State 
DOTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The League of American Bicyclists recommended that NHTSA allow 
States to use highway safety grant funds to provide education on the 
ways that the built environment can influence safe behaviors. 
Similarly, Vision Zero Network recommended that NHTSA and States shift 
the focus from education and enforcement to speed management and 
roadway design changes. NHTSA notes that while highway safety grant 
funds may not be used for roadway design, Section 402 grant funds (and 
in some cases Section 405 grant funds) may be used to fund educational 
efforts on the interaction between the built environment and behavior, 
provided such activities are part of a countermeasure strategy for 
programming funds that is supported by problem ID.
    GHSA raised the concern that the SSA framing that people make 
mistakes will be misunderstood to absolve drivers from responsibility 
for safe driving

[[Page 56761]]

behaviors. Acknowledging that humans make mistakes does not absolve 
drivers of responsibility; it seeks to understand better how mistakes 
happen, identify potential solutions and develop redundancies in the 
system in order to minimize the consequences when any part of the 
system fails. As the League of American Bicyclists and WA TSC noted, 
roadway safety is a shared responsibility. The traveling public also 
has a role to play. Each of us uses our roads almost every day, whether 
as a motorist, a passenger, or when walking, biking, or rolling. Our 
actions should prioritize safety first and we should use every 
effective strategy we can to reduce fatalities and injuries.
    Four commenters suggested that NHTSA undertake activities to help 
States implement the NRSS and the SSA. CA OTS, GHSA, and Vision Zero 
Network all suggested that NHTSA support State efforts to implement the 
SSA by undertaking research to identify best practices and then 
providing guidance to States on those best practices. Vision Zero 
Network and WA TSC recommended that NHTSA train the State highway 
safety offices (HSOs) on the SSA and that the HSOs in turn train their 
subrecipients. In May 2022, as part of NHTSA's ongoing efforts to 
provide resources to assist states with implementing the NRSS and the 
SSA, NHTSA announced an expanded safety program technical assistance 
offered to States. This technical assistance aligns with the priorities 
and objectives of the NRSS. We will continue to assess States' needs 
and offer assistance in implementing the NRSS and SSA where possible as 
States implement their programs.

D. Transparency

    The BIL expanded the transparency requirements for Section 402. 
Specifically, the BIL requires NHTSA to publicly release, on a DOT 
website, all approved triennial HSPs and annual reports. 23 U.S.C. 
402(n)(1). In addition, the website must allow the public to search 
specific information included in those documents: performance measures, 
the State's progress towards meeting the performance targets, program 
areas and expenditures, and a description of any sources of funds other 
than NHTSA highway safety grant funds that the State proposes to use to 
carry out the triennial HSP. Id. NHTSA will post this information on 
NHTSA.gov consistent with the statutory requirements. While the 
statutory requirement for NHTSA to release this information does not 
require regulatory implementation, the information contained in the 
State documents, and thereafter released online, implicates the 
substance of the rule. For ease of reading, NHTSA addresses the 
majority of the requirements for the triennial HSP and annual report in 
other sections of this rule. However, we will address some of the 
transparency recommendations that commenters specifically provided 
here.
    Both Advocates and the NSC submitted comments that broadly 
supported increased transparency, noting that transparency is vital for 
the public to measure the success of the highway safety grant program. 
Several commenters provided recommendations for information that they 
believe would help allow States and stakeholders to compare programs 
between States. The League of American Bicyclists recommended that 
NHTSA require States to provide information in the annual application 
that will show who receives grant funding and what the funding is used 
for in a manner that allows comparisons between States. NHTSA agrees, 
and believes that the project information, including subrecipients and 
information on the eligible use of funds, that BIL and the proposed 
regulation require for each project will serve this purpose. See 23 
U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(C)(ii) and 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2). The NSC recommended 
that NHTSA require states to submit, and then release publicly, 
information on how much funding is used for direct programmatic 
activities, the short- and long-term impacts of State highway safety 
programs, and discussion about how community engagement informed the 
State's proposed use of funds. NHTSA proposes to include some of this 
information in the proposed regulation. Specifically, NHTSA proposes to 
require that States identify in the annual grant application the amount 
of costs attributed to planning and administration. See 23 CFR 
1300.12(b)(2)(viii). In addition, NHTSA proposes to require that States 
assess progress towards meeting performance targets and provide a 
description of how the projects that the State implemented were 
informed by meaningful public participation and engagement. See 23 CFR 
1300.35(a) and 1300.35(b)(1). NSC further recommended that at a 
minimum, States be required to report financial data, information on 
which regulations they complied with, and project data showing progress 
and community impact. NHTSA notes that financial data are required of 
all Federal grant recipients by 2 CFR 200.328 and that requirement is 
incorporated into NHTSA's proposed regulation at 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2). 
NHTSA does not believe it is necessary to require States to provide a 
list of regulations to which they adhere. Federal grant recipients are 
responsible for, and States certify to, compliance with all applicable 
Federal laws and regulations, and States may be further subject to 
State laws and regulations. Many of those applicable laws and 
regulations are listed in proposed appendix A. Finally, NSC recommended 
that annual reports should be made available to the public for comment 
and that States should be required to incorporate those comments into 
their triennial HSPs. NHTSA already posts State annual reports online 
at NHTSA.gov, as is required by the BIL. See 23 U.S.C. 402(n)(2)(B). 
However, NHTSA does not have authority to impose public comment on 
State annual reports, nor does NHTSA have authority to require States 
to incorporate any comments on annual reports that they may receive 
through other channels. That said, States may do so as part of a public 
engagement process, if they wish.
    GHSA noted that transitioning to an electronic grant management 
system would enable greater transparency in the use of NHTSA highway 
safety grant funds by allowing State program information contained in 
that system to be aggregated, organized, and made available to the 
public in a user-friendly manner. NHTSA agrees and is currently in the 
process of working to update our grant management system. We expect 
that this will facilitate greater cross-state collaboration and data 
analysis in addition to greater transparency in the use of program 
funding. In the meantime, NHTSA requests comment on a potential 
approach to develop a standardized template, codified as an appendix to 
the regulation, that States could use to provide information in a 
uniform manner similar to what we hope will be enabled by a future E-
grant system. This would also potentially respond to comments from the 
League of American Bicyclists, Safe Routes Partnership, and Vision Zero 
Network seeking reports that are easier to read and that enable 
comparison between States in a useful manner.

E. Emergency Medical Services

    Twenty-one commenters provided comments related to various aspects 
of emergency medical services, post-crash care, and 911 systems. These 
comments covered three general themes: eligibility for NHTSA grant 
funds, allowable use of grant funds, and NHTSA's actions related to 
emergency medical services (EMS) and 911.
    Eight commenters discussed eligibility for funding under NHTSA's

[[Page 56762]]

highway safety grant program. NAEMT and Saratoga County EMS both 
provided a general statement that funding should be provided to EMS 
offices and providers via the State highway safety offices. Aaron Katz 
and the American Ambulance Association both requested that funding be 
provided to EMS offices regardless of whether the EMS provider is for-
profit, a hospital, or a municipal service. The International 
Association of Fire Chiefs seeks to ensure that even the smaller EMS 
agencies receive Federal funding. Leon County EMS, Covington County 
Hospital Ambulance and Brian Maguire, et. al all requested that NHTSA 
provide funding directly to EMS agencies, rather than going through 
State highway safety offices. Finally, Brian Maguire, et. al 
recommended that States be required to report the amount of funding 
that is provided to EMS agencies and that all grant funds that remain 
unexpended at the end of the third quarter be reallocated directly to 
EMS agencies. NHTSA supports the EMS communities' efforts to integrate 
post-crash care initiatives into State highway safety programs where 
supported by the data and encourages States to consider funding 
eligible EMS activities with NHTSA's highway safety grant funds. 
However, under our grant statute, NHTSA does not have the authority to 
direct State funding choices or to provide funding directly to EMS 
agencies.
    Eighteen commenters \12\ provided recommendations or requests that 
specified that certain costs be considered allowable uses of NHTSA 
highway safety grant funds. Identified costs included post-crash care, 
training, research, development and purchase of equipment and 
technology, data gathering and access, emergency vehicle outfitting, 
enhancements to 911 systems and collision notification systems. NASEMSO 
requested specific clarification that EMS agencies are not required to 
limit funding requests related to NEMSIS software, personnel, 
maintenance and training only in proportion to the percentage of NEMSIS 
entries that are connected to traffic-related incidents. Determinations 
of allowable use of funds are highly fact-specific and are dependent on 
many factors, including the funding source to be used (i.e., Section 
402 or one of the Section 405 incentive grants) and the details of the 
activity to be funded. In some cases, projects may be limited to 
proportional funding, if there is not a sufficient nexus to traffic 
safety to fund the entirety of the project. In addition, all activities 
funded by NHTSA highway safety grant funds must be tied to 
countermeasure strategies for programming funds in the State's 
triennial HSP, which in turn must be based on a State's problem 
identification and performance targets. NHTSA strongly encourages all 
stakeholders, including the EMS community, to work closely with State 
HSOs to educate them on all available data sources, including NEMSIS, 
that would assist them with problem identification and the development 
of countermeasure strategies, as well as to offer ideas for potential 
activities that may be eligible for NHTSA formula grant funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Aaron Katz; Accident Scene Management, Inc.; Amado 
Alejandro Baez; American Ambulance Association; American College of 
Surgeons; Art Martynuska; Brian Maguire, et. al; David Harden; FL 
DOH; IAEMSC; IAFC; Leigh Anderson; LA EMS; Leon County EMS; NASEMSO; 
NAEMT; NASNA; Saratoga County EMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Six commenters \13\ provided comments related to the activities of 
NHTSA's Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS). Drew Dawson and 
NASEMSO both recommended that the grant program coordinate with the 
Office of EMS to provide guidance on EMS and 911 funding requests. The 
Office of EMS is a knowledgeable and useful resource to States, EMS 
agencies, and to NHTSA itself in addressing the post-crash care 
component of the highway safety grant program. The remaining comments 
were out of scope of this rulemaking because they relate to NHTSA's 
activities outside of the highway safety grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Brian Maguire, et. al; Drew Dawson; IAFC; Louis Lombardo; 
NASEMSO; Saratoga County EMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Other

    GHSA requested amendments to appendices A and B, both of which are 
required components of State's annual grant application submission. 
Specifically, GHSA asked that NHTSA format the Appendices, which serve 
as application documents, so that the signature page is separate from 
the other pages of the document in order to streamline State approval. 
The Appendices, consisting of the Certifications and Assurances for 
Highway Safety Grants and the Application Requirements for Section 405 
and Section 1906 Grants, serve as official documents for State grant 
applications. The signature on those documents serves as a formal, 
legal attestation from the Governor's Representative that the contents 
of the State's application are accurate and that the State agrees to 
comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and financial and 
programmatic requirements. It is therefore necessary that the signatory 
see the entire document and that the document not be edited after a 
signature is appended. NHTSA therefore declines to adopt this 
suggestion.
    Separately, GHSA noted that the BIL expanded the eligible use of 
Section 154 and Section 164 grant funds to include measures to reduce 
drug-impaired driving, and requested that NHTSA clarify that those 
changes had immediate effect. NHTSA affirms GHSA's interpretation; the 
BIL changes to Section 154/164 took effect immediately upon enactment 
of the BIL.

III. General Provisions (Subpart A)

A. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.3)

    This NPRM proposes to add definitions for several terms. Some of 
these definitions (automated traffic enforcement system (ATES) and 
Indian country) merely incorporate statutory definitions into NHTSA's 
regulation. 23 U.S.C. 402(c)(4)(A) and 23 U.S.C. 402(h)(1), 
respectively. Other definitions (annual grant application, 
countermeasure strategy for programming funds, and triennial Highway 
Safety Plan (triennial HSP) were drawn from statutory program 
requirements. The proposed definition for countermeasure strategy for 
programming funds was informed by a comment from GHSA asking the agency 
to clarify its applicability to traffic records programs. Lorrie Walker 
asked the agency to define ``underserved populations,'' while GHSA 
recommended that NHTSA allow States to identify ``underserved 
populations'' on a State by State basis and to articulate their 
rationale because data sources and populations may vary from State to 
State. After considering these comments, the agency proposes a broad 
definition for ``underserved populations'' that is based on the 
definition used in Executive Order 13985. This high-level definition 
should provide States with guidance in identifying the specific 
populations within their jurisdictions, while providing flexibility for 
different State situations. NHTSA developed definitions for two 
additional terms to clarify potential sources of confusion for States 
regarding grant program requirements. The definition of community is 
intended to build upon the common understanding of the term. The agency 
developed the definition for political subdivision of a State after 
consulting definitions codified by other Federal agencies and making 
adjustments to tailor the definition to the highway safety grant 
program.

[[Page 56763]]

    Today's action also proposes to amend some existing definitions, 
such as those for performance target, problem identification, and 
program area, to provide further clarity to States. The definition for 
project was amended to incorporate the BIL's statutory definition of 
``funded project.'' 23 U.S.C. 406(a). The agency proposes to amend the 
definition for serious injuries to reflect the publication of the 5th 
Edition of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline.
    Finally, this NPRM proposes to delete the definitions for three 
terms that are not used in the regulatory text: fatality rate, five-
year (5 year) rolling average, and number of serious injuries. NHTSA 
also proposes to delete the definition for ``number of fatalities'' as 
we believe it is self-explanatory.

B. State Highway Safety Agency (23 CFR 1300.4)

    Today's action proposes updates to the authorities and functions of 
the State Highway Safety Agency, also referred to as the State Highway 
Safety Office (State HSO or SHSO). The NPRM explicitly adds the 
requirement that the Governor's Representative (GR) is responsible for 
coordinating with the Governor and other State agencies, and clarifies 
that the GR may not be positioned in an entity that would create a 
conflict of interest with the SHSO; however, these are not new 
requirements. Section 402 requires that the Governor of the State imbue 
the State highway safety agency with adequate powers and that it be 
suitably equipped and organized to carry out the State's highway safety 
program. 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(A). Recognizing that Governors delegate 
this responsibility, NHTSA long ago created the requirement for the 
Governor to designate a GR. In order to carry out the requirements of 
Section 402, the GR must have the authority to coordinate with the 
Governor and other State agencies in carrying out the highway safety 
program. Conflict of interest restrictions are a fundamental component 
of Federal grant law. See 2 CFR 200.112. Consistent with NHTSA's 
emphasis on equity considerations in highway safety programs and the 
BIL's emphasis on meaningful public participation and engagement and 
identification of disparities in traffic enforcement, the agency 
proposes to add the requirement that State Highway Safety Agencies be 
authorized to foster such engagement and include demographic data in 
their highway safety programs.

III. Triennial Highway Safety Plan and Annual Grant Application 
(Subpart B)

    The creation of a new triennial framework is the most significant 
change that BIL made to the highway safety grant program. In BIL, 
Congress replaced the annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP), which serves as 
both a planning and application document under MAP-21 and the FAST Act, 
with a Triennial HSP and Annual Grant Application. As part of this 
framework, Congress increased community participation requirements and 
codified the annual reporting requirement.
    Under the new procedures established by BIL, each State must submit 
for NHTSA approval a triennial Highway Safety Plan (``triennial HSP'' 
or ``3HSP'') that identifies highway safety problems, establishes 
performance measures and targets, describes the State's countermeasure 
strategies for programming funds to achieve its performance targets, 
and reports on the State's progress in achieving the targets set in the 
prior HSP. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)) Each State must also submit for NHTSA 
approval an annual grant application that provides any necessary 
updates to the triennial HSP, identifies all projects and subrecipients 
to be funded by the State with highway safety grant funds during the 
fiscal year, describes how the State's strategy to use grant funds was 
adjusted by the State's latest annual report, and includes an 
application for additional grants available under Chapter 4. (23 U.S.C. 
402(l)(1)) Finally, each State must submit an annual report that 
assesses the progress made by the State in achieving the performance 
targets set out in the triennial HSP and describes how that progress 
aligns with the triennial HSP, including any plans to adjust the 
State's countermeasure strategy for programming funds in order to meet 
those targets. (23 U.S.C. 402(l)(2))
    This new framework continues many of the requirements that States 
previously were required to meet under the annual HSP requirement, but 
distributes them between the triennial HSP and the annual application. 
This redistribution requires NHTSA to update language throughout the 
regulation in order to clarify to which submission a particular 
requirement applies. References to the HSP have now been updated to 
refer to either the triennial HSP or, more frequently, the annual grant 
application. In addition, NHTSA has removed all references to planned 
activities throughout the regulation. This will address GHSA's comments 
that the concept of planned activities was burdensome to States. NHTSA 
had created the concept of planned activities in the final rule 
implementing the FAST Act in response to comments from States that they 
did not have project-level information available at the time of 
drafting the HSP. However, the BIL now explicitly requires project 
information in the annual grant application, as described in more 
detail below. As a result, references to planned activities in the HSP 
have been updated throughout the regulation to refer to projects in the 
annual grant application. References to ``countermeasure strategies'' 
now link to the triennial HSP instead of the HSP.
    In addition, NHTSA has reorganized subpart B of part 1300 to 
accommodate the new triennial framework. Where previously subpart B was 
fully directed at the HSP, the subpart now includes separate sections 
for the triennial HSP, the annual grant application, and specific 
requirements for Section 402. Section 1300.10 provides that, in order 
to apply for any highway safety grant under Chapter 4 and Section 1906, 
a State must submit both a triennial Highway Safety Plan and an annual 
grant application. The requirements for the triennial HSP and annual 
grant application, including deadline, contents, and review and 
approval procedures, are set out in Sec. Sec.  1300.11 and 1300.12, 
respectively. Section 1300.13 lays out the special funding conditions 
for Section 402 grants, and Section 1300.15 provides the rules for 
NHTSA's apportionment and obligation of Federal funds under Section 
402. The agency reserves Sec.  1300.14. The contents of each section 
will be discussed in more depth below.
    There appears to be some confusion among commenters about the 
timeframes envisioned by BIL for submissions under this framework. 
AASHTO and GHSA, supported by many State commenters, recommended that 
for the first year of each triennial cycle, States only be required to 
submit a triennial HSP along with appendix B, with no annual grant 
application. They then agreed that States would submit annual 
applications in the second and third years. This is inconsistent with 
the statutory requirement. As laid out in BIL, States must submit both 
a triennial HSP and an annual application in the first year of a 
triennial cycle, with only an annual grant application for years two 
and three. See 23 U.S.C. 402. As the many commenters who urged NHTSA to 
clearly distinguish the two submissions make clear, the triennial HSP 
and annual grant application fulfill different

[[Page 56764]]

purposes. As commenters \14\ rightly noted, the triennial HSP provides 
longer-term, program-level planning spanning a three-year period while 
the annual grant application implements that plan each year through 
project-level details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Brandy Nannini, CA OTS, CT HSO, GHSA, MN DPS, NY GTSC, WA 
TSC, WI BOTS, and 5-State DOTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the broad comments that the agency ensure fidelity 
to the law in drafting the regulatory text, GHSA specifically requested 
that NHTSA refrain from requiring application or reporting requirements 
beyond those explicitly authorized by law. NHTSA has striven to do so. 
However, we note that relevant legal requirements are not limited to 
the BIL. For example, OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200) 
provide many requirements applicable to the grant program, both for 
States as award recipients and to NHTSA as the awarding agency. We have 
included several of those requirements throughout this regulation.
    NHTSA believes that the triennial framework created by the BIL, 
with annual projects tied to longer-range planning based on performance 
targets and countermeasure strategies, is a valuable tool for States as 
they and NHTSA work to address the recent increase in traffic 
fatalities. It has never been more important for States to carry out 
strong, data-driven and performance-based highway safety programs. 
While NHTSA has worked to implement the statutory requirements and 
avoid adding unnecessary burden on States, we are committed to ensuring 
through our review and approval authority that State triennial HSPs and 
annual grant applications provide for data-driven and performance based 
highway safety programs. NHTSA will not approve a triennial HSP that 
has worsening performance targets or where countermeasure strategies 
are not sufficient to allow the State to meet its targets or are not 
supported by evidence that they are effective. NHTSA also will not 
approve an annual grant application where the projects provided are not 
sufficient to carry out the countermeasure strategy in an approved 
triennial HSP.

A. General (23 CFR 1300.10)

    NHTSA proposes revisions to 23 CFR 1300.10 to provide, according to 
the BIL, that in order to apply for a highway safety grant under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906, a State must submit both a triennial 
Highway Safety Plan and an annual grant application.

B. Triennial Highway Safety Plan (23 CFR 1300.11)

    The triennial HSP documents the State's planning for a three-year 
period of the State's highway safety program that is data-driven in 
establishing performance targets and selecting the countermeasure 
strategies for programming funds to meet those performance targets. As 
many commenters noted,\15\ the triennial HSP is intended by Congress to 
focus on program-level information. As discussed below, NHTSA proposes 
to require States to submit five components in the triennial HSP: (1) 
the highway safety planning process and problem identification; (2) 
public participation and engagement; (3) performance plan; (4) 
countermeasure strategy for programming funds; and (5) performance 
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Brandy Nannini, CA OTS, CT HSO, GHSA, MN DPS, NY GTSC, WA 
TSC, WI BOTS, and 5-State DOTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Due Date (23 CFR 1300.11(a))
    NHTSA incorporates the July 1 deadline set by the BIL. 23 U.S.C. 
402(k)(2).
2. Highway Safety Planning Process and Problem Identification (23 CFR 
1300.11(b)(1))
    As with previous HSPs submitted annually, the triennial HSP must 
include the State's problem identification that will serve as the basis 
for setting performance targets, selecting countermeasure strategies 
and, later, developing projects. This ensures that the State's highway 
safety program is data-driven, consistent with 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B). 
NHTSA proposes to retain the requirements that the State describe the 
processes, data sources and information used in its highway safety 
planning and describe and analyze the State's overall highway safety 
problems through analysis of data (i.e., problem identification, or 
problem ID). These requirements are substantively unchanged from the 
prior regulation except that NHTSA has added sociodemographic data as 
an example of a data source that the State may wish to consider in 
conducting problem ID. 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(1)(ii).
    The WA TSC commented that NHTSA will need to change the way it 
evaluates States' problem ID in order to acknowledge factors that shape 
human behavior outside of raw crash data. NHTSA agrees that data other 
than crash data are valuable for State's problem ID, but does not agree 
that NHTSA has limited the types of data States may use to conduct 
problem ID so strictly. States are encouraged to utilize all data and 
information sources to conduct problem identification. The WA TSC also 
stated that raw crash data such as number of crashes and the outcomes 
of those crashes are outside the control of the SHSO. NHTSA disagrees 
with this premise. While States may not control all of the factors that 
contribute to raw crash numbers, such as population or increased VMT, 
State highway safety programs must be designed to account for those 
factors and adjust as necessary in order to address the myriad other 
factors that contribute to increases in traffic fatalities and 
injuries. As the WA TSC also noted, States can and should submit data 
in the triennial HSP that demonstrates that the State has conducted a 
careful analysis of traffic safety problems in the State and then has 
chosen strategies that are designed to address the specific behaviors 
that form the root cause of those problems.
    NASEMSO and League of American Bicyclists recommended, 
respectively, that States be required to include consideration of post-
crash care issues and perceptions of safety in bicycling and walking as 
part of their problem identification and, therefore, in their 
countermeasure strategies. NHTSA encourages States to consider the full 
constellation of State highway safety problems. However, in order to 
ensure that States have the needed flexibility to assess data to 
determine the problems within their borders, the agency declines to 
specify problem areas for consideration outside those mandated by 
Congress.
    Drew Dawson recommended that NHTSA require States to provide the 
strategy laying out how the State will continue regular data 
assessments, including who will perform the analysis, what sources they 
will consult, and at what intervals. NHTSA does not believe this is 
necessary because States are already required to submit annual reports 
that assess their progress in meeting performance targets. 23 CFR 
1300.35.
3. Public Participation and Engagement (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(2))
    In BIL, Congress added a requirement that State highway safety 
programs result from meaningful public participation and engagement 
from affected communities, particularly those most significantly 
impacted by traffic crashes resulting in injuries and fatalities. 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B). Relatedly, Title VI of the Civil Rights

[[Page 56765]]

Act of 1964 (or Title VI) prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
race, color or national origin in any Federal program, including 
programs funded with Federal dollars. Title VI requires that all 
recipients of DOT financial assistance ensure that no person is 
excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise 
subjected to discrimination under any Federally-funded program or 
activity nondiscrimination. As implemented through the U.S. Department 
of Transportation Title VI Program Order (DOT Order 1000.12C), Title VI 
requires, among other things, that all recipients submit a Community 
Participation Plan. The purpose of the Community Participation Plan is 
to facilitate full compliance with Title VI by requiring meaningful 
public participation and engagement to ensure that applicants and 
recipients are adequately informed about how programs or activities 
will potentially impact affected communities, and to ensure that 
diverse views are heard and considered throughout all stages of the 
consultation, planning, and decision-making process. Because the public 
participation and engagement required by BIL and the Community 
Participation Plan required by Title VI have complementary goals, NHTSA 
proposes to structure grant requirements so that States can meet both 
requirements at the same time.
    NHTSA proposes to incorporate these statutory requirements into the 
highway safety grant rule in three ways. First, NHTSA proposes a public 
participation and engagement section in the triennial HSP that would 
ensure States meet both requirements through a single submission. 23 
CFR 1300.11(b)(2). NHTSA proposes to require that the triennial HSP 
include a description of the starting goals and a plan for integrating 
public engagement into the State's planning processes, a description of 
the activities conducted and the outcomes of those activities, and a 
plan for continuing public participation and engagement activities 
throughout the three years covered by the triennial HSP. Second, in 
order to ensure that the public participation and engagement that the 
State conducts for the triennial HSP plays a meaningful role in the 
choice and implementation of projects, not just at the planning stage, 
NHTSA also proposes to require States to describe in the annual report 
how the projects that were implemented were informed by the State's 
public participation and engagement. 23 CFR 1300.35(b)(1)(iii). 
Finally, in order to ensure that SHSOs have the necessary authority to 
carry out these requirements, NHTSA proposes to add a requirement that 
each State Highway Safety agency be authorized to foster meaningful 
public participation and engagement from affected communities. 23 CFR 
1300.4(b)(3).
    NHTSA received many comments about the BIL's requirement for 
meaningful public participation in the States' highway safety grant 
programs. Because they span multiple sections of the rule, NHTSA will 
address all engagement-related comments here. MN DPS and GHSA both 
stated their strong support for the requirement and were joined by 
Brandy Nannini, CA OTS, and NY GTSC in calling for flexibility and for 
NHTSA to take a long-term view for States' implementation of the 
requirement. The NSC signaled support for the requirement by advising 
NHTSA to encourage States to incorporate viewpoints of multiple 
stakeholders in identifying key safety needs and countermeasures. GHSA 
and NY GTSC noted that States are already including public 
participation as part of their highway safety programs, but that each 
State is doing so differently because they have different landscapes of 
communities and differing staffing and funding resources. GHSA and NSC 
both recommended that NHTSA allow States to carry out the required 
public participation directly, through partner subrecipients, or as 
part of a multidisciplinary effort run by the State DOT. The 
Transportation Equity Caucus recommended that States create models to 
transfer ownership of highway safety planning processes to communities 
and neighborhoods. Other commenters recommended that NHTSA require 
States to spend a specified amount of funds to carry out public 
participation and engagement in areas with the most need, where a 
certain percentage of fatalities or injuries take place, or in the 
communities where safety programs are intended to be implemented. See 
GHSA and anonymous commenter. NHTSA appreciates States' stated 
commitment to public participation and recognizes that public 
participation efforts are already underway in many States. With our 
proposal, we seek to implement these statutory requirements in a manner 
that reflects the importance of the requirement while recognizing 
variations between States by focusing on State's public participation 
planning and the impact of that participation on State programs and 
projects. In reviewing a State's public participation planning and 
outreach efforts in the triennial HSP, NHTSA will look to see if the 
State made a concerted effort to identify and reach out to impacted 
communities; however, we do not propose to require a specified funding 
level. A State must use the problem identification process to ensure 
that its most vulnerable, at-risk populations are identified and set 
performance targets and countermeasure strategies for programming funds 
accordingly. As long as a State is able to meet the requirements of the 
triennial HSP and annual report, it may facilitate public participation 
in the manner best suited to the needs of the State and its 
communities.
    Commenters also provided input on how to measure State public 
participation efforts. GHSA cautioned that States cannot compel 
participation and asked NHTSA not to measure compliance by volume of 
comments or engagement. Other commenters suggested that States be 
required to report their public participation efforts, including: how 
they advertised and facilitated public engagement opportunities, what 
engagement took place, and the impact of that participation on the 
State's program. See League of American Bicyclists and NSC. NHTSA does 
not propose to require a specific form of public participation and 
engagement, nor to require specified outcomes. Instead, as described 
above, NHTSA proposes to require that the triennial HSP include a 
description of the starting goals and plan for integrating public 
engagement into the State's planning processes, a description of the 
activities conducted and the outcomes of those activities, and a plan 
for continuing public participation and engagement activities 
throughout the three years covered by the triennial HSP. While NHTSA 
does not propose to set a specified required outcome for a State's 
public participation activities, the agency expects that if a State 
does not achieve reasonable participation through the participation 
plan described in the triennial HSP, it will use that experience to 
inform its efforts for continuing public participation during the 
period covered by the annual HSPs and into the next triennial HSP. In 
addition, as described above, the agency proposes to require States to 
describe in the annual report how their public participation efforts 
informed the projects they implemented during the grant year.
    NHTSA received many comments about the need to provide funding for 
BIL's increased public engagement requirements. GHSA noted that States 
would need additional funding in order to carry out the required public 
engagement efforts, while the National Safety Council recommended that 
States

[[Page 56766]]

be allowed to compensate partners or trusted community organizations to 
carry out public engagement work on their behalf. Many commenters also 
observed that States would likely achieve better and more diverse 
participation if they are able to compensate community members for 
their participation and attendance costs. See League of American 
Bicyclists, National Safety Council, Rebecca Sanders, and WA TSC. NHTSA 
acknowledges that increased efforts require more resources from State 
highway safety offices and that participation in public planning 
processes may present costs in time and money for participants. Public 
participation is fundamental to the workings of State governments, as 
it is for the Federal government. Therefore, we would expect that 
States have processes and procedures in place for conducting public 
outreach and participation. The specifics of whether and how NHTSA 
grant funds may be used to pay for these costs are highly fact specific 
and implicate many different Federal laws and regulations. In general, 
Federal grant funds may not be expended on activities required to 
qualify for the grant. State laws, also, may impact these sorts of 
expenditures. For example, Washington TSC noted in its comment that 
Washington State has recently passed laws to remove the historical 
prohibition against compensating the public for participation in State 
processes. It is likely that other States still have such prohibitions. 
Nothing in this proposed rule would dictate a specific determination 
about whether these sorts of costs may be an allowable use of NHTSA 
grant funds.
    Commenters provided several suggestions for States about how to 
conduct their public participation efforts. NHTSA encourages States to 
consider any and all methods when planning their public engagement 
efforts. Suggestions included: ensuring that online tools are easy to 
use (Mari Lynch), publicizing the planning process and explaining how 
the public can provide input (Drew Dawson, League of American 
Bicyclists), presenting at schools or other community gathering 
locations (anonymous), widespread use of social media outlets and other 
communication channels (NASEMSO), regular opportunities for local 
information gathering (NSC), joining regional public health or EMS 
authority meetings (Drew Dawson), and elevating the voices of non-
profits and representatives of marginalized groups in State committees 
and advisory groups (NASEMSO). NASEMSO and an anonymous commenter also 
recommended that States could increase community engagement through 
disseminating easy to understand and compelling safety data, including 
correlation of policies to data improvements.
    NHTSA received many comments suggesting non-traditional partners 
that States should consider including in their planning processes. 
Recommendations spanned from national to State to local and community 
levels and are summarized below. NHTSA encourages States to consider 
all of these groups as they plan their public participation and 
engagement activities and as they implement their programs. NHTSA will 
work to share effective means of increasing participation with States.
    The League of American Bicyclists and National Sheriffs' 
Association both recommended using national stakeholder organizations 
to advertise participation opportunities to their local members. The 
League of American Bicyclists recommended focusing on national 
organizations focused on equity and transportation safety. The National 
Sheriffs' Association specifically recommended using themselves and the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police to filter funding and 
messaging down to the local level. Drew Dawson recommended that States 
work with national-level 911 organizations.
    State-level partners recommended by commenters included State 
agencies, such as transportation, public health, EMS, rural health, 
economic development, and State law enforcement agencies. See Drew 
Dawson, NASEMSO, NSC, Vision Zero Network. Drew Dawson also recommended 
coordinating with the State agencies responsible for implementing the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community 
Development Block Grants.
    The Vision Zero Network recommended that States prioritize local 
needs, and suggested that they work with local transportation, health, 
and policy organizations and community leaders. The League of American 
Bicyclists also emphasized the importance of working collaboratively 
with local community organizations, recommending that NHTSA require 
States to get letters of support for work undertaken within local 
communities. While NHTSA encourages collaboration with local community 
groups and supports the Share to Local requirement described in more 
detail later in this notice, it is beyond our authority to impose such 
a requirement. An anonymous commenter recommended that States work with 
local governments, which in turn should work with schools, community 
centers, churches, and non-profits within their jurisdiction in order 
to reach communities that may have less resources to interact directly 
with the State government. Drew Dawson identified local Public Safety 
Answering Points (PSAPs) and local or regional emergency medical 
organizations as helpful partners. Finally, the NSC recommended that 
States seek out existing local or regional task forces.
    Many commenters recommended that States build relationships with 
affected communities beyond traditional partners, such as governmental 
entities and public figures, in order to gain the benefit of lived 
experiences. See League of American Bicyclists. Lorrie Walker and 
Rebecca Sanders both noted that building capacity within the 
communities that the highway safety program serves is necessary but 
that it may take some time to see results. The NSC and Rebecca Sanders 
both stressed the importance of collecting and considering community-
based lived experience in addition to existing traffic safety data. 
Commenters identified a range of types of community members for States 
to reach out to, including parish nurses, childcare workers, parent-
teacher associations, hospitals, physicians/surgeons, associations of 
attorneys. See Drew Dawson, Lorrie Walker. The Transportation Equity 
Caucus recommended that States work with community-based organizations, 
including groups focused on civil rights, racial and social equity, 
disability justice, mobility justice, public health, social services 
and other groups led by affected demographics. Specific community 
groups identified included communities of color, American Indians, 
teens, and rural communities. The National Safety Council suggested 
that States research active and trusted community organizations who are 
part of the safe system of transportation.
    NHTSA supports and encourages States to reach out to and seek input 
from a full and diverse range of traffic safety stakeholders, both 
traditional and non-traditional. States should use all available 
resources to engage with new stakeholders and increase community 
engagement. NHTSA acknowledges that many States have already begun 
working to increase engagement and build community partnerships, and 
encourages them to continue those efforts. NHTSA will also work to 
share best practices and effective strategies to increase community 
engagement.

[[Page 56767]]

    The BIL also added a related but separate requirement that States 
support data-driven traffic safety enforcement programs that foster 
effective community collaboration to increase public safety. 23 U.S.C. 
402(b)(1)(E). This provision is essential to ensuring that highway 
safety programs carried out by law enforcement agencies are equitable 
and community-based. NHTSA proposes to implement this statutory 
provision by requiring States to discuss in the annual report the 
community collaboration efforts that are part of the States' evidence-
based enforcement program. 23 CFR 1300.35(b)(2). GHSA recommended that 
States be allowed to count their efforts in meeting the separate 
requirement for meaningful public engagement in their triennial HSP in 
order to show compliance with the community collaboration requirement 
for enforcement programs. NHTSA disagrees. Congress created two 
separate and independent requirements: a requirement for a State to 
provide for a comprehensive, data-driven traffic safety program that 
results from meaningful public participation (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B); 
and a requirement that the State's highway safety program support data-
driven traffic safety enforcement programs that foster effective 
community collaboration to increase public safety (23 U.S.C. 
402(b)(1)(E)(i)). Collapsing the two requirements into the broader 
meaningful public engagement requirement would undermine Congress' 
intent that States address these as two separate requirements. As 
described above, States have broad latitude in how to provide 
meaningful public participation and engagement in the State traffic 
safety program. It may be possible, though difficult, that some efforts 
involved in the broader meaningful engagement may be specific enough to 
be part of the required community collaboration in enforcement 
programs. If a State is able to fulfill the requirements for both 
regulatory provisions with the same activities, it may do so; but NHTSA 
will evaluate the two statutory requirements separately.
4. Performance Plan (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(3)
    States have been using a performance-based planning process in 
their highway safety plans for many years now. While some States were 
using performance measures on a voluntary basis already, Congress 
mandated the use of performance measures for all States in MAP-21 and 
continued the requirements under the FAST Act. While the BIL separated 
the planning process and the grant application into the triennial HSP 
and annual grant application, respectively, it maintained the reliance 
on performance measures as a fundamental component of State highway 
safety program planning in the triennial HSP. The BIL maintains the 
existing structure that requires States to provide documentation of the 
current safety levels for each performance measure, quantifiable 
performance targets for each performance measure, and a justification 
for each performance target. However, the BIL now specifies that 
performance targets must demonstrate constant or improved performance. 
23 U.S.C. 402(d)(4)(A)(ii). Although the BIL makes no other changes to 
the statutory text specifically related to performance measures, the 
move from an annual to a triennial HSP presents some practical 
implications for performance measures as well. NHTSA received many 
comments on both changes, statutory and practical, and discusses them 
in more detail below.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Brian Maguire, et. al recommended, in effect, that NHTSA 
establish a performance-based framework, suggesting that NHTSA 
require States to provide a link between funding and improvements in 
safety in order to assess progress over time. As shown here, this is 
already in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a preliminary matter, instead of the annual performance measures 
provided in the prior annual HSP, States now must provide performance 
measures that cover the three-year period covered by the triennial HSP. 
NHTSA proposes to allow States to set a single three-year target, with 
informal annual benchmarks provided in the triennial HSP against which 
they can assess progress in the annual report.
    The BIL provides that States must set performance targets that 
demonstrate constant or improved performance and provide a 
justification for each performance target that explains why the target 
is appropriate and evidence-based. 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A)(ii) and 
(iii). This is consistent with the NRSS, which sets an ambitious long-
term goal of reaching zero roadway fatalities by 2050. Transportation 
performance management focuses agencies on desired outcomes, outlines 
how to attain results, and clarifies necessary resources in the near-
term. It allows for transparent and open discussions about desired 
outcomes and the direction an agency should take now. In an era of 
increasing fatalities, it is vital that performance targets offer 
realistic expectations that work toward the long-term goal of zero 
roadway fatalities and provide a greater understanding of how safety 
issues are being addressed. Several commenters \17\ argued that 
requiring targets that show constant or improved performance is 
contrary to the requirement that targets be appropriate and evidence 
based. The WA TSC stated that States could set targets that demonstrate 
constant or improved performance, but not for measures that are related 
to outcomes that are outside the control of the State highway safety 
office. As an example, WA TSC noted that raw numbers of fatalities and 
injuries are impacted by changes in population and VMT. NHTSA disagrees 
that targets should focus only on variables within the control of State 
highway safety offices. Performance management is intended to refocus 
attention on national transportation goals, increase the accountability 
and transparency of the highway safety grant program, and improve 
program decisionmaking through performance-based planning and 
programming. Performance targets are inextricably tied to the 
countermeasure strategies for programming funds that States describe in 
their triennial HSPs. Targets should be developed to reflect the 
outcomes that States should expect, based on the evidence available, 
after implementing their planned programs. If, while setting its 
performance targets, a State determines that its countermeasure 
strategy for programming funds is not likely to yield constant or 
improved performance, the State should consider different 
countermeasure strategies or adjust funding levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ AASHTO, CA OTS, CT HSO, GHSA, MN DPS, NY GTSC, OR DOT, and 
WI BOTS Patrol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters \18\ expressed support for the BIL's emphasis on 
constant and improved performance, exhorting NHTSA to ensure that 
States do not set performance targets that increase fatalities and 
injuries. As the League of American Bicyclists points out, under the 
Safe System Approach, redundancies are meant to ensure that even when 
one component of a system fails, fatalities and injuries can still be 
reduced. Rebecca Sanders recommended that NHTSA implement consequences, 
such as reduced funding or directed spending, for States that do not 
achieve performance targets. NHTSA does not have the authority to 
withhold funds or direct State expenditure of funds for failure to 
achieve a performance target. However, the BIL provides that the 
State's annual grant application must include a description of the 
means by which the State's countermeasure strategy for programming 
funds was adjusted and

[[Page 56768]]

informed by the State's assessment of its progress in meeting its 
targets in the most recent annual report. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(C)(iii). 
NHTSA proposes to implement this requirement by requiring that all 
States include either a narrative description of the means by which the 
State's countermeasure strategy for programming funds was adjusted and 
informed by the most recent annual report, or a written explanation of 
why the State made no adjustments to the strategy for programming 
funds. If a State determined in its most recent annual report that it 
was on track to meet its performance targets, it may simply state that 
fact. If a State determined that it was not on track to achieve its 
performance targets, it would be required to explain why it is not 
necessary to adjust the countermeasure strategy for programming funds 
in order to meet its targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ League of American Bicyclists, NSC, Rebecca Sanders, Vision 
Zero Network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AASHTO, CT HSO, GHSA and OR DOT expressed concern that the 
requirement to set performance measures that demonstrate constant or 
improved performance will cause States to have to set aggressive 
performance targets and that States will face penalties if they fail to 
meet aggressive targets. While Section 402 requires States to assess 
the progress made in achieving performance targets in the annual report 
(23 U.S.C. 402(l)(2)), and NHTSA is required to publicly release an 
evaluation of State achievement of performance targets (23 U.S.C. 
402(n)(1)), there are no monetary or programmatic penalties for failure 
to achieve a performance target in the highway safety grant program. 
The WA TSC commented that States that set a goal of zero traffic deaths 
will not be punished with additional administrative burdens. The long-
term goal of zero traffic deaths is central to the NRSS and SSA. NHTSA 
acknowledges and appreciates that many states would like to plan and 
set targets aimed at that goal. We therefore encourage states to 
thoughtfully consider targets for their triennial HSPs that keep this 
long-term goal in mind while using a data-based approach based on 
achievable targets in the short-term. Finally, AASHTO points out that 
States may face monetary consequences under FHWA's Highway Safety 
Improvement Program (HSIP) for failure to achieve a common performance 
measure. However, as a point of clarification, States do not face a 
monetary penalty under the FHWA's HSIP; they do, however, lose 
flexibility to redirect safety funds to other programs. NHTSA does not 
have discretion to undermine the statutory requirement that all 
performance measures show constant or improved performance.
    Several commenters \19\ expressed concern that the new triennial 
HSP framework created by the BIL will create inconsistencies with the 
common measures that States also report annually to FHWA for the 
HSIP.\20\ GHSA and the WI BOTS Patrol both recommended that NHTSA 
require that the common measures be reported annually in the annual 
application, rather than in the triennial HSP, to maintain alignment 
with the HSIP. The League of American Bicyclists recommended that NHTSA 
work with States to ensure the HSP is consistent with the HSIP, 
including consistent performance measures and countermeasure 
strategies. The BIL provides that performance measures are submitted 
with the triennial HSP, so NHTSA does not have discretion to change 
that. 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4). However, the BIL also provides that States 
may submit updates, as necessary, to the triennial HSP in the annual 
grant application. NHTSA believes it would undermine Congress' intent 
in providing for more long-term planning and performance management 
under the highway safety grant program to allow States to frequently 
adjust performance measures that are intended to be part of a triennial 
highway safety planning process. Rather, States should adjust their 
countermeasure strategies for programming funds if they determine that 
they are not on track to meet their performance measures. However, the 
agency recognizes the difficulty for States in having measures that are 
subject to the disparate planning timeframes of the triennial HSP and 
annual HSIP. Therefore, we propose to allow States to amend the common 
measures in the annual grant application, but not the other measures. 
1300.12(b)(1)(ii). AASHTO stated that the regulation should more 
clearly vest target establishment authority in the States, arguing that 
it is inconsistent to require NHTSA approval for performance targets 
when 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1) provides States with authority to establish 
targets for the HSIP without FHWA approval. FHWA previously addressed 
this comment in its final rule for the National Performance Management 
Measures: Highway Safety Improvement Program, which set out the 
parameters of the common performance measures.\21\ As the substance of 
the relevant statutes has not changed, NHTSA incorporates the response 
FHWA provided at that time. NHTSA emphasizes that the statute requires 
States to coordinate their highway safety plan with the HSIP and that 
States certify their compliance with this requirement in Appendix A. 
See 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(F)(vi) and Appendix A. Further, NHTSA does not 
have discretion to override the statutory requirement that NHTSA 
approve or disapprove triennial HSPs, including the performance 
measures contained therein. See 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ AASHTO, GHSA, OR DOT, and WI BOTS Patrol.
    \20\ Common performance measures are set out in 23 CFR 
490.209(1) and 23 CFR 1300.11.
    \21\ 81 FR 13882, 13901 (Mar. 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received many comments related to the data that States use to 
set and assess progress towards meeting performance measures. Several 
commenters noted that States frequently do not have access to up-to-
date FARS or other data available when setting targets or at the time 
of performance reporting and asked that States be allowed to use the 
latest available data regardless of data source for these purposes. See 
GHSA, Kathleen Hancock, NY GTSC. Though not specifically targeted to 
the performance measures, the BIL also amended Section 402 to provide 
that triennial HSPs, including performance measures, be based on the 
information available on the date of submission. 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4). 
In addition, the BIL requires that States provide, in the annual 
report, an assessment of progress made in achieving the performance 
targets identified in the triennial HSP based on the most currently 
available Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data. 23 U.S.C. 
402(l)(2)(A). The OR DOT recommended that NHTSA allow States to use a 
State data source, rather than FARS, for fatality data reporting. 
Because the statute requires that States use FARS data for the annual 
report, NHTSA does not have the authority to allow States to use 
another data source for the appropriate measures. States may, however, 
supplement their analysis by using FARS and other data sources. 
However, FARS only provides comprehensive data related to fatal 
injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes; it therefore is not an 
appropriate data source for non-fatality measures. As a result, NHTSA 
proposes to require that States assess progress in their annual reports 
using the most currently available data. 23 CFR 1300.35(a)(1). To 
accurately assess progress, the State must consult the same data source 
that was used to set the performance target. However, it may also look 
to other data sources to

[[Page 56769]]

provide a fuller picture of current levels. Where a target, such as the 
common fatality measures, requires the use of FARS data, States must 
use the most currently available FARS data in the annual reports. 
Similarly, States may supplement their analysis with non-FARS data, but 
must at a minimum use the most currently available FARS data. Where 
targets necessarily are based on other data sources, States must use 
the most currently available data for that data source, but may 
supplement with additional data.
    Several commenters provided feedback on other aspects of 
performance measure data. WA TSC noted that since FARS data are 
provided by NHTSA, States should not be required to report FARS data 
back to NHTSA. However, the statute and the regulation require not just 
data reporting, but analysis of the data. See 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(2)(A) 
and 23 CFR 1300.35(a)(1). A State would be unable to assess its 
progress in meeting FARS-based targets without reporting the FARS data. 
NASEMSO recommended that States be required to provide historical data 
covering a 3-to-5-year period prior to the period covered by the 
triennial HSP. While NHTSA does not explicitly require States to 
provide baseline data for performance measures, as a general matter, 
baseline data will be a key part of State's performance target setting 
and will usually be provided in the triennial HSP as part of the 
justification for the target set by the State. WI BOTS recommended that 
NHTSA allow States to set targets based on an average of the prior 4 
years of FARS data plus State data in order to set a target percentage 
as opposed to a hard number. The comment did not provide enough details 
for NHTSA to be certain which target the commenter is referring to. In 
general, with the exception of the required common and minimum 
performance measures, States have flexibility to determine the 
appropriate performance measure needed for their programs. Safe Kids 
Worldwide suggested that States look to tangible events and metrics to 
measure performance, including FARS data. Drew Dawson and NASEMSO 
recommended that States consider use of NEMSIS and trauma registry data 
in performance measures. In order to ensure consistency and to 
facilitate a nationwide view of progress in traffic safety, the common 
and minimum performance measures specify the type of data source that 
States should use. However, for the other performance measures that 
States select, based on problem identification, States may use any 
available data source that is appropriate, including NEMSIS and trauma 
registry data.
    Many commenters \22\ requested that NHTSA and GHSA work together to 
update the minimum performance measures that were developed in 2008 
\23\ in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(5). In contrast, the 5-State 
DOTs stated that they do not believe any new performance measures are 
required. Commenters \24\ also provided specific advice and 
recommendations for measures they believe should be considered, 
deleted, or amended. The current action does not propose to revise the 
minimum measures; however, NHTSA agrees with the majority of commenters 
who believe that the minimum performance measures need to be 
reconsidered and updated. That said, NHTSA does not believe that it is 
feasible to undertake the required collaboration to develop new 
performance measures in time for States to use them in their first 
triennial HSP. In addition, NHTSA believes that being able to use 
familiar performance measures will reduce the burden on States as they 
complete their first triennial HSP cycle under BIL. NHTSA intends to 
convene meetings with stakeholders and to collaborate with GHSA to 
update the minimum performance measures well in advance of the FY 2027 
triennial HSP submission date. NHTSA will bring all of the comments 
received under this rulemaking into that effort and will seek further 
input from these and other groups at that time. As we did previously, 
NHTSA commits to publish the proposed minimum performance measures in 
the Federal Register for public inspection and comment. For the 
purposes of the FY 24 triennial HSP, NHTSA would like to note that 
States are not limited to only the minimum performance measures. States 
are strongly encouraged to develop additional measures, consistent with 
23 CFR 1300.11(b)(3)(iii), for problems identified by the State that 
are not covered by existing minimum performance measures. Those 
measures may cover issue areas such as equity, injury data, SHSO output 
measures, and more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ CA OTS, GHSA, MN DPS, NASEMSO, NY GTSC, and WA TSC.
    \23\ ``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and 
Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 025) (Aug. 2008).
    \24\ Brian McGuire, Drew Dawson, IAEMSC, League of American 
Bicyclists, NASEMSO, NSC, NY GTSC, Rebecca Sanders, Safe Kids 
Worldwide, Safe Routes Partnership, TEC, Vision Zero Network, and WA 
TESC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, OR DOT recommended that NHTSA reconcile its definition for 
``vulnerable road user'' with the definition used by FHWA. NHTSA does 
not provide, nor does it propose, a definition for ``vulnerable road 
user'' in the regulation. As such, there is no contradiction with any 
definitions provided by FHWA. For purposes of the highway safety grant 
program, States have flexibility to define ``vulnerable road users'' 
based on the highway safety challenges identified by their problem ID.
5. Countermeasure Strategy for Programming Funds (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(4))
    The BIL requires each State to submit, as part of the triennial 
HSP, a countermeasure strategy for programming funds for projects that 
will allow the State to meet the performance targets set in the 
triennial HSP, including data and analysis supporting the effectiveness 
of the proposed countermeasures and a description of the Federal funds 
that the State plans to use to carry out the strategy. 23 U.S.C. 
402(k)(4)(B-D). NHTSA proposes to incorporate this requirement into the 
regulation by requiring States to provide, for each countermeasure 
strategy: identification of the problem ID that the countermeasure 
strategy addresses and a description of the link between the problem ID 
and the countermeasure strategy; a list of the countermeasures that the 
State will implement as part of the countermeasure strategy; 
identification of the performance targets the countermeasure strategy 
will address with a description of the link between the countermeasure 
strategy and the target; a description of the Federal funds the State 
plans to use; a description of the considerations the State will use to 
determine what projects to fund to implement the countermeasure 
strategy; and a description of the manner in which the countermeasure 
strategy was informed by the uniform guidelines issued by NHTSA in 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402(a)(2).
    GHSA recommended that NHTSA amend the definition of countermeasure 
strategy in order to clarify that it includes innovative 
countermeasures, and to explain how States can justify the use of 
innovative countermeasures. While NHTSA has amended the definition of 
countermeasure strategy for programming funds (see definition section 
for explanation), that definition does not incorporate the 
considerations GHSA recommends. Instead, NHTSA proposes to make these 
suggested clarifications directly in the regulatory

[[Page 56770]]

text of this requirement. As a preliminary matter, NHTSA would like to 
clarify the distinction between a countermeasure and a countermeasure 
strategy for programming funds, which consists of a combination of 
countermeasures along with information on how the State plans to 
implement those countermeasures, such as funding amounts, subrecipient 
types, locations, etc. Specifically, NHTSA proposes to require that, 
for each countermeasure that a State plans to implement as part of a 
countermeasure strategy, the State provide data and analysis supporting 
the effectiveness of the countermeasure. NSC recommended that NHTSA 
require States to provide justification for use of established 
countermeasures in order to reflect evolving knowledge. However, NHTSA 
believes that requiring States to provide independent justification for 
all countermeasures, even ones that have been proven over time, is 
burdensome without any added gain. Therefore, the agency proposes that 
for countermeasures that are rated 3 or more stars in Countermeasures 
That Work, the State need only provide a citation to the countermeasure 
in the most recent edition of that document. For all other 
countermeasures including innovative countermeasures, States must 
provide justification supporting the potential of the countermeasure 
strategy, which may include research, evaluation, or substantive 
anecdotal evidence. See 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(4)(ii). The WA TSC suggests 
that NHTSA accept the SSA principles as a justification for choosing 
countermeasure strategies in the triennial HSP. While NHTSA agrees that 
the SSA principles are great guiding principles for a State to use in 
selecting countermeasures, NHTSA notes that principles do not qualify 
as data and the data analysis required to justify the use of a 
countermeasure.
    GHSA noted that the BIL removed the previous requirement that 
States have a traffic safety enforcement program (TESP) (previously 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E)), and requested that NHTSA remove the related 
regulatory requirement that the HSP include a specific TSEP section 
(current 23 CFR 1300.11(d)(5)). Instead, GHSA recommended that States 
be required only to provide an assurance in Appendix A that the 
triennial HSP provides for sustained enforcement, and to provide any 
required information for Section 405 grant applications. NHTSA agrees 
that it is not necessary to require a dedicated section of the 
triennial HSP to cover the TSEP. However, we disagree that an assurance 
is sufficient for States to meet the requirement for States to have a 
traffic safety enforcement program. The BIL requires that a State 
program support data-driven traffic safety enforcement programs that 
foster effective community collaboration to increase public safety. 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E). NHTSA believes that this statutory requirement 
represents a step forward in ensuring equitable outcomes in traffic 
enforcement. While NHTSA agrees that a separate section of the 
triennial HSP is not required to satisfy this requirement, the agency 
will not approve a triennial HSP that does not include such a traffic 
safety enforcement program as part of its countermeasure strategies. 
The flexibility allowed by removing the separate section requirement 
will allow States to structure countermeasure strategies that rely on 
enforcement as only one part of a multi-countermeasure strategy. In 
recognition that community collaboration efforts may depend on the 
specific enforcement projects that States implement, NHTSA proposes to 
require States to discuss the community collaboration efforts that were 
conducted as part of their evidence-based enforcement programs in the 
annual report, rather than in the triennial HSP. See also the 
discussion about the annual report, below.
    GHSA also pointed out that the BIL removed the requirement to 
describe non-Federal funds that the State intends to use to carry out 
countermeasure strategies in the triennial HSP. NHTSA has drafted 
proposed text accordingly.
    WA TSC recommended that NHTSA adopt a model of behavior change for 
State countermeasure strategies, by requiring States to create a theory 
of change for each countermeasure submitted, including a clear 
statement of assumptions and a description of how the chosen strategy 
will influence public behavior. The League of American Bicyclists 
recommended that NHTSA use the triennial HSP to implement the Safe 
Systems Approach by promoting the use of the rubric presented by GHSA 
in its report titled ``Putting the Pieces Together: Addressing the Role 
of Behavioral Safety in the Safe System Approach.'' While NHTSA does 
not endorse any specific strategies over others, the agency supports 
States thinking outside of the box and encourages States to work 
together to identify opportunities to learn from each other and share 
new or innovative ideas. NHTSA will also work with states to identify 
strategies that incorporate the Safe Systems Approach and to facilitate 
the sharing of innovative strategies among states.
6. Performance Report (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(5))
    The BIL requires that the triennial HSP include a report on the 
State's success in meeting its safety goals and performance targets set 
forth in the most recently submitted highway safety plan. NHTSA has 
incorporated this statutory requirement into the proposed regulatory 
text, adding that the report must contain the level of detail provided 
in the annual report. See 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(5). The agency's intent in 
doing so is to foster connection between the triennial HSP and the 
annual reports. We also believe that this will reduce burdens on States 
by enabling them to import relevant analysis from the annual reports 
into the triennial HSP and vice versa. So, for example, the FY27 
triennial HSP (due July 1, 2026) would be able to incorporate the 
assessment from the FY24 and FY25 annual reports that were submitted in 
January 2025 and 2026, respectively, and would include a partial 
assessment for FY26. NHTSA recognizes that the triennial HSP is due 
prior to the end of the last fiscal year covered by the prior triennial 
HSP and will therefore not expect the assessment for the final fiscal 
year to cover the entire year. The State could then use the partial 
assessment provided in the FY27 HSP as a starting point to develop its 
assessment in the FY26 annual report (due January 2027). For the FY24 
triennial HSP, NHTSA only expects analysis of the State's progress 
towards meeting the targets set in the FY23 HSP.
7. Review and Approval Procedures (23 CFR 1300.11(c))
    The BIL provides that NHTSA must review and approve or disapprove a 
State's triennial HSP within no more than 60 days. It further provides 
that NHTSA may request a State to provide additional information needed 
for review of the triennial HSP and may extend the deadline for 
approval by no more than an additional 90 days as a result. The BIL 
further sets out a requirement that States respond to any requests for 
additional information within 7 business days of receiving the request. 
NHTSA proposes to adopt this language in the regulation at 23 CFR 
1300.11(c). This is consistent with GHSA's request that NHTSA do so.
    The BIL retained the previous statutory approval and disapproval 
requirements. NHTSA proposes to retain the regulatory provisions 
incorporating those requirements with only one amendment. In order to 
meet the approval deadline, NHTSA proposes to require that where NHTSA

[[Page 56771]]

disapproves a triennial HSP, States must resubmit a triennial HSP with 
any necessary modifications within 30 days from the date of 
disapproval. 23 CFR 1300.11(c)(4).

C. Annual Grant Application (23 CFR 1300.12)

    The annual grant application provides project level information 
about the State's highway safety program and demonstrates alignment 
with the most recent triennial HSP. NHTSA proposes to require the 
following 4 components be provided in the State's annual grant 
application: (1) updates to the triennial HSP (for the second and third 
year annual grant applications); (2) project and subrecipient 
information; (3) grant application for section 405 and 1906 grant 
programs; and (4) certifications and assurances.
1. Due Date (23 CFR 1300.12(a))
    The BIL allows NHTSA to set the due date for the annual grant 
application, subject to the requirement that the deadline must enable 
NHTSA to provide the grants early in the fiscal year. See 23 U.S.C. 
402(l)(1)(B) and 23 U.S.C. 406(d)(2). Additionally, the statute 
provides that NHTSA must review and approve or disapprove annual grant 
applications within 60 days. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(D). GHSA recommended 
that the due date for the annual grant application be different than 
the July 1 deadline for the triennial HSP, noting that many States do 
not have project information by July 1. GHSA recommended that NHTSA set 
a due date of August 31 in order to align with the due date for HSIP 
annual reports. NHTSA agrees that there should be separate deadlines 
for the annual grant application and the triennial HSP, in part to 
lessen the burden on States during the years when both submissions are 
required. However, NHTSA would not be able to complete approval or 
disapproval of applications submitted on August 31 until October 30, 
which does not allow NHTSA to meet the statutory requirement to provide 
grant funds as early in the fiscal year as possible. NHTSA therefore 
proposes a deadline of August 1 for States' annual grant applications. 
23 CFR 1300.12(a)
2. Updates to Triennial HSP (23 CFR 1300.12(b)(1))
    The BIL provides that States must include, in their annual grant 
applications, any updates necessary to any analysis in the State's 
triennial HSP. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(C)(i). Separately, the BIL requires 
States to include a description of the means by which the strategy of 
the State to use grant funds was adjusted and informed by the previous 
annual report. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(C)(iii). Because the countermeasure 
strategy referred to here is part of the triennial HSP, NHTSA proposes 
to group these two statutory requirements into one requirement. 
Accordingly, NHTSA proposes that, at a minimum, States must provide a 
description of the means by which the strategy for programming funds 
was adjusted and informed by the most recent annual report, or an 
explanation of why the State made no adjustments. Where a State 
determined, in its annual report, that it was on track to meet all 
performance targets, it need merely briefly state that fact. However, 
in order to give weight to Congress' intent, NHTSA will require any 
State that is not on track to meet all performance targets to either 
explain how it will adjust the strategy for programming funds or 
explain why it is not doing so.
    In addition, NHTSA proposes to specify allowable updates related to 
performance measures. As described more fully in the performance 
measures section, above, as a general rule, performance measures must 
be set in the triennial HSP and remain the same throughout the three 
years covered by the HSP. States can then adjust their countermeasure 
strategy for programming funds in order to ensure that they remain on 
track to meet those performance measures. However, NHTSA recognizes 
that in some cases, a State may identify new highway safety problems 
during the triennial cycle. In that case, a State may wish to update 
its analysis to provide new problem ID, with a new performance target 
and corresponding countermeasure strategy for programming funds. The 
need for new (or annual) performance targets may additionally arise as 
a result of the State's application for a motorcyclist safety grant 
under Section 1300.25. For these reasons, NHTSA proposes to allow 
States to add new performance measures. Additionally, as described 
above, NHTSA recognizes the difficulty for States in setting common 
performance measures with the three year performance measures required 
for NHTSA's triennial HSP and the annual performance measures required 
for FHWA's HSIP. As a result, NHTSA proposes to allow States to amend 
common performance measures. States may not amend any other performance 
measures, but instead, should consider adjustments to countermeasure 
strategies for programming funds to meet the targets set.
    GHSA stated that the statute provides that the State, not NHTSA, 
determines what additional analysis might be necessary. NHTSA disagrees 
with GHSA's interpretation. The statute is silent as to who determines 
what additional analysis is necessary. Further, the statute requires 
NHTSA to approve or disapprove of a State's annual grant application in 
part on the basis of whether it demonstrates alignment with the 
approved triennial HSP. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(A)(i). NHTSA will not 
approve an annual grant application that is inconsistent with the 
approved triennial HSP.
3. Project and Subrecipient Information (23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2))
    The BIL requires States to submit, as part of their annual grant 
application, identification of each project and subrecipient to be 
funded by the State using grants during the fiscal year covered by the 
application. The statute further provides that States may submit 
information for additional projects throughout the grant year as that 
information becomes available. See 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(C)(ii).
    GHSA and WI BOTS Patrol both requested that NHTSA commit to not 
performing granular review of projects on the merits. GHSA stated that 
States have expressed frustration in the past with NHTSA approving 
programs or planned activities in the HSP and then later disapproving 
projects after the project agreement has been signed. They argued that 
States should be able to rely on NHTSA's regulatory decisions. GHSA 
argued that NHTSA should use the project level information provided in 
the annual grant application for financial management, transparency, or 
program analysis, not for administratively burdensome preapproval. GHSA 
further stated that, rather than a front-end burden to preapprove State 
projects, NHTSA should allow States more flexibility to implement 
compliant activities and that States should face consequences for non-
compliance. When approving the annual grant application, NHTSA is 
looking to see whether the State's submitted projects are sufficient to 
reasonably carry out the countermeasure strategies in the State's 
triennial HSP, as well as checking for high-level regulatory compliance 
issues such as proper funding source. NHTSA review and approval of 
annual grant applications, similar to our current approval of annual 
HSPs, does not equate to approval of all projects or activities listed 
in the application. GHSA is correct in stating that NHTSA approval of 
the annual grant application should not and does not conflate with 
specific approval of projects. States have an independent obligation to 
expend

[[Page 56772]]

grant funds in accordance with Federal grant requirements. And, because 
NHTSA does not review and approve all projects, NHTSA may find during 
grant program oversight that a project that is listed in an approved 
annual grant application is not allowable in full or in part. That 
said, if a reviewer notes an obviously unallowable or questionable 
project, the reviewer may raise that issue to the State at that time in 
order to avoid the State continuing with a project that may later be 
disallowed.
    NHTSA proposes to require States to submit the following 
information in order to satisfy the statutory requirement to identify 
projects and subrecipients: project name and description, project 
agreement number, subrecipient(s), Federal funding source(s), amount of 
Federal funds, eligible use of funds, identification of P & A costs, 
identification of costs subject to Section 1300.41(b), and the 
countermeasure strategy that the project supports. 23 CFR 1300.12(2) 
These proposed requirements are intended to ensure that NHTSA is able 
to understand whether the identified projects are sufficient for the 
State to carry out the countermeasure strategies in the triennial HSP, 
to identify projects against later submitted vouchers, and to meet 
statutory transparency requirements. GHSA recommended that NHTSA be 
guided, and limited by, the project information required for project 
agreements in the OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements at 2 CFR 
200.332(a)(1). GHSA specifically recommended a list of signed project 
agreements with subrecipient identification, program area 
classification, project agreement number, amount of federal funds by 
funding source, and eligible use of funds. NHTSA agrees that the 
Uniform Administrative Requirements are a valuable source for 
identifying useful information and proposes to include all of the 
information suggested by GHSA. The WA TSC recommended providing a link 
to the countermeasure strategy that the project supports. NHTSA agrees 
and proposes to include that in the proposed regulation.
    The WA TSC also advised NHTSA not to use zip codes as a measure for 
identifying high priority areas. The WA TSC stated that it would be 
challenging to account for zip codes for efforts conducted by statewide 
entities. NHTSA believes that zip codes and other identifying location 
information are a valuable part of a project description and help 
ensure that States are implementing programs in the areas that are 
identified by the State's problem ID. However, NHTSA recognizes that 
there are many grant-funded activities that are Statewide or, like data 
system projects, have no physical location. Therefore, NHTSA proposes 
to include zip codes as an example of information that may be provided 
as part of a project description, but does not require it for all 
projects. See 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2)(i).
    Brian Maguire, et. al recommended that NHTSA require States to 
provide the dollar amount of funding dedicated to each of the five 
objectives of the NRSS, particularly post-crash care. NHTSA believes 
that such a parsing would be too burdensome and would not provide 
sufficient benefit as dollar value, alone, does not align with safety 
improvements.
    The Transportation Equity Council recommended that, in order to 
facilitate comparison, NHTSA provide a sample list of organization and 
use of fund types that States should include as project information. 
NHTSA agrees that such a list is useful. Currently, States use 
categories provided in the Grants Tracking System to identify eligible 
use of funds. NHTSA also proposes examples of subrecipient types to be 
provided in 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2)(iii).
    Finally, GHSA notes that the statute allows states to provide 
project information throughout the grant year. As noted in 23 CFR 
1300.12(d), NHTSA intends to implement this at 23 CFR 1300.32 and will 
discuss the amendment process and comments in more detail there.
4. Section 405 and Section 1906 Racial Profiling Data Collection Grant 
Applications (23 CFR 1300.12(b)(3) and Appendix B)
    The BIL requires States to provide the application for the Section 
405 and Section 1906 grants as part of the annual grant application. 23 
U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(C)(iv). As in the past, NHTSA incorporates the 
requirements for the Section 405 and Section 1906 grants in subpart C 
and appendix B of part 1300. See 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(3). The specific 
requirements and comments for the national priority safety program and 
racial profiling data collection grants are discussed in more detail in 
the relevant sections, below.
5. Certifications and Assurances (23 CFR 1300.12(b)(4) and Appendix A)
    As under MAP-21 and the FAST Act, NHTSA continues the requirement 
for States to submit certifications and assurances for all 23 U.S.C. 
Chapter 4 and Section 1906 grants, signed by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety, certifying the annual grant 
application contents and providing assurances that the State will 
comply with applicable laws and regulations, financial and programmatic 
requirements and any special funding conditions. 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(4). 
The certifications and assurances are provided in appendix A to part 
1300. NHTSA has proposed general updates to the certifications and 
assurances in appendix A to reflect current Federal requirements. 
Specifically, NHTSA has updated the Nondiscrimination certifications to 
reflect DOT Order 1050.2A, ``DOT Standard Title VI Assurances and Non-
Discrimination Provisions.'' NHTSA also added a certification on 
conflict of interest, consistent with the requirement in 2 CFR 200.112. 
Neither certification creates a new requirement for States; instead, 
the certifications merely make clear the existing requirements that 
apply.
    Finally, NHTSA proposes updates to the Section 402 requirements 
consistent with statutory changes in the BIL. NHTSA deletes the 
requirement that political subdivisions of the State be formally 
authorized to carry out local highway safety programs, consistent with 
the BIL's removal of that requirement at former 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B). 
However, as described below, this does not remove the requirement for 
political subdivision participation, which remains an important focus. 
NHTSA updates the certification regarding the traffic safety 
enforcement program to reflect the new statutory requirements at 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E). NHTSA adds the requirement that States (with the 
exception of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands) participate in 
the FARS. 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(F)(vi). Finally, NHTSA amends the 
certification regarding automated traffic enforcement systems to 
reflect the changes in 23 U.C.S. 402(c)(4).
6. Review and Approval Procedures (23 CFR 1300.12(c))
    The BIL provides that NHTSA must review and approve or disapprove 
an annual grant application within 60 days. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(D). NHTSA 
proposes to implement this deadline and additionally proposes to 
provide procedures for NHTSA to request additional information from 
States if necessary for review. GHSA is correct in noting that the BIL 
has language specifically allowing the agency to request additional 
information in order to review the triennial HSP, but no similar 
language concerning the annual application. GHSA argued that requests

[[Page 56773]]

for additional information raise the risk of micromanagement. While 
NHTSA recognizes that the statute sets out a process, with timelines, 
for the agency to request additional information in the triennial HSP, 
it does not prohibit such inquiry in connection with the annual 
application, and we have a long-standing practice of seeking 
clarifications during review of State grant applications. These 
clarifications are necessary to ensure that the agency has sufficient 
information to approve State grant applications. The intent of these 
requests for clarification is not to micromanage State programs. 
Rather, without these clarifications States are more likely to be 
denied a grant or portion of a grant that, with the necessary 
clarification, would be approved. We therefore propose to provide for 
clarification in the annual grant application as well, though without 
the same strict time frames set out by statute for the triennial HSP. 
See 23 CFR 1300.12(c)(1).

D. Special Funding Conditions for Section 402 Grants (23 CFR 1300.13)

    While Section 402 provides broad flexibility for States to use 
grant funds to conduct approved highway safety programs, it has long 
included some specific requirements related to use of funds. NHTSA's 
grant regulation previously included some, but not all, of these 
requirements in various parts of the regulation. In addition, the BIL 
added two new requirements regarding specific uses of grant funds. With 
this action, we propose to consolidate the statutory funding conditions 
for Section 402 grant funds into 23 CFR 1300.13 so that State 
recipients may see these statutory requirements in one place. As part 
of this effort, NHTSA proposes to delete Appendices C and D and to move 
those provisions (participation by political subdivisions and P & A 
costs, respectively) into the main body of the regulatory text. (23 CFR 
1300.13(a) and (b)). In addition, NHTSA has added regulatory provisions 
to incorporate the statutory requirements related to use of grant funds 
for reducing marijuana-impaired driving, an unattended passengers 
program, use of funds to check for motorcycle helmet usage, a teen 
traffic safety program, and the prohibition on the use of grant funds 
for automated traffic enforcement systems. See 23 CFR 1300.13(c-g). 
States should note, however, that expenditures are still subject to all 
other relevant Federal funding requirements, including the requirements 
and cost principles contained in 2 CFR part 200 that all Federal 
grantees must follow.
1. Planning and Administration (P & A) Costs (23 CFR 1300.13(a))
    In moving Appendix D (Planning and Administration (P & A) costs), 
into 23 CFR 1300.13(a), NHTSA has streamlined the regulatory language 
by removing duplicative language. The substance of the provision 
remains the same. Three commenters (GHSA, MN DPS, and WI BOTS) 
requested that NHTSA increase the percentage of funds that can be 
allocated to Planning and Administration (P & A) costs from 15% to 18% 
in order to cover increased costs due to the increase in grant funding 
provided by BIL, inflation, technological demands, and expenses 
associated with remote work. NHTSA notes that the significant increase 
in 402 funding provided by BIL provides a proportional increase in the 
total dollar value that is eligible to be used for P & A activities. We 
do not believe that an increase in the percentage of funds that can be 
used for non-programmatic activities is warranted at this time. 
However, if commenters provide additional data in support of this 
request, we will take it into consideration for the final rule.
2. Participation by Political Subdivisions (Local Expenditure 
Requirement) (23 CFR 1300.13(b))
    NHTSA's highway safety grant program has included a statutory 
requirement that 40 percent of Section 402 grant funds apportioned to a 
State be expended by the State's political subdivisions to carry out 
approved local highway safety programs since the inception of the 
program with the passage of the Highway Safety Act of 1966.\25\ Except 
for the addition in 1998 of the requirement that 95 percent of funds 
apportioned to the Secretary of the Interior be expended by Indian 
tribes,\26\ the statutory requirement has been largely unchanged since 
that time. NHTSA incorporated the requirement into its regulations via 
regulatory text that has also remained largely unchanged since 
1976.\27\ NHTSA's regulatory construction of the requirement provided 
that States could meet the 40 percent required expenditure by political 
subdivisions either through direct expenditures by political 
subdivisions or through demonstration that the political subdivision 
had an active voice in the initiation, development and implementation 
of approved local highway safety programs. Appendix C to part 1300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Public Law 89-564, 101 (Sept. 9, 1966), codified at 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B & C).
    \26\ See Public Law 105-178, 2001(d) (June 9, 1998).
    \27\ See ``Political Subdivision Participation in State Highway 
Safety Programs'' (41 FR 23949 (June 14, 1976)) which codified a 
previously uncodified directive, and, for the current regulatory 
text, appendix C to part 1300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BIL amended the statutory requirement underlying this provision 
by removing the requirement that the local highway safety programs 
funded with these funds be approved by the Governor. The existing grant 
regulation provides four avenues for States to demonstrate 
participation by political subdivisions: (1) direct expenditure, (2) 
active voice participation by the specific political subdivision, (3) 
active voice participation by other political subdivisions that is 
incorporated by request of a different political subdivision; and (4) 
request by a political subdivision as part of an approved local highway 
safety program. The statutory change would nullify the fourth avenue, 
significantly altering the construction of the requirement. In 
addition, NHTSA also received comments from both GHSA and the League of 
American Bicyclists related to this requirement. GHSA's comments 
focused on the difficulty States face in documenting active voice 
participation by political subdivisions in the expenditure of grant 
funds due to the large number of local subrecipients. It suggested that 
NHTSA allow States to meet this requirement through documentation at 
levels above the individual subrecipient level. It also requested that 
State-sponsored communication efforts, including those related to HVE 
campaigns, be allowed to count towards the 40 percent requirement. 
NHTSA recognizes that States face a large task in coordinating with so 
many political subdivisions; however, it was clearly the intent of 
Congress, sustained over decades, that State highway safety programs 
ensure that Federal funds make their way into the hands (and decision-
making authority) of political subdivisions. The statutory requirement 
is focused on the expenditure of funds, which is not consistent with 
GHSA's recommendation to allow compliance with this requirement above 
the subrecipient level. Similarly, a State-sponsored communication 
effort, tied to a State HVE campaign, by definition, does not meet the 
condition that the funds be expended by political subdivisions. 
However, NHTSA recognizes that the existing regulatory requirement to 
demonstrate ``active voice'' participation may be unclear or confusing 
for States and political subdivisions. As described in more detail 
below, NHTSA is proposing a

[[Page 56774]]

new framework for compliance with this local expenditure requirement.
    Offering a different perspective, the League of American Bicyclists 
recommended that NHTSA require additional reporting from States on how 
they meet the local expenditure requirement, including demonstration of 
community support for the work performed and proof of coordination. 
While NHTSA agrees that States must provide evidence that political 
subdivisions directed the expenditure of funds to qualify under this 
requirement, requiring additional demonstration of community support in 
order to qualify for this requirement exceeds NHTSA's statutory 
authority and could impose an unnecessary burden on the communities it 
is intended to support.
    As a result of the BIL's amendments to this requirement, the new 
triennial framework for highway safety programs, NHTSA's experience 
administering this requirement, and comments received through the RFC 
(addressed below), NHTSA proposes a new conceptualization of this 
statutory requirement. Under the proposed rule, States would show 
compliance with the statutory local expenditure requirement either 
through direct expenditure by political subdivisions (i.e., the 
political subdivision is a subrecipient of grant funds) or through 
expenditures by the State on behalf of the political subdivision. Where 
a State relies on State expenditures to meet this requirement, it would 
have to show evidence that the political subdivision was involved in 
identifying its traffic safety needs and provided input into the 
implementation of the activity.
    While the statute provides that 40 percent of funds must be 
expended by the political subdivisions (or 95 percent, in the case of 
tribal governments), NHTSA recognizes that in some cases it may be 
advantageous for both the State and the political subdivisions to allow 
States to expend grant funds on behalf of the political subdivisions. 
This would enable smaller political subdivisions that may have fewer 
resources to direct grant funds towards their highway traffic safety 
needs and would also allow political subdivisions to benefit from the 
economies of scale that a State-run program can provide. In order to 
provide the most flexibility for political subdivisions and States, 
consistent with the statutory limitations, NHTSA proposes to allow 
expenditures by States to count towards the 40 percent local 
expenditure requirement so long as there is adequate evidence of the 
political subdivision's role in the process leading to implementation 
of the activity. States may demonstrate that expenditures meet this 
requirement in two ways.
    First, the State may provide evidence that the political 
subdivision was involved in the State's highway safety program planning 
processes. States can incorporate this into existing processes, such as 
the public participation component of the triennial HSP, the planning 
process to determine projects for annual applications, or during the 
State's ongoing program planning processes. The State would then enter 
into projects based on the identification of need and implementation 
notes by the political subdivision during the planning process. 
Finally, to ensure that the activities implemented do meet the needs of 
the specific political subdivision, the State must obtain written 
acceptance by that political subdivision for the project that the State 
is implementing.
    Second, the State may demonstrate that a political subdivision 
directed the expenditure of funds through a documented request by the 
political subdivision for an activity to be carried out on its behalf. 
The request need not be a formal application, but must contain a 
description of the political subdivision's problem identification and a 
description of how or where the activity should be deployed within the 
political subdivision.
    During NHTSA's administration of this requirement over time, many 
States and subrecipients have expressed confusion about which entities 
qualify as political subdivisions. To resolve this confusion, NHTSA 
proposes to add a definition of political subdivision to the 
definitions at 1300.3. In drafting this definition, NHTSA consulted 
regulatory definitions by other Federal agencies and made adjustments 
to tailor the definition to the highway traffic safety program.
    In order to streamline the regulation, NHTSA proposes to move the 
Participation by Political Subdivisions regulatory text out of the 
Appendices and into the body of the regulation at 23 CFR 1300.13(b), 
along with the other funding conditions for Section 402 grants.
3. Congressionally Specified Uses of Funds (23 CFR 1300.13(c-g)
    The BIL provides new and amended specified uses of Section 402 
grant funds. First, the BIL requires States that have legalized 
medicinal or recreational marijuana to consider implementing programs 
to educate drivers and reduce injuries and deaths resulting from 
marijuana-impaired driving. 23 U.S.C. 402(a)(3). Second, the BIL 
requires each State to use a portion of Section 402 grant funds to 
carry out a program to educate the public about the risks of leaving a 
child or passenger unattended in a vehicle. 23 U.S.C. 402(o). Finally, 
as explained further below, the BIL amended the prohibition on funding 
automated traffic enforcement systems. 23 U.S.C. 402(c)(4).
    GHSA submitted comments regarding the new requirements related to 
funding programs related to marijuana-impaired driving and unattended 
passengers. GHSA noted that all States currently have efforts underway 
related to drug-impaired driving, so it should not be difficult for 
them to comply with the new requirement. GHSA asked that NHTSA not 
specify a required minimum amount that States must expend on unattended 
passenger awareness because such activities may be tied into larger 
safety campaigns, so long as States can show that they are implementing 
a sound countermeasure strategy. NHTSA agrees and does not propose to 
require a specific monetary amount or specific activities that States 
must implement to satisfy this requirement. However, States will need 
to clearly state in their triennial HSPs and annual grant applications 
which countermeasure strategies and projects address this requirement.
    GHSA requested that NHTSA reconsider the decision, formalized in a 
memo from the Chief Counsel on June 26, 2018, that NHTSA's statutory 
authority under Section 4007 of the FAST Act prohibits the use of NHTSA 
grant funds to conduct motorcycle helmet use surveys. As the 
legislative prohibition has not been rescinded, NHTSA does not have 
authority to allow NHTSA funds to be used for statutorily-prohibited 
uses.
    The FAST Act prohibited States from expending Section 402 grant 
funds on automated traffic enforcement systems (ATES) and required each 
State to either certify that ATES were not used on any public roads 
within the State or to conduct a biennial ATES survey. The BIL provides 
a new exception to the prohibition on ATES, allowing States to use 
Section 402 grant funds to carry out a program to purchase, operate, or 
maintain an ATES in a work zone or school zone, consistent with 
guidelines established by the Secretary. The BIL also removed the 
certification and biennial survey requirement. This action proposes to 
incorporate these statutory changes. Three commenters (GHSA, Vision 
Zero Network, and NACTO) requested simplified and updated guidance for 
the use of ATES. FHWA publishes ATES guidelines in

[[Page 56775]]

coordination with NHTSA.\28\ The agencies are currently in the process 
of revising the Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines 
to reflect the latest automated speed enforcement technologies and 
operating practices. NHTSA notes that BIL limits the eligible use of 
ATES to school zones and work zones and State or local laws may provide 
further clarifications and/or restrictions on their use. NHTSA notes 
that while the statute sets location restrictions on ATES use 
associated with school and work zones, it does not condition their use 
in other ways such as by establishing a specific time or month of use. 
NHTSA looks forward to seeing how States might strategically employ 
ATES to support and improve programs, and will work with States that 
seek to implement these programs in an effective and equitable manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines 
(DOT HS 810 916) (2008), available at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/resources/Speed%20Camera%20Guidelines.pdf and Red Light Camera Systems 
Operational Guidelines (FHWA-SA-05-002) (2005c), available at 
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signal/fhwasa05002.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While one commenter suggested that pedestrians and bicyclists 
receive a share of all funding at least equal to the proportion of 
fatalities on the network (Rebecca Sanders), NHTSA does not have the 
authority to require this type of funding directive. States determine 
grant fund expenditures on various highway safety problems within their 
borders based on data. However, the BIL does designate that seven 
percent of the National Priority Safety Programs be expended on 
nonmotorized safety grants, and today's proposal incorporates this 
requirement.

E. Information and Data for Consideration

    The BIL further provides that in order to be approved, a State 
highway safety program must support data collection and analysis to 
ensure transparency, identify disparities in law enforcement, and 
inform traffic enforcement policies, procedures, and activities. 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E). As an anonymous commenter noted, better records 
and data are important to efforts to increase safety. NHTSA received 
many comments relating to data sources that States should be required 
to consult or report to NHTSA. Some commenters specified particular 
documents, while most recommended the same data be included in each 
submission to NHTSA or did not specify. Many commenters tied their 
suggestions to improved transparency. In addition, many commenters 
recommended that NHTSA initiate or require States to work toward 
improved consistency in their data systems. As these comments appear to 
be broadly focused, we address them here as a group, in the context of 
the triennial framework as a whole.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ A couple of commenters suggested actions that NHTSA could 
take to improve data availability. For example, the Center for 
Injury Research and Prevention suggested that NHTSA should use grant 
funds to incentivize States to provide access to State data to 
researchers. NHTSA does not have statutory authority to provide such 
an incentive. Two other commenters suggested areas of study that 
NHTSA could undertake--applied research and guidelines to expand use 
of NEMSIS (Drew Dawson) and a national study on the State of data 
collection and analysis across the country (TEC). As this rule is 
targeted toward the grant program requirements for States, not 
NHTSA's research, these comments are out of scope of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GHSA, WI BTS, 5-State DOTs; MN DPS all recommended that NHTSA 
provide flexibility as to which data sources States are required to 
consult in order to meet their planning, application and reporting 
requirements for NHTSA highway safety grant funds. These commenters 
explained that data system resources and capabilities, including the 
specific data captured and how it is shared, vary from State to State 
and that State Highway Safety Offices have limited control over most, 
if not all, of the data systems involved in assessing highway safety 
problems. They specifically noted that States are at varying levels of 
readiness to meet any potential requirement for universal traffic stop 
data, particularly because it depends on getting buy-in from law 
enforcement agencies at all levels of government, not just at the State 
level. (See id.) These commenters recommended that, instead of setting 
specific requirements on data sources and data points that States must 
submit, NHTSA should provide flexibility to States to use the data that 
are available to them and to allow States to continue efforts to 
improve data collection and data systems.
    Two groups, NACTO and NASEMSO, appear to acknowledge that State 
data capabilities are not yet at a level to provide all the data that 
they would like to see reported in State applications and annual 
reports. NACTO recommended that States work to enhance data collection 
and reporting procedures, including through requiring all State and 
local law enforcement agencies to collect and publicly report data for 
all stops in order to ensure that enforcement actions have a 
demonstrable public safety impact. Similarly, NASEMSO recommended that 
States identify the steps that they are taking in preparation for a 
forthcoming universally unique identifier (UUIS) that would link EMS 
patient care reports and trauma registry records to crash records. As 
noted below, NHTSA cannot require States to do so, but these may be 
eligible uses of grant funds.
    NASEMSO recommended that NHTSA require States to provide baseline 
data from traditional sources such as State crash, vehicle, driver, 
roadway, and citation & adjudication databases in order to ensure 
projects are funded in the areas of most need. This is the underlying 
rationale for the requirement for States to conduct data-driven problem 
identification in the triennial HSP (see 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(1)). NHTSA 
notes, however, as described below, that States should consider not 
only traditional highway safety data sources, but also other data that 
may provide useful information.
    In general, NHTSA seeks to balance the need for data and other 
information that will help the States and the public understand how and 
where NHTSA grant funds are being used and the outcomes of the highway 
safety grant programs being carried out with Federal funds with the 
need to minimize administrative burdens on both States and their 
subrecipients so that they can focus efforts on implementing needed 
highway safety programs. As is described more fully in the sections of 
this preamble that discuss the proposed requirements for the triennial 
HSP, annual grant application, and annual report, the information that 
NHTSA is proposing that States submit in those documents is based on 
statutory requirements from Section 402 and Section 405, administrative 
grant requirements in the OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements, 
Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and, in 
limited instances, the agency's experience with fielding requests for 
information from Congress and auditors. See 23 CFR 1300.11, 1300.12, 
and 1300.35. Except for limited circumstances, including the common 
performance measures that require the use of FARS data, NHTSA does not 
prescribe specific data sources that States must provide or consult. 
Instead, NHTSA proposes that States use the best data available to them 
to conduct problem ID, set performance targets, and assess their 
progress in meeting those targets. States are also encouraged to think 
critically about how all available data can and should be used to 
analyze their programs beyond the data that is specifically required. 
Further, NHTSA encourages States to consider ways to improve State data 
systems in order to increase the data that are available to them in 
conducting

[[Page 56776]]

problem ID and setting performance targets. NHTSA encourages States to 
take full advantage of the State traffic safety information system 
improvements grants (23 U.S.C. 405(c) and 23 CFR 1300.22) and the 
racial profiling data collections grants (Section 1906 and 23 CFR 
1300.29), which are intended to support those efforts.
    Numerous commenters provided specific recommendations for data that 
NHTSA should require States to submit or otherwise share with the 
public. While NHTSA proposes to allow States flexibility to use the 
data sources that will best inform their highway safety work, NHTSA 
will relay the recommendations of the commenters below so that States 
may have the advantage of these diverse suggestions.
    The League of American Bicyclists and the TEC both recommended that 
States should collect and report demographic data in order to identify 
disparities in traffic safety and in the application of 
countermeasures, including law enforcement. Both groups recommended 
that States consult demographic data on traffic stops and citations. 
The TEC further recommended that States consult a variety of data 
sources, including traffic stops, citation and adjudication systems, 
and crash records, aggregated by race, income, geography and other 
relevant factors in order to inform the State's problem identification 
and to identify traffic safety disparities. The OR DOT similarly 
recommended that States add human characteristics to existing crash 
data by including demographic data, such as income and race, in States' 
problem identification and program planning. Safe Kids Worldwide and 
Rebecca Sanders recommended that States include age and race in 
assessments of fatality and injury numbers. NHTSA agrees that 
demographic information is invaluable to State highway safety problem 
identification and program planning. We encourage States to think 
expansively and seek out all available data sources. However, given the 
broad reach of the highway safety programs, NHTSA does not propose to 
require States to provide demographic information for all projects, 
such as a Statewide paid media campaign, though we do encourage States 
to provide demographic information as part of a project description 
where it is relevant. (See 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2))
    Other commenters stressed the importance of including data elements 
relating to the built environment in order to better understand traffic 
safety needs. The League of American Bicyclists and Rebecca Sanders 
both recommended that States look at road design, road speed, and the 
presence of ped/bike facilities. Rebecca Sanders further recommended 
that States break down crash data by mode (i.e., driving, bicycling, 
pedestrian) and severity of injury along with demographic information. 
The League of American Bicyclists suggested more granularity for 
assessing data for fatalities and injuries of vulnerable road users; 
specifically, looking at the percentages of fatalities and injuries 
that are represented by vulnerable road users and taking note of the 
presence of ped/bike facilities and lighting. NHTSA agrees that data 
elements related to the roadways on which crashes occur are a valuable 
part of State problem identification and program planning, and 
encourages States to consider all available data to better understand 
the specific traffic safety problems in the State.
    Several commenters recommended that States either consider or be 
required to use a combination of data from law enforcement crash 
records, NEMSIS and the State trauma registry, both in recognition of 
the role that post-crash care plays in State highway traffic safety and 
to provide a better understanding of all parts of the system that play 
a role in State fatality and serious injury rates. (See Brian Maguire, 
et. al, Drew Dawson, NASEMSO, and an anonymous commenter.) NHTSA agrees 
that NEMSIS is a valuable resource and encourages States to make use of 
it.
    NASEMSO submitted several recommendations for detailed project-
related data that it believes NHTSA should require States to provide. 
This includes information on trainings funded by the grant, including 
number of enrollments, number of participants who completed the course, 
and a delta that shows the knowledge change for participants. NASEMSO 
also recommended that NHTSA require measures that show the penetration 
of State programs, such as the percentage of all target organizations 
that are eligible to apply for grants, the percentage of organizations 
that actually applied, the percentage of applicants who received a 
grant, and the percent of awardees who completed their grant 
activities. Further, NASEMSO recommended that NHTSA seek equipment 
availability and usage rate information, including the percentage of 
vehicles or shifts for which equipment was used and the type and 
frequency of use for all equipment used to link EMS, trauma and crash 
records data. Brian Maguire, et. al recommended that NHTSA require 
States to provide data regarding EMS professionals in the annual 
report. NHTSA agrees that much of this information could be informative 
for States and their subrecipients in implementing and supporting their 
programs or projects, and some of this information (such as equipment 
use) may be required to support allowability of certain uses of funds 
during the life of the grant. However, NHTSA believes that requiring 
this level of information in application or annual report documents 
would unduly burden States and their subrecipients. NHTSA is especially 
concerned that this level of reporting would severely discourage 
smaller or less resourced, often community-led groups, including many 
EMS organizations, from seeking highway safety grant funds from States. 
We therefore decline to require this level of information in the 
proposed regulation.
    Finally, Rebecca Sanders recommended that States provide 
information on community outreach and feedback, including use of 
community perception surveys. States may consider gathering and using 
this sort of information.

IV. National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection (Subpart C)

    The Section 405 and Section 1906 grant programs provide incentive 
grants that focus on National priority safety areas identified by 
Congress. Under this heading, we describe the requirements proposed in 
today's action for the grants under Section 405--Occupant Protection, 
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements, Impaired Driving 
Countermeasures, Distracted Driving, Motorcyclist Safety, Nonmotorized 
Safety, Preventing Roadside Deaths, and Driver and Officer Safety 
Education, and the Section 1906 grant--Racial Profiling Data 
Collection. The subheadings and explanatory paragraphs contain 
references to the relevant sections of this NPRM where a procedure or 
requirement is implemented, as appropriate.
    NHTSA received several comments that apply to all Section 405 and 
Section 1906 grants. GHSA suggested that, in order to decrease burden, 
NHTSA allow States to certify compliance with Section 405 eligibility 
requirements that remain static rather than restating information from 
prior years. NHTSA declines to do so. Congress authorized the Section 
405 grants as annual grants with an annual grant application and annual 
qualification. NHTSA therefore must review full applications for the 
Section 405 grants every fiscal year. Where specific Section 405 grants 
allow for a specific criterion to serve as a qualifying criterion in 
multiple years of

[[Page 56777]]

grant applications, NHTSA has noted so specifically in that section and 
laid out what the State must provide to incorporate a prior year 
response. Most of the Section 405 grant applications, however, require 
updated information based on current data, updated program plans, or 
evidence of recent progress.
    GHSA urged NHTSA to create a complete qualification checklist for 
each Section 405 grant program in order to assist States in developing 
and providing the required information. Appendix B is formatted to 
serve as the application framework for States and provides a list of 
application requirements at a high, checklist-style level. However, for 
full details on application criteria and requirements, NHTSA stresses 
that States must read the relevant statutory and regulatory text, which 
provide all application criteria. In rare occasions, the preamble may 
provide additional clarification, but NHTSA has striven to ensure that 
the regulation is an easy-to-read, one-stop resource for States to 
consult in developing and submitting grant applications.
    GHSA requested that appendix B be amended to provide States with a 
checklist of potential reasons for not applying for a grant under 
Section 405 so that that information can be captured in the grant 
determination chart that NHTSA publishes online consistent with Section 
4010(2) of the FAST Act, as amended by the BIL.\30\ The statute 
requires that NHTSA publish a list of States that were awarded grants, 
States that applied but did not receive a grant, and States that did 
not apply for a grant under each section of Section 405. It further 
requires that NHTSA publish a list of all deficiencies that made a 
State ineligible for a grant for which it applied. It is not possible 
for NHTSA to create a list of every reason a State may not apply, nor 
does the statute require it. We therefore decline to make this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Codified as a note to 23 U.S.C. 405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advocates recommended that NHTSA provide States with a full 
explanation when they fail to qualify for a grant and to provide 
guidance on how to meet qualifying criteria. As explained above, NHTSA 
is required to publish a list of all deficiencies that caused a State 
to fail to qualify for a grant. In addition, NHTSA has been and remains 
willing to provide technical assistance to States who seek to resolve 
any deficiencies identified for future grant cycles.
    ESS encouraged NHTSA to express the importance of fully investing 
Section 405 funds for the Congressionally expressed purposes and to 
streamline and make efficient the administration of the Section 405 
grants. Congress authorized the Section 405 grant programs in response 
to identified National highway safety priority areas and prescribed 
allowed uses of funds that address those areas. NHTSA encourages States 
to use all Section 405 grant funds available.

A. General (23 CFR 1300.20)

    Some common provisions apply to most or all of the grants 
authorized under Sections 405 and 1906. The agency proposes changes to 
only two paragraphs of this section.
1. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.20(b))
    The agency proposes to move the definition of personal wireless 
communications device to 23 CFR 1300.24--distracted driving grants--for 
ease of reference.
2. Transfer of Funds (23 CFR 1300.20(e))
    As described in more detail in the relevant grant programs, below, 
new grant programs and amendments to existing grant programs have led 
to more diversity in the statutory formulas that NHTSA applies for 
award determinations under Section 405 and Section 1906. As a result, 
NHTSA proposes to add provisions setting out the statutory award 
determination information in each grant program, as opposed to in this 
section. Therefore, the agency proposes to retitle this paragraph as 
Transfer of Funds and to delete paragraphs 1 and 2.
    The 5-State DOTs requested that NHTSA continue to transfer any 
remaining Section 405 grant funds to Section 402. NHTSA will continue 
to do so consistent with statute. 23 U.S.C. 405(a)(10) and 23 CFR 
1300.20(e). Currently, the regulation provides that NHTSA shall 
distribute remaining funds in proportion to the amount each State 
received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2009. In this action, NHTSA 
proposes to update the regulation to require distribution in proportion 
to the amount each State received under Section 402 for fiscal year 
2022. This will ensure that distribution is based on more current 
population and public road mileage and matches the distribution basis 
that Congress provided in the new grant programs. See 23 U.S.C. 405(h & 
i).
    As in previous authorizations, in the event that all grant funds 
authorized for Section 1906 grants are not distributed, the BIL does 
not authorize NHTSA to reallocate unawarded Section 1906 funds to other 
State grant programs. Rather, any such funds will be returned for use 
under 23 U.S.C. 403, and do not fall within the scope of this proposal.

B. Maintenance of Effort (23 CFR 1300.21, 1300.22 and 1300.23)

    Under the FAST Act, States were required to provide an assurance 
that they would maintain their aggregate State-level expenditures 
(Maintenance of Effort, or MOE). The BIL removed this requirement and 
with this action, the agency proposes to remove the requirement from 
the regulatory text as well. This would resolve the comment from the 5-
State DOTs requesting that NHTSA remove the MOE requirement.
    GHSA requested that NHTSA provide clarity on how the FAST Act's MOE 
requirement applies to oversight of existing grant funds. Since the BIL 
amendments take effect for the FY24 grant cycle, FAST Act requirements 
(including MOE) will continue to apply to FY22 and FY23 grant 
funds.\31\ NHTSA waived the MOE requirement for FY20 and FY21 grant 
funds consistent with our authority under the CARES Act (Pub. L. 116-
136, Division B, 22005(a)).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Appropriations restrictions in FY 22 prohibit NHTSA from 
spending appropriated funds to enforce the maintenance of efforts 
requirements set forth in 23 U.S.C. 405(a)(9); however, those 
requirements still apply to States and may be identified by other 
auditors. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law 117-
103, tit. I, div. L, 142, 136 Stat. 49, 709 (Mar. 15, 2022).
    \32\ See NHTSA's waiver notices, dated April 9, 2020 and April 
29, 2021, respectively for the waivers related to FY20 and FY21 
grant funds. Available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/coronavirus-resources-nhtsa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Occupant Protection Grants (23 CFR 1300.21)

    The BIL continues the MAP-21 and FAST Act Occupant Protection 
Grants with three substantive amendments. The BIL removed the 
maintenance of effort requirement that was in effect under the FAST 
Act, extended the period of time between occupant protection 
assessments for the assessment criterion for lower seat belt use 
states, and expanded the allowable uses of funds under this grant 
program. This NPRM proposes amendments to the existing regulatory 
language to implement those changes and to update existing requirements 
to align with the new triennial HSP and annual application framework.
    NHTSA received comments related to the Occupant Protection Grants 
from four commenters.\33\ Several comments related to general program 
administration. CIRP expressed support

[[Page 56778]]

for prioritization of child traffic safety through evidence-based 
interventions. SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. provided several suggestions for 
NHTSA's child occupant protection program, including a recommendation 
that NHTSA increase age and weight limits for child safety seats. 
NHTSA's Child Car Safety Campaign emphasizes the importance of children 
riding in a seat appropriate for their age and size and encourages 
parents to maximize the safety benefits of each seat by having their 
child remain in each seat up to the manufacturers' maximum weight or 
height limits. SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. stated that passenger safety 
advocates' experience is that 90 percent of families have inadvertent 
errors in child restraint use, and asked NHTSA to adjust the agency's 
messaging to reflect this rate rather than the 46 percent rate of 
misuse currently cited by NHTSA. In 2015, NHTSA conducted the National 
Child Restraint Use Special Study, a nationally representative survey 
that applied a consistent definition of ``misuse'' to find the 46 
percent misuse rate.\34\ Current data from the National Digital Car 
Seat Check Form, a free and publicly available resource, finds a 59 
percent rate of misuse.\35\ NHTSA agrees that families need to be made 
aware of the frequency of unknowing child restraint misuse, and 
provides extensive support for child passenger safety programs, 
including through the Occupant Protection Grant Program and through 
NHTSA's Child Car Safety Campaign. SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. also 
recommended that the agency allow a two-year grant in order to allow 
more opportunity for community engagement in the occupant protection 
program. While the NHTSA grant program is, by statute, an annual grant 
program, States may enter into multi-year agreements with subrecipients 
subject to the proviso that later year funding is contingent on 
availability of funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ GHSA, Center for Injury Research and Prevention at 
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CIRP), SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A., 
and Safe Kids Worldwide.
    \34\ See https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812157.
    \35\ See https://carseatcheckform.org/national-dashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Qualification Criteria for a High Seat Belt Use Rate State (23 CFR 
1300.21(d))
    To qualify for an Occupant Protection grant, all States must meet 
several requirements. As a result of the new triennial HSP framework 
created by the BIL, NHTSA made some conforming amendments to these 
requirements. In addition to replacing ``planned activities'' with 
``projects,'' as described in more detail above, NHTSA also proposes to 
clarify that the State's occupant protection plan must be updated 
annually. The Section 405 grants are annual grants, so NHTSA interprets 
all application requirements to be annual requirements. That said, not 
all components of the occupant protection plan must be updated 
annually. A State could rely on the problem ID, performance measures, 
targets, and countermeasure strategies laid out in its triennial HSP 
for the period covered by the triennial HSP. In that case, it would 
only be required to update the projects component of the occupant 
protection plan on an annual basis.
2. Qualification Criteria for a Lower Seat Belt Use Rate State (23 CFR 
1300.21(e))
    To qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant, all States must meet 
several requirements, as noted above. In addition to meeting the 
requirements applicable to all States, States with a seat belt use rate 
below 90 percent must meet at least three of six criteria to qualify 
for grant funds. The BIL amended one of those criteria, the requirement 
to complete an assessment of the State's occupant protection program by 
expanding the time period between assessments from three to five years. 
In this action, the agency proposes to amend the regulatory requirement 
to reflect this statutory change.
3. Award Amounts (23 CFR 1300.21(f)
    As mentioned above, NHTSA proposes to move the award amount 
provisions from 23 CFR 1300.20 into each individual grant program. 
NHTSA proposes to incorporate the statutory award allocation provision 
without change.
4. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.21(g))
    The BIL made amendments to increase the emphasis on child passenger 
safety programs aimed at serving low-income and underserved 
populations. It did so by requiring that all States, including high 
belt use States, spend at least 10 percent of grant funds to carry out 
child passenger safety program activities aimed at serving low-income 
and underserved populations and adding eligible uses for such programs.
    Specifically, all States are now required to use at least 10 
percent of their occupant protection funds to carry out specified 
activities related to child passenger safety programs aimed at serving 
low-income and underserved populations. High belt use rate States may 
continue to use the remaining 90 percent of their occupant protection 
funds for any project or activity eligible for funding under section 
402. Low belt use rate States must use the remaining 90 percent of 
their occupant protection funds for eligible occupant protection 
activities.
    GHSA recommended that NHTSA not set out a strict definition of 
``low-income and underserved populations'', but instead allow States to 
articulate their rationale for their own definition because data 
sources and populations may vary from State to State. While NHTSA 
agrees that data sources and populations vary from State to State, the 
agency proposes to provide a high-level definition that will provide 
States with guidance in identifying the specific populations within 
their jurisdiction.
    SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. and Safe Kids Worldwide submitted comments 
expressing support for BIL's emphasis on underserved populations and 
encouraged broader community engagement in child occupant protection. 
Both commenters suggested increased use of community members as CPS 
technicians in order to better engage communities, including low-income 
and underserved populations, in child passenger safety. Safe Kids 
Worldwide suggested the agency and States work with stakeholders to 
expand virtual child passenger safety checks. NHTSA encourages States 
to consider these recommendations when planning their child passenger 
safety program activities.
    SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. commented that the agency should avoid 
``siloing'' interconnected safety issues such as occupant protection 
and impaired driving and that occupant protection programs should 
consider more categories of affected populations, such as pregnant 
people. NHTSA agrees that traffic safety issues may intersect or be 
interconnected and that countermeasure strategies may need to go beyond 
strict program boundaries. Occupant Protection grant funds may be used 
only for the specified occupant protection uses laid out in statute and 
should consider all relevant aspects of the State's occupant protection 
problem ID, including, where applicable, any contributing factors.\36\ 
If the specified uses of Section 405(b) grant funds are too narrow to 
cover a specific project, States should consider whether Section 402 
grant funds may be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ However, high belt use rate States may, consistent with 
statute, use up to 90 percent of Occupant Protection Grant funds on 
Section 402 uses. 23 U.S.C. 405(b)(4)(b).

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

[[Page 56779]]

D. State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants (23 CFR 
1300.22)

    The BIL continues, with some changes, the traffic safety 
information system improvements grant program originally authorized 
under SAFETEA-LU and extended through MAP-21 and the FAST Act. The 
purpose of this program remains to support State efforts to improve the 
data systems needed to help identify priorities for Federal, State and 
local highway and traffic safety programs and to evaluate the 
effectiveness of such efforts, to link intra-State data systems, to 
improve the compatibility and interoperability of State data systems 
with national data systems and the data systems of other States, and to 
enhance the ability to observe and analyze national trends in crash 
occurrences, rates, outcomes, and circumstances. (23 CFR 1300.22(a)).
    As explained in more detail below, the BIL streamlined the 
application requirements by allowing States to submit a certification 
regarding the State traffic records coordinating committee (TRCC) and 
the State traffic records strategic plan and removing the FAST Act 
requirement that States have an assessment of their highway safety data 
and traffic records system. States must still submit documentation 
demonstrating a quantitative improvement in relation to a significant 
data program attribute of a core highway safety database. The BIL 
removed the maintenance of effort requirement that was in effect under 
the FAST Act. It also expanded the allowable uses of funds under this 
grant program.
    Finally, while not addressed in the regulatory text of this NPRM, 
the BIL also provided authorization for NHTSA to provide technical 
assistance to States with respect to improving the program attributes 
of State safety data. States are encouraged to reach out to their 
Regional Office for more information on the types of assistance 
available and how to request that assistance.
    In response to the agency's RFC, commenters generally expressed 
support for fully implementing and encouraging BIL's expansion of 
allowable costs under this grant program. Those comments are addressed 
under the relevant heading below.
1. Certification (23 CFR 1300.22(b)(1))
    The role of the TRCC in the State Traffic Safety Information System 
Improvements Grant program under this NRPM remains the same as it was 
under the FAST Act, but the application requirements have been 
streamlined. The BIL streamlined the application requirements by 
allowing States to submit certifications relating to the structure and 
responsibilities of the State traffic records coordinating committee 
(TRCC) and the contents of the State traffic record strategic plan. 
NHTSA proposes to adopt those changes in this NPRM. While States are 
still responsible for ensuring that the TRCC and strategic plan meet 
grant eligibility requirements, and these requirements may be subject 
to NHTSA oversight activities, States are no longer required to provide 
NHTSA with supporting documentation at the time of application.
    State must still have a traffic records strategic plan that has 
been approved by the TRCC and describes specific quantifiable and 
measurable anticipated improvements in the State's core safety 
databases. Previously, States requested guidance from NHTSA on traffic 
records strategic planning. In response, NHTSA developed a practical 
guide titled ``State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee Strategic 
Planning Guide'' (DOT HS 812 773a) \37\ that States are encouraged to 
consult for practical, replicable processes for developing and 
implementing effective strategic plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The guide is available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812773A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Quantitative Improvement (23 CFR 1300.22(b)(2))
    The BIL retained the requirement that States demonstrate 
quantitative progress in a significant data program attribute of a core 
highway safety database. This NPRM proposes no substantive changes to 
this application criteria. However, based on prior questions from 
States, NHTSA would like to clarify that a State need only submit 
required documentation demonstrating quantitative improvement in a 
single data attribute of a core highway safety database.
    NHTSA continues to strongly encourage States to submit one or more 
voluntary interim progress reports to their Regional office prior to 
the application due date documenting performance measures and 
supporting data that demonstrate quantitative progress in relation to 
one or more of the six significant data program attributes. However, 
Regional office review of an interim progress report does not 
constitute pre-approval of the performance measure for the grant 
application.
5. Award Amounts (23 CFR 1300.22(c))
    As mentioned above, NHTSA proposes to move the award amount 
provisions from 23 CFR 1300.20 into each individual grant program. 
NHTSA proposes to incorporate the statutory award allocation provision 
without change.
6. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.22(d))
    Four commenters addressed the use of Section 405(c) grant funds. 
GHSA expressed support for the expanded use of funds and specifically 
noted the new provisions allowing purchase of equipment for use by law 
enforcement for near-real time electronic reporting of crash data. WI 
BOTS similarly encouraged use of Section 405(c) grant funds to improve 
citation and crash reporting. GHSA also requested that NHTSA revise the 
guidance it previously issued on expenditures under the Section 405(c) 
grant program. The agency will review whether it needs to rescind or 
revise the guidance after this rule is finalized. Two commenters (FL 
DOH and NASEMSO) emphasized the importance of BIL's addition of the 
National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) into 
the Section 405(c) grant statute and encouraged use of Section 405(c) 
grant funds to make data quality improvements, expand access, and 
support applied research using NEMSIS data. The IAFC encouraged NHTSA 
to promote greater direct access to NEMSIS data by EMS practitioners. 
The regulation mirrors the BIL's inclusion of NEMSIS as a traffic 
safety data system.
    As the commenters noted, the BIL expanded the allowable uses of 
grant funds awarded under this paragraph by specifying several 
additional allowable uses of funds. This NPRM proposes to incorporate 
the allowable uses of funds directly from the statute. States should 
note that the statute, as well as this NPRM, provides that these 
specified allowable uses are only allowable to the extent that they 
make data program improvements to core highway safety databases 
(including crash, citation and adjudication, driver, EMS or injury 
surveillance system, roadway and vehicle databases) in one of the 
significant data program attributes (i.e., accuracy, completeness, 
timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or integration). For example, 
while the statute provides that States may use grant funds to purchase 
technology for use by law enforcement for near-real time, electronic 
reporting of crash data, those purchases must be tied to quantifiable, 
measurable progress in a program

[[Page 56780]]

attribute (e.g., timeliness) of a core highway safety database (e.g., 
State crash data system).

E. Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants (23 CFR 1300.23)

    The impaired driving countermeasures grant program was created by 
the Drunk Driving Prevention Act of 1988 and codified at 23 U.S.C. 410. 
As originally conceived, States could qualify for basic and 
supplemental grants under this program. Since the inception of the 
Section 410 program, it has been amended several times to change the 
grant criteria and grant award amounts. With MAP-21, the impaired 
driving countermeasures grant program was consolidated into one grant 
program with other traffic safety grants and codified at 23 U.S.C. 405. 
The FAST Act made only targeted amendments to the existing grant 
program under MAP-21, adding flexibility to a separate grant program 
for States with mandatory ignition interlock laws and creating a new 
grant program for States with 24-7 sobriety programs.
    With the recent passage of the BIL, additional targeted amendments 
were made to the program with the most significant changes occurring to 
the interlock grant program that include additional means of compliance 
and a use of funds section that adds several additional funding 
categories.
    The average impaired driving fatality rate, the basis for most 
grant awards under this section, refers to the number of fatalities in 
motor vehicle crashes in a State that involve a driver with a blood 
alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 percent for every 100,000,000 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Rate determinations based on FARS data 
from the most recently reported three calendar years for a State are 
then averaged to determine a final rate. These determinations are used 
to identify States as either low-, mid- or high-range States in 
accordance with the BIL requirements. The agency expects to make rate 
information available to the States by January each year. If there is 
any delay in the availability of FARS data in a given year such that it 
may have an effect on the awarding of grants, the agency may consider 
allowing the use of rate calculations from the preceding year.
    The BIL continues to use the same definitions for low-, mid-, and 
high-range States. As the agency has noted previously, the agency will 
not round any rates for the purposes of determining how a State should 
be classified among these ranges.
1. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.23(b))
    The agency proposes to slightly amend the definition of a 24-7 
sobriety program to note that State or local courts can carry out a 
program, consistent with the BIL. 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(7)(A). The agency 
also proposes to delete the definitions for alcohol and drugs. These 
definitions were carried over from prior authorizations and are not 
applicable to these grant requirements. As a basis for the use of grant 
funds under this section, the agency has deferred to the applicable 
State law definitions and how the State applies the terms to define 
various offenses for many years. No changes to any other definitions 
are proposed for this section.
2. Qualification Criteria for a Low-Range State (23 CFR 1300.23(d)
    States that have an average impaired driving fatality rate of 0.30 
or lower are considered low-range States. As noted above, the agency 
will inform each State that qualifies for a grant as a low-range State. 
These States are not required to provide any additional information in 
order to receive grant funds. However, States will continue to be 
required to provide an assurance that they will use grants funds 
awarded under this section only for the implementation and enforcement 
of programs authorized under the statute.
    The above requirements that apply to low-range States are the 
minimum requirements that apply to all States that receive a grant 
under this section.
3. Qualification Criteria for a Mid-Range State (23 CFR 1300.23(e))
    States that have an average impaired driving fatality rate that is 
higher than 0.30 and lower than 0.60 are considered mid-range States. 
In accordance with the statutory requirements, States qualifying as 
mid-range States are required to submit a statewide impaired driving 
plan that addresses the problem of impaired driving. The plan must have 
been developed by a statewide impaired driving task force within the 
three years prior to the application due date. If the State has not 
developed and submitted a plan that meets the requirements at the time 
of the application deadline, then it must provide an assurance that one 
will be developed and submitted to NHTSA by August 1 of the grant year. 
Consistent with the statute, this assurance-based method of compliance 
is only available during the first year of the grant, covering fiscal 
year 2024 grants only. No assurance-based compliance is available after 
the first year, regardless of circumstance. If the State fails to 
submit the plan related to the first-year grant, the agency will seek 
the return of any grant funds that the State qualified for based on its 
assurance that it would submit the plan by the deadline, and will 
redistribute the grant funds to other qualifying States under this 
section.
    In accordance with the BIL, the agency has reviewed the 
requirements associated with the impaired driving task force and 
statewide impaired driving plan and determined that some changes are 
necessary. The proposed changes recognize the continuing serious 
problem of impaired driving on our nation's roadways and the need to 
ensure that the approaches taken to combat the problem are sufficiently 
comprehensive.
    For the statewide impaired driving plan, the plan continues to be 
organized in accordance with the general areas laid out in NHTSA's 
Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs No. 8--Impaired 
Driving. The proposed changes to the plan requirements make clear that 
program management and strategic direction, as well as community 
engagement, are specific requirements. Although these components are 
features of the existing Uniform Guideline and some States have 
included specific related sections in their existing statewide plans, 
the agency seeks to reinforce the importance of these areas to the 
development of a comprehensive approach to the problem of impaired 
driving. Program management and strategic direction, in part, cover 
things like the development of management policies and procedures that 
ensure program activities are equitably and effectively undertaken and 
that the activities pursued have maximum value to the public. These 
policies also focus on identifying needs in the State to ensure 
sufficient funding and staffing exist to support the impaired driving 
activities identified. In addition, the proposal adds community 
engagement as a specific part of the prevention section. Although this 
approach follows the Uniform Guideline, States are free to identify 
community engagement as a separate section in their plan. A plan that 
provides for community engagement and seek community-supported 
enforcement stands a better chance of overall success. It also 
reinforces the BIL's requirement that States support data-driven 
traffic safety enforcement programs that foster effective community 
collaboration. 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(E)(i). Similarly, the activities should 
strive to include all demographics and engage prevention strategies 
through a variety of means.

[[Page 56781]]

Community engagement, for example, should involve groups like schools, 
businesses, medical professionals, community organizers and coalitions 
as part of an impaired driving activity.
    All qualifying plans also must be developed by a statewide impaired 
driving task force. As part of a more comprehensive strategy for 
addressing impaired driving, the proposal increases the number of 
required members of the task force. In addition to key stakeholders 
from the State highway safety office, State and local law enforcement, 
and representatives of the criminal justice system, public health 
officials, experts in drug-impaired driving countermeasures (such as a 
DRE coordinator), and specialists in communications and community 
engagement must be included. Public health officials and experts in 
drug-impaired countermeasures recognize the increasing prevalence of 
drug intoxication in impaired driving offenses, while communications 
and community engagement specialists add expertise on means to ensure 
that activities are understood and supported at local levels.
    NHTSA continues the streamlined approach it took under prior 
authorizations for the application, only requiring the submission of 
one document (in addition to any required assurances and 
certifications)--a Statewide impaired driving plan--to demonstrate 
compliance with the statute. The plan document should be self-
contained, including all required information without the need for 
appendices or references to information unless it is already contained 
elsewhere in the impaired driving countermeasures grant application. 
Within the plan document, there should be three separate sections.
    The first section requires the State to provide a narrative 
statement that explains the authority of the task force to operate and 
describes the process used by the task force to develop and approve the 
plan. The State must also identify the date of approval of the plan. 
The information will help the agency to determine compliance with the 
requirement that the impaired driving plan be developed by a task force 
within three years prior to the application due date.
    In comments submitted to the agency, GHSA indicated that States 
must include a ``statutory authority'' to convene the impaired driving 
task force and recommended that NHTSA provide a means to allow States 
to use a ``non-statutorily established impaired driving task force.'' 
As with the prior regulation, the agency's proposal continues the 
requirement that a State simply identify the authority and basis for 
operation of the task force. This requirement does not specify that a 
task force have a statutory basis and only seeks a narrative statement 
that explains the authority. For example, if the authority is derived 
from the Governor's executive powers as opposed to a State law, the 
narrative statement can describe this basis. The critical aspect is 
that the State provide a reasonably clear explanation of its authority 
to operate and the basis to provide guidance to State and local 
officials on addressing impaired driving issues in the State.
    The second section requires a list of task force members that 
includes names, titles and organizations for each person. The 
information must allow the agency to determine that the task force 
includes key stakeholders from the identified areas. The State may 
include other individuals on the task force, as determined appropriate, 
from areas such as 24-7 sobriety programs, driver licensing, data and 
traffic records, ignition interlock, treatment and rehabilitation, and 
alcohol beverage control. The goal is that the State has identified 
individuals from different backgrounds that will bring varying 
perspectives to impaired driving countermeasure activities such that a 
comprehensive treatment of the problem is assured.
    GHSA commented on the requirement to include a list of task force 
members, indicating that States should be allowed to certify to the 
list in their HSPs if the information is already included in the 
impaired driving plan submission. While the agency does not have an 
issue with an approach where a State provides a cross-reference in one 
section to identical information found elsewhere in its application, we 
are not familiar with a specific requirement to provide the task force 
member information in the HSP. Without more information about the 
concern, we cannot fully address it in this proposal. The agency notes 
that with HSPs moving to a triennial requirement, the need to provide 
similar information in various parts of the application is lessened.
    The final section requires the State to provide its statewide plan 
to reduce and prevent impaired driving. As noted above, the plan is 
required to be organized in accordance with the Highway Safety Program 
Guideline No 8--Impaired Driving, and cover the specified areas. Each 
area is defined within the guideline. Plans that do not cover the 
required areas are not eligible to receive a grant. States may cover 
other areas in their plans provided the areas meet the qualifying uses 
of funds (as identified in the BIL).
4. Qualification Criteria for a High-Range States (23 CFR 1300.23(f))
    States that have an average impaired driving fatality rate that is 
0.60 or higher are considered high-range States. In accordance with the 
statutory requirements, a State qualifying as high-range State is 
required to have conducted a NHTSA-facilitated assessment of its 
impaired driving program within the three years prior to the 
application due date or provide an assurance that it will conduct an 
assessment during the first grant year.
    High-range States are also required to submit a statewide impaired 
driving plan that addresses the problem of impaired driving. The plan 
must have been developed by a statewide impaired driving task force 
(both the task force and plan requirements are described in the 
preceding section under mid-range States). If the State has not 
developed and submitted a plan that meets the requirements at the time 
of the application deadline, then similar to a mid-range State, the 
State must provide an assurance that one will be developed and 
submitted to NHTSA by August 1 of the grant year in order to receive a 
grant. Consistent with the statute, these assurances for high-range 
States are only available during the first year of the grant, covering 
fiscal year 2024 grants. No assurance-based compliance is available 
after the first year, regardless of circumstance. If the State fails to 
submit the plan, the agency will seek the return of any grant funds 
that it qualified for based on its assurance, and will redistribute the 
grant funds to other qualifying States under this section.
    In addition to meeting the requirements associated with developing 
a statewide impaired driving plan, the plan also must address any 
recommendations from the required assessment. The plan also must 
include a detailed strategy for spending grant funds and include a 
description of how such spending supports the statewide impaired 
driving programs and will contribute to the State meeting its impaired 
driving program performance targets.
    High-range States must update the plan in each subsequent year of 
the grant and then submit the updated statewide plan for NHTSA's 
review.
5. Grants to States With Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Laws (23 CFR 
1300.23(g))
    Under the BIL, a separate grant for States with alcohol-ignition 
interlock laws has been extended. The BIL made

[[Page 56782]]

no changes to the provisions that existed in prior authorizations that 
provided grants to States that adopted and enforced mandatory alcohol-
ignition interlock laws for all individuals convicted of a DUI offense. 
The statute also continues three exemptions from these mandatory 
interlock requirements. Specifically, a State's law may include 
exceptions from mandatory interlock use if--(1) an individual is 
required to drive an employer's motor vehicle in the course and scope 
of employment, provided the business entity that owns the vehicle is 
not owned or controlled by the individual; (2) an individual is 
certified in writing by a physician as being unable to provide a deep 
lung breath sample for analysis by an ignition interlock device; or (3) 
a State-certified ignition interlock provider is not available within 
100 miles of the individual's residence. The agency's proposal makes no 
changes to these requirements and the current implementation that 
mandatory interlock use apply for not less than 6 months (or 180 days).
    Under the BIL, two additional bases for compliance have been added 
to the grant. A State can receive a grant if it restricts driving 
privileges of individuals convicted of driving under the influence of 
alcohol or of driving while intoxicated until the individual installs 
on each motor vehicle registered, owned, or leased an ignition 
interlock for a period of not less than 180 days. 23 U.S.C. 
405(d)(6)(ii). Separately, a State can receive a grant by requiring 
individuals that refuse a test to determine the presence or 
concentration of an intoxicating substance to install an interlock for 
a period of not less than 180 days. 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6)(iii). This 
grant criterion also requires the State to have a compliance-based 
removal program that requires an individual convicted of a DUI to have 
an interlock installed for not less than 180 days and to serve a 
minimum period of interlock use without program violations before 
removal of the interlock. Id. The proposed regulation makes some edits 
to these additional grant criteria, but these are not intended to be 
substantive changes. The agency intends to implement the statutory 
language in as clear a way as possible in regulation so that States 
understand the basis for compliance.
    The agency received several comments on the new grant criteria. 
Brandy Nannini expressed general support for the increased number of 
grant criteria and the potential that more States might receive awards. 
A joint comment submitted by GHSA, Responsibility Initiatives, National 
Alliance to Stop Impaired Driving, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 
National Safety Council, and Council of Ignition Interlock 
Manufacturers (hereinafter ``group commenters'') noted the two 
additional methods of compliance. The group commenters also encouraged 
NHTSA ``to utilize . . . funding to the fullest extent possible.'' The 
proposal would incorporate into the regulation the statutory language 
of the additional grant criteria with only clarifying changes. The 
agency plans to provide grant awards to all States that demonstrate 
compliance.
    The group commenters also provided comments on the first new 
criterion that requires an offender to meet an installation requirement 
of not less than 180 days before receiving licensing privileges. The 
group commenters noted that the requirement does not apply to all 
offenders but simply to ``an individual required to show proof of 
installation of an interlock after conviction. . . .'' As noted above, 
NHTSA proposes to use the statutory language as the basis for 
compliance determinations. To the degree the group commenters are 
noting the statutory basis for compliance and urging its use as the 
basis for determinations, the agency agrees with such an approach. 
Accordingly, the agency's proposal only applies the requirement to 
those offenders that are required to use an interlock as a result of 
their conviction for driving under the influence.
    The agency also received comments on the second new criterion. As a 
general matter, the group commenters noted that the criterion 
``components are to be read together'' and the State must satisfy both 
requirements to qualify for a grant. The agency agrees that the 
structure of the criterion has three distinct requirements, and the 
State must demonstrate compliance with each to receive a grant. The 
group commenters also noted that the statute is clear ``that the State 
law only requires a sanction be imposed'' and that criminal convictions 
are not necessary. The agency agrees with the observation that the 
criterion covers more than just the individuals convicted of a refusal 
and that the installation requirement also covers those 
administratively sanctioned for test refusal. In order to meet this 
component, in accordance with the statute, State law must show that for 
each type of offender required to install an interlock, the interlock 
period must be for not less than 180 days.
    For the compliance-based removal program, the agency received 
comments from the group commenters and, individually, from GHSA. The 
group commenters touted the compliance-based removal process as 
something that ``will better ensure that individuals who are at risk of 
recidivism remain on the ignition interlock until behavior has changed 
to better ensure public safety.'' The group commenters also noted that 
``this criterion is met if an individual is required to meet a States' 
compliance based removal standard rather than the requirement that it 
is mandatory for all individuals who install an ignition interlock.'' 
In accordance with the statute, the agency's proposal does not apply to 
all individuals who install interlocks, but only to those convicted of 
the specified offenses and also ordered to use an interlock. State law 
will need to apply the compliance-based program requirements to those 
offenders. Under the requirement, the group commenters also requested 
that ``NHTSA should show flexibility and should work with states to 
define what constitutes a program violation.'' GHSA went further in a 
separate comment to request that NHTSA not limit eligibility for what 
qualifies as compliance-based removal. GHSA noted that ``States have 
established a range of typical program violations [and] . . . may 
consider additional violations and future new best practices. . . .'' 
Accordingly, GHSA urges ``NHTSA not to limit State eligibility with a 
restriction that may be difficult to update.'' In general, we agree 
with the approach and do not believe it is necessary to define 
specifically what constitutes a program use violation under the grant. 
Accordingly, the agency will defer to the States on program violations. 
In the application, States must still identify compliance-based removal 
information, specifying the period of the installation requirement and 
separate information indicating the completion of a minimum consecutive 
period of not less than 40 percent of the required period of ignition 
interlock installation (immediately preceding the date of release of 
the individual without a confirmed violation of the program use 
requirements).
6. Grants to States With a 24-7 Sobriety Program (23 CFR 1300.23(h))
    The agency's proposal continues a separate grant for States with 
24-7 sobriety programs consistent with the statutory requirement. 
Although the definition of a 24-7 sobriety program has been slightly 
amended to note that State or local courts can carry out a program, 
this does not affect the qualifying basis for a grant. 23 CFR 
1300.23(b).

[[Page 56783]]

    The first requirement mandates that a State enact and enforce a law 
that requires all individuals convicted of driving under the influence 
of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated to receive a restriction on 
driving privileges for at least 30 days. The second requirement 
mandates that a State provide a 24-7 sobriety program. States should 
continue to submit information identifying a State law or program that 
authorizes a 24-7 sobriety program in line with the statutory 
requirement.
    GHSA commented that States should qualify on the basis of 
identifying a State statute authorizing ``local 24/7 sobriety 
programs.'' The basis for compliance is a determination of whether the 
State law or program meets the definition of a 24-7 sobriety program. 
The entities that carry out the State law or program are not part of 
the evaluation. A State law could be submitted that authorizes local 
courts to carry out a 24-7 sobriety program, for example. Provided the 
State law meets the statutory definition of a 24-7 sobriety program it 
would be eligible for a grant.
7. Award Amounts (23 CFR 1300.23(i))
    As in the explanation for 23 CFR 1300.20, above, in today's action, 
the agency proposes to move award allocation provisions from the 
general section of the rule into the specific grant programs. We 
propose to incorporate the statutory allocation provisions without 
substantive change.
8. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.23(j))
    The BIL specifies the eligible uses of the grant funds, and the 
agency's proposal codifies those uses without change. With the 
exceptions discussed below, grant funds may be distributed among any of 
the uses identified in the BIL. The agency has adopted in its proposal 
the statutory basis for using grant funds depending on whether the 
State has qualified as a low-, med- or high-range State or is receiving 
separate grant funds as a State with either alcohol-ignition interlock 
laws or 24-7 sobriety programs. No changes have been made to these 
requirements.
    The agency received comments related to the specific uses of grant 
funds that were added in the BIL. Brandy Nannini submitted a comment 
that expressed support for some of these new grant uses as being 
important to state success. The comment specifically mentioned the 
ability to use funds to backfill officers during drug recognition 
expert (DRE) training and, separately, to purchase new screening and 
testing technologies. In a related comment, GHSA urged that NHTSA 
should ``allow the use of [grant] funding to temporarily replace 
officers in DRE training or serving as a DRE instructor'' to include 
``funding for compensation for officers who are not involved in grant-
eligible activities.'' Under the BIL, a new provision allows grant 
funding to be used to provide compensation for a law enforcement 
officer to carry out safety grant activities while another law 
enforcement officer involved in safety grant activities is away 
receiving drug recognition expert training or participating as an 
instructor in drug recognition expert training. This backfill provision 
allows police agencies to send officers to training without sacrificing 
overall levels of service. By its terms, however, the statutory 
provision limits compensation to law enforcement officers that carry 
out safety grant activities. 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(4)(B)(iii). Regardless of 
whether ``safeguards'' could be deployed to limit potential abuse of 
GHSA's desired approach, the statutory language is clear and does not 
support compensation for other than safety grant activities. Where the 
language is unambiguous, the agency must follow the statute as written.
    GHSA also provided a comment indicating that ``States have 
expressed a sense of ambiguity whether they can spend federal funds in 
support of oral fluid testing programs and other leading technological 
applications to address impaired driving that may often not yet be 
considered `proven effective countermeasures.' '' GHSA recommends that 
NHTSA allow funds to be used to test and implement new allowable 
initiatives. Under the BIL, a new provision allows funds to be used for 
``testing and implementing programs, and purchasing technologies, to 
better identify, monitor, or treat impaired drivers, including . . . 
oral fluid-screening technologies.'' 23 U.S.C. 405(4)(xi). On that 
basis, States are allowed to use funds for such expenditures. However, 
all requirements associated with grant expenditures under this 
regulation and 2 CFR part 200 would apply to such uses. Because such 
expenditures have the potential to result in wasteful uses of Federal 
taxpayer funds, States should expect NHTSA to apply the uniform 
administration requirements to such activities, including such general 
concepts as reasonableness, allowability, and allocability of any 
proposed funding. In addition, States are reminded that equipment only 
purchases are not permitted and any such purchases would need to be 
carried out as part of an approved traffic safety activity that meets 
all associated requirements. Further, the statute explicitly states 
that these technologies are eligible as part of ``developing and 
implementing programs.'' Accordingly, the agency will not approve the 
purchase of any technologies that are not part of a State's activities 
to develop and implement an eligible program.
    The National Sheriffs' Association recommended that NHTSA consider 
funding to encourage State legislation related to stricter penalties 
for impaired driving. NHTSA notes that this is not a specified 
allowable use of funds under the BIL and that Federal grant funds may 
not be spent on lobbying.

F. Distracted Driving Grants (23 CFR 1300.24)

    MAP-21 established a new program authorizing incentive grants to 
States that enact and enforce laws prohibiting distracted driving. Few 
States qualified for a distracted driving grant under the statutory 
requirements of MAP-21. The FAST Act amended the qualification criteria 
for a distracted driving grant, revising the requirements for a 
Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant and providing for Special 
Distracted Driving Grants for States that do not qualify for a 
Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant. While more States qualified for 
grants under the FAST Act, the criteria remained difficult for States 
to meet.
    The BIL resets the distracted driving incentive grant program by 
significantly amending the statutory compliance criteria. The statute 
establishes two types of distracted driving grants--distracted driving 
awareness on the driver's license examination and distracted driving 
laws. A State may qualify for both types of distracted driving grants. 
At least 50 percent of the Section 405(e) funds are available to States 
that include distracted driving awareness as part of the driver's 
license examination, and not more than 50 percent of the Section 405(e) 
funds are available to States for distracted driving laws.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ One commenter, Paul Hoffman, submitted a comment requesting 
that NHTSA enforce the hands-free cell phone use prohibition in 
Monsey, NY. NHTSA does not have authority to enforce requirements in 
local jurisdictions; that comment is therefore outside the scope of 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Distracted Driving Awareness Grant (23 CFR 1300.24(c))
    The basis for a Distracted Driving Awareness Grant (``Awareness 
Grant'') is the requirement that the State test for distracted driving 
awareness as part of the State driver's license examination.

[[Page 56784]]

23 U.S.C. 405(e)(2). Typically States have a battery of questions that 
are randomly assigned to an examinee in a ``regular'' or ``normal'' 
driver's license examination. If distracted driving awareness is 
included as part of the battery of random questions, the State may be 
eligible for an Awareness Grant. To demonstrate this requirement, NHTSA 
proposes that the State submit at least one sample distracted driving 
question from its driver's license examination as part of its 
application.
    In a letter to NHTSA, GHSA interpreted the changes in the BIL as 
automatically distributing 50 percent of the section 405(e) funds to 
all States but limiting State expenditure to the authorized uses under 
Section 405(e)(8). This interpretation is not supported by the 
statutory language. The Section 405(e)(2) Grant Program specifies that 
NHTSA ``shall provide a grant . . . to any State that includes 
distracted driving awareness as part of the driver's license 
examination of the State.'' This provision would have no meaning under 
GHSA's interpretation of automatic distribution of the distracted 
driving grant funds. For this reason, NHTSA believes that that at least 
50 percent of the distracted driving grant funds are to be allocated to 
States that include distracted driving awareness as part of the State's 
driver's license examination.
2. Distracted Driving Law Grant (23 CFR 1300.24(d))
    The BIL sets out three different types of laws for which a State 
may qualify for a Distracted Driving Law Grant (``Law Grant''): (1) 
prohibition on texting while driving; (2) prohibition on handheld phone 
use while driving; and (3) prohibition on youth cell phone use while 
driving. 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(3)(B). In its letter, GHSA interpreted the 
changes in the BIL as allocating the ``remaining 50%'' among States 
with a qualifying distracted driving law for banning texting, banning 
handheld use, or banning teen cell phone use. GHSA further claimed that 
States are eligible for an ``extra 25% of their apportionment'' if the 
State prohibits a driver from viewing a device while driving. NHTSA 
agrees with GHSA that a State can qualify for a grant under Section 
405(e) with a either law banning texting while driving, handheld use 
while driving, OR youth cell phone use while driving. However, the 
agency does not agree that States are eligible for an extra 25 percent 
for prohibiting viewing while driving. Such an interpretation is not 
supported by the language of the statute. Section 405(e)(3)(B)(iv) 
states that ``the allocation under this subparagraph to a State that 
enacts and enforces a law that prohibits a driver from viewing a 
personal wireless communications device (except for purposes of 
navigation) shall be 25 percent of the amount calculated to be 
allocated to the State under clause (i)(I).'' This language does not 
provide an additional or extra allocation. A further point against such 
an interpretation is that it might not be executable. For example, if 
all States qualified for a primary distracted driving law grant, each 
State would receive 100 percent of the allocated amount, and no 
additional funds would be available to distribute an extra 25 percent 
to States that also prohibit viewing while driving.
    While this statutory language is not without ambiguity,\39\ the 
agency believes that in order to give meaning to all provisions in 
Section 405(e)(3), a State may be eligible for 25 percent of the 
State's allocation if the State law prohibits viewing a personal 
wireless communications device and does not meet the criteria for a law 
banning texting while driving, handheld use while driving, OR a youth 
cell phone use while driving. The BIL appears to set out a structure to 
incentivize States with higher grant awards to enact and enforce 
stricter distracted driving laws, e.g., 100 percent for primary texting 
compared to 50 percent for secondary texting. By allocating grant funds 
to a State with a law that only prohibits viewing while driving, the 
statute limits that allocation to the smallest amount, i.e., 25 
percent. As a result, a State may qualify for 100 percent for a primary 
texting, handheld or youth law; 50 percent for a secondary texting, 
handheld or youth law; or 25 percent for a law prohibiting the viewing 
of a personal wireless communications device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law does not have any 
legislative history on the distracted driving grant to help explain 
the intent of this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the agency proposes making a grant to a State for a 
conforming law that prohibits one of the following: (1) texting while 
driving; (2) handheld phone use while driving; (3) youth cell phone use 
while driving; or (4) viewing while driving. The agency further 
proposes that a State that is able to meet more than one of these 
eligibility requirements would be approved for the award that results 
in the highest grant amount. The statute prescribes in detail the 
criteria for a conforming law, including definitions and exceptions. As 
discussed below, the agency proposes to adopt the criteria, including 
definitions and exceptions, without change.
 i. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.24(b))
    The statute defines the terms driving, personal wireless 
communications device, text, and text message.\40\ While the definition 
of driving remains unchanged, the BIL changed the definition of 
personal wireless communications device adding the following to the 
existing definition: ``a mobile telephone or other portable electronic 
communication device with which a user engages in a call or writes, 
sends, or reads a text message using at least 1 hand.'' 23 U.S.C. 
405(e)(1)(B). It is the agency's understanding that this language 
captures a subset of devices that is already covered under the existing 
language (i.e., a device through which personal wireless services are 
transmitted). Therefore, this amendment would not substantively change 
the devices covered by the existing definition. The BIL also changed 
the FAST Act's term for ``texting'' to ``text'' and also added 
``manually to enter, send, or retrieve a text message to communicate 
with another individual or device'' to the essentially unchanged 
definition. 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(1)(E). Similarly, the added language 
includes a smaller subset of behaviors that were already included under 
the original language (i.e., to read from, or manually to enter data 
into, a personal wireless communications device); and this addition 
would not substantively change the definition of ``text''. Finally, the 
BIL added a new definition for ``text message.'' 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(1). 
NHTSA proposes to adopt these statutory definitions without change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The statute also defines primary offense and public road. 
Those definitions are applicable to other section 405 grants. For 
consistency, those terms are defined in 23 CFR 1300.20(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Prohibition on Texting While Driving (23 CFR 1300.24(d)(1))
    The BIL retained much of the FAST Act requirements for a conforming 
law prohibiting texting while driving. In order to qualify, the statute 
provides that the State law must prohibit a driver from texting through 
a personal wireless communications device while driving; must establish 
a fine for a violation of the law; and must not provide for an 
exemption that specifically allows a driver to use a personal wireless 
communications device for texting while stopped in traffic. The BIL 
changed the FAST Act requirement for a minimum fine by striking 
``minimum.'' To implement this change, the agency deletes the existing

[[Page 56785]]

requirement for a minimum fine of $25, which the agency implemented in 
the MAP-21 and FAST Act rulemakings. NHTSA proposes to adopt the 
statutory language without change. Finally, the agency notes that the 
BIL removes primary enforcement of the texting law from the 
qualification requirements, and as discussed above, allows the State to 
receive 100 percent of its allocation if the State's conforming law is 
enforced as a primary offense.
iii. Prohibition on Handheld Phone Use While Driving (23 CFR 
1300.24(d)(2))
    The prohibition on handheld phone use while driving is new under 
the BIL. The statutory language is clear that the State law must 
prohibit a driver from holding a personal wireless communications 
device while driving in order to satisfy this component for a 
conforming law prohibiting handheld phone use while driving. The State 
law must also satisfy two additional components for a qualifying law, 
the same as those for a prohibition on texting while driving law--
establish a fine for a violation of the law and not provide an 
exemption that specifically allows a driver to use a personal wireless 
communications device for texting while stopped in traffic. NHTSA 
proposes to adopt these provisions without change.
iv. Prohibition on Youth Cell Phone Use While Driving or Stopped in 
Traffic (23 CFR 1300.24(d)(3))
    As with the prohibition on texting while driving law, the BIL 
retained much of the FAST Act requirements for a conforming law 
prohibiting youth cell phone use while driving. However, the BIL 
amended the requirement for a youth law by striking the reference to 
the State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grant, which was 
repealed. Instead, the State law must now prohibit a driver from using 
a personal wireless communications device while driving if the driver 
is under 18 years of age or in the State's learner's permit or 
intermediate license stage in order to qualify for a grant. Graduated 
driver licensing, also known as a multi-stage licensing process, is a 
three-phase system for beginning drivers consisting of a learner's 
permit, an intermediate or provisional license, and a full license. A 
learner's permit allows driving only while supervised by a fully 
licensed driver. An intermediate or provisional license allows 
unsupervised driving under certain restrictions, such as nighttime or 
passenger restrictions. While the graduated driver licensing program 
differs from State to State, the agency does not intend to define any 
specific requirements for the learner's permit or intermediate license 
stages. In order to satisfy this component, the State law must prohibit 
a younger driver in the State's learner's permit or intermediate 
license stage from any use of a personal wireless communications device 
while driving. Note that the State law must not provide an exemption 
for hands-free use. Similar to the texting law discussed above, the BIL 
also strikes ``minimum'' from the fine requirement and removes primary 
enforcement from the qualification requirements, and the agency 
proposes to adopt these changes without change.
v. Prohibition on Viewing a Personal Wireless Communications Device 
While Driving (23 CFR 1300.24(d)(4))
    As discussed above, the statute is not specific regarding the 
allocation for a State that enacts and enforces a law that ``prohibits 
a driver from viewing a personal wireless communications device (except 
for purposes of navigation).'' The BIL incentivizes States to enact and 
enforce three different types of laws (prohibition on texting while 
driving, handheld phone use while driving, and youth cell phone use 
while driving), with higher grant amounts for the strictest of these 
laws, e.g., States with primary enforcement laws receive 100 percent of 
their allocation and States with secondary enforcement laws receive 50 
percent of their allocation. The agency believes that by awarding a 
still smaller percentage of the State's allocation (25 percent) for a 
law that prohibits a driver from viewing a personal wireless 
communications device, Congress intended that lower threshold to result 
in an award only when a State could not meet the higher threshold of 
any one of the other three laws identified in the statute. For this 
reason, the agency proposes that a State law that simply prohibits 
viewing a personal wireless communications device (except for 
navigation purposes) would meet the requirements for this grant. The 
agency proposes that no other elements, e.g., fine, restricted 
exceptions, applicable to the other distracted driving laws would apply 
for this grant.
3. Award Amounts (23 CFR 1300.24(e))
    For both grants, the BIL specifies how grant funds are allocated 
among the States--based on the proportion that the apportionment of the 
State under section 402 for fiscal year 2009 bears to the apportionment 
of all States under section 402 for that fiscal year. 23 U.S.C. 
405(e)(3). In determining the grant award under each distracted driving 
grant, NHTSA proposes to apply the section 402 apportionment formula 
for fiscal year 2009 as if all States qualified for grants and then 
make awards to qualifying States based on the application of the 
formula.
 4. Use of Funds (23 CFR 1300.24(f))
    The BIL made no changes to the use of funds for a distracted 
driving grant. However, NHTSA proposes to amend the language for 
demonstrating conformance with MMUCC. In 2020, NHTSA mapped States' 
conformance with the most recent MMUCC. Instead of requiring States to 
complete the NHTSA-developed MMUCC Mapping spreadsheet within 30 days, 
NHTSA proposes to require States to submit its most recent crash report 
with the distracted driving data element(s) within 30 days of award. 
NHTSA can then confirm whether the State's distracted driving data 
element(s) conform(s) to the most recent MMUCC.

G. Motorcyclist Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.25)

    In 2005, Congress enacted SAFETEA-LU, which authorized the 
Motorcyclist Safety Grants under section 2010. This grant program has 
largely remained unchanged since it was established, despite several 
revisions to the National Priority Safety Programs (23 U.S.C. 405).
    Under BIL, Congress amended the Motorcyclist Safety Grants by 
increasing the number of criteria available for a state to qualify for 
a grant to seven from six and made a minor terminology change to 
``crash'' from accident in two paragraphs. A State is eligible under 
the new criterion if a State has a helmet law that requires the use of 
a helmet for each motorcycle rider under the age of 18. 23 U.S.C. 
405(f)(3)(C). With the addition of this criterion, States qualify for a 
grant by meeting two of the following seven grant criteria: Motorcycle 
Rider Training Course; Motorcyclists Awareness Program; Helmet Law; 
Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles; Impaired 
Driving Program; Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Impaired 
Motorcyclists; and Use of Fees Collected from Motorcyclists for 
Motorcycle Programs. The BIL made no additional amendments to the 
Motorcyclist Safety Grants. Today the agency proposes amendments to 
1300.25 to incorporate these changes and to update references to 
planned activities in the annual HSP for the new triennial framework. 
We discuss the new Helmet Law criterion in further detail below. NHTSA 
received no comments related to the Motorcycle Safety Grants.

[[Page 56786]]

1. Helmet Law Criterion (23 CFR 1300.25(c))
    To be eligible for a Motorcyclist Safety Grant under this 
criterion, the BIL requires that a ``State shall have a law requiring 
the use of a helmet for each motorcycle rider under the age of 18.'' 
See Public Law 117-58, section 24105(a)(6). We interpret this to 
require a mandatory helmet law for all riders under 18 years of age 
with no exceptions. This view is based upon language of the statute and 
the existing definition ``motorcycle'' in Sec.  1300.25. The express 
language of the statute requires a State that seeks to qualify under 
this criterion to have a mandatory helmet law for all individuals under 
18 that ride on a motorcycle. Under Sec.  1300.25, a motorcycle means 
``a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use 
of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in 
contact with the ground.'' 23.CFR 1300.25(b). Under today's proposed 
action, a State law that exempts any individual under age 18 or any 
vehicle meeting the definition of a motorcycle, such as a moped or a 
low speed vehicle, from its helmet law would not qualify under the 
criterion. To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, a State will 
have to submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B, the citation 
to the State law that requires the use of a helmet for each motorcycle 
rider under the age of 18.
2. Award Amounts (23 CFR 1300.25(l))
    As described above, NHTSA proposes to address award amounts in the 
grant-specific sections. NHTSA therefore proposes to incorporate the 
statutory award distribution formula and limitation for the 
motorcyclist safety grant in the regulatory text at 23 CFR 1300.25(l).

H. Nonmotorized Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.26)

    The FAST Act introduced the nonmotorized safety grant as part of 
the National Priority Safety Programs, recognizing the need for a 
stand-alone safety grant for roadway users outside the motor vehicle. 
The BIL changed the nonmotorized safety grant to help address the 
recent exponential rise in pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and the 
growing use of low-powered or nonmotorized personal transportation 
devices such as e-scooters and electric bicycles (which it defines as 
non-motorized). Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities have continued to 
rise, from 14 percent of total motor-vehicle-related traffic fatalities 
in 2009 to approximately 19 percent today. Further, micromobility, 
which includes such vehicles as e-scooters, e-bikes and other low-speed 
personal transporters, is a mode of transportation that both holds 
promise for users with physical challenges and offers more affordable 
mobility. However, micromobility is changing rapidly and growing in 
use, and States are struggling to keep pace with these emerging modes 
of transportation and their safety implications.
    Research-driven and innovative countermeasures and strategies that 
address safety and accessibility problems can significantly differ for 
pedestrians, bicyclists, or micromobility users. States often make 
significant roadway infrastructure improvements, such as raised 
crosswalks, narrowing lanes, separated bike lanes, or pedestrian refuge 
islands, to create safe, accessible and equitable transportation for 
nonmotorized users. However, behavioral safety countermeasures, such as 
outreach, education, community engagement, enforcement, and data 
analysis are essential for a comprehensive approach to nonmotorized 
road user safety. The Section 405(g) grant aims to address the unique 
needs of nonmotorized roadway users with non-infrastructure 
investments.
1. Eligibility Determination (23 CFR 1300.26(b))
    Similar to the grant under the FAST Act, States are eligible for a 
nonmotorized safety grant under the BIL if the State's nonmotorized 
road user fatalities in the State exceed 15 percent of the total annual 
crash fatalities in the State, based on the most recent final FARS 
data. However, while the FAST Act specified combined pedestrian and 
bicyclist fatalities, the BIL expands the definition of nonmotorized 
road user to a pedestrian; an individual using a nonmotorized mode of 
transportation, including a bicycle, scooter, or personal conveyance; 
and an individual using a low-speed or low-horse powered motorized 
vehicle, including an electric bicycle, electric scooter, personal 
mobility assistance device, personal transporter, or all-terrain 
vehicle. NHTSA plans to adopt this definition without change. Using 
FARS data, NHTSA proposes to calculate the percentage of each State's 
annual nonmotorized road user fatalities in relation to the State's 
annual total crash fatalities, using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) 
software and truncating the calculation. Consistent with the statute, 
all States that exceed 15 percent will be eligible for a grant.
    The agency proposes to inform each State that is eligible for a 
grant prior to the application due date.
2. Qualification Criteria (23 CFR 1300.26(c))
    To qualify for a grant under this section, NHTSA proposes to change 
the self-certification as the application for a nonmotorized safety 
grant under the previous regulation and require States to submit a list 
of project(s) and subrecipient(s) information the State plans to 
conduct in the fiscal year of the grant consistent with Sec.  
1300.12(b)(2). NHTSA believes that this aligns the application 
requirements for the nonmotorized safety grants with the other highway 
safety grants.
3. Use of Funds (23 CFR 1300.26(d))
    The BIL makes significant amendments to the use of funds for the 
nonmotorized safety grant program. Under the FAST Act, the statute 
limited the use of funds to activities related to State traffic laws on 
pedestrian and bicycle safety, such as law enforcement training, 
mobilizations and campaigns, and public education and awareness 
programs. This not only presented challenges to the States in terms of 
identifying narrowly defined projects in communities where the greatest 
need exists, but also failed to address the unique needs of each 
community's nonmotorized crash problem. As noted by several commenters, 
the BIL expands the eligible uses to the safety of nonmotorized road 
users, as defined by the statute. See GHSA; League of American 
Bicyclists. Activities related to State traffic laws on nonmotorized 
road user safety continue as allowable uses under the statute, but the 
broadened eligible use of funds will provide States with the 
flexibility to use behavioral safety countermeasures that will best 
address the nonmotorized road user problem, both at the State level and 
at the local level.
    The Safe System Approach intentionally broadens the focus of 
addressing highway safety problems, such as nonmotorized road user 
safety, to more systemic, community-level strategies. Using the Safe 
System Approach and a comprehensive problem identification process as 
guiding principles, each community's nonmotorized safety grant project 
within each State's highway safety program will likely be unique.\41\ 
State

[[Page 56787]]

highway safety offices are well-positioned to ensure nonmotorized 
safety grant funds are directed to the communities most overrepresented 
in crashes from their State-level data analysis. However, pedestrian, 
bicycle and micromobility safety programs cannot be developed as a one-
size-fits-all approach. In order to be effective, States should 
customize their approach to meet each community's specific needs, based 
on problem identification that involves not only crash and exposure 
data, but also demographic analysis, observational surveys and 
community assessments. Depending on the specific community's problem 
identification, for instance, States may use grant funds for expanded 
eligible uses, such as Walking Safety Assessments, nonmotorized 
community traffic safety programs, costs related to outreach, and 
staffing a pop-up bicycle lane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Communities are strongly encouraged to adopt a Safe System 
Approach (see https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf) in applying non-
motorized safety grant funds to their larger pedestrian/bicycle/
micromobility safety projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several organizations and members of the public commented on the 
use of funds for the nonmotorized safety grant. One commenter, Tom 
Schwerdt, recommended that designs need to be changed to get cyclists 
and pedestrians out of the roadway. The BIL specifies eligible uses for 
the nonmotorized grant funds, and the statute does not allow them to be 
used for infrastructure designs. However, States may use grant funds to 
raise public awareness and provide education to inform road users of 
infrastructure designed to improve nonmotorized road user safety. See 
League of American Bicyclists. The League of American Bicyclists also 
commented that NHTSA and States should engage community groups to build 
support for infrastructure safety improvements that will influence road 
user behavior and address systemic racism that has led to disparities 
and roadway fatalities, including to nonmotorized road users. Under the 
expanded eligible use of funds for nonmotorized grants, States may use 
grant funds for the safety of nonmotorized road users, including 
engaging with community groups. In addition, NHTSA is engaging with 
other Department of Transportation modal administrations and outside 
stakeholders on ways to influence road user behavior and address 
disparities in roadway fatalities. While Love to Ride suggested that 
the agency list specific eligible uses of funds, NHTSA does not believe 
that such an approach would serve the interests of the flexibility 
afforded by the statute, and proposes instead to adopt the broad 
statutory language. NHTSA notes that many of these uses, such as 
training (virtually or in-person), are allowable uses of funds under 
the nonmotorized grant program and Section 402 grants.

I. Preventing Roadside Deaths Grants (23 CFR 1300.27)

    The BIL created a new Preventing Roadside Death grant program, 
authorizing grants to prevent death and injury from crashes involving 
motor vehicles striking other vehicles and individuals stopped at the 
roadside. The purpose of the new grant program is to support State 
efforts to decrease roadside deaths involving vehicles and pedestrians 
on the side of the road. NHTSA proposes a new Sec.  1300.27 to 
implement the Preventing Roadside Death grant program.
    The agency received several comments that acknowledge the safety 
risk posed by disabled vehicles and supported the Preventing Roadside 
Death grant program for both first responders and civilians.\42\ ESS 
submitted comments that underscore the prevalence of deaths and 
injuries and the increased harm that results to individuals and first 
responders when a vehicle is disabled on the side of the road. It 
demonstrated that roadside crashes disproportionately affect low-income 
and African American communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Emergency Safety Solutions, Inc. (ESS), Haas Alert, Paul 
Hoffman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.27(b))
    The BIL did not define terms in section 23 U.S.C. 405(h). In order 
to provide clarity, today's proposal includes definitions for digital 
alert technology, optical visibility, and public information campaign. 
The agency developed these definitions based on what we consider common 
understanding of the terms. We seek comment on these proposed 
definitions.
2. Qualification Criteria (23 CFR 1300.27(c))
    As directed by the BIL, a State is eligible for a Preventing 
Roadside Death grant if it submits a plan that describes the method by 
which the State will use grant funds according to the eligible uses 
identified in the statute. 23 U.S.C. 405(h). Consistent with the BIL, 
NHTSA proposes that States submit a plan that requires information 
familiar to States and is consistent with the type of information 
States provide in other plans provided to NHTSA. Accordingly, we 
propose that the State's plan, at a minimum, list the eligible use(s) 
selected, identify the specific safety problems to be addressed, and 
specify the performance measures and targets, and the countermeasure 
strategies and projects that implement those strategies, that the State 
will use to address those problems. We seek comments on the proposed 
criteria to be included in the State's plan and whether additional 
information should be included in the plan.
3. Award Amounts (23 CFR 1300.27(d))
    The agency incorporates the statutory award allocation provision 
into the regulation.
4. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.27(e))
    The BIL specifies with particularity how States may use Preventing 
Roadside Death grant funds. 23 U.S.C. 405(h)(4). Today, we propose to 
adopt the BIL language without change.
    NHTSA received several comments related to use of funds under this 
grant program. ESS notes that the statute authorizes the use of funds 
to ``pilot and incentivize measures, including optical visibility 
measures, to increase the visibility of stopped and disabled vehicles'' 
(23 U.S.C. 405(h)(4)(E)) and encourages the agency to promote the grant 
to address the disabled vehicle safety issue. Another vendor, Haas 
Alert, encourages NHTSA to address impediments that exist for a State 
to apply for a grant such as contract administration costs and the 
inability of private industry to subcontract with States. Meanwhile, 
Paul Hoffman encourages the agency to promote enforcement and 
educational activities under the Preventing Roadside Death grant. The 
International Association of Fire Chiefs also encourages driver 
education to improve first responder safety. The use of grant funds 
authorized by Congress in BIL, and incorporated by the agency into the 
proposed rule, covers all of the activities (and also supports data 
collection activities) that were raised by commenters. As is typical of 
all Federal grants, States must adhere to 2 CFR part 200 requirements 
when administering grant funds awarded under the Preventing Roadside 
Deaths grant. These requirements apply to all Federal grantees and 
address contract administration and subrecipient requirements. NHTSA 
notes that Federal rules do not prohibit States from contracting with 
private entities.

J. Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants (23 CFR 1300.28)

    The BIL created a new driver and officer safety education grant 
program, authorizing incentive grants to States

[[Page 56788]]

that enact and enforce laws or adopt and implement programs that 
include certain information on law enforcement practices during traffic 
stops in driver education and driving safety courses or peace officer 
training programs. 23 U.S.C. 405(i). As described below, States may 
also qualify for a grant under this section if they can demonstrate 
that they have taken meaningful steps toward full implementation of 
such programs.
1. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.28(b)
    This NPRM proposes to adopt the definition of ``peace officer'' 
directly from the statute. 23 U.S.C. 405(i)(1). NHTSA also provides a 
definition for driver education and driving safety course to clarify 
the types of courses/programs that can qualify for the grant.
2. Qualification Criteria (23 CFR 1300.28(c))
    The BIL provides that States may qualify for a driver and officer 
safety education grant in one of two ways: (a) a current law or program 
that requires specified information to be provided in either driver 
education and driving safety courses or peace officer training 
programs; or, (b) for a period not to exceed 5 years, by providing 
proof that the State is taking meaningful steps towards establishing 
such a law or program. 23 U.S.C. 405(i)(4). We discuss these 
qualification criteria in more detail below.
i. Driver and Officer Safety Law or Program (23 CFR 1300.28(d))
    The BIL provides that one way a State may qualify for a grant under 
this section is with a law or program requiring that driver education 
and driver safety courses provided by educational and motor vehicle 
agencies of the State include instruction and testing materials 
relating to law enforcement practicing during traffic stops, covering 
the role of law enforcement, duties and responsibilities of peace 
officers, the legal rights of individuals, best practices for civilians 
and peace officers during interactions, consequences for failure to 
comply with the law or program, and information regarding how to file 
complaints or compliments relating to a police officer. 23 U.S.C. 
405(i)(4)(A). NHTSA incorporates the requirements for the State's law 
or program directly from the statute. NHTSA proposes regulatory text to 
provide clarity to States regarding how to demonstrate compliance with 
the requirements, whether applying with a legal citation or with 
documentation, including a certification from the GR and course 
materials demonstrating that the State is implementing a compliant 
program.
ii. Peace Officer Training Programs (23 CFR 1300.28(d)(2)
    The BIL provides that another way a State may qualify for a grant 
under this section is by having either a law or program requiring that 
the State develop and implement a training program for peace officers 
and reserve law enforcement officers with respect to proper interaction 
with civilians during traffic stops. 23 U.S.C. 405(i)(4)(B). NHTSA 
proposes to incorporate those requirements without change. NHTSA 
proposes regulatory text to provide clarity to States regarding how to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements, whether applying with a 
legal citation or with documentation, including a certification from 
the GR and course materials demonstrating that the State is 
implementing a compliant training program.
iii. Qualifying State (23 CFR 1300.28(e))
    If a State is unable to apply for a grant under the two options 
described above, the BIL provides a third, though time-limited way, for 
a State to qualify for a grant under this section. The BIL allows a 
State that has not fully enacted or adopted a compliant law or program 
to qualify for a grant if it can demonstrate that it has taken 
meaningful steps toward full implementation of such a law or program, 
including establishment of a timetable for implementation. 23 U.S.C. 
405(i)(7). States may only receive a grant under this section for 5 
years. Id. In this NPRM, NHTSA proposes that States applying under this 
criterion provide, at a minimum, either (1) a proposed bill that has 
been introduced, but not yet enacted into law, or (2) official planning 
or strategy document(s) that identify the actions the State has taken 
and still plans to take to develop and implement a qualifying law or 
program. States must also provide a timetable demonstrating that the 
State will implement the law or program within 5 years of first 
applying as a qualifying State.
3. Matching (23 CFR 1300.28(f))
    The BIL provides that the Federal share of the cost of carrying out 
an activity funded through a grant under this program may not exceed 80 
percent. 23 U.S.C. 405(i)(3). NHTSA proposes to implement this 
requirement without change.
4. Award Amounts (23 CFR 1300.28(g))
    The BIL specifies that grant funds under this section shall be 
allocated in proportion to the apportionment of that State under 
Section 402 in fiscal year 2022. 23 U.S.C. 405(i)(6). The BIL further 
specifies, however, that NHTSA shall withhold 50 percent of grant funds 
that would be allocated under that formula from States that qualify as 
a ``qualifying State'' (i.e., that are not yet implementing a 
qualifying law or program). 23 U.S.C. 405(i)(7)(B). It further provides 
that the withheld funds must be distributed to the States that 
qualified with fully implemented laws or programs. Id. NHTSA proposes 
to adopt this allocation structure without substantive change.
5. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.28(h))
    The BIL laid out specific allowable uses of grant funds under this 
grant program. Specifically, BIL provides that States may use driver 
and officer safety education grant funds for the production of 
educational materials and training of staff and for the implementation 
of a qualifying law or program. 23 U.S.C. 405(i)(5). This NPRM proposes 
to incorporate the uses of funds directly from the statute without 
change.

K. Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants (23 CFR 1300.29)

    Section 1906 of SAFETEA-LU established an incentive grant program 
to prohibit racial profiling. The BIL continues the intent of the 
Section 1906 grant program, which is to encourage States to enact and 
enforce laws that prohibit the use of racial profiling in traffic law 
enforcement and to maintain and allow public inspection of statistical 
information regarding the race and ethnicity of the driver for each 
motor vehicle stop in the State. BIL revised several aspects of the 
Section 1906 Program.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Unlike the amendments to Section 402 requirements (which 
are effective beginning with the FY24 grants), amendments to the 
Section 1906 grant program were effective immediately upon passage 
of the BIL. States used the amended statutory text for their FY23 
grant applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Award Amounts (23 CFR 1300.29(c))
    For Section 1906, the BIL, like the FAST Act, does not specify how 
the grant awards are to be allocated. Under the FAST Act, NHTSA 
allocated Section 1906 grant awards in the same manner as the Section 
405 grants. However, as described elsewhere in this preamble, the BIL 
diversified the allocation formulas for the Section 405 grants so that 
there is no longer a default formula. In order to ensure the most up-
to-date distribution of funds, NHTSA proposes to apply the same formula 
that Congress developed for the two new Section 405

[[Page 56789]]

grants under BIL (Section 405(h) and 405(i)) to the Section 1906 
grants. Accordingly, NHTSA proposes to allocate grant funds in 
proportion to the apportionment of the State under Section 402 for FY 
2022.
    The FAST Act placed two limitations on States' ability to receive 
grant funds under Section 1906. The BIL removed the limitation that 
provided that a State may not receive a grant by providing assurances 
for more than 2 fiscal years. The BIL amended the other limitation, 
which provided a 5 percent maximum amount limitation on a State's total 
grant award. Specifically, the BIL specified that the total amount 
provided to a State that qualifies using official documentation may not 
exceed 10 percent of the amount made available to carry out this 
section in that fiscal year; and that the total amount provided to a 
State that qualifies by providing assurances may not exceed 5 percent 
of the amount made available to carry out this section in that fiscal 
year. The agency proposes to incorporate these revisions into the 
regulatory text.
2. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.29(d))
    The BIL extended the allowable uses of the grant funds awarded 
under the Section 1906 Program by allowing States to expend grant funds 
to develop and implement programs, public outreach, and training to 
reduce the impact of traffic stops. This NPRM proposes to incorporate 
those uses directly from the statutes. States should note the specific 
allowable uses of the grant funds are only allowed to the extent that 
they carry out the intent of the grant program, which is to reduce the 
disparate impact of racial profiling during traffic stops and to 
encourage States to maintain and allow public inspection of statistical 
information on the race and ethnicity of the driver for all motor 
vehicle stops on Federal-Aid Highways. For example, States may conduct 
outreach to law enforcement agencies that is geared toward data 
collection, evaluation of data reports, and implementation of changes 
to address issues found in data reports.
    Several commenters (Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy 
(IMRP), GHSA, and TEC) expressed broad support for the 1906 grant 
program and the expanded use of funds authorized by the BIL. 
Specifically, both IMRP and the Vision Zero Network submitted comments 
recommending the use of 1906 grant funds for efforts beyond data 
collection and analysis, such as police training programs, community 
outreach and engagement, collection and analysis of pedestrian data. 
The League of American Bicyclists called for NHTSA to encourage States 
to apply the 1906 Program not just to traffic stops of motor vehicle 
drivers, but to traffic stops of pedestrians and bicyclists. As stated 
above, NHTSA proposes to incorporate the new statutorily allowed use of 
funds provision that allows use of funds to develop and implement 
programs to reduce the impact of racial profiling during traffic stops. 
Traffic stops of nonmotorized road users, including pedestrians and 
bicyclists, may potentially be included in the data collection as they 
are a component of traffic safety. However, States should be aware that 
statutory use of funds provision is limited to traffic stops, so any 
stop of a nonmotorized road user that is covered by the program would 
have to occur in that context.
    Multiple commenters \44\ expressed strong support for the BIL's 
provision that ten percent of the amount available to carry out Section 
1906 may be used by NHTSA to provide technical assistance to States. 
IMRP recommended that NHTSA hire a technical consultant to help more 
States develop a meaningful program under the 1906 guidelines. 
Similarly, the League of American Bicyclists suggested that NHTSA 
identify a third party to actively promote the Section 1906 Program to 
States that qualify and requested that NHTSA highlight best practices 
for 1906 programs. NHTSA intends to provide needed technical assistance 
and will take these comments into consideration as it determines what 
technical assistance would be most useful to States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ IMRP, League of American Bicyclists, and TEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the IMRP called for the data collected under the 1906 
Grant Program to be submitted to a national data repository to help 
NHTSA and other Federal and State partners access data to continue 
furthering research on practices to achieve a safe, fair, and equitable 
traffic enforcement system. While NHTSA appreciates the value such a 
repository would provide, the BIL does not provide NHTSA with the 
authority to require States to submit such data and no such national 
data repository currently exists.

V. Administration of Highway Safety Grants, Annual Reconciliation, and 
Non-Compliance (Subparts D Through F)

    Subparts D, E and F provide post-award requirements for NHTSA's 
highway traffic safety grant program. This includes rules governing the 
administration and closeout of the grants, as well as consequences for 
non-compliance with grant requirements.

A. Nonsubstantive Changes

    With the exception of the sections discussed below, NHTSA proposes 
only nonsubstantive changes to the regulatory requirements in subparts 
D, E, and F. The nonsubstantive changes are limited to updating 
references to the annual HSP to adjust for the new triennial framework 
and providing updated citations resulting from OMB's revisions to the 
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit 
Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 200.

B. Updated Administrative Procedures of Note

    The agency is responsible for overseeing and monitoring 
implementation of the grant programs to help ensure that recipients are 
meeting program and accountability requirements. Oversight procedures 
for monitoring the recipients' use of awarded funds can help the agency 
determine whether recipients are operating efficiently and effectively. 
Effective oversight procedures based on internal control standards for 
monitoring recipients' use of awarded funds are key to ensuring that 
program funds are being spent in a manner consistent with statute and 
regulation. In order to improve oversight of grantee activities and 
management of Federal funds and to implement requirements of the BIL, 
this NPRM proposes updates to the following procedures for 
administering the highway safety grant programs.
1. Equipment (23 CFR 1300.31)
    NHTSA proposes to add a sentence to make clear that equipment may 
only be purchased if necessary to perform eligible grant activities or 
if specifically authorized as an allowable use of funds. 23 CFR 
1300.32(b). This is not a new requirement; the proposed addition merely 
incorporates and makes clearer a long-standing requirement into NHTSA's 
grant rule.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The requirement is based on both NHTSA's existing 
regulatory requirements relating to use of equipment (23 CFR 
1300.31) and OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements related to 
equipment (2 CFR 200.313) and allowability of costs (2 CFR 200.403).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Amendments to the Highway Safety Plans (23 CFR 1300.32)
    Under the FAST Act, NHTSA provided a regulatory procedure for 
States to submit amendments to the annual HSP. Under the BIL, States 
must, at a minimum, be allowed to amend the

[[Page 56790]]

annual grant application to provide updated project and subrecipient 
information. See 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(C)(ii). In addition, although the 
annual grant application allows an opportunity for States to update the 
triennial HSP once a year, NHTSA recognizes that States may need to 
provide updates to the triennial HSP more frequently. See GHSA. For 
instance, a State might identify a new traffic safety problem or a 
change in conditions, such as a natural disaster, could occur such that 
a State's planned countermeasure strategy needs to be adjusted mid-
grant-year. As a result, States may have a need to submit amendments to 
either the triennial HSP or the annual grant application or both. 
However, because the annual grant application includes a section that 
provides for updates to the triennial HSP, NHTSA proposes that a State 
may amend either the annual grant application or the triennial HSP 
through an amendment to the annual grant application. With this action, 
NHTSA proposes to provide procedures for amendments to annual grant 
applications at 23 CFR 1300.32.
    GHSA commented that NHTSA should maintain the current HSP amendment 
process for annual grant applications, but should also allow HSP 
amendments to be submitted between application submissions. As noted 
above, NHTSA agrees. GHSA specified that NHTSA should not require 
States to provide formal quarterly submissions of HSP amendments, but 
should continue to require States to amend the annual grant application 
prior to beginning project performance. NHTSA agrees. The agency 
proposes very limited revisions to the existing regulatory text in 
order to update the text for the BIL's triennial framework. We replace 
all but one reference to the HSP (see Sec.  1300.32(c)) with annual 
grant application to clarify that all amendments, even amendments 
updating the triennial HSP will be submitted as amendments to the 
annual grant application. Historically, most amendments relate to 
project-level details. We update Sec.  1300.32(b) to require States to 
provide complete and updated project and subrecipient information prior 
to beginning project performance. NHTSA also proposes to add language 
to remind States that approval of an amendment to the annual grant 
application does not constitute approval of the project; States remain 
independently responsible to ensure that projects constitute an 
appropriate use of highway safety grant funds.
    The CT HSO and GHSA both expressed concern about the amount of time 
it currently takes NHTSA to approve amendments, with GHSA recommending 
that NHTSA respond to HSP amendments within 5 business days and resolve 
amendments within 30 days. NHTSA appreciates the feedback and strives 
and will continue to strive to respond promptly to States. However, 
some amendments present novel issues or complexities, and NHTSA's 
ability to resolve amendments is dependent on receiving all information 
required to adequately assess the request.
    WI BOTS requested clarification regarding the types of substantive 
changes to the triennial HSP and annual grant application that would 
require amendments. States are required to provide project and 
subrecipient information for all projects funded during the grant year; 
the BIL provides that States may submit this information throughout the 
grant year as the information becomes available. See 23 U.S.C. 
402(l)(1)(C)(ii). States must, therefore, provide updated project 
information as it becomes available, and at a minimum prior to 
beginning project performance. NHTSA will not approve a voucher for 
payment if the voucher is inconsistent with project and subrecipient 
information in the annual grant application. In addition, if a State 
adds a new project to the annual grant application, but that project 
cannot be linked to an existing countermeasure strategy for programming 
funds in the triennial HSP, the State will have to submit an amendment 
updating the triennial HSP to provide the required information to 
support the countermeasure strategy.
3. Vouchers and Project Agreements (23 CFR 1300.33)
    NHTSA proposes two limited changes to the requirements relating to 
vouchers and project agreements. First, NHTSA proposes that, in 
addition to the information currently required to be in a voucher, 
States also provide the eligible use(s) of funds that the voucher 
covers. 23 CFR 1300.33(b)(3). This addition is to ensure that NHTSA has 
the information necessary to understand the costs that are being 
vouchered for prior to approving reimbursements and to assist 
subsequent audits and reviews.
    In addition, NHTSA proposes to extend the deadline for States to 
submit a final voucher from 90 days to 120 days, consistent with the 
extension for closeout provided in 2 CFR 200.344.
4. Program Income (23 CFR 1300.34)
    The agency deleted the regulatory provision on program income in 
the last rulemaking, opting instead to rely on the OMB Uniform 
Administrative Requirements to address program income. However, in the 
years since finalizing the last rule, NHTSA has found that the removal 
increased confusion for grantees about which rules relating to program 
income apply to NHTSA grant funds. Accordingly, NHTSA now proposes to 
reinstate the regulatory language on program income, targeted at the 
use of program income within NHTSA's grant programs. The proposed 
language is modelled on the prior regulatory language, but has been 
updated to reflect updates to 2 CFR 200.307 and 2 CFR 1201.80.
5. Annual Report (23 CFR 1300.35)
    The most significant change to the administrative requirements for 
NHTSA's grant program is the BIL's codification of the annual report. 
Consistent with OMB rules that apply to all Federal grants,\46\ NHTSA 
has long required each State to submit an annual report providing 
performance and financial information on the State's activities during 
the grant year at 23 CFR 1300.35. The BIL codified the requirement and 
specified that the annual report must include an assessment of the 
State's progress in achieving performance targets identified in the 
triennial HSP and a description of the extent to which that progress is 
aligned with the State's triennial HSP. The BIL also provides that the 
State must describe any plans to adjust the strategy for programming 
funds in order to achieve performance targets, if applicable. See 23 
U.S.C. 402(l)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Currently implemented at 2 CFR 200.328 and 200.329 
(financial and performance reporting, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NSC commented that States should be required to provide regular 
annual information on programs, including participants, use of funds, 
and updates on tracked performance measures. NHTSA notes that the 
annual report fulfills these functions. NASEMSO suggested that NHTSA 
require annual report content to be provided in a well-structured 
format, including qualitative explanations related to obstacles and 
successes in order to assist with future planning in the State and to 
serve as a resource to other States. NHTSA agrees that a well-
structured format will make annual reports more accessible to 
stakeholders, the public, and other States in terms of allowing ease of 
reading and comparison between State reports. The agency has therefore 
proposed a structure for the report that provides for two sections: a 
performance report and an activity report. In the past, NHTSA has 
provided States with a voluntary

[[Page 56791]]

template for reporting. NHTSA seeks comment on whether States find this 
helpful and whether they would support NHTSA creating a mandatory 
template. If yes, NHTSA also seeks comments on the substance of the 
template.
    GHSA noted that the BIL provides 120 days for States to submit an 
annual report after the end of the fiscal year and requested that NHTSA 
implement that provision. NHTSA has done so. In addition, GHSA noted 
that the BIL's codification of the annual report is limited to 
performance reporting and requested that NHTSA remove all aspects of 
the prior annual report that are not explicitly required by the BIL. 
GHSA opined, however, that NHTSA could retain the requirement to report 
HVE activities because it places a low burden on States who already 
collect that information.
    NHTSA notes that the annual report serves many purposes for NHTSA's 
grant program. As provided in the BIL, it serves as the State's 
required annual performance report, consistent with 2 CFR 200.329. In 
order to satisfy the requirements of 2 CFR 200.329, NHTSA proposes to 
also require States to describe how the projects funded under the grant 
contributed to meeting the States' performance targets. States are also 
required, as a condition of receiving Federal grant funds, to submit 
annual financial reports. See 2 CFR 200.328.\47\ Because the BIL 
requires States to update project information provided in the annual 
grant application throughout the year, NHTSA believes that the updated 
project information in the annual grant application provides the 
information that is required financial reporting and therefore does not 
propose to require duplicative information in the annual report. 
However, as a result it is vital that States provide updated project 
information in the annual grant application no later than 120 days 
after the close of the fiscal year, to match the deadline for the 
annual report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ NHTSA has an exemption that allows the agency to use its 
own financial reporting, instead of commonly used and OMB-approved 
Federal Financial Report. 2 CFR 1200.327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, because NHTSA has implemented several grant 
requirements through certifications and assurances, it is important for 
grant oversight that NHTSA get year-end information to ensure that 
States have met those assurances. As a result, NHTSA proposes the 
activity report section of the annual report. As part of the annual 
activity report, NHTSA proposes to require States to provide a 
description of all projects and activities funded and implemented for 
each countermeasure strategy, including the total amount of Federal 
funds expended and the zip codes in which projects were performed (or 
identification as a State-wide project), an explanation of reasons for 
projects that were planned but not implemented, and a description of 
how the projects were informed by the meaningful public participation 
and engagement described in the State's triennial HSP. The intent of 
the requirement to provide location information via zip code is for 
NHTSA to understand where the funding is being utilized compared with 
the State's problem ID and performance targets. The agency seeks 
comment on whether there is a better metric to achieve this same goal. 
The agency requires an explanation as to why projects were not 
implemented in order to understand why the State has veered from the 
projects it identified to apply for the grant. The agency proposes to 
require the State to provide a description of how projects were 
informed by meaningful public participation and engagement in order to 
ensure that the public participation and engagement described in the 
State's planning process in the triennial HSP impacted the State's 
highway safety program in implementation, not just planning. See 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B). See also the discussion about Meaningful Public 
Engagement, above. NHTSA also proposes to require the State to describe 
the evidence-based enforcement program activities, including discussion 
of the community collaboration efforts and data collection and analysis 
required by the BIL. See 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E). Finally, NHTSA 
proposes to retain the requirement that States submit information 
regarding mobilization participation.
6. Appeals of Written Decision by the Regional Administrator (23 CFR 
1300.36)
    GHSA requested two amendments to the regulatory appeal process at 
23 CFR 1300.36 that provides the process for formal appeals of the 
written decisions of NHTSA Regional Administrators to the NHTSA 
Associate Administrator, Regional Operations and Program Delivery. GHSA 
requested a requirement that NHTSA responses to State appeals be made 
in writing, not via an informal email or in a phone call. NHTSA agrees. 
A formal written appeal that meets the requirements of section 1300.36 
is entitled to the same level of response as required of the appeal. We 
propose regulatory text to clarify that NHTSA must reply in writing. 
Second, GHSA requested that NHTSA amend the regulation to allow States 
to appeal decisions of the Associate Administrator to the 
Administrator. The agency declines to accept this recommendation. The 
Associate Administrator is delegated authority to exercise the powers 
and perform the duties of the Administrator with respect to the grants 
to States under chapter 4 of title 23. See 49 CFR 501.8(i). As such, 
the Associate Administrator has the authority to issue determinations 
on grant appeals on behalf of the agency.
7. Disposition of Unexpended Balances (23 CFR 1300.41)
    NHTSA proposes to extend the deadline for submitting a final 
voucher from 90 days to 120 days in order to align with the timeframe 
for closeout in 2 CFR 200.344. GHSA requested that NHTSA ensure that 
notifications regarding unexpended funds under 23 CFR 1300.41(b)(2) be 
sent to the State highway safety office director, not solely to the 
Governor's Representative. NHTSA notes that the GR is required to be 
responsible for the State's highway safety program and must therefore 
maintain communication with the SHSO director. That said, NHTSA will be 
mindful to include all appropriate contacts in communications with the 
State.

VII. Request for Comments

    Historically, NHTSA was unable to request comments on regulations 
implementing these grant programs in connection with new authorizations 
due to lead-time constraints. As BIL afforded the necessary lead-time, 
the agency was pleased to issue the earlier RFC and associated public 
meetings as the first step in this process, and the comments we 
received informed today's notice. NHTSA is equally pleased to now 
request comments on all aspects of this NPRM from all interested 
stakeholders. This section describes how you can participate in the 
process.
    How do I prepare and submit comments?
    Your comments must be written in English.\48\ To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket 
number NHTSA-2022-0036 in your comment. Your comments must not be more 
than 15 pages long.\49\ NHTSA established this limit to encourage you 
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may 
attach necessary additional documents to your comments, and there is no 
limit

[[Page 56792]]

on the length of the attachments. If you are submitting comments 
electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents please 
be scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus 
allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your 
submissions.\50\ Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in 
order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it 
must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and 
DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to 
consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may 
be accessed at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2002-02-22/pdf/R2-59.pdf. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/dotinformation-dissemination-qualityguidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 29 CFR 553.21.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of 
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or 
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, please remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified in the DATES section above.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you submit your comments to NHTSA's docket by mail and wish DOT 
Docket Management to notify you upon receipt of your comments, please 
enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing 
your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will 
return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment 
containing confidential business information, you should include a 
cover letter setting forth the information specified in 49 CFR part 
512.
    In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted 
the claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of 
the methods set forth above.

Will NHTSA consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of 
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To 
the extent practicable, we will also consider comments received after 
that date. If interested persons believe that any information that the 
agency places in the docket after the issuance of the NPRM affects 
their comments, they may submit comments after the closing date 
concerning how the agency should consider that information for the 
final rule. However, the agency's ability to consider any such late 
comments in this rulemaking will be limited due to the time frame for 
issuing a final rule. If a comment is received too late for us to 
practicably consider in developing a final rule, we will consider that 
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the dockets for this document 
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other 
interested persons) at any time by going to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets. You may also read the materials at the DOT Docket Management 
Facility by going to the street address given above under ADDRESSES.

IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking 
document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive 
Order 13563. This action establishes revised uniform procedures 
implementing State highway safety grant programs, as a result of 
enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, also 
referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL). While this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would establish minimum criteria 
for highway safety grants, most of the criteria are based on statute. 
NHTSA has no discretion over the grant amounts, and its implementation 
authority is limited and non-controversial. Therefore, this rulemaking 
has been determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of 
the Office of Management and Budget.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed 
and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to 
certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed 
rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amended the RFA to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that an action would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    This NPRM is a rulemaking that will establish revised uniform 
procedures implementing State highway safety grant programs, as a 
result of enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
(IIJA, also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL). 
Under these grant programs, States will receive funds if they meet the 
application and qualification requirements. These grant programs will 
affect only State governments, which are not considered to be small 
entities as that term is defined by the RFA. Therefore, I certify that 
this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities and find that the preparation of a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is unnecessary.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires NHTSA to develop 
an accountable process to

[[Page 56793]]

ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999). ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, an agency may not issue a 
regulation with Federalism implications that imposes substantial direct 
compliance costs and that is not required by statute unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments or the agency consults 
with State and local governments in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. An agency also may not issue a regulation with 
Federalism implications that preempts a State law without consulting 
with State and local officials.
    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with 
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. First, 
we note that the regulation implementing these grant programs is 
required by statute. Moreover, the agency has determined that this NPRM 
would not have sufficient Federalism implications as defined in the 
order to warrant formal consultation with State and local officials or 
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Nevertheless, 
NHTSA notes that it has consulted with States representatives through 
public meetings, continues to engage with State representatives 
regarding general implementation of the BIL, including these grant 
programs, and expects to continue these informal dialogues.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996)), 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' the agency has considered whether this 
proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. I conclude that it 
would not have any retroactive or preemptive effect, and judicial 
review of it may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section 
does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to 
seeking judicial review. This action meets applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 
Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain 
approval from the OMB for each collection of information they conduct, 
sponsor, or require through regulations. A person is not required to 
respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the 
collection displays a valid OMB control number. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) described below has been forwarded to OMB for 
review and comment. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks 
for public comments on the following proposed collection of information 
for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB.
    Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
    Title: State Highway Safety Grant Programs.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Form Number: N/A (Highway Safety Plan and Annual Plan).
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the 
approval date.
    Summary of Collection of Information: On November 15, 2021, the 
President signed into law the ``Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act'' (the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, or BIL), Public Law 117-58, 
which reauthorized highway safety grant programs administered by NHTSA. 
Specifically, these grant programs include the Highway Safety Program 
grants (23 U.S.C. 402 or Section 402), the National Priority Safety 
Program grants (23 U.S.C. 405 or Section 405), and a separate grant on 
racial profiling restored (with some changes) from a previous 
authorization (Sec. 1906, Pub. L. 109-59, as amended by Sec. 4011, Pub. 
L. 114-94, or Section 1906). The BIL requires NHTSA to award these 
grants to States pursuant to a rulemaking.
    The BIL alters the structure of the Section 402 grant program, 
replacing the current annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP), which serves as 
both a planning and application document, with a triennial HSP and an 
annual grant application. The BIL also removes one grant program and 
adds two new grant programs (preventing roadside deaths and driver and 
officer safety education), but otherwise does not significantly change 
the structure of the Section 405 grants. The statute provides that 
States must submit two documents to apply for Section 402, Section 405 
and Section 1906 grants: a triennial Highway Safety Plan (HSP), which 
serves as a planning document, and an annual grant application. It 
further codifies an annual report that States must submit at the end of 
the grant year.
    The information collected under this proposed rulemaking is to 
include a triennial HSP consisting of information on the highway safety 
planning process, public participation, performance plan, 
countermeasure strategies, and a performance report. See 23 CFR 
1300.11. It also includes an annual grant application consisting of 
updates to the triennial HSP, project and subrecipient information, 
applications for Section 405 and Section 1906 grans, and certifications 
and assurances. See 23 CFR 1300.12. After award of grant funds, States 
are required to update the project and subrecipient information (see 23 
CFR 1300.12 and 23 CFR 1300.32) and to submit an annual report, 
assessing performance and verifying compliance with assurances provided 
in the grant application. See 23 CFR 1300.35. In addition, as part of 
the statutory criteria for certain Section 405 grants (occupant 
protection and impaired driving countermeasures),\51\ States may be 
required to receive assessments of their State programs in order to 
receive a grant. As part of the assessment process, States must provide 
information and respond to questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Under occupant protection grants, one criterion that a 
State with a lower belt use rate may use to receive a grant is to 
complete an assessment of its occupant protection program once every 
five years (23 U.S.C. 405(b)(3)(B)(ii)(VI)); and another criterion 
is a comprehensive occupant protection program that includes a 
program assessment conducted every five years as one of its elements 
(23 U.S.C. 405(b)(3)(B)(ii)(V)). Under impaired driving 
countermeasure grants, a State with high average impaired driving 
fatality rates must have an assessment of its impaired driving 
program once every 3 years in order to receive a grant. (23 U.S.C. 
405(d)(3)(C)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the 
Information: As noted above, the statute provides that the triennial 
Highway Safety Plan and annual grant application are the basis for 
State applications for the grants identified each fiscal year. This 
information is necessary to determine whether a State satisfies the 
criteria for grant awards. The annual report tracks progress in 
achieving the aims of the grant program. The information is necessary 
to verify performance under the grants and to provide a basis for 
improvement.
    Description of the Likely Respondents: This collection impacts the 
57 governmental entities that are eligible to apply for grants under 
the NHTSA

[[Page 56794]]

Highway Safety Grant Program (the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs on behalf of 
Indian tribes). These respondents will hereafter be referred to as 
``State respondents.'' This collection also impacts the subject matter 
experts and administrative assistants who are involved in performing 
assessments for the grant program. NHTSA estimates that there will be 
approximately 260 assessor respondents per year.
    Frequency: The triennial Highway Safety Plan (HSP) is a planning 
document for a State's entire traffic safety program and outlines the 
performance targets and countermeasure strategies for key program areas 
as identified by State and Federal data and problem identification. The 
annual grant application provides project level information and 
applications for the Section 405 and Section 1906 grants. By statute, 
States must submit, and NHTSA must approve, the triennial HSP and 
annual grant application as a condition of providing Section 402 grant 
funds. States also are required to submit their Section 405 and Section 
1906 grant applications as part of the annual grant application. States 
must submit the triennial HSP once every three years and an annual 
grant application every fiscal year in order to qualify for grant 
funds. As described above, assessments may be required for a State to 
apply for certain Section 405 grant programs and are submitted once 
every five years. In addition, States provide an annual report 
evaluating their progress under the programs.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 
Resulting from the Collection of Information: NHTSA calculates the 
estimated burden hours for all State applicant respondents and for the 
non-State subject matter experts and administrative assistants who 
conduct assessments for the States.
    The estimated burden hours for the collection of information for 
State applicants are based on all eligible respondents for each of the 
grants:
     Section 402 grants: 57 (fifty States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Secretary of 
the Interior);
     Section 405 Grants (except Motorcyclist Safety Grants) and 
Section 1906 Grant: 56 (fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and
     Section 405, Motorcyclist Safety Grants: 52 (fifty States, 
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
    We estimate that it will take each State respondent approximately 
320 hours in the first year of a triennial cycle and 100 hours per year 
for the second and third years of the triennial cycle to collect, 
review and submit the required information to NHTSA for the Section 402 
program. We estimate that it will take each respondent approximately 
270 hours to collect, review and submit the required information to 
NHTSA for the Section 405 and Section 1906 program every year. We 
estimate that it will take each respondent approximately 88 hours per 
assessment to collect, review and submit the required information for 
the Section 405 assessments.\52\ We further estimate that it will take 
each respondent approximately 80 hours to collect, review and submit 
the required information to NHTSA for the annual reports every year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ NHTSA estimates that there will be 9 assessments for 
Section 405 occupant protection grants and 4 assessments for the 
Section 405 impaired driving grants each year. This yields total 
estimated annual burden hours for all respondents of 1,144 hours per 
year. No individual State will have more than 2 assessments over a 
three year period; many States may complete only one or no 
assessments in a three year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above information, the total estimated annual burden 
hours averaged over the triennial cycle for all State respondents is 
30,704 hours annually. The total estimated annual burden hours for all 
respondents in the first year is 39,064 hours; and the total estimated 
burden hours for all respondents in the second and third years of the 
cycle is 26,524 per year.
    The estimated annual burden hours averaged over the triennial cycle 
for each State respondent is 523.3 hours, with no more than 176 
additional hours if the respondent submits two assessments in a given 
year. The estimated annual burden hours for each respondent in the 
first year of the triennial cycle is 670 hours and the estimated annual 
burden hours for each respondent in the second and third years of the 
cycle is 450 hours per year. To estimate annual burden hours for each 
respondent, the agency has added the burden hours for the Section 402 
Program, the Section 405 and Section 1906 Program and the annual 
reports. For each Section 405 assessment submitted by a respondent (no 
more than 2 assessments in a five-year period), an additional 88 hours 
should be added.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The total estimated burden hours for assessments is based 
on the average number of State asssesments carried out each year in 
each covered grant area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming the average salary of individuals responsible for 
submitting the information is $55.17 per hour,\54\ the estimated cost 
averaged over the triennial cycle for each respondent is $28,870.461, 
with up to an additional $9,709.92 if the respondent submits two 
Section 405 assessments); the estimated total cost averaged over the 
triennial cycle for all State respondents is $1,693,939.68 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ NHTSA used the estimated average wage for State and local 
government ``Management Analysts,'' Occupation Code 13-1111, which 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates to be $34.15. See May 2021 
National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage 
Estimates, NAICS 336100--Motor Vehicle Manufacturing, available at 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm. The Bureau of 
Labor Statistics estimates that wages for State and local government 
workers represent 61.9% of total compensation costs. See Table 1. 
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by ownership, available at 
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates are based on every eligible respondent submitting 
the required information for every available grant every year. However, 
not all States apply for and receive a grant each year under each of 
these programs. Similarly, under Section 405 grants, some requirements 
allow States to submit a criterion covering multiple years, allowing 
States to simply recertify or resubmit existing materials in subsequent 
years. Considering the agency's steps to streamline the submission 
process, these estimates represent the highest possible burden hours 
and amounts for States submitting the required information.
    In addition to State applicant respondents, NHTSA estimates that 
there will be a total of 78 additional subject matter expert and 
administrative assistant respondents per year. These respondents (65 
subject matter experts and 13 administrative assistants) conduct the 
Section 405 assessments for States and are recruited by NHTSA or the 
State and paid for their time. As stated above, NHTSA estimates that 
there will be a total of 13 assessments conducted in a year (9 
assessments for Section 405 occupant protection grants, and 4 
assessments for Section 405 impaired driving countermeasures grant). 
For these assessments, NHTSA estimates that the subject matter expert 
assessors spend 80 hours of time on each assessment and that the 
administrative assistants spend 46 hours on each assessment. Therefore, 
NHTSA estimates the total annual burden for the subject matter experts 
and administrative assistants who conduct State assessments to be 6,032 
hours per year.

[[Page 56795]]

    To calculate the estimated cost associated with the subject matter 
expert assessors and administrative assistants, NHTSA uses the amounts 
paid for these services. For assessments, the State pays each subject 
matter expert a flat rate of $2,700, and each administrative assistant 
a flat rate of $2,100. The total estimated costs associated with burden 
hours for all assessment respondents is $202,800.
    Total Estimated Burden: Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total 
annual burden hours, averaged over a triennial cycle, for all 
respondents to be 36,736 hours and the associated estimated total cost 
averaged over a triennial cycle for all respondents to be 
$1,896,739.68.
    Comments are invited on:
     Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether 
the information will have practical utility.
     Whether the agency's estimate for the burden of the 
information collection is accurate.
     Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected.
     Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the 
heading of this document, by any of the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document. Comments are due by October 31, 
2022.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million 
annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). This 
NPRM would not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because the 
resulting annual State expenditures would not exceed the minimum 
threshold. The program is voluntary and States that choose to apply and 
qualify would receive grant funds.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action for the 
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has 
determined that this NPRM would not have a significant impact on the 
quality of the human environment.

H. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any 
rulemaking that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and is likely to have a 
significantly adverse effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use 
of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. 
This rulemaking is not likely to have a significantly adverse effect on 
the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy. This rulemaking has 
not been designated as a significant energy action. Accordingly, this 
rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13211.

K. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribes)

    The agency has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13175, and 
has determined that today's action would not have a substantial direct 
effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and would not 
preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not 
required.

L. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. 
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration 
of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or 
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments on this NPRM.

M. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The BIL requires NHTSA to award highway safety 
grants pursuant to rulemaking. (Section 24101(d), BIL; and 23 U.S.C. 
406). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified 
Agenda in or about April and October of each year. You may use the RIN 
contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this 
action in the Unified Agenda.

N. Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of 
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1300

    Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Administrative 
practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Motor vehicles--
motorcycles.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of 23 
U.S.C. 401 et seq., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
proposes to amend 23 CFR chapter III by revising part 1300 to read as 
follows:

PART 1300--UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANT 
PROGRAMS

Subpart A--General
Sec.
1300.1 Purpose.
1300.2 [Reserved].
1300.3 Definitions.
1300.4 State Highway Safety Agency--authority and functions.
1300.5 Due dates--interpretation.
Subpart B--Triennial Highway Safety Plan and Annual Grant Application
1300.10 General.
1300.11 Triennial Highway Safety Plan.
1300.12 Annual grant application.
1300.13 Special funding conditions for Section 402 Grants.
1300.14 [Reserved].
1300.15 Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.
Subpart C--National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection Grants
1300.20 General.
1300.21 Occupant protection grants.
1300.22 State traffic safety information system improvements grants.
1300.23 Impaired driving countermeasures grants.

[[Page 56796]]

1300.24 Distracted driving grants.
1300.25 Motorcyclist safety grants.
1300.26 Nonmotorized safety grants.
1300.27 Preventing roadside deaths grants.
1300.28 Driver and officer safety education grants.
1300.29 Racial profiling data collection grants.
Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants
1300.30 General.
1300.31 Equipment.
1300.32 Amendments to Highway Safety Plans--approval by the Regional 
Administrator.
1300.33 Vouchers and project agreements.
1300.34 Program income.
1300.35 Annual report.
1300.36 Appeals of written decision by the Regional Administrator.
Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation
1300.40 Expiration of the Highway Safety Plan.
1300.41 Disposition of unexpended balances.
1300.42 Post-grant adjustments.
1300.43 Continuing requirements.
Subpart F--Non-Compliance
1300.50 General.
1300.51 Sanctions--reduction of apportionment.
1300.52 Sanctions--risk assessment and non-compliance.
Appendix A to Part 1300--Certifications and Assurances for Highway 
Safety Grants.
Appendix B to Part 1300--Application Requirements for Section 405 
and Section 1906 Grants.

    Authority: 3 U.S.C. 402; 23 U.S.C. 405; Sec. 1906, Pub. L. 109-
59, 119 Stat. 1468, as amended by Sec. 4011, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 
Stat. 1512; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Subpart A--General

Sec.  1300.1   Purpose.

    This part establishes uniform procedures for State highway safety 
programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Sec. 1906, Public Law 
109-59, as amended by Sec. 4011, Public Law 114-94.

Sec.  1300.2   [Reserved].

Sec.  1300.3   Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    Annual grant application means the document that the State submits 
each fiscal year as its application for highway safety grants (and 
amends as necessary), which provides any necessary updates to the 
State's most recent triennial HSP, identifies all projects the State 
will implement during the fiscal year to achieve its highway safety 
performance targets, describes how the State has adjusted its 
countermeasure strategy for programming funds based on the annual 
report, and includes the application for grants under Sections 405 and 
1906.
    Annual Report File (ARF) means FARS data that are published 
annually, but prior to final FARS data.
    Automated traffic enforcement system (ATES) means any camera which 
captures an image of a vehicle for the purposes only of red light and 
speed enforcement, and does not include hand held radar and other 
devices operated by law enforcement officers to make an on-the-scene 
traffic stop, issue a traffic citation, or other enforcement action at 
the time of the violation.
    Carry-forward funds means those funds that a State has not expended 
on projects in the fiscal year in which they were apportioned or 
allocated, that are within the period of availability, and that are 
being brought forward and made available for expenditure in a 
subsequent fiscal year.
    Community means populations sharing a particular characteristic or 
geographic location.
    Contract authority means the statutory language that authorizes an 
agency to incur an obligation without the need for a prior 
appropriation or further action from Congress and which, when 
exercised, creates a binding obligation on the United States for which 
Congress must make subsequent liquidating appropriations.
    Countermeasure strategy for programming funds means a proven 
effective or innovative countermeasure or group of countermeasures 
along with information on how the State plans to implement those 
countermeasures (i.e., funding amounts, subrecipient types, location or 
community information) that the State proposes to be implemented with 
grant funds under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906 to address 
identified problems and meet performance targets.
    Data-driven means informed by a systematic review and analysis of 
quality data sources when making decisions related to planning, target 
establishment, resource allocation and implementation.
    Evidence-based means based on approaches that are proven effective 
with consistent results when making decisions related to countermeasure 
strategies and projects.
    Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) means the nationwide 
census providing yearly public data regarding fatal injuries suffered 
in motor vehicle traffic crashes, as published by NHTSA.
    Final FARS means the FARS data that replace the annual report file 
and contain additional cases or updates that became available after the 
annual report file was released.
    Fiscal year means the Federal fiscal year, consisting of the 12 
months beginning each October 1 and ending the following September 30.
    Governor means the Governor of any of the fifty States, Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Mayor of the District 
of Columbia, or, for the application of this part to Indian Country as 
provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), the Secretary of the Interior.
    Governor's Representative for Highway Safety (GR) means the 
official appointed by the Governor to implement the State's highway 
safety program or, for the application of this part to Indian Country 
as provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), an official of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs or other Department of Interior official who is duly designated 
by the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Indian highway safety 
program.
    Highway safety program means the planning, strategies and 
performance measures, and general oversight and management of highway 
safety strategies and projects by the State either directly or through 
subrecipients to address highway safety problems in the State, as 
defined in the triennial Highway Safety Plan and the annual grant 
application, including any amendments.
    Indian country means all land within the limits of any Indian 
reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States, 
notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and including rights-of-way 
running through the reservation; all dependent Indian communities 
within the borders of the United States, whether within the original or 
subsequently acquired territory thereof and whether within or without 
the limits of a State; and all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to 
which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running 
through such allotments.
    NHTSA means the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    Performance measure means a metric that is used to establish 
targets and to assess progress toward meeting the established targets.
    Performance target means a quantifiable level of performance or a 
goal, expressed as a value, to be achieved through implementation of 
countermeasure strategies within a specified time period.
    Political subdivision of a State means a separate legal entity of a 
State that usually has specific governmental functions, and includes 
Indian tribal governments. Political subdivision includes, but is not 
limited to, local governments and any agencies or

[[Page 56797]]

instrumentalities thereof, school districts, intrastate districts, 
associations comprised of representatives from political subdivisions 
acting in their official capacities (including State or regional 
conferences of mayors or associations of chiefs of police), local court 
systems, and any other regional or interstate government entity.
    Problem identification means the data collection and analysis 
process for identifying areas of the State, types of crashes, types of 
populations (e.g., high-risk populations), related data systems or 
other conditions that present specific highway safety challenges within 
a specific program area.
    Program area means any of the national priority safety program 
areas identified in 23 U.S.C. 405 or a program area identified by a 
State in the Highway Safety Plan as encompassing a major highway safety 
or related data problem in the State and for which documented effective 
countermeasure strategies have been identified or projected by analysis 
to be effective.
    Project (or funded project) means a discrete effort involving 
identified subrecipients or contractors to be funded, in whole or in 
part, with grant funds under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906 and 
that addresses countermeasure strategies identified in the Highway 
Safety Plan.
    Project agreement means a written agreement at the State level or 
between the State and a subrecipient or contractor under which the 
State agrees to perform a project or to provide Federal funds in 
exchange for the subrecipient's or contractor's performance of a 
project that supports the highway safety program.
    Project agreement number means a unique State-generated identifier 
assigned to each project agreement.
    Public road means any road under the jurisdiction of and maintained 
by a public authority and open to public travel.
    Section 402 means section 402 of title 23 of the United States 
Code.
    Section 405 means section 405 of title 23 of the United States 
Code.
    Section 1906 means section 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by 
section 4011, Public Law114-94.
    Serious injuries means, until April 15, 2019, injuries classified 
as ``A'' on the KABCO scale through the use of the conversion tables 
developed by NHTSA, and thereafter, ``suspected serious injury (A)'' as 
defined in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline, 
5th Edition.
    State means, except as provided in Sec.  1300.25(b), any of the 
fifty States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands, or, for the application of this part 
to Indian Country as provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), the Secretary of the 
Interior.
    State highway safety improvement program (HSIP) means the program 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(10).
    State strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) means the plan defined 
in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11).
    Triennial Highway Safety Plan (triennial HSP) means the document 
that the State submits once every three fiscal years, documenting its 
highway safety program, including the State's highway safety planning 
process and problem identification; public participation and 
engagement; performance plan; countermeasure strategy for programming 
funds; and performance report.
    Underserved populations means populations sharing a particular 
characteristic or geographic location, that have been systematically 
denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, 
social, and civic life.

Sec.  1300.4  State Highway Safety Agency--authority and functions.

    (a) In general. In order for a State to receive grant funds under 
this part, the Governor shall exercise responsibility for the highway 
safety program by appointing a Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety who shall be responsible for a State Highway Safety Agency that 
has adequate powers and is suitably equipped and organized to carry out 
the State's highway safety program and for coordinating with the 
Governor and other State agencies. To avoid a potential conflict of 
interest, the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety may not be 
employed by a subrecipient of the State Highway Safety Agency.
    (b) Authority. Each State Highway Safety Agency shall be equipped 
and authorized to--
    (1) Develop and execute the triennial Highway Safety Plan, annual 
grant application, and highway safety program in the State;
    (2) Manage Federal grant funds effectively and efficiently and in 
accordance with all Federal and State requirements;
    (3) Foster meaningful public participation and engagement from 
affected communities;
    (4) Obtain information about highway safety programs and projects 
administered by other State and local agencies;
    (5) Maintain or have access to information contained in State 
highway safety data systems, including crash, citation or adjudication, 
emergency medical services/injury surveillance, roadway and vehicle 
recordkeeping systems, and driver license data;
    (6) Periodically review and comment to the Governor on the 
effectiveness of programs to improve highway safety in the State from 
all funding sources that the State plans to use for such purposes;
    (7) Provide financial and technical assistance to other State 
agencies and political subdivisions to develop and carry out highway 
safety strategies and projects; and
    (8) Establish and maintain adequate staffing to effectively plan, 
manage, and provide oversight of projects implemented under the annual 
grant application and to properly administer the expenditure of Federal 
grant funds.
    (c) Functions. Each State Highway Safety Agency shall--
    (1) Develop and prepare the triennial HSP and annual grant 
application based on evaluation of highway safety data, including crash 
fatalities and injuries, roadway, driver, demographics and other data 
sources to identify safety problems within the State;
    (2) Establish projects to be funded within the State under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4 based on identified safety problems and priorities and 
projects under Section 1906;
    (3) Conduct risk assessments of subrecipients and monitor 
subrecipients based on risk, as provided in 2 CFR 200.332;
    (4) Provide direction, information and assistance to subrecipients 
concerning highway safety grants, procedures for participation, 
development of projects and applicable Federal and State regulations 
and policies;
    (5) Encourage and assist subrecipients to improve their highway 
safety planning and administration efforts;
    (6) Review, approve, and evaluate the implementation and 
effectiveness of State and local highway safety programs and projects 
from all funding sources that the State plans to use under the 
triennial HSP and annual grant application, and approve and monitor the 
expenditure of grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 
Section 1906;
    (7) Assess program performance through analysis of highway safety 
data and data-driven performance measures;
    (8) Ensure that the State highway safety program meets the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4, Section 1906, and applicable 
Federal and State laws, including but not limited to the standards for 
financial management

[[Page 56798]]

systems required under 2 CFR 200.302 and internal controls required 
under 2 CFR 200.303;
    (9) Ensure that all legally required audits of the financial 
operations of the State Highway Safety Agency and of the use of highway 
safety grant funds are conducted;
    (10) Track and maintain current knowledge of changes in State 
statutes or regulations that could affect State qualification for 
highway safety grants or transfer programs;
    (11) Coordinate the triennial HSP, annual grant application, and 
highway safety data collection and information systems activities with 
other federally and non-federally supported programs relating to or 
affecting highway safety, including the State SHSP as defined in 23 
U.S.C. 148(a); and
    (12) Administer Federal grant funds in accordance with Federal and 
State requirements, including 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201.

Sec.  1300.5   Due dates--interpretation.

    If any deadline or due date in this part falls on a Saturday, 
Sunday or Federal holiday, the applicable deadline or due date shall be 
the next business day.

Subpart B--Triennial Highway Safety Plan and Annual Grant 
Application

Sec.  1300.10   General.

    To apply for any highway safety grant under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 
Section 1906, a State shall submit electronically and according to the 
due dates in the relevant sections below--
    (a) A triennial Highway Safety Plan meeting the requirements of 
this subpart; and
    (b) An annual grant application.

Sec.  1300.11   Triennial Highway Safety Plan.

    The State's triennial highway safety plan documents a three-year 
period of the State's highway safety program that is data-driven in 
establishing performance targets and selecting the countermeasure 
strategies for programming funds to meet those performance targets.
    (a) Due date for submission. A State shall submit its triennial 
highway safety plan electronically to NHTSA no later than 11:59 p.m. 
EDT on July 1 preceding the first fiscal year covered by the plan. 
Failure to meet this deadline may result in delayed approval of the 
triennial highway safety plan which could impact approval and funding 
under a State's annual grant application.
    (b) Contents. In order to be approved, the triennial highway safety 
plan submitted by the State must cover three fiscal years beginning 
with the first fiscal year following submission of the plan and contain 
the following components:
    (1) Highway safety planning process and problem identification. (i) 
Description of the processes, data sources and information used by the 
State in its highway safety planning (i.e., problem identification, 
public participation and engagement, performance measures, and 
countermeasure strategies); and
    (ii) Description and analysis of the State's overall highway safety 
problems as identified through an analysis of data, including but not 
limited to fatality, injury, enforcement, judicial and sociodemographic 
data.
    (2) Public participation and engagement. (i) Description of the 
State's public participation and engagement planning efforts in the 
highway safety planning process and program, including--
    (A) A statement of the State's starting goals for the public 
engagement efforts, including how the public engagement efforts will 
contribute to the development of the State's countermeasure strategies 
for programming funds;
    (B) Identification of the affected and potentially affected 
communities, including particular emphasis on underserved communities 
and communities overrepresented in the data, d (i.e., what communities 
did the State identify at the outset of the process) and a description 
of how those communities were identified;
    (C) The steps taken by the State to reach and engage those 
communities, including accessibility measures implemented by the State 
both in outreach and in conducting engagement opportunities;
    (ii) The results of the State's engagement efforts, including, as 
applicable--
    (A) A list of the engagement opportunities conducted, including 
type of engagement (e.g., stakeholder or community meetings, town hall 
events, focus groups, surveys and online engagement), location(s) 
(e.g., virtual, city/town), date(s), summary of issues covered; and
    (B) Identification of the actual participants (e.g., specific 
community and constituent groups, first responders, highway safety 
committees, program stakeholders, governmental stakeholders, and 
political subdivisions, particularly those representing the most 
significantly impacted by traffic crashes resulting in injuries and 
fatalities) and their roles in the State's highway safety planning 
process;
    (iii) A description of the public participation and engagement 
efforts the State plans to undertake during the three-year period 
covered by the triennial HSP, at the level of detail required in 
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
    (3) Performance plan. (i) List of data-driven, quantifiable and 
measurable highway safety performance targets, as laid out in 
paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(3)(iii) of this section, that demonstrate 
constant or improved performance over the three-year period covered by 
the triennial HSP and based on highway safety program areas identified 
by the State during the planning process conducted under paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (ii) All performance measures developed by NHTSA in collaboration 
with the Governors Highway Safety Association (``Traffic Safety 
Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 
025)), as revised in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(5) and published 
in the Federal Register, which must be used as minimum measures in 
developing the performance targets identified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of 
this section, provided that--
    (A) At least one performance measure and performance target that is 
data-driven shall be provided for each program area identified by the 
State during the planning process conducted under paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section that enables the State to track progress toward meeting 
the quantifiable annual target;
    (B) For each program area performance measure, the State shall 
provide--
    (1) Quantifiable performance targets culminating in the final year 
covered by the triennial HSP, with annual benchmarks to assist States 
in tracking progress; and
    (2) Justification for each performance target that explains how the 
target is data-driven, including a discussion of the factors that 
influenced the performance target selection; and
    (C) State HSP performance targets are identical to the State DOT 
targets for common performance measures (fatality, fatality rate, and 
serious injuries) reported in the HSIP annual report, as coordinated 
through the State SHSP.
    (iii) Additional performance measures not included under paragraph 
(b)(3)(ii) of this section. For program areas identified by the State 
where performance measures have not been jointly developed (e.g., risky 
drivers, vulnerable road users, etc.) and for which States are using 
highway safety

[[Page 56799]]

grant program funds, the State shall develop its own performance 
measures and performance targets that are data-driven, and shall 
provide the same information as required under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of 
this section.
    (4) Countermeasure strategy for programming funds. For each program 
area identified by the State during the planning process conducted 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a description of the 
countermeasure strategies that will guide the State's program 
implementation and annual project selection in order to achieve 
specific performance targets described in paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section, including, at a minimum--
    (i) The problem identified during the planning process described in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section that the countermeasure strategy 
addresses and a description of the linkage between the problem 
identification and the countermeasure strategy;
    (ii) A list of the countermeasures that the State will implement, 
including;
    (A) For countermeasures rated 3 or more stars in Countermeasures 
That Work, citation to the countermeasure in the most recent edition of 
Countermeasures That Work; or
    (B) For State-developed countermeasure strategies, justification 
supporting the countermeasure strategy, including data, data analysis, 
research, evaluation and/or substantive anecdotal evidence, that 
supports the effectiveness of the proposed countermeasure strategy;
    (iii) Identification of the performance target(s) the 
countermeasure strategy will address, along with an explanation of the 
link between the effectiveness of the countermeasure strategy and the 
performance target;
    (iv) A description of any Federal funds that the State plans to use 
to carry out the countermeasure strategy including, at a minimum, the 
funding source(s) (e.g., Section 402, Section 405(b), etc.) and an 
estimated allocation of funds;
    (v) A description of considerations the State will use to determine 
what projects to fund to implement the countermeasure strategy, 
including, as applicable, public engagement, traffic safety data, 
affected communities, impacted locations, solicitation of proposals; 
and
    (vi) A description of the manner in which the countermeasure 
strategy was informed by the uniform guidelines issued in accordance 
with 23 U.S.C. 402(a)(2) and, if applicable, NHTSA-facilitated 
programmatic assessments.
    (5) Performance report. A report on the State's progress towards 
meeting State performance targets from the most recently submitted 
triennial HSP, at the level of detail in Sec.  1300.35.
    (c) Review and approval procedures--(1) General. Subject to 
paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this section, the Regional Administrator 
shall review and approve or disapprove a triennial HSP within 60 days 
from date of receipt. NHTSA will not approve a triennial HSP that does 
not meet the requirements of this section.
    (2) Additional information. NHTSA may request additional 
information from a State to ensure compliance with the requirements of 
this part. Upon receipt of the request, the State must submit the 
requested information within 7 business days. NHTSA may extend the 
deadline for approval or disapproval of the triennial HSP by no more 
than 90 additional days, as necessary to facilitate the request.
    (3) Approval or disapproval of triennial Highway Safety Plan. 
Within 60 days after receipt of the triennial HSP under this subpart 
the Regional Administrator shall issue--
    (i) A letter of approval, with conditions, if any, to the 
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety; or
    (ii) A letter of disapproval to the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety informing the State of the reasons for disapproval and 
requiring resubmission of the triennial HSP with any modifications 
necessary for approval.
    (4) Resubmission of disapproved triennial Highway Safety Plan. The 
State shall resubmit the triennial HSP with necessary modifications 
within 30 days from the date of disapproval. The Regional Administrator 
shall issue a letter of approval or disapproval within 30 days after 
receipt of a revised triennial HSP resubmitted as provided in paragraph 
(c)(3)(ii) of this section.

Sec.  1300.12   Annual grant application.

    The State's annual grant application provides project level 
information on the State's highway safety program and demonstrates 
alignment with the State's most recent triennial HSP. Each fiscal year, 
the State shall submit an annual grant application, that meets the 
following requirements:
    (a) Due date for submission. A State shall submit its annual grant 
application electronically to NHTSA no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on 
August 1 preceding the fiscal year to which the application applies. 
Failure to meet this deadline may result in delayed approval and 
funding of a State's Section 402 grant or disqualification from 
receiving a Section 405 or racial profiling data collection grant to 
avoid a delay in awarding grants to all States.
    (b) Contents. In order to be approved, the annual grant application 
submitted by the State must contain the following components:
    (1) Updates to triennial HSP. Any updates, as necessary, to any 
analysis included in the triennial highway safety plan of the State, at 
the level of detail required by Sec.  1300.11, including at a minimum:
    (i) Adjustments to countermeasure strategy for programming funds. 
(A) If the State adjusts the strategy for programming funds, a 
narrative description of the means by which the State's strategy for 
programming funds was adjusted and informed by the most recent annual 
report submitted under Sec.  1300.35; or
    (B) If the State does not adjust the strategy for programming 
funds, a written explanation of why the State made no adjustments.
    (ii) Changes to Performance Plan. The State may add additional 
performance measures based on updated traffic safety problem 
identification or as part of an application for a grant under Section 
405 and may amend common performance measures developed under Sec.  
1300.11(b)(3)(ii)(C), but may not amend any other existing performance 
targets.
    (2) Project and subrecipient information. For each project to be 
funded by the State using grant funds during the fiscal year covered by 
the application, the State must provide--
    (i) Project name and description (e.g., purpose, activities, zip 
codes where project will be implemented, affected communities, etc.);
    (ii) Project agreement number (if necessary, may be provided in a 
later amendment to the annual grant application);
    (iii) Subrecipient(s) (including name and type of organization; 
e.g., county or city DOT, state or local law enforcement, non-profit, 
EMS agency, etc.);
    (iv) Federal funding source(s) (i.e., Section 402, Section 405(b), 
etc.);
    (v) Amount of Federal funds;
    (vi) Eligible use of funds;
    (vii) Whether the costs are P & A costs pursuant to Sec.  
1300.13(a) and the amount;
    (viii) Whether the project will be used to meet the requirements of 
Sec.  1300.41(b); and
    (ix) The countermeasure strategy or strategies for programming 
funds identified in the most recently submitted triennial HSP under 
Sec.  1300.11(b)(4) or in an update to the

[[Page 56800]]

triennial HSP submitted under Sec.  1300.12(b)(1) that the project 
supports.
    (3) Section 405 grant and Section 1906 racial profiling data 
collection grant applications. Application(s) for any of the national 
priority safety program grants and the racial profiling data collection 
grant, in accordance with the requirements of subpart C and as provided 
in Appendix B, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety.
    (4) Certifications and Assurances. The Certifications and 
Assurances for 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 grants contained in 
appendix A, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, 
certifying to the annual grant application contents and providing 
assurances that the State will comply with applicable laws and 
financial and programmatic requirements.
    (c) Review and approval procedures--(1) General. Upon receipt and 
initial review of the annual grant application, NHTSA may request 
additional information from a State to ensure compliance with the 
requirements of this part. Failure to respond promptly to a request for 
additional information concerning the Section 402 grant application may 
result in delayed approval and funding of a State's Section 402 grant. 
Failure to respond promptly to a request for additional information 
concerning a Section 405 or Section 1906 grant application may result 
in a State's disqualification from consideration for a Section 405 or 
Section 1906 grant to avoid a delay in awarding grants to all States. 
NHTSA will not approve a grant application that does not meet the 
requirements of this section.
    (2) Approval or disapproval of annual grant application. Within 60 
days after receipt of the annual grant application under this subpart, 
the NHTSA administrator shall notify States in writing of grant awards 
and specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of 
funds.
    (d) Amendments to project and subrecipient information. 
Notwithstanding the requirement in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to 
provide project and subrecipient information at the time of 
application, States may amend the annual grant application throughout 
the fiscal year of the grant to add additional projects or to update 
project information for previously submitted projects, consistent with 
the process set forth in Sec.  1300.32.

Sec.  1300.13   Special funding conditions for Section 402 Grants.

    The State's highway safety program under Section 402 shall be 
subject to the following conditions, and approval under Sec.  1300.12 
shall be deemed to incorporate these conditions:
    (a) Planning and administration (P & A) costs. (1)(i) Planning and 
administration (P & A) costs are those direct and indirect costs that 
are attributable to the management of the Highway Safety Agency. Such 
costs could include salaries, related personnel benefits, travel 
expenses, and rental costs specific to the Highway Safety Agency. The 
salary of an accountant on the State Highway Safety Agency staff is an 
example of a direct cost attributable to P & A. Centralized support 
services such as personnel, procurement, and budgeting would be 
indirect costs.
    (ii) Program management costs are those costs attributable to a 
program area (e.g., salary and travel expenses of an impaired driving 
program manager/coordinator of a State Highway Safety Agency). 
Compensation for activity hours of a DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) 
enforcement officer is an example of a direct cost attributable to a 
project.
    (2) Federal participation in P & A activities shall not exceed 50 
percent of the total cost of such activities, or the applicable sliding 
scale rate in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120. The Federal contribution 
for P & A activities shall not exceed 15 percent of the total funds the 
State receives under Section 402. In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120(i), 
the Federal share payable for projects in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands shall be 100 percent. The Indian Country is exempt from the 
provisions of P & A requirements. NHTSA funds shall be used only to 
fund P & A activities attributable to NHTSA programs.
    (3) P & A tasks and related costs shall be described in the P & A 
module of the State's annual grant application. The State's matching 
share shall be determined on the basis of the total P & A costs in the 
module.
    (4) A State may allocate salary and related costs of State highway 
safety agency employees to one of the following, depending on the 
activities performed:
    (i) If an employee works solely performing P & A activities, the 
total salary and related costs may be programmed to P & A;
    (ii) If the employee works performing program management activities 
in one or more program areas, the total salary and related costs may be 
charged directly to the appropriate area(s); or
    (iii) If an employee works on a combination of P & A and program 
management activities, the total salary and related costs may be 
charged to P & A and the appropriate program area(s) based on the 
actual time worked under each area. If the State Highway Safety Agency 
elects to allocate costs based on actual time spent on an activity, the 
State Highway Safety Agency must keep accurate time records showing the 
work activities for each employee.
    (b) Participation by political subdivisions (local expenditure 
requirement)--(1) Determining local expenditure. In determining whether 
a State meets the requirement that 40 percent (or 95 percent for Indian 
tribes) of Section 402 funds be expended by political subdivisions 
(also referred to as the local expenditure requirement) in a fiscal 
year, NHTSA will apply the requirement sequentially to each fiscal 
year's apportionments, treating all apportionments made from a single 
fiscal year's authorizations as a single amount for this purpose. 
Therefore, at least 40 percent of each State's apportionments (or at 
least 95 percent of the apportionment to the Secretary of the Interior) 
from each year's authorizations must be used in the highway safety 
programs of its political subdivisions prior to the end of the fiscal 
year.
    (2) Direct expenditures by political subdivisions. When Federal 
funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are expended by a political 
subdivision, such expenditures clearly qualify as part of the required 
local expenditure. A political subdivision may expend funds through 
direct performance of projects (including planning and administration 
of eligible highway safety project-related activities) or by entering 
into contracts or subawards with other entities (including non-profit 
entities) to carry out projects on its behalf.
    (3) Expenditures by State on behalf of a political subdivision. 
Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 that are expended by a 
State on behalf of a specific political subdivision (either through 
direct performance of projects or by entering into contracts or 
subawards with other entities) may qualify as part of the required 
local expenditure, provided there is evidence of the political 
subdivision's involvement in identifying its traffic safety need(s) and 
input into implementation of the activity within its jurisdiction. A 
State may not arbitrarily ascribe State agency expenditures as ``on 
behalf of a local government.'' Such expenditures qualify if--

[[Page 56801]]

    (i) The specific political subdivision is involved in the planning 
process of the State's highway safety program (for example, as part of 
the public participation described in Sec.  1300.11(b)(2), as part of 
the State's planning for the annual grant application, or as part of 
ongoing planning processes), and the State then enters into agreements 
based on identification of need by the political subdivision and 
implements the project or activity accordingly. The State must maintain 
documentation that shows the political subdivision's participation in 
the planning processes (e.g., meeting minutes, data submissions, etc.), 
and also must obtain written acceptance by the political subdivision of 
the project or activity being provided on its behalf prior to 
implementation.
    (ii) The political subdivision is not involved in the planning 
process of the State's highway safety program, but submits a request 
for the State to implement a project on its behalf. The request does 
not need to be a formal application but should, at minimum, contain a 
description of the political subdivision's problem identification and a 
description of where and/or how the project or activity should be 
deployed to have effect within political subdivision (may include: 
identification of media outlets to run advertising, locations for 
billboard/sign placement or enforcement activities, schools or other 
venues to provide educational programming, specific sporting events/
venues, etc.).
    (4) Allocation of qualifying costs. Expenditures qualify as local 
expenditures only when the expenditures meet the qualification criteria 
described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section. In some cases, 
only a portion of the expenditures under a given project may meet those 
requirements. States must allocate funds in proportion to the amount of 
costs that can be documented to meet the requirements for a specific 
political subdivision.
    (5) Waivers. While the requirement for participation by political 
subdivisions may be waived in whole or in part by the NHTSA 
Administrator, it is expected that each State program will generate and 
maintain political subdivision participation at the level specified in 
the Federal statute so that requests for waivers are minimized. Where a 
waiver is requested, however, the State shall submit a written request 
describing the extraordinary circumstances that necessitate a waiver, 
or providing a conclusive showing of the absence of legal authority 
over highway safety activities at the political subdivision levels of 
the State, and must recommend the appropriate percentage participation 
to be applied in lieu of the required 40 percent or 95 percent (for 
Indian tribes) local expenditure.
    (c) Use of grant funds for marijuana-impaired driving. A State that 
has legalized medicinal or recreational marijuana shall consider 
implementing programs to--
    (1) Educate drivers regarding the risks associated with marijuana-
impaired driving; and
    (2) Reduce injuries and deaths resulting from marijuana-impaired 
driving.
    (d) Use of grant funds for unattended passengers program. The State 
must use a portion of grant funds received by the State under Section 
402 to carry out a program to educate the public regarding the risks of 
leaving a child or unattended passenger in a vehicle after the vehicle 
motor is deactivated by the operator.
    (e) Use of grant funds for teen traffic safety program. The State 
may use a portion of the funds received under Section 402 to implement 
statewide efforts to improve traffic safety for teen drivers.
    (f) Prohibition on use of grant funds to check for helmet usage. 
Grant funds under this part shall not be used for programs to check 
helmet usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target 
motorcyclists.
    (g) Prohibition on use of grant funds for automated traffic 
enforcement systems. The State may not expend funds apportioned to the 
State under Section 402 to carry out a program to purchase, operate, or 
maintain an automated traffic enforcement system except in a work zone 
or school zone. Any ATES system installed using grant funds under this 
section must comply with guidelines established by the Secretary, as 
updated.

Sec.  1300.14   [Reserved].

Sec.  1300.15   Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, on October 
1 of each fiscal year, or soon thereafter, the NHTSA Administrator 
shall, in writing, distribute funds available for obligation under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 to the States and specify any 
conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of the funds.
    (b) In the event that authorizations exist but no applicable 
appropriation act has been enacted by October 1 of a fiscal year, the 
NHTSA Administrator may, in writing, distribute a part of the funds 
authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 contract 
authority to the States to ensure program continuity, and in that event 
shall specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use 
of the funds. Upon appropriation of grant funds, the NHTSA 
Administrator shall, in writing, promptly adjust the obligation 
limitation and specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on 
the use of the funds.
    (c) Funds distributed under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section 
shall be available for expenditure by the States to satisfy the Federal 
share of expenses under the approved annual grant application, and 
shall constitute a contractual obligation of the Federal Government, 
subject to any conditions or limitations identified in the distributing 
document. Such funds shall be available for expenditure by the States 
as provided in Sec.  1300.41(b), after which the funds shall lapse.
    (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c) of this 
section, payment of State expenses of 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 
1906 funds shall be contingent upon the State's submission of up-to-
date information about approved projects in the annual grant 
application, in accordance with Sec. Sec.  1300.12(b)(2) and 1300.32.

Subpart C--National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling 
Data Collection Grants

Sec.  1300.20   General.

    (a) Scope. This subpart establishes criteria, in accordance with 
Section 405 for awarding grants to States that adopt and implement 
programs and statutes to address national priorities for reducing 
highway deaths and injuries and, in accordance with Section 1906, for 
awarding grants to States that maintain and allow public inspection of 
race and ethnic information on motor vehicle stops.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this subpart--
    Blood alcohol concentration or BAC means grams of alcohol per 
deciliter or 100 milliliters blood, or grams of alcohol per 210 liters 
of breath.
    Majority means greater than 50 percent.
    Passenger motor vehicle means a passenger car, pickup truck, van, 
minivan or sport utility vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
less than 10,000 pounds.
    Primary offense means an offense for which a law enforcement 
officer may stop a vehicle and issue a citation in the absence of 
evidence of another offense.
    (c) Eligibility and application--(1) Eligibility. Except as 
provided in

[[Page 56802]]

Sec.  1300.25(c), the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands are each eligible to apply for grants 
identified under this subpart.
    (2) Application. For all grants under Section 405 and Section 
1906--
    (i) The Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, on behalf of 
the State, shall sign and submit with the annual grant application, the 
information required under appendix B of this part.
    (ii) If the State is relying on specific elements of the annual 
grant application or triennial HSP as part of its application materials 
for grants under this subpart, the State shall identify the specific 
location where that information is located in the relevant document.
    (d) Qualification based on State statutes. Whenever a qualifying 
State statute is the basis for a grant awarded under this subpart, such 
statute shall have been enacted by the application due date and be in 
effect and enforced, without interruption, by the beginning of and 
throughout the fiscal year of the grant award.
    (e) Transfer of funds. If it is determined after review of 
applications that funds for a grant program under Section 405 will not 
all be awarded and distributed, such funds shall be transferred to 
Section 402 and shall be distributed in proportion to the amount each 
State received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2022 to ensure, to the 
maximum extent practicable, that all funding is distributed.
    (f) Matching. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section, the Federal share of the costs of activities or programs 
funded with grants awarded under this subpart may not exceed 80 
percent.
    (2) The Federal share of the costs of activities or programs funded 
with grants awarded to the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa 
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be 100 
percent.

Sec.  1300.21   Occupant protection grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(b), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective occupant protection programs to reduce highway 
deaths and injuries resulting from individuals riding unrestrained or 
improperly restrained in motor vehicles.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Child restraint means any device (including a child safety seat, 
booster seat used in conjunction with 3-point belts, or harness, but 
excluding seat belts) that is designed for use in a motor vehicle to 
restrain, seat, or position a child who weighs 65 pounds (30 kilograms) 
or less and that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
prescribed by NHTSA for child restraints.
    High seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed 
seat belt use rate of 90.0 percent or higher (not rounded) based on 
validated data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during 
the previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for 
State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR part 1340 (e.g., 
for a grant application submitted on August 1, 2023, the ``previous 
calendar year'' would be 2022).
    Lower seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed 
seat belt use rate below 90.0 percent (not rounded) based on validated 
data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during the 
previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for 
State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR part 1340 (e.g., 
for a grant application submitted on August 1, 2023, the ``previous 
calendar year'' would be 2022).
    Low-income and underserved populations means
    (i) Populations meeting a threshold income level that is at least 
as inclusive as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
Poverty Guidelines \1\ identified by the State, or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available online at https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines/prior-hhs-poverty-guidelines-federal-register-references/2021-poverty-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Populations sharing a particular characteristic or geographic 
location, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to 
participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life.
    Seat belt means, with respect to open-body motor vehicles, 
including convertibles, an occupant restraint system consisting of a 
lap belt or a lap belt and a detachable shoulder belt, and with respect 
to other motor vehicles, an occupant restraint system consisting of 
integrated lap and shoulder belts.
    (c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a 
grant under this section as a high seat belt use rate State or as a 
lower seat belt use rate State, in accordance with paragraph (d) or (e) 
of this section, as applicable.
    (d) Qualification criteria for a high seat belt use rate State. To 
qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant in a fiscal year, a high seat 
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of 
its annual grant application the following documentation, in accordance 
with part 1 of appendix B to this part:
    (1) Occupant protection plan. State occupant protection program 
area plan, updated annually, that
    (i) Identifies the safety problems to be addressed, performance 
measures and targets, and the countermeasure strategies the State will 
implement to address those problems, at the level of detail required 
under Sec.  1300.11(b); and
    (ii) Identifies the projects, provided under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2), 
that the State will implement during the fiscal year to carry out the 
plan.
    (2) Participation in Click-it-or-Ticket national mobilization. 
Description of the State's planned participation in the Click it or 
Ticket national mobilization, including a list of participating 
agencies during the fiscal year of the grant;
    (3) Child restraint inspection stations. (i) Projects, at the level 
of detail required under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2), demonstrating an active 
network of child passenger safety inspection stations and/or inspection 
events based on the State's problem identification. The description 
must include estimates for the following requirements in the upcoming 
fiscal year:
    (A) The total number of planned inspection stations and/or events 
in the State; and
    (B) Within the total in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of this section, the 
number of planned inspection stations and/or inspection events serving 
each of the following population categories: urban, rural, and at-risk.
    (ii) Certification, signed by the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety, that the inspection stations/events are staffed with at 
least one current nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety 
Technician.
    (4) Child passenger safety technicians. Projects, at the level of 
detail required under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2), for recruiting, training and 
maintaining a sufficient number of child passenger safety technicians 
based on the State's problem identification. The description must 
include, at a minimum, an estimate of the total number of classes and 
the estimated total number of technicians to be trained in the upcoming 
fiscal year to ensure coverage of child passenger safety inspection 
stations and inspection events by nationally Certified Child Passenger 
Safety Technicians.
    (e) Qualification criteria for a lower seat belt use rate State. To 
qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant in a fiscal year, a lower seat 
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall satisfy all the 
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, and submit as part of 
its annual grant application documentation demonstrating that it meets 
at least three

[[Page 56803]]

of the following additional criteria, in accordance with part 1 of 
appendix B to this part:
    (1) Primary enforcement seat belt use statute. The State shall 
provide legal citations to the State law demonstrating that the State 
has enacted and is enforcing occupant protection statutes that make a 
violation of the requirement to be secured in a seat belt or child 
restraint a primary offense.
    (2) Occupant protection statute. The State shall provide legal 
citations to State law demonstrating that the State has enacted and is 
enforcing occupant protection statutes that:
    (i) Require--
    (A) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle who is under 
eight years of age, weighs less than 65 pounds and is less than four 
feet, nine inches in height to be secured in an age-appropriate child 
restraint;
    (B) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle other than an 
occupant identified in paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) of this section to be 
secured in a seat belt or age- appropriate child restraint;
    (C) A minimum fine of $25 per unrestrained occupant for a violation 
of the occupant protection statutes described in this paragraph 
(e)(2)(i).
    (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, permit no 
exception from coverage except for--
    (A) Drivers, but not passengers, of postal, utility, and commercial 
vehicles that make frequent stops in the course of their business;
    (B) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because of a medical condition, provided there is written documentation 
from a physician;
    (C) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because all other seating positions are occupied by persons properly 
restrained in seat belts or child restraints;
    (D) Emergency vehicle operators and passengers in emergency 
vehicles during an emergency;
    (E) Persons riding in seating positions or vehicles not required by 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to be equipped with seat belts; 
or
    (F) Passengers in public and livery conveyances.
    (3) Seat belt enforcement. The State shall identify the projects, 
at the level of detail required under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2), and provide 
a description demonstrating that the State conducts sustained 
enforcement (i.e., a program of recurring efforts throughout the fiscal 
year of the grant to promote seat belt and child restraint 
enforcement), and that based on the State's problem identification, 
involves law enforcement agencies responsible for seat belt enforcement 
in geographic areas in which at least 70 percent of either the State's 
unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities occurred or combined 
fatalities and serious injuries occurred.
    (4) High risk population countermeasure programs. The State shall 
identify the projects, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.12(b)(2), demonstrating that the State will implement data-driven 
programs to improve seat belt and child restraint use for at least two 
of the following at-risk populations:
    (i) Drivers on rural roadways;
    (ii) Unrestrained nighttime drivers;
    (iii) Teenage drivers;
    (iv) Other high-risk populations identified in the occupant 
protection program area plan required under paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section.
    (5) Comprehensive occupant protection program. The State shall 
submit the following:
    (i) Date of NHTSA-facilitated program assessment that was conducted 
within five years prior to the application due date that evaluates the 
occupant protection program for elements designed to increase seat belt 
use in the State;
    (ii) Multi-year strategic plan based on input from Statewide 
stakeholders (task force), updated on a triennial basis, under which 
the State developed--
    (A) Data-driven performance targets to improve occupant protection 
in the State, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.11(b)(3);
    (B) Countermeasure strategies (such as enforcement, education, 
communication, policies/legislation, partnerships/outreach) designed to 
achieve the performance targets of the strategic plan, at the level of 
detail required under Sec.  1300.11(b)(4), which must include an 
enforcement strategy that includes activities such as encouraging seat 
belt use policies for law enforcement agencies, vigorous enforcement of 
seat belt and child safety seat statutes, and accurate reporting of 
occupant protection system information on police crash report forms; 
and
    (C) A program management strategy that provides leadership and 
identifies the State official responsible for implementing various 
aspects of the multi-year strategic plan.
    (iii) The name and title of the State's designated occupant 
protection coordinator responsible for managing the occupant protection 
program in the State, including developing the occupant protection 
program area of the triennial HSP and overseeing the execution of the 
projects designated in the annual grant application; and
    (iv) A list that contains the names, titles and organizations of 
the Statewide occupant protection task force membership that includes 
agencies and organizations that can help develop, implement, enforce 
and evaluate occupant protection programs.
    (6) Occupant protection program assessment. The State shall 
identify the date of the NHTSA-facilitated assessment of all elements 
of its occupant protection program, which must have been conducted 
within five years prior to the application due date.
    (f) Award amounts. The amount of a grant awarded to a State in a 
fiscal year under this section shall be in proportion to the amount 
each State received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2009.
    (g) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraph (g)(2) of this section, a State may use grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(b) for the following programs or purposes only:
    (i) To support high-visibility enforcement mobilizations, including 
paid media that emphasizes publicity for the program, and law 
enforcement;
    (ii) To train occupant protection safety professionals, police 
officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, educators, and parents 
concerning all aspects of the use of child restraints and occupant 
protection;
    (iii) To educate the public concerning the proper use and 
installation of child restraints, including related equipment and 
information systems;
    (iv) To provide community child passenger safety services, 
including programs about proper seating positions for children and how 
to reduce the improper use of child restraints;
    (v) To implement programs--
    (A) To recruit and train nationally certified child passenger 
safety technicians among police officers, fire and other first 
responders, emergency medical personnel, and other individuals or 
organizations serving low-income and underserved populations;
    (B) To educate parents and caregivers in low-income and underserved 
populations regarding the importance of proper use and correct 
installation of child restraints on every trip in a motor vehicle;
    (C) To purchase and distribute child restraints to low-income and 
underserved populations; or
    (vi) To establish and maintain information systems containing data 
about occupant protection, including the collection and administration 
of

[[Page 56804]]

child passenger safety and occupant protection surveys.
    (2) Special rule. Notwithstanding paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section--
    (i) A State that qualifies for grant funds must use not less than 
10 percent of grant funds awarded under this section to carry out 
activities described in paragraph (g)(1)(v) of this section.
    (ii) A State that qualifies for grant funds as a high seat belt use 
rate State may elect to use no more than 90 percent of grant funds 
awarded under this section for any eligible project or activity under 
Section 402.

Sec.  1300.22   State Traffic safety information system improvements 
grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(c), for grants to States to develop and implement 
effective programs that improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 
uniformity, integration, and accessibility of State safety data needed 
to identify priorities for Federal, State, and local highway and 
traffic safety programs; evaluate the effectiveness of such efforts; 
link State data systems, including traffic records and systems that 
contain medical, roadway, and economic data; improve the compatibility 
and interoperability of State data systems with national data systems 
and the data systems of other States, including the National EMS 
Information System; and enhance the agency's ability to observe and 
analyze national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and 
circumstances.
    (b) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a grant under this 
section in a fiscal year, a State shall submit as part of its annual 
grant application the following documentation, in accordance with part 
2 of appendix B:
    (1) Certification. The State shall submit a certification that it 
has--
    (i) A functioning traffic records coordinating committee (TRCC) 
that meets at least three times each year;
    (ii) Designated a traffic records coordinating committee 
coordinator; and
    (iii) Established a State traffic records strategic plan, updated 
annually, that has been approved by the TRCC and describes specific, 
quantifiable and measurable improvements anticipated in the State's 
core safety databases, including crash, citation or adjudication, 
driver, emergency medical services or injury surveillance system, 
roadway, and vehicle databases; and
    (2) Quantitative improvement. The State shall demonstrate 
quantitative improvement in the data attribute of accuracy, 
completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or integration of a 
core database by providing--
    (i) A written description of the performance measure(s) that 
clearly identifies which performance attribute for which core database 
the State is relying on to demonstrate progress using the methodology 
set forth in the ``Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records 
Systems'' (DOT HS 811 441), as updated; and
    (ii) Supporting documentation covering a contiguous 12-month 
performance period starting no earlier than April 1 of the calendar 
year prior to the application due date, that demonstrates quantitative 
improvement when compared to the comparable 12-month baseline period.
    (c) Award amounts. The amount of a grant awarded to a State in a 
fiscal year under this section shall be in proportion to the amount the 
State received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2009.
    (d) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
23 U.S.C. 405(c) only to make data program improvements to core highway 
safety databases relating to quantifiable, measurable progress in the 
accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or 
integration of data in a core highway safety database, including 
through:
    (1) Software or applications to identify, collect, and report data 
to State and local government agencies, and enter data into State core 
highway safety databases, including crash, citation or adjudication, 
driver, emergency medical services or injury surveillance system, 
roadway, and vehicle data;
    (2) Purchasing equipment to improve a process by which data are 
identified, collated, and reported to State and local government 
agencies, including technology for use by law enforcement for near-real 
time, electronic reporting of crash data;
    (3) Improving the compatibility and interoperability of the core 
highway safety databases of the State with national data systems and 
data systems of other States, including the National EMS Information 
System;
    (4) Enhancing the ability of a State and the Secretary to observe 
and analyze local, State, and national trends in crash occurrences, 
rates, outcomes, and circumstances;
    (5) Supporting traffic records improvement training and 
expenditures for law enforcement, emergency medical, judicial, 
prosecutorial, and traffic records professionals;
    (6) Hiring traffic records professionals for the purpose of 
improving traffic information systems (including a State Fatal Accident 
Reporting System (FARS) liaison);
    (7) Adoption of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria, or 
providing to the public information regarding why any of those criteria 
will not be used, if applicable;
    (8) Supporting reporting criteria relating to emerging topics, 
including--
    (i) Impaired driving as a result of drug, alcohol, or polysubstance 
consumption; and
    (ii) Advanced technologies present on motor vehicles; and
    (9) Conducting research relating to State traffic safety 
information systems, including developing programs to improve core 
highway safety databases and processes by which data are identified, 
collected, reported to State and local government agencies, and entered 
into State core safety databases.

Sec.  1300.23   Impaired driving countermeasures grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(d), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems 
resulting from individuals driving motor vehicles while under the 
influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs; 
that enact alcohol-ignition interlock laws; or that implement 24-7 
sobriety programs.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    24-7 sobriety program means a State law or program that authorizes 
a State or local court or an agency with jurisdiction, as a condition 
of bond, sentence, probation, parole, or work permit, to require an 
individual who was arrested for, pleads guilty to, or was convicted of 
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to--
    (i) Abstain totally from alcohol or drugs for a period of time; and
    (ii) Be subject to testing for alcohol or drugs at least twice per 
day at a testing location, by continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring 
via an electronic monitoring device, by drug patch, by urinalysis, by 
ignition interlock monitoring (provided the interlock is able to 
require tests twice a day without vehicle operation), by other types of 
electronic monitoring, or by an alternative method approved by NHTSA.
    Assessment means a NHTSA-facilitated process that employs a team of 
subject matter experts to conduct a comprehensive review of a specific 
highway safety program in a State.
    Average impaired driving fatality rate means the number of 
fatalities in motor vehicle crashes involving a driver with

[[Page 56805]]

a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 percent for every 
100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled, based on the most recently reported 
three calendar years of final data from the FARS.
    Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of 
alcohol and drugs means operating a vehicle while the alcohol and/or 
drug concentration in the blood or breath, as determined by chemical or 
other tests, equals or exceeds the level established by the State, or 
is equivalent to the standard offense, for driving under the influence 
of alcohol or drugs in the State.
    Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Court means a court that 
specializes in cases involving driving while intoxicated and abides by 
the Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts in effect on the date of the 
grant, as established by the National Center for DWI Courts.
    High-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate of 0.60 or higher.
    High-visibility enforcement efforts means participation in national 
impaired driving law enforcement campaigns organized by NHTSA, 
participation in impaired driving law enforcement campaigns organized 
by the State, or the use of sobriety checkpoints and/or saturation 
patrols conducted in a highly visible manner and supported by publicity 
through paid or earned media.
    Low-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate of 0.30 or lower.
    Mid-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate that is higher than 0.30 and lower than 0.60.
    Restriction on driving privileges means any type of State-imposed 
limitation, such as a license revocation or suspension, location 
restriction, alcohol-ignition interlock device, or alcohol use 
prohibition.
    Saturation patrol means a law enforcement activity during which 
enhanced levels of law enforcement are conducted in a concentrated 
geographic area (or areas) for the purpose of detecting drivers 
operating motor vehicles while impaired by alcohol and/or other drugs.
    Sobriety checkpoint means a law enforcement activity during which 
law enforcement officials stop motor vehicles on a non-discriminatory, 
lawful basis for the purpose of determining whether the operators of 
such motor vehicles are driving while impaired by alcohol and/or other 
drugs.
    Standard offense for driving under the influence of alcohol or 
drugs means the offense described in a State's statute that makes it a 
criminal offense to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence 
of alcohol or drugs, but does not require a measurement of alcohol or 
drug content.
    (c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a 
grant under this section as a low-range State, a mid-range State or a 
high-range State, in accordance with paragraph (d), (e), or (f) of this 
section, as applicable. Independent of qualification on the basis of 
range, a State may also qualify for separate grants under this section 
as a State with an alcohol-ignition interlock law, as provided in 
paragraph (g) of this section, or as a State with a 24-7 sobriety 
program, as provided in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (d) Qualification criteria for a low-range State. To qualify for an 
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant in a fiscal year, a low-range 
State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of its annual grant 
application the assurances in Part 3 of Appendix B that the State will 
use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(1) only for the 
implementation and enforcement of programs authorized in paragraph (j) 
of this section.
    (e) Qualification criteria for a mid-range State. (1) General 
requirements. To qualify for an Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant 
in a fiscal year, a mid-range State (as determined by NHTSA) shall 
submit as part of its annual grant application the assurance required 
in paragraph (d) of this section and a copy of a Statewide impaired 
driving plan that contains the following information, in accordance 
with part 3 of appendix B to this part:
    (i) Section that describes the authority and basis for the 
operation of the Statewide impaired driving task force, including the 
process used to develop and approve the plan and date of approval;
    (ii) List that contains names, titles, and organizations of all 
task force members, provided that the task force includes stakeholders 
from the following groups:
    (A) State Highway Safety Office;
    (B) State and local law enforcement;
    (C) Criminal justice system (e.g., prosecution, adjudication, and 
probation);
    (D) Public health;
    (E) Drug-impaired driving countermeasure expert (e.g., DRE 
coordinator); and
    (F) Communications and community engagement specialist.
    (iii) Strategic plan based on the most recent version of Highway 
Safety Program Guideline No. 8--Impaired Driving, which, at a minimum, 
covers the following:
    (A) Program management and strategic planning;
    (B) Prevention, including community engagement and coalitions;
    (C) Criminal justice systems;
    (D) Communications programs;
    (E) Alcohol and other drug misuse, including screening, treatment, 
assessment and rehabilitation; and
    (F) Program evaluation and data.
    (2) Assurance qualification for fiscal year 2024 grants. For the 
application due date of August 1, 2023 only, if a mid-range State is 
not able to meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section, 
the State may submit the assurance required in paragraph (d) of this 
section and a separate assurance that the State will convene a 
Statewide impaired driving task force to develop a Statewide impaired 
driving plan that meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section, and submit the Statewide impaired driving plan by August 1 of 
the grant year. The agency will require the return of grant funds 
awarded under this section if the State fails to submit a plan that 
meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section by the 
deadline and will redistribute any such grant funds in accordance with 
Sec.  1200.20(e) to other qualifying States under this section.
    (3) Previously submitted plan. A mid-range State that has received 
a grant for a previously submitted Statewide impaired driving plan 
under paragraph (e)(1) or (f)(1) of this section that was approved 
after the application due date of August 1, 2023 and for a period of 
three years after the approval occurs may, in lieu of submitting the 
plan required under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, submit the 
assurance required in paragraph (d) of this section and a separate 
assurance that the State continues to use the previously submitted 
plan.
    (f) Qualification criteria for a high-range State. (1) General 
requirements. To qualify for an Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant 
in a fiscal year, a high-range State (as determined by NHTSA) shall 
submit as part of its annual grant application the assurance required 
in paragraph (d) of this section, the date of a NHTSA-facilitated 
assessment of the State's impaired driving program conducted within 
three years prior to the application due date, a copy of a Statewide 
impaired driving plan that contains the information required in 
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and that includes 
the following additional information, in accordance with part 3 of 
appendix B to this part:

[[Page 56806]]

    (i) Review that addresses in each plan area any related 
recommendations from the assessment of the State's impaired driving 
program;
    (ii) Projects implementing impaired driving activities listed in 
paragraph (j)(4) of this section that must include high-visibility 
enforcement efforts, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.12(b)(2); and
    (iii) Description of how the spending supports the State's impaired 
driving program and achievement of its performance targets.
    (2) Assurance qualification for fiscal year 2024 grants. For the 
application due date of August 1, 2023 only, if a high-range State is 
not able to the meet the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section, the State may submit the assurance required in paragraph (d) 
of this section and separate information that the State has conducted a 
NHTSA-facilitated assessment within the last three years, or an 
assurance that the State will conduct a NHTSA-facilitated assessment 
during the grant year and convene a statewide impaired driving task 
force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan that meets the 
requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, and submit the 
statewide impaired driving plan by August 1 of the grant year. The 
agency will require the return of grant funds awarded under this 
section if the State fails to submit a plan that meets the requirements 
of paragraph (f)(1) of this section by the deadline and will 
redistribute any such grant funds in accordance with Sec.  1200.20(e) 
to other qualifying States under this section.
    (3) Previously submitted plans. A high-range State that has 
received a grant for a previously submitted Statewide impaired driving 
plan under paragraph (f)(1) of this section that was approved after the 
application due date of August 1, 2023 and for a period of three years 
after the approval occurs may, in lieu of submitting the plan required 
under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, submit the assurance required 
in paragraph (d) of this section and provide updates to its Statewide 
impaired driving plan that meet the requirements of paragraphs 
(e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and updates to its assessment 
review and spending plan that meet the requirements of paragraphs 
(f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (g) Grants to States with alcohol-ignition interlock laws. (1) To 
qualify for an alcohol-ignition interlock law grant, a State shall 
submit legal citation(s) or program information (for paragraph 
(g)(1)(iii)(B) of this section only), in accordance with part 4 of 
appendix B to this part, that demonstrates that--
    (i) All individuals who are convicted of driving under the 
influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated are permitted to 
drive only motor vehicles equipped with alcohol-ignition interlocks for 
a period of not less than 180 days; or
    (ii) All individuals who are convicted of driving under the 
influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated and who are 
ordered to use an alcohol-ignition interlock are not permitted to 
receive any driving privilege or driver's license unless each such 
individual installs on each motor vehicle registered, owned, or leased 
by the individual an alcohol-ignition interlock for a period of not 
less than 180 days; or
    (iii)(A) All individuals who are convicted of, or whose driving 
privileges have been revoked or denied for, refusing to submit to a 
chemical or other appropriate test for the purpose of determining the 
presence or concentration of any intoxicating substance and who are 
ordered to use an alcohol-ignition interlock are required to install on 
each motor vehicle to be operated by each such individual an alcohol-
ignition interlock for a period of not less than 180 days; and
    (B) All individuals who are convicted of driving under the 
influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated and who are 
ordered to use an alcohol-ignition interlock must--
    (1) Install on each motor vehicle to be operated by each such 
individual an alcohol-ignition interlock for a period of not less than 
180 days; and
    (2) Complete a minimum consecutive period of not less than 40 
percent of the required period of alcohol-ignition interlock 
installation immediately prior to the end of each such individual's 
installation requirement, without a confirmed violation of the State's 
alcohol-ignition interlock program use requirements.
    (2) Permitted exceptions. A State statute providing for the 
following exceptions, and no others, shall not be deemed out of 
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section:
    (i) The individual is required to operate an employer's motor 
vehicle in the course and scope of employment and the business entity 
that owns the vehicle is not owned or controlled by the individual;
    (ii) The individual is certified in writing by a physician as being 
unable to provide a deep lung breath sample for analysis by an ignition 
interlock device; or
    (iii) A State-certified ignition interlock provider is not 
available within 100 miles of the individual's residence.
    (h) Grants to States with a 24-7 Sobriety Program. To qualify for a 
24-7 sobriety program grant, a State shall submit the following as part 
of its annual grant application, in accordance with part 5 of appendix 
B to this part:
    (1) Legal citation(s) to State statute demonstrating that the State 
has enacted and is enforcing a statute that requires all individuals 
convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or of driving while 
intoxicated to receive a restriction on driving privileges, unless an 
exception in paragraph (g)(2) of this section applies, for a period of 
not less than 30 days; and
    (2) Legal citation(s) to State statute or submission of State 
program information that authorizes a Statewide 24-7 sobriety program.
    (i) Award amounts. (1) The amount available for grants under 
paragraphs (d) through (f) of this section shall be determined based on 
the total amount of eligible States for these grants and after 
deduction of the amounts necessary to fund grants under 23 U.S.C. 
405(d)(6).
    (2) The amount available for grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6)(A) 
shall not exceed 12 percent of the total amount made available to 
States under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for the fiscal year.
    (3) The amount available for grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6)(B) 
shall not exceed 3 percent of the total amount made available to States 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for the fiscal year.
    (j) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraphs (j)(2) through (6) of this section, a State may use grant 
funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) only for the following programs:
    (i) High-visibility enforcement efforts;
    (ii) Hiring a full-time or part-time impaired driving coordinator 
of the State's activities to address the enforcement and adjudication 
of laws regarding driving while impaired by alcohol, drugs or the 
combination of alcohol and drugs;
    (iii) Court support of impaired driving prevention efforts, 
including--
    (A) Hiring criminal justice professionals, including law 
enforcement officers, prosecutors, traffic safety resource prosecutors, 
judges, judicial outreach liaisons, and probation officers;
    (B) Training and education of those professionals to assist the 
professionals in preventing impaired driving and handling impaired 
driving cases, including by providing compensation to a law enforcement 
officer to carry out

[[Page 56807]]

safety grant activities to replace a law enforcement officer who is 
receiving drug recognition expert training or participating as an 
instructor in that drug recognition expert training; or
    (C) Establishing driving while intoxicated courts;
    (iv) Alcohol ignition interlock programs;
    (v) Improving blood alcohol and drug concentration screening and 
testing, detection of potentially impairing drugs (including through 
the use of oral fluid as a specimen), and reporting relating to testing 
and detection;
    (vi) Paid and earned media in support of high-visibility 
enforcement efforts, conducting initial and continuing standardized 
field sobriety training, advanced roadside impaired driving evaluation 
training, law enforcement phlebotomy training, and drug recognition 
expert training for law enforcement, and equipment and related 
expenditures used in connection with impaired driving enforcement;
    (vii) Training on the use of alcohol and drug screening and brief 
intervention;
    (viii) Training for and implementation of impaired driving 
assessment programs or other tools designed to increase the probability 
of identifying the recidivism risk of a person convicted of driving 
under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and 
drugs and to determine the most effective mental health or substance 
abuse treatment or sanction that will reduce such risk;
    (ix) Developing impaired driving information systems;
    (x) Costs associated with a 24-7 sobriety program; or
    (xi) Testing and implementing programs, and purchasing 
technologies, to better identify, monitor, or treat impaired drivers, 
including--
    (A) Oral fluid-screening technologies;
    (B) Electronic warrant programs;
    (C) Equipment to increase the scope, quantity, quality, and 
timeliness of forensic toxicology chemical testing;
    (D) Case management software to support the management of impaired 
driving offenders; or
    (E) Technology to monitor impaired-driving offenders, and equipment 
and related expenditures used in connection with impaired-driving 
enforcement.
    (2) Special rule--low-range States. Notwithstanding paragraph 
(j)(1) of this section, a State that qualifies for grant funds as a 
low-range State may elect to use--
    (i) Grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for programs 
designed to reduce impaired driving based on problem identification, in 
accordance with Sec.  1300.11; and
    (ii) Up to 50 percent of grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) 
for any eligible project or activity under Section 402.
    (3) Special rule--mid-range States. Notwithstanding paragraph 
(j)(1) of this section, a State that qualifies for grant funds as a 
mid-range State may elect to use grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 
405(d) for programs designed to reduce impaired driving based on 
problem identification in accordance with Sec.  1300.11, provided the 
State receives advance approval from NHTSA.
    (4) Special rule--high-range States. Notwithstanding paragraph 
(j)(1) of this section, a high-range State may use grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) only for--
    (i) High-visibility enforcement efforts; and
    (ii) Any of the eligible uses described in paragraph (j)(1) of this 
section or programs designed to reduce impaired driving based on 
problem identification, in accordance with Sec.  1300.11, if all 
proposed uses are described in a Statewide impaired driving plan 
submitted to and approved by NHTSA in accordance with paragraph (f) of 
this section.
    (5) Special rule--reporting and impaired driving measures. 
Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1) of this section, a State may use grant 
funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for any expenditure relating to--
    (i) Increasing the timely and accurate reporting to Federal, State, 
and local databases of crash information, including electronic crash 
reporting systems that allow accurate real-or near-real-time uploading 
of crash information, or impaired driving criminal justice information; 
or
    (ii) Researching or evaluating impaired driving countermeasures.
    (6) Special rule--States with alcohol-ignition interlock laws or 
24-7 sobriety programs. Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1) of this 
section, a State may elect to use grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 
405(d)(6) for any eligible project or activity under Section 402.

Sec.  1300.24   Distracted driving grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(e), for awarding grants to States that include distracted 
driving awareness as part of the driver's license examination and enact 
and enforce a statute prohibiting distracted driving.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Driving means operating a motor vehicle on a public road, and does 
not include operating a motor vehicle when the vehicle has pulled over 
to the side of, or off, an active roadway and has stopped in a location 
where it can safely remain stationary.
    Personal wireless communications device means a device through 
which personal wireless services are transmitted; and a mobile 
telephone or other portable electronic communication device with which 
the user engages in a call or writes, sends, or reads a text message 
using at least one hand. Personal wireless communications device does 
not include a global navigation satellite system receiver used for 
positioning, emergency notification, or navigation purposes.
    Text means to read from, or manually enter data into, a personal 
wireless communications device, including for the purpose of SMS 
texting, emailing, instant messaging, or any other form of electronic 
data retrieval or electronic data communication; and manually to enter, 
send, or retrieve a text message to communicate with another individual 
or device.
    Text message means a text-based message, an instant message, an 
electronic message, and email, but does not include an emergency alert, 
traffic alert, weather alert, or a message relating to the operation or 
navigation of a motor vehicle.
    (c) Qualification criteria for a Distracted Driving Awareness 
Grant. To qualify for a Distracted Driving Awareness Grant in a fiscal 
year, a State shall submit as part of its annual grant application, in 
accordance with part 6 of appendix B to this part, sample distracted 
driving questions from the State's driver's license examination.
    (d) Qualification criteria for a Distracted Driving Law Grant. To 
qualify for a Distracted Driving Law Grant in a fiscal year, a State 
shall submit as part of its annual grant application, in accordance 
with part 6 of appendix B to this part, legal citations to the State 
statute demonstrating compliance with one of the following 
requirements:
    (1) Prohibition on texting while driving. The State statute shall--
    (i) Prohibit a driver from texting through a personal wireless 
communications device while driving;
    (ii) Establish a fine for a violation of the statute; and
    (iii) Not provide for an exemption that specifically allows a 
driver to use a personal wireless communication device for texting 
while stopped in traffic.
    (2) Prohibition on handheld phone use while driving. The State 
statute shall--

[[Page 56808]]

    (i) Prohibit a driver from holding a personal wireless 
communications device while driving;
    (ii) Establishes a fine for a violation of that law; and
    (iii) Not provide for an exemption that specifically allows a 
driver to use a personal wireless communications device for texting 
while stopped in traffic.
    (3) Prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving. The State 
statute shall--
    (i) Prohibit a driver who is younger than 18 years of age or in the 
learner's permit or intermediate license stage from using a personal 
wireless communications device while driving;
    (ii) Establish a fine for a violation of the statute; and
    (iii) Not provide for an exemption that specifically allows a 
driver to use a personal wireless communication device for texting 
while stopped in traffic.
    (4) Prohibition on viewing devices while driving. The State statute 
shall prohibit a driver from viewing a personal wireless communications 
device (except for purposes of navigation).
    (5) Permitted exceptions. For State statutes under paragraphs 
(d)(1) through (3) of this section, a State statute providing for the 
following exceptions, and no others, shall not be deemed out of 
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (d):
    (i) A driver who uses a personal wireless communications device 
during an emergency to contact emergency services to prevent injury to 
persons or property;
    (ii) Emergency services personnel who use a personal wireless 
communications device while operating an emergency services vehicle and 
engaged in the performance of their duties as emergency services 
personnel;
    (iii) An individual employed as a commercial motor vehicle driver 
or a school bus driver who uses a personal wireless communications 
device within the scope of such individual's employment if such use is 
permitted under the regulations promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
31136;
    (iv) A driver who uses a personal wireless communications device 
for navigation;
    (v) except for a law described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section 
(prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving), the use of a 
personal wireless communications device in a hands-free manner, with a 
hands-free accessory, or with the activation or deactivation of a 
feature or function of the personal wireless communications device with 
the motion of a single swipe or tap of the finger of the driver.
    (e) Award amounts--(1) In general. (i) The amount available for 
distracted driving awareness grants under paragraph (c) of this section 
shall not be less than 50 percent of the amounts available under 23 
U.S.C. 405(e) for the fiscal year; and the amount available for 
distracted driving law grants under paragraph (d) of this section shall 
not be more than 50 percent of the amounts available under 23 U.S.C. 
405(e) for the fiscal year.
    (ii) A State may be eligible for a distracted driving awareness 
grant under paragraph (c) of this section and for one additional 
distracted driving law grant under paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) Grant amount.--(i) Distracted driving awareness. The amount of 
a distracted driving awareness grant awarded to a State under paragraph 
(c) of this section shall be based on the proportion that the 
apportionment of the State under section 402 for fiscal year 2009 bears 
to the apportionment of all States under section 402 for that fiscal 
year.
    (ii) Distracted driving laws. Subject to paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of 
this section, the amount of a distracted driving law grant awarded to a 
State under paragraph (d) of this section shall be based on the 
proportion that the apportionment of the State under section 402 for 
fiscal year 2009 bears to the apportionment of all States under section 
402 for that fiscal year.
    (iii) Special rules for distracted driving laws. (A) A State that 
qualifies for a distracted driving law grant under paragraph (d)(1), 
(2), or (3) of this section and enforces the law as a primary offense 
shall receive 100 percent of the amount under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of 
this section.
    (B) A State that qualifies for a distracted driving law grant under 
paragraph (d)(1), (2), or (3) of this section and enforces the law as a 
secondary offense shall receive 50 percent of the amount under 
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (C) A State that qualifies for a prohibition on viewing devices 
while driving law grant under paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall 
receive 25 percent of the amount under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this 
section.
    (f) Use of funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this section, a State may use grant funds 
awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(e) only to educate the public through 
advertising that contains information about the dangers of texting or 
using a cell phone while driving, for traffic signs that notify drivers 
about the distracted driving law of the State, or for law enforcement 
costs related to the enforcement of the distracted driving law.
    (2) Special rule. Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(1) of this section, 
a State may elect to use up to 50 percent of the grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(e) for any eligible project or activity under 
Section 402.
    (3) Special rule--MMUCC conforming States. Notwithstanding 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, a State may use up to 75 
percent of amounts received under 23 U.S.C. 405(e) for any eligible 
project or activity under Section 402 if the State has conformed its 
distracted driving data element(s) to the most recent Model Minimum 
Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). To demonstrate conformance with MMUCC, 
the State shall submit within 30 days after notification of award, the 
State's most recent crash report with the distracted driving data 
element(s). NHTSA will notify those States submitting a crash report 
with the distracted driving data element(s) whether the State's 
distracted driving data element(s) conform(s) with the most recent 
MMUCC.

Sec.  1300.25   Motorcyclist safety grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(f), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective programs to reduce the number of single-vehicle and 
multiple-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Data State means a State that does not have a statute or regulation 
requiring that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for 
the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to 
be used for motorcycle training and safety programs but can show 
through data and/or documentation from official records that all fees 
collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding 
motorcycle training and safety programs were, in fact, used for 
motorcycle training and safety programs, without diversion.
    Impaired means alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired as defined by 
State law, provided that the State's legal alcohol-impairment level 
does not exceed .08 BAC.
    Law State means a State that has a statute or regulation requiring 
that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to be 
used for motorcycle

[[Page 56809]]

training and safety programs and no statute or regulation diverting any 
of those fees.
    Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or 
saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than 
three wheels in contact with the ground.
    State means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.
    (c) Eligibility. The 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico are eligible to apply for a Motorcyclist Safety Grant.
    (d) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a Motorcyclist Safety 
Grant in a fiscal year, a State shall submit as part of its annual 
grant application documentation demonstrating compliance with at least 
two of the criteria in paragraphs (e) through (k) of this section.
    (e) Motorcycle rider training course. A State shall have an 
effective motorcycle rider training course that is offered throughout 
the State and that provides a formal program of instruction in crash 
avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills to 
motorcyclists. To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State 
shall submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B to this part--
    (1) A certification identifying the head of the designated State 
authority over motorcyclist safety issues and stating that the head of 
the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues has 
approved and the State has adopted one of the following introductory 
rider curricula:
    (i) Motorcycle Safety Foundation Basic Rider Course;
    (ii) TEAM OREGON Basic Rider Training;
    (iii) Idaho STAR Basic I;
    (iv) California Motorcyclist Safety Program Motorcyclist Training 
Course;
    (v) A curriculum that has been approved by the designated State 
authority and NHTSA as meeting NHTSA's Model National Standards for 
Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training; and
    (2) A list of the counties or political subdivisions in the State 
where motorcycle rider training courses will be conducted during the 
fiscal year of the grant and the number of registered motorcycles in 
each such county or political subdivision according to official State 
motor vehicle records, provided that the State must offer at least one 
motorcycle rider training course in counties or political subdivisions 
that collectively account for a majority of the State's registered 
motorcycles.
    (f) Motorcyclist awareness program. A State shall have an effective 
Statewide program to enhance motorist awareness of the presence of 
motorcyclists on or near roadways and safe driving practices that avoid 
injuries to motorcyclists. To demonstrate compliance with this 
criterion, the State shall submit, in accordance with part 7 of 
appendix B to this part--
    (1) A certification identifying the head of the designated State 
authority over motorcyclist safety issues and stating that the State's 
motorcyclist awareness program was developed by or in coordination with 
the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues; and
    (2) One or more performance measures and corresponding performance 
targets developed for motorcycle awareness at the level of detail 
required under Sec.  1300.11(b)(3) that identifies, using State crash 
data, the counties or political subdivisions within the State with the 
highest number of motorcycle crashes involving a motorcycle and another 
motor vehicle. Such data shall be from the most recent calendar year 
for which final State crash data are available, but must be data no 
older than three calendar years prior to the application due date 
(e.g., for a grant application submitted on August 1, 2023, a State 
shall provide calendar year 2022 data, if available, and may not 
provide data older than calendar year 2020); and
    (3) Projects, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.12(b)(2), demonstrating that the State will implement data-driven 
programs in a majority of counties or political subdivisions where the 
incidence of crashes involving a motorcycle and another motor vehicle 
is highest. The State shall submit a list of counties or political 
subdivisions in the State ranked in order of the highest to lowest 
number of crashes involving a motorcycle and another motor vehicle per 
county or political subdivision. Such data shall be from the most 
recent calendar year for which final State crash data are available, 
but data must be no older than three calendar years prior to the 
application due date (e.g., for a grant application submitted on August 
1, 2023, a State shall provide calendar year 2022 data, if available, 
and may not provide data older than calendar year 2020). The State 
shall select projects implementing those countermeasure strategies to 
address the State's motorcycle safety problem areas in order to meet 
the performance targets identified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (g) Helmet law. A State shall have a law requiring the use of a 
helmet for each motorcycle rider under the age of 18. To demonstrate 
compliance with this criterion, the State shall submit, in accordance 
with part 7 of appendix B to this part, the legal citation to the 
statute(s) requiring the use of a helmet for each motorcycle rider 
under the age of 18, with no exceptions.
    (h) Reduction of fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles. A 
State shall demonstrate a reduction for the preceding calendar year in 
the number of motorcyclist fatalities and in the rate of motor vehicle 
crashes involving motorcycles in the State (expressed as a function of 
10,000 registered motorcycle registrations), as computed by NHTSA. To 
demonstrate compliance a State shall, in accordance with part 7 of 
appendix B to this part--
    (1) Submit State data and a description of the State's methods for 
collecting and analyzing the data, showing the total number of motor 
vehicle crashes involving motorcycles in the State for the most recent 
calendar year for which final State crash data are available, but data 
no older than three calendar years prior to the application due date 
and the same type of data for the calendar year immediately prior to 
that calendar year (e.g., for a grant application submitted on August 
1, 2023, the State shall submit calendar year 2022 data and 2021 data, 
if both data are available, and may not provide data older than 
calendar year 2020 and 2019, to determine the rate);
    (2) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of 
motorcyclist fatalities for the most recent calendar year for which 
final FARS data are available as compared to the final FARS data for 
the calendar year immediately prior to that year; and
    (3) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 
motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), 
experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of crashes 
involving motorcycles for the most recent calendar year for which final 
State crash data are available, but data no older than three calendar 
years prior to the application due date, as compared to the calendar 
year immediately prior to that year.
    (i) Impaired motorcycle driving program. A State shall implement a 
Statewide program to reduce impaired driving, including specific 
measures to reduce impaired motorcycle operation. The State shall 
submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B to this part--
    (1) One or more performance measures and corresponding

[[Page 56810]]

performance targets developed to reduce impaired motorcycle operation 
at the level of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(b)(3). Each 
performance measure and performance target shall identify the impaired 
motorcycle operation problem area to be addressed. Problem 
identification must include an analysis of motorcycle crashes involving 
an impaired operator by county or political subdivision in the State; 
and
    (2) Projects, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.12(b)(2), demonstrating that the State will implement data-driven 
programs designed to reach motorcyclists in those jurisdictions where 
the incidence of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator is 
highest (i.e., the majority of counties or political subdivisions in 
the State with the highest numbers of motorcycle crashes involving an 
impaired operator) based upon State data. Such data shall be from the 
most recent calendar year for which final State crash data are 
available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the 
application due date (e.g., for a grant application submitted on August 
1, 2023, a State shall provide calendar year 2022 data, if available, 
and may not provide data older than calendar year 2020). Projects and 
the countermeasure strategies they support shall prioritize the State's 
impaired motorcycle problem areas to meet the performance targets 
identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
    (j) Reduction of fatalities and crashes involving impaired 
motorcyclists. A State shall demonstrate a reduction for the preceding 
calendar year in the number of fatalities and in the rate of reported 
crashes involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle 
operators (expressed as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations), 
as computed by NHTSA. The State shall, in accordance with part 7 of 
appendix B to this part--
    (1) Submit State data and a description of the State's methods for 
collecting and analyzing the data, showing the total number of reported 
crashes involving alcohol-and drug-impaired motorcycle operators in the 
State for the most recent calendar year for which final State crash 
data are available, but data no older than three calendar years prior 
to the application due date and the same type of data for the calendar 
year immediately prior to that year (e.g., for a grant application 
submitted on August 1, 2023, the State shall submit calendar year 2022 
data and 2021 data, if both data are available, and may not provide 
data older than calendar year 2020 and 2019, to determine the rate);
    (2) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of 
fatalities involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle 
operators for the most recent calendar year for which final FARS data 
are available as compared to the final FARS data for the calendar year 
immediately prior to that year; and
    (3) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 
motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), 
experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of reported 
crashes involving alcohol- and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for 
the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data are 
available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the 
application due date, as compared to the calendar year immediately 
prior to that year.
    (k) Use of fees collected from motorcyclists for motorcycle 
programs. A State shall have a process under which all fees collected 
by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle 
training and safety programs are used for motorcycle training and 
safety programs. A State may qualify under this criterion as either a 
Law State or a Data State.
    (1) To demonstrate compliance as a Law State, the State shall 
submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B to this part, the legal 
citation to the statutes or regulations requiring that all fees 
collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding 
motorcycle training and safety programs are to be used for motorcycle 
training and safety programs and the legal citations to the State's 
current fiscal year appropriation (or preceding fiscal year 
appropriation, if the State has not enacted a law at the time of the 
State's application) appropriating all such fees to motorcycle training 
and safety programs.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance as a Data State, the State shall 
submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B to this part, data or 
documentation from official records from the previous State fiscal year 
showing that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs were, in 
fact, used for motorcycle training and safety programs. Such data or 
documentation shall show that revenues collected for the purposes of 
funding motorcycle training and safety programs were placed into a 
distinct account and expended only for motorcycle training and safety 
programs.
    (l) Award amounts. The amount of a grant awarded to a State in a 
fiscal year under this section shall be in proportion to the amount 
each State received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2009, except that 
a grant awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(f) may not exceed 25 percent of the 
amount apportioned to the State for fiscal year 2009 under Section 402.
    (m) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraph (m)(2) of this section, a State may use grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(f) only for motorcyclist safety training and 
motorcyclist awareness programs, including--
    (i) Improvements to motorcyclist safety training curricula;
    (ii) Improvements in program delivery of motorcycle training to 
both urban and rural areas, including--
    (A) Procurement or repair of practice motorcycles;
    (B) Instructional materials;
    (C) Mobile training units; and
    (D) Leasing or purchasing facilities for closed-course motorcycle 
skill training;
    (iii) Measures designed to increase the recruitment or retention of 
motorcyclist safety training instructors; or
    (iv) Public awareness, public service announcements, and other 
outreach programs to enhance driver awareness of motorcyclists, 
including ``share-the-road'' safety messages developed using Share-the-
Road model language available on NHTSA's website at http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov.
    (2) Special rule--low fatality States. Notwithstanding paragraph 
(m)(1) of this section, a State may elect to use up to 50 percent of 
grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(f) for any eligible project or 
activity under Section 402 if the State is in the lowest 25 percent of 
all States for motorcycle deaths per 10,000 motorcycle registrations 
(using FHWA motorcycle registration data) based on the most recent 
calendar year for which final FARS data are available, as determined by 
NHTSA.
    (3) Suballocation of funds. A State that receives a grant under 
this section may suballocate funds from the grant to a nonprofit 
organization incorporated in that State to carry out grant activities 
under this section.

Sec.  1300.26   Nonmotorized safety grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(g), for awarding grants to States for the purpose of 
decreasing nonmotorized road user fatalities involving a motor vehicle 
in transit on a trafficway.
    (b) Eligibility determination. (1) A State is eligible for a grant 
under this section if the State's annual combined nonmotorized road 
user fatalities exceed 15 percent of the State's total annual crash 
fatalities based on the most recent

[[Page 56811]]

calendar year for which final FARS data are available, as determined by 
NHTSA.
    (2) For purposes of this section, a nonmotorized road user means a 
pedestrian; an individual using a nonmotorized mode of transportation, 
including a bicycle, a scooter, or a personal conveyance; and an 
individual using a low-speed or low-horsepower motorized vehicle, 
including an electric bicycle, electric scooter, personal mobility 
assistance device, personal transporter, or all-terrain vehicle.
    (c) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a Nonmotorized Safety 
Grant in a fiscal year, a State meeting the eligibility requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section shall submit as part of its annual grant 
application a list of project(s) and subrecipient(s) information that 
the State plans to conduct in the fiscal year of the grant, at the 
level of detail required under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2) for authorized uses 
identified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (d) Award amounts. The amount of a grant awarded to a State in a 
fiscal year under this section shall be in proportion to the amount 
each State received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2009.
    (e) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
23 U.S.C. 405(g) only for the safety of nonmotorized road users, 
including--
    (1) Training of law enforcement officials relating to nonmotorized 
road user safety, State laws applicable to nonmotorized road user 
safety, and infrastructure designed to improve nonmotorized road user 
safety;
    (2) Carrying out a program to support enforcement mobilizations and 
campaigns designed to enforce State traffic laws applicable to 
nonmotorized road user safety;
    (3) Public education and awareness programs designed to inform 
motorists and nonmotorized road users regarding--
    (i) Nonmotorized road user safety, including information relating 
to nonmotorized mobility and the importance of speed management to the 
safety of nonmotorized road users;
    (ii) The value of the use of nonmotorized road user safety 
equipment, including lighting, conspicuity equipment, mirrors, helmets, 
and other protective equipment, and compliance with any State or local 
laws requiring the use of that equipment;
    (iii) State traffic laws applicable to nonmotorized road user 
safety, including the responsibilities of motorists with respect to 
nonmotorized road users; and
    (iv) Infrastructure designed to improve nonmotorized road user 
safety; and
    (4) The collection of data, and the establishment and maintenance 
of data systems, relating to nonmotorized road user traffic fatalities.

Sec.  1300.27   Preventing roadside deaths grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(h), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective programs to prevent death and injury from crashes 
involving motor vehicles striking other vehicles and individuals 
stopped at the roadside.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Digital alert technology means an electronic system to alert 
drivers to the location of first responder vehicles on the roadside 
using traveler information systems e.g., navigation providers, 
smartphone apps, or a connected vehicle on-board unit.
    Optical visibility measure means an action to ensure that items are 
seen using visible light.
    Public information campaign means activities to build awareness 
with the motoring public of a traffic safety issue through media, 
messaging, and an organized set of communication tactics that may 
include but are not limited to advertising in print, internet, social 
media, radio and television.
    (c) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a grant under this 
section in a fiscal year, a State shall submit a plan that describes 
the method by which the State will use grant funds in accordance with 
paragraph (e) of this section. At a minimum, the plan shall state the 
eligible use(s) selected, consistent with paragraph (e) of this 
section, and include an identification of the specific safety problems 
to be addressed, performance measures and targets, the countermeasure 
strategies at the level of detail required by Sec.  1300.11(b)(1), (3), 
and (4) and projects at the level of detail required by Sec.  
1300.12(b)(2) that implement those strategies the State will implement 
to address those problems.
    (d) Award amounts. The amount of a grant awarded to a State in a 
fiscal year under this section shall be in proportion to the amount 
each State received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2022.
    (e) Use of grant funds. A State may only use grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(h) as follows.
    (1) To purchase and deploy digital alert technology that--
    (i) Is capable of receiving alerts regarding nearby first 
responders; and
    (ii) In the case of a motor vehicle that is used for emergency 
response activities, is capable of sending alerts to civilian drivers 
to protect first responders on the scene and en route;
    (2) To educate the public regarding the safety of vehicles and 
individuals stopped at the roadside in the State through public 
information campaigns for the purpose of reducing roadside deaths and 
injuries;
    (3) For law enforcement costs related to enforcing State laws to 
protect the safety of vehicles and individuals stopped at the roadside;
    (4) For programs to identify, collect, and report to State and 
local government agencies data related to crashes involving vehicles 
and individuals stopped at the roadside; and
    (5) To pilot and incentivize measures, including optical visibility 
measures, to increase the visibility of stopped and disabled vehicles.

Sec.  1300.28   Driver and officer safety education grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(i), for awarding grants to States that enact and enforce 
a law or adopt and implement programs that include certain information 
on law enforcement practices during traffic stops in driver education 
and training courses or peace officer training programs.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Driver education and driving safety course means any programs for 
novice teen drivers or driver improvement programs sanctioned by the 
State DMV, which include in-class or virtual instruction and may also 
include some behind the wheel training.
    Peace officer means any individual who is an elected, appointed, or 
employed agent of a government entity; who has the authority to carry 
firearms and to make warrantless arrests; and whose duties involve the 
enforcement of criminal laws of the United States.
    (c) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a grant under this 
section in a fiscal year, a State shall submit, as part of its annual 
grant application, documentation demonstrating compliance with either 
paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, in accordance with part 8 of 
appendix B of this part. A State may qualify for a grant under 
paragraph (e) of this section for a period of not more than 5 years.
    (d) Driver and officer safety law or program. A law or program that 
requires 1 or more of the following:
    (1) Driver education and driving safety courses--(i) General. A 
State must provide either a legal citation to a law or supporting 
documentation that demonstrates that driver education and

[[Page 56812]]

driver safety courses provided to individuals by educational and motor 
vehicle agencies of the State include instruction and testing relating 
to law enforcement practices during traffic stops, including, at a 
minimum, information relating to--
    (A) The role of law enforcement and the duties and responsibilities 
of peace officers;
    (B) The legal rights of individuals concerning interactions with 
peace officers;
    (C) Best practices for civilians and peace officers during those 
interactions;
    (D) The consequences for failure of an individual or officer to 
comply with the law or program; and
    (E) How and where to file a complaint against, or a compliment 
relating to, a peace officer.
    (ii) If applying with a law. A State shall provide a legal citation 
to a law that demonstrate compliance with the requirements described in 
paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
    (iii) If applying with supporting documentation. A State shall have 
a driver education and driving safety course that is required 
throughout the State for licensing or pursuant to a violation. To 
demonstrate compliance, the State shall submit:
    (A) A certification signed by the GR attesting that the State has 
developed and is implementing a driver education and driving safety 
course throughout the State that meets the requirements described in 
paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section; and
    (B) Curriculum or course materials, along with citations to where 
the requirements described in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section are 
located within the curriculum.
    (2) Peace officer training programs--(i) General. A State must 
provide either a legal citation to a law or supporting documentation 
that demonstrates that the State has developed and is implementing a 
training program for peace officers and reserve law enforcement 
officers (other than officers who have received training in a civilian 
course described in paragraph (d)(1)) of this section with respect to 
proper interaction with civilians during traffic stops. Proper 
interaction means utilizing appropriate industry standards as 
established through a State Police Officer Standards and Training Board 
(POST) or similar association.
    (ii) Applying with a Law. A State shall provide a legal citation to 
a law that establishes a peace training program that meets the 
requirements described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
    (iii) Applying with Supporting Documentation. A State shall have a 
peace officer training program that is required for employment as a 
peace officer throughout the State and meets the requirements described 
in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section. To demonstrate compliance, the 
State shall submit:
    (A) A certification signed by the GR attesting that the State has 
developed and is implementing a peace officer training program 
throughout the State that meets the requirements described in paragraph 
(d)(2)(i) of this section; and
    (B) Curriculum or course materials, along with citations to where 
the requirements described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
    (e) Qualifying State. A State that has not fully enacted or adopted 
a law or program described in paragraph (d) of this section qualifies 
for a grant under this section if it submits:
    (1) Evidence that the State has taken meaningful steps towards the 
full implementation of such a law or program. To demonstrate compliance 
with this criterion, the State shall submit one or more of the 
following--
    (i) A proposed bill that has been introduced in the State, but has 
not yet been enacted into law, that meets the requirements in paragraph 
(d)(1) or (2) of this section; or
    (ii) Planning or strategy document(s) that identify meaningful 
steps the State has taken as well as actions the State plans to take to 
develop and implement a law or program that meets the requirements in 
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section; and
    (2) A timetable for implementation of such a law or program within 
5 years of first applying as a qualifying State under this paragraph 
(e).
    (f) Matching. The Federal share of the cost of carrying out an 
activity funded through a grant under this subsection may not exceed 80 
percent.
    (g) Award amounts. (1) In general. Subject to paragraph (g)(2) of 
this section, the amount of a grant awarded to a State in a fiscal year 
under this section shall be in proportion to the amount each State 
received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2022.
    (2) Limitation. Notwithstanding paragraph (g)(1) of this section, a 
State that qualifies for a grant under paragraph (e) of this section 
shall receive 50 percent of the amount determined from the calculation 
under paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (3) Redistribution of funds. Any funds that are not distributed due 
to the operation of paragraph (g)(2) of this section shall be 
redistributed to the States that qualify for a grant under paragraphs 
(c) and (d) of this section in proportion to the amount each such State 
received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2022.
    (h) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
23 U.S.C. 405(i) only for:
    (1) The production of educational materials and training of staff 
for driver education and driving safety courses and peace officer 
training described in paragraph (d) of this section; and
    (2) The implementation of a law or program described in paragraph 
(d) of this section.

Sec.  1300.29   Racial profiling data collection grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
Section 1906, for incentive grants to encourage States to maintain and 
allow public inspection of statistical information on the race and 
ethnicity of the driver for all motor vehicle stops made on all public 
roads except those classified as local or minor rural roads.
    (b) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a Racial Profiling Data 
Collection Grant in a fiscal year, a State shall submit as part of its 
annual grant application, in accordance with part 11 of appendix B of 
this part--
    (1) Official documents (i.e., a law, regulation, binding policy 
directive, letter from the Governor, or court order) that demonstrate 
that the State maintains and allows public inspection of statistical 
information on the race and ethnicity of the driver for each motor 
vehicle stop made by a law enforcement officer on all public roads 
except those classified as local or minor rural roads; or
    (2) Assurances that the State will undertake activities during the 
fiscal year of the grant to comply with the requirements of paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section, and projects, at the level of detail required 
under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2), supporting the assurances.
    (c) Award amounts. (1) Subject to paragraph (c)(2) of this section, 
the amount of a grant awarded to a State in a fiscal year under this 
section shall be in proportion to the amount each State received under 
Section 402 for fiscal year 2022.
    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the total 
amount of a grant awarded to a State under this section in a fiscal 
year may not exceed--
    (i) For a State described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 10 
percent of the amount made available to carry out this section for the 
fiscal year; and
    (ii) For a State described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 5 
percent of the amount made available to carry out this section for the 
fiscal year.

[[Page 56813]]

    (d) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
Section 1906 only for the costs of--
    (1) Collecting and maintaining data on traffic stops;
    (2) Evaluating the results of the data; and
    (3) Developing and implementing programs, public outreach, and 
training to reduce the impact of traffic stops described in paragraph 
(a) of this section.

Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants

Sec.  1300.30   General.

    Subject to the provisions of this subpart, the requirements of 2 
CFR parts 200 and 1201 govern the implementation and management of 
State highway safety programs and projects carried out under 23 U.S.C. 
Chapter 4 and Section 1906.

Sec.  1300.31   Equipment.

    (a) Title. Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this 
section, title to equipment acquired under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 
Section 1906 will vest upon acquisition in the State or its 
subrecipient, as appropriate, subject to the conditions in paragraphs 
(b) through (d) of this section.
    (b) Use. Equipment may only be purchased if necessary to perform 
eligible grant activities or if specifically authorized as an allowable 
use of funds. All equipment shall be used for the originally authorized 
grant purposes for as long as needed for those purposes, as determined 
by the Regional Administrator, and neither the State nor any of its 
subrecipients or contractors shall encumber the title or interest while 
such need exists.
    (c) Management and disposition. Subject to the requirements of 
paragraphs (b), (d), (e), and (f) of this section, States and their 
subrecipients and contractors shall manage and dispose of equipment 
acquired under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 in accordance with 
State laws and procedures.
    (d) Major purchases and dispositions. Equipment with a useful life 
of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more shall 
be subject to the following requirements:
    (1) Purchases shall receive prior written approval from the 
Regional Administrator;
    (2) Dispositions shall receive prior written approval from the 
Regional Administrator unless the equipment has exceeded its useful 
life as determined under State law and procedures.
    (e) Right to transfer title. The Regional Administrator may reserve 
the right to transfer title to equipment acquired under this part to 
the Federal Government or to a third party when such third party is 
eligible under Federal statute. Any such transfer shall be subject to 
the following requirements:
    (1) The equipment shall be identified in the grant or otherwise 
made known to the State in writing;
    (2) The Regional Administrator shall issue disposition instructions 
within 120 calendar days after the equipment is determined to be no 
longer needed for highway safety purposes, in the absence of which the 
State shall follow the applicable procedures in 2 CFR parts 200 and 
1201.
    (f) Federally-owned equipment. In the event a State or its 
subrecipient is provided federally-owned equipment--
    (1) Title shall remain vested in the Federal Government;
    (2) Management shall be in accordance with Federal rules and 
procedures, and an annual inventory listing shall be submitted by the 
State;
    (3) The State or its subrecipient shall request disposition 
instructions from the Regional Administrator when the item is no longer 
needed for highway safety purposes.

Sec.  1300.32   Amendments to Annual Grant Applications--approval by 
the Regional Administrator.

    (a) During the fiscal year of the grant, States may amend the 
annual grant application, except performance targets, after approval 
under Sec.  1300.12. States shall document changes to the annual grant 
application electronically.
    (b) The State shall amend the annual grant application, prior to 
beginning project performance, to provide complete and updated 
information at the level of detail required by Sec.  1300.12(b)(2), 
about each project agreement it enters into.
    (c) Amendments and changes to the annual grant application are 
subject to approval by the Regional Administrator before approval of 
vouchers for payment. Regional Administrators will disapprove changes 
and projects that are inconsistent with the triennial HSP, as updated, 
or that do not constitute an appropriate use of highway safety grant 
funds. States are independently responsible to ensure that projects 
constitute an appropriate use of highway safety grant funds.

Sec.  1300.33   Vouchers and project agreements.

    (a) General. Each State shall submit official vouchers for expenses 
incurred to the Regional Administrator.
    (b) Content of vouchers. At a minimum, each voucher shall provide 
the following information, broken down by individual project agreement:
    (1) Project agreement number for which work was performed and 
payment is sought;
    (2) Amount of Federal funds sought, up to the amount identified in 
Sec.  1300.12(b)(2);
    (3) Eligible use of funds;
    (4) Amount of Federal funds allocated to local benefit (provided no 
less than mid-year (by March 31) and with the final voucher); and
    (5) Matching rate (or special matching writeoff used, i.e., sliding 
scale rate authorized under 23 U.S.C. 120).
    (c) Project agreements. Copies of each project agreement for which 
expenses are being claimed under the voucher (and supporting 
documentation for the vouchers) shall be made promptly available for 
review by the Regional Administrator upon request. Each project 
agreement shall bear the project agreement number to allow the Regional 
Administrator to match the voucher to the corresponding project.
    (d) Submission requirements. At a minimum, vouchers shall be 
submitted to the Regional Administrator on a quarterly basis, no later 
than 15 working days after the end of each quarter, except that where a 
State receives funds by electronic transfer at an annualized rate of 
one million dollars or more, vouchers shall be submitted on a monthly 
basis, no later than 15 working days after the end of each month. A 
final voucher for the fiscal year shall be submitted to the Regional 
Administrator no later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year, 
and all unexpended balances shall be carried forward to the next fiscal 
year unless they have lapsed in accordance with Sec.  1300.41.
    (e) Payment. (1) Failure to provide the information specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section shall result in rejection of the voucher.
    (2) Vouchers that request payment for projects whose project 
agreement numbers or amounts claimed do not match the projects or 
exceed the estimated amount of Federal funds provided under Sec.  
1300.12 (b)(2) shall be rejected, in whole or in part, until an amended 
project and/or estimated amount of Federal funds is submitted to and 
approved by the Regional Administrator in accordance with Sec.  
1300.32.
    (3) Failure to meet the deadlines specified in paragraph (d) of 
this section may result in delayed payment.

Sec.  1300.34   Program income.

    (a) Definition. Program income means gross income earned by the 
State or a subrecipient that is directly generated

[[Page 56814]]

by a supported activity or earned as a result of the Federal award 
during the period of performance.
    (b) Inclusions. Program income includes but is not limited to 
income from fees for services performed, the use or rental of real or 
personal property acquired under Federal awards, the sale of 
commodities or items fabricated under a Federal award, license fees and 
royalties on patents and copyrights, and principal and interest on 
loans made with Federal award funds.
    (c) Exclusions. Program income does not include interest on grant 
funds, rebates, credits, discounts, taxes, special assessments, levies, 
and fines raised by a State or a subrecipient, and interest earned on 
any of them.
    (d) Use of program income--(1) Addition. Program income shall 
ordinarily be added to the funds committed to the Federal award (i.e., 
Section 402, Section 405(b), etc.) under which it was generated. Such 
program income shall be used to further the objectives of the program 
area under which it was generated.
    (2) Cost sharing or matching. Program income may be used to meet 
cost sharing or matching requirements only upon written approval of the 
Approving Official. Such use shall not increase the commitment of 
Federal funds.

Sec.  1300.35   Annual report.

    Within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year, each State shall 
submit electronically an Annual Report providing--
    (a) Performance report. (1) An assessment of the State's progress 
in achieving performance targets identified in the most recently 
submitted triennial HSP, as updated in the annual grant application, 
based on the most currently available data, including:
    (i) An explanation of the extent to which the State's progress in 
achieving those targets aligns with the triennial HSP (i.e., the State 
has (not) met or is (not) on track to meet target); and
    (ii) A description of how the projects funded under the prior year 
annual grant application contributed to meeting the State's highway 
safety performance targets.
    (2) An explanation of how the state plans to adjust the strategy 
for programming funds to achieve the performance targets, if the State 
has not met or is not on track to meet its performance targets; or, an 
explanation of why no adjustments are needed to achieve the performance 
targets.
    (b) Activity report. (1) For each countermeasure strategy, a 
description of the projects and activities funded and implemented under 
the prior year annual grant application, including:
    (i) The amount of Federal funds expended and the zip code(s) in 
which the projects were performed, or, if the project is State-wide, 
identification as such;
    (ii) An explanation of reasons for projects that were not 
implemented; and
    (iii) A description of how the projects were informed by meaningful 
public participation and engagement in the planning processes described 
in the State's triennial HSP.
    (2) A description of the State's evidence-based enforcement program 
activities, including discussion of community collaboration efforts and 
efforts to support data collection and analysis to ensure transparency, 
identify disparities in traffic enforcement, and inform traffic 
enforcement policies, procedures, and activities; and
    (3) Submission of information regarding mobilization participation 
(e.g., participating and reporting agencies, enforcement activity, 
citation information, paid and earned media information).

Sec.  1300.36   Appeal of written decision by a Regional Administrator.

    The State shall submit an appeal of any written decision by a 
Regional Administrator regarding the administration of the grants in 
writing, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, to 
the Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator shall promptly 
forward the appeal to the NHTSA Associate Administrator, Regional 
Operations and Program Delivery. The decision of the NHTSA Associate 
Administrator shall be final and shall be transmitted in writing to the 
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety through the Regional 
Administrator.

Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation.

Sec.  1300.40   Expiration of the Annual Grant Application.

    (a) The State's annual grant application for a fiscal year and the 
State's authority to incur costs under that application shall expire on 
the last day of the fiscal year.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each State 
shall submit a final voucher which satisfies the requirements of Sec.  
1300.33(b) within 120 days after the expiration of the annual grant 
application. The final voucher constitutes the final financial 
reconciliation for each fiscal year.
    (c) The Regional Administrator may extend the time period for no 
more than 30 days to submit a final voucher only in extraordinary 
circumstances, consistent with 2 CFR 200.344 and 200.345. States shall 
submit a written request for an extension describing the extraordinary 
circumstances that necessitate an extension. The approval of any such 
request for extension shall be in writing, shall specify the new 
deadline for submitting the final voucher, and shall be signed by the 
Regional Administrator.

Sec.  1300.41   Disposition of unexpended balances.

    (a) Carry-forward balances. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of 
this section, grant funds that remain unexpended at the end of a fiscal 
year and the expiration of an annual grant application shall be 
credited to the State's highway safety account for the new fiscal year 
and made immediately available for use by the State, provided the 
State's new annual grant application has been approved by the Regional 
Administrator pursuant to Sec.  1300.12(c), including any amendments to 
the annual grant application pursuant to Sec.  1300.32.
    (b) Deobligation of funds. (1) Except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, unexpended grant funds shall not be available 
for expenditure beyond the period of three years after the last day of 
the fiscal year of apportionment or allocation.
    (2) NHTSA shall notify States of any such unexpended grant funds no 
later than 180 days prior to the end of the period of availability 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and inform States of the 
deadline for commitment. States may commit such unexpended grant funds 
to a specific project by the specified deadline, and shall provide 
documentary evidence of that commitment, including a copy of an 
executed project agreement, to the Regional Administrator.
    (3) Grant funds committed to a specific project in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall remain committed to that project 
and must be expended by the end of the succeeding fiscal year. The 
final voucher for that project shall be submitted within 120 days after 
the end of that fiscal year.
    (4) NHTSA shall deobligate unexpended balances at the end of the 
time period in paragraph (b)(1) or (3) of this section, whichever is 
applicable, and the funds shall lapse.

Sec.  1300.42   Post-grant adjustments.

    The expiration of an annual grant application does not affect the 
ability of NHTSA to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a 
later audit or

[[Page 56815]]

other review or the State's obligation to return any funds due as a 
result of later refunds, corrections, or other transactions.

Sec.  1300.43   Continuing requirements.

    Notwithstanding the expiration of an annual grant application, the 
provisions in 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201 and 23 CFR part 1300, including 
but not limited to equipment and audit, continue to apply to the grant 
funds authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906.

Subpart F--Non-Compliance.

Sec.  1300.50   General.

    Where a State is found to be in non-compliance with the 
requirements of the grant programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 
or Section 1906, or with other applicable law, the sanctions in 
Sec. Sec.  1300.51 and 1300.52, and any other sanctions or remedies 
permitted under Federal law, including the specific conditions of 2 CFR 
200.208 and 200.339, may be applied as appropriate.

Sec.  1300.51   Sanctions--reduction of apportionment.

    (a) Determination of sanctions. (1) The Administrator shall not 
apportion any funds under Section 402 to any State that does not have 
or is not implementing an approved highway safety program.
    (2) If the Administrator has apportioned funds under Section 402 to 
a State and subsequently determines that the State is not implementing 
an approved highway safety program, the Administrator shall reduce the 
apportionment by an amount equal to not less than 20 percent until such 
time as the Administrator determines that the State is implementing an 
approved highway safety program. The Administrator shall consider the 
gravity of the State's failure to implement an approved highway safety 
program in determining the amount of the reduction.
    (i) When the Administrator determines that a State is not 
implementing an approved highway safety program, the Administrator 
shall issue to the State an advance notice, advising the State that the 
Administrator expects to withhold funds from apportionment or reduce 
the State's apportionment under Section 402. The Administrator shall 
state the amount of the expected withholding or reduction.
    (ii) The State may, within 30 days after its receipt of the advance 
notice, submit documentation demonstrating that it is implementing an 
approved highway safety program. Documentation shall be submitted to 
the NHTSA Administrator, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590.
    (b) Apportionment of withheld funds. (1) If the Administrator 
concludes that a State has begun implementing an approved highway 
safety program, the Administrator shall promptly apportion to the State 
the funds withheld from its apportionment, but not later than July 31 
of the fiscal year for which the funds were withheld.
    (2)(i) If the Administrator concludes, after reviewing all relevant 
documentation submitted by the State or if the State has not responded 
to the advance notice, that the State did not correct its failure to 
have or implement an approved highway safety program, the Administrator 
shall issue a final notice, advising the State of the funds being 
withheld from apportionment or of the reduction of apportionment under 
Section 402 by July 31 of the fiscal year for which the funds were 
withheld.
    (ii) The Administrator shall reapportion the withheld funds to the 
other States, in accordance with the formula specified in 23 U.S.C. 
402(c), not later than the last day of the fiscal year.

Sec.  1300.52   Sanctions--risk assessment and non-compliance.

    (a) Risk assessment. (1) All States receiving funds under the grant 
programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 shall be 
subject to an assessment of risk by NHTSA. In evaluating risks of a 
State highway safety program, NHTSA may consider, but is not limited to 
considering, the following for each State:
    (i) Financial stability;
    (ii) Quality of management systems and ability to meet management 
standards prescribed in this part and in 2 CFR part 200;
    (iii) History of performance. The applicant's record in managing 
funds received for grant programs under this part, including findings 
from Management Reviews;
    (iv) Reports and findings from audits performed under 2 CFR part 
200, subpart F, or from the reports and findings of any other available 
audits; and
    (v) The State's ability to effectively implement statutory, 
regulatory, and other requirements imposed on non-Federal entities.
    (2) If a State is determined to pose risk, NHTSA may increase 
monitoring activities and may impose any of the specific conditions of 
2 CFR 200.208, as appropriate.
    (b) Non-compliance. If at any time a State is found to be in non-
compliance with the requirements of the grant programs under this part, 
the requirements of 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201, or with any other 
applicable law, the actions permitted under 2 CFR 200.208 and 200.339 
may be applied as appropriate.

Appendix A to Part 1300--Certifications and Assurances for Highway 
Safety Grants

    [Each fiscal year, the Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety must sign these Certifications and Assurances affirming that 
the State complies with all requirements, including applicable 
Federal statutes and regulations, that are in effect during the 
grant period. Requirements that also apply to subrecipients are 
noted under the applicable caption.]

State: ______
Fiscal Year: ___

    By submitting an application for Federal grant funds under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906, Pub. L. 109-59, as amended by 
Section 25024, Pub. L. 117-58, the State Highway Safety Office 
acknowledges and agrees to the following conditions and 
requirements. In my capacity as the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety, I hereby provide the following Certifications and 
Assurances:

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

    The State will comply with applicable statutes and regulations, 
including but not limited to:

 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4--Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended
 Sec. 1906, Pub. L. 109-59, as amended by Sec. 25024, Pub. 
L. 117-58
 23 CFR part 1300--Uniform Procedures for State Highway 
Safety Grant Programs
 2 CFR part 200--Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
 2 CFR part 1201--Department of Transportation, Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements 
for Federal Awards

INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    The State has submitted appropriate documentation for review to 
the single point of contact designated by the Governor to review 
Federal programs, as required by Executive Order 12372 
(Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs).

FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT (FFATA)

    The State will comply with FFATA guidance, OMB Guidance on FFATA 
Subaward and Executive Compensation Reporting, August 27, 2010, 
(https://www.fsrs.gov/documents/OMB_Guidance_on_FFATA_Subaward_and_Executive_Compensation_Reporting_08272010.pdf) by reporting to FSRS.gov for each sub-grant awarded:
     Name of the entity receiving the award;

[[Page 56816]]

     Amount of the award;
     Information on the award including transaction type, 
funding agency, the North American Industry Classification System 
code or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number (where 
applicable), program source;
     Location of the entity receiving the award and the 
primary location of performance under the award, including the city, 
State, congressional district, and country; and an award title 
descriptive of the purpose of each funding action;
     Unique entity identifier (generated by SAM.gov);
     The names and total compensation of the five most 
highly compensated officers of the entity if:
    (i) the entity in the preceding fiscal year received--
    (I) 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues in Federal 
awards;
    (II) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal 
awards; and
    (ii) the public does not have access to information about the 
compensation of the senior executives of the entity through periodic 
reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
     Other relevant information specified by OMB guidance.

NONDISCRIMINATION

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

    The State highway safety agency [and its subrecipients] will 
comply with all Federal statutes and implementing regulations 
relating to nondiscrimination (``Federal Nondiscrimination 
Authorities''). These include but are not limited to:
     Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis 
of race, color, national origin);
     49 CFR part 21 (entitled Non-discrimination in 
Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation--
Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);
     28 CFR 50.3 (U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines for 
Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);
     The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. 4601), (prohibits 
unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been 
acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects);
     Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. 324 et 
seq.), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended 
(20 U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686) (prohibit discrimination on the 
basis of sex);
     Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 
U.S.C. 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the 
basis of disability) and 49 CFR part 27;
     The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 
U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
age);
     The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (Pub. L. 100-
209), (broadens scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the 
definition of the terms ``programs or activities'' to include all of 
the programs or activities of the Federal aid recipients, 
subrecipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities 
are Federally-funded or not);
     Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12189) (prohibits discrimination on the basis 
of disability in the operation of public entities, public and 
private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and 
certain testing) and 49 CFR parts 37 and 38;
     Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (preventing discrimination against minority populations 
by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations);
     Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for 
Persons with Limited English Proficiency (requiring that recipients 
of Federal financial assistance provide meaningful access for 
applicants and beneficiaries who have limited English proficiency 
(LEP));
     Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and 
Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government 
(advancing equity across the Federal government); and
     Executive Order 13988, Preventing and Combating 
Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation 
(clarifying that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the 
grounds of gender identity or sexual orientation).
    The preceding statutory and regulatory cites hereinafter are 
referred to as the ``Acts'' and ``Regulations,'' respectively.

General Assurances

    In accordance with the Acts, the Regulations, and other 
pertinent directives, circulars, policy, memoranda, and/or guidance, 
the Recipient hereby gives assurance that it will promptly take any 
measures necessary to ensure that:
    ``No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, 
color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be 
denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination 
under any program or activity, for which the Recipient receives 
Federal financial assistance from DOT, including NHTSA.''
    The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the original 
intent of Congress, with respect to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 and other non-discrimination requirements (the Age 
Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973), by restoring the broad, institutional-wide scope and 
coverage of these nondiscrimination statutes and requirements to 
include all programs and activities of the Recipient, so long as any 
portion of the program is Federally assisted.

Specific Assurances

    More specifically, and without limiting the above general 
Assurance, the Recipient agrees with and gives the following 
Assurances with respect to its Federally assisted Highway Safety 
Grant Program:
    1. The Recipient agrees that each ``activity,'' ``facility,'' or 
``program,'' as defined in Sec.  21.23(b) and (e) of 49 CFR part 21 
will be (with regard to an ``activity'') facilitated, or will be 
(with regard to a ``facility'') operated, or will be (with regard to 
a ``program'') conducted in compliance with all requirements imposed 
by, or pursuant to the Acts and the Regulations.
    2. The Recipient will insert the following notification in all 
solicitations for bids, Requests For Proposals for work, or material 
subject to the Acts and the Regulations made in connection with all 
Highway Safety Grant Programs and, in adapted form, in all proposals 
for negotiated agreements regardless of funding source:
    ``The [name of Recipient], in accordance with the provisions of 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C 
2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all bidders 
that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into 
pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises 
will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit bids in 
response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on 
the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for 
an award.''
    3. The Recipient will insert the clauses of Appendix A and E of 
this Assurance (also referred to as DOT Order 1050.2A) \2\ in every 
contract or agreement subject to the Acts and the Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Available at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/acr/com_civ_support/non_disc_pr/media/dot_order_1050_2A_standard_dot_title_vi_assurances.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Recipient will insert the clauses of Appendix B of DOT 
Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from 
the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real 
property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest 
therein to a Recipient.
    5. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial 
assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the 
Assurance will extend to the entire facility and facilities operated 
in connection therewith.
    6. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial 
assistance in the form of, or for the acquisition of, real property 
or an interest in real property, the Assurance will extend to rights 
to space on, over, or under such property.
    7. That the Recipient will include the clauses set forth in 
Appendix C and Appendix D of this DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant 
running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, licenses, 
permits, or similar instruments entered into by the Recipient with 
other parties:
    a. for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or 
improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and
    b. for the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, 
or under real property

[[Page 56817]]

acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or 
program.
    8. That this Assurance obligates the Recipient for the period 
during which Federal financial assistance is extended to the 
program, except where the Federal financial assistance is to 
provide, or is in the form of, personal property, or real property, 
or interest therein, or structures or improvements thereon, in which 
case the Assurance obligates the Recipient, or any transferee for 
the longer of the following periods:
    a. the period during which the property is used for a purpose 
for which the Federal financial assistance is extended, or for 
another purpose involving the provision of similar services or 
benefits; or
    b. the period during which the Recipient retains ownership or 
possession of the property.
    9. The Recipient will provide for such methods of administration 
for the program as are found by the Secretary of Transportation or 
the official to whom he/she delegates specific authority to give 
reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub-
grantees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, transferees, 
successors in interest, and other participants of Federal financial 
assistance under such program will comply with all requirements 
imposed or pursuant to the Acts, the Regulations, and this 
Assurance.
    10. The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to 
seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under 
the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.
    By signing this ASSURANCE, the State highway safety agency also 
agrees to comply (and require any sub-recipients, sub-grantees, 
contractors, successors, transferees, and/or assignees to comply) 
with all applicable provisions governing NHTSA's access to records, 
accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. You also 
recognize that you must comply with any program or compliance 
reviews, and/or complaint investigations conducted by NHTSA. You 
must keep records, reports, and submit the material for review upon 
request to NHTSA, or its designee in a timely, complete, and 
accurate way. Additionally, you must comply with all other 
reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as 
prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance.
    The State highway safety agency gives this ASSURANCE in 
consideration of and for obtaining any Federal grants, loans, 
contracts, agreements, property, and/or discounts, or other Federal-
aid and Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof 
to the recipients by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the 
Highway Safety Grant Program. This ASSURANCE is binding on the State 
highway safety agency, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub-
grantees, contractors, subcontractors and their subcontractors', 
transferees, successors in interest, and any other participants in 
the Highway Safety Grant Program. The person(s) signing below is/are 
authorized to sign this ASSURANCE on behalf of the Recipient.

THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT OF 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8103)

    The State will provide a drug-free workplace by:
    a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful 
manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a 
controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace, and 
specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for 
violation of such prohibition;
    b. Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform 
employees about:
    1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
    2. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
    3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee 
assistance programs;
    4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug 
violations occurring in the workplace;
    5. Making it a requirement that each employee engaged in the 
performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required 
by paragraph (a);
    c. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph 
(a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee 
will--
    1. Abide by the terms of the statement;
    2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction 
for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five days 
after such conviction;
    d. Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice 
under subparagraph (c)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving 
actual notice of such conviction;
    e. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of 
receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2), with respect to any 
employee who is so convicted--
    1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, 
up to and including termination;
    2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a 
drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such 
purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or 
other appropriate agency;
    f. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-
free workplace through implementation of all of the paragraphs 
above.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT)

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

    The State will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 
1501-1508), which limits the political activities of employees whose 
principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with 
Federal funds.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements

    The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge 
and belief, that:
    1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, 
by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or 
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a 
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an 
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of 
any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of 
any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, 
and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification 
of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement;
    2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been 
paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to 
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of 
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a 
Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, 
loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and 
submit Standard Form-LLL, ``Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,'' in 
accordance with its instructions;
    3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this 
certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards 
at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under 
grant, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients 
shall certify and disclose accordingly.
    This certification is a material representation of fact upon 
which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered 
into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making 
or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, 
U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification 
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not 
more than $100,000 for each such failure.

RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

    None of the funds under this program will be used for any 
activity specifically designed to urge or influence a State or local 
legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific 
legislative proposal pending before any State or local legislative 
body. Such activities include both direct and indirect (e.g., 
``grassroots'') lobbying activities, with one exception. This does 
not preclude a State official whose salary is supported with NHTSA 
funds from engaging in direct communications with State or local 
legislative officials, in accordance with customary State practice, 
even if such communications urge legislative officials to favor or 
oppose the adoption of a specific pending legislative proposal.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

Instructions for Primary Tier Participant Certification (States)

    1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective 
primary tier participant is providing the certification set out 
below and

[[Page 56818]]

agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
    2. The inability of a person to provide the certification 
required below will not necessarily result in denial of 
participation in this covered transaction. The prospective primary 
tier participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot 
provide the certification set out below. The certification or 
explanation will be considered in connection with the department or 
agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. 
However, failure of the prospective primary tier participant to 
furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such 
person from participation in this transaction.
    3. The certification in this clause is a material representation 
of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency 
determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined 
that the prospective primary tier participant knowingly rendered an 
erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to 
the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this 
transaction for cause or default or may pursue suspension or 
debarment.
    4. The prospective primary tier participant shall provide 
immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this 
proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary tier 
participant learns its certification was erroneous when submitted or 
has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
    5. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, 
suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and 
voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR 
parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the department or agency to 
which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a 
copy of those regulations.
    6. The prospective primary 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 proposed for debarment 
under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared 
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this 
covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency 
entering into this transaction.
    7. The prospective primary tier participant further agrees by 
submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled 
``Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification'' including 
the ``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility 
and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transaction,'' provided 
by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, 
without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in 
all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will 
require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 
1200.
    8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a 
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered 
transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 
9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily 
excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the 
certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for 
ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or 
otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To 
verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility 
of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, 
but is not required to, check the System for Award Management 
Exclusions website (https://www.sam.gov/).
    9. 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 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 dealings.
    10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of 
these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction 
knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person 
who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, 
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 may 
terminate the transaction for cause or default.

Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility 
Matters-Primary Tier Covered Transactions

    (1) The prospective primary tier participant certifies to the 
best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
    (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for 
debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from 
participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or 
agency;
    (b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal 
been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for 
commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with 
obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, 
State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; 
violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of 
embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction 
of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
    (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or 
civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) 
with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph 
(1)(b) of this certification; and
    (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this 
application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, 
State, or local) terminated for cause or default.
    (2) Where the prospective primary tier participant is unable to 
certify to any of the Statements in this certification, such 
prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this 
proposal.

Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification

    1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective 
lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below 
and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 
1200.
    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 or debarment.
    3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide 
immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is 
submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant 
learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has 
become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
    4. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, 
suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and 
voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR 
parts 180 and 1200. 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 knowingly enter into any lower tier 
covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment 
under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared 
ineligible, 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 
submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled 
``Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification'' including 
the ``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 and will require 
lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
    7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a 
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered 
transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 
9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily 
excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the 
certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for 
ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or 
otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To 
verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility 
of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, 
but is not required to, check

[[Page 56819]]

the System for Award Management Exclusions website (https://www.sam.gov/).
    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 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 dealings.
    9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these 
instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly 
enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is 
proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, 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 or debarment.

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 debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared 
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered 
transactions 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 participant shall attach an explanation to this 
proposal.

BUY AMERICA ACT

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

    The State and each subrecipient will comply with the Buy America 
requirement (23 U.S.C. 313) when purchasing items using Federal 
funds. Buy America requires a State, or subrecipient, to purchase 
with Federal funds only steel, iron and manufactured products 
produced in the United States, unless the Secretary of 
Transportation determines that such domestically produced items 
would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials 
are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality, or that 
inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the 
overall project contract by more than 25 percent. In order to use 
Federal funds to purchase foreign produced items, the State must 
submit a waiver request that provides an adequate basis and 
justification for approval by the Secretary of Transportation.

CERTIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

General Requirements

    No employee, officer or agent of a State or its subrecipient who 
is authorized in an official capacity to negotiate, make, accept or 
approve, or to take part in negotiating, making, accepting or 
approving any subaward, including contracts or subcontracts, in 
connection with this grant shall have, directly or indirectly, any 
financial or personal interest in any such subaward. Such a 
financial or personal interest would arise when the employee, 
officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or 
her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ 
any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or personal 
interest in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered 
for a subaward. Based on this policy:
    1. The recipient shall maintain a written code or standards of 
conduct that provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for 
violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents.
    a. The code or standards shall provide that the recipient's 
officers, employees, or agents may neither solicit nor accept 
gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from present or 
potential subawardees, including contractors or parties to 
subcontracts.
    b. The code or standards shall establish penalties, sanctions or 
other disciplinary actions for violations, as permitted by State or 
local law or regulations.
    2. The recipient shall maintain responsibility to enforce the 
requirements of the written code or standards of conduct.

Disclosure Requirements

    No State or its subrecipient, including its officers, employees 
or agents, shall perform or continue to perform under a grant or 
cooperative agreement, whose objectivity may be impaired because of 
any related past, present, or currently planned interest, financial 
or otherwise, in organizations regulated by NHTSA or in 
organizations whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA 
activities. Based on this policy:
    1. The recipient shall disclose any conflict of interest 
identified as soon as reasonably possible, making an immediate and 
full disclosure in writing to NHTSA. The disclosure shall include a 
description of the action which the recipient has taken or proposes 
to take to avoid or mitigate such conflict.
    2. NHTSA will review the disclosure and may require additional 
relevant information from the recipient. If a conflict of interest 
is found to exist, NHTSA may (a) terminate the award, or (b) 
determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of NHTSA to 
continue the award and include appropriate provisions to mitigate or 
avoid such conflict.
    3. Conflicts of interest that require disclosure include all 
past, present or currently planned organizational, financial, 
contractual or other interest(s) with an organization regulated by 
NHTSA or with an organization whose interests may be substantially 
affected by NHTSA activities, and which are related to this award. 
The interest(s) that require disclosure include those of any 
recipient, affiliate, proposed consultant, proposed subcontractor 
and key personnel of any of the above. Past interest shall be 
limited to within one year of the date of award. Key personnel shall 
include any person owning more than a 20 percent interest in a 
recipient, and the officers, employees or agents of a recipient who 
are responsible for making a decision or taking an action under an 
award where the decision or action can have an economic or other 
impact on the interests of a regulated or affected organization.

PROHIBITION ON USING GRANT FUNDS TO CHECK FOR HELMET USAGE

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

    The State and each subrecipient will not use 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 
grant funds for programs to check helmet usage or to create 
checkpoints that specifically target motorcyclists.

POLICY ON SEAT BELT USE

    In accordance with Executive Order 13043, Increasing Seat Belt 
Use in the United States, dated April 16, 1997, the Grantee is 
encouraged to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt use policies 
and programs for its employees when operating company-owned, rented, 
or personally-owned vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for providing leadership and 
guidance in support of this Presidential initiative. For information 
and resources on traffic safety programs and policies for employers, 
please contact the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), a 
public-private partnership dedicated to improving the traffic safety 
practices of employers and employees. You can download information 
on seat belt programs, costs of motor vehicle crashes to employers, 
and other traffic safety initiatives at www.trafficsafety.org. The 
NHTSA website (www.nhtsa.gov) also provides information on 
statistics, campaigns, and program evaluations and references.

POLICY ON BANNING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING

    In accordance with Executive Order 13513, Federal Leadership On 
Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, and DOT Order 3902.10, Text 
Messaging While Driving, States are encouraged to adopt and enforce 
workplace safety policies to decrease crashes caused by distracted 
driving, including policies to ban text messaging while driving 
company-owned or rented vehicles, Government-owned, leased or rented 
vehicles, or privately-owned vehicles when on official Government 
business or when performing any work on or behalf of the Government. 
States are also encouraged to conduct workplace safety initiatives 
in a manner commensurate with the size of the business, such as 
establishment of new rules and programs or re-evaluation of existing 
programs to prohibit text messaging while driving, and education, 
awareness, and other outreach to employees about the safety risks 
associated with texting while driving.

SECTION 402 REQUIREMENTS

    1. To the best of my personal knowledge, the information 
submitted in the annual grant application in support of the State's 
application for a grant under 23 U.S.C. 402 is accurate and 
complete.
    2. The Governor is the responsible official for the 
administration of the State highway safety program, by appointing a 
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety who shall

[[Page 56820]]

be responsible for a State highway safety agency that has adequate 
powers and is suitably equipped and organized (as evidenced by 
appropriate oversight procedures governing such areas as 
procurement, financial administration, and the use, management, and 
disposition of equipment) to carry out the program. (23 U.S.C. 
402(b)(1)(A))
    3. At least 40 percent of all Federal funds apportioned to this 
State under 23 U.S.C. 402 for this fiscal year will be expended by 
or for the benefit of political subdivisions of the State in 
carrying out local highway safety programs (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(C)) 
or 95 percent by and for the benefit of Indian tribes (23 U.S.C. 
402(h)(2)), unless this requirement is waived in writing. (This 
provision is not applicable to the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.)
    4. The State's highway safety program provides adequate and 
reasonable access for the safe and convenient movement of physically 
handicapped persons, including those in wheelchairs, across curbs 
constructed or replaced on or after July 1, 1976, at all pedestrian 
crosswalks. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(D))
    5. As part of a comprehensive program, the State will support a 
data-based traffic safety enforcement program that fosters effective 
community collaboration to increase public safety, and data 
collection and analysis to ensure transparency, identify disparities 
in traffic enforcement, and inform traffic enforcement policies, 
procedures, and activities. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E))
    6. The State will implement activities in support of national 
highway safety goals to reduce motor vehicle related fatalities that 
also reflect the primary data-related crash factors within the 
State, as identified by the State highway safety planning process, 
including:
     Participation in the National high-visibility law 
enforcement mobilizations as identified annually in the NHTSA 
Communications Calendar, including not less than 3 mobilization 
campaigns in each fiscal year to--
    [cir] Reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of 
motor vehicles; and
    [cir] Increase use of seat belts by occupants of motor vehicles;
     Submission of information regarding mobilization 
participation into the HVE Database;
     Sustained enforcement of statutes addressing impaired 
driving, occupant protection, and driving in excess of posted speed 
limits;
     An annual Statewide seat belt use survey in accordance 
with 23 CFR part 1340 for the measurement of State seat belt use 
rates, except for the Secretary of Interior on behalf of Indian 
tribes;
     Development of Statewide data systems to provide timely 
and effective data analysis to support allocation of highway safety 
resources;
     Coordination of Highway Safety Plan, data collection, 
and information systems with the State strategic highway safety 
plan, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a); and
     Participation in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System 
(FARS), except for American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, or the United States Virgin Islands. (23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(F))
    7. The State will actively encourage all relevant law 
enforcement agencies in the State to follow the guidelines 
established for vehicular pursuits issued by the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police that are currently in effect. (23 
U.S.C. 402(j))
    8. The State will not expend Section 402 funds to carry out a 
program to purchase, operate, or maintain an automated traffic 
enforcement system, except in a work zone or school zone. (23 U.S.C. 
402(c)(4))
    I understand that my statements in support of the State's 
application for Federal grant funds are statements upon which the 
Federal Government will rely in determining qualification for grant 
funds, and that knowing misstatements may be subject to civil or 
criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001. I sign these Certifications 
and Assurances based on personal knowledge, and after appropriate 
inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Governor's Representative for Highway Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed name of Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

Appendix B to Part 1300--Application Requirements for Section 405 and 
Section 1906 Grants

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 56821]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.000

[[Page 56822]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.001

[[Page 56823]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.002

[[Page 56824]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.003

[[Page 56825]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.004

[[Page 56826]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.005

[[Page 56827]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.006

[[Page 56828]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.007

[[Page 56829]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.008

[[Page 56830]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.009

[[Page 56831]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.010

[[Page 56832]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.011

[[Page 56833]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.012

[[Page 56834]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.013

[[Page 56835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.014

[[Page 56836]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.015

[[Page 56837]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.016

[[Page 56838]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.017

[[Page 56839]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.018

[[Page 56840]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.019

[[Page 56841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.020

[[Page 56842]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.021

[[Page 56843]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.022

[[Page 56844]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.023

[[Page 56845]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.024

[[Page 56846]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE22.025

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95.
Steven S. Cliff,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-18995 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C