[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 28, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40757-40764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19321]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Parts 1200 and 1205

[Docket No. NHTSA-99-6011]
RIN 2127-AH53


Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Programs

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal 
Highway Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule announces that amendments to the regulation 
establishing uniform procedures for

[[Page 40758]]

State highway safety programs, published in an interim final rule, will 
remain in effect, with minor changes for clarification in response to 
comments. The amendments implemented the provisions of a two-year pilot 
highway safety program, providing a more flexible performance-based 
system for States to follow in conducting their highway safety 
programs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 27, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In NHTSA, Marlene Markison, Office of 
State and Community Services, 202-366-2121; John Donaldson, Office of 
the Chief Counsel, 202-366-1834. In FHWA, Daniel Hartman, Office of 
Highway Safety, 202-366-2131; Raymond Cuprill, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, 202-366-0834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    On June 26, 1997, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (``NHTSA'') and the Federal Highway Administration 
(``FHWA'') (``the agencies'') published an interim final rule (62 FR 
34397) establishing new procedures governing the implementation of 
State highway safety programs conducted under the authority of the 
Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). The new procedures 
changed the submission and approval requirements for State highway 
safety plans in the regulation at 23 CFR part 1200, Uniform Procedures 
for State Highway Safety Programs, and simplified certain funding 
requirements in the regulation at 23 CFR part 1205, Highway Safety 
Programs; Determinations of Effectiveness.
    Under the provisions of the interim final rule, States assumed a 
new role in the planning and direction of their highway safety 
programs. In lieu of the earlier regulatory requirement that States 
submit comprehensive documents for Federal review and approval, States 
were now charged with setting their own highway safety goals, 
accompanied by performance measures to chart progress. These new 
procedures were based on almost two years of successful experience with 
a pilot highway safety program conducted by the agencies during fiscal 
years 1996 and 1997. The interim final rule incorporated most of the 
pilot program's provisions into its requirements.
    The agencies requested comments on the interim final rule from all 
interested parties, and provided a 45-day comment period. Thereafter, 
because Congress was considering various changes to the Section 402 
program in the course of reauthorizing NHTSA and FHWA programs, the 
agencies decided to delay responding to comments until after Congress 
had completed the reauthorization process. In today's notice, we 
respond to the comments received, and issue a final rule.

B. Statutory Requirements

    The Section 402 program is authorized under the Highway Safety Act 
of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). It is a formula grant program that was 
established to improve highway safety in the States. As a condition of 
the grant, the Act provides that the States must meet certain 
requirements contained in 23 U.S.C. 402.
    Section 402(a) requires each State to have a highway safety 
program, approved by the Secretary of Transportation, which is designed 
to reduce traffic crashes and the deaths, injuries, and property damage 
resulting from those crashes. Section 402(b) sets forth the minimum 
requirements with which each State's highway safety program must 
comply. For example, the Secretary may not approve a program unless it 
provides that the Governor of the State is responsible for its 
administration through a State highway safety agency which has adequate 
powers and is suitably equipped and organized to carry out the program 
to the satisfaction of the Secretary. Additionally, the program must 
authorize political subdivisions of the State to carry out local 
highway safety programs and provide a certain minimum level of funding 
for these local programs each fiscal year. The enforcement of these and 
other continuing requirements is entrusted to the Secretary and, by 
delegation, to the agencies.
    When it was originally enacted in 1966, the Highway Safety Act 
required the agencies to establish uniform standards for State highway 
safety programs to assist States and local communities in implementing 
their highway safety programs. Eighteen such standards were established 
and, during the early years, the Section 402 program was directed 
principally toward achieving State and local compliance with these 
standards. Over time, State highway safety programs matured and, in 
1976, the Highway Safety Act was amended to provide for more flexible 
implementation of the program. States were no longer required to comply 
with every uniform standard or with each element of every uniform 
standard. As a result, the standards became more like guidelines for 
use by the States, and management of the program shifted from enforcing 
standards to using the standards as a framework for problem 
identification, countermeasure development, and program evaluation. In 
1987, Section 402 of the Highway Safety Act was amended, formally 
changing the standards to guidelines.
    Another amendment to the Highway Safety Act required the Secretary 
to determine, through a rulemaking process, those programs ``most 
effective'' in reducing crashes, injuries, and deaths, taking into 
account ``consideration of the States having a major role in 
establishing (such) programs.'' The Secretary was authorized to revise 
the rule from time to time. In accordance with this provision, the 
agencies have identified, over time, nine such programs, the ``National 
Priority Program areas'' (see discussion under Section C.2, below).
    Until recently, the Act provided that only those programs 
established under the rule as ``most effective'' in reducing crashes, 
injuries and deaths (i.e., the National Priority Program areas) would 
be eligible for Federal financial assistance under the Section 402 
program. However, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(Pub. L. 105-178) (TEA-21), enacted June 9, 1998, amended those 
provisions. The new requirement allows for periodic discretionary 
rulemaking to identify programs that are ``highly effective'' in 
reducing crashes, injuries, and deaths, and requires only that States 
``consider'' these highly effective programs when developing their 
highway safety programs.

C. Regulations Prior to the Interim Final Rule

    In recent years, the agencies have administered the Section 402 
program in accordance with implementing regulations, the Uniform 
Procedures for State Highway Safety Programs (23 CFR part 1200) (``Part 
1200'') and Highway Safety Programs; Determinations of Effectiveness 
(23 CFR part 1205) (``Part 1205''). Part 1200 sets forth requirements 
concerning submission and approval of State highway safety plans, 
apportionment and obligation of Federal funds, and financial accounting 
and program administration. Part 1205 identifies the National Priority 
Program areas and provides for the funding of program areas.

1. Part 1200

    Part 1200, portions of which were amended by the interim final 
rule, contained detailed procedures governing the content and Federal 
approval of a ``Highway Safety Plan,'' to be submitted each fiscal year 
by the States. In particular, prior to its amendment, the regulation 
required

[[Page 40759]]

each State's highway safety plan to contain a ``problem identification 
summary,'' highlighting highway safety problems in the State, 
describing countermeasures planned to address those problems, and 
providing supporting statistical crash data. Additionally, in the 
highway safety plan, the State was required to describe and justify 
program areas to be funded, discuss planning and administration and 
training needs, and provide certain certifications and financial 
documentation.
    Part 1200 required Federal approval for proposed expenditures 
within program areas, both under the State's initially submitted 
Highway Safety Plan and subsequently for any proposed changes in 
expenditures exceeding ten percent of the total amount in a given 
program area. Federal approval was also required, on a year-by-year 
basis, if a State sought to continue a NHTSA project beyond three 
years. Such approval was conditioned on a showing that the project had 
demonstrated great merit or the potential for significant long-range 
benefits, and was subject to increased cost assumption by the State. 
The regulation provided the agencies with broad discretion to approve, 
conditionally approve, or disapprove a highway safety plan or any 
portion of the document, and required the States to submit a 
comprehensive and detailed annual evaluation report.

2. Part 1205

    Part 1205 lists each highway safety program area that the agencies 
have determined, in accordance with the Highway Safety Act, to be most 
effective in reducing crashes, injuries, and deaths. The agencies have, 
through a series of rulemaking actions over the years, identified these 
program areas as ``National Priority Program Areas.'' There are 
currently nine National Priority Program Areas: Alcohol and Other Drug 
Countermeasures; Police Traffic Services; Occupant Protection; Traffic 
Records; Emergency Medical Services; Motorcycle Safety; Roadway Safety; 
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety; and Speed Control.
    Prior to its amendment by the interim final rule, part 1205 
provided for expedited funding approval of programs developed in any of 
the National Priority Program Areas. Part 1205 provided that programs 
developed under other program areas could also be funded, but they were 
subject to a more detailed approval process. As further described under 
Section E, below, the amendments that the interim final rule made to 
part 1205 provided States with more flexibility with regard to their 
ability to fund these latter programs.

D. The Pilot Program

    In the years since the original enactment of Section 402, States 
have developed the expertise necessary to conduct effective highway 
safety programs. Just as Congress earlier recognized the desirability 
of changing the mandatory standards to more flexible guidelines, the 
agencies recognized that the time was right to provide the States with 
added flexibility to set their own goals, define their own performance 
measures, and determine the best means of accomplishing their goals, 
subject to the existing statutory parameters requiring overall program 
approval.
    Consistent with efforts to relieve burdens on the States under the 
President's regulatory reform initiative, the agencies took the first 
step in providing more flexibility for the States by establishing a 
pilot program in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 for highway safety programs 
conducted under section 402. The pilot program was announced in the 
Federal Register on September 12, 1995 (60 FR 47418) for fiscal year 
1996 and on September 6, 1996 (61 FR 46895) for fiscal year 1997.

1. Procedures

    The pilot program waived the requirement for State submission and 
Federal approval of the Highway Safety Plan required under then-
existing part 1200 for those States that chose to participate, and 
instead provided for a benchmarking process by which the States set 
their own highway safety goals and performance measures. Under the 
benchmarking process, participating States were required to submit a 
planning document and a benchmark report, rather than the previously 
required highway safety plan. The planning document, which described 
how Federal funds would be used, consistent with the guidelines, 
priority areas, and other requirements of Section 402, was required to 
be approved by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety.
    The States were required to submit the benchmark report to the 
agencies for approval by August 1 prior to the fiscal year for which 
the highway safety program was to be conducted. The benchmark report 
was required to contain three components: a Process Description; 
Performance Goals; and a Highway Safety Program Cost Summary. Under the 
Process Description component, States were required to describe the 
processes used to identify highway safety problems, establish 
performance goals, and develop the programs and projects in their 
plans. Under the Performance Goals component, States were required to 
identify highway safety performance goals (developed through a problem 
identification process) and to identify performance measures to be used 
to track progress toward each goal. Under the Highway Safety Program 
Cost Summary component, States submitted HS Form 217, a financial 
accounting form that has been a longstanding requirement under part 
1200.
    The focus of the Federal review and approval process under the 
pilot program shifted away from a review of the substantive details of 
the program, on a project-by-project basis, as required under then-
existing part 1200. Instead, the process focused on verification that 
the State had committed itself, through a performance-based planning 
document approved by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety 
and a benchmark report, to a highway safety program that targeted 
identified State highway safety concerns. The agencies waived the 
requirement under then-existing part 1200 that States seek approval for 
changes in expenditures exceeding ten percent in a given program area.
    Under the pilot program, the requirements governing the annual 
evaluation report were changed to accommodate the shift to a 
performance-based process. States were required to report on their 
progress toward meeting goals, using performance measures identified in 
the benchmark report, and the steps they took toward meeting goals. 
States were also required to describe State and community projects 
funded during the year.
    In other respects, the pilot program followed the requirements of 
then-existing part 1200 without change. Provisions concerning the 
submission of certifications and assurances, the apportionment and 
obligation of Federal funds, financial accounting (including submission 
of vouchers, program income, and the like), and the closeout of each 
year's program continued to apply to the pilot program.

2. Experience Under the Pilot Program

    Over the two-year period during which the pilot program was in 
place prior to issuance of the interim final rule, it received 
increasing support from States. Sixteen States participated in the 
pilot program during fiscal year 1996, and 41 States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands participated during fiscal year

[[Page 40760]]

1997. Most participating States expressed enthusiasm about the goal-
setting process used in the pilot program, and felt a greater sense of 
``ownership'' of their highway safety programs under the pilot 
procedures. Prior to their participation in the pilot program, many of 
these States already had adopted performance measures in their State 
budgeting and management processes, which eased the transition for 
these States to a performance-based process under the pilot program. 
The majority of participating States reported that the pilot program 
procedures resulted in reduced Federally-imposed burdens and increased 
State flexibility in administering their highway safety programs.
    In December 1996, the 16 States that participated in the pilot 
program during its initial year submitted their annual reports 
regarding their highway safety accomplishments under the pilot program. 
Overall, the reports revealed improvements in data systems, goal-
setting, and project selection. They also reported reductions in costs 
and time expended for the administration of the program, and a 
broadening of highway safety partnerships. In addition, the reports 
revealed that pilot States were making steady progress toward achieving 
established goals. Experience during that initial year confirmed that 
the pilot procedures resulted in the implementation of successful 
highway safety programs, consistent with national highway safety goals 
and Federal goals for regulatory reform, streamlining procedures, and 
improvements in performance.
    In January 1997, during the second year of the pilot program, the 
agencies held a meeting that was attended by representatives of all 
States and territories. State representatives identified concerns and 
offered suggestions in an effort to make further improvements in the 
pilot program procedures. States generally expressed a desire for more 
flexibility, such as by extending the due date for submission of 
application documents, permitting a multi-year planning process, and 
accommodating short and long range goals in the goal-setting process. 
States generally agreed that, if progress toward meeting goals did not 
occur in a State, both State and Federal officials should cooperate to 
develop an improvement plan for the State.

E. Interim Final Rule

    Based on the success of the pilot program during its first two 
years of operation, the agencies published an interim final rule on 
June 26, 1997, revising the regulations governing State highway safety 
programs to implement the pilot procedures. The interim final rule also 
addressed issues raised during the January 1997 meeting. It extended 
the due date for submission of application documents from August 1 to 
September 1 and accommodated the States' desire for flexibility to plan 
and set goals covering time periods that best meet State needs. It also 
provided for a joint effort by Federal and State officials to develop 
an improvement plan, where a State fails to progress to meet goals.
    The interim final rule replaced the previously-existing procedures 
under part 1200 governing the preparation, submission, review, and 
approval of State Highway Safety Plans (discussed generally under 
Section C.1, above), with new procedures modeled after those used in 
the pilot program. The interim final rule required the States to submit 
information detailing their highway safety programs in the same format 
as required under the pilot program, but made some adjustments to the 
pilot program procedures, as noted above.
    In addition, the interim final rule changed some of the terminology 
used in the pilot program. The more descriptive terms ``performance 
plan'' and ``highway safety plan'' replaced the terms ``benchmark 
report'' and ``planning document,'' which were used in the pilot 
program to describe State highway safety goals and planned activities. 
However, the functions of these documents remained essentially 
unchanged from those existing under the pilot program, as described 
under Section D, above. In the preamble to the interim final rule, the 
agencies explained that States were free to prepare their Performance 
Plan and Highway Safety Plan as comprehensive documents which also 
included goals and activities for highway safety programs other than 
the Section 402 program. The agencies explained that, in such cases, 
the Highway Safety Plan should identify those programs or activities 
funded from other sources in a separate section or should identify them 
clearly in some other manner.
    The interim final rule changed the nature of the Federal approval 
process, consistent with the procedures used during the pilot program. 
Instead of approving a highway safety plan based on a project-by-
project justification, the interim final rule provided for review of 
the State's highway safety program as a whole, to verify that the State 
had developed a goal-oriented highway safety program that was approved 
by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, and that 
identified the State's highway safety problems, established goals and 
performance measures to effect improvements in highway safety, and 
described activities designed to achieve those goals.
    The interim final rule left unchanged the requirement that States 
must submit an annual report. However, the contents of the annual 
report changed from those required under the previously-existing part 
1200. Under the interim final rule, the States were required to 
describe their progress in meeting State highway safety goals, using 
performance measures identified in the Performance Plan, and the 
projects and activities funded during the fiscal year. They also were 
required to include in these reports an explanation of how these 
projects and activities contributed to meeting the State's highway 
safety goals. No substantive changes were made to provisions relating 
to the apportionment and obligation of Federal funds, financial 
accounting, and the like.
    Finally, the interim final rule made conforming changes to the 
funding procedures for National Priority Program Areas and other 
program areas contained in Part 1205. These changes allowed States to 
pursue activities in program areas identified either by the agencies as 
National Priority Program areas or by the States as State priorities. 
In pursuing activities under the latter category, States were given 
more flexibility in the processes they could follow to identify program 
areas that were State priorities, and the level of Federal oversight 
was reduced.
    A more detailed discussion of the changes appears in the preamble 
to the interim final rule (62 FR 34397).

F. Comments

    The interim final rule solicited comments from all interested 
parties, and noted that the agencies would respond to all comments and, 
if appropriate, amend the provisions of the rule. The agencies received 
comments from State agencies in Florida, Maryland, Michigan, and 
Washington and from two organizations, the National Association of 
Governors' Highway Safety Representatives and Advocates for Highway and 
Auto Safety.

1. In General

    Many commenters expressed general approval of the interim final 
rule. In the State of Washington, the Traffic Safety Commission and the 
Department of Transportation both supported the interim final rule 
without change. The Traffic Safety Commission lauded the ``change in 
attitude and method,'' adding that it was certain to improve the 
already good working relationship

[[Page 40761]]

between NHTSA and the States. The Michigan Office of Highway Safety 
Planning (Michigan) identified the flexibility for quick response to 
changing issues, the outcome-based evaluation (which it noted was 
already being performed at the State level), the opportunity to offer 
programming flexibility to local communities, and the reduction in 
paperwork as welcome results of the interim final rule. The National 
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR) 
expressed strong support for the rule, commending the agencies for 
reflecting State concerns and codifying the flexibility desired by 
States in the interim final rule. NAGHSR was especially supportive of 
the change in submission date for the State's application documents 
from August 1 to September 1 of the fiscal year, stating that this 
would provide the States with time to obtain additional input from 
their safety constituencies and to refine their performance plans.

2. Specific Issues

    Commenters raised a number of specific issues, all related to the 
interim final rule's changes to part 1200. The agencies received no 
comments concerning the interim final rule's changes to part 1205.
a. Federal Approval Procedures
    The Florida Department of Transportation (Florida) sought 
clarification of Federal approval procedures. Noting the discussion 
that Federal approval of the annual Highway Safety Plan was no longer 
required, Florida asked why the interim final rule contained references 
to an ``Approving Official'' (Sec. 1200.3), ``delayed approval'' 
(Sec. 1200.12) if due dates are not met, and a ``letter of Approval'' 
(Sec. 1200.13).
    The statute under which the Section 402 program operates requires 
each State to have a highway safety program ``approved by the Secretary 
(of Transportation),'' and further specifies certain conditions under 
which the Secretary may not approve a program. Consequently, some 
approvals continue to be required but, as the agencies explained in the 
preamble to the interim final rule, the nature of the Federal approval 
process changed. The interim final rule provided that the contents of 
the Highway Safety Plan no longer need to be approved on a project-by-
project basis. Rather, the State's highway safety program is to be 
reviewed as a whole, to verify that the State has developed a goal-
oriented highway safety program that is approved by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety, and that identifies the State's 
highway safety problems, establishes goals and performance measures to 
effect improvements in highway safety, and describes activities 
designed to achieve those goals. The agencies believe that this new 
program level approval process was reflected in the interim final rule 
without ambiguity. Consequently, the agencies have made no change to 
the rule in response to this comment.
b. Financial Reporting
    To effect a further reduction in paperwork burdens on State highway 
safety offices, Michigan recommended that changes in the allocation of 
funds, under Sec. 1200.22, be reported on a quarterly basis rather than 
within 30 days of the change.
    In the interim final rule, the agencies took the significant step 
of removing the requirement for prior approval of changes during 
program implementation. The agencies believe that removing the prior 
approval requirement, coupled with retention of the monthly reporting 
requirement, strikes the appropriate balance between alleviating 
burdens to the States and retaining the agencies' ability to monitor, 
on an ongoing basis, the expenditure of Federal funds. Consequently, 
the agencies have not adopted the suggestion for quarterly reporting of 
changes.
    Florida noted that the interim final rule prescribes the use of HS 
Form 217 for financial reporting, despite the transition by some States 
(including Florida) to paperless electronic reporting through NHTSA's 
Grant Tracking System. Florida asked which format (i.e., hard copy or 
electronic) was intended by the interim final rule.
    For many States, use of the electronic Grant Tracking System has 
replaced the use of paper forms to report grant finances. However, even 
with the electronic system, there is an ``HS 217'' screen for recording 
the information concerning allocations of federal and State funds to 
specific program areas, which is then transmitted electronically to 
NHTSA. This form, either in its electronic or hard copy format, would 
meet the requirements of the interim final rule. To clarify this point, 
the agencies have included language in appropriate places in the rule 
explaining that either HS Form 217 or its electronic equivalent is 
acceptable.
c. Goal-Setting and Program Evaluation
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) submitted lengthy 
comments, expressing the view that the interim final rule ``devolves 
all essential aspects of the 402 program to state authorities.'' 
According to Advocates, this more flexible approach will result in the 
selection of highly subjective safety program goals, the inability to 
assess cost-effectiveness properly, and the submission of State reports 
based on ``anecdotal experience and generalized, amorphous 
information.'' Advocates questioned whether this approach satisfies the 
statutory requirement that State highway safety programs be based on 
``uniform guidelines [which] shall be expressed in terms of performance 
criteria.''
    In support of this concern, Advocates cited the report, 
``Evaluation of the section 402 Pilot Process, NHTSA (May, 1997)'' and 
the separate reports submitted by the 16 original pilot States. 
According to Advocates, the NHTSA report elaborates only on positive 
information drawn from the State reports, ignoring the deficiencies. 
Among the deficiencies Advocates identified in the State reports are 
the lack of substantive information about goals and accomplishments; 
and the lack of data, or reliance on old or subjective data, or 
brushing aside of contradictory data in efforts to demonstrate progress 
toward meeting State goals. Advocates asserted that some State reports 
are ``in essence, public relations documents,'' and concluded that if 
this continues, most State reports will be of no use in assessing the 
status of the individual State programs as well as the national 402 
program as a whole. Advocates also asserted that, with a unique goal-
selection process for each State, States might select easily achieved 
goals at the expense of safety issues that need to be addressed. 
Advocates questioned whether the new approach met the statutory goal of 
improving highway safety or provided a credible means for evaluating 
the effectiveness of the Section 402 program.
    The agencies have described, above, the evolution of the Highway 
Safety Act of 1966, from a framework of enforcing standards to using 
standards for problem identification, countermeasure development, and 
program evaluation, and ultimately to using guidelines as an aid in 
fashioning highway safety programs. We have also noted, above, that 
since publication of the interim final rule, Congress further amended 
the Highway Safety Act, allowing the States to consider highly 
effective programs that may from time to time be identified in a rule 
by the agency, in lieu of requiring adherence to only those programs 
specifically designated as most effective in a rule by the agency. In 
short, the statutory framework has moved away from requiring a 
centralized, uniform program, with each

[[Page 40762]]

State pursuing a set of common goals. Consequently, we do not agree 
with Advocates' criticism that a goal selection process that is unique 
to each State overlooks important safety issues. Rather, we believe 
that this new process provides States with the additional flexibility 
and ability to tailor their programs that was intended by the Congress.
    The agencies agree with Advocates that there was variability in the 
quality and usefulness of data among the 16 initial annual reports 
submitted by the States under the pilot process. This is to be expected 
under any new process. However, for the first time, reports began to 
address performance goals in highway safety and measures of progress in 
reaching those goals. Under the previous procedures, this important 
goal-setting and tracking information was largely unavailable. The 
agencies fully expect that the process, the data, and the reports will 
improve over time (although there will always be a time-lag in the 
data). We believe that the annual reports under the new process will 
provide an effective means of evaluating progress under the Section 402 
program, as more experience is developed. Should this not materialize, 
the agencies will consider necessary changes to the reporting process 
in a future action. The agencies do not believe that any change to the 
rule is necessary at this time to address this comment.
    The agencies also do not believe that the concern that States may 
select only goals that are easy to achieve, overlooking other important 
areas of highway safety, is warranted. In the course of establishing 
goals and performance measures, the interim final rule requires a State 
to describe in its Performance Plan the problem identification process 
followed and the participants in that process. In addition, the State 
must issue a public report (the Annual Report) each year. With this 
public process, we do not believe that States will address only easily-
achieved goals. A more likely limitation on the goal-setting process 
will be the initial absence of effective performance measures and data 
for certain problem areas. This limitation should be mitigated over 
time by improvement of the performance-based management process and the 
data upon which it depends. Consequently, we have made no change to the 
rule in response to this comment.
    Florida questioned the value of the Annual Report (Sec. 1200.33). 
According to Florida, the requirement for an Annual Report (as well as 
the requirement for an Improvement Plan, discussed in the next section) 
assumes that projects from a Highway Safety Plan can be evaluated 
against the State's goals within three months of their completion, 
whereas data to support an evaluation are actually not likely to be 
available for a year or more after project completion. Florida also 
stated that it is unclear from Sec. 1200.10 (Application) whether the 
intent is for the State to have short-term or longer-term safety goals 
for the program. Florida noted that short term goals exhibit data 
availability problems.
    The agencies agree with Florida that many projects will not produce 
measurable results within the three-month period between the end of the 
fiscal year and the due date for submission of the Annual Report. 
However, the performance-based process implemented by the interim final 
rule recognizes that the Section 402 program is ongoing, as are the 
State highway safety programs that it supports. These State programs do 
not begin and end with the fiscal year, even if certain projects do. 
Progress toward meeting goals in major highway safety program areas 
will occur across fiscal years and be attributable to more than one 
project or activity. Therefore, in the Annual Report, States should 
report the most recent data available concerning each of their 
identified performance measures and describe the projects that have 
contributed to that progress. The agencies have made changes to the 
``Annual Report'' section of the rule to clarify these points. With 
respect to Florida's concern about Sec. 1200.10, that section specifies 
neither short-term nor long-term goals as requirements in the goal-
setting process. Either approach or a mix of both approaches is 
acceptable, as deemed necessary or appropriate by the State. In all 
cases, the State should include the most recent and best available data 
in the annual report.
d. Improvement Plans
    Two commenters expressed opposing views about the value of 
Improvement Plans. Florida recommended elimination of the interim final 
rule's requirement for an Improvement Plan where a State's broad goals 
are not met, reasoning that Federal highway safety funds provide only 
``seed money'' for a few projects, and should not be assumed to have an 
``immediate quantifiable effect on a statewide problem.'' In contrast, 
NAGHSR supported the requirement for joint development of an 
Improvement Plan by Federal and State officials where a State has not 
made sufficient progress to meet goals (Sec. 1200.25). NAGHSR believed 
this approach to be a ``reasonable and prudent one'' if a State fails 
to make progress or does not act in good faith in implementing its 
plan.
    The agencies agree with NAGHSR about the value of Improvement 
Plans. Florida's recommendation to eliminate the requirement stems from 
concerns about the lack of contemporaneous data to track progress. The 
agencies are mindful of these data limitations, and intend to exercise 
appropriate restraint in the use of Improvement Plans. For example, it 
is not the agencies' intent to require an Improvement Plan if, in a 
single year, some of a State's projects or activities do not appear to 
``have an immediate quantifiable effect on a statewide problem,'' based 
on available data. Rather, an improvement plan would be employed if a 
State demonstrates a pattern that indicates little or no progress 
toward meeting goals, taking account of all relevant circumstances. The 
agencies believe that this approach strikes an appropriate balance in 
ensuring that the expenditure of Section 402 funds ultimately results 
in measurable traffic safety benefits, and that no changes to the rule 
are necessary.
e. Use of the Term ``Highway Safety Plan'
    The Office of Traffic Safety of the Maryland State Highway 
Administration (Maryland) objected to the agencies' ``preemption'' of 
the title ``Highway Safety Plan'' for the program document required 
under the Section 402 program. Maryland explained that States have 
comprehensive, multi-year plans that set forth goals and strategies for 
addressing highway traffic safety problems, and that these State plans 
typically are called Highway Safety Plans or Strategic Highway Safety 
Plans. In Maryland's view, the Federally-prescribed Highway Safety Plan 
under the interim final rule cannot serve as a State's comprehensive 
Highway Safety Plan because it does not include goals, objectives, 
strategies, and performance measures and it covers only projects and 
activities that are supported by Section 402 funds or other Federal 
funds. Maryland recommends that the interim final rule be amended to 
redesignate the Highway Safety Plan as the ``Implementation Plan.''
    In contrast, NAGHSR supported the name changes for the application 
documents (i.e., from ``Benchmark Report'' and ``Planning Document'' to 
``Performance Plan'' and ``Highway Safety Plan'') , finding them to be 
less confusing.
    As noted in the preamble to the interim final rule, the familiar 
term ``Highway Safety Plan'' was used for convenience, and many of 
those most

[[Page 40763]]

involved in the Section 402 program continued to use it even during the 
pilot program. The agencies further explained that States were free to 
prepare both their Performance Plan and Highway Safety Plan as 
comprehensive documents that include goals and activities for highway 
safety programs other than the Section 402 Program. (In fact, since the 
enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Pub. 
L. 105-178, implementing regulations for a number of new highway safety 
grant programs have included provisions requiring States to document 
activities related to these other grant programs in the Highway Safety 
Plan.) Moreover, the interim final rule does not preclude a State from 
combining the elements of the Performance Plan and the Highway Safety 
Plan into one document called a Highway Safety Plan, as long as the 
substantive content requirements of the interim final rule are met. The 
interim final rule also does not restrict the amount of information or 
detail included in the Highway Safety Plan, and does not preclude the 
identification in the plan of projects or activities that do not 
receive Federal funds. The only requirement is that the source of 
funding for other projects or activities be identified, so that the 
agencies are able to distinguish clearly the programs for which Section 
402 funds are being sought. The agencies have added language to the 
rule clarifying that this is permissible. Finally, a State may, for its 
own administrative purposes, choose to call the Highway Safety Plan 
required under this rule by another name, so long as the document 
satisfies the requirements of the rule. In view of the flexibility 
afforded by this process, the agencies have made no other change to the 
rule in response to these comments.
f. Effect of Interim Final Rule
    Florida requested clarification of the discussion in the preamble 
to the interim final rule, which described the material as ``guidance'' 
for 1998 highway safety plans, but noted that ``this regulation is 
fully in effect and binding upon its effective date.'' Florida believed 
that these statements led to confusion about the status of the interim 
final rule.
    The Section 402 program is operated in accordance with published 
regulations, so that all States will have a clear understanding of the 
procedures and requirements that accompany the grant funds. When 
referring to the procedures of the interim final rule as providing 
``guidance'' to the States, the agencies did not intend to convey that 
these procedures were optional or otherwise not fully in effect. As 
noted in the preamble to the interim final rule, that document (and 
hence the provisions contained therein) became effective and binding 
upon publication.
    Advocates objected to the publication of an interim final rule to 
implement the new process, arguing that dispensing with prior public 
notice and comment is permissible only under the most extreme 
circumstances, and that no such circumstances existed here.
    The agencies previously explained the need to provide prompt 
guidance to the States about impending grant procedures. We explained 
that States needed this information well in advance of the start of the 
fiscal year to which the highway safety program applied in order to 
comply with application procedures and to allow sufficient time for 
program planning activities. For these reasons, the agencies concluded 
that there was good cause for finding that providing notice and comment 
in connection with this action was impracticable, unnecessary, and 
contrary to the public interest. The agencies noted that the amendments 
made by the interim final rule were consistent with the provisions of a 
pilot program whose procedures were already known to the States. During 
the two years covered by the pilot programs, these procedures were also 
announced to the public, in two Federal Register notices (60 FR 47418 
and 61 FR 46895). The agencies believe that the decision to issue an 
interim final rule was appropriate and in the public interest.

G. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    We have analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and have determined that 
it does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism assessment. This action increases the 
flexibility of the States by implementing a performance-based process 
under which the States bear the responsibility for setting highway 
safety goals, in accordance with their individual needs.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule does not have any preemptive or retroactive effect. It 
merely revises existing requirements imposed on States to afford States 
more flexibility in implementing a grant program. The enabling 
legislation does not establish a procedure for judicial review of final 
rules promulgated under its provisions. There is no requirement that 
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other 
administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    We have determined that this action is not a significant regulatory 
action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or significant 
within the meaning of Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures. This rule does not impose any additional burden on the 
public, but rather reduces burdens and improves the flexibility 
afforded to States in implementing highway safety programs. This action 
does not affect the level of funding available in the highway safety 
program. Accordingly, neither a Regulatory Impact Analysis nor a full 
Regulatory Evaluation is required.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety Risks)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and it 
does not concern an environmental, health, or safety risk that may have 
a disproportionate effect on children.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), we have evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. 
We hereby certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. States are the 
recipients of any funds awarded under the Section 402 program. 
Accordingly, the preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is 
unnecessary.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 
U.S.C. 272) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards (i.e., 
technical standard concerning materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) in regulatory activities 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impracticable. We have determined that no voluntary consensus standards 
apply to this action.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not impose any unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

[[Page 40764]]

1995. It would not result in costs of $100 million or more to either 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. Accordingly, neither a written assessment of its costs, 
benefits, and other effects nor a consideration of regulatory 
alternatives is required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The requirement relating to this action, that each State must 
submit certain documents to receive Section 402 grant funds, is 
considered to be an information collection requirement, as that term is 
defined by OMB. This information collection requirement has been 
previously submitted to and approved by OMB, pursuant to the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The 
requirement has been approved through September 30, 2001; OMB Control 
No. 2127-0003.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have reviewed this action for the purpose of compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and have 
determined that it will not have a significant effect on the human 
environment.

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in 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.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Parts 1200 and 1205

    Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety.

    Accordingly, the interim final rule amending part 1205 of title 23 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, published at 62 FR 34397, June 26, 
1997, is adopted as final without change and the interim final rule 
amending part 1200 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
published at 62 FR 34397, June 26, 1997, is adopted as final with the 
following changes:
    1. The authority citation for part 1200 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.48 and 1.50.

    2. In Sec. 1200.10, paragraphs (b) and (d) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 1200.10  Application.

* * * * *
    (b) A Highway Safety Plan, approved by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety, describing the projects and 
activities the State plans to implement to reach the goals identified 
in the Performance Plan. The Highway Safety Plan must, at a minimum, 
describe one year of Section 402 program activities (and may include 
activities funded from other sources, so long as the source of funding 
is clearly distinguished).
* * * * *
    (d) A Program Cost Summary (HS Form 217 or its electronic 
equivalent), completed to reflect the State's proposed allocations of 
funds (including carry-forward funds) by program area, based on the 
goals identified in the Performance Plan and the projects and 
activities identified in the Highway Safety Plan. The funding level 
used shall be an estimate of available funding for the upcoming fiscal 
year.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 1200.13, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1200.13  Approval

* * * * *
    (b) The approval letter identified in paragraph (a) of this section 
will contain the following statement:

    We have reviewed (STATE)'s ____________ fiscal year 19__ 
Performance Plan, Highway Safety Plan, Certification Statement, and 
Cost Summary (HS Form 217), as received on (DATE) ________. Based on 
these submissions, we find your State's highway safety program to be 
in compliance with the requirements of the Section 402 program. This 
determination does not constitute an obligation of Federal funds for 
the fiscal year identified above or an authorization to incur costs 
against those funds. The obligation of Section 402 program funds 
will be effected in writing by the NHTSA Administrator at the 
commencement of the fiscal year identified above. However, Federal 
funds reprogrammed from the prior-year Highway Safety Program 
(carry-forward funds) will be available for immediate use by the 
State on October 1. Reimbursement will be contingent upon the 
submission of an updated HS Form 217 (or its electronic equivalent), 
consistent with the requirements of 23 CFR 1200.14(d), within 30 
days after either the beginning of the fiscal year identified above 
or the date of this letter, whichever is later.
* * * * *

    4. In Sec. 1200.33, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 1200.33  Annual Report.

* * * * *
    (a) The State's progress in meeting its highway safety goals, using 
performance measures identified in the Performance Plan. Both Baseline 
and most current level of performance under each measure will be given 
for each goal.
    (b) How the projects and activities funded during the fiscal year 
contributed to meeting the State's highway safety goals. Where data 
becomes available, a State should report progress from prior year 
projects that have contributed to meeting current State highway safety 
goals.


Secs. 1200.14 and 1200.22  [Amended]

    In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 23 CFR part 1200, 
remove the words ``HS Form 217'' and add, in their place, the words 
``HS Form 217 (or its electronic equivalent)'' in the following places:
    (a) Section 1200.14(d)(1) and (d)(2); and
    (b) Section 1200.22.

    Issued on: July 23, 1999.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-19321 Filed 7-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P