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

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

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

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

A. Nonsubstantive Changes

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

B. Updated Administrative Procedures of Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. Request for Comments

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

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

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

Tips for Preparing Your Comments

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

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

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

How do I submit confidential business information?

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

Will NHTSA consider late comments?

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

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

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

IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

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

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

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

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

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. National Environmental Policy Act

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

H. Executive Order 13211

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

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

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

L. Plain Language

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

M. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

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

N. Privacy Act

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

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1300

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subpart A--General

Sec.  1300.1   Purpose.

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

Sec.  1300.2   [Reserved].

Sec.  1300.3   Definitions.

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  1300.5   Due dates--interpretation.

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

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

Sec.  1300.10   General.

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

Sec.  1300.11   Triennial Highway Safety Plan.

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

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

Sec.  1300.12   Annual grant application.

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

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

Sec.  1300.13   Special funding conditions for Section 402 Grants.

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

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

Sec.  1300.14   [Reserved].

Sec.  1300.15   Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.

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

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

Sec.  1300.20   General.

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

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

Sec.  1300.21   Occupant protection grants.

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  1300.22   State Traffic safety information system improvements
grants.

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

Sec.  1300.23   Impaired driving countermeasures grants.

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

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

    (i) Review that addresses in each plan area any related
recommendations from the assessment of the State's impaired driving
program;
    (ii) Projects implementing impaired driving activities listed in
paragraph (j)(4) of this section that must include high-visibility
enforcement efforts, at the level of detail required under Sec.
1300.12(b)(2); and
    (iii) Description of how the spending supports the State's impaired
driving program and achievement of its performance targets.
    (2) Assurance qualification for fiscal year 2024 grants. For the
application due date of August 1, 2023 only, if a high-range State is
not able to the meet the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, the State may submit the assurance required in paragraph (d)
of this section and separate information that the State has conducted a
NHTSA-facilitated assessment within the last three years, or an
assurance that the State will conduct a NHTSA-facilitated assessment
during the grant year and convene a statewide impaired driving task
force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan that meets the
requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, and submit the
statewide impaired driving plan by August 1 of the grant year. The
agency will require the return of grant funds awarded under this
section if the State fails to submit a plan that meets the requirements
of paragraph (f)(1) of this section by the deadline and will
redistribute any such grant funds in accordance with Sec.  1200.20(e)
to other qualifying States under this section.
    (3) Previously submitted plans. A high-range State that has
received a grant for a previously submitted Statewide impaired driving
plan under paragraph (f)(1) of this section that was approved after the
application due date of August 1, 2023 and for a period of three years
after the approval occurs may, in lieu of submitting the plan required
under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, submit the assurance required
in paragraph (d) of this section and provide updates to its Statewide
impaired driving plan that meet the requirements of paragraphs
(e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and updates to its assessment
review and spending plan that meet the requirements of paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (g) Grants to States with alcohol-ignition interlock laws. (1) To
qualify for an alcohol-ignition interlock law grant, a State shall
submit legal citation(s) or program information (for paragraph
(g)(1)(iii)(B) of this section only), in accordance with part 4 of
appendix B to this part, that demonstrates that--
    (i) All individuals who are convicted of driving under the
influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated are permitted to
drive only motor vehicles equipped with alcohol-ignition interlocks for
a period of not less than 180 days; or
    (ii) All individuals who are convicted of driving under the
influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated and who are
ordered to use an alcohol-ignition interlock are not permitted to
receive any driving privilege or driver's license unless each such
individual installs on each motor vehicle registered, owned, or leased
by the individual an alcohol-ignition interlock for a period of not
less than 180 days; or
    (iii)(A) All individuals who are convicted of, or whose driving
privileges have been revoked or denied for, refusing to submit to a
chemical or other appropriate test for the purpose of determining the
presence or concentration of any intoxicating substance and who are
ordered to use an alcohol-ignition interlock are required to install on
each motor vehicle to be operated by each such individual an alcohol-
ignition interlock for a period of not less than 180 days; and
    (B) All individuals who are convicted of driving under the
influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated and who are
ordered to use an alcohol-ignition interlock must--
    (1) Install on each motor vehicle to be operated by each such
individual an alcohol-ignition interlock for a period of not less than
180 days; and
    (2) Complete a minimum consecutive period of not less than 40
percent of the required period of alcohol-ignition interlock
installation immediately prior to the end of each such individual's
installation requirement, without a confirmed violation of the State's
alcohol-ignition interlock program use requirements.
    (2) Permitted exceptions. A State statute providing for the
following exceptions, and no others, shall not be deemed out of
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section:
    (i) The individual is required to operate an employer's motor
vehicle in the course and scope of employment and the business entity
that owns the vehicle is not owned or controlled by the individual;
    (ii) The individual is certified in writing by a physician as being
unable to provide a deep lung breath sample for analysis by an ignition
interlock device; or
    (iii) A State-certified ignition interlock provider is not
available within 100 miles of the individual's residence.
    (h) Grants to States with a 24-7 Sobriety Program. To qualify for a
24-7 sobriety program grant, a State shall submit the following as part
of its annual grant application, in accordance with part 5 of appendix
B to this part:
    (1) Legal citation(s) to State statute demonstrating that the State