[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7780-7832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01819]



[[Page 7779]]

Vol. 88

Monday,

No. 24

February 6, 2023

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. 88 , No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2023 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 7780]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1300

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


Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs

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

ACTION: 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 notice of proposed 
rulemaking published September 15, 2022.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 8, 2023.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

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

I. Background

    We face a crisis on our roadways. NHTSA projects that an estimated 
42,915 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2021.\1\ Estimates for 
the first three quarters of 2022 are bleak: an estimated 31,785 people 
died in motor vehicle crashes during this period.\2\ Behind each of 
these numbers is a life tragically lost, and family and friends left 
behind. The crisis is both urgent and preventable. The third quarter of 
2022 shows promise, representing the second straight quarterly decline 
in fatalities after seven consecutive quarters of year-to-year 
increases. We need to build on the declining trends and work to ensure 
safer roads for everyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2022, May). 
Early estimates of motor vehicle traffic fatalities and fatality 
rate by sub-categories in 2021 (CrashStats Brief Statistical 
Summary. Report No. DOT HS 813 298). National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813298.
    \2\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2022, 
December). Early estimates of motor vehicle traffic fatalities for 
the first 9 months (January-September) of 2022 (CrashStats 
Brief Statistical Summary. Report No. DOT HS 813 406). National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is redoubling our safety efforts and is asking our State and 
local partners to join us in this critical pursuit. The programs to be 
implemented under today's rulemaking are an important part of that 
effort. Now, more than ever, we all must seize the opportunity to 
deliver accountable, efficient, and data-driven highway safety programs 
to save lives and reverse the deadly trend on our Nation's roads. The 
highway safety grants implemented in today's action fit within a 
broader framework involving many stakeholders working synergistically 
across many programs. We encourage States to view their triennial 
Highway Safety Plans in the context of the National Roadway Safety 
Strategy and the Safe System Approach discussed later in this document 
in response to comments.
    On November 15, 2021, the President signed into law the 
``Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act'' (known also as the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, or BIL), Public Law 117-58. The BIL 
provides for a once-in-a-generation investment in highway safety, 
including a significant increase in the amount of funding available to 
States under NHTSA's highway safety grants. It introduced expanded 
requirements for public and community participation in funding 
decisions, holding the promise of ensuring better and more equitable 
use of Federal funds to address highway safety problems in the 
locations where they occur. The BIL amended the highway safety grant 
program (23 U.S.C. 402 or Section 402) and the National Priority Safety 
Program grants (23 U.S.C. 405 or Section 405). The legislation 
significantly changed the application structure of the grant programs 
that were in place under prior DOT authorizations, MAP-21 and the FAST 
Act. The legislation replaced the current annual Highway Safety Plan 
(HSP), which serves as both a planning and application document, with a 
triennial HSP and annual grant application and it codified the annual 
reporting requirement. The BIL also made the following changes to the 
Section 405 grant program:
     Maintenance of Effort--Removed the maintenance of effort 
requirement for the Occupant Protection Grants, State Traffic Safety 
Information System Improvements Grants, and Impaired Driving 
Countermeasures Grants;
     Occupant Protection Grants--Expanded allowable uses of 
funds and specified that at least 10 percent of grant funds must be 
used to implement child occupant protection programs for low-income and 
underserved populations;
     State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements 
Grants--Streamlined application requirements (allows certification to 
several eligibility requirements and removes assessment requirement) 
and expanded allowable uses of funds;
     Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants--Expanded 
allowable uses of funds;
     Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants--Added criteria for 
States to qualify for grants (specifies three ways for a State to 
qualify) and amended allocation formula;
     24-7 Sobriety Programs Grants--Amended program definition 
and allocation formula;
     Distracted Driving Grants--Amended definitions, changed 
allocation formula, and amended requirements for qualifying laws;
     Motorcyclist Safety Grants--Added an eligibility criterion 
(helmet law);
     State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grants--
Discontinued grant;
     Nonmotorized Safety Grants--Amended the definition of 
nonmotorized road user and expanded allowable uses of funds;
     Preventing Roadside Deaths Grants--Established new grant; 
and
     Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants--Established 
new grant.
    In addition, the BIL amended the racial profiling data collection 
grant authorized under the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU), Sec. 
1906, Public Law 109-59 (Section 1906), as amended by the FAST Act, to 
expand the allowable uses of funds and amend the cap on grant award 
amounts. It also removed the time limit for States to qualify for a 
grant using assurances.

[[Page 7781]]

    As in past authorizations, the BIL requires NHTSA to implement the 
grants pursuant to rulemaking.

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On April 21, 2022, the agency published a notification of public 
meetings and request for comments (RFC). 87 FR 23780. NHTSA held 
virtual public meetings on May 2, May 4, and May 5, 2022, and accepted 
written comments submitted through May 23, 2022. Twenty-three people 
provided oral comments at the public meetings, and 55 written comments 
were submitted to the docket at regulations.gov. NHTSA also added three 
letters to the docket that were sent directly to the agency prior to 
the RFC.
    On September 14, 2022, NHTSA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM), proposing regulatory language to implement the BIL 
provisions and addressing comments received at the public meetings and 
in response to the RFC. 87 FR 56756. It set forth the application, 
approval, and administrative requirements for all 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 
grants and the Section 1906 grants. Section 402, as amended by the BIL, 
continues to require each State to have an approved highway safety 
program designed to reduce traffic crashes and the resulting deaths, 
injuries, and property damage. Section 402 sets forth minimum 
requirements with which each State's highway safety program must 
comply.
    Under new procedures proposed in the NPRM, each State would submit 
for NHTSA approval a triennial Highway Safety Plan (``triennial HSP'') 
that identifies highway safety problems, describes the State's public 
participation and engagement efforts, establishes performance measures 
and targets, describes the State's countermeasure strategies for 
programming funds to achieve its performance targets, and reports on 
the State's progress in achieving the targets set in the prior HSP. 23 
U.S.C. 402(k). Each State would also submit for NHTSA approval an 
annual grant application that provides any necessary updates to the 
triennial HSP, identifies all projects and subrecipients to be funded 
by the State with highway safety grant funds during the fiscal year, 
describes how the State's strategy to use grant funds was adjusted 
based on the State's latest annual report, and includes an application 
for additional grants available under Chapter 4. 23 U.S.C. 402(l). The 
agency proposed to reorganize and rewrite subpart B of part 1300 and 23 
CFR 1300.35 to implement these changes.
    As noted above, the BIL expanded the allowable uses of funds for 
many of the National Priority Safety Program grants, amended allocation 
formulas, added criteria for some grants and streamlined application 
requirements for others, deleted one grant, and established two new 
grants. For Section 405 grants with additional flexibility (Occupant 
Protection Grants, State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements 
Grants, Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants, Alcohol-Ignition 
Interlock Law Grants, Distracted Driving Grants, Motorcyclist Safety 
Grants, Nonmotorized Safety Grants, and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection Grants) and for the new grants (Preventing Roadside Deaths 
Grants and Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants), where the BIL 
identified specific qualification requirements, the NPRM proposed 
adopting the statutory language with limited changes. The agency also 
proposed amendments to align the application requirements for all 
Section 405 and Section 1906 grants with the new triennial HSP and 
annual grant application framework.
    Finally, the NPRM proposed limited changes to administrative 
provisions to accommodate the triennial framework and address changes 
made by revisions to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 200.

III. Public Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In response to the NPRM, the following submitted comments to the 
public docket on www.regulations.gov: American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); American Association of 
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA); Coalition of Ignition Interlock 
Manufacturers (CIIM); Connecticut Highway Safety Office (CT HSO); 
Delaware Office of Highway Safety (DE OHS); Foundation for Advancing 
Alcohol Responsibility (Responsibility.org); Governor's Highway Safety 
Association (GHSA); Haas Alert; League of American Bicyclists (League); 
Maine Bureau of Highway Safety (MeBHS); Massachusetts Office of Grants 
and Research, Highway Safety Division (MA OGR); Missouri Department of 
Transportation (MoDOT); Mitchell Berger; Minnesota Department of Public 
Safety (MN DPS); National Association of State 911 Administrators 
(NASNA); National EMS Management Association (NEMSMA); Nevada Office of 
Traffic Safety (NV OTS); Pamela Bertone; Tennessee Highway Safety 
Office (TN HSO); Wyoming Department of Health, Office of Emergency 
Medical Services (WY OEMS); joint submission by the Departments of 
Transportation of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and 
Wyoming (5-State DOTs); and two anonymous commenters. Eight of these 
commenters (5-State DOTs; AASHTO; CT HSO; DE OHS; NV OTS; MeBHS; MoDOT; 
and MN DPS) expressed general support for GHSA's comments.
    In this preamble, NHTSA addresses all comments and identifies any 
changes made to the NPRM's regulatory text.\3\ In addition, NHTSA makes 
several technical corrections to cross-references and other non-
substantive editorial corrections necessitated by proposed changes to 
the rule. For ease of reference, the preamble identifies in parentheses 
within each subheading and at appropriate places in the explanatory 
paragraphs the CFR citation for the corresponding regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Two commenters submitted comments that are outside the scope 
of this rulemaking; these comments covered infrastructure and road 
design, and a ban on all-terrain vehicles. As these comments are 
outside the scope of NHTSA's Section 402 and 405 grant programs, 
they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and will not be 
addressed further in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

A. Rulemaking Process

    Multiple commenters \4\ expressed appreciation for NHTSA's shared 
commitment to completing this rulemaking in an expedient manner. They 
explained that States need time to integrate the new requirements into 
their highway safety planning for FY24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ AAMVA, AASHTO, GHSA, MN DPS, and TN HSO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters \5\ repeated their comments from the RFC, 
broadly reiterating that NHTSA should ensure fidelity to the spirit and 
letter of Congressional directives, minimize the administrative burden 
on States, and provide greater flexibility in the use of funds. They 
explained that unnecessary administrative burdens shift States' focus 
away from program delivery and discourage subrecipient participation. 
The CT HSO further argued that burdens imposed by the proposed 
regulation would deprive governors of their prerogative to set roadway 
safety policy within their States. HAAS Alert noted that small towns 
are frequently

[[Page 7782]]

underserved when it comes to receiving transportation funding and 
encouraged NHTSA to consider the administrative burdens on those areas 
when determining grant requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ AASHTO, AAMVA, DE OHS, GHSA, MN DPS, MoDOT, and 5-State 
DOTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is not our intention to impose unnecessary administrative 
burdens on States or their subrecipients, and we have amended and 
streamlined several areas of this rulemaking in response to specific 
comments received. The agency's task is to promulgate a regulation that 
will implement the statutory requirements for the highway safety grant 
program. We address specific comments about burden in the sections that 
follow but note that, as a Federal awarding agency, we have a 
responsibility to ensure that Federal grant funds are spent for the 
purposes Congress specifies and consistent with all legal requirements, 
including the Section 402 and 405 statutory text and other Federal 
grant laws and regulations. Our intent is to impose reasonable 
administrative requirements to ensure that recipients of Federal funds 
adhere to applicable legal requirements that are consistent with our 
responsibilities as a steward of taxpayer funds.
    Finally, GHSA and the MoDOT requested that NHTSA provide a red-
lined or track changes copy of the regulatory text so that States can 
more easily see the changes made by this rule. NHTSA appreciates the 
importance of ensuring that States are well-versed on the changes to 
the rule and that they understand the impacts of those changes and 
their implications for applications and program management. Ensuring 
that understanding is, in fact, the precise purpose and goal of this 
preamble and of the full exposition of the regulatory text that 
follows. We encourage all States to embrace this document in its 
entirety. States are responsible for complying with the entire rule--
not just with the specific changes made in this rulemaking. In our 
view, it is important and instructive to read all of the rule anew, as 
a red-lined version would underemphasize important context necessary to 
assist in planning and program implementation. For example, in some 
cases, regulatory text may remain the same but have a different meaning 
or impact within the new triennial framework or due to other BIL-
related nuances. NHTSA is committed to providing States with ongoing 
training, guidance and technical assistance as they work to implement 
the changes made in the BIL, as carried out through this regulation.

B. Guidance

    NHTSA received several comments stating the importance of and need 
for clear guidance on various aspects of the highway safety grant 
program. Some of those comments relate to specific grant programs and 
will be discussed in the relevant section of the preamble. The DE OHS 
stressed the importance of consistent guidance so that States can rely 
on the same information. The League of American Bicyclists encouraged 
NHTSA to share information about programs and State practices and 
identified several specific guidance documents published by NHTSA, FHWA 
and DOT that it would like the agency to review and update. NHTSA 
recognizes that some existing guidance may require modification or 
rescission as a result of changes to the statute and this rule. We 
intend to begin reviewing existing guidance after this rulemaking is 
complete and will keep the specific suggestions provided by these 
commenters, as well as the comments received in response to the RFC, in 
mind at that time.

C. Equity

    NHTSA received comments stressing the importance of equity in 
traffic safety programs. Given the importance of the topic and 
thoughtfulness of the comments, here we summarize and briefly respond 
to all comments we received relating to equity.
    The League of American Bicyclists expressed appreciation for 
NHTSA's commitment to and discussions about equity and looked forward 
to seeing the continued results of these efforts. The League of 
American Bicyclists also requested that NHTSA provide definitions and 
examples of ``centering equity'' and ``equitable enforcement.'' NHTSA 
strongly supports the policies and commitment to equity laid out in 
Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for 
Underserved Communities Through Federal Government, and is committed to 
fulfilling our responsibilities under the Order and to following its 
principles. The highway safety grant program plays an important role; 
the meaningful public participation and engagement requirements 
implemented in this rulemaking form a critical part of State planning 
to help ensure that equity is centered in the grant program. Under BIL, 
States are expected to engage affected and potentially affected 
communities during their triennial HSP planning process and throughout 
the life of the grant, including through particular emphasis on 
underserved communities and communities over-represented in the data. 
NHTSA will offer technical assistance to States on how to meaningfully 
engage communities to inform traffic safety programs that promote safe 
and accessible roadways, all while reducing transportation-related 
disparities, adverse community impacts, and health effects through 
their traffic safety programs.
    The CT HSO requested that NHTSA allow States to use alternative 
methods to fund equity partnerships that do not involve reimbursement-
based funding arrangements, noting that many potential partners are 
unable to participate in the highway safety grant program because they 
do not have sufficient funds available to cover costs prior to 
reimbursement. NHTSA encourages States to think creatively about ways 
to support the participation of non-traditional traffic safety 
partners, including equity partnerships, consistent with Federal grant 
rules. Federal grant rules allow for advance payments in some 
situations. NHTSA commits to issuing guidance on advance and 
reimbursement-based payments in State highway safety grant programs. In 
addition, as part of our goal to support the inclusion of equity in the 
highway safety program, NHTSA will work closely with States and 
national organizations to brainstorm new and creative ways to encourage 
the involvement of new and diverse groups in the highway safety grant 
program.
    The League of American Bicyclists reiterated its prior comment to 
the RFC, expressing concern about NHTSA's continued support for the 
Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) program. It 
noted that DDACTS combines traffic safety and other law enforcement 
data, making traffic-related activities difficult to separate from 
ineligible activities because of difficulties in determining whether a 
traffic stop is traffic-related or merely pretextual. As NHTSA 
explained in the NPRM, DDACTS is a law enforcement operational model 
that integrates location-based traffic-crash and crime data to 
determine the most effective methods for deploying law enforcement and 
other resources. It focuses on community collaboration to reinforce the 
role that partnerships play in improving the quality of life in 
communities and encourages law enforcement agencies to use effective 
engagement and new strategies. NHTSA continuously reviews the content 
of DDACTS training and works to ensure that the training focuses on 
community engagement and the appropriate application of fair and 
equitable traffic enforcement strategies. NHTSA will

[[Page 7783]]

continue to evaluate DDACTS to ensure that it promotes only enforcement 
that is implemented fairly and equitably.
    NHTSA also notes that DDACTS is not part of NHTSA's highway safety 
grant program, and not all DDACTS-related activities are eligible uses 
of NHTSA's grant funds. NHTSA's grant funds may only be used for 
traffic safety activities; any other law enforcement purpose is not 
eligible. Further, as we stated previously, use of NHTSA grant funds 
for discriminatory practices, including those associated with 
pretextual policing, violates Federal civil rights laws, and NHTSA will 
seek repayment of any grant funds that are found to be used for such 
purposes and refer any discriminatory incidents to the Department of 
Justice.
    Finally, the League of American Bicyclists thanked NHTSA for 
responding to its prior comments on the discriminatory outcomes of 
countermeasures included in NHTSA's Countermeasures That Work guide.\6\ 
It clarified that it was not accusing NHTSA or States of using NHTSA 
grant funds for discriminatory enforcement, but rather requesting that 
NHTSA discuss potential or observed disparities in impact from 
enforcement or other countermeasures within the Countermeasures That 
Work. As an example, it noted that the Countermeasures That Work 
designates mandatory bicycle helmet laws as highly effective and low 
cost while designating bicycle helmet use promotions as less effective 
and high cost, and argued that these disparate designations fail to 
account for several costs and impacts associated with helmet use laws, 
such as the related to education and enforcement, and the impacts of 
potentially discouraging bicycle use due to enforcement efforts. GHSA 
similarly argued that Countermeasures That Work over-encourages 
investment in enforcement-related countermeasures. As we noted in the 
NPRM, NHTSA is currently working on the next edition of the 
Countermeasures That Work and will explore the considerations raised in 
these comments in the course of that undertaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Available online at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2021-09/Countermeasures-10th_080621_v5_tag.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. National Roadway Safety Strategy and the Safe System Approach

    NHTSA received several comments regarding the implementation of the 
National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) and the Safe System Approach 
(SSA). NHTSA is committed to working with the States to successfully 
implement the NRSS and the SSA within the formula grant programs and 
views the grant program as an important part of a much broader strategy 
involving multiple DOT modes and stakeholders. NHTSA urges states to 
consider how their triennial Highway Safety Plans fit into a broader 
SSA, to work collaboratively to consider the ways in which multiple 
strategies--including grant-funded strategies and other State and local 
programs--can work synergistically, and to think holistically about 
using all available tools to reduce roadway fatalities and crashes. For 
example, in addressing pedestrian safety, a State might consider 
improvements in infrastructure by providing more crosswalks and better 
lighting, reductions in speeds in areas with high pedestrian use, and 
enforcement and education in areas of high pedestrian injuries and 
fatalities. Even though highway safety grant funding is available for 
only some of these strategies, SHSOs should work with other entities on 
holistic solutions to problems identified in their triennial HSPs. 
States should also consider making recommendations within the Executive 
Branch about possible changes in State laws that can reduce fatalities 
and crashes even though SHSOs cannot engage in direct lobbying of their 
legislatures using highway safety grant funds. NHTSA appreciates the 
continued support and feedback from commenters on NRSS and SSA 
implementation, and provides responses below.
    The CT HSO repeated its previous comment that implementing the NRSS 
and the SSA will require NHTSA to afford administrative flexibility to 
States. As expressed in the NPRM, NHTSA intends to provide such 
flexibility consistent with applicable law.
    AAMVA suggested that, in addition to administrative flexibility, 
NHTSA provide centralized guidance and support to assist State efforts 
in implementing the NRSS and the SSA. The League of American Bicyclists 
reiterated that NHTSA and States should do more to promote the 
understanding, acceptance, and implementation of the SSA in State 
transportation agency cultures. NHTSA agrees that the agency should 
work to ensure that grantees understand and properly implement the NRSS 
and the SSA. As announced in May 2022, NHTSA offers and will continue 
to offer expanded safety program technical assistance to States to 
assist them with understanding and implementing the NRSS and the SSA, 
and will continually assess States' needs in this area.
    AAMVA stressed the importance of quality data that can be exchanged 
among stakeholders. NHTSA agrees that the objectives of the NRSS/SSA 
are inherently intertwined with the agency's data-driven mission to 
save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to road 
traffic crashes through education, research, safety standards, and 
enforcement. To address the unacceptable increases in fatalities on our 
nation's roadways, the NRSS/SSA adopts a data-driven, holistic, and 
comprehensive approach focused on reducing the role that human mistakes 
play in negative traffic outcomes and in recognizing the vulnerability 
of humans on the road. NHTSA expects States to use the best and most 
comprehensive data available (extending beyond fatality data) to 
conduct problem identification, set performance targets, and assess 
their progress in meeting those targets. States are also encouraged to 
think critically about how available data can and should be used to 
analyze their highway safety programs beyond the information that is 
specifically required. Further, NHTSA encourages States to consider 
ways to improve State data systems in order to increase data 
availability and data-sharing opportunities.

E. Transparency

    NHTSA appreciates the League of American Bicyclists' support of 
NHTSA's proposed approach to satisfy the BIL's expanded transparency 
requirements, particularly in relation to the information provided in 
the annual grant application. The League of American Bicyclists 
expressed broad support for greater transparency and specifically 
encouraged NHTSA to make publicly available the information provided in 
the annual report by States about the community collaboration efforts 
that are part of the State's evidence-based enforcement program. NHTSA 
notes that this information will be made available, as the BIL requires 
NHTSA to publicly release, on a DOT website, all approved triennial 
HSPs and annual reports. 23 U.S.C. 402(n). NHTSA will post this 
information on NHTSA.gov, consistent with the statutory requirements.
    The BIL further requires that the website allow the public to 
search specific information included in the released documents: 
performance measures, the State's progress towards meeting the 
performance targets, program areas and expenditures, and a description 
(if provided) of any sources of funds other than NHTSA highway

[[Page 7784]]

safety grant funds that the State proposes to use to carry out the 
triennial HSP. 23 U.S.C. 402(n)(2). In response to this statutory 
requirement, GHSA requested that NHTSA clarify that non-Federal funds 
are no longer required to be reported by the States. We confirm that 
the BIL removed the requirement to describe all non-Federal funds that 
the State intends to use to carry out countermeasure strategies in the 
triennial HSP. However, States are still required to provide 
information on matching funds that will be used to meet the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the program. NHTSA will post information on State 
matching funds and any other non-Federal funding sources that States 
choose to provide in their triennial HSPs and annual grant 
applications. However, for improved accountability and transparency in 
the highway safety grant program, NHTSA encourages States to continue 
reporting State, local, or private funds they propose to use. As the 
League of American Bicyclists noted, having such information publicly 
available would strengthen understanding of the funding uses.
    In response to the RFC, NHTSA received many comments advocating for 
an electronic grant management (e-grant) system. In contrast, in 
response to the NPRM, MN DPS recommended that NHTSA not develop a new 
e-grant system, explaining that it would be too difficult to transition 
to such a system at the same time as adjusting to the new authorization 
of the grant program. As stated in the NPRM, an e-grant system would 
foster greater transparency in the use of NHTSA highway safety grant 
funds by allowing State program information to be aggregated, 
organized, and made available to the public in a user-friendly manner. 
NHTSA has not yet deployed such a system, as the TN HSO pointed out, 
and the agency does not plan to do so concurrently with the initial 
deployment of the newly authorized grant programs. Currently, NHTSA is 
in the exploration stages of developing an e-grant system. The TN HSO 
requested that States participate in developing the grant management 
system. We expect that any future e-grant system will facilitate 
greater cross-state collaboration, data analysis, and transparency in 
the use of program funds. To facilitate this outcome, NHTSA will 
actively engage States and other stakeholders in its development.
    NHTSA sought comment in the NPRM on whether a standardized 
template, codified as an appendix to the regulation, would be helpful 
as an interim measure for States to provide information in a uniform 
manner similar to what we hope will be enabled by a future e-grant 
system. In response, three commenters \7\ recommended against 
developing a standardized template at this time in favor of waiting for 
the deployment of the future e-grant system. Accordingly, NHTSA will 
not develop a standardized template as part of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ AAMVA, GHSA, and TN HSO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Emergency Medical Services

    Five commenters provided comments related to various aspects of 
emergency medical services (EMS), post-crash care, and 911 systems. 
These comments covered three general themes: eligibility for NHTSA 
grant funds, allowable use of grant funds, and NHTSA's actions related 
to EMS and 911.
    Three commenters discussed eligibility for funding under NHTSA's 
highway safety grant program. NEMSMA requested that NHTSA ensure that 
grant funds go to rural EMS providers, including volunteer groups. WY 
OEMS recommended that NHTSA require States to provide funding to EMS 
and State or local trauma systems. Pamela Bertone requested that for-
profit EMS companies be deemed ineligible for funding and that, if they 
were to remain eligible, States should be required to look at the 
financial portfolio and tax returns of the CEO. NHTSA supports the EMS 
communities' efforts to integrate post-crash care initiatives into 
State highway safety programs where supported by the data and 
encourages States to consider funding eligible EMS activities with 
NHTSA's highway safety grant funds. However, under our grant statute, 
NHTSA does not have the authority to direct State funding choices or to 
provide funding directly to EMS agencies. Similarly, NHTSA does not 
have the authority to prohibit States from entering into grants with 
for-profit entities; however, Federal grant rules prohibit an entity 
from earning profits from a Federal award or subaward. See 2 CFR 
200.400(g).
    Three commenters \8\ provided recommendations that certain costs be 
considered allowable uses of NHTSA highway safety grant funds. 
Identified costs included training, Centers of Excellence related to 
emergency responder highway safety, purchase of safety and personal 
protective equipment, development of technologies to notify drivers 
they are approaching a crash scene with responders present, data 
collection, and enhancements to 911 systems and collision notification 
systems. An anonymous commenter argued that grants should provide 
funding for EMS systems based on a ratio of population and 
regionalization. As we explained in the NPRM, determinations of 
allowable use of funds are highly fact-specific and are dependent on 
many factors, including the funding source to be used (i.e., Section 
402 or one of the Section 405 incentive grants) and the details of the 
activity to be funded. In cases where there is not a sufficient nexus 
to traffic safety to fund the entirety of the project, projects may be 
limited to proportional funding. In addition, all activities funded by 
NHTSA highway safety grant funds must be tied to countermeasure 
strategies for programming funds in the State's triennial HSP, which in 
turn must be based on a State's problem identification and performance 
targets. NHTSA strongly encourages all stakeholders, including the EMS 
community, to work closely with State HSOs to offer ideas for potential 
activities that may be eligible for NHTSA formula grant funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Anonymous commenter, NASNA, and NEMSMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMSMA also provided comments related to many activities of NHTSA's 
Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS). The Office of EMS is a 
knowledgeable and useful resource to States, EMS agencies, and to NHTSA 
itself in addressing the post-crash care component of the highway 
safety grant program. However, those comments were outside the scope of 
this rulemaking because they relate to NHTSA's activities outside of 
the highway safety grant program.

G. Other

    Pamela Bertone commented that the NPRM seemed to focus more on 
impaired and distracted driving than it did on speed, which she stated 
is the most common cause of fatalities, and recommended that NHTSA put 
more focus on speed. NHTSA emphasizes the importance of speed 
management as a central component of highway safety programs and works 
closely with States to combat risky driving behaviors such as speed, 
including through a recent National safety campaign named ``Speed 
Wrecks Lives,'' conducted in June 2022. Impaired and distracted driving 
are also important components of highway safety programs and received 
comparatively more discussion in the NPRM and in this final rule 
because those program areas are National priority safety areas 
identified by Congress for Section 405 incentive grants. Nevertheless, 
States are encouraged to continue to carry out substantial speed 
management

[[Page 7785]]

campaigns using Section 402 grant funds.

IV. General Provisions (Subpart A)

A. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.3)

    GHSA commented that the definitions of ``program area'' and 
``project (or funded project)'' should reference either the annual 
grant application or the triennial HSP instead of the HSP. Where the 
NPRM referenced the ``HSP,'' NHTSA intended it to refer to the 
``triennial HSP.'' Consequently, NHTSA has amended the definitions for 
clarity to reference the triennial HSP.
    In addition, NHTSA made purely technical amendments to several 
definitions. The agency updated citations within the definitions of 
``Section 1906,'' \9\ ``State highway safety improvement program,'' and 
``State strategic highway safety plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NHTSA has similarly made a technical correction to update 
the citation for Section 1906 throughout the regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NHTSA removed reference to the KABCO scale in the 
definition of ``serious injuries'' as the scale is no longer used for 
this purpose.

B. State Highway Safety Agency (23 CFR 1300.4)

    The CT HSO and GHSA both expressed concern with the proposal that 
the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety (GR) may not be 
employed by a subrecipient of the State highway safety agency (commonly 
referred to as the State Highway Safety Office, or SHSO). CT HSO 
explained that the CT HSO is a subcomponent agency of the CT DOT; the 
GR is employed by the CT DOT, which receives subawards from the CT HSO. 
GHSA explained that in some States, the GR is an employee of the SHSO 
and that the SHSO awards grants to itself; or that, as in CT, the GR 
may be an employee of an overarching State department that receives 
subawards from the SHSO.
    The two examples given do not cause a problem with the regulatory 
text as proposed in the NPRM, as an agency is never a subrecipient of 
itself, nor can a parent agency be a subrecipient of a subagency. 
However, NHTSA recognizes that using the term subrecipient in this 
context may be confusing, and especially so in light of the many varied 
configurations of State governments. NHTSA has amended the regulatory 
text to provide that, in order to carry out the responsibilities 
required by the GR and to avoid a potential conflict of interest, the 
GR must have ready access to the Governor and be the head of the SHSO 
or be in the chain of command between the SHSO and the Governor. This 
framework will achieve the goal of the NPRM, while using more direct 
language that is easier for States to apply. NHTSA notes, however, that 
this provision serves as a minimum floor to ensure that GRs have the 
capability to fulfill their required functions in the grant program, as 
provided in the whole of Sec.  1300.4 and other Federal requirements, 
such as OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and 
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200). The GR remains 
responsible for carrying out those responsibilities.

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

    As explained in the NPRM, the BIL created a new triennial framework 
for the Highway Safety Grant Program, replacing the annual Highway 
Safety Plan (HSP) with a triennial HSP and annual grant application. As 
part of this new triennial framework, Congress increased community 
participation requirements and codified the annual reporting 
requirement.
    In addition to the broader comments urging that the agency ensure 
fidelity to the law in drafting the regulatory text, CT HSO requested 
that NHTSA refrain from requiring application or reporting requirements 
beyond those explicitly authorized by law. As we explained in response 
to GHSA's similar comment in the NPRM, NHTSA has striven to do so and 
to streamline requirements wherever possible. However, relevant legal 
requirements for these Federal grants are not limited to those in the 
BIL. For example, OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200) 
provide many requirements applicable to the grant program, both for 
States as award recipients and for NHTSA as the Federal awarding 
agency. We have included or referred to several of those requirements 
throughout this regulation.
    AAMVA, the CT HSO, and the MN DPS requested that NHTSA avoid 
duplication between the three different submissions that make up the 
triennial framework (the triennial HSP, the annual grant application, 
and the annual report). NHTSA will discuss specific requirements in 
more detail in the relevant sections of the preamble, but notes here 
that the triennial framework created by the BIL was designed to allow 
the three program documents to build on each other. While the required 
components of the submissions never overlap completely, they frequently 
focus on the same types of information captured at different times 
throughout the life of the grant, from long-range planning (triennial 
HSP), to grant year implementation (annual grant application), to end 
of year oversight and performance reporting (annual report), to 
triennial performance reporting (triennial HSP). Viewed in this 
context, these requirements are not duplicative, but rather relate to 
program information developed at various stages along a timeline. Where 
information is truly duplicative, we have striven to avoid redundancy, 
as noted earlier.
    AAMVA requested that NHTSA provide front-end support and 
flexibility to States as they transition to the new triennial 
framework. NHTSA is committed to providing States with all necessary 
support during this transition, and continuing onward, as they 
implement highway safety programs. With the recent increase in traffic 
fatalities, it is more important than ever that States carry out 
strong, data-driven, and performance-based highway safety programs. 
NHTSA believes that the triennial framework created by the BIL, with 
annual projects tied to longer-range planning based on performance 
targets and countermeasure strategies, will be a valuable tool for 
States as they work in partnership with NHTSA to address the recent 
traffic. NHTSA, including its Office of Regional Operations and Program 
Delivery and our ten regions, stand ready to assist the States in 
deploying successful programs under the new authority. While we have 
worked to implement the statutory requirements without imposing 
unnecessary burdens on States, we are committed to ensuring through our 
review and approval authority that State triennial HSPs and annual 
grant applications provide for data-driven and performance-based 
highway safety programs. We will provide States with the support 
necessary to reach these goals, but will look to the States to provide 
high quality programs that NHTSA is able to approve.

A. First Year Flexibility

    Several commenters \10\ expressed concern about the States' ability 
to comply with the new triennial framework in the first fiscal year of 
the authorization (FY24). These commenters specifically requested that 
NHTSA provide States with flexibility with regard to the public 
engagement requirements for the first triennial HSP, arguing that 
States would not be able to comply with public engagement requirements 
in the time between publication of the final rule and the July

[[Page 7786]]

1, 2023 due date for the first triennial HSP. AAMVA suggested that 
NHTSA excuse States from meeting any non-descriptive requirements 
associated with public engagement in the FY24 triennial HSP. The MN DPS 
and MoDOT requested that NHTSA not strictly enforce the public 
engagement requirements and instead treat FY24 triennial HSP 
submissions as a good faith building block for future triennial 
periods. GHSA, supported by AASHTO, recommended that NHTSA create a 
one-time allowance for States to submit public participation plans in 
the FY24 triennial HSP (without the requirement to conduct any public 
engagement efforts) and report on efforts carried out in the FY25 
annual grant application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ AAMVA, GHSA, MN DPS, and MoDOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA declines to delay these public engagement requirements, which 
form one of the seminal requirements of the new BIL grants. In enacting 
BIL, Congress recognized the need to allow States time to ramp up their 
efforts in this and other areas of the new grant programs, and so 
delayed the start of the new requirements for almost two years after 
enactment. This delay provided the States ample time to prepare for 
needed adjustments, and NHTSA is not able to waive the statutory 
directive for ``meaningful public participation and engagement from 
affected communities.'' Moreover, in an era of increasing traffic 
fatalities and disparate outcomes, NHTSA will not compromise on the 
quality of the approved highway safety programs under the new statutory 
framework, and that includes the critical component of public 
engagement. Accordingly, all requirements will take full effect for 
FY24 grants. The public engagement requirements in this regulation 
implement important requirements set out in the BIL and in accordance 
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 \11\ (or Title VI), as 
well as NHTSA's own commitment to ensuring that equity is centered in 
the planning and implementation of the highway safety grant program. 
They are also of clear importance to the populace within the States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is committed to ensuring that States have the assistance 
necessary to help in implementing the public engagement requirements. 
In October 2022, DOT published a guide titled ``Promising Practices for 
Meaningful Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making.'' \12\ 
NHTSA recently hired two staff members dedicated to providing technical 
assistance to States on outreach and engagement efforts and will 
provide a suite of resources in this area in coordination with NHTSA's 
Office of Civil Rights, which provides technical assistance regarding 
Title VI and other Federal civil rights laws. Shortly after the 
issuance of this final rule, NHTSA will conduct webinars discussing 
meaningful public engagement and involvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Available online at https://www.transportation.gov/priorities/equity/promising-practices-meaningful-public-involvement-transportation-decision-making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Triennial Highway Safety Plan (23 CFR 1300.11)

    The triennial HSP documents the State's planning for a three-year 
period of the State's highway safety program that is data-driven in 
establishing performance targets and selecting the countermeasure 
strategies for programming funds to meet those performance targets. As 
the CT HSO reiterated in its comments, the triennial HSP is intended to 
focus on program-level information. It serves as the long-range 
planning document for State highway safety programs.
    GHSA expressed concern that the descriptive elements of the 
triennial HSP might lead to subjective consideration during NHTSA's 
review and approval or lead to Regional misinterpretation of the 
requirements. It recommended that NHTSA establish a sense of the 
parameters for all descriptive elements. NHTSA provided significant 
clarification regarding some of these elements in the preamble to the 
NPRM and provides more clarification below. However, it is also NHTSA's 
intention to leave flexibility for States to structure their triennial 
HSPs in the manner that best reflects the data and resources of the 
State. And, since a State's triennial HSP is essentially a document 
customized to its own needs, based on problem identification within its 
borders, NHTSA is avoiding being overly prescriptive and taking a one-
size-fits-all approach to review of these documents.
1. Highway Safety Planning Process and Problem Identification (23 CFR 
1300.11(b)(1))
    AAMVA expressed support for NHTSA's decision in the NPRM not to 
specify problem areas that States must consider in triennial HSP 
problem identification, but instead to provide States with the 
flexibility to identify problems based on the data. AAMVA further noted 
that States will likely explore non-conventional data sources in 
response to this rulemaking and requested that NHTSA provide support 
and flexibility to States as they establish and refine these data 
sources. As noted in the NPRM, NHTSA encourages States to consider and 
use non-conventional data sources (e.g., socio-demographic data) and 
will provide States with assistance upon request.
    As explained in more detail in the annual grant application section 
below, NHTSA has amended the regulatory text to provide that States 
should consult geospatial data as part of their problem identification 
process. 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(1)(ii). This could include consulting 
location-based data sources to provide insight into the selection of 
specific roadways and/or intersections to conduct enforcement 
activities where they are most needed.
    Finally, AAMVA also supported NHTSA's view, stated in the NPRM in 
response to a comment, that it is unnecessary for States to provide a 
plan for regular data assessments in the triennial HSP, because States 
are already required to submit annual reports that assess their 
progress in meeting performance targets.
2. Public Participation and Engagement (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(2))
    In BIL, Congress added a requirement that State highway safety 
programs result from meaningful public participation and engagement 
from affected communities, particularly those most significantly 
impacted by traffic crashes resulting in injuries and fatalities. 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B). AAMVA and the 5-State DOTs expressed broad support 
for the new emphasis on public engagement.
    GHSA reiterated its prior comment that many States already have 
successful public engagement initiatives underway, but noted that their 
strategies have not been effectively shared. It offered to collaborate 
with NHTSA to support States in implementing broader public engagement 
and in sharing best practices. AAMVA similarly requested that NHTSA 
provide guidance to States on how to meet public engagement 
requirements. The League of American Bicyclists requested that NHTSA 
analyze State activities in this area and publish a report. GHSA and 
AASHTO recommended that NHTSA refer to FHWA's experience with the 
public participation process as it develops its own guidance. NHTSA 
appreciates this shared commitment to public engagement and looks 
forward to working with the States and GHSA to share best practices and 
effective strategies to increase community engagement. As mentioned 
previously in this document, NHTSA recently hired two staff members 
dedicated to providing technical assistance to States on outreach and 
engagement efforts and

[[Page 7787]]

will provide a suite of resources in this area in coordination with 
NHTSA's Office of Civil Rights, including webinars that will be 
conducted shortly after the issuance of this final rule.
    As explained in the preamble to the NPRM, NHTSA structured the 
public engagement section of the triennial HSP so that States can meet 
both the BIL requirements and the Title VI Community Participation Plan 
requirements with the same submission. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or 
national origin (including limited English proficiency) in any program 
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. As implemented 
through the U.S. Department of Transportation Title VI Program Order 
(DOT Order 1000.12C), Title VI requires, among other things,\13\ that 
all recipients submit a Community Participation Plan. The purpose of 
the Community Participation Plan is to facilitate full compliance with 
the community participation requirement of Title VI by requiring 
meaningful public participation and engagement to ensure that 
applicants and recipients are adequately informed about how programs or 
activities will potentially impact affected communities, and to ensure 
that diverse views are heard and considered throughout all stages of 
the consultation, planning, and decision-making process. MN DPS 
supported NHTSA's efforts to combine the two requirements. GHSA sought 
clarification about whether States must submit or maintain on file a 
separate file to fulfill the Community Participation Plan requirements 
from Title VI. NHTSA confirms that the triennial HSP submission is 
sufficient to satisfy the Community Participation Plan requirements, 
and no further documentation is needed for that component of Title VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, consistent with Title VI, the DOT Title VI 
Program Order also requires that NHTSA conduct a pre-award 
assessment of each applicant for financial assistance and that every 
grant recipient have on file a Title VI plan. As these requirements 
are not specifically part of the triennial HSP or annual grant 
application, the substance of these requirements has not been 
incorporated into the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GHSA and the MoDOT argued that the BIL limits the requirement for 
meaningful public participation and engagement to the ``program,'' 
interpreting that to refer only to the triennial HSP and countermeasure 
strategy level planning, not to project level implementation. On a 
similar note, AASHTO and the 5-State DOTs expressed concern that States 
would be required to bring public engagement into all levels of project 
management, including at the project level. These commenters requested 
that NHTSA change the proposed regulatory language to make clear that 
public engagement is only required for program planning, not throughout 
program implementation and management. NHTSA disagrees. A State highway 
safety ``program,'' as described in 23 U.S.C. 402(b), refers to the 
entire lifespan of the State's highway safety efforts, from planning to 
project implementation to program evaluation. The public engagement 
requirements in Sec.  1300.11(b)(2) reflect this, by requiring public 
participation and engagement not just in the planning processes leading 
up to the triennial HSP (see Sec.  1300.11(b)(2)(i)), but also 
throughout the life of the grant (see Sec.  1300.11(b)(2)(iii)). States 
must consider community input while planning and implementing projects 
under the highway safety program, but are not expected to conduct 
public participation and engagement efforts on a project-by-project 
basis. For example, a State could conduct public participation and 
engagement efforts related to its impaired driving program for a fiscal 
year and then use the input received during those engagement efforts 
when it implements its impaired driving projects, rather than 
conducting engagement efforts for each impaired driving project. We 
have amended the requirement to clarify that the State's statement of 
starting goals for public engagement needs to include discussion of how 
the public engagement efforts will contribute to the development of the 
State's highway safety program as a whole, including countermeasure 
strategies for programming funds. Sec.  1300.11(b)(2)(i)(A).
    Further, Sec.  1300.11(b)(2)(ii)(C) requires the State to discuss 
how the comments and views received in engagement opportunities 
conducted for the triennial HSP have been incorporated into the 
development of the triennial HSP. This also reflects the comprehensive 
community participation requirements in accordance with Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and supports NHTSA's goal of ensuring that the 
public participation and engagement opportunities that are conducted 
are meaningful and that equity is a focus throughout all stages of the 
highway safety grant program. However, NHTSA notes that States will 
still be able to make management and even programmatic decisions 
without conducting public engagement opportunities for each decision. 
The goal is for a State to provide sufficient opportunities for public 
engagement so that the State can be informed by the input received 
during those opportunities as it plans, implements, and manages the 
highway safety grant program.
    In order to clarify the stages of public engagement required, NHTSA 
has reformatted Sec.  1300.11(b)(2) to better identify the components 
of the State's public participation and engagement submission: (1) 
triennial HSP engagement planning; (2) triennial HSP engagement 
outcomes; and (3) ongoing engagement planning. As explained in more 
detail later, States will later be required to describe the ongoing 
engagement efforts that they conduct in each grant year in the annual 
report. See 23 CFR 1300.35(b)(2). Limited, non-substantive changes have 
been made to the regulatory text to accommodate this reorganization. 
For clarity, we have also written specific requirements for State plans 
for ongoing engagement in Sec.  1300.11(b)(2)(iii), rather than relying 
on an internal citation.
    The NV OTS commented that the requirement to provide lists of 
engagement opportunities conducted, with additional descriptive 
information, is too burdensome. NV OTS argued that such lists could 
become too extensive for NHTSA to adequately assess and argued that 
States should only be required to develop an engagement plan with 
projected activities, not provide details about engagement conducted. 
Upon consideration, NHTSA agrees that lists of every engagement 
opportunity conducted may become too voluminous and may not be useful 
for NHTSA's approval process or for transparency purposes. However, we 
disagree that States should be allowed to submit only plans, with no 
requirement to describe engagement actually conducted as part of the 
triennial HSP planning process. We have therefore amended the 
regulatory text to require that States must provide narrative 
assessments and descriptions of their community engagement efforts 
instead of a list. 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(2)(ii).
    MN DPS argued that being required to identify specific engagement 
efforts would hinder State efforts that are currently underway by 
requiring States to reengineer existing public engagement plans. AAMVA 
noted that it agreed with GHSA's comment to the RFC that the volume of 
comments received would be an inaccurate and unreliable benchmark for 
public engagement. We note that, while the regulation requires States 
to describe the engagement efforts conducted, it does not require 
specific forms of public

[[Page 7788]]

participation and engagement, nor require specified outcomes. However, 
the agency expects that if a State does not achieve reasonable 
participation through the participation plan described in the triennial 
HSP, it will use that experience to inform its plans for continuing 
public participation during the triennial period and into the next 
triennial HSP. As long as a State is able to meet the requirements of 
the triennial HSP and annual report, it may facilitate public 
participation in the manner best suited to the needs of the State and 
its communities.
    In addition to the comments in response to the RFC on the topic, 
NHTSA received several comments expressing the need for funding for the 
BIL's increased public engagement requirements. GHSA, MN DPS and MoDOT 
requested clarification about whether NHTSA grant funds may be used to 
support public participation and engagement efforts in general. As 
NHTSA explained in the preamble to the NPRM, the specifics of whether 
and how NHTSA grant funds may be used to pay for these types of costs 
are highly fact specific and implicate many different Federal and State 
laws and regulations. However, as a general matter, States may use 
NHTSA grant funds for costs associated with public participation and 
engagement activities, including activities required to plan and 
conduct public engagement required for submission of the triennial HSP. 
Any such costs are Planning and Administration costs and are subject to 
the allowance for such costs, as laid out in 23 CFR 1300.13(a).
    The League of American Bicyclists requested that NHTSA compile 
information on how States use NHTSA grant funds for purposes of 
compensating community members for their public participation and 
publish a report on those uses of funds. GHSA did not think it likely 
that States would consider compensating participants, but nonetheless 
sought clarification from NHTSA on whether such compensation would be 
an allowable use of grant funds. As explained above, whether a specific 
cost is an allowable use of funds is highly fact specific and subject 
to many different Federal laws and regulations. Differences in State 
laws and regulations may also affect whether a State may compensate 
participants in public engagement efforts. That said, these sorts of 
costs are potentially allowable uses of grant funds and NHTSA will work 
with States to determine whether any specific participation costs are 
allowable. Since no States currently use NHTSA grant funds for this 
purpose and it is unknown if any States will do so, NHTSA has no plans 
to publish a report at this time.
3. Performance Plan (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(3))
    The BIL continues to rely on performance measures as a fundamental 
component of State highway safety program planning in the triennial 
HSP. The BIL maintains the existing structure that requires States to 
provide documentation of the current safety levels for each performance 
measure, quantifiable performance targets for each performance measure, 
and a justification for each performance target.
    The BIL provides that States must set performance targets that 
demonstrate constant or improved performance and provide a 
justification for each performance target that explains why the target 
is appropriate and evidence-based. 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A)(ii) and 
(iii). As NHTSA explained in the preamble to the NPRM, the requirement 
for constant or improved performance will facilitate open discussions 
about desired safety outcomes and how to allocate resources to reach 
those outcomes. In an era of increasing fatalities, it is vital that 
performance targets offer realistic expectations that work toward the 
long-term goal of zero roadway fatalities and provide a greater 
understanding of how safety issues are being addressed. Roadway deaths 
are unacceptable and preventable; we must all work toward making the 
goal of zero roadway fatalities a reality, and performance management 
is a vital tool for making that happen.
    Several commenters \14\ reiterated arguments they made in response 
to the RFC that requiring targets showing constant or improved 
performance is contrary to the requirement that targets be appropriate 
and evidence-based, and asked that NHTSA explain how a State can set a 
data-driven target if the evidence does not demonstrate constant or 
improved performance. GHSA disagreed with NHTSA's response in the NPRM, 
which explained that States should consider different countermeasure 
strategies or adjust funding within a countermeasure strategy in order 
to achieve constant or improved performance. GHSA argued that States do 
not have unlimited resources to do so, nor do they have an unlimited 
menu of acceptable countermeasures. Instead, GHSA requested that, if a 
State's data analysis shows that an appropriate target would not 
demonstrate constant or improved performance and the State cannot 
allocate additional resources, NHTSA should nonetheless allow that 
State to adjust the target to be ``constant.'' The agency recognizes 
that resources are not unlimited, but the BIL greatly expanded highway 
safety grant funds available to the States, providing a more than 30 
percent increase. The traveling public has a right to expect that the 
nearly 4 billion dollars in highway safety grant funding authorized by 
the BIL will result in fewer lives lost on our Nation's roadways. With 
that in mind, lack of resources is not an acceptable justification for 
failure to demonstrate constant or improved performance, and NHTSA will 
not label as ``constant'' any target that demonstrates worsening 
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ AASHTO, GHSA and MN DPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also disagrees with the implied premise that States lack the 
ability to influence safety numbers and stands by our prior response; 
performance targets are inextricably tied to countermeasure strategies 
for programming funds. Targets should reflect the outcomes that States 
expect to achieve after implementing their planned programs. If a 
projected outcome shows worsening safety levels, then the State needs 
to change its planned program either at or below the countermeasure 
strategy level. States receive highway safety grant funds in order to 
achieve important safety outcomes. NHTSA strongly encourages States to 
consider innovative countermeasure strategies as long as they are 
consistent with Federal statutes and regulations; we have seen States 
implement several such strategies successfully in the past.
    Some commenters \15\ requested that, in order to meet the 
requirement to set data-driven targets that show constant or improved 
performance, States be allowed to ``reset'' targets based on recent 
data. These comments suggest a belief that States must set ever-lower 
performance targets every triennial cycle, regardless of the data at 
the time the triennial HSP is submitted. Such a construction would 
divorce performance management from the underlying data. NHTSA has 
therefore added regulatory language to make clear that States must set 
performance targets that show constant or improved performance compared 
to the safety levels, based on the most currently available data, not 
based on the target from the prior triennial HSP. 23 CFR 
1300.11(b)(3)(ii)(B). This will serve as a constructive ``reset'' of 
performance targets based on documented safety levels for each 
triennial HSP. This clarification should also resolve the CT

[[Page 7789]]

HSO's concern that States not be penalized for failure to meet measures 
that were inflated due to being set based on prior targets that don't 
reflect current safety levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ AASHTO, CT HSO, and GHSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters expressed concern that States will face 
penalties if they fail to meet aggressive targets. Section 402 requires 
States to assess in both the triennial HSP (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(E)) and 
the annual report (23 U.S.C. 402(l)(2)) the progress made in achieving 
performance targets in the annual grant application the means by which 
the State's countermeasure strategy for programming funds was adjusted 
and informed by that assessment (23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(C)), and NHTSA is 
required to publicly release an evaluation of State achievement of 
performance targets (23 U.S.C. 402(n)(1)). However, there are no 
monetary or programmatic penalties for failure to achieve a performance 
target in NHTSA's highway safety grant program. GHSA requested that 
NHTSA acknowledge that failure to meet performance measures reflects 
poorly on State programs and that they may face additional 
administrative steps (the required assessment and adjustment of 
countermeasure strategies). AASHTO noted that added administrative 
burdens have cost and resource impacts. The MoDOT argued that 
performance targets are not performance predictions and requested that 
NHTSA acknowledge that failure to meet performance targets does not 
mean that a State's programs are ineffective. NHTSA believes that 
performance measures bring transparency to the safety outcomes of State 
programs and can be helpful to States in planning a program designed to 
help them meet performance targets. NHTSA acknowledges that this 
transparency may sometimes be uncomfortable for a State, but believes 
it is vital to ensuring that highway safety programs produce meaningful 
improvements every year.
    As GHSA notes, States are required to describe plans to adjust 
their countermeasure strategies for programming funds if they are not 
on track to meet performance measures. However, we disagree with 
labelling such work a penalty; it is a response designed to address an 
identified safety problem that has not been resolved and to encourage 
redirecting the investment of funds to better meet performance targets. 
NHTSA and the States share the common goal of reducing highway 
fatalities and injuries. It is our joint responsibility to deploy grant 
funds squarely toward that end. NHTSA challenges States to think 
creatively and critically about ways to improve the safety outcomes of 
their programs.
    NHTSA received many comments specifically related to the common 
performance measures that States also report annually to FHWA for the 
State highway safety improvement program (HSIP).\16\ AASHTO, the CT 
HSO, and the MN DPS all recommended that NHTSA collaborate with FHWA, 
GHSA, and AASHTO to reevaluate how performance measures are established 
and used and to assist States in complying with both NHTSA and FHWA 
performance requirements. NHTSA appreciates this suggestion and will 
continue to work closely with these partners to provide needed 
technical assistance to States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Common performance measures are set out in 23 CFR 
490.209(a)(1) and 23 CFR 1300.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters \17\ stated that the common performance measures 
should focus only on variables within the direct control of the State 
highway safety office. They explained that common measures, such as 
total fatalities and injuries, are dependent on many factors and that 
the SHSO focuses only on behavioral aspects of traffic safety. As 
stated in the NPRM, NHTSA disagrees that the common performance 
measures should be so narrowly focused. While we recognize that the 
common measures are impacted by many variables, the SHSO and its 
programs are an integral part of those overall safety numbers. The 
SHSO, under the auspices of the Governor, is expected to coordinate the 
triennial HSP, annual grant application, and highway safety data 
collection and information systems activities with other federally and 
non-federally supported programs in the State relating to or affecting 
highway safety, including the State strategic highway safety plan 
(SHSP). 23 CFR 1300.4(c)(11). The common measures show the overall 
highway safety outcomes in the State, including the programs 
implemented by the SHSO. For context, we also note that the common 
measures are only three of many performance measures: there are three 
common measures, fourteen minimum measures, and States are always 
encouraged to develop their own additional measures for problems not 
covered by existing performance measures.\18\ The minimum performance 
measures created in cooperation with GHSA focus more specifically on 
areas within the SHSO control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ AASHTO, AAMVA, GHSA, MN DPS, and MoDOT.
    \18\ In fact, States are required to submit performance measures 
for any program area for which a minimum performance measure does 
not already exist (for example, distracted driving), because all 
projects funded with NHTSA grant funds must be tied to a 
countermeasure strategy for programming funds that is addresses a 
performance target in the triennial HSP. See 23 CFR 
1300.12(b)(2)(ix) and 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AASHTO expressed appreciation for NHTSA's proposal that States be 
allowed to update the targets for the three common performance measures 
in the annual grant application. See 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(1)(ii). It asked 
how States should reflect those changes in the triennial HSP. The 
annual grant application includes a section for updates to the 
triennial HSP. See 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(1). Upon approval of the annual 
grant application, any changes that a State makes to the triennial HSP 
under that provision will be presumed by NHTSA to be incorporated into 
the triennial HSP and will not require any further efforts on the part 
of the State to amend the triennial HSP itself.
    AAMVA and GHSA requested that NHTSA and GHSA work together to 
update the minimum performance measures that were developed in 2008 
\19\ in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(5). In contrast, the 5-State 
DOTs reiterated that they do not believe any new performance measures 
are required. NHTSA intends to convene meetings with stakeholders and 
to collaborate with GHSA to update the minimum performance measures 
well in advance of the FY 2027 triennial HSP submission date. NHTSA 
will draw all of the comments received under this rulemaking into that 
effort and will seek further input from these and other groups at that 
time. As we did previously, NHTSA commits to publishing the proposed 
minimum performance measures in the Federal Register for public 
inspection and comment. For the purposes of the FY24 triennial HSP, 
States are encouraged to develop additional measures, consistent with 
23 CFR 1300.11(b)(3)(iii), for problems identified by the State that 
are not covered by existing minimum performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and 
Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 025) (Aug. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AASHTO reiterated its comment to the RFC, stating that the 
regulation should more clearly vest target establishment authority in 
the States, arguing that it is inconsistent to require NHTSA approval 
for performance targets when 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1) provides States with 
authority to establish targets for the HSIP without FHWA approval. 
AASHTO argued that NHTSA cannot appropriately rely on the reasoning set 
forth by FHWA in its final rule for the National Performance Management 
Measures: Highway Safety Improvement Program, which set out

[[Page 7790]]

the parameters of the common performance measures,\20\ because the 
statutes have changed since that time. However, the relevant portions 
of those statutes have not changed. Regardless, as we noted in the 
NPRM, NHTSA does not have the discretion to override the statutory 
requirement for approval or disapproval of triennial HSPs, including 
the performance measures contained therein. See 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 81 FR 13882, 13901 (Mar. 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Countermeasure Strategy for Programming Funds (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(4))
    The BIL requires each State to submit, as part of the triennial 
HSP, a countermeasure strategy for programming funds for projects that 
will allow the State to meet the performance targets set in the 
triennial HSP. 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(B-D).
    GHSA noted that NHTSA seems to use the terms ``countermeasure'' and 
``countermeasure strategy for programming funds'' inconsistently 
throughout the regulation, occasionally using ``countermeasure'' where 
GHSA believes it should read ``countermeasure strategy for programming 
funds''. Upon reviewing the regulatory text, NHTSA found one instance 
where the terms were used in an unclear context and has amended the 
regulatory text in Sec.  1300.11(b)(4)(ii)(B) to refer to 
``countermeasures'' rather than ``countermeasure strategies.'' The term 
``countermeasure'' is used singularly in several of the Section 405 
grant sections; however, NHTSA confirms that those uses are appropriate 
based on the statutory text and intent.
    For each countermeasure strategy, the State must provide: (1) 
identification of the problem ID that the countermeasure strategy 
addresses and a description of the link between the problem ID and the 
countermeasure strategy; (2) a list of the countermeasures that the 
State will implement as part of the countermeasure strategy, with 
justification supporting the countermeasures; (3) identification of the 
performance targets the countermeasure strategy will address with a 
description of the link between the countermeasure strategy and the 
target; (4) a description of the Federal funds the State plans to use; 
(5) a description of the considerations the State will use to determine 
what projects to fund to implement the countermeasure strategy; and (6) 
a description of the manner in which the countermeasure strategy was 
informed by the uniform guidelines issued by NHTSA in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 402(a)(2). Sec.  1300.11(b)(4).
    NHTSA received many comments related to the requirement to provide 
justification supporting countermeasures that are included in a 
countermeasure strategy for programming funds. See 23 U.S.C. 
402(k)(4)(C) and 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(4)(ii). As a preliminary matter, 
NHTSA points out that this provision is largely similar in substance to 
the requirements under the FAST Act, in which States were required to 
provide justification supporting the potential effectiveness of 
innovative countermeasures as they relate to the problem identified. 
NHTSA proposed two changes to the requirement in the NPRM: (1) the 
agency provided that any countermeasure rated 3 stars or higher in 
Countermeasures That Work are proven effective and do not require 
justification; and (2) the agency added data and data analysis to the 
requirements for supporting an innovative countermeasure. The 
requirement to provide data and data analysis is taken directly from 
the BIL, which requires States to provide data and data analysis 
supporting the effectiveness of proposed countermeasures. See 23 U.S.C. 
402(k)(4)(C).
    The CT HSO, DE OHS, GHSA, MN DPS, and MO DOT argued that requiring 
States to provide justification for countermeasures not identified as 3 
stars or above in Countermeasures That Work adds an unnecessary burden 
on states and would stifle innovation. The League of American 
Bicyclists expressed concern that the requirement would encourage 
States to focus on countermeasures in Countermeasures That Work at the 
expense of other promising countermeasures. The League of American 
Bicyclists and GHSA both noted that this could incentivize States to 
conduct more enforcement. GHSA recommended that NHTSA allow States to 
cite to the Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs \21\ 
and to recommendations in NHTSA-affiliated program assessment reports. 
NHTSA reminds commenters that the requirement to justify 
countermeasures derives from the statute. In exempting countermeasures 
rated 3 stars and above from the requirement to provide justification 
of effectiveness, NHTSA sought to limit the burden on States by not 
requiring each State to provide independent justification for 
countermeasures that have already been proven over time. To further 
that goal, NHTSA has adopted GHSA's suggestion to also exempt 
countermeasures included in the Uniform Guidelines and as 
recommendations in NHTSA-affiliated program assessment supports. Sec.  
1300.11(b)(4)(ii)(A). NHTSA encourages innovation and urges States not 
to rely overly on the same set of countermeasures that have not 
produced positive programmatic change to date, even if they are rated 3 
stars or above. Even though these countermeasures are exempted from the 
requirement to provide independent justification of effectiveness, as 
with all countermeasure strategies, States must still describe the link 
between the problem identification and the countermeasure strategy and 
the link between the effectiveness of the countermeasure strategy and 
the performance target. Sec. Sec.  1300.11(b)(4)(i) and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Available online at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/guidance-documents#52986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The League of American Bicyclists suggested that NHTSA accept the 
SSA principles as a justification for choosing countermeasure 
strategies in the triennial HSP. While NHTSA agrees that the SSA 
principles are great guiding principles for a State to use in selecting 
countermeasures, NHTSA notes that principles do not qualify as data and 
data analysis required to justify the use of a countermeasure.
    The DE OHS argued that justification of the effectiveness of 
innovative countermeasure strategies is better suited to be addressed 
in the annual report than in the triennial HSP. The MoDOT argued that 
requiring justification of countermeasures is an overreach by NHTSA, 
reasoning that SHSOs are responsible for identifying and implementing 
countermeasures and that NHTSA need only ensure the State administers a 
compliant program. MoDOT further questioned why States should have to 
justify countermeasures when they will be evaluated on their ability to 
meet performance measures. NHTSA reminds the States that the BIL 
specifically requires States to submit data and data analysis 
supporting the effectiveness of proposed countermeasures in the 
triennial HSP. See 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(C). However, NHTSA also strongly 
encourages States to evaluate the effectiveness of all innovative 
countermeasures after implementation and to share those results with 
NHTSA and with other States. Furthermore, the statute provides that 
NHTSA has responsibility for reviewing the triennial HSPs submitted by 
the States and ensuring that the triennial HSPs satisfy the statutory 
and regulatory requirements prior to approval. See 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(6).

[[Page 7791]]

    GHSA and DE OHS sought clarification about the level of detail 
required to justify innovative countermeasures, requesting that NHTSA 
keep the requirement similar to the existing requirement for innovative 
countermeasures under the FAST Act. They cautioned that States should 
not be required to submit detailed research reports. NHTSA confirms 
that the level of justification required for innovative countermeasures 
is fundamentally the same as in the regulation implementing the FAST 
Act. Commenters may be misinterpreting the level of justification 
required. For example, a State could cite to a countermeasure from a 
different program area in the Countermeasures That Work and briefly 
explain why it believes that countermeasure would be similarly 
effective in the relevant program area. Alternatively, a State could 
provide a citation to a report on a pilot program carried out 
elsewhere, or to existing research demonstrating the effectiveness of a 
strategy in a different context, potentially outside of the highway 
safety context. To clarify that States are not required to submit 
research reports, NHTSA has amended the regulatory text to require that 
the justification use available data, data analysis, research, 
evaluation and/or substantive anecdotal evidence. Sec.  
1300.11(b)(4)(ii)(B).
5. Performance Report (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(5))
    The BIL requires that the triennial HSP include a report on the 
State's success in meeting its safety goals and performance targets set 
forth in the most recently submitted highway safety plan. In order to 
foster a connection between the triennial HSP and annual reports, NHTSA 
specified that the performance report in the triennial HSP contain the 
same level of detail as the annual report. Both AAMVA and GHSA 
expressed confusion over the level of detail expected for the triennial 
HSP performance report. GHSA noted confusion because the regulation 
cites to the entirety of Sec.  1300.35, not just the performance report 
section at Sec.  1300.35(a), and asked whether NHTSA wants States to 
combine three years of annual report performance reports into a single 
analysis.
    In order to avoid confusion, NHTSA has removed the internal 
citation and inserted regulatory language specific to the triennial 
HSP. 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(5). While the language still mirrors the 
language for the annual performance report, it has been adjusted to 
reflect the triennial nature of the analysis. For example, while the 
annual report focuses on activities conducted during a single grant 
year, the triennial HSP focuses on countermeasure strategies 
implemented during the triennial period. NHTSA believes that States 
will be able to benefit from the yearly analysis they have already 
conducted in their annual reports when writing their triennial 
performance reports. As noted in the preamble to the NPRM, for the FY24 
triennial HSP, NHTSA expects only analysis of the State's progress 
towards meeting the targets set in the FY23 HSP.

C. Annual Grant Application (23 CFR 1300.12)

    NHTSA received comments on the proposed submission date and 
components of annual grant applications. We address each of these 
comments in the respective sections below and make necessary updates to 
the regulatory language for clarification and simplification.
1. Due Date (23 CFR 1300.12(a))
    The MA OGR requested that the due date of August 1 be changed to 
July 1 and/or that NHTSA reduce the 60-day review period to 30 or 45 
days. The MA OGR noted that a due date of August 1, with a 60-day 
review period, would provide for a September 30 award date, which they 
argue provides insufficient time for States to award projects starting 
October 1. The due date of August 1 ensures that both States and NHTSA 
have adequate time to prepare, submit, and review annual grant 
applications. As explained in the NPRM, NHTSA proposed a deadline of 
August 1 to provide States with a due date different from the triennial 
HSP's July 1 deadline. Requiring both the annual grant application and 
the triennial HSP to be submitted on July 1 would impose more burden on 
States during the years when both submissions are required. This 
approach is informed by comments received in response to the RFC and 
discussed in more detail in the NPRM. Additionally, the statute affords 
60 days for NHTSA to review and approve or disapprove annual grant 
applications. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(D). NHTSA notes that our ability to 
review and ultimately approve applications within the 60-day statutory 
timeline depends on the quality of the information provided by States. 
Where possible, we will strive to work with States to expedite the 
review process.
2. Updates to Triennial HSP (23 CFR 1300.12(b)(1))
    As part of annual grant applications, the BIL requires States to 
provide updates to their triennial HSPs, including a description of the 
means by which the strategy for programming funds was adjusted and 
informed by the most recent annual report. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(C)(iii). 
In the NPRM, NHTSA fleshed out this requirement by providing that where 
a State determined in its annual report that it was not on track to 
meet all performance targets, it must explain either how it will adjust 
the strategy for programming funds or why it is not doing so. 
Otherwise, a State must briefly state that it was on track to meet all 
performance targets. NHTSA appreciates AAMVA's support for streamlining 
the requirement for States that are on track to meet their performance 
targets.
    In addition, States may make certain changes related to performance 
measures in the annual grant application. As explained in the NPRM, 
States may add new performance measures and amend common performance 
measures. GHSA requested NHTSA to clarify that States are allowed to 
amend common performance targets, rather than common performance 
measures as stated in the NPRM. As GHSA noted, States may amend 
performance targets associated with the common performance measures 
(i.e., number of fatalities) rather than the measures themselves (i.e., 
fatality, fatality rate, and serious injuries). NHTSA has made a 
conforming change to the language at 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(1)(ii) in 
accordance with this clarification.
    The CT HSO stated that any updated data analysis should be required 
only in the triennial HSP, not the annual grant application. It is not 
clear to what data analysis the State is referring; however, NHTSA 
notes that States provide all updates to the triennial HSP via the 
annual grant application under the new triennial framework. 
Functionally, it is the same as updating or amending the triennial HSP 
itself.
    GHSA, joined by the MN DPS, repeated its previous comment that the 
statute clearly provides that it is the State, not NHTSA, that 
determines when updates to the triennial HSP are necessary. As 
explained in the NPRM, NHTSA disagrees with this interpretation. The 
statute provides that an annual grant application must include any 
necessary updates to analysis in the State's triennial HSP. 23 U.S.C. 
402(l)(1)(C)(i). The statute, however, is silent as to who determines 
what updates to analysis are necessary. While the statute allows a 
State to include such updates, it does not limit the determination of 
whether those updates are sufficient to States. The statute requires 
NHTSA to approve or disapprove a State's annual grant

[[Page 7792]]

application in part on the basis of whether it demonstrates alignment 
with the approved triennial HSP. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(A)(i). Updates to 
analysis in the State's triennial HSP may be necessary in order to 
demonstrate that the annual grant application aligns with the triennial 
HSP, as required by the BIL. See 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(A)(i). NHTSA will not 
approve an annual grant application that is inconsistent with the 
approved triennial HSP.
3. Project and Subrecipient Information (23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2))
    The BIL requires States to submit, as part of their annual grant 
application, identification of each project and subrecipient to be 
funded by the State using grants during the fiscal year covered by the 
application. The statute further provides that States may submit 
information for additional projects throughout the grant year as that 
information becomes available. See 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(C)(ii).
    To satisfy those statutory requirements, States must submit the 
following information in their annual grant applications: project name 
and description, Federal funding source(s), project agreement number, 
subrecipient(s), amount of Federal funds, eligible use of funds, 
identification of Planning and Administration costs, identification of 
costs subject to Section 1300.41(b), and the countermeasure strategy 
for programming funds that the project supports. 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2). 
These requirements ensure that NHTSA is able to understand whether the 
identified projects are sufficient for the State to carry out the 
countermeasure strategies in the triennial HSP, to identify projects 
against later submitted vouchers, and to meet statutory transparency 
requirements.
    GHSA requested clarification about several items to be included in 
the project and subrecipient information. GHSA asked what NHTSA means 
by ``eligible use of funds'' and the level of detail that States will 
be expected to provide. NHTSA's purpose in including this information 
in the annual grant application, as well as in State vouchers (see 23 
CFR 1300.33(b)(3)), is to facilitate transparency in the use of NHTSA 
grant funds, to ensure consistency between planned and actual project 
expenses, and to facilitate verification of allowability of costs 
within specific program areas. For example, there are six specific 
eligible uses of Section 405(b) Occupant Protection Grants. See 23 CFR 
1300.21(g)(1). One such eligible use is ``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''. 23 CFR 1300.21(g)(1)(ii). 
For projects on occupant protection training, States should notate this 
specific eligible use as Occupant Protection Training and ensure that 
the project description includes the nature of the training and the 
intended audience. This same eligible use notation would apply to 
projects using Section 402 grant funds for occupant protection 
training. As another example, there are two eligible uses of Section 
402 grant funds for automated traffic enforcement (school zone or work 
zone). See 23 CFR 1300.13(g). Projects using Section 402 grant funds 
for automated traffic enforcement in a school zone should notate the 
eligible use as Automated Traffic Enforcement--school zone and ensure 
that the project description includes the appropriate information per 
1300.12(b)(2)(i). If a State is uncertain about a specific use of 
funds, we encourage the State to reach out to the Region for 
assistance.
    Next, GHSA requested that NHTSA clarify the requirement at 23 CFR 
1300.12(b)(2)(viii), which requires States to identify whether a 
project will be used to meet the requirements of Sec.  1300.41(b) 
(commonly referred to as promised projects). NHTSA confirms GHSA's 
understanding that States must identify whether the State is committing 
unexpended grant funds that would otherwise be deobligated and lapsed 
to a particular project consistent with Sec.  1300.41(b).
    GHSA also sought clarification about how States should organize 
information on the countermeasure strategy that the project supports, 
and asked for flexibility. States may format their project list by 
grouping projects based on the countermeasure strategy. It is incumbent 
on States to ensure that they submit all required information in an 
organized manner to minimize delays in NHTSA's review and avoid the 
need for follow-up information.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to include zip codes as an example of 
information that may be provided as part of a project description. In 
addition, NHTSA proposed to require States to provide zip codes for all 
projects in the annual report and sought comment on whether there is a 
better metric for obtaining relevant location information for projects. 
In response, the DE OHS, GHSA, and MN DPS expressed concern that 
providing zip code information in annual grant applications and annual 
reports would impose an excessive burden on States and suggested 
finding a more efficient way to collect location data. NHTSA 
appreciates the feedback but also emphasizes that it is our 
responsibility to ensure that project information is consistent with 
States' triennial HSPs. As noted by the CT HSO, NHTSA's intent in 
proposing zip code information was to identify the location where a 
project is taking place, and location information is essential for 
NHTSA to verify that States are executing projects in the areas 
identified by the problem identification and/or countermeasure 
strategies in their triennial HSPs. However, NHTSA agrees that zip code 
information might not be the most relevant data point or may be 
cumbersome for States to compile, depending on project type. 
Accordingly, to avoid an unnecessary burden on States, we have removed 
specific references to zip codes from both the annual grant application 
and annual report sections of the regulation. Instead, NHTSA has 
amended the regulatory text to provide that States must provide 
information on the location where the project is performed as part of 
the project description in the annual grant application (which may 
include zip codes), but leaves it to the State's discretion what form 
this location information takes. Sec.  1300.12(b)(2)(i).
    NHTSA expects that States will provide information at the lowest 
geographic level applicable to each project. NHTSA notes that, 
consistent with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act 
(FFATA), States are already required to separately report the location 
of both the entity receiving the subaward and the primary location of 
performance for all subawards of $30,000 and above.\22\ As previously 
mentioned, in order to ensure that States include location information 
in their triennial HSP problem identification, NHTSA has amended the 
data sources that a State should consult for problem identification to 
include geospatial data. Sec.  1300.11(b)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Public Law 109-282, as amended by section 6202 of Public 
Law 110-252. Implemented at 2 CFR part 170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NHTSA has made a technical amendment to rearrange the 
order of required project information so that Federal funding source(s) 
is now the second required information item. 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2)(ii). 
NHTSA believes this will better reflect the connection States place 
between project descriptions and the funding source.

[[Page 7793]]

4. Amendments to Project and Subrecipient Information (23 CFR 
1300.12(d))
    As is explained in more detail in the annual report section, below, 
NHTSA is amending Sec.  1300.12(d) to provide that all project 
information in the annual grant application must be complete at the 
time the State submits the annual report consistent with Sec.  1300.35.

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

1. Planning and Administration (P & A) Costs (23 CFR 1300.13(a))
    Three commenters \23\ reiterated comments in response to the RFC 
requesting that NHTSA increase the percentage of funds that can be 
allocated to Planning and Administration (P & A) costs from 15% to 18% 
to cover increased costs due to the new BIL planning requirements, 
inflation, and the competitive employment market. GHSA further 
explained that this increase would give States greater flexibility in 
determining whether to fund staff programmatically or through P & A. NV 
OTS noted that the increase would help States like Nevada that need to 
maintain two separate offices for the HSO. In response to these last 
two points, the agency notes that whether highway safety staff is 
funded programmatically or through P & A is not dependent on the amount 
of funds available but rather on specific roles and duties, and NV 
OTS's maintenance of two separate offices for the HSO is not a 
requirement imposed by NHTSA. However, after considering these comments 
in light of new BIL requirements, NHTSA is increasing the States' 
allowance for P & A costs to 18 percent to help offset rising costs and 
to ensure that States have sufficient resources to fully implement the 
planning and public engagement requirements in the BIL. The agency 
expects that this P & A funding increase will lead to fulsome 
implementation of the new longer-range planning structure created by 
the BIL and robust public engagement efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ GHSA, MN DPS, and NV OTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Participation by Political Subdivisions (Local Expenditure 
Requirement) (23 CFR 1300.13(b))
    NHTSA is committed to ensuring that local political subdivisions 
are an integral and valued part of State highway safety programs. Local 
participants have unique knowledge of the specific safety problems and 
a close connection to the communities that are ultimately served by the 
programs funded by the highway safety grants. It is clear that Congress 
shares this goal, as evidenced by the longstanding statutory 
requirement that 40 percent of Section 402 grant funds apportioned to a 
State be expended by the State's political subdivisions to carry out 
local highway safety programs. See 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(C). This 
statutory provision necessarily requires specific administrative effort 
to ensure that political subdivisions receive their share of Federal 
highway safety grant funds. The BIL amended the operation of this 
provision by removing the requirement that the local highway safety 
programs to be funded be approved by the Governor while retaining the 
rest of the local expenditure requirement. In response, the NPRM 
proposed a new framework for this statutory requirement.
    GHSA expressed general support for reform of the local expenditure 
requirement provided it resulted in less burden for States and 
subrecipients. However, GHSA took issue with NHTSA's view that the BIL 
amendment nullified one of the existing regulatory avenues for States 
to demonstrate participation by political subdivisions, stating that 
political subdivisions should still be allowed to request safety 
expenditures on their behalf. NHTSA disagrees. The prior construction 
of the requirement depended on a request by a political subdivision 
that was connected to an approved local highway safety program. Without 
that connection, there is no remaining link to demonstrate substantive 
political subdivision participation. Moreover, the BIL's amendments 
were not the only impetus for reconceptualizing the regulatory 
implementation of the local expenditure requirement. As noted in the 
NPRM, the proposed change was also informed by the new triennial 
framework for highway safety programs, NHTSA's historical experience 
administering this requirement, and comments received through the RFC 
(addressed in the NPRM).
    Several commenters \24\ stated that the new process would increase 
burdens for States and localities by creating unnecessary 
administrative requirements. Congress' imposition of a local 
expenditure requirement necessarily adds procedural responsibilities 
that States must address. In NHTSA's view, active participation in the 
selection of projects by the citizenry in local jurisdictions is a 
desirable objective that should be welcomed in efforts to deploy grants 
to improving highway safety. NHTSA recognizes that this requirement 
poses some challenges, but believes that the proposed procedures are 
less burdensome than commenters fear. Below, we walk through these 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ DE OHS, GHSA, MN DPS, and NV OTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States have three methods to demonstrate that expenditures qualify 
as local expenditures: (1) direct expenditure by a political 
subdivision; (2) expenditure on behalf of a subdivision where the 
political subdivision is involved in the highway safety planning 
process; (3) expenditure on behalf of a political subdivision where the 
political subdivision directs expenditure through a documented request.
    The first method--direct expenditures--requires no further 
explanation because it is well-understood by States and political 
subdivisions and unquestionably falls within the statutory requirement. 
However, NHTSA has long recognized that in some cases, it may be 
advantageous for political subdivisions to allow States to expend grant 
funds on their behalf. This enables smaller political subdivisions that 
may have fewer resources to direct grant funds toward their highway 
safety needs and allows political subdivisions, in general, to benefit 
from the economies of scale that a State-run program can provide. That 
said, because the statute provides that funds must be expended by 
political subdivisions, it is incumbent on NHTSA and the States to 
ensure that there is adequate documentation that the political 
subdivision was involved in identifying its traffic safety needs and 
provided input into the implementation of the activity. Following are 
examples of how a State can demonstrate that expenditures on behalf of 
a political subdivision qualify as local expenditures.
    Under the second method identified above, the State may provide 
evidence that the political subdivision was involved in the State's 
highway safety program planning processes. States can incorporate this 
into existing processes, such as the public participation component of 
the triennial HSP, the planning process to determine projects for 
annual applications, or during the State's ongoing program planning 
processes. For example, a representative of a local school board might 
attend a virtual public engagement session for the State's triennial 
HSP planning process and speak to the need for impaired driving 
educational programs to be provided to students in that district. The 
input by the school board at that time could simply consist of a broad 
statement of need for an

[[Page 7794]]

educational program related to impaired driving in that district. If 
the State wanted to determine whether other school districts had a 
similar need, it could plan a specific virtual public engagement on the 
need for educational programs in schools and invite all school 
districts in the State or regions of the State to participate. The 
State would enter into projects based on the identification of need and 
implementation notes by the school board during the planning process. 
Finally, to ensure that the activities implemented meet the needs of 
the specific political subdivision, the State would obtain written 
confirmation of acceptance by the school board for the project that the 
State implements.
    Under the third method described above, the State may demonstrate 
that a political subdivision directed the expenditure of funds through 
a documented request by the political subdivision for an activity to be 
carried out on its behalf. As noted in the NPRM, the request need not 
be a formal application, but must contain a description of the 
political subdivision's problem identification and a description of how 
or where the activity should be deployed within the political 
subdivision. For example, a representative of a town's government could 
submit a request to the SHSO via letter or email showing that the town 
has increased traffic crashes associated with a large sporting event 
held in the area and requesting increased enforcement to be conducted 
by the State's highway patrol during those events. It might also 
request that the State carry out an accompanying media campaign leading 
up to and during those times. If the town government has trouble 
identifying the data to document the problem, the State may offer 
technical assistance.
    The key in all situations where the State is relying on 
expenditures on behalf of political subdivisions to qualify as a local 
expenditure is the connection between the need identified and activity 
requested by the political subdivision and the project that the State, 
or another entity, carries out on the political subdivision's behalf.
    Some comments suggest a misunderstanding of the fundamental premise 
of the local expenditure requirement. NV OTS argued that it is too 
difficult for the State to process and for NHTSA to verify 
documentation that supports the required political subdivision 
involvement, and argued that NHTSA should allow States to allocate 
resources based on problem identification without the burden of proving 
political subdivision involvement. MoDOT argued that NHTSA should allow 
statewide programs with local benefit to qualify as local expenditure. 
However, it was clearly the intent of Congress, sustained over decades, 
that State highway safety programs ensure that Federal funds make their 
way into the hands (and decision-making authority) of political 
subdivisions. The new BIL requirements concerning public input only 
serve to reaffirm and amplify this interest in greater participation in 
decision-making, and NHTSA has a responsibility to ensure that this 
statutory command for local participation is effectively carried out. 
The statutory requirement is focused on the expenditure of funds by 
political subdivisions, not merely on local benefit.
    Several commenters \25\ argued that many localities do not have 
sufficient resources to participate in the highway safety planning 
process or to submit a detailed request for expenditures on their 
behalf and worried that the new requirements would risk losing local 
participants in State highway safety programs. The requirement for 
local participation is not inherently burdensome for local 
participants, and in any event, is an obligation imposed by statute. 
The State is simply required to obtain identification of need and a 
request for activities to be conducted, whether during the State's 
highway safety planning process or as a direct request from the 
political subdivision. A State could even solicit requests, and provide 
a template for requests from political subdivisions. Under the BIL, as 
before, States have a responsibility to ensure that political 
subdivisions have the ability to participate in the highway safety 
program. Whether it is at the planning level, via the meaningful public 
engagement requirement, or through a request that the State execute a 
project on behalf of a political subdivision, States have many 
opportunities to work with localities to support their needs and meet 
the local expenditure requirement. States can and should conduct 
outreach and provide assistance to locals throughout the planning and 
project development such processes, and NHTSA is available to assist 
States in these efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ DE OHS, GHSA, MN DPS, and NV OTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GHSA requested that NHTA allow groups of localities to request 
expenditures on their collective behalf. MN DPS explained that in many 
grants, multiple local agencies partner to conduct activities and that 
it would be difficult for the State to have each participating 
political subdivision participate in the triennial HSP planning 
process. NHTSA notes that the proposed definition of political 
subdivision adopted in this rule includes associations comprised of 
representatives of political subdivisions acting in their official 
capacities. Similarly, a group of localities may submit a joint request 
for activities that meets the requirements of Sec.  1300.13(b)(3)(ii), 
so long as it is signed by each locality or a duly authorized 
representative of the group.
    GHSA also noted that States have found more efficient ways of 
reaching localities than the local expenditure mechanism by using 
agreements with non-profit entities. NHTSA notes that a State may use 
an agreement with a non-profit entity to carry out expenditures on 
behalf of political subdivisions provided there is sufficient 
documentation under Sec.  1300.13(b)(3) to demonstrate that the 
political subdivisions were involved in identifying their traffic 
safety needs and provided input into the implementation of the 
activity.
    Finally, in response to a comment to the RFC, the NPRM noted that 
State-sponsored communication efforts tied to high visibility 
enforcement (HVE) campaigns may never qualify as local expenditures. 
Several commenters \26\ expressed strong disagreement with this 
position, arguing that media campaigns are an integral part of high 
visibility enforcement whose benefits extend to localities throughout 
the State. The agency notes that it is possible for some costs under a 
program to qualify as local expenditures while other costs do not. 
Local law enforcement participation in HVE campaigns via enforcement 
subawards qualifies as a direct expenditure by political subdivisions. 
States, however, are directly responsible for carrying out the 
associated statewide advertising campaigns, although they may do so via 
a contract. Contracts for statewide HVE media campaigns, even if made 
with political subdivision, do not qualify as local expenditures 
because they are, by definition, an extension of State performance. See 
2 CFR 200.331. NHTSA has added regulatory text to clarify that direct 
expenditures for media efforts may be credited to political 
subdivisions only if those expenditures are made under a subaward from 
the State. Note that this restriction on media campaigns applies only 
to statewide media efforts associated with HVE campaigns. States are 
encouraged to enter into subawards with political subdivisions to carry 
out targeted local media campaigns, and the

[[Page 7795]]

costs of such efforts would qualify as local expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ CT HSO, DE OHS, GHSA, and MN DPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Congressionally Specified Uses of Funds (23 CFR 1300.13(c-g))
    The BIL amended the prohibition on funding automated traffic 
enforcement systems. 23 U.S.C. 402(c)(4). Pamela Bertone urged that 
laws related to speed camera placement be changed, and also recommended 
using police officers as ``mobile cameras'' that write digital 
citations instead of making a traffic stop. Congress and the States--
not NHTSA--have the authority to pass laws, and NHTSA lacks the 
discretion to compel issuance of ``digital citations.'' NHTSA has 
incorporated BIL language that specifically defines automated traffic 
enforcement systems as a camera and specifically excludes devices 
operated by law enforcement officers. See 23 U.S.C. 402(c)(4)(A) and 23 
CFR 1300.3.

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

    The Section 405 and Section 1906 grant programs provide incentive 
grants that focus on National priority safety areas identified by 
Congress. Under this heading, NHTSA responds to comments related to the 
grants under Section 405--Occupant Protection, State Traffic Safety 
Information System Improvements, Impaired Driving Countermeasures, 
Distracted Driving, Motorcyclist Safety, Nonmotorized Safety, 
Preventing Roadside Deaths, and Driver and Officer Safety Education, as 
well as the Section 1906 grant--Racial Profiling Data Collection, as 
applicable.
    GHSA reiterated its request under the RFC that NHTSA create a 
complete qualification checklist for each Section 405 grant program in 
order to assist States in developing and providing the required 
information, and clarified that this checklist could be provided as 
guidance rather than as part of the final rule. The agency again 
declines to adopt this request. As noted in the NPRM, appendix B is 
formatted to serve as the application framework for States and provides 
a list of application requirements at a high level similar to a 
checklist. However, States remain responsible for reading and complying 
with the relevant statutory and regulatory text, which contain the full 
details of application criteria and qualification requirements. A 
separate checklist could lead States to overlook important aspects of 
application requirements.

A. General (23 CFR 1300.20)

    The 5-State DOTs noted their support for the NPRM provisions that 
ensure that any unawarded Section 405 grant funds are transferred to 
the Section 402 program and encouraged NHTSA to retain those provisions 
in the final rule. This is a statutory requirement and NHTSA retains 
those provisions without change in this final rule.

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

    The 5-State DOTs acknowledged that NHTSA removed the Maintenance of 
Effort (MOE) requirement in the NPRM and requested that NHTSA retain 
that change. The BIL removed this requirement, and therefore NHTSA 
retains that change.

C. Occupant Protection Grants (23 CFR 1300.21)

    The BIL removed the maintenance of effort requirement that was in 
effect under the FAST Act, extended the period of time between 
assessments for the assessment criterion for lower seat belt use 
states, and expanded the allowable uses of funds under this grant 
program. In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed amendments to the existing 
regulatory language to implement those changes and to update existing 
requirements to align with the new triennial HSP and annual application 
framework. NHTSA received no comments related to the occupant 
protection grants and therefore proposes no further changes to the 
regulatory text in this final rule.

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

    The BIL streamlined the application requirements by allowing States 
to submit a certification regarding the State traffic records 
coordinating committee (TRCC) and the State traffic records strategic 
plan and removing the FAST Act requirement that States have an 
assessment of their highway safety data and traffic records system. 
States must still submit documentation demonstrating a quantitative 
improvement in relation to a significant data program attribute of a 
core highway safety database. The BIL removed the maintenance of effort 
requirement that was in effect under the FAST Act and expanded the 
allowable uses of funds under this grant program.
    AAMVA expressed general support for this grant program, including 
the changes made by the BIL and proposed in the NPRM. AAMVA sought 
clarification regarding how a State can quantify a previously 
unavailable data element as a contributing element to a program that 
previously did not use that data, and sought guidance on how to 
incorporate new data to augment safety programs. First, NHTSA 
encourages States to consider making improvements to the completeness 
or integration of their traffic safety information systems and 
specifically points States to two NHTSA publications that set forth 
model minimum data elements in State traffic safety information 
systems: the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) and the Model 
Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE). While these publications do not 
list every single data element that may be useful for a State highway 
safety program, they provide an important set of data elements for the 
crash and roadway data systems, respectively, and are a strong tool for 
greater uniformity between and among State data systems. Second, NHTSA 
confirms that States may add a new, not previously included, data 
element to demonstrate the required quantitative improvement for their 
Section 405(c) applications. Depending on the specific circumstances of 
the improvement, a State may be able to demonstrate a baseline period 
consisting of no (or ``zero'') data element paired with a performance 
period showing either full or partial incorporation of that data 
element into the system. These clarifications do not require amendments 
to the regulatory text, so NHTSA makes no changes to the proposed 
language.

E. Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants (23 CFR 1300.23)

    The BIL made targeted amendments to the impaired driving 
countermeasures grant programs, with the most significant changes 
occurring to the interlock grant program, including allowing additional 
means of compliance and a use of funds section that adds several 
funding categories.
1. Qualification Criteria for Mid-Range and High-Range States (23 CFR 
1300.23(e) and 23 CFR 1300.23(f))
    In the NPRM, NHTSA explained the basic requirements for States to 
receive an impaired driving countermeasures grant. The qualifying 
criteria in the BIL remain focused on the State's average impaired 
driving fatality rate and a determination of whether the State 
qualifies as a low-, mid-, or high-range State. For low-range States, 
the agency's proposal provides for the submission of assurances, while 
States with higher fatality rates are required, at a minimum, to 
establish an impaired driving task force and develop and submit a 
statewide impaired driving plan. The agency continues the streamlined 
aspects of the application process, noting that all that is required

[[Page 7796]]

is the submission of a single document--the statewide impaired driving 
plan (in addition to any required assurances and certifications).
    The agency explained in the NPRM that it had reviewed the prior 
implementation of these terms and determined that some changes were 
necessary to ensure that States with higher average impaired driving 
fatality rates continue to take a sufficiently comprehensive approach. 
For the impaired driving plan, required for mid- and high-range States, 
the proposal specified that the plan should continue to be organized in 
accordance with NHTSA's Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety 
Programs No. 8--Impaired Driving.\27\ The proposal reinforced the 
concept that overall program management and strategic direction are 
features of the plan, as well as community engagement and involvement 
in coalitions. Although States are free to address other related areas, 
the impaired driving plan must consist of sections covering program 
management and strategic planning; prevention, including community 
engagement and coalitions; criminal justice systems; communications 
programs; alcohol and other drug misuse, including screening, 
treatment, assessment and rehabilitation; and program evaluation and 
data. The agency received no comments on the proposed changes to the 
impaired driving plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ One commenter provided an out-of-scope comment for this 
rulemaking requesting that the agency revise Guideline No. 8 to be 
more inclusive of behavioral health providers with more focus on the 
treatment of alcohol and substance abuse. The agency notes the 
information provided and will consider it as part of any effort to 
revise Guideline No. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its proposal, the agency also revised the requirements 
associated with the statewide impaired driving task force by 
identifying additional key members, explaining that the fields 
identified help ensure that the required impaired driving plans remain 
comprehensive. In addition to key stakeholders from the State highway 
safety office, State and local law enforcement, and representatives of 
the criminal justice system, the agency's proposal added stakeholders 
from the following groups to align with the components of the impaired 
driving plans: public health, drug-impaired driving countermeasures 
(such as a DRE coordinator), and communications and community 
engagement.
    In response to these proposed additions, the agency received 
comments from GHSA, the Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers, 
and Mitchell Berger. GHSA thought the inclusion of the additional 
groups was ``arbitrary'' and identified other groups that could be 
included as part of a comprehensive task force requirement. GHSA also 
stated that the change to increase the task force membership was not 
dictated by the statute and that the agency should show more deference 
to States on task force membership. Generally, the agency's proposal 
does defer to States on task force membership and the process by which 
the task force creates the impaired driving plan. NHTSA's intent was to 
identify broad stakeholder groups, without imposing other requirements 
such as experience or background for individuals or even the process by 
which the State identifies a particular individual to a group. In a few 
areas, the proposal used terms specific to a particular skillset such 
as an expert or specialist. Since our intent was to identify broad 
groups only, these terms have been removed in the final rule. Sec.  
1300.23(e)(1)(ii)(E) and Sec.  1300.23(e)(1)(ii)(F).
    The agency also continues to defer to the States on the process 
used to create the plan itself. However, as the agency explained, it 
reviewed the plan and task force requirements under the BIL to make 
sure they align with each other and keep pace with the evolving nature 
of impaired driving problems across the nation. The agency is concerned 
about the increasing number of impaired driving fatalities, including 
those that are associated with a rise in drug impairment. When the task 
force requirement was originally implemented nearly 10 years ago, the 
agency focused mostly on ensuring that members of law enforcement and 
the criminal justice system were represented. We understand now that 
other disciplines must be part of the process. As the agency explained 
in its proposal, the newly identified groups align with a specific part 
of the required impaired driving plan--i.e., communications and 
community engagement respond to the plan requirements on communications 
and prevention; public health aligns with alcohol and drug misuse; and 
drug impaired driving countermeasures align with alcohol and drug 
misuse and criminal justice systems. Although the agency identified 
specific groups as a minimum baseline, States are free to add other 
groups.
    The Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers requested that 
their members be considered as a group for inclusion on task forces as 
opposed to making a more general reference to ignition interlocks. With 
the exception of the State highway safety office, the agency has not 
identified specific groups or organizations for inclusion on task 
forces under these requirements and we decline to take that approach 
now. We believe it is more appropriate to maintain flexibility and 
identify only broad stakeholder areas from which the State are free to 
select individual members. In addition to the specific areas identified 
in the requirement, as we have noted in the past, States may consider 
adding individual members from areas representing 24-7 sobriety 
programs, driver licensing, data and traffic records, ignition 
interlock, treatment and rehabilitation, and alcohol beverage control. 
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, however, and States retain 
significant discretion to determine the groups to be represented on the 
required task force, subject only to ensuring that the specified areas 
are covered.
    Mitchell Berger urged that the task force requirements be revised 
to include ``behavioral health providers,'' such as ``psychiatrists, 
child and adolescent psychiatrists, addiction psychiatrists, addiction 
medicine specialists, psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, 
licensed professional counselors, and marriage and family therapists.'' 
He stated that this type of expertise is necessary to address the parts 
of an impaired driving plan that focus on prevention, screening and 
treatment. In general, NHTSA agrees that a State should consider adding 
such expertise to its task force, provided the focus of the task force 
remains on confronting the problems of impaired driving. In recognition 
of the value of this and similar expertise, the NPRM includes public 
health as one of the broad groups that must be represented in some way 
on the task force, while stopping short of prescriptive language to 
afford flexibility.
    GHSA sought clarification about whether the HSP is the appropriate 
reference for an Appendix B provision that covers high-range States and 
their responsibility to submit updated information on an annual basis 
in the HSP. We confirm that the proposal inadvertently retained the 
reference to the HSP from the prior rule. The agency has revised the 
reference to indicate that the updated information must be provided in 
the annual grant application, consistent with the statutory 
requirement.
2. Grants to States With Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Laws (23 CFR 
1300.23(g))
    The NPRM explained that the BIL continued a grant from prior 
authorizations providing grant funds to

[[Page 7797]]

States that adopted and enforced mandatory alcohol-ignition interlock 
laws for all individuals convicted of a DUI offense. In addition to the 
existing qualification criterion, the BIL added two alternate methods 
of compliance, allowing a State to receive a grant if it restricts 
driving privileges of an individual convicted of driving under the 
influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated until the 
individual installs on each motor vehicle registered, owned, or leased 
an ignition interlock for a period of not less than 180 days; or, 
separately, if the State requires an individual that refuses a test to 
determine the presence or concentration of an intoxicating substance to 
install an interlock for a period of not less than 180 days. The latter 
criterion also requires the State to have a compliance-based interlock 
removal program that requires an individual convicted of a DUI to have 
an interlock installed for not less than 180 days and to serve a 
minimum period of interlock use without program violations before 
removal of the interlock. 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6)(ii)-(iii). Due to some 
confusion over preamble language in the NPRM, the Coalition of Ignition 
Interlock Manufacturers and Responsibility.org sought confirmation that 
the agency's proposal implements three separate compliance methods for 
the grant. NHTSA confirms that, consistent with the BIL, the NPRM 
proposes three ways for a State to achieve compliance. In response to 
these comments, the agency has reviewed its proposal and determined 
that no changes to the regulatory text are necessary.
3. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.23(j))
    As noted in the NPRM, the BIL specified the eligible uses of grant 
funds and the agency's proposal included them without change. The 
agency received two comments regarding the use of grant funds. The 
Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers stated that ``impaired 
driving enforcement is an activity the agency should aggressively 
support and fund . . . [and] reject any attempts to redirect funding to 
other activities.'' The eligible uses of these grant funds under BIL 
are broader than impaired driving enforcement. States may use impaired 
driving countermeasures grant funds for any of the purposes identified 
in the statute. Consistent with its longstanding approach, the agency 
declines to prioritize the uses and States may use grant funds for any 
activities that meet applicable requirements.
    In developing its proposal, the agency responded to a comment 
regarding a new BIL provision that allowed grant funding to be used to 
provide compensation for a law enforcement officer to carry out safety 
grant activities while another law enforcement officer is temporarily 
away receiving drug recognition expert training or participating as an 
instructor in drug recognition expert training (the ``backfill'' 
provision). The comment sought expansion of the provision to compensate 
officers who are not involved in grant eligible activities. As the 
agency explained in the NPRM, the backfill provision allows police 
agencies to send officers to training without sacrificing overall 
levels of service, but the law expressly limits compensation to law 
enforcement officers that carry out highway safety grant activities. 23 
U.S.C. 405(d)(4)(B)(iii). Responsibility.org opposed the approach of 
limiting funding to compensating officers carrying out safety grant 
activities. The commenter urged ``NHTSA to reassess the legislative 
intent authorizing the use of grant funds to allow for backfills to 
include both safety and non-safety grant activities.''
    Where the statute is clear, as it is in this case, the agency does 
not have authority to follow another approach or expand the statutory 
language, which is what the comment asks the agency to do. Accordingly, 
we decline to make this change in the final rule. In NHTSA's view, 
Congress limited the backfill provision to traffic safety activities so 
that NHTSA grant funds remain connected to their traffic safety 
purpose. We note that the traffic safety activities that would allow 
for compensation need not be limited to alcohol impaired driving 
countermeasure activities under Section 405d; any NHTSA-funded traffic 
safety activities may be eligible. However, because the statute hinges 
the ability to backfill on whether the officer to be replaced is out 
for DRE training or to serve as a DRE instructor, it is likely in the 
majority of instances that backfill compensation would apply to 
impaired driving activities.

F. Distracted Driving Grants (23 CFR 1300.24)

    As noted in the NPRM, few States qualified for a distracted driving 
grant under the statutory requirements of MAP-21 and the FAST Act. The 
BIL resets the distracted driving incentive grant program by 
significantly amending the statutory compliance criteria. The statute 
establishes two types of distracted driving grants--distracted driving 
awareness on the driver's license examination and distracted driving 
laws. A State may qualify for both types of distracted driving grants. 
As proposed in the NPRM, a State may qualify for a distracted driving 
law with four different types of laws: (1) prohibition on texting while 
driving; (2) prohibition on handheld phone use while driving; (3) 
prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving; and (4) prohibition 
on viewing a personal wireless communications device while driving.
    In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received only two comments, both 
from GHSA regarding technical corrections to Part 6 of appendix B, 
under the heading ``Prohibition on Viewing Devices While Driving''. The 
agency accepts those technical corrections, removing the apostrophe 
from ``driver's'' and aligning the legal citation requirement to match 
the statutory language to read ``prohibition on viewing devices while 
driving''. In addition, NHTSA makes an additional technical correction 
to Part 6 of appendix B--removing the requirement to identify 
exemptions for State laws banning viewing devices while driving. This 
correction aligns Part 6 of appendix B with the regulatory text in 
Sec.  1300.24(d)(4)-(5).

G. Motorcyclist Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.25)

    Under BIL, Congress amended the Motorcyclist Safety Grants by 
adding a new criterion for a State to qualify for a grant if it has a 
helmet law that requires the use of a helmet for each motorcycle rider 
under the age of 18, and made a minor terminology change to ``crash'' 
from accident in two paragraphs. The NPRM proposed amendments to 
incorporate these changes and to update references for the new 
triennial framework. NHTSA received no comments related to the 
motorcycle safety grants and therefore proposes no further changes to 
the regulatory text in this final rule.

H. Nonmotorized Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.26)

    The BIL changed the nonmotorized safety grant program with a 
revised definition of nonmotorized road user to include, not just 
pedestrians and bicyclists, but also an individual using a nonmotorized 
mode of transportation, including a bicycle, scooter, or personal 
conveyance and an individual using a low-speed or low-horse powered 
motorized vehicle, including an electric bicycle, electric scooter, 
personal mobility assistance device, personal transporter, or all-
terrain vehicle. In addition, the BIL made significant amendments to 
the use of funds for the

[[Page 7798]]

nonmotorized safety grant program, providing States with additional 
flexibility to use behavioral safety countermeasures that will best 
address the nonmotorized road user problem, both at the State level and 
at the local level.
    NHTSA received three comments regarding the nonmotorized safety 
grants. GHSA and the League of American Bicyclists both commented on 
the requirement to identify projects and subrecipients in the annual 
grant application. In the NPRM, the agency proposed changing the self-
certification as the application for a nonmotorized safety grant that 
existed under the previous regulation and requiring States to submit a 
list of project(s) and subrecipient(s) information in the fiscal year 
of the grant consistent with Sec.  1300.12(b)(2). NHTSA proposed this 
change to align the application requirements with the other highway 
safety grants. The League of American Bicyclists agreed with the 
proposed change stating that this information would improve 
understanding of funding uses, facilitate comparisons and best 
practices, and align with other grant programs. GHSA agreed that the 
proposal aligned with other application requirements, but requested 
further justification for the additional burden this would impose on 
States because there were no changes in the underlying statute.
    NHTSA disagrees that there were no changes to the underlying 
statute. Not only did the statute change the definition of nonmotorized 
user, the basis for determining eligibility for a grant, but it also 
significantly expanded the eligible use of grant funds for a 
nonmotorized safety grant. Previously, the FAST Act limited the use of 
funds to activities related to State traffic laws on pedestrian and 
bicycle safety, such as law enforcement training, mobilizations and 
campaigns, and public education and awareness programs. However, BIL's 
broadened eligible use of funds provide States with the flexibility to 
use behavioral safety countermeasures that will best address the 
nonmotorized road user problem, both at the State level and at the 
local level. In addition to aligning with the other grant application 
requirements, project-level details allow NHTSA to evaluate whether the 
submitted projects are sufficient to reasonably carry out the 
countermeasure strategies in the State's triennial HSP and to check for 
high-level regulatory compliance issues. This information is also be 
needed to identify projects against later submitted vouchers. 
Accordingly, NHTSA declines to amend the grant application requirement 
set forth in the NPRM in response to GHSA's comment.
    The League of American Bicyclists also commented that NHTSA should 
publish or share information on the use of nonmotorized safety grant 
funds for educational efforts on the interaction between the built 
environment and behavior. The BIL requires NHTSA to establish a public 
website that publishes each State's triennial HSP, performance targets, 
and evaluation of a State's achievement of performance targets. See 23 
U.S.C. 402(n)(1). The statute also requires that the public be provided 
a means to search the public website for ``program areas and 
expenditures''. See 23 U.S.C. 402(n)(2)(B)(III). Consistent with this 
requirement, NHTSA expects to publish information about State 
expenditures supporting the triennial highway safety plan, including 
grant expenditures from Section 405 grants, on this public website. No 
changes to the final rule are necessary in response to this comment.

I. Preventing Roadside Deaths Grants (23 CFR 1300.27)

    The BIL created a new preventing roadside deaths grant program, 
authorizing grants to prevent deaths and injuries from crashes 
involving motor vehicles striking other vehicles and individuals 
stopped at the roadside.
    HAAS Alert expressed concern that countermeasure strategies for 23 
U.S.C. 405(h) are not available in NHTSA's Countermeasures That Work 
and noted that it is unclear when the guidance will be updated to 
include a section related to preventing roadside deaths. It recommended 
that NHTSA offer guidance on this program or offer amended or separate 
guidance as soon as possible to guide State applicants. HAAS Alert also 
noted that, due to the limited guidance on countermeasures, NHTSA 
should minimize administrative burden to avoid constricting States and 
permit maximum flexibility.
    As with any new traffic safety program, proven and effective 
countermeasures may be unavailable at the nascent stages. NHTSA 
encourages States to use data-driven, innovative approaches, and will 
support a State that seeks to implement a preventing roadside deaths 
grant. NHTSA's traffic safety grant programs provide flexibility for 
States to run programs that respond to their problem identification; 
however, a State should design a new program that is based on the 
provisions of the authorizing statute and implementing regulations for 
effective execution and sustained success.
1. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.27(b))
    The MN DPS recommended that NHTSA increase flexibility by using 
broad language and terms for the preventing roadside deaths grants, 
taking into consideration the continually evolving technology. 
Similarly, GHSA recommended that the definition of ``digital alert 
technology'' be further generalized to better reflect the statute 
(which does not specify that alerts pertain to vehicles, that the 
vehicles be stopped at the roadside, or the specific means by which a 
motorist would receive an alert) and to anticipate future potential 
technological developments. HAAS Alert suggested that ``digital alert 
technology'' be expanded to include ``roadside professionals'' other 
than first responders (State-owned, contracted, or funded fleets and 
roadside workers like roadside assistance/towing providers, 
construction and work zone crews, school busses, snowplows, etc.). HAAS 
Alert added that these ``roadside professionals'' face the same risk as 
first responders, and drivers must slow down and move over in nearly 
every State.
    NHTSA agrees that the definition of ``digital alert technology'' 
should not limit the technology to a specific type or be limited to 
certain locations. By removing such potential limitations, States will 
have the flexibility to develop innovative strategies to prevent 
roadside deaths. Accordingly, NHTSA is amending the definition as 
follows: ``Digital alert technology means a system that provides 
electronic notification to drivers.'' Note that the agency removed the 
term ``first responders'' since the statutory language specifically 
addresses the capability of the technology to reach these road users. 
We decline to expand the definition to include ``roadside 
professionals'' as proposed by HAAS Alert, to avoid appearing to single 
out particular categories of individuals.
    GHSA commented that NHTSA does not need a definition of ``public 
information campaign'' because it is a commonly understood term similar 
to other terms NHTSA did not define, such as ``educating the public,'' 
``paid media,'' ``earned media,'' ``education campaign,'' 
``advertising,'' and ``public awareness.'' In contrast to GHSA, HAAS 
Alert requested that NHTSA specifically clarify that the definition of 
``public information campaign'' must include digital alert technology, 
because HAAS Alert contends that the technology is itself a messaging 
delivery mechanism for traffic safety issues.

[[Page 7799]]

    After consideration of these comments, NHTSA retains the definition 
of ``public information campaign'' as proposed in the NPRM. In our 
experience, ``public information campaign'' is not a commonly 
understood term and does not have a uniform meaning among States. NHTSA 
believes that a definition will provide a baseline for States that will 
facilitate the education of motorists when using funds pursuant to 
paragraph 1300.27(e)(2). We also believe that HAAS Alert's proposal to 
compel digital alert technology would limit States' broad flexibility 
to educate the public as contemplated by Congress. If NHTSA required a 
specific mechanism in the deployment of public information campaigns, 
it would unduly limit options, curtail innovation, and potentially 
reduce the reach of campaigns to educate the public.
2. Qualification Criteria (23 CFR 1300.27(c))
    GHSA commented that the proposal's detailed requirements for the 
plan that States would be required to submit are similar to the 
requirements that States would have to meet under sections 1300.11(b) 
1, 3 and 4. GHSA proposes that if a State establishes this information 
and underpins the basis of a roadside safety program in its triennial 
HSP, it should be able to refer back to the triennial HSP. GHSA 
contends this is an approach similar to the approach for other Section 
405 grant programs, with the project information included in the annual 
grant application. The MN DPS echoed these comments.
    NHTSA's proposed approach for a plan that includes minimum 
requirements separate from the triennial HSP is consistent with the 
statute and other 405 grant programs. To obtain a preventing roadside 
deaths grant, a State must submit annually a plan that describes how 
the State will use the grant funds. See 23 U.S.C. 405(h). Consistent 
with the statute, NHTSA believes it is appropriate for a State to 
provide minimum information in the annual grant application, consistent 
with 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(3), to permit NHTSA to determine whether a State 
will use the funds appropriately for the fiscal year of the grant. 
Other 405 grants, such as Occupant Protection, State Traffic Safety 
Information System Improvement, and Motorcyclist Safety also require 
the submission of specific performance targets and countermeasure 
strategies without reference to the triennial HSP. While we have made 
some minor, non-substantive editorial changes, NHTSA adopts section 
1300.27(c) as proposed.
3. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.27(e))
    NHTSA received three comments related to the use of preventing 
roadside deaths grant funds from GHSA, the MN DPS and HAAS Alert.
    GHSA recommended that NHTSA address whether 1300.27(e)(5) (funding 
efforts to increase the visibility of stopped and disabled vehicles) 
authorizes States to purchase equipment or safety items for public 
distribution as defined in NHTSA's 2016 Guidance on Use of NHTSA 
Highway Safety Grant Funds for Certain Purchases,\28\ such as vehicle 
reflectivity gear. The MN DPS requested further clarification about the 
allowable use of funds for all equipment purchases under the grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Publicly available on NHTSA's website at https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/guidance-documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA declines to address authorization for purchase of specific 
items of equipment under the preventing roadside deaths grant generally 
and, specifically, under section 1300.27(e)(5) at this time. As 
mentioned previously in this preamble, NHTSA recognizes that some 
existing guidance may require modification or recission as a result of 
changes to the statute and this rule. We intend to begin reviewing 
existing guidance after this rulemaking is complete and will consider 
the comments from GHSA and MN DPS at that time. Until that time, 
however, we note that the 2016 guidance provides that States may 
purchase items whose sole purpose is to improve highway safety, 
provided those items are specifically identified in a project agreement 
and based on problem ID. All equipment purchases must be necessary for 
the purpose of a project that is based on problem identification, 
performance measures and targets, and countermeasure strategies, and 
must be consistent with the provisions in 2 CFR part 200 and 1201, and 
23 CFR 1300.31.
    HAAS Alert requested that NHTSA amend or remove three types of 
eligible use (public education, enforcement efforts, and State records) 
since they are already eligible for funding under other 402 and 405 
programs. HAAS Alert speculates that States will allocate their funding 
to already-existing efforts instead of innovative life-saving 
equipment. HAAS Alert also commented that less emphasis should be given 
to enforcement as a traffic safety countermeasure. NHTSA declines to 
amend, deemphasize, or remove the three types of eligible uses 
identified in 1300.27(e)(2)-(4), as those three uses are specifically 
authorized by the statute.

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

    The BIL created a new driver and officer safety education grant 
program, authorizing incentive grants to States that enact and enforce 
laws or adopt and implement programs that include certain information 
on law enforcement practices during traffic stops in driver education 
and driving safety courses or peace officer training programs, or that 
have taken meaningful steps to do so. 23 U.S.C. 405(i).
    The BIL provides that States may qualify for a driver and officer 
safety education grant in one of two ways: (a) with a current law or 
program that requires specified information to be provided in either 
driver education and driving safety courses or peace officer training 
programs (i.e., law or program State); or (b) for a period not to 
exceed 5 years, by providing proof that the State is taking meaningful 
steps towards establishing such a law or program (i.e., qualifying 
State). 23 U.S.C. 405(i)(4). In the NPRM, NHTSA identified an incorrect 
reference within the proposed regulatory text, and has amended Sec.  
1300.28(g)(3) to provide that any funds remaining after the funding 
limitation in Sec.  1300.28(g)(2) is applied to qualifying States will 
be redistributed to States that qualify for a grant under paragraph (d) 
(i.e., law or program States).
    The League of American Bicyclists requested that NHTSA make 
available to the public any documentation, including curricula, that 
States submit as part of their application for a driver and officer 
safety education grant so that the public can analyze the documents 
provided. They also requested that NHTSA publish a report about the 
documents submitted with applications for this grant. NHTSA will 
evaluate whether to publish these materials. NHTSA does not intend to 
publish a report on the documentation provided in State's application 
materials at this time, but will keep this request in mind as the needs 
of the program develop.

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

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

[[Page 7800]]

the limitation that a State may not receive a grant by providing 
assurances for more than 2 fiscal years and amending the limitation on 
the maximum amount of funds a State may receive under the grant.
    The BIL also expanded the allowable uses of the grant funds awarded 
under the Section 1906 Program by allowing States to expend grant funds 
to develop and implement programs, public outreach, and training to 
reduce the impact of traffic stops. The League of American Bicyclists 
expressed appreciation for the expansion of allowable uses of funds and 
requested that NHTSA provide additional guidance on how States should 
differentiate between traffic stops and pretextual stops for the 
purposes of this grant program. NHTSA never condones a pretextual stop 
or racial profiling and, through the 1906 grant program, works to 
encourage States to enact and enforce laws that prohibit racial 
profiling in traffic law enforcement. When it comes to statistical 
information regarding the race and ethnicity of the driver in motor 
vehicle stops, the statute does not differentiate between stops that 
are pretextual in nature and those that are not. Indeed, the purpose of 
maintaining and allowing public inspection of data gathered about the 
race and ethnicity of drivers in all motor vehicle traffic stops is a 
step towards better understanding the problem that needs to be solved.
    The League of American Bicyclists also suggested that the new, 
dedicated technical assistance for the Section 1906 grant program be 
conducted by a third-party, reasoning that it would provide more 
insight into best practices, barriers to State use of grant funds, or 
other issues. Annually, the BIL makes available up to 10 percent of 
Section 1906 grant funds to provide technical assistance to States. 
NHTSA is committed to providing technical assistance to States as they 
work to implement traffic safety programs, including Section 1906, and 
has many years of experience doing so. As part of this effort, NHTSA is 
currently in the process of procuring contract support, which may 
include assistance with information exchanges to discuss needs and 
opportunities, a repository of best practices, and a suite of 
assistance tools.

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

A. Amendments to the Annual Grant Applications (23 CFR 1300.32)

    The CT HSO reiterated its prior comment expressing concern about 
the amount of time it currently takes NHTSA to approve amendments to 
the HSP and asked that NHTSA consider changes to requirements for 
amendments to the annual grant application, such as potentially setting 
a funding threshold for requiring approval. NHTSA appreciates the 
feedback and will continue to strive to respond promptly to States. We 
acknowledge that the new requirement for States to submit project-level 
information in the annual grant application and to update it throughout 
the year will likely increase the number of amendments that States need 
to make and that Regional offices need to approve. In order to reduce 
this pressure, NHTSA has amended the regulatory language to provide 
that States may amend certain project level information in the annual 
grant applications (23 CFR 1300(b)(2)(iii-vii)) without the approval of 
the Regional Administrator unless prior approval is otherwise required 
under 2 CFR 200.407. Examples of amendments that require approval under 
2 CFR 200.407 are specific costs related to equipment and changes to 
the amount of Federal funds that are significant enough to change the 
scope of the effort. The agency will provide further guidance.
    With this change, States may amend the project agreement number, 
subrecipient information, amount of Federal funds, eligible use of 
funds, and whether the costs are P&A costs. We recognize that details 
such as these may evolve as a State finalizes implementation of its 
program, without affecting the fundamental nature and purpose of a 
project. However, any such changes must be consistent with the project 
name, purpose, and description, the Federal funding source(s), the 
countermeasure strategy for programming funds identified for the 
project, and, as noted earlier, not otherwise require approval under 2 
CFR 200.407. NHTSA has also made edits to the title of this regulatory 
provision and conforming amendments to 23 CFR 1300.23(e)(2) to reflect 
that not all amendments require approval by the Regional Administrator.

B. Vouchers and Project Agreements (23 CFR 1300.33)

    The NPRM proposed that, in addition to the information currently 
required to be in a voucher, States also provide the eligible use(s) of 
funds that the voucher covers. 23 CFR 1300.33(b)(3). This addition was 
intended to ensure that NHTSA has the information necessary to 
understand the costs that are being vouchered for prior to approving 
reimbursements and to assist subsequent audits and reviews. GHSA 
commented that this addition would create substantial administrative 
burdens for States because they would need to update internal systems 
in order to add this information. GHSA also noted that this information 
is already required for the project information that States must 
include, and update, in the annual grant application.
    Vouchers allow both the State and NHTSA to identify details about 
the expenditures for which a State is seeking reimbursement and to 
ensure that the expenditures match the project information provided in 
the State's annual grant application and meet Federal requirements. A 
voucher is separate and distinct from the project list in the annual 
grant application because it is tied to specific expenditures for which 
the State seeks reimbursement at a point in time, and it serves as the 
official request for reimbursement of expenses. Moreover, at the time 
of voucher submission, a State must necessarily be deemed to know, with 
certainty, the expenses for which it is submitting the voucher to the 
Federal Government. NHTSA therefore does not agree that it would pose a 
substantial burden for States to provide such information and declines 
to remove ``eligible use(s)'' of funds from the required voucher 
information. The information is necessary to ensure a proper audit 
trail.
    We also, as explained above, made a minor edit to the regulatory 
text to reflect that not all amendments require approval by the 
Regional Administrator. Finally, we made a technical amendment to 
ensure consistent terminology related to the requirement for local 
expenditure.

C. Annual Report (23 CFR 1300.35)

    As explained in the NPRM, consistent with OMB rules that apply to 
all Federal grants,\29\ NHTSA has long required each State to submit an 
annual report providing performance and financial information on the 
State's activities during the grant year. 23 CFR 1300.35. The BIL 
codified the requirement and specified that the annual report must 
include an assessment of the State's progress in achieving performance 
targets identified in the triennial HSP and a description of the extent 
to which that progress is aligned with the State's triennial HSP. The 
BIL also provided that the State must describe any plans to adjust the 
strategy for programming funds in order to achieve performance

[[Page 7801]]

targets, if applicable. See 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Currently implemented at 2 CFR 200.328 and 200.329 
(financial and performance reporting, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GHSA, supported by the MoDOT, reiterated its prior comment 
requesting that NHTSA limit the annual report to the components 
explicitly required by the BIL. As NHTSA explained in the NPRM, the 
annual report serves many purposes for NHTSA's grant program, including 
implementing government-wide grant reporting rules issued by OMB. The 
annual report not only satisfies the requirements of the BIL, but it 
also serves as the State's required annual performance report, 
consistent with 2 CFR 200.329. It also satisfies the government-wide 
requirement that Federal award recipients must submit annual financial 
reports. See 2 CFR 200.328.\30\ Finally, the contents of the annual 
report foster transparency in the results achieved with taxpayer funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ NHTSA has an exemption that allows the agency to use its 
own financial reporting, instead of commonly used and OMB-approved 
Federal Financial Report. 2 CFR 1200.327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA sought comment in the NPRM on whether a mandatory template 
for the annual report would be helpful for States. GHSA stated that the 
development of annual reports is a longstanding practice that would not 
benefit from a mandatory template. MN DPS argued that States should be 
allowed to continue to use their existing templates for annual reports. 
Based on these comments, NHTSA will not develop a mandatory template 
for the annual report, but cautions that, while States are welcome to 
use their own templates, an existing template based on the annual 
report requirements under the FAST Act will not satisfy the 
requirements for an annual report under this regulation and will need 
to be updated. Similar to other grant program submissions, NHTSA 
expects that the e-grant system that the agency plans to develop may 
provide a uniform submission format for this requirement in the future.
    GHSA, MN DPS, and MoDOT recommended removing the proposed 
requirement that the annual report include a description of how the 
projects funded under the prior year annual grant application 
contributed to meeting the State's highway safety performance targets, 
and instead only require reporting of overall statewide performance 
progress. They argued that there is no legal basis to require a 
project-by-project analysis and that to do so would be burdensome 
because States have hundreds of individual project agreements. NHTSA 
agrees that it is not necessary for States to report progress on each 
project separately, but that the State's assessment must nonetheless 
cover all activities (which may consist of a group of related projects) 
implemented by the State during the grant year, including projects 
carried out via subaward(s). We have amended the regulatory text to 
clarify that the State's performance assessment must include an 
analysis of all State activities. Sec.  1300.35(a)(1)(ii). While States 
must assess the how all projects contributed to meeting the State's 
performance targets, they may do so by grouping related projects 
together into a single activity for assessment. Government-wide grant 
rules require that subrecipients submit performance reports to the 
State within 90 days of the end of the performance period. 2 CFR 
200.329(c)(1). This deadline is intentionally set 30 days prior to the 
120-day deadline for State performance reporting so that those results 
may be incorporated into the overall analysis conducted by the State.
    GHSA noted that the proposal requires States to provide an 
explanation in both the annual grant application and the annual report 
of how the State plans to adjust countermeasure strategies to achieve 
performance targets if the State has not met or is not on track to meet 
those targets. It acknowledged that this duplication is based on the 
requirements of the BIL, but asked that NHTSA minimize duplication by 
allowing for high-level strategic planning in the annual report, with 
project-level plans in the annual grant application. As GHSA 
acknowledged, the BIL requires States to explain plans to adjust 
countermeasure strategies in both the annual report and annual grant 
application. NHTSA does not have discretion to ignore either statutory 
requirement. However, the two requirements are distinguishable as the 
State is required to provide plans to adjust the countermeasure 
strategy for programming funds in the annual report, but then to 
explain how the countermeasure strategy for programming funds was 
actually adjusted in the annual grant application. States have the 
flexibility to change or adjust their plans in the time between the 
annual report and the annual grant application, and the nature of their 
reporting in each of these documents should reflect these nuances.
    GHSA provided several arguments for condensing or streamlining the 
activity report section of the annual report. GHSA requested that NHTSA 
link the triennial HSP, annual grant applications, and annual reports 
through implementation of an e-grants system, not through duplicative 
reporting requirements. Both GHSA and MN DPS requested that NHTSA avoid 
duplicative reporting requirements and noted that some of the 
requirements in the activity report duplicate requirements in the 
annual grant application or vouchers. As explained in more detail 
below, NHTSA's intent in this rulemaking is to implement the BIL 
requirements, which include a strong link between the triennial HSP, 
annual grant applications, and annual reports, while avoiding 
unnecessary duplication.
    GHSA specifically pointed to duplicative project information 
reporting that it argued is proposed in both 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2), 23 
CFR 1300.33(b) and 23 CFR 1300.35(b)(1)(i), and requested that NHTSA 
remove the requirement about project information from the annual report 
and instead require States only to provide an explanation of the 
projects that were not implemented in the year. NHTSA agrees that it is 
unnecessary to separately collect project information in both the 
annual grant application and the annual report, because States are 
required to maintain updated project information in the annual grant 
application throughout the course of the grant year. We have therefore 
removed the proposed requirement for States to provide a description in 
the annual report of the projects and activities funded and implemented 
for each countermeasure strategy and will rely on the project 
information in the annual grant application instead. In order to ensure 
that the project information is complete, NHTSA has added a statement 
that project information must be complete in the annual grant 
application at the time the State submits the annual report. 23 CFR 
1300.12(d).
    GHSA also pointed to the activity report requirements about the 
State's ongoing public engagement efforts proposed in the triennial HSP 
at 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2) and also proposed in the annual report at 23 
CFR 1300.35(b)(2), and requested that NHTSA eliminate this section of 
the annual report. GHSA stated that the BIL does not require States to 
link their projects to their engagement activities. NHTSA declines to 
eliminate the requirement to describe how public engagement efforts 
informed projects conducted during the grant year. However, we have 
made revisions to clarify that States need not describe how public 
participation and engagement efforts informed every individual project. 
Rather, States must describe the public participation and engagement 
efforts conducted during the grant year and explain how those efforts 
generally informed the projects

[[Page 7802]]

implemented under the State's countermeasure strategies. Sec.  
1300.35(b)(2). As revised, the provisions in the triennial HSP and the 
annual report are now distinguishable, as the State is required to 
provide information on the public participation and engagement efforts 
that the State plans to undertake and how it plans to incorporate the 
comments and views received into State decision-making during the 3-
year period in the triennial HSP, but then to provide a description of 
the public participation and engagement efforts actually carried out 
and how those efforts actually informed the State's program during the 
grant year in the annual report.
    GHSA requested that NHTSA remove proposed activity report 
requirements related to activities covered by the certifications and 
assurances States provide with the annual grant application, arguing 
that certifications are designed to be attestations without supporting 
documentation. NHTSA disagrees with this view and declines to remove 
activity report requirements. As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, 
NHTSA implements several threshold grant requirements through 
certifications and assurances up front, but it is appropriate and 
important for grant oversight that NHTSA obtain year-end information to 
ensure that States have met those assurances. While certifications and 
assurances are front-end attestations at the time of application, 
States must be ready and able to provide documentation during and after 
performance that requirements have been met, in support of NHTSA's 
grant oversight responsibilities. Upon review of the assurances, 
however, the agency noted that one of the assurances reflects 
discontinued practice. Accordingly, the agency has removed the 
assurance that the State will submit information regarding mobilization 
participation into the HVE Database. As discussed below, that 
information is now reported by States in the annual report. See 23 CFR 
1300.35(b)(4).
    GHSA and MN DPS had several comments about the proposed evidence-
based enforcement program requirements. The agency's proposal requires 
States to describe the evidence-based enforcement program activities in 
the annual report, including discussion of the community collaboration 
efforts and data collection and analysis required by the BIL. See 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E). GHSA, supported by MN DPS, recommended that the 
annual report focus on discussing community collaboration activities 
and efforts related to the BIL's requirement for evidence-based 
enforcement program activities instead of discussing the State's 
evidence-based enforcement program activities including community 
collaboration and data collection and analysis. NHTSA believes that a 
discussion of community collaboration and data collection and analysis 
activities, without the added context of the full data-based 
enforcement program, would not sufficiently capture the way in which 
the community collaboration and data collection and analysis both 
inform and grow out of the data-based enforcement program. GHSA argued 
that requiring discussion of the data-based enforcement program is 
duplicative of the project list in the annual grant application. NHTSA 
disagrees. The annual report requirement provides narrative context to 
the activities conducted and links those activities to the State's 
responsibility to support enforcement programs that foster community 
collaboration and data collection and analysis. Accordingly, NHTSA 
makes no changes to the regulatory text proposed in the NPRM.
    GHSA and MN DPS requested that NHTSA provide more information about 
the substance of the proposed requirement that States support data-
based enforcement programs that foster effective community 
collaboration. Because those comments were tied to the annual report 
requirement to discuss these efforts, we address them here. GHSA argued 
that the proposed requirement for evidence-based enforcement programs 
should be limited to State program efforts, or at the countermeasure 
strategy level, not to individual enforcement programs. GHSA noted that 
this would be comparable to the public engagement requirements in the 
triennial HSP. NHTSA disagrees. As noted in the NPRM, the proposed 
requirement that States support enforcement programs that foster 
community collaboration is separate, though related, to the proposed 
requirement that State traffic safety programs result from meaningful 
public participation and engagement. The proposed community 
collaboration requirement is specifically placed on enforcement 
programs, not merely on the State's highway safety program. While 
States are not required to ensure that every single enforcement agency 
that receives a subaward undertakes community collaboration efforts 
related to the grant, States must discuss their efforts to facilitate 
community collaboration by enforcement agencies and discuss community 
collaboration efforts that do take place. NHTSA makes no changes to the 
NPRM in response to these comments.
    GHSA and MN DPS requested that NHTSA afford States flexibility in 
the manner in which they carry out the required community collaboration 
efforts. At the same time, MN DPS sought further guidance on what NHTSA 
expects to see in terms of community collaboration activities. While 
NHTSA supports flexibility and the regulatory language does not 
prescribe specific activities to meet the evidence-based enforcement 
program requirements, we note that States must meet the statutory 
requirement. The BIL requires that the State highway safety program 
must support data-driven traffic safety enforcement programs that 
foster effective community collaboration to increase public safety. See 
23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E)(i). As written, this requires the State to 
support individual enforcement programs that foster effective community 
collaboration. NHTSA expects States to, at a minimum, also discuss 
actions that enforcement programs in the State have taken to facilitate 
community collaboration during the grant year. This provision is 
essential to ensuring that highway safety programs carried out by law 
enforcement agencies are equitable and community-based. While there 
certainly are actions that States can undertake or sponsor to 
facilitate community collaboration in enforcement programs within the 
State, an annual report discussion focused only on State-level programs 
or countermeasure strategies would be insufficient to ensure that 
States are meeting the requirement to facilitate evidence-based 
enforcement programs that foster community collaboration throughout the 
State.
    Finally, GHSA requested that NHTSA clarify what information States 
are expected to have on file related to community collaboration during 
NHTSA oversight activities. While the specific documentation may vary 
depending on specific circumstances, the documentation on file must 
demonstrate that the State is satisfying the statutory requirement and 
must support the narrative description provided in the State's annual 
reports.

VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

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

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of 
Transportation's

[[Page 7803]]

regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not 
reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. This 
action establishes revised uniform procedures implementing State 
highway safety grant programs, as a result of enactment of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, also referred to as the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL). While this 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 and non-
controversial. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined to be not 
``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management 
and Budget.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. There are 5 
information collections associated with this final rule. NHTSA sought 
public comment on these information collections in the NPRM that was 
published on September 15, 2022 and submitted an information collection 
request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
    As OMB deferred review while NHTSA reviewed the comments to the 
NPRM, NHTSA is resubmitting the ICR for this final rule. NHTSA's ICR 
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected 
burden. As described in the NPRM, the ICR consists of the following 
information collections: (1) the submission of a triennial Highway 
Safety Plan (triennial HSP); (2) the submission of an annual grant 
application; (3) the submission of an annual report; (4) responses 
provided by States who wish to apply for Section 405(b) occupant 
protection grant funds using the occupant protection grant assessment 
criterion; and (5) responses provided by States who wish to apply for 
Section 405(d) impaired driving grant funds using the impaired driving 
grant assessment criterion.
    NHTSA did not receive any comments in response to the ICR, but 
received several comments to the rulemaking docket that pertain to the 
information collections. Those comments are discussed in full in the 
preamble to this final rule, above. As we explained in the preamble, 
NHTSA strove to minimize duplication of submissions and to reduce 
administrative burdens throughout the rulemaking, consistent with legal 
requirements. For the triennial HSP, NHTSA amended the regulatory text 
to require States to provide a narrative description of engagement 
opportunities conducted, rather than provide an exhaustive list (Sec.  
1300.11(b)(2)(ii)) and added two additional resources that States can 
cite to without further need to justify use of a countermeasure 
strategy; (Sec.  1300.11(b)(4)(ii)(A)); and clarified the level of 
detail required in the triennial HSP performance report (Sec.  
1300.11(b)(5)). For the annual grant application, NHTSA amended the 
provision relating to amendments to the annual grant application to 
provide that some amendments do not require approval by the Regional 
Administrator. Sec.  1300.32. For the annual report,

[[Page 7804]]

NHTSA amended the regulatory text to clarify that the performance 
report must describe how activities, rather than individual projects, 
contributed to meeting performance targets (Sec.  1300.35(a)(1)(ii)), 
and removed the requirement for States to provide a description of 
projects funded during the grant year in the annual report (Sec.  
1300.35(b)). NHTSA made no changes related to the occupant protection 
grant assessment or impaired driving grant assessment.
    NHTSA is submitting supporting statements to OMB explaining how the 
final rule's collections of information respond to the comments 
received from the public. None of the changes made in this final rule 
affect the estimates in the NPRM of these requirements.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and 
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 
likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million 
annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). This 
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

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

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

    The agency has analyzed this 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.

L. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

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

M. Privacy Act

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

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1300

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


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

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

Subpart A--General
Sec.
1300.1 Purpose.
1300.2 [Reserved]
1300.3 Definitions.
1300.4 State highway safety agency--authority and functions.
1300.5 Due dates--interpretation.
Subpart B--Triennial Highway Safety Plan and Annual Grant Application
1300.10 General.
1300.11 Triennial Highway Safety Plan.
1300.12 Annual grant application.
1300.13 Special funding conditions for Section 402 grants.
1300.14 [Reserved]
1300.15 Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.
Subpart C--National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection Grants
1300.20 General.
1300.21 Occupant Protection Grants.
1300.22 State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants.
1300.23 Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants.
1300.24 Distracted Driving Grants.
1300.25 Motorcyclist Safety Grants.
1300.26 Nonmotorized Safety Grants.
1300.27 Preventing Roadside Deaths Grants.
1300.28 Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants.
1300.29 Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants.
Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants
1300.30 General.
1300.31 Equipment.
1300.32 Amendments to annual grant applications.
1300.33 Vouchers and project agreements.
1300.34 Program income.
1300.35 Annual report.
1300.36 Appeals of written decision by the Regional Administrator.
Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation
1300.40 Expiration of the annual grant application.
1300.41 Disposition of unexpended balances.
1300.42 Post-grant adjustments.
1300.43 Continuing requirements.
Subpart F--Non-Compliance
1300.50 General.
1300.51 Sanctions--reduction of apportionment.
1300.52 Sanctions--risk assessment and non-compliance.
Appendix A to Part 1300--Certifications and Assurances for Highway 
Safety Grants.
Appendix B to Part 1300--Application requirements for Section 405 
and Section 1906 Grants.

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 402; 23 U.S.C. 405; Sec. 1906, Pub. L. 
109-59, 119 Stat. 1468, as amended by Sec. 25024, Pub. L. 117-58, 
135 Stat. 879; 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 section 25024, Public Law 117-58.

[[Page 7805]]

Sec.  1300.2  [Reserved]


Sec.  1300.3  Definitions.

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

[[Page 7806]]

public authority and open to public travel.
    Section 402 means section 402 of title 23 of the United States 
Code.
    Section 405 means section 405 of title 23 of the United States 
Code.
    Section 1906 means section 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by 
section 25024, Public Law 117-58.
    Serious injuries means ``suspected serious injury (A)'' as defined 
in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline, 5th 
Edition, as updated.
    State means, except as provided in Sec.  1300.25(b) for the program 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(f), 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)(12).
    State strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) means the plan defined 
in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13).
    Triennial Highway Safety Plan (triennial HSP) means the document 
that the State submits once every three fiscal years documenting its 
highway safety program, including the State's highway safety planning 
process and problem identification, public participation and 
engagement, performance plan, countermeasure strategy for programming 
funds, and performance report.
    Underserved populations means populations sharing a particular 
characteristic or geographic location that have been systematically 
denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, 
social, and civic life.


Sec.  1300.4  State highway safety agency--authority and functions.

    (a) In general. In order for a State to receive grant funds under 
this part, the Governor shall exercise responsibility for the highway 
safety program by appointing a Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety who shall be responsible for a State highway safety agency that 
has adequate powers and is suitably equipped and organized to carry out 
the State's highway safety program and for coordinating with the 
Governor and other State agencies. To effectively carry out these 
responsibilities and to avoid a potential conflict of interest, the 
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety must, at a minimum, have 
access to the Governor and either be the head of the State highway 
safety agency or be in the chain of command between the State highway 
safety agency and the Governor.
    (b) Authority. Each State highway safety agency shall be equipped 
and authorized to--
    (1) Develop and execute the triennial Highway Safety Plan, annual 
grant application, and highway safety program in the State;
    (2) Manage Federal grant funds effectively and efficiently and in 
accordance with all Federal and State requirements;
    (3) Foster meaningful public participation and engagement from 
affected communities;
    (4) Obtain information about highway safety programs and projects 
administered by other State and local agencies;
    (5) Maintain or have access to information contained in State 
highway safety data systems, including crash, citation or adjudication, 
emergency medical services/injury surveillance, roadway and vehicle 
recordkeeping systems, and driver license data;
    (6) Periodically review and comment to the Governor on the 
effectiveness of programs to improve highway safety in the State from 
all funding sources that the State plans to use for such purposes;
    (7) Provide financial and technical assistance to other State 
agencies and political subdivisions to develop and carry out highway 
safety strategies and projects; and
    (8) Establish and maintain adequate staffing to effectively plan, 
manage, and provide oversight of projects implemented under the annual 
grant application and to properly administer the expenditure of Federal 
grant funds.
    (c) Functions. Each State highway safety agency shall--
    (1) Develop and prepare the triennial HSP and annual grant 
application based on evaluation of highway safety data, including crash 
fatalities and injuries, roadway, driver, demographics and other data 
sources to identify safety problems within the State;
    (2) Establish projects to be funded within the State under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4 based on identified safety problems and priorities and 
projects under Section 1906;
    (3) Conduct risk assessments of subrecipients and monitor 
subrecipients based on risk, as provided in 2 CFR 200.332;
    (4) Provide direction, information and assistance to subrecipients 
concerning highway safety grants, procedures for participation, 
development of projects and applicable Federal and State regulations 
and policies;
    (5) Encourage and assist subrecipients to improve their highway 
safety planning and administration efforts;
    (6) Review, approve, and evaluate the implementation and 
effectiveness of State and local highway safety programs and projects 
from all funding sources that the State plans to use under the 
triennial HSP and annual grant application, and approve and monitor the 
expenditure of grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 
Section 1906;
    (7) Assess program performance through analysis of highway safety 
data and data-driven performance measures;
    (8) Ensure that the State highway safety program meets the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4, Section 1906, and applicable 
Federal and State laws, including but not limited to the standards for 
financial management systems required under 2 CFR 200.302 and internal 
controls required under 2 CFR 200.303;
    (9) Ensure that all legally required audits of the financial 
operations of the State highway safety agency and of the use of highway 
safety grant funds are conducted;
    (10) Track and maintain current knowledge of changes in State 
statutes or regulations that could affect State qualification for 
highway safety grants or transfer programs;
    (11) Coordinate the triennial HSP, annual grant application, and 
highway safety data collection and information systems activities with 
other federally and non-federally supported programs relating to or 
affecting highway safety, including the State SHSP as defined in 23 
U.S.C. 148(a); and
    (12) Administer Federal grant funds in accordance with Federal and 
State requirements, including 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201.


Sec.  1300.5  Due dates--interpretation.

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

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


Sec.  1300.10  General.

    To apply for any highway safety grant under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 
Section 1906, a State shall submit electronically and according to the 
due dates in Sec. Sec.  1300.11 and 1300.12--
    (a) A triennial Highway Safety Plan meeting the requirements of 
this subpart; and
    (b) An annual grant application.

[[Page 7807]]

Sec.  1300.11  Triennial Highway Safety Plan.

    The State's triennial Highway Safety Plan documents a three-year 
period of the State's highway safety program that is data-driven in 
establishing performance targets and selecting the countermeasure 
strategies for programming funds to meet those performance targets.
    (a) Due date for submission. A State shall submit its triennial 
Highway Safety Plan electronically to NHTSA no later than 11:59 p.m. 
EDT on July 1 preceding the first fiscal year covered by the plan. 
Failure to meet this deadline may result in delayed approval of the 
triennial Highway Safety Plan which could impact approval and funding 
under a State's annual grant application.
    (b) Contents. In order to be approved, the triennial highway safety 
plan submitted by the State must cover three fiscal years, beginning 
with the first fiscal year following submission of the plan, and 
contain the following components:
    (1) Highway safety planning process and problem identification. (i) 
Description of the processes, data sources and information used by the 
State in its highway safety planning (i.e., problem identification, 
public participation and engagement, performance measures, and 
countermeasure strategies); and
    (ii) Description and analysis of the State's overall highway safety 
problems as identified through an analysis of data, including but not 
limited to fatality, injury, enforcement, judicial, geospatial and 
sociodemographic data.
    (2) Public participation and engagement--(i) Triennial HSP 
engagement planning. Description of the State's public participation 
and engagement planning efforts in the highway safety planning process 
and program, including--
    (A) A statement of the State's starting goals for the public 
engagement efforts, including how the public engagement efforts will 
contribute to the development of the State's highway safety program, 
including countermeasure strategies for programming funds;
    (B) Identification of the affected and potentially affected 
communities, including particular emphasis on underserved communities 
and communities overrepresented in the data, (i.e., what communities 
did the State identify at the outset of the process) and a description 
of how those communities were identified;
    (ii) Triennial HSP engagement outcomes. A narrative description of 
the outcomes of the State's engagement efforts in the highway safety 
planning process, including--
    (A) The steps taken by the State to produce meaningful engagement 
with affected communities, including--
    (1) Engagement opportunities conducted and a description of how 
those opportunities were designed to reach the communities identified 
in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section;
    (2) Accessibility measures implemented by the State in its outreach 
efforts and in conducting engagement opportunities;
    (B) The results of the engagement opportunities conducted, 
including--
    (1) A description of attendees and participants, and, to the extent 
feasible, whether those participants are members of the affected 
communities identified in paragraph (2)(i)(B);
    (2) A summary of the issues covered; and
    (C) How the affected communities' comments and views have been 
incorporated into the development of the triennial HSP.
    (iii) Ongoing engagement planning. A description of the public 
participation and engagement efforts in the State highway safety 
program that the State plans to undertake during the three-year period 
covered by the triennial HSP, including--
    (A) A statement of the State's goals for the public engagement 
efforts;
    (B) Identification of the affected and potentially affected 
communities, including particular emphasis on underserved communities 
and communities overrepresented in the data (i.e., what communities did 
the State identify at the outset of the process), and a description of 
how those communities were identified;
    (C) The steps the State plans to take to reach and engage those 
communities, including accessibility measures implemented by the State 
in its outreach efforts and in conducting engagement opportunities; and
    (D) How the affected communities' comments and views will be 
incorporated into the decision-making process.
    (3) Performance plan. (i) List of data-driven, quantifiable and 
measurable highway safety performance targets, as laid out in 
paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, that demonstrate 
constant or improved performance over the three-year period covered by 
the triennial HSP and based on highway safety program areas identified 
by the State during the planning process conducted under paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (ii) All performance measures developed by NHTSA in collaboration 
with the Governors Highway Safety Association (``Traffic Safety 
Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 
025)), as revised in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(5) and published 
in the Federal Register, which must be used as minimum measures in 
developing the performance targets identified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of 
this section, provided that--
    (A) At least one performance measure and performance target that is 
data-driven shall be provided for each program area identified by the 
State during the planning process conducted under paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section that enables the State to track progress toward meeting 
the quantifiable annual target;
    (B) For each program area performance measure, the State shall 
provide--
    (1) Documentation of the current safety levels, based on the most 
currently available data;
    (2) Quantifiable performance targets that show constant or improved 
performance compared to the safety levels provided under paragraph 
(b)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section, and extend through the final year 
covered by the triennial HSP, with annual benchmarks to assist States 
in tracking progress; and
    (3) Justification for each performance target that explains how the 
target is data-driven, including a discussion of the factors that 
influenced the performance target selection; and
    (C) State HSP performance targets are identical to the State DOT 
targets for common performance measures (fatality, fatality rate, and 
serious injuries) reported in the HSIP annual report, as coordinated 
through the State SHSP.
    (iii) Additional performance measures not included under paragraph 
(b)(3)(ii) of this section. For program areas identified by the State 
where performance measures have not been jointly developed (e.g., risky 
drivers, vulnerable road users, etc.) and for which States are using 
highway safety program grant funds, the State shall develop its own 
performance measures and performance targets that are data-driven, and 
shall provide the same information as required under paragraph 
(b)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (4) Countermeasure strategy for programming funds. For each program 
area identified by the State during the planning process conducted 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a description of the 
countermeasure strategies that will guide the State's program 
implementation and annual

[[Page 7808]]

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


Sec.  1300.12  Annual grant application.

    The State's annual grant application provides project level 
information on the State's highway safety program and demonstrates 
alignment with the State's most recent triennial HSP. Each fiscal year, 
the State shall submit an annual grant application, including 
appendices A and B to this part, that meets the following requirements:
    (a) Due date for submission. A State shall submit its annual grant 
application electronically to NHTSA no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on 
August 1 preceding the fiscal year to which the application applies. 
Failure to meet this deadline may result in delayed approval and 
funding of a State's Section 402 grant or disqualification from 
receiving a Section 405 or Section 1906 racial profiling data 
collection grant to avoid a delay in awarding grants to all States.
    (b) Contents. In order to be approved, the annual grant application 
submitted by the State must contain the following components:
    (1) Updates to triennial HSP. Any updates, as necessary, to any 
analysis included in the triennial Highway Safety Plan of the State, at 
the level of detail required by Sec.  1300.11, including at a minimum:
    (i) Adjustments to countermeasure strategy for programming funds. 
(A) If the State adjusts the strategy for programming funds, a 
narrative description of the means by which the State's strategy for 
programming funds was adjusted and informed by the most recent annual 
report submitted under Sec.  1300.35; or
    (B) If the State does not adjust the strategy for programming 
funds, a written explanation of why the State made no adjustments.
    (ii) Changes to performance plan. The State may add performance 
measures based on updated traffic safety problem identification or as 
part of an application for a grant under Section 405 and may amend 
common performance targets developed under Sec.  1300.11(b)(3)(ii)(C), 
but may not amend any other existing performance targets.
    (2) Project and subrecipient information. For each project to be 
funded by the State using grant funds during the fiscal year covered by 
the application, the State must provide--
    (i) Project name and description, including, at a minimum, a 
description of activities conducted, location where the project is 
performed, and affected communities, where applicable;
    (ii) Federal funding source(s) (i.e., Section 402, Section 405(b), 
etc.);
    (iii) Project agreement number (which, if necessary, may be 
provided in a later amendment to the annual grant application);
    (iv) Subrecipient(s) (including name and type of organization; 
e.g., county or city DOT, State or local law enforcement, non-profit, 
EMS agency, etc.);
    (v) Amount of Federal funds;
    (vi) Eligible use of funds;
    (vii) Whether the costs are Planning and Administration costs 
pursuant to Sec.  1300.13(a) and the amount;
    (viii) Whether the project will be used to meet the requirements of 
Sec.  1300.41(b); and
    (ix) The countermeasure strategy or strategies for programming 
funds identified in the most recently submitted triennial HSP under 
Sec.  1300.11(b)(4) or in an update to the

[[Page 7809]]

triennial HSP submitted under paragraph (b)(1) of this section that the 
project supports.
    (3) Section 405 grant and Section 1906 racial profiling data 
collection grant applications. Application(s) for any of the national 
priority safety program grants and the racial profiling data collection 
grant, in accordance with the requirements of subpart C of this part 
and as provided in appendix B to this part, signed by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety.
    (4) Certifications and Assurances. The Certifications and 
Assurances for 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 grants contained in 
appendix A, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, 
certifying to the annual grant application contents and providing 
assurances that the State will comply with applicable laws and 
financial and programmatic requirements.
    (c) Review and approval procedures--(1) General. Upon receipt and 
initial review of the annual grant application, NHTSA may request 
additional information from a State to ensure compliance with the 
requirements of this part. Failure to respond promptly to a request for 
additional information concerning the Section 402 grant application may 
result in delayed approval and funding of a State's Section 402 grant. 
Failure to respond promptly to a request for additional information 
concerning a Section 405 or Section 1906 grant application may result 
in a State's disqualification from consideration for a Section 405 or 
Section 1906 grant to avoid a delay in awarding grants to all States. 
NHTSA will not approve a grant application that does not meet the 
requirements of this section.
    (2) Approval or disapproval of annual grant application. Within 60 
days after receipt of the annual grant application under this subpart, 
the NHTSA administrator shall notify States in writing of grant awards 
and specify any conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of 
funds.
    (d) Amendments to project and subrecipient information. 
Notwithstanding the requirement in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to 
provide project and subrecipient information at the time of 
application, States may amend the annual grant application throughout 
the fiscal year of the grant to add projects or to update project 
information for previously submitted projects, consistent with the 
process set forth in Sec.  1300.32, provided that all required project 
and subrecipient information must be complete at the time the State 
submits the annual report required under Sec.  1300.35.


Sec.  1300.13  Special funding conditions for Section 402 grants.

    The State's highway safety program under Section 402 shall be 
subject to the following conditions, and approval under Sec.  1300.12 
shall be deemed to incorporate these conditions:
    (a) Planning and administration (P & A) costs. (1)(i) Planning and 
administration (P & A) costs are those direct and indirect costs that 
are attributable to the management of the Highway Safety Agency. Such 
costs could include salaries, related personnel benefits, travel 
expenses, and rental costs specific to the Highway Safety Agency. The 
salary of an accountant on the State highway safety agency staff is an 
example of a direct cost attributable to P & A. Centralized support 
services such as personnel, procurement, and budgeting would be 
indirect costs.
    (ii) Program management costs are those costs attributable to a 
program area (e.g., salary and travel expenses of an impaired driving 
program manager/coordinator of a State highway safety agency). 
Compensation for activity hours of a DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) 
enforcement officer is an example of a direct cost attributable to a 
project.
    (2) Federal participation in P & A activities shall not exceed 50 
percent of the total cost of such activities, or the applicable sliding 
scale rate in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120. The Federal contribution 
for P & A activities shall not exceed 18 percent of the total funds the 
State receives under Section 402. In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120(i), 
the Federal share payable for projects in the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands shall be 100 percent. The Indian Country is exempt from the P & 
A requirements. NHTSA funds shall be used only to fund P & A activities 
attributable to NHTSA programs.
    (3) P & A tasks and related costs shall be described in the P & A 
module of the State's annual grant application. The State's matching 
share shall be determined on the basis of the total P & A costs in the 
module.
    (4) A State may allocate salary and related costs of State highway 
safety agency employees to one of the following, depending on the 
activities performed:
    (i) If an employee works solely performing P & A activities, the 
total salary and related costs may be programmed to P & A;
    (ii) If the employee works performing program management activities 
in one or more program areas, the total salary and related costs may be 
charged directly to the appropriate area(s); or
    (iii) If an employee works on a combination of P & A and program 
management activities, the total salary and related costs may be 
charged to P & A and the appropriate program area(s) based on the 
actual time worked under each area. If the State highway safety agency 
elects to allocate costs based on actual time spent on an activity, the 
State highway safety agency must keep accurate time records showing the 
work activities for each employee.
    (b) Participation by political subdivisions (local expenditure 
requirement)--(1) Determining local expenditure. In determining whether 
a State meets the requirement that 40 percent (or 95 percent for Indian 
tribes) of Section 402 funds be expended by political subdivisions 
(also referred to as the local expenditure requirement) in a fiscal 
year, NHTSA will apply the requirement sequentially to each fiscal 
year's apportionments, treating all apportionments made from a single 
fiscal year's authorizations as a single amount for this purpose. 
Therefore, at least 40 percent of each State's apportionments (or at 
least 95 percent of the apportionment to the Secretary of the Interior) 
from each year's authorizations must be used in the highway safety 
programs of its political subdivisions prior to the end of the fiscal 
year.
    (2) Direct expenditures by political subdivisions. When Federal 
funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are expended by a political 
subdivision under a subaward from the State, such expenditures clearly 
qualify as part of the required local expenditure. A political 
subdivision may expend funds through direct performance of projects 
(including planning and administration of eligible highway safety 
project-related activities) or by entering into contracts or subawards 
with other entities (including non-profit entities) to carry out 
projects on its behalf.
    (3) Expenditures by State on behalf of a political subdivision. 
Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 that are expended by a 
State on behalf of a specific political subdivision (either through 
direct performance of projects or by entering into contracts or 
subawards with other entities) may qualify as part of the required 
local expenditure, provided there is evidence of the political 
subdivision's involvement in identifying its traffic safety need(s) and 
input into implementation of the activity within its

[[Page 7810]]

jurisdiction. A State may not arbitrarily ascribe State agency 
expenditures as ``on behalf of a local government.'' Such expenditures 
qualify if--
    (i) The specific political subdivision is involved in the planning 
process of the State's highway safety program (for example, as part of 
the public participation described in Sec.  1300.11(b)(2), as part of 
the State's planning for the annual grant application, or as part of 
ongoing planning processes), and the State then enters into agreements 
based on identification of need by the political subdivision and 
implements the project or activity accordingly. The State must maintain 
documentation that shows the political subdivision's participation in 
the planning processes (e.g., meeting minutes, data submissions, etc.), 
and also must obtain written acceptance by the political subdivision of 
the project or activity being provided on its behalf prior to 
implementation.
    (ii) The political subdivision is not involved in the planning 
process of the State's highway safety program, but submits a request 
for the State to implement a project on its behalf. The request does 
not need to be a formal application but should, at minimum, contain a 
description of the political subdivision's problem identification and a 
description of where and/or how the project or activity should be 
deployed to have effect within political subdivision (may include: 
identification of media outlets to run advertising, locations for 
billboard/sign placement or enforcement activities, schools or other 
venues to provide educational programming, specific sporting events/
venues, etc.).
    (4) Allocation of qualifying costs. Expenditures qualify as local 
expenditures only when the expenditures meet the qualification criteria 
described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section. In some cases, 
only a portion of the expenditures under a given project may meet those 
requirements. States must allocate funds in proportion to the amount of 
costs that can be documented to meet the requirements for a specific 
political subdivision.
    (5) Waivers. While, in extraordinary circumstances, the requirement 
for participation by political subdivisions may be waived in whole or 
in part by the NHTSA Administrator, it is expected that each State 
program will generate and maintain political subdivision participation 
at the level specified in the Federal statute so that requests for 
waivers are minimized. Where a waiver is requested, however, the State 
shall submit a written request describing the extraordinary 
circumstances that necessitate a waiver, or providing a conclusive 
showing of the absence of legal authority over highway safety 
activities at the political subdivision levels of the State, and must 
recommend the appropriate percentage participation to be applied in 
lieu of the required 40 percent or 95 percent (for Indian Tribes) local 
expenditure.
    (c) Use of grant funds for marijuana-impaired driving. A State that 
has legalized medicinal or recreational marijuana shall consider 
implementing programs to--
    (1) Educate drivers regarding the risks associated with marijuana-
impaired driving; and
    (2) Reduce injuries and deaths resulting from marijuana-impaired 
driving.
    (d) Use of grant funds for unattended passengers program. The State 
must use a portion of grant funds received under Section 402 to carry 
out a program to educate the public regarding the risks of leaving a 
child or unattended passenger in a vehicle after the vehicle motor is 
deactivated by the operator.
    (e) Use of grant funds for teen traffic safety program. The State 
may use a portion of the funds received under Section 402 to implement 
statewide efforts to improve traffic safety for teen drivers.
    (f) Prohibition on use of grant funds to check for helmet usage. No 
grant funds under this part may be used for programs to check helmet 
usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target motorcyclists.
    (g) Prohibition on use of grant funds for automated traffic 
enforcement systems. The State may not expend funds apportioned to the 
State under Section 402 to carry out a program to purchase, operate, or 
maintain an automated traffic enforcement system except in a work zone 
or school zone. Any ATES system installed using grant funds under this 
section must comply with guidelines established by the Secretary, as 
updated.


Sec.  1300.14  [Reserved]


Sec.  1300.15  Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.

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

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


Sec.  1300.20  General.

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

[[Page 7811]]

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


Sec.  1300.21  Occupant Protection Grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(b), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective occupant protection programs to reduce highway 
deaths and injuries resulting from individuals riding unrestrained or 
improperly restrained in motor vehicles.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Child restraint means any device (including a child safety seat, 
booster seat used in conjunction with 3-point belts, or harness, but 
excluding seat belts) that is designed for use in a motor vehicle to 
restrain, seat, or position a child who weighs 65 pounds (30 kilograms) 
or less and that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
prescribed by NHTSA for child restraints.
    High seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed 
seat belt use rate of 90.0 percent or higher (not rounded) based on 
validated data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during 
the previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for 
State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR part 1340 (e.g., 
for a grant application submitted on August 1, 2023, the ``previous 
calendar year'' would be 2022).
    Lower seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed 
seat belt use rate below 90.0 percent (not rounded) based on validated 
data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during the 
previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for 
State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR part 1340 (e.g., 
for a grant application submitted on August 1, 2023, the ``previous 
calendar year'' would be 2022).
    Low-income and underserved populations means:
    (i) Populations meeting a threshold income level identified by the 
State that that falls within or below the most recent U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines; or
    (ii) Populations sharing a particular characteristic or geographic 
location that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to 
participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life.
    Seat belt means, with respect to open-body motor vehicles, 
including convertibles, an occupant restraint system consisting of a 
lap belt or a lap belt and a detachable shoulder belt, and with respect 
to other motor vehicles, an occupant restraint system consisting of 
integrated lap and shoulder belts.
    (c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a 
grant under this section as a high seat belt use rate State or as a 
lower seat belt use rate State, in accordance with paragraph (d) or (e) 
of this section, as applicable.
    (d) Qualification criteria for a high seat belt use rate State. To 
qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant in a fiscal year, a high seat 
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of 
its annual grant application the following documentation, in accordance 
with part 1 of appendix B to this part:
    (1) Occupant protection plan. State occupant protection program 
area plan, updated annually, that identifies--
    (i) The safety problems to be addressed, performance measures and 
targets, and the countermeasure strategies the State will implement to 
address those problems, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.11(b); and
    (ii) The projects, provided under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2), that the 
State will implement during the fiscal year to carry out the plan.
    (2) Participation in Click-it-or-Ticket national mobilization. 
Description of the State's planned participation in the Click it or 
Ticket national mobilization, including a list of participating 
agencies during the fiscal year of the grant;
    (3) Child restraint inspection stations. (i) Projects, at the level 
of detail required under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2), demonstrating an active 
network of child passenger safety inspection stations and/or inspection 
events based on the State's problem identification. The description 
must include estimates for the following requirements in the upcoming 
fiscal year:
    (A) The total number of planned inspection stations and/or events 
in the State; and
    (B) Within the total in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) of this section, the 
number of planned inspection stations and/or inspection events serving 
each of the following population categories: urban, rural, and at-risk.
    (ii) Certification, signed by the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety, that the inspection stations/events are staffed with at 
least one current nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety 
Technician.
    (4) Child passenger safety technicians. Projects, at the level of 
detail required under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2), for recruiting, training and 
maintaining a sufficient number of child passenger safety technicians 
based on the State's problem identification. The description must 
include, at a minimum, an estimate of the total number of classes and 
the estimated total number of technicians to be trained in the upcoming 
fiscal year to ensure coverage of child passenger safety inspection 
stations and inspection events by nationally Certified Child Passenger 
Safety Technicians.
    (e) Qualification criteria for a lower seat belt use rate State. To 
qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant in a fiscal year, a lower seat 
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall satisfy all the 
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, and submit as part of 
its annual grant application documentation demonstrating that it meets 
at least three

[[Page 7812]]

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

[[Page 7813]]

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


Sec.  1300.22  State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements 
Grants.

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


Sec.  1300.23  Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants.

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

[[Page 7814]]

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

[[Page 7815]]

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

[[Page 7816]]

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


Sec.  1300.24  Distracted Driving Grants.

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

[[Page 7817]]

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


Sec.  1300.25  Motorcyclist Safety Grants.

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

[[Page 7818]]

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

[[Page 7819]]

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


Sec.  1300.26  Nonmotorized Safety Grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(g), for awarding grants to States for the purpose of 
decreasing nonmotorized road user fatalities involving a motor vehicle 
in transit on a trafficway.
    (b) Eligibility determination. (1) A State is eligible for a grant 
under this

[[Page 7820]]

section if the State's annual combined nonmotorized road user 
fatalities exceed 15 percent of the State's total annual crash 
fatalities based on the most recent calendar year for which final FARS 
data are available, as determined by NHTSA.
    (2) For purposes of this section, a nonmotorized road user means a 
pedestrian; an individual using a nonmotorized mode of transportation, 
including a bicycle, a scooter, or a personal conveyance; and an 
individual using a low-speed or low-horsepower motorized vehicle, 
including an electric bicycle, electric scooter, personal mobility 
assistance device, personal transporter, or all-terrain vehicle.
    (c) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a Nonmotorized Safety 
Grant in a fiscal year, a State meeting the eligibility requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section shall submit as part of its annual grant 
application a list of project(s) and subrecipient(s) for the fiscal 
year of the grant, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.12(b)(2) for authorized uses identified in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (d) Award amounts. The amount of a grant awarded to a State in a 
fiscal year under this section shall be in proportion to the amount 
each State received under Section 402 for fiscal year 2009.
    (e) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
23 U.S.C. 405(g) only for the safety of nonmotorized road users, 
including--
    (1) Training of law enforcement officials relating to nonmotorized 
road user safety, State laws applicable to nonmotorized road user 
safety, and infrastructure designed to improve nonmotorized road user 
safety;
    (2) Carrying out a program to support enforcement mobilizations and 
campaigns designed to enforce State traffic laws applicable to 
nonmotorized road user safety;
    (3) Public education and awareness programs designed to inform 
motorists and nonmotorized road users regarding--
    (i) Nonmotorized road user safety, including information relating 
to nonmotorized mobility and the importance of speed management to the 
safety of nonmotorized road users;
    (ii) The value of the use of nonmotorized road user safety 
equipment, including lighting, conspicuity equipment, mirrors, helmets, 
and other protective equipment, and compliance with any State or local 
laws requiring the use of that equipment;
    (iii) State traffic laws applicable to nonmotorized road user 
safety, including the responsibilities of motorists with respect to 
nonmotorized road users;
    (iv) Infrastructure designed to improve nonmotorized road user 
safety; and
    (4) The collection of data, and the establishment and maintenance 
of data systems, relating to nonmotorized road user traffic fatalities.


Sec.  1300.27  Preventing Roadside Deaths Grants.

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


Sec.  1300.28  Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants.

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

[[Page 7821]]

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


Sec.  1300.29  Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants.

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

[[Page 7822]]

    (i) For a State described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 10 
percent of the amount made available to carry out this section for the 
fiscal year; and
    (ii) For a State described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 5 
percent of the amount made available to carry out this section for the 
fiscal year.
    (d) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
Section 1906 only for the costs of--
    (1) Collecting and maintaining data on traffic stops;
    (2) Evaluating the results of the data; and
    (3) Developing and implementing programs, public outreach, and 
training to reduce the impact of traffic stops described in paragraph 
(a) of this section.

Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants


Sec.  1300.30  General.

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


Sec.  1300.31  Equipment.

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


Sec.  1300.32  Amendments to annual grant applications.

    (a) During the fiscal year of the grant, States may amend the 
annual grant application, except performance targets, subsequent to the 
initial approval under Sec.  1300.12. States shall document changes to 
the annual grant application electronically.
    (b) The State shall amend the annual grant application, prior to 
beginning project performance, to provide complete and updated 
information at the level of detail required by Sec.  1300.12(b)(2), 
about each project agreement it enters into.
    (c) Amendments and changes to the annual grant application are 
subject to approval by the Regional Administrator before approval of 
vouchers for payment, except that amendments to information submitted 
under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2)(iii) through (vii) do not require approval 
unless the amendment requires prior approval under 2 CFR 200.407. 
Regional Administrators will disapprove changes and projects that are 
inconsistent with the triennial HSP, as updated, or that do not 
constitute an appropriate use of highway safety grant funds. States are 
independently responsible for ensuring that projects constitute an 
appropriate use of highway safety grant funds.


Sec.  1300.33  Vouchers and project agreements.

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

[[Page 7823]]

estimated amount of Federal funds provided under Sec.  1300.12(b)(2) 
shall be rejected, in whole or in part, until an amended project and/or 
estimated amount of Federal funds is submitted and, if required, 
approved by the Regional Administrator in accordance with Sec.  
1300.32.
    (3) Failure to meet the deadlines specified in paragraph (d) of 
this section may result in delayed payment.


Sec.  1300.34  Program income.

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


Sec.  1300.35  Annual report.

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


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

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

Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation.


Sec.  1300.40  Expiration of the annual grant application.

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


Sec.  1300.41  Disposition of unexpended balances.

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

[[Page 7824]]

this section, whichever is applicable, and the funds shall lapse.


Sec.  1300.42  Post-grant adjustments.

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


Sec.  1300.43  Continuing requirements.

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

Subpart F--Non-Compliance.


Sec.  1300.50  General.

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


Sec.  1300.51  Sanctions--reduction of apportionment.

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


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

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

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

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

State:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year:-----------------------------------------------------------

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

General Requirements

    The State will comply with applicable statutes and regulations, 
including but not limited to:
     23 U.S.C. Chapter 4--Highway Safety Act of 1966, as 
amended;
     Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Sec. 25024, 
Public Law 117-58;
     23 CFR part 1300--Uniform Procedures for State Highway 
Safety Grant Programs;
     2 CFR part 200--Uniform Administrative Requirements, 
Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards;
     2 CFR part 1201--Department of Transportation, Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements 
for Federal Awards.

Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs

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

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA)

    The State will comply with FFATA guidance, OMB Guidance on FFATA 
Subaward and Executive Compensation

[[Page 7825]]

Reporting, August 27, 2010, (https://www.fsrs.gov/documents/OMB_Guidance_on_FFATA_Subaward_and_Executive_Compensation_Reporting_08272010.pdf) by reporting to FSRS.gov for each sub-grant awarded;
     Name of the entity receiving the award;
     Amount of the award;
     Information on the award including transaction type, 
funding agency, the North American Industry Classification System 
code or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number (where 
applicable), program source;
     Location of the entity receiving the award and the 
primary location of performance under the award, including the city, 
State, congressional district, and country; and an award title 
descriptive of the purpose of each funding action;
     Unique entity identifier (generated by SAM.gov);
     The names and total compensation of the five most 
highly compensated officers of the entity if:
    (i) the entity in the preceding fiscal year received--
    (I) 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues in Federal 
awards;
    (II) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal 
awards; and
    (ii) the public does not have access to information about the 
compensation of the senior executives of the entity through periodic 
reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
     Other relevant information specified by OMB guidance.

Nondiscrimination (Applies to Subrecipients as Well as States)

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

General Assurances

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

Specific Assurances

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

    \1\ Available at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/acr/com_civ_support/non_disc_pr/media/dot_order_1050_2A_standard_dot_title_vi_assurances.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7826]]

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

The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8103)

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

Political Activity (Hatch Act) (Applies to Subrecipients as Well as 
States)

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

Certification Regarding Federal Lobbying (Applies to Subrecipients as 
Well as States)

Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative 
Agreements

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

Restriction on State Lobbying (Applies to Subrecipients as Well as 
States)

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

Certification Regarding Debarment and Suspension (Applies to 
Subrecipients as Well as States)

Instructions for Primary Tier Participant Certification (States)

    1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective 
primary tier participant is providing the certification set out 
below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 
and 1200.

[[Page 7827]]

    2. The inability of a person to provide the certification 
required below will not necessarily result in denial of 
participation in this covered transaction. The prospective primary 
tier participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot 
provide the certification set out below. The certification or 
explanation will be considered in connection with the department or 
agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. 
However, failure of the prospective primary tier participant to 
furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such 
person from participation in this transaction.
    3. The certification in this clause is a material representation 
of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency 
determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined 
that the prospective primary tier participant knowingly rendered an 
erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to 
the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this 
transaction for cause or default or may pursue suspension or 
debarment.
    4. The prospective primary tier participant shall provide 
immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this 
proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary tier 
participant learns its certification was erroneous when submitted or 
has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
    5. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, 
suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and 
voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR 
parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the department or agency to 
which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a 
copy of those regulations.
    6. The prospective primary tier participant agrees by submitting 
this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be 
entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier 
covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment 
under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared 
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this 
covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency 
entering into this transaction.
    7. The prospective primary tier participant further agrees by 
submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled 
``Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification'' including 
the ``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility 
and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transaction,'' provided 
by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, 
without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in 
all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will 
require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 
1200.
    8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a 
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered 
transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 
9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily 
excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the 
certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for 
ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or 
otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To 
verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility 
of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, 
but is not required to, check the System for Award Management 
Exclusions website (https://www.sam.gov/).
    9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to 
require establishment of a system of records in order to render in 
good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge 
and information of a participant is not required to exceed that 
which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary 
course of business dealings.
    10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of 
these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction 
knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person 
who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, 
suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from 
participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies 
available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may 
terminate the transaction for cause or default.

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

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

Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification

    1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective 
lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below 
and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 
1200.
    2. The certification in this clause is a material representation 
of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was 
entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower 
tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in 
addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the 
department or agency with which this transaction originated may 
pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.
    3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide 
immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is 
submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant 
learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has 
become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
    4. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, 
suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and 
voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR 
parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the person to whom this proposal 
is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those 
regulations.
    5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting 
this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be 
entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier 
covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment 
under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared 
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this 
covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency 
with which this transaction originated.
    6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by 
submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled 
``Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification'' including 
the ``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility 
and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transaction,'' without 
modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all 
solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require 
lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
    7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a 
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered 
transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 
9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily 
excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the 
certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for 
ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or 
otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To 
verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility 
of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, 
but is not required to, check

[[Page 7828]]

the System for Award Management Exclusions website (https://www.sam.gov/).
    8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to 
require establishment of a system of records in order to render in 
good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge 
and information of a participant is not required to exceed that 
which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary 
course of business dealings.
    9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these 
instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly 
enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is 
proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, 
debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in 
this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the 
Federal Government, the department or agency with which this 
transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including 
suspension or debarment.

Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and 
Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions:

    1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by 
submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is 
presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared 
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered 
transactions by any Federal department or agency.
    2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to 
certify to any of the statements in this certification, such 
prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this 
proposal.

Buy America (Applies to Subrecipients as Well as States)

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

Certification on Conflict of Interest (Applies to Subrecipients as Well 
as States)

General Requirements

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

Disclosure Requirements

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

Prohibition on Using Grant Funds To Check for Helmet Usage (Applies to 
Subrecipients as Well as States)

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

Policy on Seat Belt Use

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

Policy on Banning Text Messaging While Driving

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

Section 402 Requirements

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

[[Page 7829]]

suitably equipped and organized (as evidenced by appropriate 
oversight procedures governing such areas as procurement, financial 
administration, and the use, management, and disposition of 
equipment) to carry out the program. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(A))
    3. At least 40 percent of all Federal funds apportioned to this 
State under 23 U.S.C. 402 for this fiscal year will be expended by 
or on behalf of political subdivisions of the State in carrying out 
local highway safety programs (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(C)) or 95 percent 
by and on behalf of Indian tribes (23 U.S.C. 402(h)(2)), unless this 
requirement is waived in writing. (This provision is not applicable 
to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands.)
    4. The State's highway safety program provides adequate and 
reasonable access for the safe and convenient movement of physically 
handicapped persons, including those in wheelchairs, across curbs 
constructed or replaced on or after July 1, 1976, at all pedestrian 
crosswalks. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(D))
    5. As part of a comprehensive program, the State will support a 
data-based traffic safety enforcement program that fosters effective 
community collaboration to increase public safety, and data 
collection and analysis to ensure transparency, identify disparities 
in traffic enforcement, and inform traffic enforcement policies, 
procedures, and activities. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E))
    6. The State will implement activities in support of national 
highway safety goals to reduce motor vehicle related fatalities that 
also reflect the primary data-related crash factors within the 
State, as identified by the State highway safety planning process, 
including:
     Participation in the National high-visibility law 
enforcement mobilizations as identified annually in the NHTSA 
Communications Calendar, including not less than 3 mobilization 
campaigns in each fiscal year to--
    [cir] Reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of 
motor vehicles; and
    [cir] Increase use of seat belts by occupants of motor vehicles;
     Sustained enforcement of statutes addressing impaired 
driving, occupant protection, and driving in excess of posted speed 
limits;
     An annual statewide seat belt use survey in accordance 
with 23 CFR part 1340 for the measurement of State seat belt use 
rates, except for the Secretary of Interior on behalf of Indian 
tribes;
     Development of statewide data systems to provide timely 
and effective data analysis to support allocation of highway safety 
resources;
     Coordination of triennial Highway Safety Plan, data 
collection, and information systems with the State strategic highway 
safety plan, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a); and
     Participation in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System 
(FARS), except for American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, or the United States Virgin Islands.

(23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(F))

    7. The State will actively encourage all relevant law 
enforcement agencies in the State to follow the guidelines 
established for vehicular pursuits issued by the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police that are currently in effect. (23 
U.S.C. 402(j))
    8. The State will not expend Section 402 funds to carry out a 
program to purchase, operate, or maintain an automated traffic 
enforcement system, except in a work zone or school zone. (23 U.S.C. 
402(c)(4))
    I understand that my statements in support of the State's 
application for Federal grant funds are statements upon which the 
Federal Government will rely in determining qualification for grant 
funds, and that knowing misstatements may be subject to civil or 
criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001. I sign these Certifications 
and Assurances based on personal knowledge, and after appropriate 
inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Governor's Representative for Highway Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed name of Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

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

    [Each fiscal year, to apply for a grant under 23 U.S.C. 405 or 
Section 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Section 25024, Public 
Law 117-58, the State must complete and submit all required 
information in this appendix, and the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety must sign the Certifications and Assurances.]

State:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year:-----------------------------------------------------------
    Instructions: Check the box for each part for which the State is 
applying for a grant, fill in relevant blanks, and identify the 
attachment number or page numbers where the requested information 
appears in the triennial HSP or annual grant application. 
Attachments may be submitted electronically.

[squ] Part 1: Occupant Protection Grants (23 CFR 1300.21)

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant.]

All States

    [Fill in all blanks below.]
     The State's occupant protection program area plan for 
the upcoming fiscal year is provided in the annual grant application 
at ___ (location).
     The State will participate in the Click it or Ticket 
national mobilization in the fiscal year of the grant. The 
description of the State's planned participation is provided in the 
annual grant application at ___ (location).
     Projects demonstrating the State's active network of 
child restraint inspection stations are provided in the annual grant 
application at ___ (location). Such description includes estimates 
for: (1) the total number of planned inspection stations and events 
during the upcoming fiscal year; and (2) within that total, the 
number of planned inspection stations and events serving each of the 
following population categories: urban, rural, and at-risk. The 
planned inspection stations/events provided in the annual grant 
application are staffed with at least one current nationally 
Certified Child Passenger Safety Technician.
     Projects, as provided in the annual grant application 
at ___ (location), that include estimates of the total number of 
classes and 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.

Lower Seat Belt Use States Only

    [Check at least 3 boxes below and fill in all blanks under those 
checked boxes.]
    [squ] The State's primary seat belt use law, requiring all 
occupants riding in a passenger motor vehicle to be restrained in a 
seat belt or a child restraint, was enacted on ___ (date) and last 
amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be enforced during the 
fiscal year of the grant.

Legal citation(s):-----------------------------------------------------
________.

    [squ] The State's occupant protection law, requiring occupants 
to be secured in a seat belt or age-appropriate child restraint 
while in a passenger motor vehicle and a minimum fine of $25, was 
enacted on ___ (date) and last amended on ___ (date), is in effect, 
and will be enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
     _____ Requirement for all occupants to be secured in 
seat belt or age appropriate child restraint;
     _____ Coverage of all passenger motor vehicles;
     _____ Minimum fine of at least $25;
     _____ Exemptions from restraint requirements.

    [squ] Projects demonstrating the State's seat belt enforcement 
plan are provided in the annual grant application at ___ (location).
    [squ] The projects demonstrating the State's high risk 
population countermeasure program are provided in the annual grant 
application at ___ (location).
    [squ] The State's comprehensive occupant protection program is 
provided as follows:

     Date of NHTSA-facilitated program assessment conducted 
within 5 years prior to the application date: ___ (date);
     Multi-year strategic plan: annual grant application or 
triennial HSP at ___ (location);
     The name and title of the State's designated occupant 
protection coordinator is ______.
     List that contains the names, titles and organizations 
of the statewide occupant protection task force membership: annual 
grant application at ___ (location).

    [squ] The State's NHTSA-facilitated occupant protection program 
assessment of all elements of its occupant protection program was 
conducted on ___ (date) (within 5 years of the application due 
date);


[[Page 7830]]



[squ] Part 2: State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements 
Grants (23 CFR 1300.22)

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant.]

All States

     The State has a functioning traffic records 
coordinating committee that meets at least 3 times each year.
     The State has designated a TRCC coordinator.
     The State has established a State traffic records 
strategic plan, updated annually, that has been approved by the TRCC 
and describes specific quantifiable and measurable improvements 
anticipated in the State's core safety databases, including crash, 
citation or adjudication, driver, emergency medical services or 
injury surveillance system, roadway, and vehicle databases.

    [Fill in the blank for the bullet below.]

     Written description of the performance measure(s), and 
all supporting data, that the State is relying on to demonstrate 
achievement of the quantitative improvement in the preceding 12 
months of the application due date in relation to one or more of the 
significant data program attributes is provided in the annual grant 
application at ___ (location).

[squ] Part 3: Impaired Driving Countermeasures (23 CFR 1300.23(D)-(F))

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant.]

All States

     The State will use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 
405(d) only for the implementation of programs as provided in 23 CFR 
1300.23(j).

Mid-Range State Only

[Check one box below and fill in all blanks under that checked box.]

    [squ] The State submits its statewide impaired driving plan 
approved by a statewide impaired driving task force on ___ (date). 
Specifically--
    [ssquf] Annual grant application at ___ (location) describes the 
authority and basis for operation of the statewide impaired driving 
task force;
    [ssquf] Annual grant application at ___ (location) contains the 
list of names, titles and organizations of all task force members;
    [ssquf] Annual grant application at ___ (location) contains the 
strategic plan based on Highway Safety Guideline No. 8--Impaired 
Driving.

    [squ] The State has previously submitted a statewide impaired 
driving plan approved by a statewide impaired driving task force on 
___ (date) and continues to use this plan.

    [For fiscal year 2024 grant applications only.]

    [squ] The State will convene a statewide impaired driving task 
force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan, and will submit 
that plan by August 1 of the grant year.

High-Range State Only

    [Check one box below and fill in all blanks under that checked 
box.]
    [squ] The State submits its statewide impaired driving plan 
approved by a statewide impaired driving task force on ___ (date) 
that includes a review of a NHTSA-facilitated assessment of the 
State's impaired driving program conducted on ___ (date). 
Specifically--
    [ssquf] Annual grant application at ___ (location) describes the 
authority and basis for operation of the statewide impaired driving 
task force;
    [ssquf] Annual grant application at ___ (location) contains the 
list of names, titles and organizations of all task force members;
    [ssquf] Annual grant application at ___ (location) contains the 
strategic plan based on Highway Safety Guideline No. 8--Impaired 
Driving;
    [ssquf] Annual grant application at ___ (location) addresses any 
related recommendations from the assessment of the State's impaired 
driving program;
    [ssquf] Annual grant application at ___ (location) contains the 
projects, in detail, for spending grant funds;
    [ssquf] Annual grant application at ___ (location) describes how 
the spending supports the State's impaired driving program and 
achievement of its performance targets.
    [squ] The State submits an updated statewide impaired driving 
plan approved by a statewide impaired driving task force on ___ 
(date) and updates its assessment review and spending plan provided 
in the annual grant application at ___ (location).
    [For fiscal year 2024 grant applications only.]
    [squ] The State's NHTSA-facilitated assessment was conducted on 
___ (date) (within 3 years of the application due date); OR
    [squ] The State will conduct a NHTSA-facilitated assessment 
during the grant year; AND
    [squ] The State will convene a statewide impaired driving task 
force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan and will submit 
that plan by August 1 of the grant year.

[squ] Part 4: Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Laws (23 CFR 1300.23(G))

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant.]
    [Check one box below and fill in all blanks under that checked 
box.]
    [squ] The State's alcohol-ignition interlock law, requiring all 
individuals convicted of driving under the influence or of driving 
while intoxicated to drive only motor vehicles with alcohol-ignition 
interlocks for a period of not less than 180 days, was enacted on 
___ (date) and last amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be 
enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
     _____ Requirement for alcohol-ignition interlocks for 
all DUI offenders for not less than 180 days;
     _____ Identify all alcohol-ignition interlock use 
exceptions.
    [squ] The State's alcohol-ignition interlock law, requiring an 
individual convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or of 
driving while intoxicated, and who has been ordered to use an 
alcohol-ignition interlock, and does not permit the individual to 
receive any driving privilege or driver's license unless the 
individual installs on each motor vehicle registered, owned, or 
leased by the individual an alcohol-ignition interlock for a period 
of not less than 180 days, was enacted on ___ (date) and last 
amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be enforced during the 
fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
     _____ Requirement for installation of alcohol ignition-
interlocks for DUI offenders for not less than 180 days;
     _____ Identify all alcohol-ignition interlock use 
exceptions.
    [squ] The State's alcohol-ignition interlock law, requiring an 
individual convicted of, or the driving privilege of whom is revoked 
or denied, for refusing to submit to a chemical or other appropriate 
test for the purpose of determining the presence or concentration of 
any intoxicating substance, and who has been ordered to use an 
alcohol-ignition interlock, requires the individual to install on 
each motor vehicle to be operated by the individual an alcohol-
ignition interlock for a period of not less than 180 days, was 
enacted on ___ (date) and last amended on ___ (date), is in effect, 
and will be enforced during the fiscal year of the grant; and
    The State's compliance-based removal program, requiring an 
individual convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or of 
driving while intoxicated, and who has been ordered to use an 
alcohol-ignition interlock, requires the individual to install on 
each motor vehicle to be operated by the individual an alcohol-
ignition interlock for a period of not less than 180 days, was 
enacted (if a law) or implemented (if a program) on ___ (date) and 
last amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be enforced 
during the fiscal year of the grant; and
    The State's compliance-based removal program, requiring 
completion of a minimum consecutive period of not less than 40 
percent of the required period of alcohol-ignition interlock 
installation immediately prior to the end of the individual's 
installation requirement, without a confirmed violation of the 
State's alcohol-ignition interlock program use requirements, was 
enacted (if a law) or implemented (if a program) on ___ (date) and 
last amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be enforced 
during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
     _____ Requirement for installation of alcohol-ignition 
interlocks for refusal to submit to a test for 180 days;
     _____ Requirement for installation of alcohol ignition-
interlocks for DUI offenders for not less than 180 days;
     _____ Requirement for completion of minimum consecutive 
period of not less than 40 percent of the required period of 
alcohol-interlock use;
     _____ Identify list of alcohol-ignition interlock 
program use violations;
     _____ Identify all alcohol-ignition interlock use 
exceptions.

[squ] Part 5: 24-7 Sobriety Programs (23 CFR 1300.23(H))

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant.]

[[Page 7831]]

    [Fill in all blanks.]
    The State provides citations to a law that requires all 
individuals convicted of driving under the influence or of driving 
while intoxicated to receive a restriction on driving privileges 
that was enacted on ___ (date) and last amended on ___ (date), is in 
effect, and will be enforced during the fiscal year of the grant. 
Legal citation(s): ________.

    [Check at least one of the boxes below and fill in all blanks 
under that checked box.]
    [squ] Law citation. The State provides citations to a law that 
authorizes a statewide 24-7 sobriety program that was enacted on ___ 
(date) and last amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be 
enforced during the fiscal year of the grant. Legal citation(s): 
________.

    [squ] Program information. The State provides program 
information that authorizes a statewide 24-7 sobriety program. The 
program information is provided in the annual grant application at 
___ (location).

[squ] Part 6: Distracted Driving Grants (23 CFR 1300.24)

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant and check 
the box(es) below for each grant for which you wish to apply.]
    [squ] The State has conformed its distracted driving data to the 
most recent Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) and will 
provide supporting data (i.e., the State's most recent crash report 
with distracted driving data element(s)) within 30 days after 
notification of award.

[squ] Distracted Driving Awareness Grant

     The State provides sample distracted driving questions 
from the State's driver's license examination in the annual grant 
application at ___ (location).

Distracted Driving Law Grants

    [Check at least 1 box below and fill in all blanks under that 
checked box.]

[squ] Prohibition on Texting While Driving

    The State's texting ban statute, prohibiting texting while 
driving and requiring a fine, was enacted on ___ (date) and last 
amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be enforced during the 
fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
    [ssquf] _____ Prohibition on texting while driving;
    [ssquf] _____ Definition of covered wireless communication 
devices;
    [ssquf] _____ Fine for an offense;
    [ssquf] _____ Exemptions from texting ban.

[squ] Prohibition on Handheld Phone Use While Driving

    The State's handheld phone use ban statute, prohibiting a driver 
from holding a personal wireless communications device while driving 
and requiring a fine for violation of the law, was enacted on ___ 
(date) and last amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be 
enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
    [ssquf] _____ Prohibition on handheld phone use;
    [ssquf] _____ Definition of covered wireless communication 
devices;
    [ssquf] _____ Fine for an offense;
    [ssquf] _____ Exemptions from handheld phone use ban.

[squ] Prohibition on Youth Cell Phone Use While Driving

    The State's youth cell phone use ban statute, prohibiting youth 
cell phone use while driving, and requiring a fine, was enacted on 
___ (date) and last amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be 
enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
    [ssquf] _____ Prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving;
    [ssquf] _____ Definition of covered wireless communication 
devices;
    [ssquf] _____ Fine for an offense;
    [ssquf] _____ Exemptions from youth cell phone use ban.

[squ] Prohibition on Viewing Devices While Driving

    The State's viewing devices ban statute, prohibiting drivers 
from viewing a device while driving, was enacted on ___ (date) and 
last amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be enforced 
during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
    [ssquf] _____ Prohibition on viewing devices while driving;
    [ssquf] _____ Definition of covered wireless communication 
devices;

[squ] Part 7: Motorcyclist Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.25)

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant.]
    [Check at least 2 boxes below and fill in all blanks under those 
checked boxes only.]

[squ] Motorcycle Rider Training Course

     The name and organization of the head of the designated 
State authority over motorcyclist safety issues is ______.
     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:
    [Check at least one of the following boxes below and fill in any 
blanks.]
    [squ] Motorcycle Safety Foundation Basic Rider Course;
    [squ] TEAM OREGON Basic Rider Training;
    [squ] Idaho STAR Basic I;
    [squ] California Motorcyclist Safety Program Motorcyclist 
Training Course;
    [squ] Other curriculum that meets NHTSA's Model National 
Standards for Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training and that has 
been approved by NHTSA.
     In the annual grant application at ___ (location), a 
list of counties or political subdivisions in the State where 
motorcycle rider training courses will be conducted during the 
fiscal year of the grant AND number of registered motorcycles in 
each such county or political subdivision according to official 
State motor vehicle records.

[squ] Motorcyclist Awareness Program

     The name and organization of the head of the designated 
State authority over motorcyclist safety issues is ______.
     The State's motorcyclist awareness program was 
developed by or in coordination with the designated State authority 
having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues.
     In the annual grant application at ___ (location), 
performance measures and corresponding performance targets developed 
for motorcycle awareness that identify, 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.
     In the annual grant application at ___ (location), the 
projects 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, and a list that identifies, using State crash 
data, the counties or political subdivisions within 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.

[squ] Helmet Law

    The State's motorcycle helmet law, requiring the use of a helmet 
for each motorcycle rider under the age of 18, was enacted on ___ 
(date) and last amended on ___ (date), is in effect, and will be 
enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.

Legal citation(s):-----------------------------------------------------
________.

[squ] Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles

     Data showing the total number of motor vehicle crashes 
involving motorcycles is provided in the annual grant application at 
___ (location).
     Description of the State's methods for collecting and 
analyzing data is provided in the annual grant application at ___ 
(location).

[squ] Impaired Motorcycle Driving Program

     In the annual grant application or triennial HSP at ___ 
(location), performance measures and corresponding performance 
targets developed to reduce impaired motorcycle operation.
     In the annual grant application at ___ (location), 
countermeasure strategies and projects demonstrating that the State 
will implement data-driven programs designed to reach motorcyclists 
and motorists 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.

[squ] Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Impaired 
Motorcyclists

     Data showing the total number of reported crashes 
involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle operators 
are

[[Page 7832]]

provided in the annual grant application at ___ (location).
     Description of the State's methods for collecting and 
analyzing data is provided in the annual grant application at ___ 
(location).

[squ] Use of Fees Collected From Motorcyclists for Motorcycle 
Programs

    [Check one box only below and fill in all blanks under the 
checked box only.]
    [squ] Applying as a Law State--
     The State law or regulation requires all fees collected 
by the State from motorcyclists for the purpose of funding 
motorcycle training and safety programs are to be used for 
motorcycle training and safety programs. Legal citation(s): 
________.

AND

     The State's law appropriating funds for FY __ 
demonstrates that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists 
for the purpose of funding motorcycle training and safety programs 
are spent on motorcycle training and safety programs. Legal 
citation(s): ________.

    [squ] Applying as a Data State--
     Data and/or documentation from official State records 
from the previous fiscal year showing that all fees collected by the 
State from motorcyclists for the purpose of funding motorcycle 
training and safety programs were used for motorcycle training and 
safety programs is provided in the annual grant application at ___ 
(location).

[squ] Part 8: Nonmotorized Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.26)

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant and only if 
NHTSA has identified the State as eligible because the State annual 
combined nonmotorized road user fatalities exceed 15 percent of the 
State's total annual crash fatalities based on the most recent 
calendar year final FARS data, then fill in the blank below.]
     The list of project(s) and subrecipient(s) information 
that the State plans to conduct under this program is provided in 
the annual grant application at ___(location(s)).

[squ] Part 9: Preventing Roadside Deaths Grants (23 CFR 1300.27)

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant, then fill 
in the blank below.]
    [squ] The State's plan describing the method by which the State 
will use grant funds is provided in the annual grant application at 
___(location(s)).

[squ] Part 10: Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants (23 CFR 
1300.28)

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant.]
    [Check one box only below and fill in required blanks under the 
checked box only.]

[squ] Driver Education and Driving Safety Courses

    [Check one box only below and fill in all blanks under the 
checked box only.]
    [squ] Applying as a law State--
    The State law requiring that driver education and driver safety 
courses include instruction and testing related to law enforcement 
practices during traffic stops was enacted on ___(date) and last 
amended on ___(date), is in effect, and will be enforced during the 
fiscal year of the grant.

Legal citation(s):-----------------------------------------------------
________.

    [squ] Applying as a documentation State--
     The State has developed and is implementing a driver 
education and driving safety course throughout the State that 
require driver education and driver safety courses to include 
instruction and testing related to law enforcement practices during 
traffic stops.
     Curriculum or course materials, and citations to grant 
required topics within, are provided in the annual grant application 
at ___(location).

[squ] Peace Officer Training Programs

    [Check one box only below and fill in all blanks under the 
checked box only.]
    [squ] Applying as a law State--
    The State law requiring that the State has developed and 
implemented a training program for peace officers and reserve law 
enforcement officers with respect to proper interaction with 
civilians during traffic stops was enacted on ___(date) and last 
amended on ___(date), is in effect, and will be enforced during the 
fiscal year of the grant.

Legal citation(s):-----------------------------------------------------
________.

    [squ] Applying as a documentation State--
     The State has developed and is implementing a training 
program for peace officers and reserve law enforcement officers with 
respect to proper interaction with civilians during traffic stops.
     Curriculum or course materials, and citations to grant 
required topics within, are provided in the annual grant application 
at ___(location).
    [squ] Applying as a qualifying State--
     A proposed bill or planning or strategy documents that 
identify meaningful actions that the State has taken and plans to 
take to develop and implement a qualifying law or program is 
provided in the annual grant application at ___(location).
     A timetable for implementation of a qualifying law or 
program within 5 years of initial application for a grant under this 
section is provided in the annual grant application at 
___(location).

[squ] Part 11: Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants (23 CFR 1300.29)

    [Check the box above only if applying for this grant.]
    [Check one box only below and fill in all blanks under the 
checked box only.]
    [squ] The official document(s) (i.e., a law, regulation, binding 
policy directive, letter from the Governor or court order) 
demonstrates 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 
are provided in the annual grant application at ___(location).
    [squ] The projects that the State will undertake during the 
fiscal year of the grant to maintain and allow 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 
are provided in the annual grant application at ___(location).
    In my capacity as the Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety, I hereby provide the following certifications and 
assurances--
     I have reviewed the above information in support of the 
State's application for 23 U.S.C. 405 and Section 1906 grants, and 
based on my review, the information is accurate and complete to the 
best of my personal knowledge.
     As condition of each grant awarded, the State will use 
these grant funds in accordance with the specific statutory and 
regulatory requirements of that grant, and will comply with all 
applicable laws, regulations, and financial and programmatic 
requirements for Federal grants.
     I understand and accept that incorrect, incomplete, or 
untimely information submitted in support of the State's application 
may result in the denial of a grant award.
    I understand that my statements in support of the State's 
application for Federal grant funds are statements upon which the 
Federal Government will rely in determining qualification for grant 
funds, and that knowing misstatements may be subject to civil or 
criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001. I sign these Certifications 
and Assurances based on personal knowledge, and after appropriate 
inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Governor's Representative for Highway Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed name of Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95.
Ann Carlson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-01819 Filed 2-3-23; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P