[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 155 (Thursday, August 10, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48905-48911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20339]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1335

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4532]
RIN 2127-AH43


State Highway Safety Data and Traffic Records Improvements

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts as a final rule the regulations that were 
published in an interim final rule to implement a new program 
established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21), with modifications to clarify the program's maintenance of effort 
requirement. Under the final rule, States can qualify for incentive 
grant funds for improved highway safety data and traffic records 
systems if they meet the eligibility requirements.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on September 11, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Wendi Wilson-John, Office of State 
and Community Services, NSC-01, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, telephone 
(202) 366-2121; or Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, NCC-30, NHTSA, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21) was signed into law on June 9, 1998, as Public Law 
105-178. Section 2005 of TEA-21 established a new Section 411, entitled 
State Highway Safety Data Improvements, in Title 23, United States Code 
(Section 411). Under this new program, States may qualify for incentive 
grant funds by adopting and implementing effective highway safety data 
and traffic records improvement programs that meet specified statutory 
criteria.

Components Required by Section 411

    Section 411 provides that a State's highway safety data and traffic 
records system should have three basic components, all of which must be 
present if the State is to receive multiple-year grants: a committee to 
coordinate the development and use of highway safety data and traffic 
records; a systematic assessment of the State's highway safety data and 
traffic records;

[[Page 48906]]

and a strategic plan for the continued improvement of highway safety 
data and traffic records.

Types of Grant

    Section 411 anticipated that some States may not be able to meet 
all three prerequisites in the first or even the second year of the 
Section 411 program. The statute further anticipated that the strategic 
plan would be the most complex, and the most time-consuming, 
prerequisite to meet.
    Accordingly, the section provided for three types of grants: a 
``start-up'' grant, in the amount of $25,000, to each State that is not 
eligible for the other grants, provided that the State certifies that 
it will use the grant to meet the requisite components in the following 
year; an ``initiation'' grant, in the amount of $125,000, to each State 
that has established a coordinating committee, has performed or updated 
an assessment within the last five years, and has initiated the 
development of a strategic plan; and an ``implementation'' grant, in 
the amount described below, to each State that has established a 
coordinating committee, has performed or updated an assessment within 
the last five years, and has developed a strategic plan.
    Section 411 provided that the first two types of grants would be 
available for one year only, and that the third grant would be 
available for multiple years. In accordance with the statute, a State 
that initially qualifies for a start-up grant may qualify for an 
initiation or an implementation grant in a subsequent fiscal year, if 
the State meets the criteria for these types of grants. A State that 
qualifies for an initiation or an implementation grant in any fiscal 
year may receive only implementation grants in subsequent fiscal years.
    Section 411 provides that the amount of funds a State receives for 
an implementation grant is determined by a formula. The amount is 
determined by multiplying the amount appropriated to carry out 23 
U.S.C. 411 by the ratio that the funds apportioned to the State under 
23 U.S.C. 402 for fiscal year 1997 bears to the funds apportioned to 
all States under 23 U.S.C. 402 for fiscal year 1997, with the following 
exceptions. If the State has not received an initiation or an 
implementation grant under the Section 411 program in a previous fiscal 
year, the State shall receive no less than $250,000. If the State has 
received either of these two grants under the Section 411 program in a 
previous fiscal year, the State shall receive no less than $225,000.
    All grant amounts are subject to the availability of funds.

Limitations on Grant Amounts

    Section 411 provided that no State may receive a grant in more than 
six fiscal years, and a total of $32 million was authorized for the 
Section 411 program over a period of four years. Specifically, TEA-21 
authorized $5 million for fiscal year 1999, $8 million for fiscal year 
2000, $9 million for fiscal year 2001, and $10 million for fiscal year 
2002. Funds may be used by States only to adopt and implement 
improvements to their highway safety data and traffic records programs.
    Under Section 411, States are required to match the grant funds 
they receive as follows: the Federal share cannot exceed 75 percent of 
the cost of implementing the highway safety data and traffic records 
programs adopted to qualify for these funds in the first and second 
fiscal years the State receives funds; 50 percent in the third and 
fourth fiscal years it receives funds; and 25 percent in the fifth and 
sixth fiscal years.

Interim Final Rule

    On October 8, 1998, NHTSA published an interim final rule in the 
Federal Register to implement the Section 411 program. 63 FR 54044. The 
interim final rule described the criteria States must meet and the 
procedures States must follow to qualify for funding under the Section 
411 program.

Eligibility Criteria

    The interim final rule provided that, to qualify for an 
implementation grant, a State must demonstrate that it has established 
a coordinating committee, completed or updated an assessment within the 
five years preceding the date of its application, and developed a 
strategic plan.
    To qualify for an initiation grant, a State need not demonstrate 
that it has developed a strategic plan, but must demonstrate that it 
has established a coordinating committee, completed or updated an 
assessment within the five years preceding the date of its application, 
and initiated the development of a strategic plan. In addition, a State 
may qualify for an initiation grant only if it has not received an 
initiation or an implementation grant under this part in a previous 
fiscal year.
    Any State that is not eligible for an initiation or an 
implementation grant, and has not received any grant under the Section 
411 program in a previous fiscal year can qualify for a start-up grant, 
in accordance with the interim final rule.
    A more detailed discussion of these criteria is contained in the 
interim final rule.

Application Procedures

    The interim final rule stated that, to receive a grant in any 
fiscal year, the State must submit an application to NHTSA, through the 
appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator, which demonstrates that the 
State meets the requirements of the grant being requested. The State 
also must submit the documentation listed in the regulation, including 
such items as a certification that the State will use the funds awarded 
only for the improvement of highway safety data and traffic records 
programs and a certification that the State will administer the funds 
in accordance with relevant regulations and OMB Circulars.
    Further details regarding these procedures were described in the 
interim final rule.

Request for Comments

    NHTSA requested comments from interested persons regarding the 
interim final rule. Comments were due by December 7, 1998. The agency 
stated in the interim final rule that all comments submitted to the 
docket would be considered and that, following the close of the comment 
period, NHTSA would publish a document in the Federal Register 
responding to the comments and, if appropriate, would make revisions to 
the provisions of Part 1335.

Comments Received

    The agency received five comments in response to the interim final 
rule. Comments were received from: K. Craig Allred, Director of the 
Utah Highway Safety Office and Chair of the National Association of 
Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR); Jo Ann Moore, 
Manager of the Idaho Office of Highway Safety for the State of Idaho 
Transportation Department (Idaho); Betty J. Mercer, Division Director 
of the Office of Highway Safety Planning for Michigan's Department of 
State Police (Michigan); Charles W. Heald, P.E., Executive Director of 
the Texas Department of Transportation (Texas); and Richard L. 
Hannerman, President of the Salt Institute (Salt Institute).

General Comments

    In general, the comments received in response to the interim final 
rule were positive. Some of the commenters indicated that they believe 
it is important for States to have accurate and complete highway safety 
data and traffic records, and they expressed their appreciation that 
Congress has established this incentive grant program.
    The State of Michigan, for example, stated, ``Traffic records data 
is the

[[Page 48907]]

backbone of an effective and efficient state highway safety program. 
Timely and accurate data is essential for both problem identification 
and program evaluation. Michigan appreciates the recognition that 
Congress has given to this critical highway safety component by making 
funding available to implement essential improvements to the state 
highway safety data and traffic records program.'' NAGHSR stated, ``The 
grant program will provide a small but significant incentive to states 
to improve their state data systems through a comprehensive, planned 
approach.''
    Other commenters provided general support for the contents of the 
interim final rule. The Salt Institute, for example, ``wholeheartedly 
endorse[d] the NHTSA conclusion that an effective highway safety 
program ``must include a process that identifies highway safety 
programs, develops measures to address the problems, implements the 
measures, and evaluates the results' and that this demands and `depends 
on the availability of highway safety data and traffic records.' '' In 
addition, the Salt Institute stated that it ``is pleased to endorse the 
data elements included in the interim final rule specifying the 
requirements on states to receive highway safety incentive grants for 
their safety data and traffic records.'' NAGHSR stated that, ``In 
general, NAGHSR supports the proposed interim regulations and believes 
that they are reasonable.''
    Some of the commenters suggested that certain limited modifications 
should be made to the interim final rule, and Michigan stated, ``it is 
our hope that the implementing regulations will be modified so that 
they do not deter the states from being able to take full advantage of 
this very needed funding source.''
    The specific modifications that these commenters proposed and the 
agency's response to those comments are discussed in detail below. The 
agency notes, however, that the interim regulations did not deter the 
States from taking advantage of the Section 411 program. A total of 
$4,806,900 in grants were distributed to 54 jurisdictions (47 States, 
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 4 U.S. Territories and the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs) under this program in FY 1999, and a total of 
$7,600,000 in grants were distributed to 46 jurisdictions (42 States, 
Puerto Rico and 3 U.S. Territories) under Section 411 in FY 2000.

Specific Comments

1. Establish a Coordinating Committee

    In Section 411, Congress outlined the criteria that States must 
meet to qualify for incentive grants under this program. Under one of 
these criteria, States must have ``established a highway safety data 
and traffic records coordinating committee with a multi-disciplinary 
membership, including the administrators, collectors, and users of such 
data (including the public health, injury control, and motor carrier 
communities).'' Section 411 provides also that States must submit their 
highway safety data and traffic records strategic plans to the 
coordinating committee for approval.
    The interim final rule provided that, to qualify for either an 
initiation or an implementation grant, States must have established a 
coordinating committee that meets certain requirements. Specifically, 
the committee must be made up of members drawn from the agencies and 
organizations throughout the State that administer, collect and use 
highway safety data and traffic records and have certain enumerated 
powers, including the authority to review any of the State's highway 
safety data and traffic records systems and to review changes to those 
systems before the changes are implemented.
    The agency received comments from NAGHSR, Michigan and Texas, 
objecting to these requirements. Michigan's comments on this subject 
are both comprehensive and representative of the others received.
    Michigan stated, ``The Committee is a very diverse group, the 
actual authority to operate the system most likely lies with one of the 
key agencies on the Committee. The law requires only that the Committee 
`continue to operate and support the multi-year plan.' It is more 
appropriate and realistic to require that the Coordinating Committee 
review and makes recommendations on the strategic plan but not 
necessarily have direct authority to approve it.''
    Michigan continues, ``To require the Committee to have the 
authority to review the state highway safety data and traffic records 
system and changes to the system prior to implementation is impractical 
and unnecessary. Michigan has had a traffic records coordinating 
committee for many years. The state long recognized that to have an 
effective program the key agencies with an interest in the data must 
work collaboratively. * * * Authority for any specific segment of the 
traffic records system, however, rests with the state agency 
responsible for that particular segment.'' [Emphasis in text.]
    Similarly, NAGHSR opposed the ``expanded role'' that the interim 
regulation seems to envision for the coordinating committee, and Texas 
expressed its belief that ``such a formal committee * * * with such 
broad control over state agency operations'' should not be required.
    As stated previously, the statutory language in Section 411 
requires that States must submit their highway safety data and traffic 
records strategic plans to the coordinating committee for approval. The 
agency believes that the portion of the interim final rule which 
provides that the coordinating committee must have the authority to 
review the State's highway safety data and traffic records systems and 
to review changes to those systems before the changes are implemented 
is necessary to implement this statutory requirement properly.
    If a coordinating committee did not have this authority, the agency 
believes there would be no assurance that the improvements identified 
in the plan that need to be made will in fact be carried out. In 
addition, NHTSA expects that these strategic plans will be ``living 
documents,'' which may need to be altered on a continuous basis to take 
into account the amount of progress that has (or has not) been made and 
any other changes in circumstances. The agency believes that, by 
including the coordinating committee in the review process in this way, 
the committee will remain more fully informed about the State's 
progress in implementing the strategic plan and about other 
circumstances as they unfold, which will enable the committee to make 
adjustments to the plan, if they are needed. Accordingly, this portion 
of the final rule has been adopted without change.
    NAGHSR also asserted in its comments that, in some regions, 
``states are being actively encouraged to require state agency members 
of the coordinating committee to sign a joint Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) * * * [which] would give formal approval authority 
to the coordinating committee over the state data plan.'' NAGHSR states 
that this suggestion would be problematic for some State agencies, and 
suggests that it should be discontinued.
    The agency acknowledges that, when some States inquired about the 
manner in which a State could document that they had the authority 
mentioned above, some of the agency's regional staff suggested to these 
States that they could document the authority in a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU). The agency did not mean to suggest,

[[Page 48908]]

however, that this was a necessary requirement. As provided in the 
interim final rule, to demonstrate compliance with the Section 411 
criterion that States must establish a coordinating committee, States 
need only certify that the State ``has established a coordinating 
committee, and include the name, title and organizational affiliation 
of each member of'' that committee. State coordinating committees may 
enter into MOU's if they wish, but this is not a prerequisite to 
Section 411 compliance.

2. Complete or Update an Assessment

    One of the other criteria established by Congress in Section 411 is 
the requirement that States must have ``completed, within the preceding 
5 years, a highway safety data and traffic records assessment or an 
audit of the highway safety data and traffic records system of the 
State.''
    The interim final rule provided that, to qualify for either an 
initiation or an implementation grant, States must have completed or 
updated an assessment within the five years preceding the date of the 
State's application and, further, it provided that the assessment must 
meet certain requirements.
    Specifically, the interim regulations required that the assessment 
must be an in-depth, formal review of the State's highway safety data 
and traffic records system; that it generate an impartial report of the 
status of the system in the State; and that it be conducted by an 
organization or group that is knowledgeable about highway safety data 
and traffic records systems, but independent from the organizations 
involved in the administration, collection and use of these State 
systems.
    In its comments, Texas objected to the requirement that the 
assessment must be conducted by an ``organization or group that is 
knowledgeable about highway safety data and traffic records systems.'' 
Texas expressed its belief that States ``should be given more latitude 
to select a consultant experienced in a wide range of disciplines such 
as business process re-engineering or information systems.'' According 
to Texas, ``Limiting these efforts to consultants and organizations 
experienced in crash records will adversely limit the type and number 
of firms that will be able to compete for these assessments.''
    The agency would not object to any State's decision to involve in 
its assessment a consultant or group with experience in a wide range of 
disciplines, such as business process re-engineering or information 
systems. However, to qualify under the Section 411 criterion that 
States must complete or update an assessment, the organization or group 
conducting the assessment must also be knowledgeable about highway 
safety data and traffic records systems.
    This portion of the final rule has also been adopted without 
change.

3. Initiate or Develop a Strategic Plan

    Congress also provided, in Section 411, that States either must 
have ``initiated the development of a multi-year highway safety data 
and traffic records strategic plan'' that meets certain requirements or 
that they certify ``that the highway safety data and traffic records 
coordinating committee of the State continues to operate and supports 
the multi-year plan.''
    The interim final rule provided that States must have initiated the 
development of a strategic plan to qualify for an initiation grant, and 
that States must have developed a strategic plan to qualify for an 
implementation grant. The interim regulation further provided that the 
strategic plan must be a multi-year plan that identifies and 
prioritizes the highway safety data and traffic records needs and goals 
based on the State's assessment, identifies performance-based measures 
by which progress toward those goals will be determined, and be 
submitted to the coordinating committee for approval.
    Michigan stated, in its comments, that it would have no difficulty 
meeting the requirement that States must have a strategic plan, but 
Michigan asserted that this requirement might be difficult for some 
other States. No other State raised this objection.
    Texas raised two questions concerning this criterion. The State 
asked whether the committee's approval of the plan commits State 
agencies to implement the plan and it asked how differences between 
plans of the coordinating committee and of the State agency would be 
resolved.
    The interim regulations provide that, to qualify for an initiation 
grant, a State must certify that the State ``has established a 
coordinating committee'' and that it ``has initiated the development of 
a strategic plan, with the supervision and approval of the coordinating 
committee.'' A State must also certify that the State ``has established 
a coordinating committee'' to qualify for an implementation grant (if 
the State has not received an initiation or an implementation grant 
under this part in a previous fiscal year). In addition, to qualify for 
an implementation grant (whether or not the State has received an 
initiation or an implementation grant under this part in a previous 
fiscal year), a State must certify that ``the coordinating committee 
continues to operate and supports the strategic plan.''
    The interim regulations do not require that the State submit any 
certifications or other information concerning the actions that State 
agencies must take as a result of the plan or the means of resolving 
issues that may arise between these agencies and the coordinating 
committee. It is up to each individual State to address these issues. 
NHTSA does not believe it is appropriate for it to dictate such matters 
to the States.
    However, the States should note that, to qualify for an 
implementation grant (if the State has received an initiation or an 
implementation grant under this part in a previous fiscal year), a 
State must report on its progress in implementing the strategic plan 
since the State's previous application. If progress is not made in a 
State, due to a lack of commitment on the part of State, because of the 
presence of conflicts between these agencies and the coordinating 
committee, or for other reasons, the State's ability to receive Section 
411 grant funds in subsequent years could be jeopardized.
    No changes have been made to this portion of the final rule as a 
result of these comments.

4. Maintenance of Effort and Matching Requirements

    In the provisions of Section 411, Congress provided for a 
maintenance of effort requirement. Specifically, Section 411 provides 
that, ``No grant may be made to a State under this section in any 
fiscal year unless the State enters into [an] agreement with the [the 
agency] * * * that the State will maintain its aggregate expenditures 
from all other sources for its highway safety data and traffic records 
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in [fiscal 
years 1996 and 1997].''
    Section 411 provides also for State matching requirements. 
Specifically, the statute provides that ``The Federal share of the cost 
of implementing and enforcing, as appropriate, in a fiscal year a 
program adopted by a State pursuant to [the Section 411 program] shall 
not exceed [75 percent] in the first and second fiscal years in which 
the State receives a grant under this section * * *; [50 percent] in 
the third and fourth fiscal years in which the State receives a grant 
under this section * * *; and [25 percent] in the fifth and sixth 
fiscal years * * *
    The interim final rule incorporated all of these requirements into 
the interim regulations.

[[Page 48909]]

    In its comments, Idaho raised two objections to these requirements. 
Regarding the maintenance of effort requirement, Idaho explained that 
it ``spent an abnormally large amount [of funds] on highway safety data 
and traffic records systems in [fiscal years 1996 and 1997] from 
special funding sources that are no longer available, thereby making it 
impossible to continue expenditures at this inflated level.''
    According to Idaho, ``In fiscal year 1995, [it] received a one-time 
amount of $1.3 million [under the Section 153 transfer program] because 
the state did not have a universal motorcycle helmet law [and the 
State] used approximately 23 percent of those funds for highway safety 
data and traffic records system projects in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. 
As a result, expenditures for data-related initiatives in those two 
years, due to this ``windfall'' funding source, were among the highest 
on record for [the] agency.''
    With all of the highway safety problems that the State must 
address, Idaho asserts that, ``It would be irresponsible [for Idaho] to 
include in [its] highway safety plans a 25 percent yearly expenditure 
of 402 funds on highway safety data or traffic records systems.'' 
Accordingly, Idaho requests that these Section 153 transfer funds not 
be considered as part of the baseline for the Section 411 maintenance 
of effort requirement.
    The agency recognizes that, in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, some 
States expended usually large sums of money on their highway safety 
data and traffic records systems and that these sums were from special 
funding sources that are no longer available. In particular, many 
States experienced a transfer of funds in fiscal year 1995, under the 
Section 153 program, because they did not have in effect conforming 
motorcycle helmet or seat belt use legislation. Some of these States 
chose to use these funds to upgrade their highway safety data and 
traffic records systems and, in many cases, the funds that had been 
transferred in fiscal year 1995 were expended in fiscal years 1996 and 
1997.
    The agency believes that the maintenance of effort requirement 
contained in the Section 411 program was intended to ensure that States 
maintain their ordinary spending on their highway safety data and 
traffic records systems and that the funds they receive under the 
Section 411 program will supplement those expenditures and not replace 
them. The agency does not believe the requirement was intended to match 
special or unusual funding resources, such as the Section 153 transfer 
or other funds made available to States under Chapter 1 of Title 23 of 
the United States Code, some or all of which a State may choose to use 
also to supplement its ordinary spending in this area. The agency 
believes that the inclusion of these special funding sources in the 
maintenance of effort requirement would impose a hardship on the States 
and would not result in the most effective use of these resources.
    Accordingly, the regulation has been modified to clarify that 
States must maintain their aggregate expenditures from all other 
sources, except those authorized under Chapter 1 of Title 23 of the 
United States Code, for their highway safety data and traffic records 
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal 
years 1996 and 1997.
    Regarding the matching requirements, Idaho observes that these 
requirements apply each year that a State receives a grant, whether the 
State receives an implementation, initiation or start-up grant, and 
Idaho asserts that ``it would be difficult for us to meet the higher 
match requirements in the third and subsequent years.'' Accordingly, 
Idaho recommends that the $25,000 start-up grant be excluded from the 
matching requirements and that these requirements apply instead only to 
initiation and implementation grants. Idaho asserts that this would 
assist Idaho and other small States.
    The agency appreciates that, over the life of the program, it might 
be easier for some States to meet the matching requirements if those 
requirements were to apply only to initiation and implementation, and 
not to start-up grants. However, the statutory language in Section 411 
states specifically that the various matching levels apply to fiscal 
years ``in which the State receives a grant under this section.'' The 
statute does not exclude any of the three types of grants that may be 
awarded. Accordingly, the agency will continue to apply the matching 
requirements to start-up, as well as to initiation and implementation, 
grants, and will not make any changes to this portion of the 
regulations.
    The agency notes that the State of Idaho did not apply for a 
Section 411 start-up grant during FY 1999. It appears that the State 
decided instead to wait, and applied for and received an initiation 
grant in FY 2000. By following this course, Idaho was not subject to a 
matching requirement for the start-up funds that it spent on its data 
and traffic records system in FY 1999. In addition, the 75 percent 
Federal matching percentage was applied to the initiation grant that 
Idaho received in FY 2000 and will be applied also to the first 
implementation grant for which the State qualifies.
    The agency would also like to remind the States that it will accept 
a ``soft'' match in Section 411's administration, as it has for the 
agency's Section 402 and 410 programs. By this, the agency means the 
State's share may be satisfied by the use of either allowable costs 
incurred by the State or the value of in-kind contributions applicable 
to the period to which the matching requirement applies. A State 
cannot, however, use any Federal funds, such as its Section 402 funds, 
to satisfy the matching requirements. In addition, a State can use each 
non-Federal expenditure only once for matching purposes.
    Michigan also had a comment concerning the maintenance of effort 
requirement. To implement this requirement, the interim rule requires 
each State to certify that it will ``Maintain its aggregate 
expenditures from all other sources for highway safety data and traffic 
records programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in 
[State or] Federal fiscal years 1996 and 1997.'' Michigan explained 
that its funding for traffic records is appropriated by its State 
Legislature on an annual basis and, therefore, any certification as to 
the maintenance of expenditures at or above the average 1996 and 1997 
level ``can only be based on current year funding levels.''
    The agency understands Michigan's concern. To the extent that any 
State's plan covers years for which the State's legislature has not yet 
authorized funding, we recognize that the State agency's commitment to 
maintain its aggregate expenditures must be subject to the availability 
of funds.

5. Application Procedures

    The interim regulations provide that, to be considered for a grant 
in any fiscal year, a State must submit an application that is 
``received by the agency not later than January 15 of that fiscal 
year.'' Within 30 days of being informed by NHTSA that it is eligible 
for a grant, a State is required to submit a Program Cost Summary (HS 
Form 217) obligating the funds. The interim regulations also require 
the States to document how they intend to use the funds under this part 
in their Highway Safety Plans, which they submit pursuant to 23 CFR 
Part 1200.
    Mr. Allred of Utah, who submitted comments on behalf of NAGHSR, 
raised several concerns regarding this portion of the interim 
regulations. In particular,

[[Page 48910]]

Mr. Allred asserted that, ``Unlike other grant programs, a state must 
satisfy a two-step approval process that is different than the process 
for the Section 402 program. The application deadline is different than 
other grant programs. The amount of time for federal review and 
approval is not specified which leaves approval rather open-ended. The 
deadline for submitting a spending plan is different than the prior 
October deadline for the annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP).''
    To be consistent with the timetables followed in other NHTSA 
programs, Mr. Allred suggests that the application deadline should be 
changed instead to August 1. In addition, he suggests that the 
applications should include a spending plan, ``just as States must do 
under the 402 program,'' that NHTSA should decide which States qualify 
for funding under this program by September 1 and then obligate the 
Section 411 funds ``on October 1.''
    When NHTSA was developing its interim final rules for the various 
grant programs authorized in TEA-21, we made a conscious decision to 
avoid establishing the same deadline for all of these programs. We 
believed that, if the States were required to submit and the agency was 
required to review all of these applications at the same time, the 
workload for both the agency and the States would be extraordinary. In 
addition, we were concerned about the risks of delay should all of 
these deadlines fall near the end of each fiscal year.
    Under some of the grant programs, such as the Section 405 Occupant 
Protection and the Section 410 Impaired Driving Incentive Grant 
Programs, States must enact certain types of laws to qualify for 
funding. Accordingly, the agency established an August 1 deadline for 
these programs, to provide States with additional time to enact 
conforming legislation.
    However, State compliance with the Section 411 incentive grant 
program is not dependent on the enactment of legislation. Moreover, the 
agency believed it had established a grant application process that was 
relatively simple and straight-forward to follow. Accordingly, we 
believed that, with the publication of an interim final rule on October 
8, 1998, that States would be able to submit applications for funding 
by the following January 15. For all of these reasons, the interim 
regulations established a January 15 deadline for the receipt of 
applications under this program.
    The agency believes that the January 15 deadline has not been a 
limiting factor for the States. For example, in the first year of the 
program (the year in which the deadline would have been most likely to 
have had a negative impact), the agency received and approved 
applications from 54 jurisdictions (47 States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, 4 U.S. Territories and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs). In addition, this ``early'' application deadline permitted 
the agency to make early releases of Section 411 grant funds. In FY 
1999, the Section grant funds were awarded in March of 1999 and, in FY 
2000, these grant funds were awarded in March of 2000. We expect that 
Section 411 grant funds will continue to be released in future fiscal 
years on a similar timetable.
    Regarding Mr. Allred's comment that the interim regulations require 
States to ``satisfy a two-step approval process that is different than 
the process for the Section 402 program,'' we believe this reference is 
to the provisions of the interim regulations that require that, 
``Within 30 days of being informed by NHTSA that it is eligible for a 
grant, a State shall submit to the agency a Program Cost Summary (HS 
Form 217) obligating the funds under this part to highway safety data 
and traffic records programs,'' and that ``The State shall document how 
it intends to use the funds under this part in the Highway Safety Plan 
it submits pursuant to 23 CFR Part 1200.''
    We note that States may meet these requirements in two separate 
steps or they may choose to meet both of these requirements at once. 
The agency believes this should not be difficult for States to do, 
especially when applying for subsequent year grants. Accordingly, no 
changes are being made to the regulation as a result of this comment.

6. MMUCC

    In subsection (a)(2) of Section 411, Congress stated that, ``The 
Secretary, in consultation with States and other appropriate parties, 
shall determine the model data elements necessary to observe and 
analyze national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and 
circumstances.''
    In the interim final rule, NHTSA indicates that, it has determined 
that the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) serve the 
purposes of the law and has defined ``model data elements'' to mean the 
elements specified in the MMUCC. While conformity to the MMUCC is not 
required for grant eligibility under Section 411, the agency strongly 
encouraged States in the interim final rule to employ the criteria in 
their highway safety data and traffic records systems, and to consider 
these criteria when conducting their assessments and developing their 
strategic plans.
    In its comments, the Salt Institute recommends a change to the 
MMUCC, related to data element C13 ``Road Surface Condition.''
    The agency notes that the Salt Institute's recommended change to 
the MMUCC is beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. As explained 
in the interim final rule, the MMUCC is a minimum set of crash data 
elements with standardized definitions that are relevant to injury 
control, and highway and traffic safety. Its use is encouraged to help 
States reduce the collection and processing burden of motor vehicle 
crash data.
    The MMUCC was developed collaboratively. The effort to develop the 
MMUCC involved private and public safety, engineering, transportation 
and research experts from the local, State and Federal levels, and 
drafts of the data set were distributed for comment to national, State 
and local associations, representing highway traffic safety, injury 
control, emergency medical services, State health departments and 
others, and to the general public via the World Wide Web. The final 
version of the MMUCC was prepared by an expert panel, which considered 
the feedback it received at meetings and by mail, fax, telephone and 
electronic communication. The effort was supported by the National 
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), with 
assistance from NHTSA and the FHWA.
    Any decisions regarding the contents of the MMUCC would need to be 
considered through separate proceedings.

Regulatory Analyses

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule will not have any preemptive or retroactive effect. 
The enabling legislation does not establish a procedure for judicial 
review of rules promulgated under its provisions. There is no 
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or 
other administrative proceedings before they may file suit.

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

    The agency has examined the impact of this action and has 
determined that it is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and 
the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
    The action will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million

[[Page 48911]]

or more or adversely affect in a material way a sector of the economy, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local or tribal governments or communities. It will not create a 
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or 
planned by another agency, and it will not materially alter the 
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. Nor does it raise 
novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this action 
on small entities. Based on the evaluation, the agency certifies that 
this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. States are the recipients of any funds awarded under 
the Section 411 program, and they are not considered to be small 
entities, as that term is defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The requirements relating to the regulations that this rule is 
amending that States retain and report to the Federal government 
information which demonstrates compliance for incentive grant funds for 
improved highway safety data and traffic records systems, are 
considered to be information collection requirements, as that term is 
defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part 
1320.
    Accordingly, these requirements have been submitted and approved by 
OMB, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 
These requirements have been approved through June 30, 2003, under OMB 
No. 2127-0606.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and have 
determined that it will not have any significant impact on the quality 
of the human environment.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other affects of final rules that include a Federal 
mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually. This final rule does not meet the definition of 
a Federal mandate, because the resulting annual expenditures will not 
exceed the $100 million threshold. In addition, this incentive grant 
program is completely voluntary and States that choose to apply and 
qualify will receive incentive grant funds.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that this action will not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Accordingly, a 
Federalism Assessment has not been prepared.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1335

    Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the interim final rule published 
in the Federal Register of October 8, 1998, 63 FR 54055, adding a new 
Part 1335 to chapter II of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
is adopted as final, with the following changes:

PART 1335--STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY DATA IMPROVEMENTS

    1. The authority citation for Part 1335 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 411; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    2. Section 1335.12 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 1335.12  Contents of application.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources, 
except those authorized under Chapter 1 of Title 23 of the United 
States Code, for highway safety data and traffic records programs at or 
above the average level of such expenditures in Federal fiscal years 
1996 and 1997 (either State or federal fiscal year 1996 and 1997 can be 
used).

    Issued on: August 7, 2000.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-20339 Filed 8-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P