[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3466-3528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01266]



[[Page 3465]]

Vol. 83

Thursday,

No. 17

January 25, 2018

Part II





Department of Transportation





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





National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





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





23 CFR Part 1300





Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2018 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 3466]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1300

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0057]
RIN 2127-AL71


Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule makes changes and clarifications to the 
revised uniform procedures implementing State highway safety grant 
programs in response to comments received on the interim final rule 
published May 23, 2016.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 26, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For program issues: Barbara Sauers, Director, Office of Grants 
Management and Operations, Regional Operations and Program Delivery, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Telephone number: (202) 
366-0144; Email: barbara.sauers@dot.gov.
    For legal issues: Jin H. Kim, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Telephone 
number: (202) 366-1834; Email: jin.kim@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of the Interim Final Rule
III. Public Comments on the Interim Final Rule
IV. General Provisions
V. Highway Safety Plan
VI. National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection Grants
VII. Administration of Highway Safety Grants, Annual Reconciliation 
and Non-Compliance
VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    On December 4, 2015, the President signed into law the ``Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation Act'' (FAST Act), Public Law 114-94. 
The FAST Act amended NHTSA's highway safety grant program (23 U.S.C. 
402 or Section 402) and the National Priority Safety Program grants (23 
U.S.C. 405 or Section 405). Specifically, the FAST Act made limited 
administrative changes to the Section 402 grant program and made no 
changes to the contents of the Highway Safety Plan. The FAST Act made 
the following changes to the Section 405 grant program:
     Occupant Protection Grants--no substantive changes;
     State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements 
Grants--no substantive changes;
     Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants--no substantive 
changes;
     Motorcyclist Safety Grants--no substantive changes;
     Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants--Added flexibility 
for States to qualify for grants (e.g., permitted three exceptions);
     Distracted Driving Grants--Added flexibility for States to 
qualify for grants (e.g., removed increased fines and created Special 
Distracted Driving grants);
     State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grants--Added 
flexibility for States to qualify for grants (e.g., reduced some 
driving restrictions and better aligned the compliance criteria);
     24-7 Sobriety Programs Grants--Established a new grant;
     Nonmotorized Safety Grants--Established a new grant.
    In addition, the FAST Act restored (with some changes) the racial 
profiling data collection grant authorized under the ``Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU), Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59 (Section 1906).
    As in past authorizations, the FAST Act required NHTSA to implement 
the grants pursuant to rulemaking. To provide States with as much 
advance time as practicable to prepare grant applications and ensure 
the timely award of all grants, NHTSA published an interim final rule 
(IFR) that was effective immediately, but sought public comment to 
inform the promulgation of a final rule. This action addresses the 
comments received in response to the IFR.

II. Summary of the Interim Final Rule

    The IFR implemented the provisions of the FAST Act, addressed 
comments on the predecessor rule implementing the ``Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, and 
made several specific amendments to the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) 
contents to foster consistency across all States and facilitate the 
electronic submission of HSPs required under the FAST Act. (81 FR 
32554, May 23, 2016.) The IFR set forth the application, approval, and 
administrative requirements for all 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 grants and 
Section 1906 grants. While the MAP-21 rule established the beginnings 
of a single, consolidated application, the IFR more fully integrated 
the Section 402 and Section 405 programs, establishing the HSP as the 
State's single planning document accounting for all behavioral highway 
safety activities. The IFR clarified the HSP contents (highway safety 
planning process, performance measures and targets, and countermeasure 
strategies and projects), so that these already-existing elements could 
serve as a means to fulfill some of the application requirements for 
certain Section 405 grants, thereby reducing duplicative requirements 
in the grant applications. By creating links between the HSP content 
requirements provided in Section 402 and the Section 405 grant 
application requirements, the IFR streamlined the NHTSA grant 
application process and relieved some of the burdens and redundancies 
associated with the previous process.
    The FAST Act amended Section 402 to require NHTSA to accommodate 
State submission of HSPs in electronic form. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(3).) 
NHTSA has been working to implement this provision with the Grants 
Management Solutions Suite (GMSS), an enhanced electronic system that 
States will use to submit the HSP to apply for grants, receive grant 
funds, make HSP amendments throughout the fiscal year, manage grant 
funds, and invoice expenses. This electronic system will replace the 
Grants Tracking System that States currently use to receive funds and 
invoice expenses.
    While the FAST Act did not make many substantive changes to the 
MAP-21 requirements, the IFR clarified parts of the HSP and required 
submission of certain project-level information. The IFR also codified 
the FAST Act requirement for a biennial automated traffic enforcement 
systems survey.
    For Section 405 grants that were not substantively changed by the 
FAST Act (Occupant Protection Grants, State Traffic Safety Information 
System Improvements Grants, Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants and 
Motorcyclist Safety Grants), NHTSA aligned and linked the application 
requirements with the HSP requirements under Section 402 to streamline 
and ease State burdens in applying for Section 402 and Section 405 
grants. For Section 405 grants for which the FAST Act afforded 
additional flexibility (Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants, 
Distracted Driving Grants and State Graduated Driver Licensing 
Incentive Grants) and for the new grants under the FAST Act (24-7 
Sobriety Program Grants, Nonmotorized Grants and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection Grants), the IFR adopted the statutory qualification 
language with limited changes.

[[Page 3467]]

    The IFR made a few changes to the administrative provisions related 
to the highway safety programs, such as clarifying existing 
requirements, providing for improved accountability of Federal funds, 
and updating requirements based on changes in the Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for 
Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 200, and the Department of Transportation's 
implementing regulation at 2 CFR part 1201.

III. Public Comments on Interim Final Rule

    In response to the IFR, the following submitted comments to the 
public docket on www.regulations.gov: Advocates for Highway & Auto 
Safety (Advocates); Association of Ignition Interlock Program 
Administrators (AIIPA); California Office of Traffic Safety (CA OTS); 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Department of Public 
Safety--Highway Safety Office (CNMI DPS); Colorado Highway Safety 
Office (CO HSO); Connecticut Highway Safety Office (CT HSO); Delaware 
Office of Highway Safety (DE OHS); Governors Highway Safety Association 
(GHSA); Guam Department of Public Works Office of Highway Safety (GU 
DPS); Intoximeters, Inc. (Intoximeters); Kentucky Office of Highway 
Safety; Maryland Department of Transportation (MD DOT); Michigan Office 
of Highway Safety Planning; Minnesota Department of Public Safety (MN 
DPS); Montana Department of Transportation (MT DOT); National 
Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL); National Safety Council (NSC); 
New York Governor's Traffic Safety Committee (NY GTSC); Ohio Highway 
Safety Office; Pennsylvania Highway Safety Office; Penny Corn (without 
affiliation); Rhode Island Office on Highway Safety; South Carolina 
Department of Public Safety--Office of Highway Safety and Justice 
Programs; Tennessee Highway Safety Office (TN HSO); Washington Traffic 
Safety Commission (WA TSC); Wyoming Department of Transportation (WY 
DOT); and joint submission by the Departments of Transportation of 
Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming (5-State 
DOTs).\1\ Six of these commenters (Kentucky Office of Highway Safety, 
Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, Ohio Highway Safety Office, 
Pennsylvania Highway Safety Office, Rhode Island Office on Highway 
Safety, South Carolina Department of Public Safety--Office of Highway 
Safety and Justice Programs) stated that they supported the GHSA 
comments without further explanation. Several other commenters, 
particularly State Highway Safety Offices (HSOs), also supported the 
comments from GHSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA also received a comment from ``Harley Anonymous'' 
stating that State highway safety grant programs should allow for 
our highways to be better maintained. Because this comment is 
outside the scope of the rulemaking, we do not address it here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received communications directly from other members of the 
public. (See letter from National Motorists Association (NMA); letter 
to Office of the Secretary docket from GHSA; joint letter from 
Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers and Intoximeters, Inc.; 
and email from Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.) Because of the 
substantive nature of these communications, NHTSA added them to the 
docket for this rule. GHSA asked to meet with NHTSA's Acting Deputy 
Administrator regarding the grant programs and, in an August 1, 2017 
meeting, reiterated concerns raised in its earlier docketed comments. 
NHTSA added a summary of this meeting to the docket. Finally, on 
February 23 and April 27, 2017, NHTSA conducted two webinars in 
partnership with GHSA to provide guidance to States in preparing their 
fiscal year (FY) 2018 applications, as that application deadline came 
before this final rule could be issued. NHTSA added the slides from 
both webinars to the docket.
    Many State HSOs identified various requirements in the IFR as 
burdensome. NHTSA has taken a fresh look at program requirements in 
light of these comments, as it was not our intent to impose undue 
burdens that would needlessly impede the hard work of traffic safety. 
In publishing the IFR, we strived to reduce burdens where possible, 
seeking to achieve an appropriate balance between the minimum 
information needed to ensure proper stewardship of funds and States' 
need for flexibility and efficiency in the use of their limited 
resources. In today's action, after careful review of these comments, 
we adopt some recommendations, clarify some requirements where we 
believe the concern about burdens was based on misunderstandings, and 
explain the importance of the requirement to safety objectives, 
statutory requirements, or accountability needs where we decline to 
adopt a comment.
    In this preamble, NHTSA addresses all comments and identifies any 
changes made to the IFR's regulatory text. In addition, NHTSA makes 
several technical corrections to cross-references and other non-
substantive editorial corrections. For ease of reference, the preamble 
identifies in parentheses within each subheading and at appropriate 
places in the explanatory paragraphs the CFR citation for the 
corresponding regulatory text.

IV. General Provisions (Subpart A)

A. Agency's Authority To Implement Through Rulemaking

    A number of commenters stated that additional requirements in the 
IFR were not required by the FAST Act, and therefore NHTSA did not have 
authority to make these changes. (See, e.g., DE OHS, GHSA, MT DOT, 
NCSL, WY DOT, 5-State DOTs.) In fact, the FAST Act (and previous 
authorizations, by longstanding Congressional practice) required NHTSA 
to award grants in accordance with regulation, expressing Congress' 
intent that the details of the grant programs be fleshed out in an 
implementing rule. The requirements in the IFR (and in this final rule) 
are within the scope of the FAST Act and in keeping with NHTSA's 
statutory authority to oversee and implement a Federal grant program.

B. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.3)

    CA OTS, CT HSO, GHSA, GU OHS and WA TSC commented about the 
definition of countermeasure strategy. These commenters asserted that 
the definition appears to limit the States' ability to use grant funds 
on innovative safety efforts, and recommended allowing flexibility for 
innovative countermeasures that were well-reasoned. Most of these 
commenters asked NHTSA to clarify that the definition allows this 
flexibility, and GHSA suggested adding a separate definition of 
``innovative countermeasure strategies'' for the same reason.
    NHTSA agrees with the commenters, and is amending the definition of 
countermeasure strategy to ``a proven effective or innovative 
countermeasure proposed or implemented with grant funds under 23 U.S.C. 
Chapter 4 and Section 1906 to address identified problems and meet 
performance targets.'' (Emphasis added.) It was not our intent to 
discourage the use of innovative countermeasures, and we noted that 
point in the preamble to the IFR. We repeat here that innovative 
countermeasures that may not be fully proven but show promise based on 
limited practical application are encouraged when a clear data-driven 
safety need has been identified. With this change in the definition of 
countermeasure strategy, we are codifying the understanding that 
innovative countermeasures are acceptable grant activities (without the 
need for a separate definition of

[[Page 3468]]

``innovative countermeasure strategies''), provided that the innovative 
countermeasure strategies are justified in accordance with Sec.  
1300.11(d)(4).

V. Highway Safety Plan (Subpart B)

A. General

    Many commenters were concerned about administrative burdens, 
including some that were described as duplicative entries in the grant 
application process. (See, e.g., CA OTS, GU OHS, KY OHS, MD HSO, MN 
OTS, MT DOT, NCSL, PA HSO, TN HSO, WA TSC, WY DOT.) NHTSA addresses 
specific concerns about the elements of the HSP under the appropriate 
heading later. However, NHTSA notes that as a general approach to 
reducing burdens, we are implementing GMSS, an enhanced administrative 
and financial electronic system that States will use to submit the HSP, 
apply for grants, receive grant funds, make HSP amendments, manage 
grant funds, and invoice expenses. This electronic system will replace 
the Grants Tracking System currently in use. In the course of preparing 
this final rule, NHTSA has been mindful of this soon-to-be-deployed new 
system, so that GMSS will align directly with applicable program 
requirements. For example, we plan for each discrete field within GMSS 
to be tied to a specific requirement in the regulation, and are 
methodically cross-walking and integrating all requirements. NHTSA 
expects that the new electronic application process will reduce 
uncertainty among States as to what level of information is required to 
satisfy application criteria. We believe that GMSS will streamline and 
simplify the application process, decrease the size of HSPs by 
eliminating content unnecessary to satisfy 23 CFR part 1300 
requirements, and reduce duplicative entries related to grants.

B. Highway Safety Plan Contents

1. Performance Report (23 CFR 1300.11(b))
    GHSA commented that ``[e]xpansion of Section 1300.11(b) [requiring 
a performance report] was not mandated by the FAST Act. This is an 
enhanced requirement that requires details that are more appropriate 
for the annual report. At the time the HSP would be submitted, a state 
may not have a full analysis of the reasons a performance target was 
missed during the previous year.'' CA OTS, DE OHS, GU OHS, and MD HSO 
agreed that such information is not available at the time of HSP 
submission, and some of these commenters suggested including this 
information in the annual report instead.
    The Federal statute does, in fact, require that the HSP contents 
include ``for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year to which the 
plan applies, a report on the State's success in meeting State safety 
goals and performance targets set forth in the previous year's highway 
safety plan.'' (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(E).) This language, originally 
included in MAP-21, is continued without change by the FAST Act. To 
implement this statutory requirement, the IFR specified ``[a] program-
area-level report on the State's progress towards meeting State 
performance targets from the previous fiscal year's HSP.'' The IFR also 
required a description of how the State will adjust its upcoming HSP to 
better meet performance targets, in cases where it has not met those 
targets.
    NHTSA understands that FARS data for the previous year's HSP 
targets may not be available to assist in the required evaluation at 
the time of HSP submission, as some commenters have asserted. However, 
as we noted in the preamble to the IFR, NHTSA is simply requiring 
States to submit a high-level review of their progress in meeting 
performance targets to satisfy the statutory requirement, and States 
should provide a qualitative description of that progress when FARS 
data are not yet available. We further clarified during webinars that 
the performance report in Sec.  1300.11(b) is an in-process program 
area assessment of the State's progress toward meeting performance 
targets identified in the preceding year's HSP, and that States may use 
their own more current data (in lieu of FARS data) to fulfill the 
requirements of Sec.  1300.11(b). NHTSA encourages States to use 
additional non-fatality data sources and information to assess progress 
toward meeting previously established performance targets. This general 
level of information is not unduly burdensome, is specifically called 
for by the Federal statute, and is critical to the successful 
development of the HSP itself.
    However, NHTSA agrees with commenters that the description of how 
the State will adjust its upcoming HSP to better meet targets that were 
missed is best provided in the annual report. Consequently, we are 
deleting the requirement to document it in the HSP at the time of 
submission and adding the requirement to include it as part of the 
annual report. (See Sec.  1300.35(a).) Nevertheless, States should 
continuously evaluate their HSPs and change them as appropriate to meet 
the goal of saving lives and preventing injuries.
2. Performance Plan (23 CFR 1300.11(c))
    Beginning with FY 2018 HSPs, the IFR required States to submit 
targets using a five-year rolling average for three performance 
measures common to both NHTSA and FHWA (total fatalities, serious 
injuries and fatality rates) and to identify identical performance 
targets for these common performance measures. DE OHS agreed in 
principle with standardizing these performance measures, but worried 
(in connection with the five-year rolling average) that ``the 
unintended consequence is constantly creating a moving target'' with 
likely further target changes. GHSA asserted that the common 
performance measures with FHWA use different baseline-setting methods, 
making it impossible for the SHSP, HSP and HSIP to be completely 
aligned on performance.
    NHTSA agrees with the concerns of these commenters. In today's 
action, we are removing the requirement for States to provide 
documentation of current safety levels (baselines) for common 
performance measures in the HSP. NHTSA believes that this requirement 
caused confusion between NHTSA's and FHWA's performance measure 
baseline requirements and distracted some States from fully linking 
performance targets to activities.\2\ States will continue to report 
identical targets for common performance measures, consistent with 
FHWA's rulemaking on performance measures \3\ and NHTSA's regulation. 
In this context, States do not necessarily use baselines to set 
performance targets. Rather, baselines provide a point of reference 
regarding a State's performance target. States should review data sets 
and trends and consider a variety of internal and external factors 
(such as vehicle miles traveled, State laws, and investments) in 
setting their targets. Targets should be data-driven, realistic, and 
attainable, and they should guide program investments. The elimination 
of the requirement for documentation of current safety levels in the 
performance plan should alleviate the concerns of these commenters. The 
final rule continues the requirement for States to provide a 
description and analysis of

[[Page 3469]]

their overall highway safety problems in the highway safety planning 
process section. (See Sec.  1300.11(a).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under FHWA's regulation, a State is determined to meet or 
make significant progress toward its targets when targets are 
actually met or the outcome is better than the State's baseline 
safety performance. At the time of HSP submission, FARS data are not 
available for the final year of the baseline period, but it is 
required under FHWA's regulation. Therefore, States were required to 
use different FARS data in their HSP than in their HSIP.
    \3\ National Performance Management Measures: Highway Safety 
Improvement Program, 81 FR 13882, Mar. 15, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An individual commenter stated that more guidance is needed for an 
evidence-based performance plan, and questioned the need to cross-
reference that plan in the HSP and in applicable Section 405 grant 
applications. Sample evidence-based performance plans are not available 
as guidance because such plans are inherently State-specific. However, 
Regional Offices are available to provide technical assistance to State 
HSOs in this area. As we noted in the IFR, MAP-21 and the FAST Act 
created greater linkages between the HSP and Section 405 grants. 
Allowing States to cross-reference planned activities already described 
in the HSP to apply for Section 405 grants, in lieu of requiring them 
to separately describe them again, is intended to alleviate the burden 
of separate (and, in some cases, redundant) application requirements, 
by creating a fully integrated single application for highway safety 
grants. (See discussion in Section V.B.3.) NHTSA declines to make 
changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    NMA commented that the highway safety programs should be evaluated 
with safety performance metrics, not activity-based goals such as 
ticket quotas. NMA suggested that existing grants focus on enhancing 
driver education programs, encourage advanced driver skills for 
training novice drivers, and require States to reevaluate and optimize 
posted highway speed limits.\4\ The Federal statute requires States to 
engage in ``sustained enforcement of statutes addressing impaired 
driving, occupant protection, and driving in excess of posted speed 
limits'' as a condition of receiving Section 402 funds. (23 U.S.C. 
402(b).) The Federal statute further requires that HSPs be based on 
performance measures developed by NHTSA and GHSA in the report 
``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies'' 
(DOT HS 811 025). (See 23 U.S.C. 402(k).) That report includes activity 
measures related to seat belt citations, impaired driving arrests and 
speeding citations. Finally, the Federal statute requires NHTSA to 
implement and the States to participate in not less than three national 
high-visibility enforcement campaigns every year related to impaired 
driving and occupant protection. (See 23 U.S.C. 402(b); 23 U.S.C. 404.) 
NHTSA may not waive these statutory requirements. Moreover, decades of 
research demonstrate that one of the most effective highway safety 
programs is high-visibility enforcement, which combines public outreach 
and education with focused enforcement of traffic safety laws, such as 
laws requiring seat belt use or prohibiting drunk driving. NHTSA notes 
that States are not required to submit a target for citations and 
arrests in the HSP, and in fact, no State submitted a target for 
violations and arrests in its grant applications. NHTSA makes no change 
to rule in response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NMA also recommended using grant funds for infrastructure 
improvements to improve highway safety. We do not address this 
comment as the Federal statute does not permit NHTSA grant funds to 
be used for road construction projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Highway Safety Program Area Problem Identification, Countermeasure 
Strategies, Planned Activities and Funding (23 CFR 1300.11(d))
    The IFR provided that for each countermeasure strategy, the HSP 
must include project-level information, including identification of 
project name and description, subrecipient/contractor, funding sources, 
funding amounts, amount for match, indirect cost, local benefit and 
maintenance of effort (as applicable), project number, and funding 
code. NHTSA received the most comments regarding this requirement. 
(See, e.g., CA OTS, CT HSO, DE OHS, GHSA, GU OHS, MD HSO, MN OTS, MT 
DOT, NY GTSC, TN HSO, WY DOT, 5-State DOTs.) Commenters stated that the 
request for detailed project information was a significant and 
burdensome change.\5\ They noted that the HSP is a planning document 
for the upcoming year that is produced months in advance, when States 
have clarity on general program direction but not on project details 
because States have not yet negotiated with subrecipients on grant 
proposals. They stated that imposing this level of detail would require 
substantial updates and revisions to the HSP as information changes 
after initial HSP development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, MN OTS stated that reporting details at the 
subrecipient level for each project will greatly increase the amount 
of work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA appreciates this feedback. We understand the commenters' 
point that, at the time of HSP submission, States may not have 
information about the discrete projects that are to be placed under 
agreement, as project negotiations may still be unfolding and may even 
continue throughout the grant year. In response to these concerns, 
NHTSA is making changes in the level of detail required to be reported 
about projects at the HSP submission stage. Today's action changes the 
granularity of reporting, by clarifying that States are not expected to 
identify discrete formalized projects with executed agreements at the 
time of HSP submission.\6\ Consistent with that approach, NHTSA is 
reducing the items required to be reported under Sec.  1300.11(d)(2), 
as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ However, States will be required to report discrete project-
level information as project agreements are executed during the 
grant year, as such information is necessary for adequate tracking 
of expenditures and therefore a precondition for payment. These 
requirements are discussed later, under the sections for amendments 
to the HSP (Sec.  1300.32) and vouchers (Sec.  1300.33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, NHTSA is not removing in its entirety the requirement to 
provide, at the HSP submission stage, details about activities the 
State is planning to undertake. In view of the recent Federal statutory 
change introducing a performance-measures-driven process,\7\ States do 
need to identify their planned activities (i.e., types of projects they 
plan to conduct) in sufficient detail in the HSP to show how they plan 
to meet their performance targets. The broad program-level descriptions 
contained in HSPs submitted in earlier years under different Federal 
authorizing legislation do not provide sufficient information to 
determine whether a State's chosen performance targets are reasonable 
and data-driven. Of equal importance, the IFR's streamlined approach of 
allowing States to point to activities already identified in the HSP to 
satisfy Section 405 grant application requirements would be undermined 
if insufficient detail is provided in the HSP, jeopardizing a State's 
qualification for those grants. Therefore, NHTSA is retaining the 
requirement for States to provide, at the time of HSP submission, a 
robust description of their planned activities, and within those 
planned activities to identify the Federal funding source (i.e., 
Section 402, 405, 1906), eligible use of funds (formerly referred to as 
program funding code), intended subrecipients, and at the aggregate 
level, good faith estimates of funding amount, match, and local 
benefit. NHTSA is deleting the requirement for States to report 
maintenance of effort, indirect cost, and project number. This level of 
detail is the minimum necessary to adequately convey the State's plans 
and priorities for distribution of grant funds and to support the 
submission requirements aligning Section 405 grant applications with 
the HSP contents. NHTSA is confident that this more generalized level 
of information is readily available to a State by the time of HSP 
submission, in the exercise of successful planning. In today's action,

[[Page 3470]]

NHTSA amends Sec.  1300.11(d)(2) accordingly to reflect these changes 
and is also making corresponding changes to the level of information 
required in Sec.  1300.11(e) Teen Traffic Safety Program.\8\ NHTSA is 
making conforming amendments throughout part 1300, including the 
definition of Highway Safety Plan, the definition of project, and the 
application requirements for Section 405 and Section 1906 grants, to 
reflect this understanding that States will provide information about 
``planned activities'' (rather than specific projects) at the time of 
HSP submission. Later in this preamble, NHTSA explains that States must 
amend their HSPs to include specific information about project 
agreements. (See Sec.  1300.32.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Federal requirement for performance measures applied to 
State Highway Safety Plans beginning in FY 2014 under MAP-21.
    \8\ In striking this balance to reduce burdens at the 
application stage, NHTSA is mindful that many other Federal grant 
programs require up-front details of specific project agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an illustration of this process, NHTSA provides the following 
example. If a State's problem analysis shows an overrepresentation of 
unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in the mostly rural 
southeastern corridor of the State, and the State has chosen high-
visibility enforcement of its occupant protection laws as a 
countermeasure strategy, the State need not identify discrete projects 
under agreement with every law enforcement agency to which grant funds 
are to be offered. Rather, the State must generally describe the 
planned activities (e.g., intent to fund overtime law enforcement of 
occupant protection laws in the 10 local jurisdictions surrounding X 
city that show the lowest percent of occupant protection restraints, 
based on State data), and provide the required aggregate estimates.\9\ 
The State must provide a robust description of the types of projects it 
intends to enter into, demonstrating support for the chosen 
countermeasure strategy and evidence that it relates to the State's 
problem identification, which will in turn help the State meet its 
performance target. Following HSP approval, States are expected to 
develop specific project agreements fitting within the general 
description of these planned activities, and these project agreements 
will be reported as HSP amendments and form the basis for the payment 
of vouchers. (See Sec. Sec.  1300.32 and 1300.33.) Given the annual 
nature of the HSP, States should develop and enter into project 
agreements early in the grant year so that they have sufficient time to 
execute projects to meet their annual performance targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ States are to provide good faith estimates of funding 
amount, match, and local benefit at the planned activities. (See 
Sec.  1300.11(d)(2).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DE OHS stated that it was an unnecessary administrative burden to 
require data analysis to support the effectiveness of already proven 
countermeasures in Sec.  1300.11(d)(3). The Federal statute requires 
``data and data analysis supporting the effectiveness of proposed 
countermeasures.'' (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(C).) NHTSA agrees that the 
effectiveness of proven countermeasures is already known, that data and 
data analysis are well-established for these countermeasures, and that 
further information is unnecessary in these cases. Therefore, NHTSA is 
removing this requirement for proven countermeasures, and requiring 
only that States explain their rationale for selecting the 
countermeasure and allocating grant funds. States must, however, 
include additional justification for innovative countermeasures, as 
provided in Sec.  1300.11(d)(4), such as research, evaluation and/or 
substantive anecdotal evidence to demonstrate their potential. NHTSA is 
changing the rule accordingly.
    CA OTS, GHSA and GU OHS commented that the IFR expanded on the 
requirements for a traffic safety enforcement program (TSEP). The IFR 
set forth the requirement for an evidence-based traffic safety 
enforcement program (TSEP) by allowing States to cross-reference 
projects in the HSP that collectively constitute the State's data-
driven and evidence-based TSEP. This was a change from the previous 
requirement for a narrative description of the TSEP in the HSP. In the 
IFR, NHTSA explained that allowing States to cross-reference projects 
already identified under countermeasure strategies was intended to 
alleviate the burden of duplicative entries.
    As noted earlier, the Federal statute requires that States maintain 
activities for ``sustained enforcement of statutes addressing impaired 
driving, occupant protection, and driving in excess of posted speed 
limits.'' (23 U.S.C. 402(b) (emphasis added).) Many activities a State 
conducts with Federal funds include traffic safety enforcement, and the 
category of the subrecipient is generally finite and known (i.e., law 
enforcement agencies). These same activities also form the basis of 
various Section 405 requirements (e.g., occupant protection plan, seat 
belt enforcement criteria, high risk population countermeasure programs 
criteria, impaired driving plan). The IFR allowed States to point to 
these projects in the TSEP to support other parts of their 
applications, thereby reducing duplicative data entry. However, with 
the revision noted earlier (from projects to planned activities), NHTSA 
believes that the burden will be reduced. NHTSA also expects that the 
implementation of GMSS will further reduce the burden by allowing 
States to link planned activities that constitute the TSEP.
    CA OTS, GHSA and GU OHS stated that requiring States to continually 
adjust plans to update TSEP activities is burdensome. The IFR required 
States to describe how they plan to ``monitor the effectiveness of 
enforcement activities, make ongoing adjustments as warranted by data, 
and update the countermeasure strategies and projects in the HSP, as 
applicable.'' (emphasis added.) This IFR provision did not require the 
State to continually adjust TSEP activities, but only as warranted by 
data. As a general matter, NHTSA does not expect that States will need 
to adjust TSEP activities continuously in an annual HSP. However, the 
HSP is not a static plan, and States should be prepared to address 
highway safety problems as the need arises.\10\ NHTSA declines to amend 
this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ However, States will need to amend their HSP when they 
execute or change a project agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MN OTS asked whether areas ``most at risk'' in the TSEP were 
defined by absolute numbers of fatalities or by over-representation in 
fatality rates. NHTSA defers to the States to make this determination 
as part of their problem identification process. Generally, States rely 
on a variety of data sources, including State-specific data, for 
problem identification. Whatever the source, the State's process for 
problem identification must be documented in the HSP pursuant to Sec.  
1300.11. NHTSA encourages States to seek technical guidance from 
Regional Offices for questions regarding this requirement. Accordingly, 
NHTSA makes no changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    The IFR continued the statutory requirement that States provide 
assurances that they will implement activities in support of national 
high-visibility law enforcement mobilizations coordinated by the 
Secretary of Transportation. (See 23 U.S.C. 402(b).) In addition to 
providing such assurances, States must describe in their HSP the 
planned high-visibility enforcement strategies to support national 
mobilizations for the upcoming grant year and provide information on 
those activities. CA OTS, GHSA, GU OHS and MN OTS commented about the 
requirement in Sec.  1300.11(d)(6) to submit information regarding 
mobilization participation. These

[[Page 3471]]

commenters stated that specific metrics from high-visibility 
enforcement campaigns are not available at the time of HSP development 
and should be eliminated from the HSP application requirement. In the 
April 27, 2017 webinar, NHTSA explained that we were seeking data from 
prior year mobilizations to support the State's planned participation 
in upcoming national campaigns. However, in response to these comments, 
NHTSA is deleting the requirement to provide these metrics in the HSP 
submission. Because we believe that such metrics contain information 
that is important for evaluating a State's participation in the 
national campaigns, we are moving this requirement to the annual report 
in Sec.  1300.35. This will lessen the up-front burden, while still 
generating data that is important to highway safety planning.
    WA TSC commented that many local agencies voiced concern that the 
dates of the mobilizations were not relevant to their jurisdictions, 
but that funds were needed at large local events and activities. The 
Federal statute requires NHTSA to conduct three national campaigns and 
States to participate in these national campaigns. (See 23 U.S.C. 
402(b); 23 U.S.C. 404.) NHTSA understands that the dates for these 
three campaigns may not be of similar relevance for every local 
jurisdiction across the nation. However, State HSOs may use Federal 
funds to support local events and activities in addition to 
participating in the national events at other times of the year. NHTSA 
supports the use of Federal funds on high-visibility enforcement, which 
is one of the most effective countermeasure strategies. No changes to 
the rule are made in response to this comment.
4. Certifications and Assurances (23 CFR 1300.11(g); Appendix A)
    Each fiscal year, the Governor's Representative (GR) for Highway 
Safety must sign the Certifications and Assurances (C & A) set forth in 
Appendix A to Part 1300, affirming that the State complies with all 
requirements, including applicable Federal statutes and regulations, 
that are in effect during the grant period. Requirements that also 
apply to subrecipients are noted under the applicable provisions in the 
C & A.
    GHSA and the NY GTSC expressed concern about the revised 
nondiscrimination provisions in the C & A. GHSA suggested that these 
revised provisions, such as the requirement that States include 
specific nondiscrimination language in every contract and funding 
agreement, exceed current Federal and State \11\ requirements. GHSA 
asked NHTSA to explain and justify these changes, which the NY GTSC 
characterized as burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Note that State law requirements are not relevant to the 
legal obligations created under Title VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA modified the language in the C & A's nondiscrimination 
provisions to ensure that NHTSA grantees understand the full scope of 
responsibilities required of a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 
grantee in order to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), as implemented by DOT's Title VI 
regulation, Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the 
Department of Transportation-Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 (49 CFR part 21). These revisions did not expand or 
otherwise change the legal obligations that have always applied to 
NHTSA grantees under Title VI and DOT's regulation, including the flow-
down requirement for States to insert non-discrimination language in 
their funding agreements--they simply clarify those obligations.
    The IFR provided NHTSA with an opportunity to update the assurance 
language to better detail existing requirements in DOT's Title VI 
regulation and Order. Compliance with these well-established Title VI 
requirements is a precondition of receiving a grant. It is a universal 
Federal requirement, and not a likely source of undue burden on State 
funding recipients, which for decades have included similar assurance 
language covering a wide range of ``flow down'' obligations under other 
Federal laws in their Federally assisted agreements (e.g., Buy America 
Act, Hatch Act, the Anti-Lobbying Act, Debarment and Suspension 
Requirements). NHTSA declines to amend the rule in response to these 
comments.
    In this final rule, NHTSA is also providing a general update to the 
certification regarding suspension and debarment. The purpose of the 
update is to use terms such as ``primary tier'' that are consistent 
with the suspension and debarment regulation at 2 CFR part 180, OMB 
Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension 
(Nonprocurement); to make clear the existing responsibilities of 
Federal grantees to ensure that its principals are not suspended, 
debarred or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions 
such as grants; and to provide the current web address where suspension 
and debarment information is available. The update does not create new 
substantive requirements for grantees.
    Finally, NHTSA is amending the C & A regarding seat belt use policy 
as the information referenced in the C & A, such as Buckle Up America, 
is no longer available on NHTSA's website. This, too, is a non-
substantive change.

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

    CA OTS and GHSA asserted that State HSOs would need additional 
Federal funding to modify existing electronic grant systems and 
increased personnel to track and verify maintenance of effort at the 
project level. NHTSA understands that State HSOs may need additional 
resources to modify their electronic grant systems and to handle 
administrative tasks related to the vouchering process. In response to 
these concerns, NHTSA is increasing the percentage States may use for 
Planning and Administration (P & A) activities from 13 percent to 15 
percent in the final rule.\12\ (See Sec.  1300.13(a)(1) and Appendix 
D.) NHTSA encourages States to use the additional P & A funding to 
update their electronic systems, as necessary, to work with GMSS. Such 
updates can be expected to further reduce burdens on States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The 50 percent match requirement will continue to apply to 
all P & A expenses, in accordance with Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAST Act added a requirement that States that have installed 
automated traffic enforcement systems must conduct and submit to NHTSA 
a biennial survey, which must then be made available on a website of 
the Department of Transportation. NHTSA codified this statutory 
requirement in the IFR. NHTSA received comments from CA OTS, CO DOT, DE 
OHS, GHSA, GU OHS, MD HSO, NY GTSC, TN HSO and WA TSC that this 
requirement was too burdensome and that NHTSA should provide guidance 
to make it less burdensome. MD HSO requested a specific survey form to 
provide uniform data across States. GHSA noted that as currently 
provided, States will need to include lists of and information on all 
systems in the State. GHSA also asked for ``the specific definition of 
`automated traffic enforcement systems'.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ GHSA asked other questions, such as which details would 
need to be provided in the list, whether the systems must be listed 
by intersection or would the number of units in a political 
subdivision be sufficient, what data points would be required to 
account for transparency, accountability and safety, what points 
should be included in the required comparison of systems to DOT 
guidelines, what if the information such as that from a local unit 
of government is not made available to the SHSO, and how should 
mobile systems be evaluated?

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

[[Page 3472]]

    The FAST Act defines ``automated traffic enforcement system'' as 
``any camera which captures an image of a vehicle for the purposes only 
of red light and speed enforcement, and does not include hand held 
radar and other devices operated by law enforcement officers to make an 
on-the-scene traffic stop, issue a traffic citation, or other 
enforcement action at the time of the violation.'' (23 U.S.C. 
402(c)(4)(B).) This statutory definition is clear and unambiguous and 
does not require further interpretation. Accordingly, NHTSA makes no 
changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    In response to the other questions from GHSA about what to report 
and concerns from commenters that the requirement is too burdensome, 
NHTSA notes that the FAST Act identifies with specificity the contents 
of the survey \14\ and that Congress has directed States with automated 
traffic enforcement systems to provide this information. Accordingly, 
in the final rule, NHTSA adopts the statutory language without change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Specifically, the survey must include a list of automated 
traffic enforcement systems in the State; adequate data to measure 
the transparency, accountability, and safety attributes of each 
automated traffic enforcement system; and a comparison of each 
automated traffic enforcement system with Speed Enforcement Camera 
Systems Operational guidelines (DOT HS 810 916, March 2008); and Red 
Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines (FHWA-SA-06-002, January 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Review and Approval Procedures (23 CFR 1300.14)

    The IFR continued the language from the MAP-21 rule that States 
must respond ``promptly'' to NHTSA's questions about State grant 
applications. NHTSA received comments from CA OTS, CNMI DPS-HSO, GHSA, 
GU OHS and an individual commenter that the word ``promptly'' was 
ambiguous and a more definitive time frame was needed. Since the 
inception of the statutory requirement for a single application process 
for FY 2014 applications, NHTSA's practice has been to seek clarifying 
information from States regarding their application, when 
necessary,\15\ to provide the greatest opportunity for States to 
qualify for grants. With the new FAST Act requirement reducing the time 
for HSP approval from 60 days to 45 days, the amount of time NHTSA can 
provide States to respond to clarifying questions has been 
significantly reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, clarifying or additional information is 
necessary to assist in determining compliance when a State has 
submitted an incomplete grant application, an incorrect or 
incomplete citation to its qualifying State laws, or failed to make 
a required certification. In connection with FY 2018 applications, 
NHTSA asked more than 250 questions from States before NHTSA could 
complete application reviews and grant determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The questions NHTSA asks vary from program to program and from 
State to State, with some questions requiring more comprehensive 
responses and others requiring simple responses. In seeking clarifying 
information from States, NHTSA strives to provide as much time as 
possible for States to respond to the questions. As these are formula 
grant programs, award determinations and funding distribution amounts 
for each of the grant programs cannot be made until all issues are 
resolved. NHTSA believes that it is unfair to delay these 
determinations, affecting all States, due to unresolved issues in some 
States, and especially in view of the new 45-day statutory review 
deadline. For this reason, we ask all States to take special care in 
their applications to minimize the need for clarification, and to 
respond ``promptly'' to any request for clarifying information. In 
individual requests, NHTSA provides a deadline for States to respond 
depending on the complexity of the question and the time remaining to 
complete application review. NHTSA declines to amend the regulation to 
provide a specific timeframe, as this would reduce flexibility, and 
might compromise a State's opportunity to demonstrate compliance.

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

    Advocates stated that some of the changes to the highway safety 
grant program requirements were excessively lenient and weakened the 
program by allowing States to qualify with sub-optimal provisions and 
laws. As Advocates did not specifically identify which provisions it 
believed were sub-optimal, NHTSA is unable to address the comment. We 
note, however, that in the case of law-based grants (e.g., ignition 
interlock, distracted driving, graduated driver licensing), NHTSA's 
implementation was strictly in accordance with the Federal statute. 
Where the Federal statute permitted leniency (e.g., secondary 
enforcement for special distracted driving grants in FY 2017), NHTSA 
implemented that provision without change.
    In the IFR, NHTSA included Appendix B as the required application 
format for National Priority Safety Program Grants and Racial Profiling 
Data Collection grants. NHTSA expects to implement GMSS before FY 2019 
applications are due. Parts 1 through 10 of Appendix B--Application 
Requirements for Section 405 and 1906 Grants will be systematically 
captured and organized within GMSS. However, under the GMSS process, 
States will still be required to upload a signed copy of Appendix B, 
certifying that the GR has reviewed the information submitted within 
GMSS in support of the State's application for 23 U.S.C. 405 and 
Section 1906 grants and that funds will be used in accordance with 
statutory requirements. In the final rule, NHTSA is also correcting 
language in Appendix B to mirror the regulatory text.

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

    Under the FAST Act, in order to receive a grant for occupant 
protection programs, impaired driving programs and traffic safety 
information system improvement programs, States are required to provide 
a certification that the lead State agency is maintaining its aggregate 
expenditures for those programs at or above the average level of such 
expenditures in FY 2014 and FY 2015--the ``maintenance of effort'' 
(MOE) requirement. This is a statutory change from the earlier 
requirement to maintain such expenditures from ``all State and local 
sources.'' As a result of the FAST Act change, States no longer have to 
certify that they are maintaining these expenditures across all State 
agencies and at the local level, a significant reduction in 
administrative burden. Instead, the FAST Act limits the inquiry and 
certification to expenditures by the ``lead State agency.'' The IFR 
implemented this revised certification requirement without change.
    CA OTS, CNMI DPS, GHSA, and GU OHS submitted similar comments 
requesting that NHTSA define the term ``lead State agency'' as the HSO 
in each State. NHTSA declines to do so, as this would be inconsistent 
with the Federal statute. The FAST Act requires States to certify that 
``the lead State agency responsible for programs described in [sections 
identifying the relevant Federal grants] is maintaining aggregate 
expenditures at or above the average level of such expenditures in the 
2 fiscal years prior to the date of enactment of the FAST Act.'' (23 
U.S.C. 405(a)(9).)
    This language does not provide NHTSA with authority to specify the 
lead State agency, nor is NHTSA well-situated to do so. Designating one 
common agency in all States as the lead State agency ignores the 
diverse subject areas involved and the likeliness that States assign 
responsibility and expenditure authority for those many areas in 
different ways, depending on

[[Page 3473]]

State government structures or State laws and procedures. As a related 
point, NHTSA is aware that some State HSOs are funded exclusively with 
Federal grant funds, and in such cases, would not make any ``aggregate 
expenditures'' of State funds in the identified covered areas--such 
HSOs could not reasonably be identified as the lead State agency 
without rendering the FAST Act MOE requirement meaningless. The statute 
does not support the restrictive approach being sought by these 
commenters, and NHTSA declines to remove the responsibility for this 
determination from the State, where it properly resides. More 
specifically, each State must select the lead State agencies and 
provide the required certifications. NHTSA makes no changes to the 
process identified in the IFR.
    GHSA asserted that NHTSA ``arbitrarily limited states to one 
designation [of lead State agency] until the next reauthorization.'' 
While it is true that the IFR does not contemplate a change in lead 
State agency designation, that result is dictated by the Federal 
statute, which specifies a fixed baseline for maintenance of effort 
calculations, determined on the basis of expenditures in the two fiscal 
years prior to the date of enactment of the FAST Act. Once identified, 
this baseline is not subject to change, and NHTSA does not have the 
authority under the statute to allow another approach.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NHTSA recognizes that a State may on occasion reorganize 
governmental units, which could result in a fundamental shifting of 
roles and responsibilities for various programs. While such a State 
may identify a different lead State agency going forward, the 
statutorily specified baseline will remain the same as first 
reported. Absent a shift in roles and responsibilities, NHTSA 
expects that States will not change their lead State agency 
designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MN OTS and an individual commenter requested assistance in 
understanding how to apply the term ``lead State agency.'' GHSA quoted 
FAST Act conference report language stating the intent to provide 
``additional flexibility to allow states to certify compliance with 
maintenance of effort requirements. Therefore, the conferees expect 
that NHTSA should reasonably defer to state interpretations and 
analyses that underpin such certifications.''
    As guidance in applying the lead State agency to the MOE 
requirement, NHTSA points to the April 27, 2017 webinar, during which 
we identified three factors that a State should consider in selecting 
lead State agencies. In an ideal process, a State would make an 
assessment and selection based on the following criteria: State 
expenditures (the State agency that spends the most State funding in 
the program area); program involvement (the State agency that 
participates in significant decisions affecting the program area); and 
overall leadership (the State agency that exhibits the most control or 
authority over the program area either as directed in law or by 
determination of senior government officials (e.g., the Governor)). 
Consistent with the statement of the conferees, NHTSA will defer to a 
State's reasonable determination of lead State agencies regardless of 
the documented criteria used. A GR using the criteria identified here 
to document the choice would ensure that a reasonable selection has 
been made.
    As a steward of Federal funds, NHTSA has a continuing 
responsibility to ensure that States meet grant requirements, including 
the reduced but still-existing MOE requirements under the FAST Act. 
NHTSA wants to assist States in meeting these requirements up front to 
avoid potential repayment issues later. Under FAST Act requirements, 
States are responsible for identifying lead State agencies for the 
covered areas, for performing the necessary baseline calculations to 
identify the level of State expenditures that must be maintained during 
the grant year, and for monitoring activities to ensure that lead State 
agencies maintain required expenditures. Therefore, while NHTSA will 
accept an executed certification submitted in the application process, 
States should retain adequate documentation of their process for audit 
and oversight purposes and make the documentation available to Regional 
Administrators upon request.
    An individual commenter requested confirmation that fiscal years 
2014 and 2015 would continue to be used as the baseline years in MOE 
determinations under the FAST Act. The baseline years--the years used 
to determine the average level of expenditures in each program area--
are specified in the Federal statute as the two fiscal years prior to 
the date of enactment of the FAST Act, which occurred in fiscal year 
2016. Accordingly, NHTSA confirms that fiscal years 2014 and 2015 will 
be used as the baseline for determining maintenance of effort 
compliance.

B. Occupant Protection Grants (23 CFR 1300.21)

1. Child Restraint Inspection Stations (23 CFR 1300.21(d)(3))
    The FAST Act continued the MAP-21 requirement that States have ``an 
active network of child restraint inspection stations.'' In the IFR, 
NHTSA was guided by earlier State concerns that submission of 
comprehensive lists of child restraint inspection stations was 
burdensome and unnecessary. NHTSA's intent in the IFR was to achieve a 
balance between burdens and the need to ensure that inspection stations 
and events were addressing populations where occupant protection issues 
persist, such as those in rural areas and at-risk groups. Therefore, 
the IFR directed the States to include a table in their HSP identifying 
where inspection stations are located, what population groups they 
serve--urban, rural, or at-risk, and certifying that they will be 
staffed with nationally certified child passenger safety (CPS) 
technicians.
    Some commenters asserted that NHTSA's changes were burdensome and 
that States would have difficulty including the table with the required 
information. CA OTS, GHSA, GU DPS and MN DPS asserted that States would 
be unable to provide complete demographic information on the 
populations served or to certify to CPS technician staffing for all 
inspection stations and events throughout the State. According to these 
commenters, some of these stations and events are activities that do 
not involve the State HSO, and therefore, the State does not have 
adequate information about participation, staffing and timing. These 
commenters propose that NHTSA require States to list and certify only 
to inspection stations and events for which States have grant activity.
    MN DPS asked how it would be expected to define which events serve 
rural, urban, or at-risk populations, as the State would not ask 
participants about income or racial background or support organizations 
that asked such questions. GHSA indicated that the IFR preamble 
provides that States must indicate where stations and events are 
located, but that the regulatory text and Appendix B specify that the 
table need only provide the total number of stations/events and the 
total number that serve rural and urban areas and high risk 
populations. GHSA proposes that NHTSA follow the regulatory text, with 
States listing only summary total numbers.
    NHTSA does not require States to report child restraint activities 
unrelated to their grants and sponsored activities. However, States 
must be able to demonstrate an ``active network''. To do so, States may 
provide the required information and certification for inspection 
stations and events that they sponsor or support and/or provide such 
information for non-State sponsored or supported activities, as 
necessary, to demonstrate an active network of child restraint 
inspection stations or events.

[[Page 3474]]

In either case, the State must certify that these inspection stations 
and events are staffed with at least one nationally certified CPS 
technician. NHTSA also clarifies that it is not requesting detailed 
demographic information for each inspection station--just the State's 
problem-identification-driven determination of the population intended 
to be served--and there is no expectation that attendees would be 
surveyed for demographic details.
    NHTSA is amending the IFR to clarify the level of information to be 
provided. Under the final rule, a State must identify in the HSP 
countermeasure strategies and planned activities demonstrating an 
active network of child passenger safety inspection stations and/or 
inspection events based on the State's problem identification. As part 
of the State's problem identification process, the description should 
also include information on the geographic problem areas in the State 
where the countermeasure strategies and activities are planned, but 
does not require the State to identify the location of each inspection 
station or event. At a minimum, the countermeasure strategies and 
planned activities must include estimates for: (1) The total number of 
planned inspection stations and events during the grant year; and (2) 
within that total, the number of planned stations and events serving 
each of the following population categories: Urban, rural, and at-risk. 
Where at-risk is specified, States must further specify the particular 
at-risk populations (e.g., low-income, ethnic minority). These 
requirements are necessary to ensure that States submit sufficient 
detail about planned activities to demonstrate a program that is based 
on problem identification. A single numeric total for inspection 
stations, without information on general location or population served, 
does not provide evidence that States are addressing the emerging areas 
that they, themselves, have identified as presenting safety challenges 
during their highway safety planning process. This level of detail is 
also necessary to demonstrate an ``active network of inspection 
stations,'' as required by the Federal statute.
    As individual project agreements are executed to fulfill this 
requirement, the HSP must be amended to reflect them (as explained 
later), and Regional Administrators will review these project 
agreements to ensure that, together, they evidence an ``active 
network'' of child restraint inspection stations. NHTSA is retaining 
the requirement for States to certify that all stations and events 
identified by the State as its active network will be staffed by CPS 
technicians. Upcoming changes to the GMSS application system for FY 
2019 should further simplify this process.
2. Child Passenger Safety Technicians (23 CFR 1300.21(d)(4))
    The FAST Act continued the MAP-21 requirement that States have a 
plan to recruit, train and maintain a sufficient number of CPS 
technicians. The IFR allowed States to document this information in a 
table and submit it as part of the annual HSP, in lieu of a separate 
submission setting forth a detailed plan. In the table, States were 
required to submit the number of classes to be held, their location, 
and the estimated numbers of trainees needed to ensure full coverage of 
child passenger inspection stations and events by nationally certified 
CPS technicians. NHTSA intended that eliminating the requirement for 
the detailed plan would reduce burdens.
    MN DPS commented that it would not be able to obtain demographic 
information about technicians. During the FY 2018 application process, 
a number of States asserted similarly that they would not have these 
specific class details at the time of application. MN DPS asked for 
more clarity on the meaning of a ``sufficient number'' of child 
passenger safety technicians. Finally, MN DPS stated that it would be 
easier to provide narrative information on the recruiting plan than to 
list class and attendee information, and noted that this requirement is 
duplicative because NHTSA asks for it under both the Section 402 and 
the Section 405 applications.
    As an integral part of the HSP planning process, States must have 
information about their training plans for CPS technicians for the 
upcoming grant cycle at the time of HSP submission. This information is 
also necessary for a State to qualify for a Section 405 Occupant 
Protection grant, whether it is a high or lower seat belt use rate 
State. NHTSA declines to further define the term ``sufficient number.'' 
What is a ``sufficient number'' of inspection stations (and their 
appropriate distribution to address safety needs), is dependent on the 
problem identification process, and will vary based on unique 
circumstances in each State. That is why NHTSA places strong emphasis 
on the State's problem identification and selection of countermeasure 
strategies.
    In keeping with the problem identification process, NHTSA is 
clarifying that the requirement is for States to identify in the HSP 
countermeasure strategies and planned activities for recruiting, 
training and maintaining a sufficient number of CPS technicians based 
on the State's problem identification. At a minimum, the State must 
submit an estimate of the total classes to be held and the estimated 
total number of CPS technicians to be trained in the upcoming grant 
year to ensure coverage of child restraint inspection stations and 
events by CPS technicians. As part of the State's problem 
identification process, the description should also include information 
on the geographic problem areas in the State where the countermeasure 
strategies and activities are planned, but does not require the State 
to identify each class or its location at this time. As in the case for 
child restraint inspection stations, discussed above, the HSP must be 
amended as individual project agreements are executed to fulfill this 
requirement, and Regional Administrators will review these project 
agreements to ensure that, together, they evidence a sufficient number 
of CPS technicians to meet State needs under the problem identification 
process. Upcoming changes to the GMSS application system for FY 2019 
should further simplify this process, facilitating the linkage of 
information in the HSP with information needed to meet this 
requirement.
    NHTSA does not intend to impose duplicative requirements. In fact, 
a guiding principle in the drafting of the IFR was to remove 
duplicative requirements, allowing States to point to sections of the 
HSP where information has already been provided. The Section 405 
statute specifically requires States to submit a plan for recruitment, 
training and retention of CPS technicians. To the extent that a State 
chooses to provide all of the information required here in the body of 
the HSP as part of its Section 402 program, the State need not repeat 
it again elsewhere--the IFR provided that the State need only identify 
where the information is located in the HSP, and NHTSA is not changing 
that flexibility.
3. Seat Belt Enforcement (23 CFR 1300.21(e)(3))
    The IFR set forth the criterion requiring a State to conduct 
sustained (on-going and periodic) seat belt enforcement at a defined 
level of participation during the year based on problem identification 
in the State. States are required to show that enforcement activity 
involves law enforcement covering areas where at least 70 percent of 
unrestrained fatalities occur. States are already required to include 
in the HSP an evidence-based traffic safety

[[Page 3475]]

enforcement program and planned high-visibility enforcement strategies 
to support national mobilizations (Sec.  1300.11(d)(5) and (6)), and 
this criterion is consistent with that requirement.
    5-State DOTs commented that using unrestrained fatalities as the 
only metric would be problematic because resource constraints make it 
difficult to secure law enforcement participation in all areas. 5-State 
DOTs stated that the population metric used under the MAP-21 rulemaking 
(70 percent of the State's population) is more flexible and that there 
is no rationale for the change under the IFR. MD DOT and MN DPS stated 
that the geographic area under the unrestrained fatalities metric would 
be difficult to define. MD DOT also noted that using occupant 
fatalities alone in determining areas of enforcement creates the 
possibility of basing projects on small data sets that do not always 
paint a clear picture of the problem. MD DOT asserted that highway 
safety programs are generally based on data that includes both fatal 
and serious injury crashes to compile a more definitive illustration of 
where a specific problem area exists, and recommended that this section 
capture the data sets from which performance measures are actually 
determined--fatal and serious injury crashes. An individual commenter 
asked why NHTSA selected 70 percent for the metric.
    NHTSA declines to change the metric to ``70 percent of the State's 
population.'' As noted in the IFR, a metric that is defined by the 
location of the problems sought to be addressed is based on a problem 
identification approach. States are already required under Section 402 
to use problem identification when they develop their occupant 
protection countermeasures for HSPs each year. The statutory purpose of 
increasing occupant protection through these programs is best 
effectuated when States are targeting their problem areas rather than 
simply following a population-based approach. However, NHTSA agrees 
with MD DOT that including serious injuries as well as fatalities is 
fully consistent with the problem identification process and may in 
fact add to the value of the process. For this reason, but also 
cognizant that some States may not have data on unrestrained serious 
injury crashes, NHTSA amends the IFR to permit the use of either (1) 
fatalities or (2) both fatalities and serious injuries as the 
unrestrained population metric.
    NHTSA does not believe that this metric (with the change noted 
above) is problematic for States to address in their law enforcement 
efforts. States are not required under this criterion to have full law 
enforcement participation or to provide a detailed accounting of the 
geographic area covered by law enforcement. NHTSA understands that 
State and local law enforcement face challenges that are unique to each 
State, and that all resources may not be available in all areas. 
However, State law enforcement resources should be targeted to areas 
experiencing the problems--that is the core of the problem 
identification process.

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

1. Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) Requirement (23 CFR 
1300.22(b)(1))
    The IFR required States to provide the dates for three meetings 
that were held during the preceding fiscal year in order to ensure that 
States meet the statutory requirement that the TRCC meet three times a 
year. GHSA asserted that the regulatory text requires the submission of 
three proposed TRCC meeting dates while the preamble to the IFR 
indicates that States are not required to submit those proposed meeting 
dates. GHSA requested that NHTSA implement the language in the preamble 
because it is less burdensome. This concern appears to be a 
misunderstanding of the requirement. The regulatory text requires 
States to submit ``[a]t least three meeting dates of the TRCC during 
the 12 months immediately preceding the application due date.'' 
(Emphasis added.) No change to the regulation is required.
2. Quantifiable and Measurable Progress Requirement (23 CFR 
1300.22(b)(3))
    The Federal statute requires that States demonstrate quantitative 
progress in a data program attribute for a core highway safety 
database. CA OTS, DE OHS, GHSA, and an individual commenter stated that 
the requirement to provide a written description of performance 
measures with supporting documentation requires significant time and 
resources from State applicants. The IFR requirement (written 
description and supporting documentation to demonstrate quantitative 
improvement) has been in place since the MAP-21 rule. NHTSA does not 
believe it is unduly burdensome, and it is necessary for NHTSA to 
ensure that States meet the eligibility requirement created by 
Congress. NHTSA declines to amend the language.
    CA OTS, GHSA, and GU OHS expressed concern that States that do not 
submit voluntary interim progress reports documenting performance 
measures will be found to be delinquent in stewardship of the program. 
NHTSA recommends submission of interim progress reports as a best 
practice to give States additional opportunities to receive NHTSA 
feedback and improve their applications prior to submission. However, 
the decision to submit such a report is purely voluntary, and the 
choice not to submit the report does not lead to any consequences for a 
State.

D. Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants (23 CFR 1300.23)

1. Basic Impaired Driving Grants (23 CFR 1300.23(d), (e), and (f))
    In the IFR, NHTSA eliminated several elements that were part of the 
grant application process under the MAP-21 rule. This streamlining 
resulted in the reduced requirement that the State submit only a single 
document (other than certifications and assurances)--a Statewide 
impaired driving plan--to demonstrate compliance with the Federal 
statute. GHSA asserted that this application process created 
``additional data collection and reporting requirements for mid- and 
high-range States,'' stating that these were not required under the 
FAST Act and should be revised or deleted. CA OTS agreed, and sought to 
have the ``additional administrative burden'' removed.
    The IFR requirement is consistent with the Federal statute, which 
conditions the award of grants to mid-range and high-range States on 
the convening of a Statewide impaired driving task force to develop a 
Statewide impaired driving plan. In the IFR, NHTSA set minimal 
application requirements for States to demonstrate that they convened 
the statutorily-required task force and developed the statutorily-
required plan. To receive a grant, a State must include a narrative 
statement explaining the authority of its task force to operate and 
develop and approve the plan; the identification of task force members; 
and a strategic component that covers certain impaired driving areas 
based on NHTSA's Impaired Driving Guideline No. 8-a planning guideline 
that has been in place for decades and is familiar to all States as a 
tool used in the Section 402 program.\17\ For a high-range State, the 
document also needs to include, on the basis of an assessment required 
under

[[Page 3476]]

the Federal statute, sections addressing assessment recommendations and 
providing a detailed plan for spending funds on impaired driving 
activities. (See 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(3)(C).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Federal statute requires State highway safety programs 
to comply with Uniform Guidelines promulgated by NHTSA. (See 23 
U.S.C. 402(a)(2).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IFR closely adhered to the statutory requirements, providing 
for additional context and information only where necessary to ensure 
that the mandated task forces and plans create a basis for serious 
consideration of impaired driving problems in a State. As neither of 
the commenters provided specifics about what they viewed as burdensome, 
NHTSA declines to make changes to these requirements.
    Although NHTSA is not changing the requirements and is not defining 
a specific development process that States must use, we restate here 
the description provided in the IFR preamble of an optimal process. 
Such a process would involve a 10- to 15-member task force from 
different impaired driving disciplines meeting on a regular basis (at 
least initially) to review and understand the requirements, including 
the referenced Guideline for impaired driving plans, and to apply the 
principles of the Guideline to the State's impaired driving issues. The 
result should be a comprehensive strategic plan that forms the State's 
basis to address impaired driving issues. In contrast, a process that 
organizes a task force just days before the application deadline or 
that produces a plan consisting of only a list of activities or failing 
to cover the specified impaired driving areas would jeopardize the 
receipt of a grant under this section.
2. Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants (23 CFR 1300.23(g))
    The IFR implemented a separate grant program for States that adopt 
and enforce mandatory alcohol-ignition interlock laws covering all 
individuals convicted of a DUI offense. The IFR repeated the three 
exceptions specified in the FAST Act that permit a convicted individual 
to drive a vehicle without an interlock. Specifically, a State's law 
may include exceptions from mandatory interlock use if--(1) an 
individual is required to drive an employer's motor vehicle in the 
course and scope of employment, provided the business entity that owns 
the vehicle is not owned or controlled by the individual; (2) an 
individual is certified in writing by a physician as being unable to 
provide a deep lung breath sample for analysis by an ignition interlock 
device; or (3) a State-certified ignition interlock provider is not 
available within 100 miles of the individual's residence.
    NSC encouraged NHTSA to retain these ``three important grant 
exceptions'' to the requirements in the final rule. As the Federal 
statute mandates allowing these three exceptions, NHTSA must and will 
continue to allow them as part of the review process to determine 
whether a State's law meets the requirements.
3. 24-7 Sobriety Program Grants (23 CFR 1300.23(h))
    The IFR implemented the statutory requirement that States meet two 
separate requirements for a 24-7 sobriety grant. The first requirement 
mandates that a State enact and enforce a law that requires all 
individuals convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or of 
driving while intoxicated to receive a restriction on driving 
privileges for at least 30 days. The second requirement mandates that a 
State provide a 24-7 sobriety program.
    AIIPA urged NHTSA to link the 24-7 grant program ``with a 
requirement to install and maintain installation of a state approved 
ignition interlock device.'' AIIPA asserted that the combined testing 
requirements of a 24-7 sobriety program and an ignition interlock 
device provide better protection than would the sobriety program alone. 
The Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers and Intoximeters 
jointly provided a similar comment.\18\ NHTSA agrees with the 
commenters that employing a range of strategies to monitor offenders 
can identify program violators more effectively than using a single 
strategy. However, the Federal statute identifies the elements of 
compliance for ignition interlock and 24-7 sobriety program grants that 
a State must meet, and NHTSA does not have authority to take other 
approaches. Therefore, NHTSA declines to make interlock use a mandatory 
component of a 24-7 sobriety program grant or to combine the elements 
of both grant programs as the basis for compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This comment raised other issues beyond the scope of this 
rule, such as what mandates a court should impose and the conditions 
under which they should be imposed. We do not address these issues 
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intoximeters indicated its support for twice-per-day in-person 
breath testing at 12-hour intervals as the primary test method required 
under the grant. In its view, this test method is able to provide for 
quick sanctioning ``in the shortest period of time because the 
individual has appeared at the test site to submit to the test before 
law enforcement.'' NHTSA agrees that in-person testing allows for quick 
sanctioning of offenders, and States are encouraged to include this 
approach as part of the testing options available under a 24-7 sobriety 
program. However, the Federal statute allows States to comply using a 
variety of test methods besides twice-per-day testing. Such methods 
include continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring via an electronic 
monitoring device and alternative methods approved by NHTSA. The 
statute also does not create a preference for one test method over 
another. Although twice-per-day testing is a valuable strategy for 24-7 
sobriety programs, it may not be practical to use in every situation 
depending on the offender's location, the number of offenders that a 
law enforcement agency may be required to monitor, or some other 
reason. Based on the flexibility afforded by the Federal statute, NHTSA 
declines to specify a single test method that must be used under the 
program.
    For separate reasons, NHTSA believes that a flexible approach to 
testing is preferable to a rigid one that limits compliance options. 
Adopting a limiting approach could throw current State laws or programs 
out of compliance and prevent States from qualifying for a grant. 
Highly successful and well-established programs employ multiple test 
methods to monitor offenders. Such methods include twice-per-day 
testing at a location, urinalysis, drug patches, electronic alcohol 
monitoring devices, ignition interlock monitoring (provided the 
interlock is able to require tests twice a day without vehicle 
operation), and mobile alcohol breath testing. As long as a test method 
results in violators being identified in a reasonably swift fashion, 
NHTSA will accept its use by a State in a 24-7 sobriety program. 
Consequently, the final rule revises the permissible test methods under 
the program definition to identify additional test methods that may be 
used.
    NHTSA does not intend to reduce flexibility, however, and a State 
may use a NHTSA-approved test method that is not identified in the 
regulation in fashioning its program, provided it aligns with the 
deterrence model that requires swift and certain sanctions for 
noncompliance. This approach is consistent with the Federal statute, 
which specifies that NHTSA has the discretion to approve other test 
methods.
    With this understanding of approved test methods, States must take 
steps to identify the specific test methods they permit to be used to 
monitor offenders in their programs and clarify the frequency and time 
periods of those test methods. Nonspecific test methods or methods 
where determining test

[[Page 3477]]

frequency is impossible or uncertain will not meet the definition of a 
24-7 sobriety program under this section.
    Intoximeters requested that NHTSA incorporate into the final rule 
the traditional principles of ``swift and certain'' deterrence noted in 
the IFR preamble as a basis for ensuring that State test methods allow 
for immediate sanctions of program violators. The identification of the 
deterrence model in the IFR preamble was intended as a general 
guideline to be used by States to ensure that their programs are 
successful. It is not intended to limit testing methods to only those 
that provide for immediate sanctioning. As NHTSA noted earlier, the 
statutory definition of a 24-7 sobriety program provides for more 
flexibility. In this final rule, NHTSA clarifies that test methods must 
be specified and that test frequency should be identifiable based on 
the test method used. We do not believe that the general deterrence 
model noted in the IFR preamble needs to be more specifically 
incorporated into the regulation.
    Intoximeters commented that the ``data driven measures'' that are 
part of separate requirements for submitting a HSP under Section 402 
should be incorporated into requirements for receiving a 24-7 sobriety 
program grant. The FAST Act creates specific requirements that States 
must meet in order to receive a 24-7 sobriety program grant. Adding the 
measures Intoximeters identifies to the 24-7 sobriety program grant 
requirements would alter the defined basis for receiving a grant under 
the statute. Although NHTSA encourages States to implement and review 
their 24-7 sobriety programs using the data-driven requirements and 
performance measures generally, NHTSA declines to make their use 
mandatory to receive a grant.
4. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.23(j))
    The FAST Act specifies the eligible uses of the grant funds, and 
the IFR codified those uses without change. Intoximeters asked whether 
certain expenditures are allowed under the Federal statute's general 
language allowing States to use grant funds for ``costs associated with 
a 24-7 sobriety program.'' Specifically, it asked whether the costs of 
``24/7 program coordinators as well as computer or breath testing, 
transdermal testing equipment qualify for use of grant funds.'' In 
addition, with the understanding that many offenders pay the costs 
associated with a 24-7 sobriety program, Intoximeters asked ``whether 
there are limitations on the use of funds to purchase equipment or 
services that are used to generate income and potentially profits.'' 
The statute makes clear that grant funds are available to cover the 
costs of a 24-7 program, and this may include associated equipment and 
services. When the use of Federal grant funds generates income, special 
Federal rules apply. As States are the recipients of these funds, NHTSA 
believes that they are best situated to consider and evaluate issues 
related to the use of grant funds; States are encouraged to contact 
their respective Regional Offices as specific questions arise.
    In the IFR, NHTSA inadvertently did not amend one of the eligible 
use of funds to reflect changes in the FAST Act. We update the rule to 
reflect the change. (See Sec.  1300.23(j)(1)(ii).)

E. Distracted Driving Grants (23 CFR 1300.24)

    NSC encouraged NHTSA to retain flexibilities such as by removing 
the requirement for escalating fines, allowing States to 
administratively certify to testing for distracted driving issues and 
establishing ``consolation'' grants. (NHTSA interprets ``consolation'' 
grants as the Special Distracted Driving Grants established under the 
FAST Act.) The ``flexibilities'' described by NSC are already afforded 
by the Federal statute, and NHTSA adopted these provisions without 
change in the IFR. Advocates commented that allowing States to qualify 
for grants with secondary enforcement laws weakened the distracted 
driving program. The FAST Act specifically permitted States to qualify 
for Special Distracted Driving grants in FY 2017 with secondary 
enforcement laws, and NHTSA adopted this provision without change in 
the IFR. (Note that the FAST Act made Special Distracted Grants 
available only for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Because these grants are 
no longer available, NHTSA is removing the regulatory provisions 
related to Special Distracted Driving grants. (Sec.  1300.24(e) and 
(f).))

F. Motorcyclist Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.25)

1. Motorcycle Awareness Program and Impaired Driving Program Data 
Requirements (23 CFR 1300.25(f) and 23 CFR 1300.25(h))
    The Motorcycle Awareness Program criterion and the Impaired Driving 
Program criterion in the IFR required States to use State data 
consistent with Sec.  1300.11 (providing for project-level information 
at the time of HSP submission) to support their performance targets and 
countermeasure strategies. CA OTS, 5-State DOTs, and GHSA recommended 
eliminating the requirement to provide crash data at the project level. 
These commenters asserted that States do not have such data at the time 
of grant application.
    As NHTSA explained in the discussion under Sec.  1300.11(d)(2), we 
agree that States may not have completed negotiations on project 
agreements at the time of HSP submission, and we have therefore removed 
the requirement for States to report discrete projects in the HSP, and 
instead require them to report planned activities. However, States must 
and do have access to crash data that will support the performance 
measures and countermeasure strategies under these two criteria. States 
continually collect crash data to identify problem areas and track 
trends in traffic safety. Moreover, for these criteria, the IFR 
provided ample flexibility--specifically, it allowed States to 
demonstrate compliance by using the most recent year for which final 
State crash data are available, but no later than three calendar years 
prior to the application due date. In view of this significant 
flexibility, we decline to eliminate the requirement to provide crash 
data under these criteria. The requirement is fundamental to problem 
identification and to the development of countermeasure strategies in 
the HSP.
2. Motorcycle Rider Training Course (23 CFR 1300.25(e))
    MN DPS commented that the IFR unduly limits the number of entry-
level rider training courses to four specified curricula. In fact, the 
IFR substantially simplified the requirement, while preserving the 
flexibility MN DPS desires. It replaced the requirement for States to 
submit documentation detailing their motorcycle rider training course 
with a simple certification from the GR. In the certification, the GR 
must simply identify the head of the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues and certify that that 
official has approved and the State has adopted and uses one of four 
identified training programs.\19\ NHTSA chose this approach to 
alleviate burdens in the vast majority of cases because almost all 
States use one of these four well-established and effective training 
programs, obviating the need for additional justification. However, the

[[Page 3478]]

IFR permitted an alternative option to allow a training course that is 
not one of the four identified in the regulation. Under that 
alternative, a State may develop a motorcycle rider training course 
that meets its unique regional needs and may use such a training course 
after approval by NHTSA that it meets the Model National Standards for 
Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training. Given this flexibility, NHTSA 
declines to make any changes to the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The four training programs are: The Motorcycle Safety 
Foundation (MSF) Basic Rider Course, TEAM OREGON Basic Rider 
Training (TEAM OREGON), Idaho STAR Basic I (Idaho STAR), or the 
California Motorcyclist Safety Program Motorcyclist Training Course 
(California).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CA OTS, GHSA and 5-State DOTs urged NHTSA to retain the option 
either to conduct training in a majority of counties or political 
subdivisions in the State or to conduct training in a majority of 
counties or political subdivisions that account for a majority of 
registered motorcyclists, as existed prior to the IFR. These commenters 
claimed that States lose flexibility in allocating very limited funds 
when restricted to the single option in the IFR. They asserted that, as 
long as a State provides justification for the selected sites, this 
flexibility would permit a State to consolidate training locations for 
multiple jurisdictions to reduce costs yet still reach the motorcycle 
riders of those jurisdictions.
    The IFR required the State to offer at least one motorcycle rider 
training course in counties or political subdivisions that collectively 
account for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles. NHTSA 
removed the option of offering the training course in a majority of 
counties or political subdivisions for two reasons. First, it did not 
ensure geographically that the statutory requirement for a Statewide 
motorcycle rider training program would be achieved, potentially 
prejudicing rural areas. More significantly, it decoupled the training 
from the targeted population--it is important for training to be 
delivered in locations that serve populations where motorcycles are in 
use--not simply in large population centers.
    The IFR's approach did not require training to be offered in all 
counties or political jurisdictions in the State, nor did it require 
that only those jurisdictions with most of the motorcycle registrations 
be included. States have the flexibility to offer training in any 
combination of counties or political jurisdictions and to consolidate 
training sites as they desire, as long as they meet the requirement 
that training is offered in counties or political jurisdictions that 
collectively account for a majority of the State's registered 
motorcycles. (The commenters acknowledged that many States use the 
majority of registered motorcycles approach.) Because NHTSA believes 
that the IFR requirement achieves important safety objectives while 
allowing ample flexibility, we decline to make changes to the rule.
3. Motorcyclist Awareness Program (23 CFR 1300.25(f))
    The Federal statute requires the Motorcyclist Awareness Program to 
be ``developed by, or in coordination with, the designated State 
authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues . . .'' 
The IFR made changes to streamline submission requirements from what 
was previously required. The IFR required a simple certification from 
the GR, identifying the head of the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues and certifying that the 
State's motorcyclist awareness program was developed by or in 
coordination with the designated State authority having jurisdiction 
over motorcyclist safety issues. The IFR eliminated the requirement for 
a detailed strategic communications plan, instead requiring 
implementation of a data-driven State awareness program (using State 
crash data) that targets problem areas. The IFR required the State to 
submit in its HSP a performance measure and performance targets with a 
list of countermeasure strategies and projects that will be deployed to 
meet these targets. The State must select countermeasure strategies and 
projects implementing the motorist awareness activities based on the 
geographic location of crashes involving a serious or fatal injury.
    CA OTS, GHSA, and 5-State DOTs urged NHTSA to eliminate the 
requirement to implement countermeasure strategies and projects in a 
``majority of counties or political subdivisions where there is at 
least one motorcycle crash causing serious or fatal injury.'' These 
commenters sought restoration of the requirement under the MAP-21 rule 
allowing for awareness programs in a majority of counties or political 
subdivisions with the largest number of motorcycle crashes.
    The IFR did not focus on all motorcycle crashes, choosing instead 
the approach of encouraging States to focus on data-driven 
identification of traffic safety problems and countermeasure strategies 
that target those specific problems. In NHTSA's view, the previous 
approach of including all motorcycle crashes dilutes the effectiveness 
of data-driven problem identification and countermeasure strategies, 
because some of these crashes may not rise to an identifiable problem 
related to motorcyclist awareness. The purpose of the awareness program 
is to make other motorists aware of motorcyclists.
    After careful consideration, however, NHTSA recognizes that using 
the metric of crashes involving a fatality or serious injury also may 
not properly capture awareness concerns, reducing the effectiveness of 
countermeasure strategies relying on such data. We believe that 
motorcyclist awareness issues are best aligned with multi-vehicle 
crashes involving motorcycles, and that such multi-vehicle crashes are 
a better proxy for estimating motorist error. Balancing these 
considerations, we are amending the rule to require the motorcyclist 
awareness program to be conducted ``in the majority of counties or 
political subdivisions where the incidence of crashes involving a 
motorcycle and another motor vehicle is highest.'' NHTSA believes that 
this approach largely addresses the commenters' concerns about the 
crash population to consider, while also more strategically addressing 
the awareness problem. It should also reduce the geographic population 
under consideration, alleviating those concerns. With this change, 
States will be required to submit data identifying the jurisdictions 
that have the highest incidence of multi-vehicle motorcyclist-related 
crashes, and to conduct awareness activities in those areas.
    The targeting of more focused geographic areas where the data 
indicate that awareness is an issue will provide States with more 
flexibility to tailor countermeasure strategies with appropriate levels 
of ``message intensity,'' resulting in a better use of scarce resources 
across a likely smaller geographic range, rather than in areas where 
awareness problems do not pose concerns. Accordingly, we amend the rule 
to reflect this change and to replace the reference to projects with 
planned activities.
4. Minor Corrections to the IFR
    NHTSA is correcting two minor inconsistencies between the 
Motorcycle Safety regulatory text and Appendix B for Reduction of 
Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles and Reduction of 
Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired Motorcyclists criteria. For 
Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles and Reduction 
of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired Motorcyclists criteria, 
we are adding language in the regulatory text to require the State to 
submit a description of its methods for collecting and analyzing its 
data. This information is needed for NHTSA to confirm the validity of 
the crash data, and was

[[Page 3479]]

inadvertently omitted from the IFR regulatory text.

G. State Graduated Driver Licensing Grant (23 CFR 1300.26)

    The FAST Act reset the State GDL incentive grant program introduced 
by MAP-21 (codified at 23 U.S.C. 405(g)) by significantly amending the 
statutory compliance criteria. In response to the IFR, an individual 
commenter stated that it was very difficult for small States to qualify 
for a GDL grant due to the legislative challenges they face. She 
recommended a ``step-in program'' to make compliance easier in the 
earlier years. The Federal statute does not authorize NHTSA to 
establish a phase-in period--all statutory requirements must be met to 
qualify for the GDL grant. NHTSA makes no changes to the rule in 
response to this comment.
1. Learner's Permit Stage (Only) (23 CFR 1300.26(d))
    The only comments concerned the requirement that the learner's 
permit holder either (1) complete a State-certified driver education or 
training course or (2) receive at least 50 hours of behind-the-wheel 
training,\20\ with at least 10 of those hours at night, with a licensed 
driver who is at least 21 years of age or is a State-certified driving 
instructor. (See Sec.  1300.26(d)(5).) Advocates cited to the finding 
by the Highway Loss Data Institute that increasing the supervised 
driving requirement to 40 hours was associated with a 10 percent lower 
rate of insurance collision claims among 16- to 17-year-old drivers. 
(Trempel, Rebecca E. Graduated Driver Licensing Laws and Insurance 
Collision Claim Frequencies of Teenage Drivers, HLDI, November, 2009.) 
Advocates requested that the requirement be changed to include both 
driver education and a minimum of 50 hours of behind-the-wheel 
training. In contrast, NSC encouraged NHTSA to retain the language 
specifying that only one of the two requirements need be satisfied, 
seeking to enable more States to qualify for the grants. The plain 
language of the FAST Act is clear--a State is eligible for a grant as 
long as it provides for either completion of a State-certified driver 
education or training course or completion of at least 50 hours of 
behind-the-wheel training (with at least 10 of those hours at night). 
NHTSA does not have the authority to deviate from this statutory 
requirement. NHTSA makes no changes to the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Behind-the-wheel training refers to actual instructional 
driving time during which the novice driver operates a vehicle 
(e.g., off-street, on-street, on-highway) and is guided by a 
licensed driver or instructor in the front passenger seat. 
Observation is not included in behind-the-wheel time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Learner's Permit Stage and Intermediate Stage (23 CFR 1300.26(d)-
(e))
    The FAST Act required the delay of issuance of an unrestricted 
driver's license (i.e., extension of the learner's permit and/or 
intermediate stage) if the driver is ``convicted of a driving-related 
offense . . . including . . . misrepresentation of the individual's 
age.'' (23 U.S.C. 405(g)(2)(iii)(II).) This statutory language made 
clear that the offenses at issue must be ``driving-related.'' The IFR 
did not correctly implement this provision because it stated the 
provision as ``a driving-related offense or misrepresentation of the 
driver's true age'' (emphasis added), imposing a stricter requirement 
by implying that the offense of misrepresentation of age need not be 
driving-related. To correct this unintended inaccuracy, in the final 
rule NHTSA is striking the words ``or misrepresentation of the driver's 
true age'' where they appear in the requirements for the two stages and 
adding it to the definition of ``driving-related offense.''
    NHTSA is making a non-substantive revision to the distracted 
driving component of the GDL program in the learner's permit and 
intermediate stages, by moving the language regarding the violation 
being a primary offense to a new section that applies the provision 
globally to all components of both stages. (See Sec.  1300.26(d)(6) and 
(e)(5).) This revision is purely organizational and has no effect on 
the operation of this component.
3. Primary Enforcement (23 CFR 1300.26(f))
    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) asked whether 
night and passenger restrictions must be enforced on a primary basis. 
Although the IFR was not explicit on this point (except that the 
distracted driving component of the GDL program included primary 
enforcement language to ensure alignment with the separate distracted 
driving grant program), that was the intent and consistent with the 
Federal statute. In response to the comment, NHTSA is adding a 
provision in the final rule specifying that the driving restrictions of 
the learner's permit and intermediate stages must be enforced as 
primary offenses.
4. Exceptions to a State's GDL Program (23 CFR 1300.26(g))
    NHTSA is making one change to the limited exception allowing States 
to issue a permit or license when demonstrable hardship would result 
from its denial. NHTSA no longer requires the driver to start with the 
learner's permit stage, as some drivers may have already completed that 
stage in another State. However, a hardship license holder seeking to 
obtain an unrestricted driver's license will continue to be required to 
participate in the State's GDL program, beginning at the appropriate 
stage, prior to being issued such a license. NHTSA is making this 
change in recognition of the variability in State GDL laws and the 
reality that drivers at various stages in a State's GDL process 
relocate across State lines.

H. Nonmotorized Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.27)

    NHTSA received one comment from an individual recommending 
additional criteria or options for States to qualify for nonmotorized 
grants. The FAST Act prescribed the criteria for these grants--
eligibility is limited to States whose annual combined pedestrian and 
bicyclist fatalities exceed 15 percent of their total annual crash 
fatalities. NHTSA does not have the authority to alter this 
requirement. NHTSA makes no changes to the rule.

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

A. Amendments to Highway Safety Plans (23 CFR 1300.32)

    As discussed in Section V.B.3. of this preamble, NHTSA is removing 
the requirement to report information about specific project agreements 
at the time of HSP submission. However, as States execute their HSPs 
and formalize projects during the course of the grant year, States must 
amend their HSPs to identify and provide details about these project 
agreements. Specifically, States must provide project agreement 
numbers, subrecipient(s), amount of Federal funds, source of funds, and 
eligible use of funds (formerly referred to as program funding code). 
We are amending the regulatory text to provide that the State must 
amend the HSP as project agreements are finalized, but before 
performance under the project agreement begins. This is to avoid the 
situation where a State incurs costs under a project agreement and the 
Regional Administrator determines that the project agreement does not 
align with the HSP. States must also update this information when it 
changes. This information is necessary both to ensure that NHTSA has an 
adequate audit trail to track grant expenditures and also to

[[Page 3480]]

ensure that the specific projects called for under various Section 405 
grants for which a State has applied and been approved are performed. 
More specifically, as a fundamental part of accountability for Federal 
funds, NHTSA must have the ability to determine, when paying for State 
grant expenses, the specific project agreement under which the expenses 
were incurred.\21\ Additionally, because applying for Section 405 and 
1906 grants under the IFR is now possible by identifying a particular 
section of the HSP, and NHTSA has reduced the project-level detail 
required to be provided at the time of HSP submission, States must 
follow through and enter into project agreements for which they 
provided reduced detail in the HSP to demonstrate they are following 
through on their commitment made at the time of application for Section 
405 and 1906 grants. NHTSA Regional Administrators will review these 
HSP amendments adding project agreements for alignment with the 
approved HSP and the Section 405 grants for which a State was approved, 
and the project agreements will form the basis for payment of vouchers, 
as described below. Accordingly, we amend this section to reflect these 
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For this reason, the project agreement number (along with 
other particulars) is required to be reported here and also later 
when vouchers are submitted (as discussed under ``Vouchers and 
Project Agreements''). Without this information, NHTSA would be 
unable to align specific grant expenditures charged under a voucher 
with actual work performed under a project agreement, a necessary 
component of any audit process. This level of detail is already 
required to be collected by the State in connection with sub-awards 
under 2 CFR 200.331, so it should not create any additional burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MN OTS stated that its project numbers are in a specific format, 
and that restructuring the project numbers and tracking by project 
number would require a restructuring of its grant system. The IFR does 
not impose a specific format for project numbers--States may use 
whatever format they wish that allows them to track and account for 
Federally-funded projects.\22\ To remove any concern and confusion, 
NHTSA is changing the term ``project number'' to ``project agreement 
number,'' and amending the definition in the final rule to ``a unique 
State generated identifier assigned to each project agreement in the 
Highway Safety Plan'' (emphasis added) to make clear that States may 
use their own numbering system. (See Sec.  1300.3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ States that make awards to subrecipients are already 
required to assign a unique identifier for each sub-award. (See 2 
CFR 200.331(a).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Vouchers and Project Agreements (23 CFR 1300.33)

    Most of these requirements remained unchanged in the IFR from the 
requirements under the MAP-21 rule, except for non-substantive updates 
to cross-references and terms. However, in order to improve oversight 
of Federal grant funds, the IFR required States to identify specific 
project-level information in their vouchers, including project numbers, 
amount of indirect costs, amount of planning and administration costs, 
and program funding codes, in addition to the amount of Federal funds, 
local benefit and matching rate.
    Because NHTSA is now requiring some of this specific project 
agreement information to be submitted in amendments to the HSP, as 
discussed in the preceding section, we are deleting unnecessary 
duplicative entries related to voucher contents in Sec.  1300.33. 
Accordingly, vouchers must now identify only the project agreement 
numbers of the activities for which work was performed, the amount of 
Federal funds up to the amount identified in Sec.  1300.32(b), the 
amount of Federal funds allocated to local benefit, and the matching 
rate (breaking down these items by project agreement number where 
multiple projects are being reported on one voucher).
    NHTSA is actively working to program GMSS to populate a number of 
fields, such as project agreement number and eligible use of funds, to 
facilitate and streamline this process.

C. Annual Report (23 CFR 1300.35)

    The IFR retained much of the annual report requirements from the 
MAP-21 rule. However, NHTSA made two additions, one to require a 
description of the State's evidence-based enforcement program 
activities and the other to require an explanation of reasons for 
projects that were not implemented. CA OTS, CNMI DPS-HSO, CT HSO, DE 
OHS, GHSA, GU OHS, and NY GTSC commented that the requirement to 
explain the reasons why projects were not implemented could be 
burdensome, depending on the level of detail required. To clarify, the 
explanation for projects that were not implemented is intended to be a 
high-level summary. There may be compelling reasons why a State may not 
have implemented some planned activities from the HSP, and it is 
important for States to assess these reasons and use this information 
to identify issues and trends as part of their overall highway safety 
planning process. With this clarification about the level of reporting 
expected, NHTSA declines to make changes to the final rule except to 
replace the reference to projects with planned activities.
    Earlier in this preamble NHTSA explained that it was removing two 
requirements from inclusion in the HSP: (1) The requirement for States 
to include, in the Performance Report section of the HSP, a description 
of upcoming adjustments if a performance target was missed (see Section 
V.B.1.); and the requirement to include specific metrics from high-
visibility enforcement campaigns (see Section V.B.3.). NHTSA agreed 
with commenters that this information would be more appropriate to 
provide in the annual report. Accordingly, the final rule now requires 
this information in the annual report.

D. Expiration of the Highway Safety Plan (23 CFR 1300.40)

    In the IFR, States had 90 days from the end of the fiscal year to 
submit final vouchers, with an additional extension limited to 30 days 
in extraordinary circumstances. CT HSO, GHSA and NY GTSC objected to 
limiting extensions to 30 days. NY GTSC recommended 45, 60 or 90 days. 
HSPs expire on September 30, at the end of each fiscal year. States 
have three months from that date to voucher for costs incurred under 
that HSP, and an additional month in extraordinary circumstances. NHTSA 
does not believe that a recurring annual program requires more than 
one-third of a year to accommodate an orderly closeout of HSP 
activities for an individual grant cycle. States are encouraged to work 
with subrecipients to improve their highway safety planning and 
administration efforts for effective and efficient use of Federal 
funds, as required in Sec.  1300.4. NHTSA makes no changes to the rule 
in response to these comments.

E. Disposition of Unexpended Balances (23 CFR 1300.41)

    The IFR retained many provisions from the MAP-21 rule, but 
conformed the treatment of carry-forward funds to the revised HSP 
content requirements. As NHTSA noted in the IFR, a fundamental 
expectation of Congress is that funds made available to States will be 
used promptly and effectively to address the highway safety problems 
for which they were authorized. Section 402, 405 and 1906 grant funds 
are authorized for apportionment or allocation each fiscal year. 
Because these grant funds are made available each fiscal year, States 
should strive to use them to carry out an annual highway safety program 
during the fiscal year of the grant.

[[Page 3481]]

    CA OTS, DE OHS, GHSA, GU OHS, MN OTS and NY GTSC asked for 
clarification or modification of the requirement to assign all funds to 
specific project agreements. MN OTS stated that it would not be able to 
obligate carry forward funds by year to specific projects in the HSP, 
noting that the HSP is completed six months before the exact amount of 
carry-forward money is finalized. These commenters stated that this 
type of information is not available at the time of HSP submission. In 
view of the changes to project-level reporting discussed earlier in 
this preamble (see Section V.B.3.), NHTSA is making conforming changes 
to this section by deleting the requirement that all carry-forward 
highway safety grant funds be assigned to specific projects.

F. Sanctions--Risk Assessment and Non-Compliance (23 CFR 1300.52)

    CA OTS, GHSA, and GU OHS expressed concern that the requirement 
that States ``effectively implement statutory, regulatory, and other 
requirements imposed on non-Federal entities'' is too subjective, and 
requested a more objective risk evaluation factor. The requirements in 
Sec.  1300.52 incorporate the risk assessment requirements laid out in 
the OMB Circular (2 CFR part 200). The requirement to ``effectively 
implement statutory, regulatory, and other requirements'' is found in 2 
CFR 200.205(c)(5) and is a fundamental component of Federal grant law. 
NHTSA believes that States have an adequate comfort level with the 
meaning of the term ``effectively,'' and declines to further clarify 
the term used by the Office of Management and Budget in the circular.

VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures [TBD OMB Designation]

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking 
document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive 
Order 13563. This action makes changes to the uniform procedures 
implementing State highway safety grant programs, as a result of 
enactment of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST 
Act). While this final rule would establish minimum criteria for 
highway safety grants, most of the criteria are based on statute. NHTSA 
has no discretion over the grant amounts, and its implementation 
authority is limited. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined to 
be not ``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of 
Management and Budget.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), as implemented by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320, a person 
is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal 
agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The 
grant application requirements in this rulemaking are considered to be 
a collection of information subject to requirements of the PRA. The 
agency will publish separate Federal Register Notices (60-day and 30-
day) when we submit the information collection request to OMB for 
approval.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment

[[Page 3482]]

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

G. National Environmental Policy Act

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

H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

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

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

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

J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined 
to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) 
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason 
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the 
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the 
environmental health or safety effects of the proposed rule on 
children, and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to 
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by us. NHTSA certifies that this rule would not concern an 
environmental health or safety risk that might disproportionately 
affect children.

K. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The FAST Act requires 
NHTSA to award highway safety grants pursuant to rulemaking. (Section 
4001(d), FAST Act.) The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes 
the Unified Agenda in or about April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

L. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs)

    Executive Order 13771 titled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an 
executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment 
or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least 
two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new 
incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent 
permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only 
those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' are subject to these 
requirements. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 
12866.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1300

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


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

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

Subpart A--General
Sec.
1300.1 Purpose.
1300.2 [Reserved].
1300.3 Definitions.
1300.4 State Highway Safety Agency--authority and functions.
1300.5 Due dates--interpretation.
Subpart B--Highway Safety Plan
1300.10 General.
1300.11 Contents.
1300.12 Due date for submission.
1300.13 Special funding conditions for Section 402 Grants.
1300.14 Review and approval procedures.
1300.15 Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.
Subpart C--National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection Grants
1300.20 General.
1300.21 Occupant protection grants.
1300.22 State traffic safety information system improvements grants.
1300.23 Impaired driving countermeasures grants.
1300.24 Distracted driving grants.
1300.25 Motorcyclist safety grants.
1300.26 State graduated driver licensing incentive grants.
1300.27 Nonmotorized safety grants.
1300.28 Racial profiling data collection grants.
Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants
1300.30 General.
1300.31 Equipment.
1300.32 Amendments to Highway Safety Plans--approval by the Regional 
Administrator.
1300.33 Vouchers and project agreements.
1300.34 [Reserved].
1300.35 Annual report.
1300.36 Appeals of written decision by the Regional Administrator.
Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation
1300.40 Expiration of the Highway Safety Plan.
1300.41 Disposition of unexpended balances.
1300.42 Post-grant adjustments.
1300.43 Continuing requirements.
Subpart F--Non-Compliance
1300.50 General.
1300.51 Sanctions--reduction of apportionment.
1300.52 Sanctions--risk assessment and non-compliance.
Appendix A to Part 1300--Certifications and Assurances for Highway 
Safety Grants (23 U.S.C. Chapter 4; Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as 
Amended by Sec. 4011, Public Law 114-94)
Appendix B to Part 1300--Application Requirements for Section 405 
and Section 1906 Grants
Appendix C to Part 1300--Participation by Political Subdivisions

[[Page 3483]]

Appendix D to Part 1300--Planning and Administration (P & A) Costs

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

Subpart A--General


Sec.  1300.1  Purpose.

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


Sec.  1300.2  [Reserved].


Sec.  1300.3  Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    Annual Report File (ARF) means FARS data that are published 
annually, but prior to final FARS data.
    Carry-forward funds means those funds that a State has not expended 
on projects in the fiscal year in which they were apportioned or 
allocated, that are within the period of availability, and that are 
being brought forward and made available for expenditure in a 
subsequent fiscal year.
    Contract authority means the statutory language that authorizes an 
agency to incur an obligation without the need for a prior 
appropriation or further action from Congress and which, when 
exercised, creates a binding obligation on the United States for which 
Congress must make subsequent liquidating appropriations.
    Countermeasure strategy means a proven effective or innovative 
countermeasure proposed or implemented with grant funds under 23 U.S.C. 
Chapter 4 or Section 1906 to address identified problems and meet 
performance targets. Examples of proven effective countermeasures 
include high-visibility occupant protection enforcement, DUI courts, or 
alcohol screening and brief intervention programs.
    Data-driven means informed by a systematic review and analysis of 
quality data sources when making decisions related to planning, target 
establishment, resource allocation and implementation.
    Evidence-based means based on approaches that are proven effective 
with consistent results when making decisions related to countermeasure 
strategies and projects.
    Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) means the nationwide 
census providing yearly public data regarding fatal injuries suffered 
in motor vehicle traffic crashes, as published by NHTSA.
    Fatality rate means the ratio of the number of fatalities (as 
defined in this section) to the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 
(expressed in 100 million VMT) in a calendar year, based on the data 
reported in the FARS database.
    Final FARS means the FARS data that replace the annual report file 
and contain additional cases or updates that became available after the 
annual report file was released.
    Fiscal year means the Federal fiscal year, consisting of the 12 
months beginning each October 1 and ending the following September 30.
    Five-year (5-year) rolling average means the average of five 
individual points of data from five consecutive calendar years (e.g., 
the 5-year rolling average of the annual fatality rate).
    Governor means the Governor of any of the fifty States, Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Mayor of the District 
of Columbia, or, for the application of this part to Indian Country as 
provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), the Secretary of the Interior.
    Governor's Representative for Highway Safety means the official 
appointed by the Governor to implement the State's highway safety 
program or, for the application of this part to Indian Country as 
provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), an official of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs or other Department of Interior official who is duly designated 
by the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Indian highway safety 
program.
    Highway Safety Plan (HSP) means the document that the State submits 
each fiscal year as its application for highway safety grants (and 
amends as necessary), which describes the State's performance targets, 
the countermeasure strategies and activities the State plans to 
implement, the resources from all sources the State plans to use to 
achieve its highway safety performance targets.
    Highway safety program means the planning, strategies and 
performance measures, and general oversight and management of highway 
safety strategies and projects by the State either directly or through 
subrecipients to address highway safety problems in the State, as 
defined in the annual Highway Safety Plan and any amendments.
    NHTSA means the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    Number of fatalities means the total number of persons suffering 
fatal injuries in a motor vehicle traffic crash during a calendar year, 
based on data reported in the FARS database.
    Number of serious injuries means the total number of persons 
suffering at least one serious injury for each separate motor vehicle 
traffic crash during a calendar year, as reported by the State, where 
the crash involves a motor vehicle traveling on a public road.
    Performance measure means a metric that is used to establish 
targets and to assess progress toward meeting the established targets.
    Performance target means a quantifiable level of performance or a 
goal, expressed as a value, to be achieved within a specified time 
period.
    Problem identification means the data collection and analysis 
process for identifying areas of the State, types of crashes, or types 
of populations (e.g., high-risk populations) that present specific 
safety challenges to efforts to improve a specific program area.
    Program area means any of the national priority safety program 
areas identified in 23 U.S.C. 405 or a program area identified by a 
State in the Highway Safety Plan as encompassing a major highway safety 
problem in the State and for which documented effective countermeasure 
strategies have been identified or projected by analysis to be 
effective.
    Project means a discrete effort involving identified subrecipients 
or contractors to be implemented with grant funds under 23 U.S.C. 
Chapter 4 or Section 1906 and that addresses countermeasure strategies 
identified in the Highway Safety Plan.
    Project agreement means a written agreement at the State level or 
between the State and a subrecipient or contractor under which the 
State agrees to perform a project or to provide Federal funds in 
exchange for the subrecipient's or contractor's performance of a 
project that supports the highway safety program.
    Project agreement number means a unique State-generated identifier 
assigned to each project agreement.
    Public road means any road under the jurisdiction of and maintained 
by a public authority and open to public travel.
    Section 402 means section 402 of title 23 of the United States 
Code.
    Section 405 means section 405 of title 23 of the United States 
Code.
    Section 1906 means Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Sec. 
4011, Public Law 114-94.
    Serious injuries means, until April 15, 2019, injuries classified 
as ``A'' on the KABCO scale through the use of the conversion tables 
developed by NHTSA, and thereafter, ``suspected serious injury (A)'' as 
defined in the Model Minimum

[[Page 3484]]

Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline, 4th Edition.
    State means, except as provided in Sec.  1300.25(b), any of the 
fifty States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands, or, for the application of this part 
to Indian Country as provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), the Secretary of the 
Interior.
    State highway safety improvement program (HSIP) means the program 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(10).
    State strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) means the plan defined 
in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11).


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

    (a) In general. In order for a State to receive grant funds under 
this part, the Governor shall exercise responsibility for the highway 
safety program by appointing a Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety who shall be responsible for a State Highway Safety Agency that 
has adequate powers and is suitably equipped and organized to carry out 
the State's highway safety program.
    (b) Authority. Each State Highway Safety Agency shall be authorized 
to--
    (1) Develop and execute the Highway Safety Plan and highway safety 
program in the State;
    (2) Manage Federal grant funds effectively and efficiently and in 
accordance with all Federal and State requirements;
    (3) Obtain information about highway safety programs and projects 
administered by other State and local agencies;
    (4) Maintain or have access to information contained in State 
highway safety data systems, including crash, citation or adjudication, 
emergency medical services/injury surveillance, roadway and vehicle 
record keeping systems, and driver license data;
    (5) Periodically review and comment to the Governor on the 
effectiveness of programs to improve highway safety in the State from 
all funding sources that the State plans to use for such purposes;
    (6) Provide financial and technical assistance to other State 
agencies and political subdivisions to develop and carry out highway 
safety strategies and projects; and
    (7) Establish and maintain adequate staffing to effectively plan, 
manage, and provide oversight of projects approved in the HSP and to 
properly administer the expenditure of Federal grant funds.
    (c) Functions. Each State Highway Safety Agency shall--
    (1) Develop and prepare the HSP based on evaluation of highway 
safety data, including crash fatalities and injuries, roadway, driver 
and other data sources to identify safety problems within the State;
    (2) Establish projects to be funded within the State under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4 based on identified safety problems and priorities and 
projects under Section 1906;
    (3) Conduct a risk assessment of subrecipients and monitor 
subrecipients based on risk, as provided in 2 CFR 200.331;
    (4) Provide direction, information and assistance to subrecipients 
concerning highway safety grants, procedures for participation, 
development of projects and applicable Federal and State regulations 
and policies;
    (5) Encourage and assist subrecipients to improve their highway 
safety planning and administration efforts;
    (6) Review and approve, and evaluate the implementation and 
effectiveness of, State and local highway safety programs and projects 
from all funding sources that the State plans to use under the HSP, and 
approve and monitor the expenditure of grant funds awarded under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906;
    (7) Assess program performance through analysis of highway safety 
data and data-driven performance measures;
    (8) Ensure that the State highway safety program meets the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4, Section 1906 and applicable 
Federal and State laws, including but not limited to the standards for 
financial management systems required under 2 CFR 200.302 and internal 
controls required under 2 CFR 200.303;
    (9) Ensure that all legally required audits of the financial 
operations of the State Highway Safety Agency and of the use of highway 
safety grant funds are conducted;
    (10) Track and maintain current knowledge of changes in State 
statutes or regulations that could affect State qualification for 
highway safety grants or transfer programs;
    (11) Coordinate the HSP and highway safety data collection and 
information systems activities with other federally and non-federally 
supported programs relating to or affecting highway safety, including 
the State SHSP as defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a); and
    (12) Administer Federal grant funds in accordance with Federal and 
State requirements, including 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201.


Sec.  1300.5  Due dates--interpretation.

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

Subpart B--Highway Safety Plan


Sec.  1300.10  General.

    To apply for any highway safety grant under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 
Section 1906, a State shall submit electronically a Highway Safety Plan 
meeting the requirements of this subpart.


Sec.  1300.11  Contents.

    The State's Highway Safety Plan documents a State's highway safety 
program that is data-driven in establishing performance targets and 
selecting the countermeasure strategies, planned activities and 
projects to meet performance targets. Each fiscal year, the State shall 
submit a HSP, consisting of the following components:
    (a) Highway safety planning process. (1) Description of the data 
sources and processes used by the State to identify its highway safety 
problems, describe its highway safety performance measures, establish 
its performance targets, and develop and select evidence-based 
countermeasure strategies and projects to address its problems and 
achieve its performance targets;
    (2) Identification of the participants in the processes (e.g., 
highway safety committees, program stakeholders, community and 
constituent groups);
    (3) Description and analysis of the State's overall highway safety 
problems as identified through an analysis of data, including but not 
limited to fatality, injury, enforcement, and judicial data, to be used 
as a basis for setting performance targets, selecting countermeasure 
strategies, and developing projects;
    (4) Discussion of the methods for project selection (e.g., 
constituent outreach, public meetings, solicitation of proposals);
    (5) List of information and data sources consulted; and
    (6) Description of the outcomes from the coordination of the HSP, 
data collection, and information systems with the State SHSP.
    (b) Performance report. A program-area-level report on the State's 
progress towards meeting State performance targets from the previous 
fiscal year's HSP.
    (c) Performance plan. (1) List of quantifiable and measurable 
highway safety performance targets that are data-driven, consistent 
with the Uniform Guidelines for Highway Safety Programs and based on 
highway safety problems

[[Page 3485]]

identified by the State during the planning process conducted under 
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (2) All performance measures developed by NHTSA in collaboration 
with the Governors Highway Safety Association (``Traffic Safety 
Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 
025)), as revised in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(5) and published 
in the Federal Register, which must be used as minimum measures in 
developing the performance targets identified in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, provided that--
    (i) At least one performance measure and performance target that is 
data-driven shall be provided for each program area that enables the 
State to track progress toward meeting the quantifiable annual target;
    (ii) For each program area performance measure, the State shall 
provide--
    (A) Quantifiable performance targets; and
    (B) Justification for each performance target that explains how the 
target is data-driven, including a discussion of the factors that 
influenced the performance target selection; and
    (iii) State HSP performance targets are identical to the State DOT 
targets for common performance measures (fatality, fatality rate, and 
serious injuries) reported in the HSIP annual report, as coordinated 
through the State SHSP. These performance measures shall be based on a 
5-year rolling average that is calculated by adding the number of 
fatalities or number of serious injuries as it pertains to the 
performance measure for the most recent 5 consecutive calendar years 
ending in the year for which the targets are established. The ARF may 
be used, but only if final FARS is not yet available. The sum of the 
fatalities or sum of serious injuries is divided by five and then 
rounded to the tenth decimal place for fatality or serious injury 
numbers and rounded to the thousandth decimal place for fatality rates.
    (3) Additional performance measures not included under paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section. For program areas where performance measures 
have not been jointly developed (e.g., distracted driving, drug-
impaired driving) for which States are using HSP funds, the State shall 
develop its own performance measures and performance targets that are 
data-driven, and shall provide the same information as required under 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (d) Highway safety program area problem identification, 
countermeasure strategies, planned activities and funding. (1) 
Description of each program area countermeasure strategy that will help 
the State complete its program and achieve specific performance targets 
described in paragraph (c) of this section, including, at a minimum--
    (i) An assessment of the overall projected traffic safety impacts 
of the countermeasure strategies chosen and of the planned activities 
to be funded; and
    (ii) A description of the linkage between program area problem 
identification data, performance targets, identified countermeasure 
strategies and allocation of funds to planned activities.
    (2) Description of each planned activity within the countermeasure 
strategies in paragraph (d)(1) of this section that the State plans to 
implement to reach the performance targets identified in paragraph (c) 
of this section, including, at a minimum--
    (i) A list and description of the planned activities that the State 
will conduct to support the countermeasure strategies within each 
program area to address its problems and achieve its performance 
targets; and
    (ii) For each planned activity (i.e., types of projects the State 
plans to conduct), a description, including intended subrecipients, 
Federal funding source, eligible use of funds, and estimates of funding 
amounts, amount for match and local benefit.
    (3) Rationale for selecting the countermeasure strategy and funding 
allocation for each planned activity described in paragraph (d)(2) of 
this section (e.g., program assessment recommendations, participation 
in national mobilizations, emerging issues). The State may also include 
information on the cost effectiveness of proposed countermeasure 
strategies, if such information is available.
    (4) For innovative countermeasure strategies (i.e., countermeasure 
strategies that are not evidence-based), justification supporting the 
countermeasure strategy, including research, evaluation and/or 
substantive anecdotal evidence, that supports the potential of the 
proposed innovative countermeasure strategy.
    (5) Evidence-based traffic safety enforcement program (TSEP) to 
prevent traffic violations, crashes, and crash fatalities and injuries 
in areas most at risk for such incidents, provided that--
    (i) The State shall identify the planned activities that 
collectively constitute a data-driven TSEP and include--
    (A) An analysis of crashes, crash fatalities, and injuries in areas 
of highest risk; and
    (B) An explanation of the deployment of resources based on that 
analysis.
    (ii) The State shall describe how it plans to monitor the 
effectiveness of enforcement activities, make ongoing adjustments as 
warranted by data, and update the countermeasure strategies and planned 
activities in the HSP, as applicable, in accordance with this part.
    (6) The planned high-visibility enforcement (HVE) strategies to 
support national mobilizations. The State shall implement activities in 
support of national highway safety goals to reduce motor-vehicle-
related fatalities that also reflect the primary data-related crash 
factors within the State, as identified by the State highway safety 
planning process, including participation in the national high-
visibility law enforcement mobilizations in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 
404. The planned high-visibility enforcement strategies to support the 
national mobilizations shall include not less than three mobilization 
campaigns in each fiscal year to reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-
impaired operation of motor vehicles and increase use of seatbelts by 
occupants of motor vehicles.
    (e) Teen Traffic Safety Program. If the State elects to include the 
Teen Traffic Safety Program authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402(m), a 
description of planned activities, including the amount and types of 
Federal funding requested, the State match, local benefit as 
applicable, appropriate eligible use of funds, and applicable 
performance target that the State will conduct as part of the Teen 
Traffic Safety Program--a Statewide program to improve traffic safety 
for teen drivers. Planned activities must meet the eligible use 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 402(m)(2).
    (f) Certifications and assurances. The Certifications and 
Assurances for 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 grants contained in 
appendix A, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, 
certifying to the HSP application contents and performance conditions 
and providing assurances that the State will comply with applicable 
laws, and financial and programmatic requirements.
    (g) Section 405 grant and racial profiling data collection grant 
application. Application for any of the national priority safety 
program grants and the racial profiling data collection grant, in 
accordance with the requirements of subpart C and as provided in 
Appendix B, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety.

[[Page 3486]]

Sec.  1300.12   Due date for submission.

    (a) A State shall submit its Highway Safety Plan electronically to 
NHTSA no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 1 preceding the fiscal year 
to which the HSP applies.
    (b) Failure to meet this deadline may result in delayed approval 
and funding of a State's Section 402 grant or disqualification from 
receiving a Section 405 or racial profiling data collection grant.


Sec.  1300.13  Special funding conditions for Section 402 Grants.

    The State's highway safety program under Section 402 shall be 
subject to the following conditions, and approval under Sec.  1300.14 
of this part shall be deemed to incorporate these conditions:
    (a) Planning and administration (P & A) costs. (1) Federal 
participation in P & A activities shall not exceed 50 percent of the 
total cost of such activities, or the applicable sliding scale rate in 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120. The Federal contribution for P & A 
activities shall not exceed 15 percent of the total funds the State 
receives under Section 402. In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120(i), the 
Federal share payable for projects in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, 
American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
shall be 100 percent. The Indian Country, as defined by 23 U.S.C. 
402(h), is exempt from the provisions of P & A requirements. NHTSA 
funds shall be used only to fund P & A activities attributable to NHTSA 
programs. Determinations of P & A shall be in accordance with the 
provisions of Appendix D.
    (2) P & A tasks and related costs shall be described in the P & A 
module of the State's Highway Safety Plan. The State's matching share 
shall be determined on the basis of the total P & A costs in the 
module.
    (b) Prohibition on use of grant funds to check for helmet usage. 
Grant funds under this part shall not be used for programs to check 
helmet usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target 
motorcyclists.
    (c) Prohibition on use of grant funds for automated traffic 
enforcement systems. The State may not expend funds apportioned to the 
State under Section 402 to carry out a program to purchase, operate, or 
maintain an automated traffic enforcement system. The term ``automated 
traffic enforcement system'' includes any camera that captures an image 
of a vehicle for the purposes only of red light and speed enforcement, 
and does not include hand held radar and other devices operated by law 
enforcement officers to make an on-the-scene traffic stop, issue a 
traffic citation, or other enforcement action at the time of the 
violation.
    (d) Biennial survey of State automated traffic enforcement systems. 
(1) Beginning with fiscal year 2018 Highway Safety Plans and biennially 
thereafter, the State must either--
    (i) Certify, as provided in Appendix A, that automated traffic 
enforcement systems are not used on any public road in the State; or
    (ii)(A) Conduct a survey during the fiscal year of the grant 
meeting the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section and 
provide assurances, as provided in Appendix A, that it will do so; and
    (B) Submit the survey results to the NHTSA Regional Office no later 
than March 1 of the fiscal year of the grant.
    (2) Survey contents. The survey shall include information about 
automated traffic enforcement systems installed in the State. The 
survey shall include:
    (i) List of automated traffic enforcement systems in the State;
    (ii) Adequate data to measure the transparency, accountability, and 
safety attributes of each automated traffic enforcement system; and
    (iii) Comparison of each automated traffic enforcement system 
with--
    (A) ``Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines'' 
(DOT HS 810 916); and
    (B) ``Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines'' (FHWA-SA-
05-002).


Sec.  1300.14   Review and approval procedures.

    (a) General. Upon receipt and initial review of the Highway Safety 
Plan, NHTSA may request additional information from a State to ensure 
compliance with the requirements of this part. Failure to respond 
promptly to a request for additional information concerning the Section 
402 grant application may result in delayed approval and funding of a 
State's Section 402 grant. Failure to respond promptly to a request for 
additional information concerning a Section 405 or Section 1906 grant 
application may result in a State's disqualification from consideration 
for a Section 405 or Section 1906 grant.
    (b) Approval or disapproval of Highway Safety Plan. Within 45 days 
after receipt of the HSP under this subpart--
    (1) For Section 402 grants, the Regional Administrator shall 
issue--
    (i) A letter of approval, with conditions, if any, to the 
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety; or
    (ii) A letter of disapproval to the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety informing the State of the reasons for disapproval and 
requiring resubmission of the HSP with proposed revisions necessary for 
approval.
    (2) For Section 405 and Section 1906 grants, the NHTSA 
Administrator shall notify States in writing of grant awards and 
specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of 
funds.
    (c) Resubmission of disapproved Highway Safety Plan. The Regional 
Administrator shall issue a letter of approval or disapproval within 30 
days after receipt of a revised HSP resubmitted as provided in 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.


Sec.  1300.15   Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, on October 
1 of each fiscal year, or soon thereafter, the NHTSA Administrator 
shall, in writing, distribute funds available for obligation under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 to the States and specify any 
conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of the funds.
    (b) In the event that authorizations exist but no applicable 
appropriation act has been enacted by October 1 of a fiscal year, the 
NHTSA Administrator may, in writing, distribute a part of the funds 
authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 contract 
authority to the States to ensure program continuity, and in that event 
shall specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use 
of the funds. Upon appropriation of grant funds, the NHTSA 
Administrator shall, in writing, promptly adjust the obligation 
limitation and specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on 
the use of the funds.
    (c) Funds distributed under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section 
shall be available for expenditure by the States to satisfy the Federal 
share of expenses under the approved Highway Safety Plan, and shall 
constitute a contractual obligation of the Federal Government, subject 
to any conditions or limitations identified in the distributing 
document. Such funds shall be available for expenditure by the States 
as provided in Sec.  1300.41(b), after which the funds shall lapse.
    (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c) of this 
section, payment of State expenses of 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 
1906 funds shall be contingent upon the State's submission of up-to-
date information about approved projects in the HSP, in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  1300.11(d) and 1300.32.

[[Page 3487]]

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


Sec.  1300.20   General.

    (a) Scope. This subpart establishes criteria, in accordance with 
Section 405 for awarding grants to States that adopt and implement 
programs and statutes to address national priorities for reducing 
highway deaths and injuries and, in accordance with Section 1906, for 
awarding grants to States that maintain and allow public inspection of 
race and ethnic information on motor vehicle stops.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this subpart--
    Blood alcohol concentration or BAC means grams of alcohol per 
deciliter or 100 milliliters blood, or grams of alcohol per 210 liters 
of breath.
    Majority means greater than 50 percent.
    Passenger motor vehicle means a passenger car, pickup truck, van, 
minivan or sport utility vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
less than 10,000 pounds.
    Personal wireless communications device means a device through 
which personal wireless services (commercial mobile services, 
unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange 
access services) are transmitted, but does not include a global 
navigation satellite system receiver used for positioning, emergency 
notification, or navigation purposes.
    Primary offense means an offense for which a law enforcement 
officer may stop a vehicle and issue a citation in the absence of 
evidence of another offense.
    (c) Eligibility and application--(1) Eligibility. Except as 
provided in Sec.  1300.25(c), the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are each eligible to apply 
for grants identified under this subpart.
    (2) Application. For all grants under Section 405 and Section 
1906--
    (i) The Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, on behalf of 
the State, shall sign and submit with the Highway Safety Plan, the 
information required under Appendix B--Application Requirements for 
Section 405 and Section 1906 Grants.
    (ii) If the State is relying on specific elements of the HSP as 
part of its application materials for grants under this subpart, the 
State shall identify the specific location in the HSP.
    (d) Qualification based on State statutes. Whenever a qualifying 
State statute is the basis for a grant awarded under this subpart, such 
statute shall have been enacted by the application due date and be in 
effect and enforced, without interruption, by the beginning of and 
throughout the fiscal year of the grant award.
    (e) Award determinations and transfer of funds. (1) Except as 
provided in Sec.  1300.26(h), the amount of a grant awarded to a State 
in a fiscal year under Section 405 or Section 1906 shall be in 
proportion to the amount each such State received under Section 402 for 
fiscal year 2009.
    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and except as 
provided in Sec. Sec.  1300.25(k) and 1300.28(c)(2), a grant awarded to 
a State in a fiscal year under Section 405 may not exceed 10 percent of 
the total amount made available for that subsection for that fiscal 
year.
    (3) If it is determined after review of applications that funds for 
a grant program under Section 405 will not all be distributed, such 
funds shall be transferred to Section 402 and shall be distributed in 
proportion to the amount each State received under Section 402 for 
fiscal year 2009 to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that all 
funding is distributed.
    (f) Matching. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section, the Federal share of the costs of activities or programs 
funded with grants awarded under this subpart may not exceed 80 
percent.
    (2) The Federal share of the costs of activities or programs funded 
with grants awarded to the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa 
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be 100 
percent.


Sec.  1300.21  Occupant protection grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(b), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective occupant protection programs to reduce highway 
deaths and injuries resulting from individuals riding unrestrained or 
improperly restrained in motor vehicles.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Child restraint means any device (including a child safety seat, 
booster seat used in conjunction with 3-point belts, or harness, but 
excluding seat belts) that is designed for use in a motor vehicle to 
restrain, seat, or position a child who weighs 65 pounds (30 kilograms) 
or less and that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
prescribed by NHTSA for child restraints.
    High seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed 
seat belt use rate of 90.0 percent or higher (not rounded) based on 
validated data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during 
the previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for 
State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR part 1340 (e.g., 
for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2016, the ``previous 
calendar year'' would be 2015).
    Lower seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed 
seat belt use rate below 90.0 percent (not rounded) based on validated 
data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during the 
previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for 
State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR part 1340 (e.g., 
for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2016, the ``previous 
calendar year'' would be 2015).
    Seat belt means, with respect to open-body motor vehicles, 
including convertibles, an occupant restraint system consisting of a 
lap belt or a lap belt and a detachable shoulder belt, and with respect 
to other motor vehicles, an occupant restraint system consisting of 
integrated lap and shoulder belts.
    (c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a 
grant under this section as a high seat belt use rate State or as a 
lower seat belt use rate State, in accordance with paragraph (d) or (e) 
of this section, as applicable.
    (d) Qualification criteria for a high seat belt use rate State. To 
qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant in a fiscal year, a high seat 
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of 
its HSP the following documentation, in accordance with Part 1 of 
Appendix B:
    (1) Occupant protection plan. State occupant protection program 
area plan that identifies the safety problems to be addressed, 
performance measures and targets, and the countermeasure strategies and 
planned activities the State will implement to address those problems, 
at the level of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(c) and (d).
    (2) Participation in Click-it-or-Ticket national mobilization. 
Description of the State's planned participation in the Click it or 
Ticket national mobilization, including a list of participating 
agencies during the fiscal year of the grant, as required under Sec.  
1300.11(d)(6);
    (3) Child restraint inspection stations. (i) Countermeasure 
strategies and planned activities, at the level of detail required 
under Sec.  1300.11(d), demonstrating an active network of child 
passenger safety inspection stations and/or inspection events based on 
the State's problem identification. The description must include 
estimates

[[Page 3488]]

for the following requirements in the upcoming fiscal year:
    (A) The total number of planned inspection stations and/or events 
in the State; and
    (B) Within the total in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of this section, the 
number of planned inspection stations and/or inspection events serving 
each of the following population categories: urban, rural, and at-risk.
    (ii) Certification, signed by the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety, that the inspection stations/events are staffed with at 
least one current nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety 
Technician.
    (4) Child passenger safety technicians. Countermeasure strategies 
and planned activities, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.11(d), for recruiting, training and maintaining a sufficient 
number of child passenger safety technicians based on the State's 
problem identification. The description must include, at a minimum, an 
estimate of the total number of classes and the estimated total number 
of technicians to be trained in the upcoming fiscal year to ensure 
coverage of child passenger safety inspection stations and inspection 
events by nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians.
    (5) Maintenance of effort. The assurance in Part 1 of Appendix B 
that the lead State agency responsible for occupant protection programs 
shall maintain its aggregate expenditures for occupant protection 
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal 
years 2014 and 2015.
    (e) Qualification criteria for a lower seat belt use rate State. To 
qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant in a fiscal year, a lower seat 
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall satisfy all the 
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, and submit as part of 
its HSP documentation demonstrating that it meets at least three of the 
following additional criteria, in accordance with Part 1 of Appendix B:
    (1) Primary enforcement seat belt use statute. The State shall 
provide legal citations to the State law demonstrating that the State 
has enacted and is enforcing occupant protection statutes that make a 
violation of the requirement to be secured in a seat belt or child 
restraint a primary offense.
    (2) Occupant protection statute. The State shall provide legal 
citations to State law demonstrating that the State has enacted and is 
enforcing occupant protection statutes that:
    (i) Require--
    (A) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle who is under 
eight years of age, weighs less than 65 pounds and is less than four 
feet, nine inches in height to be secured in an age-appropriate child 
restraint;
    (B) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle other than an 
occupant identified in paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) of this section to be 
secured in a seat belt or age-appropriate child restraint;
    (C) A minimum fine of $25 per unrestrained occupant for a violation 
of the occupant protection statutes described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of 
this section.
    (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, permit no 
exception from coverage except for--
    (A) Drivers, but not passengers, of postal, utility, and commercial 
vehicles that make frequent stops in the course of their business;
    (B) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because of a medical condition, provided there is written documentation 
from a physician;
    (C) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because all other seating positions are occupied by persons properly 
restrained in seat belts or child restraints;
    (D) Emergency vehicle operators and passengers in emergency 
vehicles during an emergency;
    (E) Persons riding in seating positions or vehicles not required by 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to be equipped with seat belts; 
or
    (F) Passengers in public and livery conveyances.
    (3) Seat belt enforcement. The State shall identify the 
countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level of 
detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d)(5), demonstrating that the State 
conducts sustained enforcement (i.e., a program of recurring efforts 
throughout the fiscal year of the grant to promote seat belt and child 
restraint enforcement), and that based on the State's problem 
identification, involves law enforcement agencies responsible for seat 
belt enforcement in geographic areas in which at least 70 percent of 
either the State's unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities 
occurred or combined fatalities and serious injuries occurred.
    (4) High risk population countermeasure programs. The State shall 
identify the countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the 
level of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d), demonstrating that the 
State will implement data-driven programs to improve seat belt and 
child restraint use for at least two of the following at-risk 
populations:
    (i) Drivers on rural roadways;
    (ii) Unrestrained nighttime drivers;
    (iii) Teenage drivers;
    (iv) Other high-risk populations identified in the occupant 
protection program area plan required under paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section.
    (5) Comprehensive occupant protection program. The State shall 
submit the following:
    (i) Date of NHTSA-facilitated program assessment that was conducted 
within five years prior to the application due date that evaluates the 
occupant protection program for elements designed to increase seat belt 
use in the State;
    (ii) Multi-year strategic plan based on input from Statewide 
stakeholders (task force) under which the State developed--
    (A) Data-driven performance targets to improve occupant protection 
in the State, at the level of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(c);
    (B) Countermeasure strategies (such as enforcement, education, 
communication, policies/legislation, partnerships/outreach) designed to 
achieve the performance targets of the strategic plan, at the level of 
detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d);
    (C) A program management strategy that provides leadership and 
identifies the State official responsible for implementing various 
aspects of the multi-year strategic plan; and
    (D) An enforcement strategy that includes activities such as 
encouraging seat belt use policies for law enforcement agencies, 
vigorous enforcement of seat belt and child safety seat statutes, and 
accurate reporting of occupant protection system information on police 
accident report forms, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.11(d)(5).
    (iii) The name and title of the State's designated occupant 
protection coordinator responsible for managing the occupant protection 
program in the State, including developing the occupant protection 
program area of the HSP and overseeing the execution of the projects 
designated in the HSP; and
    (iv) A list that contains the names, titles and organizations of 
the Statewide occupant protection task force membership that includes 
agencies and organizations that can help develop, implement, enforce 
and evaluate occupant protection programs.
    (6) Occupant protection program assessment. The State shall 
identify the date of the NHTSA-facilitated assessment of all elements 
of its occupant protection program, which

[[Page 3489]]

must have been conducted within three years prior to the application 
due date.
    (f) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, a State may use grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(b) for the following programs or purposes only:
    (i) To support high-visibility enforcement mobilizations, including 
paid media that emphasizes publicity for the program, and law 
enforcement;
    (ii) To train occupant protection safety professionals, police 
officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, educators, and parents 
concerning all aspects of the use of child restraints and occupant 
protection;
    (iii) To educate the public concerning the proper use and 
installation of child restraints, including related equipment and 
information systems;
    (iv) To provide community child passenger safety services, 
including programs about proper seating positions for children and how 
to reduce the improper use of child restraints;
    (v) To establish and maintain information systems containing data 
about occupant protection, including the collection and administration 
of child passenger safety and occupant protection surveys; or
    (vi) To purchase and distribute child restraints to low-income 
families, provided that not more than five percent of the funds 
received in a fiscal year are used for such purpose.
    (2) Special rule--high seat belt use rate States. Notwithstanding 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, a State that qualifies for grant 
funds as a high seat belt use rate State may elect to use up to 100 
percent of grant funds awarded under this section for any eligible 
project or activity under Section 402.


Sec.  1300.22  State Traffic safety information system improvements 
grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(c), for grants to States to develop and implement 
effective programs that improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 
uniformity, integration, and accessibility of State safety data needed 
to identify priorities for Federal, State, and local highway and 
traffic safety programs; evaluate the effectiveness of such efforts; 
link State data systems, including traffic records and systems that 
contain medical, roadway, and economic data; improve the compatibility 
and interoperability of State data systems with national data systems 
and the data systems of other States; and enhance the agency's ability 
to observe and analyze national trends in crash occurrences, rates, 
outcomes, and circumstances.
    (b) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a grant under this 
section in a fiscal year, a State shall submit as part of its HSP the 
following documentation, in accordance with part 2 of appendix B:
    (1) Traffic records coordinating committee (TRCC). The State shall 
submit--
    (i) At least three meeting dates of the TRCC during the 12 months 
immediately preceding the application due date;
    (ii) Name and title of the State's Traffic Records Coordinator;
    (iii) List of TRCC members by name, title, home organization and 
the core safety database represented, provided that at a minimum, at 
least one member represents each of the following core safety 
databases:
    (A) Crash;
    (B) Citation or adjudication;
    (C) Driver;
    (D) Emergency medical services or injury surveillance system;
    (E) Roadway; and
    (F) Vehicle.
    (2) State traffic records strategic plan. The State shall submit a 
Strategic Plan, approved by the TRCC, that--
    (i) Describes specific, quantifiable and measurable improvements, 
as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, that are anticipated 
in the State's core safety databases, including crash, citation or 
adjudication, driver, emergency medical services or injury surveillance 
system, roadway, and vehicle databases;
    (ii) Includes a list of all recommendations from its most recent 
highway safety data and traffic records system assessment;
    (iii) Identifies which recommendations identified under paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section the State intends to address in the fiscal 
year, the countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the 
level of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d), that implement each 
recommendation, and the performance measures to be used to demonstrate 
quantifiable and measurable progress; and
    (iv) Identifies which recommendations identified under paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section the State does not intend to address in the 
fiscal year and explains the reason for not implementing the 
recommendations.
    (3) Quantitative improvement. The State shall demonstrate 
quantitative improvement in the data attribute of accuracy, 
completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or integration of a 
core database by providing--
    (i) A written description of the performance measures that clearly 
identifies which performance attribute for which core database the 
State is relying on to demonstrate progress using the methodology set 
forth in the ``Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records 
Systems'' (DOT HS 811 441), as updated; and
    (ii) Supporting documentation covering a contiguous 12-month 
performance period starting no earlier than April 1 of the calendar 
year prior to the application due date, that demonstrates quantitative 
improvement when compared to the comparable 12-month baseline period.
    (4) State highway safety data and traffic records system 
assessment. The State shall identify the date of the assessment of the 
State's highway safety data and traffic records system that was 
conducted or updated within the five years prior to the application due 
date and that complies with the procedures and methodologies outlined 
in NHTSA's ``Traffic Records Highway Safety Program Advisory'' (DOT HS 
811 644), as updated.
    (c) Requirement for maintenance of effort. The State shall submit 
the assurance in part 2 of appendix B that the lead State agency 
responsible for State traffic safety information system improvements 
programs shall maintain its aggregate expenditures for State traffic 
safety information system improvements programs at or above the average 
level of such expenditures in fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
    (d) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
23 U.S.C. 405(c) to make quantifiable, measurable progress improvements 
in the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or 
integration of data in a core highway safety database.


Sec.  1300.23  Impaired driving countermeasures grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(d), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems 
resulting from individuals driving motor vehicles while under the 
influence of alcohol, drugs, or the combination of alcohol and drugs; 
that enact alcohol-ignition interlock laws; or that implement 24-7 
sobriety programs.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    24-7 sobriety program means a State law or program that authorizes 
a State court or an agency with jurisdiction, as a condition of bond, 
sentence, probation, parole, or work permit, to require an individual 
who was arrested for, pleads guilty to or was convicted of

[[Page 3490]]

driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to--
    (i) Abstain totally from alcohol or drugs for a period of time; and
    (ii) Be subject to testing for alcohol or drugs at least twice per 
day at a testing location, by continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring 
via an electronic monitoring device, by drug patch, by urinalysis, by 
ignition interlock monitoring (provided the interlock is able to 
require tests twice a day without vehicle operation), by other types of 
electronic monitoring, or by an alternative method approved by NHTSA.
    Alcohol means wine, beer, and distilled spirits.
    Average impaired driving fatality rate means the number of 
fatalities in motor vehicle crashes involving a driver with a blood 
alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 percent for every 100,000,000 
vehicle miles traveled, based on the most recently reported three 
calendar years of final data from the FARS.
    Assessment means a NHTSA-facilitated process that employs a team of 
subject matter experts to conduct a comprehensive review of a specific 
highway safety program in a State.
    Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of 
alcohol and drugs means operating a vehicle while the alcohol and/or 
drug concentration in the blood or breath, as determined by chemical or 
other tests, equals or exceeds the level established by the State, or 
is equivalent to the standard offense, for driving under the influence 
of alcohol or drugs in the State.
    Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Court means a court that 
specializes in cases involving driving while intoxicated and abides by 
the Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts in effect on the date of the 
grant, as established by the National Center for DWI Courts.
    Drugs means controlled substances, as that term is defined under 
section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802(6).
    High-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate of 0.60 or higher.
    High-visibility enforcement efforts means participation in national 
impaired driving law enforcement campaigns organized by NHTSA, 
participation in impaired driving law enforcement campaigns organized 
by the State, or the use of sobriety checkpoints and/or saturation 
patrols conducted in a highly visible manner and supported by publicity 
through paid or earned media.
    Low-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate of 0.30 or lower.
    Mid-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate that is higher than 0.30 and lower than 0.60.
    Restriction on driving privileges means any type of State-imposed 
limitation, such as a license revocation or suspension, location 
restriction, alcohol-ignition interlock device, or alcohol use 
prohibition.
    Saturation patrol means a law enforcement activity during which 
enhanced levels of law enforcement are conducted in a concentrated 
geographic area (or areas) for the purpose of detecting drivers 
operating motor vehicles while impaired by alcohol and/or other drugs.
    Sobriety checkpoint means a law enforcement activity during which 
law enforcement officials stop motor vehicles on a non-discriminatory, 
lawful basis for the purpose of determining whether the operators of 
such motor vehicles are driving while impaired by alcohol and/or other 
drugs.
    Standard offense for driving under the influence of alcohol or 
drugs means the offense described in a State's statute that makes it a 
criminal offense to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence 
of alcohol or drugs, but does not require a measurement of alcohol or 
drug content.
    (c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a 
grant under this section as a low-range State, a mid-range State or a 
high-range State, in accordance with paragraph (d), (e), or (f) of this 
section, as applicable. Independent of qualification on the basis of 
range, a State may also qualify for separate grants under this section 
as a State with an alcohol-ignition interlock law, as provided in 
paragraph (g) of this section, or as a State with a 24-7 sobriety 
program, as provided in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (d) Qualification criteria for a low-range State. To qualify for an 
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant in a fiscal year, a low-range 
State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of its HSP the 
assurances in part 3 of Appendix B that--
    (1) The State shall use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(1) 
only for the implementation and enforcement of programs authorized in 
paragraph (j) of this section; and
    (2) The lead State agency responsible for impaired driving programs 
shall maintain its aggregate expenditures for impaired driving programs 
at or above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 2014 
and 2015.
    (e) Qualification criteria for a mid-range State. (1) To qualify 
for an Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant in a fiscal year, a mid-
range State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of its HSP 
the assurances required in paragraph (d) of this section and a copy of 
a Statewide impaired driving plan that contains the following 
information, in accordance with part 3 of appendix B:
    (i) Section that describes the authority and basis for the 
operation of the Statewide impaired driving task force, including the 
process used to develop and approve the plan and date of approval;
    (ii) List that contains names, titles and organizations of all task 
force members, provided that the task force includes key stakeholders 
from the State highway safety agency, law enforcement and the criminal 
justice system (e.g., prosecution, adjudication, probation) and, as 
determined appropriate by the State, representatives from areas such as 
24-7 sobriety programs, driver licensing, treatment and rehabilitation, 
ignition interlock programs, data and traffic records, public health 
and communication;
    (iii) Strategic plan based on the most recent version of Highway 
Safety Program Guideline No. 8--Impaired Driving, which, at a minimum, 
covers the following--
    (A) Prevention;
    (B) Criminal justice system;
    (C) Communication programs;
    (D) Alcohol and other drug misuse, including screening, treatment, 
assessment and rehabilitation; and
    (E) Program evaluation and data.
    (2) Previously submitted plan. A mid-range State that has received 
a grant for a previously submitted Statewide impaired driving plan 
under paragraph (e)(1) or (f)(1) of this section that was developed and 
approved within three years prior to the application due date may, in 
lieu of submitting the plan required under paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section, submit the assurances required in paragraph (d) of this 
section and a separate assurance that the State continues to use the 
previously submitted plan.
    (f) Qualification criteria for a high-range State. (1) To qualify 
for an Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant in a fiscal year, a high-
range State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of its HSP 
the assurances required in paragraph (d) of this section, the date of a 
NHTSA-facilitated assessment of the State's impaired driving program 
conducted within three years prior to the application due date, a copy 
of a Statewide impaired driving

[[Page 3491]]

plan that contains the information required in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) 
through (iii) of this section and that includes the following 
additional information, in accordance with part 3 of appendix B:
    (i) Review that addresses in each plan area any related 
recommendations from the assessment of the State's impaired driving 
program;
    (ii) Planned activities, in detail, for spending grant funds on 
impaired driving activities listed in paragraph (j)(4) of this section 
that must include high-visibility enforcement efforts, at the level of 
detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d); and
    (iii) Description of how the spending supports the State's impaired 
driving program and achievement of its performance targets, at the 
level of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d).
    (2) Previously submitted plans. If a high-range State has received 
a grant for a previously submitted Statewide impaired driving plan 
under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, in order to receive a grant, 
the State may submit the assurances required in paragraph (d) of this 
section, and provide updates to its Statewide impaired driving plan 
that meet the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of 
this section and updates to its assessment review and spending plan 
that meet the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of 
this section.
    (g) Grants to States with Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Laws. (1) To 
qualify for an alcohol-ignition interlock law grant, a State shall 
submit as part of its HSP legal citation(s), in accordance with part 4 
of appendix B, to State statute demonstrating that the State has 
enacted and is enforcing a statute that requires all individuals 
convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or of driving while 
intoxicated to drive only motor vehicles with alcohol-ignition 
interlocks for an authorized period of not less than 6 months.
    (2) Permitted exceptions. A State statute providing for the 
following exceptions, and no others, shall not be deemed out of 
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section:
    (i) The individual is required to operate an employer's motor 
vehicle in the course and scope of employment and the business entity 
that owns the vehicle is not owned or controlled by the individual;
    (ii) The individual is certified in writing by a physician as being 
unable to provide a deep lung breath sample for analysis by an ignition 
interlock device; or
    (iii) A State-certified ignition interlock provider is not 
available within 100 miles of the individual's residence.
    (h) Grants to States with a 24-7 Sobriety Program. To qualify for a 
24-7 Sobriety program grant, a State shall submit the following as part 
of its HSP, in accordance with part 5 of appendix B:
    (1) Legal citation(s) to State statute demonstrating that the State 
has enacted and is enforcing a statute that requires all individuals 
convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or of driving while 
intoxicated to receive a restriction on driving privileges, unless an 
exception in paragraph (g)(2) of this section applies, for a period of 
not less than 30 days; and
    (2) Legal citation(s) to State statute or submission of State 
program information that authorizes a Statewide 24-7 sobriety program.
    (i) Award. (1) The amount available for grants under paragraphs (d) 
through (f) of this section shall be determined based on the total 
amount of eligible States for these grants and after deduction of the 
amounts necessary to fund grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6).
    (2) The amount available for grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6)(A) 
shall not exceed 12 percent of the total amount made available to 
States under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for the fiscal year.
    (3) The amount available for grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6)(B) 
shall not exceed 3 percent of the total amount made available to States 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for the fiscal year.
    (j) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraphs (j)(2) through (5) of this section, a State may use grant 
funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) only for the following programs:
    (i) High-visibility enforcement efforts;
    (ii) Hiring a full-time or part-time impaired driving coordinator 
of the State's activities to address the enforcement and adjudication 
of laws regarding driving while impaired by alcohol, drugs or the 
combination of alcohol and drugs;
    (iii) Court support of high-visibility enforcement efforts, 
training and education of criminal justice professionals (including law 
enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and probation officers) to assist 
such professionals in handling impaired driving cases, hiring traffic 
safety resource prosecutors, hiring judicial outreach liaisons, and 
establishing driving while intoxicated courts;
    (iv) Alcohol ignition interlock programs;
    (v) Improving blood-alcohol concentration testing and reporting;
    (vi) Paid and earned media in support of high-visibility 
enforcement of impaired driving laws, and conducting standardized field 
sobriety training, advanced roadside impaired driving evaluation 
training, and drug recognition expert training for law enforcement, and 
equipment and related expenditures used in connection with impaired 
driving enforcement;
    (vii) Training on the use of alcohol and drug screening and brief 
intervention;
    (viii) Training for and implementation of impaired driving 
assessment programs or other tools designed to increase the probability 
of identifying the recidivism risk of a person convicted of driving 
under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and 
drugs and to determine the most effective mental health or substance 
abuse treatment or sanction that will reduce such risk;
    (ix) Developing impaired driving information systems; or
    (x) Costs associated with a 24-7 sobriety program.
    (2) Special rule--low-range States. Notwithstanding paragraph 
(j)(1) of this section, a State that qualifies for grant funds as a 
low-range State may elect to use--
    (i) Grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) for programs 
designed to reduce impaired driving based on problem identification, in 
accordance with Sec.  1300.11; and
    (ii) Up to 50 percent of grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) 
for any eligible project or activity under Section 402.
    (3) Special rule--mid-range States. Notwithstanding paragraph 
(j)(1) of this section, a State that qualifies for grant funds as a 
mid-range State may elect to use grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 
405(d) for programs designed to reduce impaired driving based on 
problem identification in accordance with Sec.  1300.11, provided the 
State receives advance approval from NHTSA.
    (4) Special rule--high-range States. Notwithstanding paragraph 
(j)(1) of this section, a high-range State may use grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(d) only for--
    (i) High-visibility enforcement efforts; and
    (ii) Any of the eligible uses described in paragraph (j)(1) of this 
section or programs designed to reduce impaired driving based on 
problem identification, in accordance with Sec.  1300.11, if all 
proposed uses are described in a Statewide impaired driving plan 
submitted to and approved by NHTSA

[[Page 3492]]

in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.
    (5) Special rule--States with Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Laws or 
24-7 Sobriety Programs. Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1) of this 
section, a State may elect to use grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 
405(d)(6) for any eligible project or activity under Section 402.


Sec.  1300.24  Distracted driving grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(e), for awarding grants to States that enact and enforce 
a statute prohibiting distracted driving.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Driving means operating a motor vehicle on a public road, and does 
not include operating a motor vehicle when the vehicle has pulled over 
to the side of, or off, an active roadway and has stopped in a location 
where it can safely remain stationary.
    Texting means reading from or manually entering data into a 
personal wireless communications device, including doing so for the 
purpose of SMS texting, e-mailing, instant messaging, or engaging in 
any other form of electronic data retrieval or electronic data 
communication.
    (c) Qualification criteria for a Comprehensive Distracted Driving 
Grant. To qualify for a Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant in a 
fiscal year, a State shall submit as part of its HSP, in accordance 
with Part 6 of Appendix B--
    (1) Sample distracted driving questions from the State's driver's 
license examination; and
    (2) Legal citations to the State statute demonstrating compliance 
with the following requirements:
    (i) Prohibition on texting while driving. The State statute shall--
    (A) Prohibit all drivers from texting through a personal wireless 
communications device while driving;
    (B) Make a violation of the statute a primary offense;
    (C) Establish a minimum fine of $25 for a violation of the statute; 
and
    (D) Not include an exemption that specifically allows a driver to 
text through a personal wireless communication device while stopped in 
traffic.
    (ii) Prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving. The State 
statute shall--
    (A) Prohibit a driver who is younger than 18 years of age or in the 
learner's permit or intermediate license stage set forth in Sec.  
1300.26(d) and (e) from using a personal wireless communications device 
while driving;
    (B) Make a violation of the statute a primary offense;
    (C) Establish a minimum fine of $25 for a violation of the statute; 
and
    (D) Not include an exemption that specifically allows a driver to 
text through a personal wireless communication device while stopped in 
traffic.
    (iii) Permitted exceptions. A State statute providing for the 
following exceptions, and no others, shall not be deemed out of 
compliance with the requirements of this section:
    (A) A driver who uses a personal wireless communications device to 
contact emergency services;
    (B) Emergency services personnel who use a personal wireless 
communications device while operating an emergency services vehicle and 
engaged in the performance of their duties as emergency services 
personnel; or
    (C) An individual employed as a commercial motor vehicle driver or 
a school bus driver who uses a personal wireless communications device 
within the scope of such individual's employment if such use is 
permitted under the regulations promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
31136.
    (d) Use of funds for Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grants--(1) 
Eligible uses. Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this 
section, a State may use grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(1) 
only to educate the public through advertising that contains 
information about the dangers of texting or using a cell phone while 
driving, for traffic signs that notify drivers about the distracted 
driving law of the State, or for law enforcement costs related to the 
enforcement of the distracted driving law.
    (2) Special rule. Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) of this section, 
a State may elect to use up to 50 percent of the grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(1) for any eligible project or activity under 
Section 402.
    (3) Special rule--MMUCC conforming States. Notwithstanding 
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, a State may use up to 75 
percent of amounts received under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(1) for any eligible 
project or activity under Section 402 if the State has conformed its 
distracted driving data to the most recent Model Minimum Uniform Crash 
Criteria (MMUCC). To demonstrate conformance with MMUCC, the State 
shall submit within 30 days after notification of award, the NHTSA-
developed MMUCC Mapping spreadsheet, as described in ``Mapping to 
MMUCC: A process for comparing police crash reports and state crash 
databases to the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria'' (DOT HS 812 
184), as updated.
    (e)-(f) [Reserved]


Sec.  1300.25  Motorcyclist safety grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(f), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective programs to reduce the number of single-vehicle and 
multiple-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Data State means a State that does not have a statute or regulation 
requiring that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for 
the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to 
be used for motorcycle training and safety programs but can show 
through data and/or documentation from official records that all fees 
collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding 
motorcycle training and safety programs were, in fact, used for 
motorcycle training and safety programs, without diversion.
    Impaired means alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired as defined by 
State law, provided that the State's legal alcohol-impairment level 
does not exceed .08 BAC.
    Law State means a State that has a statute or regulation requiring 
that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to be 
used for motorcycle training and safety programs and no statute or 
regulation diverting any of those fees.
    Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or 
saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than 
three wheels in contact with the ground.
    State means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.
    (c) Eligibility. The 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico are eligible to apply for a Motorcyclist Safety Grant.
    (d) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a Motorcyclist Safety 
Grant in a fiscal year, a State shall submit as part of its HSP 
documentation demonstrating compliance with at least two of the 
criteria in paragraphs (e) through (j) of this section.
    (e) Motorcycle rider training course. A State shall have an 
effective motorcycle rider training course that is offered throughout 
the State and that provides a formal program of instruction in accident 
avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills to

[[Page 3493]]

motorcyclists. To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State 
shall submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B--
    (1) A certification identifying the head of the designated State 
authority over motorcyclist safety issues and stating that the head of 
the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues has 
approved and the State has adopted one of the following introductory 
rider curricula:
    (i) Motorcycle Safety Foundation Basic Rider Course;
    (ii) TEAM OREGON Basic Rider Training;
    (iii) Idaho STAR Basic I;
    (iv) California Motorcyclist Safety Program Motorcyclist Training 
Course;
    (v) A curriculum that has been approved by the designated State 
authority and NHTSA as meeting NHTSA's Model National Standards for 
Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training; and
    (2) A list of the counties or political subdivisions in the State 
where motorcycle rider training courses will be conducted during the 
fiscal year of the grant and the number of registered motorcycles in 
each such county or political subdivision according to official State 
motor vehicle records, provided the State must offer at least one 
motorcycle rider training course in counties or political subdivisions 
that collectively account for a majority of the State's registered 
motorcycles.
    (f) Motorcyclist awareness program. A State shall have an effective 
Statewide program to enhance motorist awareness of the presence of 
motorcyclists on or near roadways and safe driving practices that avoid 
injuries to motorcyclists. To demonstrate compliance with this 
criterion, the State shall submit, in accordance with part 7 of 
appendix B--
    (1) A certification identifying head of the designated State 
authority over motorcyclist safety issues and stating that the State's 
motorcyclist awareness program was developed by or in coordination with 
the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues; and
    (2) One or more performance measures and corresponding performance 
targets developed for motorcycle awareness at the level of detail 
required under Sec.  1300.11(c) that identifies, using State crash 
data, the counties or political subdivisions within the State with the 
highest number of motorcycle crashes involving a motorcycle and another 
motor vehicle. Such data shall be from the most recent calendar year 
for which final State crash data are available, but data no older than 
three calendar years prior to the application due date (e.g., for a 
grant application submitted on July 1, 2016, a State shall provide 
calendar year 2015 data, if available, and may not provide data older 
than calendar year 2013); and
    (3) Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level 
of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State 
will implement data-driven programs in a majority of counties or 
political subdivisions where the incidence of crashes involving a 
motorcycle and another motor vehicle is highest. The State shall submit 
a list of counties or political subdivisions in the State ranked in 
order of the highest to lowest number of crashes involving a motorcycle 
and another motor vehicle per county or political subdivision. Such 
data shall be from the most recent calendar year for which final State 
crash data are available, but data no older than three calendar years 
prior to the application due date (e.g., for a grant application 
submitted on July 1, 2016, a State shall provide calendar year 2015 
data, if available, and may not provide data older than calendar year 
2013). The State shall select countermeasure strategies and planned 
activities to address the State's motorcycle safety problem areas in 
order to meet the performance targets identified in paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section.
    (g) Reduction of fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles. A 
State shall demonstrate a reduction for the preceding calendar year in 
the number of motorcyclist fatalities and in the rate of motor vehicle 
crashes involving motorcycles in the State (expressed as a function of 
10,000 registered motorcycle registrations), as computed by NHTSA. To 
demonstrate compliance a State shall, in accordance with part 7 of 
appendix B--
    (1) Submit in its HSP, State data and a description of the State's 
methods for collecting and analyzing the data, showing the total number 
of motor vehicle crashes involving motorcycles in the State for the 
most recent calendar year for which final State crash data are 
available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the 
application due date and the same type of data for the calendar year 
immediately prior to that calendar year (e.g., for a grant application 
submitted on July 1, 2016, the State shall submit calendar year 2015 
data and 2014 data, if both data are available, and may not provide 
data older than calendar year 2013 and 2012, to determine the rate);
    (2) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of 
motorcyclist fatalities for the most recent calendar year for which 
final FARS data are available as compared to the final FARS data for 
the calendar year immediately prior to that year; and
    (3) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 
motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), 
experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of crashes 
involving motorcycles for the most recent calendar year for which final 
State crash data are available, but data no older than three calendar 
years prior to the application due date, as compared to the calendar 
year immediately prior to that year.
    (h) Impaired driving program. A State shall implement a Statewide 
program to reduce impaired driving, including specific measures to 
reduce impaired motorcycle operation. The State shall submit, in 
accordance with part 7 of appendix B--
    (1) One or more performance measures and corresponding performance 
targets developed to reduce impaired motorcycle operation at the level 
of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(c). Each performance measure and 
performance target shall identify the impaired motorcycle operation 
problem area to be addressed. Problem identification must include an 
analysis of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator by county 
or political subdivision in the State; and
    (2) Countermeasure strategies and planned activities, at the level 
of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State 
will implement data-driven programs designed to reach motorcyclists in 
those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes involving 
an impaired operator is highest (i.e., the majority of counties or 
political subdivisions in the State with the highest numbers of 
motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator) based upon State 
data. Such data shall be from the most recent calendar year for which 
final State crash data are available, but data no older than three 
calendar years prior to the application due date (e.g., for a grant 
application submitted on July 1, 2016, a State shall provide calendar 
year 2015 data, if available, and may not provide data older than 
calendar year 2013). Countermeasure strategies and planned activities 
shall prioritize the State's impaired motorcycle problem areas to meet 
the performance targets identified in paragraph (h)(1).
    (i) Reduction of fatalities and accidents involving impaired 
motorcyclists. A State shall demonstrate a reduction for the preceding 
calendar year in the number of fatalities and in

[[Page 3494]]

the rate of reported crashes involving alcohol-impaired and drug-
impaired motorcycle operators (expressed as a function of 10,000 
motorcycle registrations), as computed by NHTSA. The State shall, in 
accordance with part 7 of appendix B--
    (1) Submit in its HSP, State data and a description of the State's 
methods for collecting and analyzing the data, showing the total number 
of reported crashes involving alcohol-and drug-impaired motorcycle 
operators in the State for the most recent calendar year for which 
final State crash data are available, but data no older than three 
calendar years prior to the application due date and the same type of 
data for the calendar year immediately prior to that year (e.g., for a 
grant application submitted on July 1, 2016, the State shall submit 
calendar year 2015 data and 2014 data, if both data are available, and 
may not provide data older than calendar year 2013 and 2012, to 
determine the rate);
    (2) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of 
fatalities involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle 
operators for the most recent calendar year for which final FARS data 
are available as compared to the final FARS data for the calendar year 
immediately prior to that year; and
    (3) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 
motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), 
experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of reported 
crashes involving alcohol- and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for 
the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data are 
available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the 
application due date, as compared to the calendar year immediately 
prior to that year.
    (j) Use of fees collected from motorcyclists for motorcycle 
programs. A State shall have a process under which all fees collected 
by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle 
training and safety programs are used for motorcycle training and 
safety programs. A State may qualify under this criterion as either a 
Law State or a Data State.
    (1) To demonstrate compliance as a Law State, the State shall 
submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B, the legal citation to 
the statutes or regulations requiring that all fees collected by the 
State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle 
training and safety programs are to be used for motorcycle training and 
safety programs and the legal citations to the State's current fiscal 
year appropriation (or preceding fiscal year appropriation, if the 
State has not enacted a law at the time of the State's application) 
appropriating all such fees to motorcycle training and safety programs.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance as a Data State, the State shall 
submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B, data or documentation 
from official records from the previous State fiscal year showing that 
all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of 
funding motorcycle training and safety programs were, in fact, used for 
motorcycle training and safety programs. Such data or documentation 
shall show that revenues collected for the purposes of funding 
motorcycle training and safety programs were placed into a distinct 
account and expended only for motorcycle training and safety programs.
    (k) Award limitation. A grant awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(f) may 
not exceed 25 percent of the amount apportioned to the State for fiscal 
year 2009 under Section 402.
    (l) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraph (l)(2) of this section, a State may use grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(f) only for motorcyclist safety training and 
motorcyclist awareness programs, including--
    (i) Improvements to motorcyclist safety training curricula;
    (ii) Improvements in program delivery of motorcycle training to 
both urban and rural areas, including--
    (A) Procurement or repair of practice motorcycles;
    (B) Instructional materials;
    (C) Mobile training units; and
    (D) Leasing or purchasing facilities for closed-course motorcycle 
skill training;
    (iii) Measures designed to increase the recruitment or retention of 
motorcyclist safety training instructors; or
    (iv) Public awareness, public service announcements, and other 
outreach programs to enhance driver awareness of motorcyclists, 
including ``share-the-road'' safety messages developed using Share-the-
Road model language available on NHTSA's website at http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov.
    (2) Special rule--low fatality States. Notwithstanding paragraph 
(l)(1) of this section, a State may elect to use up to 50 percent of 
grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(f) for any eligible project or 
activity under Section 402 if the State is in the lowest 25 percent of 
all States for motorcycle deaths per 10,000 motorcycle registrations 
(using FHWA motorcycle registration data) based on the most recent 
calendar year for which final FARS data are available, as determined by 
NHTSA.
    (3) Suballocation of funds. A State that receives a grant under 
this section may suballocate funds from the grant to a nonprofit 
organization incorporated in that State to carry out grant activities 
under this section.


Sec.  1300.26  State graduated driver licensing incentive grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(g), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement a graduated driver's licensing statute that requires novice 
drivers younger than 18 years of age to comply with a 2-stage licensing 
process prior to receiving an unrestricted driver's license.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Driving-related offense means any offense under State or local law 
relating to the use or operation of a motor vehicle, including but not 
limited to driving while intoxicated, misrepresentation of the 
individual's age, reckless driving, driving without wearing a seat 
belt, child restraint violation, speeding, prohibited use of a personal 
wireless communications device, violation of the driving-related 
restrictions applicable to the stages of the graduated driver's 
licensing process set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, 
and moving violations. The term does not include offenses related to 
motor vehicle registration, insurance, parking, or the presence or 
functionality of motor vehicle equipment.
    Licensed driver means an individual who possesses a valid 
unrestricted driver's license.
    Unrestricted driver's license means full, non-provisional driver's 
licensure to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.
    (c) Qualification criteria--General. To qualify for a State 
Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grant in a fiscal year, a State 
shall provide as part of its HSP legal citations to State statute 
demonstrating compliance with the requirements provided in paragraphs 
(d), (e), and (f) of this section, in accordance with part 8 of 
appendix B.
    (d) Learner's permit stage. A State's graduated driver's licensing 
statute shall include a learner's permit stage that--
    (1) Applies to any driver, prior to being issued by the State any 
permit, license, or endorsement to operate a motor vehicle on public 
roadways other than a learner's permit, who--
    (i) Is younger than 18 years of age; and
    (ii) Has not been issued an intermediate license or unrestricted 
driver's license by any State;

[[Page 3495]]

    (2) Commences only after an applicant for a learner's permit passes 
a vision test and a knowledge assessment (e.g., written or 
computerized) covering the rules of the road, signs, and signals;
    (3) Is in effect for a period of at least 6 months, and remains in 
effect until the learner's permit holder--
    (i) Reaches at least 16 years of age and enters the intermediate 
stage; or
    (ii) Reaches 18 years of age;
    (4) Requires the learner's permit holder to be accompanied and 
supervised, at all times while operating a motor vehicle, by a licensed 
driver who is at least 21 years of age or is a State-certified driving 
instructor;
    (5) Requires the learner's permit holder to either--
    (i) Complete a State-certified driver education or training course; 
or
    (ii) Receive at least 50 hours of behind-the-wheel training, with 
at least 10 of those hours at night, with a licensed driver who is at 
least 21 years of age or is a State-certified driving instructor;
    (6) Prohibits the learner's permit holder from using a personal 
wireless communications device while driving (as defined in Sec.  
1300.24(b)), except as permitted under Sec.  1300.24(c)(2)(iii), 
provided that the State's statute does not include an exemption that 
specifically allows a driver to text through a personal wireless 
communication device while stopped in traffic; and
    (7) Requires that, in addition to any other penalties imposed by 
State statute, the duration of the learner's permit stage be extended 
if the learner's permit holder is convicted of a driving-related 
offense during the first 6 months of that stage.
    (e) Intermediate stage. A State's graduated driver's licensing 
statute shall include an intermediate stage that--
    (1) Commences--
    (i) After an applicant younger than 18 years of age successfully 
completes the learner's permit stage;
    (ii) Prior to the applicant being issued by the State another 
permit, license, or endorsement to operate a motor vehicle on public 
roadways other than an intermediate license; and
    (iii) Only after the applicant passes a behind-the-wheel driving 
skills assessment;
    (2) Is in effect for a period of at least 6 months, and remains in 
effect until the intermediate license holder reaches at least 17 years 
of age;
    (3) Requires the intermediate license holder to be accompanied and 
supervised, while operating a motor vehicle between the hours of 10:00 
p.m. and 5:00 a.m. during the first 6 months of the intermediate stage, 
by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age or is a State-
certified driving instructor, except when operating a motor vehicle for 
the purposes of work, school, religious activities, or emergencies;
    (4) Prohibits the intermediate license holder from operating a 
motor vehicle with more than 1 nonfamilial passenger younger than 21 
years of age unless a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age 
or is a State-certified driving instructor is in the motor vehicle;
    (5) Prohibits the intermediate license holder from using a personal 
wireless communications device while driving (as defined in Sec.  
1300.24(b)), except as permitted under Sec.  1300.24(c)(2)(iii), 
provided that the State's statute does not include an exemption that 
specifically allows a driver to text through a personal wireless 
communication device while stopped in traffic; and
    (6) Requires that, in addition to any other penalties imposed by 
State statute, the duration of the intermediate stage be extended if 
the intermediate license holder is convicted of a driving-related 
offense during the first 6 months of that stage.
    (f) Enforcement. The minimum requirements described in paragraphs 
(d) and (e) of this section shall be enforced as primary offenses.
    (g) Exceptions. A State that otherwise meets the minimum 
requirements set forth in paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section 
will not be deemed ineligible for a grant under this section if--
    (1) The State enacted a statute prior to January 1, 2011, 
establishing a class of permit or license that allows drivers younger 
than 18 years of age to operate a motor vehicle--
    (i) In connection with work performed on, or for the operation of, 
a farm owned by family members who are directly related to the 
applicant or licensee; or
    (ii) If demonstrable hardship would result from the denial of a 
license to the licensee or applicant, provided that the State requires 
the applicant or licensee to affirmatively and adequately demonstrate 
unique undue hardship to the individual; and
    (2) A driver younger than 18 years of age who possesses only the 
permit or license described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section and 
applies for any other permit, license, or endorsement to operate a 
motor vehicle is subject to the graduated driver's licensing 
requirements of paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section.
    (h) Award determination. Subject to Sec.  1300.20(e)(2), the amount 
of a grant award to a State in a fiscal year under 23 U.S.C. 405(g) 
shall be in proportion to the amount each such State received under 
Section 402 for that fiscal year.
    (i) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraphs (i)(2) and (3) of this section, a State may use grant funds 
awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(g) only as follows:
    (i) To enforce the State's graduated driver's licensing process;
    (ii) To provide training for law enforcement personnel and other 
relevant State agency personnel relating to the enforcement of the 
State's graduated driver's licensing process;
    (iii) To publish relevant educational materials that pertain 
directly or indirectly to the State's graduated driver's licensing law;
    (iv) To carry out administrative activities to implement the 
State's graduated driver's licensing process; or
    (v) To carry out a teen traffic safety program described in 23 
U.S.C. 402(m).
    (2) Special rule. Notwithstanding paragraph (i)(1) of this section, 
a State may elect to use up to 75 percent of the grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(g) for any eligible project or activity under 
Section 402.
    (3) Special rule--low fatality States. Notwithstanding paragraphs 
(i)(1) and (2) of this section, a State may elect to use up to 100 
percent of the grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(g) for any 
eligible project or activity under Section 402 if the State is in the 
lowest 25 percent of all States for the number of drivers under age 18 
involved in fatal crashes in the State as a percentage of the total 
number of drivers under age 18 in the State, as determined by NHTSA.


Sec.  1300.27   Nonmotorized safety grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(h), for awarding grants to States for the purpose of 
decreasing pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries that result 
from crashes involving a motor vehicle.
    (b) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible for a grant 
under this section if the State's annual combined pedestrian and 
bicyclist fatalities exceed 15 percent of the State's total annual 
crash fatalities based on the most recent calendar year for which final 
FARS data are available, as determined by NHTSA.
    (c) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a Nonmotorized Safety 
Grant in a fiscal year, a State meeting the eligibility requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section shall submit as part of its HSP the 
assurances that the State shall use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 
405(h) only for the authorized uses identified in paragraph (d) of this

[[Page 3496]]

section, in accordance with part 9 of appendix B.
    (d) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
23 U.S.C. 405(h) only for--
    (1) Training of law enforcement officials on State laws applicable 
to pedestrian and bicycle safety;
    (2) Enforcement mobilizations and campaigns designed to enforce 
State traffic laws applicable to pedestrian and bicycle safety; or
    (3) Public education and awareness programs designed to inform 
motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists of State traffic laws applicable 
to pedestrian and bicycle safety.


Sec.  1300.28  Racial profiling data collection grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
Section 1906, for incentive grants to encourage States to maintain and 
allow public inspection of statistical information on the race and 
ethnicity of the driver for all motor vehicle stops made on all public 
roads except those classified as local or minor rural roads.
    (b) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a Racial Profiling Data 
Collection Grant in a fiscal year, a State shall submit as part of its 
HSP, in accordance with part 10 of appendix B--
    (1) Official documents (i.e., a law, regulation, binding policy 
directive, letter from the Governor or court order) that demonstrate 
that the State maintains and allows public inspection of statistical 
information on the race and ethnicity of the driver for each motor 
vehicle stop made by a law enforcement officer on all public roads 
except those classified as local or minor rural roads; or
    (2) The assurances that the State will undertake activities during 
the fiscal year of the grant to comply with the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and countermeasure strategies and 
planned activities, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.11(d), supporting the assurances.
    (c) Limitation. (1) On or after October 1, 2015, a State may not 
receive a grant under paragraph (b)(2) of this section in more than 2 
fiscal years.
    (2) Notwithstanding Sec.  1300.20(e)(2), the total amount of a 
grant awarded to a State under this section in a fiscal year may not 
exceed 5 percent of the funds available under this section in the 
fiscal year.
    (d) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
Section 1906 only for the costs of--
    (1) Collecting and maintaining data on traffic stops; or
    (2) Evaluating the results of the data.

Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants


Sec.  1300.30  General.

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


Sec.  1300.31   Equipment.

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


Sec.  1300.32  Amendments to Highway Safety Plans--approval by the 
Regional Administrator.

    (a) During the fiscal year of the grant, States may amend the HSP, 
except performance targets, after approval under Sec.  1300.14. States 
shall document changes to the HSP electronically.
    (b) The State shall amend the HSP, prior to beginning project 
performance, to provide the following information about each project 
agreement it enters into:
    (1) Project agreement number;
    (2) Subrecipient;
    (3) Amount of Federal funds; and
    (4) Eligible use of funds.
    (c) Amendments and changes to the HSP are subject to approval by 
the Regional Administrator before approval of vouchers for payment. 
Regional Administrators will disapprove changes and projects that are 
inconsistent with the HSP or that do not constitute an appropriate use 
of Federal funds.


Sec.  1300.33  Vouchers and project agreements.

    (a) General. Each State shall submit official vouchers for expenses 
incurred to the Regional Administrator.
    (b) Content of vouchers. At a minimum, each voucher shall provide 
the following information, broken down by individual project agreement:
    (1) Project agreement number for which work was performed and 
payment is sought;
    (2) Amount of Federal funds sought, up to the amount identified in 
Sec.  1300.32(b);
    (3) Amount of Federal funds allocated to local benefit (provided no 
less than mid-year (by March 31) and with the final voucher); and
    (4) Matching rate (or special matching writeoff used, i.e., sliding 
scale rate authorized under 23 U.S.C. 120).
    (c) Project agreements. Copies of each project agreement for which 
expenses are being claimed under the voucher (and supporting 
documentation for the

[[Page 3497]]

vouchers) shall be made promptly available for review by the Regional 
Administrator upon request. Each project agreement shall bear the 
project agreement number to allow the Regional Administrator to match 
the voucher to the corresponding project.
    (d) Submission requirements. At a minimum, vouchers shall be 
submitted to the Regional Administrator on a quarterly basis, no later 
than 15 working days after the end of each quarter, except that where a 
State receives funds by electronic transfer at an annualized rate of 
one million dollars or more, vouchers shall be submitted on a monthly 
basis, no later than 15 working days after the end of each month. A 
final voucher for the fiscal year shall be submitted to the Regional 
Administrator no later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, 
and all unexpended balances shall be carried forward to the next fiscal 
year unless they have lapsed in accordance with Sec.  1300.41.
    (e) Payment. (1) Failure to provide the information specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section shall result in rejection of the voucher.
    (2) Vouchers that request payment for projects whose project 
agreement numbers or amounts claimed do not match the projects or 
exceed the estimated amount of Federal funds provided under Sec.  
1300.32, shall be rejected, in whole or in part, until an amended 
project and/or estimated amount of Federal funds is submitted to and 
approved by the Regional Administrator in accordance with Sec.  
1300.32.
    (3) Failure to meet the deadlines specified in paragraph (d) of 
this section may result in delayed payment.


Sec.  1300.34  [Reserved]


Sec.  1300.35  Annual report.

    Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, each State shall 
submit electronically an Annual Report providing--
    (a) An assessment of the State's progress in achieving performance 
targets identified in the prior year HSP, and a description of how the 
State will adjust its upcoming HSP to better meet performance targets 
if a State has not met its performance targets;
    (b) A description of the projects and activities funded and 
implemented along with the amount of Federal funds obligated and 
expended under the prior year HSP;
    (c) A description of the State's evidence-based enforcement program 
activities;
    (d) Submission of information regarding mobilization participation 
(e.g., participating and reporting agencies, enforcement activity, 
citation information, paid and earned media information);
    (e) An explanation of reasons for planned activities that were not 
implemented; and
    (f) A description of how the projects funded under the prior year 
HSP contributed to meeting the State's highway safety performance 
targets.


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

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

Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation


Sec.  1300.40  Expiration of the Highway Safety Plan.

    (a) The State's Highway Safety Plan for a fiscal year and the 
State's authority to incur costs under that HSP shall expire on the 
last day of the fiscal year.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each State 
shall submit a final voucher which satisfies the requirements of Sec.  
1300.33(b) within 90 days after the expiration of the HSP. The final 
voucher constitutes the final financial reconciliation for each fiscal 
year.
    (c) The Regional Administrator may extend the time period for no 
more than 30 days to submit a final voucher only in extraordinary 
circumstances. States shall submit a written request for an extension 
describing the extraordinary circumstances that necessitate an 
extension. The approval of any such request for extension shall be in 
writing, shall specify the new deadline for submitting the final 
voucher, and shall be signed by the Regional Administrator.


Sec.  1300.41  Disposition of unexpended balances.

    (a) Carry-forward balances. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of 
this section, grant funds that remain unexpended at the end of a fiscal 
year and the expiration of an HSP shall be credited to the State's 
highway safety account for the new fiscal year, and made immediately 
available for use by the State, provided the State's new HSP has been 
approved by the Regional Administrator pursuant to Sec.  1300.14 of 
this part, including any amendments to the HSP pursuant to Sec.  
1300.32.
    (b) Deobligation of funds. (1) Except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, unexpended grant funds shall not be available 
for expenditure beyond the period of three years after the last day of 
the fiscal year of apportionment or allocation.
    (2) NHTSA shall notify States of any such unexpended grant funds no 
later than 180 days prior to the end of the period of availability 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and inform States of the 
deadline for commitment. States may commit such unexpended grant funds 
to a specific project by the specified deadline, and shall provide 
documentary evidence of that commitment, including a copy of an 
executed project agreement, to the Regional Administrator.
    (3) Grant funds committed to a specific project in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall remain committed to that project 
and must be expended by the end of the succeeding fiscal year. The 
final voucher for that project shall be submitted within 90 days after 
the end of that fiscal year.
    (4) NHTSA shall deobligate unexpended balances at the end of the 
time period in paragraph (b)(1) or (3) of this section, whichever is 
applicable, and the funds shall lapse.


Sec.  1300.42  Post-grant adjustments.

    The expiration of an HSP does not affect the ability of NHTSA to 
disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other 
review or the State's obligation to return any funds due as a result of 
later refunds, corrections, or other transactions.


Sec.  1300.43  Continuing requirements.

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

Subpart F--Non-Compliance


Sec.  1300.50  General.

    Where a State is found to be in non-compliance with the 
requirements of the grant programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 
or Section 1906, or with other applicable law, the sanctions in 
Sec. Sec.  1300.51 and 1300.52, and any other sanctions or remedies 
permitted

[[Page 3498]]

under Federal law, including the specific conditions of 2 CFR 200.207 
and 200.338, may be applied as appropriate.


Sec.  1300.51  Sanctions--reduction of apportionment.

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


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

    (a) Risk assessment. (1) All States receiving funds under the grant 
programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 shall be 
subject to an assessment of risk by NHTSA. In evaluating risks of a 
State highway safety program, NHTSA may consider, but is not limited to 
considering, the following for each State:
    (i) Financial stability;
    (ii) Quality of management systems and ability to meet management 
standards prescribed in this part and in 2 CFR part 200;
    (iii) History of performance. The applicant's record in managing 
funds received for grant programs under this part, including findings 
from Management Reviews;
    (iv) Reports and findings from audits performed under 2 CFR part 
200, subpart F, or from the reports and findings of any other available 
audits; and
    (v) The State's ability to effectively implement statutory, 
regulatory, and other requirements imposed on non-Federal entities.
    (2) If a State is determined to pose risk, NHTSA may increase 
monitoring activities and may impose any of the specific conditions of 
2 CFR 200.207, as appropriate.
    (b) Non-compliance. If at any time a State is found to be in non-
compliance with the requirements of the grant programs under this part, 
the requirements of 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201, or with any other 
applicable law, the actions permitted under 2 CFR 200.207 and 200.338 
may be applied as appropriate.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 3499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.001


[[Page 3500]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.002


[[Page 3501]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.003


[[Page 3502]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.004


[[Page 3503]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.005


[[Page 3504]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.006


[[Page 3505]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.007


[[Page 3506]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.008


[[Page 3507]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.009


[[Page 3508]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.010


[[Page 3509]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.011


[[Page 3510]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.012


[[Page 3511]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.013


[[Page 3512]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.014


[[Page 3513]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.015


[[Page 3514]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.016


[[Page 3515]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.017


[[Page 3516]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.018


[[Page 3517]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.019


[[Page 3518]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.020


[[Page 3519]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.021


[[Page 3520]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.022


[[Page 3521]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.023


[[Page 3522]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.024


[[Page 3523]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.025


[[Page 3524]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.026


[[Page 3525]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.027


[[Page 3526]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.028


[[Page 3527]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.029


[[Page 3528]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA18.030


    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.5.
Heidi R. King,
Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-01266 Filed 1-24-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C