who is younger than 18 years of age prior to being issued by the State
any other permit, license, or endorsement to operate a motor vehicle on
public roadways. However, recognizing that some drivers younger than 18
years of age may change residence across State lines, a learner's
permit stage is not required for any driver who has already received an
intermediate license or unrestricted driver's license from any State,
including a State that does not meet the minimum qualification criteria
for an incentive grant. Drivers younger than 18 years of age who
possess only a learner's permit from another State must be integrated
into the State's learner's permit stage.
    The FAST Act requires applicants to successfully pass a vision and
knowledge assessment prior to receiving a learner's permit. A
``knowledge assessment'' (commonly called a ``written test'') is
generally written or

computerized, as opposed to a behind-the-wheel assessment. The
assessment must cover issues related to the driving task (including,
but not limited to, the rules of the road, signs, and signals), rather
than solely vehicle maintenance.
    Under the FAST Act and the IFR, the learner's permit stage must be
at least six months in duration, and it must remain in effect until the
driver reaches 16 years of age and enters the intermediate stage or
reaches 18 years of age. These requirements are independent and must
each be satisfied. For example, a learner's permit stage that
automatically ends with the issuance of an intermediate license at age
17 would not comply with the minimum requirements because, in some
cases, it may not be in effect for a period of at least 6 months.
However, a learner's permit stage that automatically ends at age 18
would not be a bar to compliance because, as discussed above, a State's
GDL program is not required to cover drivers who have reached that age.
A driver who successfully completes the learner's permit stage and is
younger than 18 must enter the intermediate stage; he or she may not be
issued an unrestricted driver's license or any other permit, license,
or endorsement.
    The key feature of a learner's permit stage is the requirement that
the learner's permit holder be accompanied and supervised at all times
while operating a motor vehicle. The FAST Act and this IFR require that
the supervising individual be a licensed driver who is at least 21
years of age or a State-certified driving instructor. The IFR defines
``licensed driver'' to mean ``an individual who possess a valid
unrestricted driver's license.'' (Sec.  1300.26(b)). An individual who
possesses only a learner's permit or intermediate license, or whose
license is expired, suspended, revoked, or otherwise invalid for any
reason, may not supervise a learner's permit holder. The FAST Act does
not allow for any exceptions to the requirement that a learner's permit
holder be accompanied and supervised ``at all times while the driver is
operating a motor vehicle.'' (23 U.S.C. 405(g)(2)(B)(i)(IV) (emphasis
added)) A State that allows a learner's permit holder to drive a motor
vehicle without being properly accompanied or supervised for any
reason, including in an emergency, would not qualify for an incentive
grant.
    With regard to driver's education (or a similar training course)
and behind-the-wheel training, both of which were required under MAP-
21, the FAST Act provides significantly more flexibility. Some
commenters to the MAP-21 IFR noted that driver's education was
difficult to implement in rural areas, that evidence on the
effectiveness of driver's education courses is mixed, and that States
facing budgetary challenges may face an insurmountable burden in
certifying driver's education courses and requiring all learner's
permit holders to attend them. Under the FAST Act, a learner's permit
holder must either complete a State-certified driver's education or
training course \14\ or receive at least 50 hours of behind-the-wheel
training, with at least 10 of those hours at night, with a licensed
driver. This IFR includes this requirement, but makes clear that the
licensed driver for behind-the-wheel training must be at least 21 years
of age or a State-certified driving instructor, in order for it to
align with the general accompaniment and supervision requirement
explained above. This IFR clarifies that the 10 hours of nighttime
behind-the-wheel training are included in the 50 hours of total behind-
the-wheel training, not an additional requirement. NHTSA declines to
define ``night'' for purposes of this requirement or to dictate how a
State may verify that the training has occurred. At this time, the
agency believes those determinations are best left to the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NHTSA encourages States to consider establishing driver
training curriculum standards based on the national standards
recommended in the Driver Education Working Group. (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (October 2009) Novice Teen Driver
Education and Training Administrative Standards.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify, a State must also make it a primary offense for a
learner's permit holder to use a personal wireless communications
device while driving. The FAST Act made a few changes to this
distracted driving provision of the GDL program (``GDL prohibition'')
to bring it into closer alignment with the criteria to qualify for a
Distracted Driving Grant (under 23 CFR Sec.  1300.24). First, the GDL
prohibition bans the use of any ``personal wireless communications
device,'' which has a common definition in both programs. Second, the
GDL prohibition uses the Distracted Driving Grant definition of
``driving.'' Finally, the same exceptions permitted under the
Distracted Driving Grant are permitted under this GDL prohibition. To
bring these further into alignment, NHTSA has incorporated into the GDL
prohibition the requirement under the Distracted Driving Grant that the
State's statute not include an exemption that specifically allows a
driver to text through a personal wireless communication device while
stopped in traffic. This provision goes to the heart of how the agency
interprets ``driving'' as it applies to State laws, and will ensure
consistency between the programs. As under the MAP-21 IFR and the
Distracted Driving Grant, violation of the GDL prohibition must be a
primary offense. However, NHTSA is not incorporating the minimum fine
requirement of the Distracted Driving Grant into the GDL prohibition.
It is not expressly required under the FAST Act to qualify for a State
GDL incentive grant, and the automatic extension requirement (discussed
next) already provides for an appropriate penalty under a GDL program.
    Finally, under this IFR, the learner's permit stage must require
that, in addition to any other penalties imposed by State statute, its
duration be extended if the learner's permit holder is convicted of a
driving-related offense or misrepresentation of a driver's true age
during at least the first six months of that stage. Under the FAST Act,
NHTSA has discretion to define any ``driving-related offense'' for
which this penalty must apply. (23 U.S.C. 405(g)(2)(B)(iii)) NHTSA has
defined ``driving-related offense'' broadly to include ``any offense
under State or local law relating to the use or operation of a motor
vehicle.'' Further, the IFR provides examples of such offenses,
including those from the FAST Act (driving while intoxicated, reckless
driving, driving without wearing a seat belt, and speeding), other
priority safety programs (child restraint violation and prohibited use
of a personal wireless communications device), any violation of a GDL
program, and general ``moving violations.'' NHTSA believes that an
extension of the learner's permit period is an effective tool for
ensuring that novice drivers clearly demonstrate responsibility before
advancing to a licensure stage requiring less supervision, and
therefore it should apply to any violation of the State's driving laws.
However, the IFR makes clear that ``driving-related offense'' does not
include offenses related to motor vehicle registration, insurance,
parking, or the presence or functionality of motor vehicle equipment
(such as headlights or taillights that require replacement). As motor
vehicles are often owned by the parents of novice drivers, NHTSA does
not believe that offenses related to the vehicles themselves
(registration, insurance, or functioning of equipment) should apply to
the novice driver. Parking violations are also excluded from the
definition because the violation generally applies to the owner of the
vehicle, and such violations do not generally implicate safety. We note

that offenses such as failure to turn on headlights during nighttime
hours are generally moving violations in States and are entirely within
the control of a novice driver, in which case they must result in the
extension of the learner's permit stage upon conviction.
    The FAST Act also changed the automatic extension requirement in
the MAP-21 IFR by applying this penalty only during the first six
months of the stage, not for its entirety. A State that requires the
extension of a learner's permit stage for a conviction that occurs
after the first six months would not be disqualified from a grant, but
it is no longer required. At this time, NHTSA is not requiring that the
learner's permit stage extension be for a particular length of time.
3. Intermediate Stage (23 CFR 1300.26(e))
    The FAST Act requires all 2-stage licensing processes to continue
with an intermediate stage after the learner's permit stage but prior
to receipt of an unrestricted license. As discussed above, the
intermediate stage must apply to any novice driver who completes the
learner's permit stage and is less than 18 years of age. (23 CFR
Sec. Sec.  1300.26(a), (d)(3), (e)(1)(i)) If a driver completes the
learner's permit stage after turning 18 years of age, he or she is not
required to participate in an intermediate stage and may receive an
unrestricted license.
    Under the IFR, the intermediate stage must commence after the
applicant successfully completes the learner's permit stage, but prior
to being issued by the State another permit, license, or endorsement
(other than the intermediate license) to operate a motor vehicle on
public roadways. This structure allows for a gap between the learner's
permit stage and the intermediate stage, in the event the former
expires prior to the novice driver being issued the latter. However,
the novice driver may not be granted additional driving privileges
beyond the intermediate stage until completion of that stage. In
addition, the novice driver may not be issued an intermediate stage
license until after he or she has passed a behind-the-wheel driving
skills assessment (commonly known as a ``road test'').
    The intermediate stage must be in effect for a period of at least 6
months, and it must remain in effect until the intermediate license
holder reaches at least 17 years of age. Thus, a State will not qualify
for an incentive grant if it issues additional permits, licenses
(including an unrestricted driver's license), or endorsements to an
intermediate stage driver who has not reached at least 17 years of age
and completed the requirements of that stage. As described above, a
State may now qualify for an incentive grant if the intermediate stage
expires automatically upon reaching 18 years of age, because drivers
are no longer required to complete a 2-stage driving process once they
have reached that age.
    One of the two primary features of an intermediate stage in a GDL
program is nighttime driving restrictions. Under the IFR, for the first
six months of the intermediate stage, the driver must be accompanied
and supervised by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age or
a State-certified driving instructor while operating a motor vehicle
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. The FAST Act changed this
requirement as it existed under MAP-21 to apply only to the first six
months of the intermediate stage, rather than to the entire stage. The
FAST Act adopted the MAP-21 nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. through 5:00
a.m., but added additional exceptions for ``transportation to work,
school, religious activities, or emergencies.'' NHTSA believes that
``to'' was not intended to limit such exceptions to driving only toward
these destinations and not to returning from these destinations. The
IFR makes clear that the exceptions may apply to driving ``for the
purposes of work, school, religious activities, or emergencies.'' This
broadening of the nighttime driving exceptions should address the
comments received in response to the MAP-21 IFR. Consistent with the
purpose of the statute, the IFR allows accompaniment by a State-
certified driving instructor, in addition to someone at least 21 years
of age, to better align the accompaniment and supervision requirement
with the learner's permit stage, as well as to allow for formal
training during nighttime hours.
    The second primary feature of an intermediate stage in a GDL
program is the passenger restriction. The IFR requires that, for the
entirety of the learner's permit stage, an intermediate license holder
be prohibited from operating a motor vehicle with more than one
nonfamilial passenger younger than 21 years of age unless a licensed
driver who is at least 21 years of age or is a State-certified driving
instructor is in the motor vehicle. This requirement is essentially
unchanged from the MAP-21 IFR, though NHTSA has allowed a State-
certified driving instructor to accompany a driver with more than one
nonfamilial passenger younger than 21 years of age in order to allow
for group behind-the-wheel training and ensure consistency with the
learner's permit phase. We emphasize that the FAST Act does not include
a 6-month limitation on this restriction; therefore, it must apply for
the entirety of the intermediate stage.
    Finally, the intermediate stage must include a prohibition on the
use of a personal wireless communications device while driving and a
requirement that the stage be extended if the intermediate license
holder is convicted of a driving related offense or misrepresentation
of a driver's true age during at least the first 6 months of the stage.
The language of these restrictions is identical in the FAST Act for
both the learner's permit and intermediate stages, and the IFR applies
these restrictions to both stages identically.
4. Additional Changes From MAP-21 IFR
    The MAP-21 IFR included a requirement that the State's learner's
permit, intermediate license, and full driver's license be
distinguishable from each other. One commenter did not support this
license distinguishability criterion, stating it was not an inherent
aspect of GDL law or directly related to improving the safety of novice
drivers. The FAST Act repealed the statutory provision that gave NHTSA
authority to prescribe additional requirements for State GDL programs
to qualify for an incentive grant. License distinguishability was not
included as a requirement in the FAST Act. For this reason, NHTSA
removes this requirement to qualify for a GDL grant.
5. Exceptions to a State's GDL Program (23 CFR 1300.26(f))
    MAP-21 created limited exceptions for States that enacted a law
prior to January 1, 2011, establishing either of the following two
classes of permit or license: a permit or license that allows drivers
younger than 18 years of age to operate a motor vehicle in connection
with work performed on, or the operation of, a farm owned by family
members who are directly related; or a permit or license that is issued
because demonstrable hardship would result from its denial to the
licensee or applicant. For the second class of permit or license, the
MAP-21 IFR clarified that a demonstration of unique, individualized
hardship was required. Further, the MAP-21 IFR made clear that although
novice drivers may possess one of these classes of permits or licenses,
States were not permitted to provide them any other permit, license or
endorsement until they completed the GDL process. The FAST Act did not

amend the exceptions that are permitted in State GDL programs. As a
result, they are maintained in this IFR.
6. Grant Awards and Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.26(g), (h))
    Under MAP-21, NHTSA was required to award grants to States that met
the qualification criteria on the basis of the apportionment formula
under Section 402 for that fiscal year. The FAST Act did not amend this
provision, so it continues to be used in this IFR. (23 CFR 1300.26(g))
This grant award formula for the State GDL incentive grant program
differs from the formula for the other Section 405 programs, where
distributions are made in proportion to the State's apportionment under
Section 402 for fiscal year 2009.
    In addition to listing all the qualifying uses, the agency has
reorganized this section under the IFR to list special rules that cover
any other statutory requirement conditioning how grant funds are spent.
As a general rule, grant funds must be used for certain expenses
connected with the State's GDL law or to carry out a teen traffic
safety program under 23 U.S.C. 402(m). Notwithstanding these uses, a
State may use no more than 75 percent of the grant funds for any
eligible project under Section 402. In addition, the FAST Act creates a
special rule for low fatality States that allows them to use up to 100
percent of the grant funds awarded under this section for any eligible
project under Section 402. Low fatality States are defined in the FAST
Act as those ``in the lowest 25 percent of all States for the number of
drivers under age 18 involved in fatal crashes in the State per the
total number of drivers under age 18 in the State based on the most
recent data that conforms with criteria established by the Secretary.''
For fatality information, the agency intends to use the most recently
available final FARS data. For number of drivers, the agency intends to
use Table DL-22 from the most recently available FHWA Highway
Statistics publication issued by its Office of Highway Policy
Information.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In collecting data for Table DL-22, FHWA requests that
States include the total number of drivers with intermediate or
unrestricted driver's licenses, but exclude learner's permits. NHTSA
will therefore exclude learner's permit holders involved in fatal
crashes from its FARS data for purposes of this calculation to
ensure consistency and discourage States from shortening their
learner's permit stages to improve their driver involvement rates in
fatal crashes. In addition, because few States report data for
drivers younger than 16 years of age, NHTSA's calculation of driver
involved rates in fatal crashes will only include 16- and 17-year-
old drivers, and exclude drivers younger than 16 years of age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Nonmotorized Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.27)

    The FAST Act created a new Nonmotorized Safety Grant program,
authorizing grants to enhance safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.
The purpose of the new grant program is to support State efforts to
decrease pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries that result
from crashes involving a motor vehicle.
    For assistance in developing nonmotorized safety programs, NHTSA
encourages States to look to NHTSA's Uniform Guidelines for State
Highway Safety Programs No. 14--Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs/pages/PedBikeSafety.htm. States may also look to NHTSA's training
courses on pedestrian safety training for law enforcement and
enhancing bicycle safety. See http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Pedestrians/Pedestrian+Safety+Training+for+Law+Enforcement+(CD-ROM)
and http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Bicycles/Enhancing+Bicycle+Safety:+Law+Enforcement's+Role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Eligibility Determination (23 CFR 1300.27(b))
    As directed in the FAST Act, States are eligible for the
Nonmotorized Safety Grant if the annual combined pedestrian and
bicyclist fatalities in the State exceed 15 percent of the total annual
crash fatalities in the State using the most recently available final
data from NHTSA's FARS. Recently, FHWA established a nonmotorized
performance measure for State departments of transportation to use to
carry out the HSIP and to assess the number of serious injuries and
fatalities of nonmotorized users. In creating this performance measure,
FHWA includes other nonmotorized users besides pedestrians and
bicyclists in its calculation of the ``number of non-motorized
fatalities.'' However for the Nonmotorized Safety Grant program, the
FAST Act specifies that eligible States shall receive a grant for ``the
purpose of decreasing pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and injuries
that result from crashes involving a motor vehicle,'' and does not
mention other types of nonmotorized users. Using FARS data, NHTSA will
calculate the percentage of each State's annual combined pedestrian and
bicyclist fatalities in relation to the State's annual total crash
fatalities, using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software. NHTSA
will not round or truncate this calculation. All States that exceed 15
percent will be eligible for a grant.
    In January each year prior to the application due date, the agency
will inform each State that is eligible for a grant.
2. Qualification Criteria (23 CFR 1300.27(c))
    To qualify for a grant under this section, an eligible State must
provide assurances that the State will use grant funds awarded under 23
U.S.C. 405(h) only for authorized uses.
3. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.27(d))
    The FAST Act specifies with particularity how States may use
Nonmotorized Safety Grant funds. The IFR adopts the FAST Act language
without change.

J. Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants (23 CFR 1300.28)

    Section 1906 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU) established
an incentive grant program to prohibit racial profiling. Section 4011
of the FAST Act revised several aspects of the Section 1906 Program.
1. Purpose (23 CFR 1300.28(a))
    The purpose of the SAFETEA-LU grant program was to encourage States
to enact and enforce laws that prohibit the use of racial profiling in
traffic law enforcement and to maintain and allow public inspection of
statistical information regarding the race and ethnicity of the driver
and any passengers for each motor vehicle stop in the State. The
purpose of the new Section 1906 grant program is to encourage States to
maintain and allow public inspection of statistical information on the
race and ethnicity of the driver for all motor vehicle stops made on
all public roads except those classified as local or minor rural roads.
2. Qualification Criteria (23 CFR 1300.28(b))
    Under the SAFETEA-LU Section 1906 Program, States could qualify for
a grant in one of two ways: (a) By enacting and enforcing a law that
prohibits the use of racial profiling in the enforcement of State laws
regulating the use of Federal-aid highways and maintaining and allowing
public inspection of statistical information on the race and ethnicity
of the driver and any passengers for each such motor vehicle stop made
by a law enforcement officer on a Federal-aid highway (a ``Law
State''); or (b) by providing satisfactory assurances that the State is
undertaking activities to prohibit racial profiling and to maintain and
provide public access to data on the race and ethnicity of the driver
and passengers

for each motor vehicle stop made by a law enforcement officer on a
Federal-aid highway (an ``Assurances State''). A State could not
receive a grant for more than two fiscal years by qualifying for the
grant as an Assurances State.
    Section 4011 of the FAST Act revised several aspects of the Section
1906 grant program. States now may qualify for a 1906 grant by: (1)
Maintaining and allowing public inspection of statistical information
on the race and ethnicity of the driver for each motor vehicle stop
made by a law enforcement officer on a Federal-aid highway; or (2)
undertaking activities during the fiscal year of the grant to do so.
Under the new 1906 Program, the clear emphasis is to encourage States
to maintain and provide public access to statistical information on the
race and ethnicity of drivers stopped by law enforcement officers on
Federal-aid highways. This requirement extends to all law enforcement
officers in a State, including local law enforcement. Use of the term
``Federal-aid highway'' is governed by Chapter 1 of Title 23, which
defines it as a highway eligible for assistance under Chapter 1 other
than a highway classified as a local road or rural minor collector.
Consequently, the program's data collection requirement extends to all
public roads except local and minor rural roads.
    To qualify under the first criterion, the State must submit
official documents (i.e., a law, regulation, binding policy directive,
letter from the Governor or court order) demonstrating that the State
maintains and allows public inspection of statistical information on
the race and ethnicity of drivers stopped by law enforcement officers
on Federal-aid highways. To qualify under the second criterion, the
State must provide assurances that the State will undertake activities
to do so and provide a list of one or more projects in the HSP to
support the assurances.
3. Limitations (23 CFR 1300.28(c))
    The FAST Act places two limitations on grants. First, a State may
not qualify for a grant under this section by providing assurances for
more than two fiscal years. This IFR adopts this requirement.
    The FAST Act also limits the total amount of grant funds awarded to
a State each fiscal year. A State may not receive more than 5 percent
of the grant funds made available under this section. By statute, NHTSA
may reallocate funds not awarded under this section to carry out any of
other activities authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403. (Activities authorized
under 23 U.S.C. 403 are beyond the scope of this rule.)
4. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.28(d))
    Consistent with its emphasis on data collection, the new 1906
Program now provides that a State may use grant funds only for the
costs of (1) collecting and maintaining data on traffic stops; and (2)
evaluating the results of the data.

V. Administration of Highway Safety Grants

    Today's action makes nonsubstantive changes to some sections and
amends other sections to clarify existing requirements, provide for
improved accountability of Federal funds and update requirements based
on the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 200, and the Department of
Transportation's implementing regulation at 2 CFR part 1201.

A. Nonsubstantive Changes

    In subparts D and E, the agency makes nonsubstantive changes, such
as updating cross references, and terms, and adding references to
Section 1906. Specifically, the agency makes nonsubstantive and
clarifying changes to the following provisions in subparts D and E:
Sec. Sec.  1300.30 General, 1300.31 Equipment, 1300.36 Appeals of
Written Decisions by a Regional Administrator, and 1300.42 Post-Grant
Adjustments, 1300.43 Continuing Requirements.

B. Governmentwide Uniform Grant Requirements

    A number of other requirements apply to the Section 402, 405 and
1906 programs, including such government-wide provisions as the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part
200) and DOT's implementing regulations of those Uniform Administrative
Requirements (2 CFR part 1201). These provisions are independent of
today's notice, and continue to apply in accordance with their terms.
Throughout this IFR, citations to 49 CFR parts 18 and 19 and to OMB
Circulars have been updated to refer to OMB's Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards as well as DOT's implementing regulations (2 CFR parts 200 and
1201). In addition, NHTSA has added citations to various provisions of
OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements throughout this IFR in order
to provide additional notice to States about certain provisions,
including risk assessment and consequences of non-compliance with
government-wide or NHTSA grant requirements. Finally, NHTSA has deleted
the provision on program income (Sec.  1300.34), and will rely the
Uniform Administrative Requirements to address program income.

C. 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 the 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, this IFR updates the procedures for
administering the highway safety grant programs.
1. Amendments to the Highway Safety Plans (23 CFR 1300.32)
    As noted in Section II.A. above, NHTSA anticipates implementing the
Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS) beginning with fiscal year
2018 grants. GMSS satisfies the FAST Act requirement that NHTSA allow
States to submit HSPs electronically. States will submit their HSPs
electronically in GMSS to apply for grants. In addition, States will
amend their HSPs and submit vouchers in GMSS. The agency expects GMSS
to reduce the administrative burden on States. This IFR continues the
existing requirement for approval of changes in the HSP by Regional
Administrators. Today's action makes conforming changes to Sec.
1300.32, including deleting the reference to the HS Form 217, which
will no longer be required.
2. Vouchers and Project Agreement (23 CFR 1300.33)
    While grantees or recipients have primary responsibility to
administer, manage, and account for the use of grant funds, the Federal
grant-awarding agency retains responsibility for oversight in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Changes to the
regulation are necessary to reflect the complexity of current grant
programs

and to ensure effective oversight. Today's action requires additional
documentation from States when submitting vouchers so that the agency
has information linking vouchers to expenditures prior to approving
reimbursements and to assist subsequent audits and reviews.
    Consistent with the agency's expected implementation of GMSS,
today's action amends Sec.  1300.33. Most paragraphs in this section
remain unchanged except for nonsubstantive updates to cross-references
and terms. This IFR amends the content of the vouchers to conform with
the implementation of GMSS and the revised HSP content requirements. As
is currently required, States will continue to identify the amount of
Federal funds for reimbursement, amount of Federal funds allocated to
local benefit, and matching rate. In order to better maintain oversight
of Federal grant funds, this IFR requires States to identify project
numbers, amount of indirect cost, amount of planning and administration
costs and program funding code. To ease the burden on States, the
agency is working to program GMSS to populate a number of fields, such
as project number and program funding code, from the HSP submission so
that States will not have to upload duplicative entries into GMSS.
    In response to the MAP-21 IFR, one commenter stated that a list of
projects and project numbers was too burdensome because it would
require, among other things, double entries. NHTSA is responsible for
oversight in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Without
such information, the agency is unable to track whether grant funds are
used in accordance with Federal law, including the period of
availability for such funds. As stated above, NHTSA expects to
implement GMSS to accept the submission of HSPs electronically so that
many of the fields will automatically populate, and thus reduce the
burden on States.
    With these changes, the agency will be better able to track the
State's expenditure of grant funds.
3. Annual Report (23 CFR 1300.35)
    Today's action retains much of the existing requirements for the
State's annual report and makes two targeted additions to require a
description of the State's evidence-based enforcement program
activities and an explanation of reasons for projects that were not
implemented. The statute requires States to have sustained enforcement
of traffic safety laws (i.e., impaired driving, occupant protection and
driving in excess of posted speed limits) as a condition of a Section
402 grant. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)) The HSP that is approved by NHTSA
contains information about the projects that the State intends to
implement to meet performance targets. In order to improve oversight of
grantee activities and management of federal funds, the IFR updates the
annual report to require a description of the State's enforcement
activities and an explanation of reasons for projects that were
approved by NHTSA but not implemented. To ease the State's burden,
NHTSA expects that States will be able to submit this information
through GMSS beginning with fiscal year 2018.
4. Disposition of Unexpended Balances (23 CFR 1300.41)
    A fundamental expectation of Congress is that funds made available
to States will be used promptly and effectively to address the highway
safety problems for which they were authorized. Section 402 and 405
grant funds are authorized for apportionment or allocation each fiscal
year. Because these funds are made available each fiscal year, it is
expected that States will strive to use these grant funds to carry out
highway safety programs during the fiscal year of the grant. States
should, to the fullest extent possible, expend these funds during the
fiscal year to meet the intent of the Congress in funding an annual
program.
    Today's action retains many provisions in the MAP-21 IFR, such as
the provision on deobligation of funds, but conforms the treatment of
carry-forward funds to the revised HSP content requirements in Sec.
1300.11(d). Two commenters to the MAP-21 IFR sought clarification on
the treatment of grant funds awarded under previous authorizations. As
provided in the MAP-21 IFR, the codified regulations in place at the
time of grant award continue to apply.

D. Sanctions

    Today's action reorganizes and clarifies 23 CFR 1300.51 in
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402(c). No substantive changes are made to
this section.
    This IFR adds a new sanction provision (23 CFR 1300.52) related to
risk assessment and noncompliance with Federal requirements for grants.
The OMB Circular (2 CFR part 200) introduced increased risk assessment
procedures for Federal agencies and sub-recipients. This IFR explains
that NHTSA will conduct risk assessments and incorporate risk
assessment results into existing grant monitoring activities. NHTSA may
impose conditions proportional to the degree of risk found.

VI. Special Provisions for Fiscal Year 2017 Grants

A. Fiscal Year 2017 Grant Applications (23 CFR 1300.60)

    The FAST Act left a number of the National Priority Safety Program
grants unchanged, provided additional flexibility for States to receive
grants under others, and established new grants. Today's action
streamlines and consolidates grant application requirements for
Sections 402, 405 and 1906. For Section 402 grants, States are required
to submit HSPs with performance measures and targets, a strategy for
programming funds on projects and activities, and data and data
analysis supporting the effectiveness of the countermeasures for
NHTSA's approval. This IFR revises some of the HSP content requirements
to allow States to use the HSP contents to not only meet the Section
402 requirements, but also meet some of the Section 405 grant
requirements.
    While these changes to the HSP and Section 405 grant requirements
will reduce the application burden on States, NHTSA is not making these
changes a requirement for fiscal year 2017 grants. States begin
drafting their HSP for the next fiscal year months in advance of the
July 1 application deadline. It would be difficult for States to meet
the revised requirements in the short time between the issuance of this
IFR and July 1, 2016.
    In order to limit any disruption to the State highway safety
program planning process, the amendments to the application
requirements in this part are not mandatory until the fiscal year 2018
application cycle for grants without substantive changes in the FAST
Act. For those grants (Occupant Protection Grants, State Traffic Safety
Information System Improvements Grants, Impaired Driving
Countermeasures Grants and Motorcyclist Safety Grants), States may
follow the application requirements in the MAP-21 IFR (Part 1200). As
discussed in Section I, for additional flexibility, States may elect to
follow the new procedures (i.e., the part 1300 requirements) for fiscal
year 2017 grant applications for these grants that were not
substantively changed by the FAST Act. Specifically, States should
submit applications in accordance with the following instructions:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant application                             Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSP contents.................  Sec.   1200.11..           Sec.   1300.11
Section 405(b) Occupant        Sec.                Sec.   1300.21(d)(1)-
 Protection Grants.             1200.21(d)(1)-(                      (5)
                                4) and (e);
                                Sec.
                                1300.21(d)(5)
                                \17\
                                (maintenance of
                                effort).
Section 405(c) State Traffic   Sec.                Sec.   1300.22(b)-(c)
 Safety System Improvements     1200.22(b)-(e);
 Grants.                        Sec.
                                1300.22(c) \17\
                                (maintenance of
                                effort).
Section 405(d)(1) Impaired     Sec.                Sec.   1300.23(d)-(f)
 Driving Countermeasures        1200.23(d)(1),
 Grants.                        (e), (f); Sec.
                                 1300.23(d)(2)
                                \17\
                                (maintenance of
                                effort).
Section 405(f) Motorcyclist    Sec.                Sec.   1300.25(d)-(j)
 Safety Grants.                 1200.25(d)-(j).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Section 405 grants for which the FAST Act provided additional
flexibility (Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants, Distracted Driving
Grants and State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grants) and for
new grants (24-7 Sobriety Grants, Nonmotorized Grants and Racial
Profiling Data Collection Grants), States should submit applications in
accordance with this part. Specifically, States must submit
applications in accordance with the following instructions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The FAST Act maintenance of effort requirements for
occupant protection, State traffic information system improvements
and impaired driving countermeasures are effective for fiscal year
2017 grants. (23 U.S.C. 405(a)(9)).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Grant application                       Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 405(d)(6) Grants to States with Alcohol-       Sec.   1300.23(g)
 Ignition Interlock..................................
Section 405(d)(6) Grants to States with 24-7 Sobriety  Sec.   1300.23(h)
 Program Grants......................................
Section 405(e) Distracted Driving (and Special            Sec.   1300.24
 Distracted Driving) Grants..........................
Section 405(g) State Graduated Driver Licensing           Sec.   1300.26
 Incentive Grants....................................
Section 405(h) Nonmotorized Safety Grants............     Sec.   1300.27
Section 1906 Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants.     Sec.   1300.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Fiscal Year 2017 Grants--General and Administrative Provisions (23
CFR 1300.61)

    Today's action makes a number of changes to the general and
administrative provisions applicable to grants awarded under 23 U.S.C.
Chapter 4 and Section 1906. In order to reduce the burden on States,
the agency is delaying the applicability of some of these provisions.
Specifically, the provisions that impact the HSP contents and the
process for reimbursement of grant expenditures are delayed until
fiscal year 2018 grants.
    For fiscal year 2017 grants awarded under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and
Section 1906, the following provisions from part 1300 are applicable:
     Subpart A--all sections;
     Subpart B: 23 CFR 1300.10 General; 23 CFR 1300.12 Due Date
for Submission; (iii) 23 CFR 1300.13 Special Funding Conditions for
Section 402 Grants; (iv) 23 CFR 1300.15 Apportionment and Obligation of
Federal Funds;
     Subpart C--23 CFR 1300.20 General; 23 CFR 1300.21(a)-(c)
and (f); 23 CFR 1300.22(a) and (d); 23 CFR 1300.23(a)-(c), (i) and (j);
23 CFR 1300.1300.24--all paragraphs; 23 CFR 1300.25(a)-(c), (k) and
(l); 23 CFR 1300.26--all paragraphs; 23 CFR 1300.27--all paragraphs; 23
CFR 1300.28--all paragraphs;
     Subpart D: 23 CFR 1300.30 General; 23 CFR 1300.31
Equipment; 23 CFR 1300.35 Annual Report; 23 CFR 1300.36 Appeals of
Written Decision by Regional Administrator;
     Subpart E--all sections;
     Subpart F--all sections.
    For all other general or administrative provisions, the following
provisions of 23 CFR part 1200 apply for fiscal year 2017--
     Subpart B--23 CFR 1200.14 Review and Approval Procedures;
     Subpart D: 23 CFR 1200.32 Changes--Approval of the
Approving Official (Regional Administrator); 23 CFR 1200.33 Vouchers
and Project Agreements.

VII. MAP-21 Comments

    This preamble addressed comments from the MAP-21 IFR in applicable
sections. Some comments, however, were of general applicability or
applied to multiple sections of the IFR. Those comments are addressed
in this section.
    One commenter suggested that States conduct their own assessments
rather than NHTSA-facilitated assessments. There are a number of
assessment requirements within MAP-21 and continued under the FAST Act,
e.g., two assessments under the Occupant Protection Grant, a traffic
record system assessment and an impaired driving assessment. These are
statutory requirements. In the MAP-21 IFR, the agency specified that
these would be NHTSA-facilitated assessments. Consistent with the MAP-
21 IFR, we continue to define an assessment as a NHTSA-facilitated
process. The agency's involvement will ensure a comprehensive treatment
and uniformity among all States receiving assessments. This approach
also is consistent with NHTSA's long-standing involvement in conducting
assessments of traffic safety activities and programs.
    One commenter sought clarification about whether grant funds may be
used to fund an impaired driving task force. While the question was
specific to the impaired driving task force, there are other grants
where task forces or similar entities are requirements for a Section
405 grant. Generally, under the Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, costs
incurred by advisory councils or committees are unallowable unless
authorized by statute, the Federal awarding agency or as an indirect
cost where allocable to Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.422. As the agency
stated in response to questions about the Cost Principles, the costs of
advisory councils (or similar entities) are not allowable if the
advisory council or entity is required to qualify for a grant by which
it is funded (e.g., the costs of a task force required to qualify for a
Section 405 grant may not be reimbursed using Section 405 funds.
However, those costs may be allowable using other NHTSA grant funds.
    Several commenters had questions about the qualification
requirements for MAP-21 grants based on enactment of

laws. Most of these commenters stated that the MAP-21 IFR did not
provide sufficient time for State legislatures to amend laws to qualify
for grants in fiscal year 2014. Most of the law-based qualification
requirements in MAP-21 and the FAST Act are based on statutory
requirements. NHTSA encouraged States to review the FAST Act to become
familiar with these requirements in advance of publishing the
regulation. NHTSA does not have much discretion in these law-based
qualification requirements. As a long term authorization, the FAST ACT
provides States with more lead time to amend State laws to comply with
grant requirements, and it provides additional flexibility to meet
grant requirements.

VIII. Notice and Comment, Effective Date and Request for Comments

    The Administrative Procedure Act authorizes agencies to dispense
with certain procedures for rules when they find ``good cause'' to do
so. The FAST Act contains a general provision requiring the agency to
award grants through rulemaking and continues the specific provision
requiring the agency to award the GDL grants through notice and comment
provisions under 5 U.S.C. 553. The agency finds good cause to dispense
with the notice and comment requirements and the 30-day delayed
effective date requirement.
    Under Section 553(b)(B), the requirements of notice and comment do
not apply when the agency, for good cause, finds that those procedures
are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.''
Because the statutory deadline for fiscal year 2017 grant applications
is July 1, 2016, the agency finds it impracticable to implement the
grant provisions with notice and comment. However, the agency invites
public comment on all aspects of this IFR as the agency intends to
address comments in a final rule.
    Under Section 553(d), the agency may make a rule effective
immediately, avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date requirement for
good cause. We have determined that it is in the public interest for
this final rule to have an immediate effective date. NHTSA is
expediting a rulemaking to provide notice to the States of the
requirements for the substantively changed grants and the new grants
established by the FAST Act. NHTSA is providing the option for States
to apply the new requirements immediately to all grants, and this also
requires an expedited rule. The fiscal year 2017 grant funds must be
awarded to States before the end of the fiscal year 2016, and States
need the time to complete their fiscal year 2017 grant applications
before the July 1, 2016 deadline. Early publication of the rule setting
forth the requirements for State applications for multiple grants that
have separate qualification requirements is therefore imperative.
    For these reasons, NHTSA is issuing this rulemaking as an interim
final rule that will be effective immediately. As an interim final
rule, this regulation is fully in effect and binding upon its effective
date. No further regulatory action by the agency is necessary to make
this rule effective. However, in order to benefit from comments that
interested parties and the public may have, the agency is requesting
that comments be submitted to the docket for this notice.
    Comments received in response to this notice, as well as continued
interaction with interested parties, will be considered in making
future changes to these programs. Following the close of the comment
period, the agency will publish a notice responding to the comments
and, if appropriate, the agency will amend the provisions of this rule.
    For ease of reference, this IFR sets forth in full part 1300.

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 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST
Act). While this interim final rule (IFR) 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 IFR is a rulemaking that will establish revised uniform
procedures implementing State highway safety grant programs, as a
result of enactment of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
(FAST Act). 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, and has
determined that this IFR would not have sufficient Federalism
implications as defined in the order to warrant formal consultation
with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement. However, NHTSA continues to engage with State
representatives regarding general implementation of the FAST Act,
including these grant programs, and expects to continue these informal
dialogues.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), as implemented by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320, a person
is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal
agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The
grant application requirements in this IFR are considered to be a
collection of information subject to requirements of the PRA. Because
the agency cannot reasonably comply with the submission time periods
under the PRA and provide States sufficient time to apply for the
grants to be awarded in fiscal year 2017, the agency is seeking
emergency clearance for the information collection related to the
fiscal year 2017 grant application process. The agency is proceeding
under the regular PRA clearance process for the collection of
information related to grants beginning with fiscal year 2018 grants.
Accordingly, in compliance with the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is
seeking comment on a new information collection for grant programs
beginning with fiscal year 2018 grants.
    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 December 4, 2015, the
President signed into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act (FAST Act), Public Law 114-94, 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
FAST Act requires NHTSA to award these grants to States pursuant to a
rulemaking.
    Unlike the prior authorization under MAP-21, the FAST Act does not
significantly change the structure of these grant programs. The FAST
Act instead made targeted amendments, adding more flexibility for
States to qualify for some of the grants. For Section 402, the FAST Act
made limited administrative changes and no substantive changes to the
contents of the required Highway Safety Plan (HSP). For Section 405,
the FAST Act made no substantive changes to four programs covering
occupant protection grants, state traffic safety information systems
improvements grants, impaired driving countermeasures grants and
motorcyclist safety grants; made limited changes that added flexibility
for States to qualify for three grant programs covering alcohol-
ignition interlock law grants, distracted driving grants and state
graduated driving licensing incentive grants; and created two new grant
programs covering 24-7 sobriety programs grants and nonmotorized safety
grants. For Section 1906, the FAST Act made changes that simplified the
basis for States to receive a grant.
    Consequently, for all of these grants, the agency continues to
follow the process directed in MAP-21 establishing a consolidated
application that uses the HSP States submit under the Section 402
program as a single application. The information required to be
submitted for these grants includes the HSP consisting of information
on the highway safety planning process, performance plan, highway
safety countermeasure strategies and projects, performance report,
certifications and assurances, and application materials that covers
Section 405 grants and the reauthorized Section 1906 grant. In
addition, States must submit an annual report evaluating the State's
progress in achieving performance targets.
    Under this IFR, the agency has taken significant steps to
streamline the application process. This includes allowing States to
more easily cross reference sections of their HSP under Section 402
where similar information is required to be submitted to qualify for a
Section 405 grant and the introduction of a revised electronic
submission process. As discussed above, in accordance with FAST Act
requirements that require the agency to make greater use of an
electronic application process, the agency intends to start using the
Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS) for fiscal year 2018 grants.
GMSS replaces the current grants tracking system and represents an
enhanced and improved electronic system that will allow States to apply
for and receive grants and also manage grants and invoicing
electronically. The agency's approach will contribute overall to
reducing the paperwork requirements associated with responding to the
statutory requirements.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the
Information: As noted above, the statute provides that the Highway
Safety Plan is the application 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: 57 (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 the Indian Country).
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information:
    The Highway Safety Plan (HSP) is a planning document for a State's
entire traffic safety program and outlines the countermeasure
strategies, program activities, and funding for key program areas as
identified by State and Federal data and problem identification. By
statute, States must submit and NHTSA must approve the HSP as a
condition of Section 402 grant funds. States also are required to
submit their Sections 405

and 1906 grant applications as part of the HSP. States must submit the
HSP each fiscal year in order to qualify for grant funds. In addition,
States provide an annual report evaluating their progress under the
programs.
    The estimated burden hours for the collection of information 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 respondent approximately 240
hours to collect, review and submit the required information to NHTSA
for the Section 402 program. We further estimate that it will take each
respondent approximately 180 hours to collect, review and submit the
required information to NHTSA for the Section 405 program. Based on the
above information, the estimated annual burden hours for all
respondents are 23,760 hours.
    Assuming the average salary of individuals responsible for
submitting the information is $50.00 per hour, the estimated cost for
each respondent is $21,000; the estimated total cost for all
respondents is $1,197,000. These estimates are based on every eligible
respondent submitting the required information for every available
grant every year. However, all States do not 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 single
application covering multiple years allowing States to simply recertify
in subsequent years. Considering the agency's steps to streamline the
current submission process under this IFR and the greater use of an
electronic submission process beginning in fiscal year 2018, these
estimates represent the highest possible burden hours and amounts
possible for States submitting the required information.
    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 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,
2016.

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
IFR 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 IFR 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 IFR 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 IFR.

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

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.

X. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We 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. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, 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. In addition, you should
submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), 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 comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

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.

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

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

Subpart A--General
Sec.
1300.1 Purpose.
1300.2 [Reserved].
1300.3 Definitions.
1300.4 State Highway Safety Agency--authority and functions.
1300.5 Due dates--interpretation.
Subpart B--Highway Safety Plan
1300.10 General.
1300.11 Contents.
1300.12 Due date for submission.
1300.13 Special funding conditions for Section 402 Grants.
1300.14 Review and approval procedures.
1300.15 Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.
Subpart C--National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data
Collection Grants
1300.20 General.
1300.21 Occupant protection grants.
1300.22 State traffic safety information system improvements grants.
1300.23 Impaired driving countermeasures grants.
1300.24 Distracted driving grants.
1300.25 Motorcyclist safety grants.
1300.26 State graduated driver licensing incentive grants.
1300.27 Nonmotorized safety grants.
1300.28 Racial profiling data collection grants.
Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants
1300.30 General.
1300.31 Equipment.
1300.32 Amendments to Highway Safety Plans--approval by the Regional
Administrator.
1300.33 Vouchers and project greements.
1300.34 [Reserved].
1300.35 Annual report.
1300.36 Appeals of written decision by the Regional Administrator.
Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation
1300.40 Expiration of the Highway Safety Plan.
1300.41 Disposition of unexpended balances.
1300.42 Post-grant adjustments.
1300.43 Continuing requirements.
Subpart F--Non-Compliance
1300.50 General.
1300.51 Sanctions--reduction of apportionment.
1300.52 Sanctions--risk assessment and non-compliance.
Subpart G--Special Provisions for Fiscal Year 2017 Highway Safety
Grants
1300.60 Fiscal Year 2017 grant applications.
1300.61 Fiscal Year 2017 grants--general and administrative
provisions.
Appendix A to Part 1300--Certifications and Assurances for Highway
Safety Grants (23 U.S.C. Chapter 4; Sec. 1906, Pub. L. 109-59, as
amended by Sec. 4011, Pub. L. 114-94).
Appendix B to Part 1300--Application Requirements for Section 405
and Section 1906 Grants.
Appendix C to Part 1300--Participation by Political Subdivisions.
Appendix D to Part 1300--Planning and Administration (P&A) Costs.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; 23 U.S.C. 405; Sec. 1906, Pub. L. 109-
59, 119 Stat. 1468, as amended by Sec. 4011, Pub. L. 114-94, 129

Stat. 1512; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Subpart A--General

Sec.  1300.1  Purpose.

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

Sec.  1300.2  [Reserved].

Sec.  1300.3  Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    Annual Report File (ARF) means FARS data that are published
annually, but prior to final FARS data.
    Carry-forward funds means those funds that a State has not expended
on projects in the fiscal year in which they were apportioned or
allocated, that are within the period of availability, and that are
being brought forward and made available for expenditure in a
subsequent fiscal year.
    Contract authority means the statutory language that authorizes an
agency to incur an obligation without the need for a prior
appropriation or further action from Congress and which, when
exercised, creates a binding obligation on the United States for which
Congress must make subsequent liquidating appropriations.
    Countermeasure strategy means a proven effective countermeasure
proposed or implemented with grant funds under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and
Section 1906 to address identified problems and meet performance
targets. Examples include high visibility occupant protection
enforcement, DUI courts, or alcohol screening and brief intervention
programs.
    Data-driven means informed by a systematic review and analysis of
quality data sources when making decisions related to planning, target
establishment, resource allocation and implementation.
    Evidence-based means based on approaches that are proven effective
with consistent results when making decisions related to countermeasure
strategies and projects.
    Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) means the nationwide
census providing public yearly data regarding fatal injuries suffered
in motor vehicle traffic crashes, as published by NHTSA.
    Fatality rate means the ratio of the number of fatalities (as
defined in this section) to the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
(expressed in 100 million VMT) in a calendar year, based on the data
reported by the FARS database.
    Final FARS means the FARS data that replace the annual report file
and contain additional cases or updates that became available after the
annual report file was released.
    Fiscal year means the Federal fiscal year, consisting of the 12
months beginning each October 1 and ending the following September 30.
    Five-year (5-year) rolling average means the average of five
individual points of data from five consecutive calendar years (e.g.,
the 5-year rolling average of the annual fatality rate).
    Governor means the Governor of any of the fifty States, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Mayor of the District
of Columbia, or, for the application of this part to Indian Country as
provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), the Secretary of the Interior.
    Governor's Representative for Highway Safety means the official
appointed by the Governor to implement the State's highway safety
program or, for the application of this part to Indian Country as
provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), an official of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs or other Department of Interior official who is duly designated
by the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Indian highway safety
program.
    Highway Safety Plan (HSP) means the document that the State submits
each fiscal year as its application for highway safety grants, which
describes the State's performance targets, the strategies and projects
the State plans to implement, and the resources from all sources the
State plans to use to achieve its highway safety performance targets.
    Highway safety program means the planning, strategies and
performance measures, and general oversight and management of highway
safety strategies and projects by the State either directly or through
sub-recipients to address highway safety problems in the State, as
defined in the annual Highway Safety Plan and any amendments.
    NHTSA means the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    Number of fatalities means the total number of persons suffering
fatal injuries in a motor vehicle traffic crash during a calendar year,
based on data reported in the FARS database.
    Number of serious injuries means the total number of persons
suffering at least one serious injury for each separate motor vehicle
traffic crash during a calendar year, as reported by the State, where
the crash involves a motor vehicle traveling on a public road.
    Performance measure means a metric that is used to establish
targets and to assess progress toward meeting the established targets.
    Performance target means a quantifiable level of performance or a
goal, expressed as a value, to be achieved within a specified time
period.
    Problem identification means the data collection and analysis
process for identifying areas of the State, types of crashes, or types
of populations (e.g., high-risk populations) that present specific
safety challenges to efforts to improve a specific program area.
    Program area means any of the national priority safety program
areas identified in 23 U.S.C. 405 or a program area identified by a
State in the highway safety plan as encompassing a major highway safety
problem in the State and for which documented effective countermeasure
strategies have been identified or projected by analysis to be
effective.
    Project means a specific undertaking or activity proposed or
implemented with grant funds under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906
and that addresses countermeasure strategies identified in the HSP.
    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 number means a unique identifier assigned to each project
agreement in the Highway Safety Plan.
    Public road means any road under the jurisdiction of and maintained
by a public authority and open to public travel.
    Section 402 means section 402 of title 23 of the United States
Code.
    Section 405 means section 405 of title 23 of the United States
Code.
    Section 1906 means Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Sec.
4011, Public Law 114-94.
    Serious injuries means, until April 15, 2019, injuries classified
as ``A'' on the KABCO scale through the use of the conversion tables
developed by NHTSA, and thereafter, ``suspected serious injury (A)'' as
defined in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline,
4th Edition.
    State means, except as provided in Sec.  1300.25(b), any of the
fifty States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, or, for the application of this

part to Indian Country as provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), the Secretary
of the Interior.
    State highway safety improvement program (HSIP) means the program
defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(10).
    State strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) means the plan defined
in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(11).

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

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

Sec.  1300.5  Due dates--interpretation.

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

Subpart B--Highway Safety Plan

Sec.  1300.10  General.

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

Sec.  1300.11  Contents.

    The State's Highway Safety Plan documents a State's highway safety
program that is data-driven in establishing performance targets and
selecting the countermeasure strategies and projects to meet
performance targets. Each fiscal year, the State's HSP shall consist of
the following components:
    (a) Highway safety planning process. (1) Description of the data
sources and processes used by the State to identify its highway safety
problems, describe its highway safety performance measures, establish
its performance targets, and develop and select evidence-based
countermeasure strategies and projects to address its problems and
achieve its performance targets;
    (2) Identification of the participants in the processes (e.g.,
highway safety committees, program stakeholders, community and
constituent groups);
    (3) Description and analysis of the State's overall highway safety
problems as identified through an analysis of data, including but not
limited to fatality, injury, enforcement, and judicial data, to be used
as a basis for setting performance targets and developing
countermeasure strategies.
    (4) Discussion of the methods for project selection (e.g.,
constituent outreach, public meetings, solicitation of proposals);
    (5) List of information and data sources consulted; and
    (6) Description of the outcomes from the coordination of the HSP,
data collection, and information systems with the State SHSP.
    (b) Performance report. A program-area-level report on the State's
progress towards meeting State performance targets from the previous
fiscal year's HSP, and a description of how the State will adjust its
upcoming HSP to better meet performance targets if a State has not met
its performance targets.
    (c) Performance plan. (1) List of quantifiable and measurable
highway safety performance targets that are data-driven, consistent
with the Uniform Guidelines for Highway Safety Program and based on
highway safety problems identified by the State during the planning
process conducted under paragraph (a) of this section.
    (2) All performance measures developed by NHTSA in collaboration
with the Governors Highway Safety Association (``Traffic Safety
Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811
025)),

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

Sec.  1300.12  Due date for submission.

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

Sec.  1300.13  Special funding conditions for Section 402 Grants.

    The State's highway safety program under Section 402 shall be
subject to the following conditions, and approval under Sec.  1300.14
of this part shall be deemed to incorporate these conditions:
    (a) Planning and administration costs. (1) Federal participation in
P&A activities shall not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of such
activities, or the applicable sliding scale rate in accordance with 23
U.S.C. 120. The Federal contribution for P&A activities shall not
exceed 13 percent of the total funds the State receives under Section
402. In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120(i), the Federal share payable for
projects in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be 100 percent. The
Indian Country, as defined by 23 U.S.C. 402(h), is exempt from the
provisions of P&A requirements. NHTSA funds shall be used only to fund
P&A activities attributable to NHTSA programs. Determinations of P&A
shall be in accordance with the provisions of Appendix D.
    (2) P&A tasks and related costs shall be described in the P&A
module of the State's Highway Safety Plan. The State's matching share
shall be determined on the basis of the total P&A costs in the module.
    (b) Prohibition on use of grant funds to check for helmet usage.
Grant funds under this part shall not be used for programs to check
helmet usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target
motorcyclists.
    (c) Prohibition on use of grant funds for automated traffic
enforcement systems. The State may not expend funds apportioned to the
State under Section 402 to carry out a program to purchase, operate, or
maintain an automated traffic enforcement system. The term ``automated
traffic enforcement system'' includes any camera that captures an image
of a vehicle for the purposes only of red light and speed enforcement,
and does not include hand held radar and other devices operated by law
enforcement officers to make an on-the-scene traffic stop, issue a
traffic citation, or other enforcement action at the time of the
violation.
    (d) Biennial survey of State automated traffic enforcement systems
requirement. (1) Beginning with fiscal year 2018 highway safety plans
and biennially thereafter, the State must either--
    (i) Certify, as provided in Appendix A, that automated traffic
enforcement systems are not used on any public road in the State; or
    (ii)(A) Conduct a survey during the fiscal year of the grant
meeting the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section and
provide assurances, as provided in Appendix A, that it will do so; and
    (B) Submit the survey results to the NHTSA Regional office no later
than March 1 of the fiscal year of the grant.
    (2) Survey contents. The survey shall include information about all
automated traffic enforcement systems installed in the State, including
systems installed in political subdivisions. The survey shall include:
    (i) List of automated traffic enforcement systems in the State;
    (ii) Adequate data to measure the transparency, accountability, and
safety attributes of each automated traffic enforcement system; and
    (iii) Comparison of each automated traffic enforcement system
with--
    (A) ``Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines''
(DOT HS 810 916), as updated; and
    (B) ``Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines'' (FHWA-SA-
05-002), as updated.

Sec.  1300.14  Review and approval procedures.

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

Sec.  1300.15  Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.

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

contingent upon the State's submission of up-to-date and approved
projects in the HSP, in accordance with Sec. Sec.  1300.11(d) 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.
    Personal wireless communications device means a device through
which personal wireless services (commercial mobile services,
unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange
access services) are transmitted, but does not include a global
navigation satellite system receiver used for positioning, emergency
notification, or navigation purposes.
    Primary offense means an offense for which a law enforcement
officer may stop a vehicle and issue a citation in the absence of
evidence of another offense.
    (c) Eligibility and application--(1) Eligibility. Except as
provided in Sec.  1300.25(c), the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are each eligible to apply
for grants identified under this subpart.
    (2) Application. (i) For all grants under Section 405 and Section
1906, the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, on behalf of
the State, shall sign and submit with the Highway Safety Plan, the
information required under Appendix B--Application Requirements for
Section 405 and Section 1906 Grants.
    (ii) For all grant applications under Section 405 and Section 1906,
if the State is relying on specific elements of the HSP as part of its
application materials for grants under this subpart, the State shall
include the specific page numbers in the HSP.
    (d) Qualification based on State statutes. Whenever a qualifying
State statute is the basis for a grant awarded under this subpart, such
statute shall have been enacted by the application due date and be in
effect and enforced, without interruption, by the beginning of and
throughout the fiscal year of the grant award.
    (e) Award determinations and transfer of funds. (1) Except as
provided in Sec.  1300.26(g), the amount of a grant awarded to a State
in a fiscal year under Section 405 and Section 1906 shall be in
proportion to the amount each such State received under Section 402 for
fiscal year 2009.
    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and except as
provided in Sec. Sec.  1300.25(k) and 1300.28(c)(2), a grant awarded to
a State in a fiscal year under Section 405 may not exceed 10 percent of
the total amount made available for that subsection for that fiscal
year.
    (3) Except for amounts made available for grants under Sec.
1300.28, if it is determined after review of applications that funds
for a grant program under Section 405 will not all be distributed, such
funds shall be transferred to Section 402 and shall distributed in
proportion to the amount each State received under Section 402 for
fiscal year 2009 to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that
each State receives the maximum funding for which it qualifies.
    (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
in properly restrained in motor vehicles.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Child restraint means any device (including a child safety seat,
booster seat used in conjunction with 3-point belts, or harness, but
excluding seat belts) that is designed for use in a motor vehicle to
restrain, seat, or position a child who weighs 65 pounds (30 kilograms)
or less and that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standard
prescribed by NHTSA for child restraints.
    High seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed
seat belt use rate of 90.0 percent or higher (not rounded) based on
validated data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during
the previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for
State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR part 1340 (e.g.,
for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2016, the ``previous
calendar year'' would be 2015).
    Lower seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed
seat belt use rate below 90.0 percent (not rounded) based on validated
data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during the
previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for
State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR part 1340 (e.g.,
for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2016, the ``previous
calendar year'' would be 2015).
    Seat belt means, with respect to open-body motor vehicles,
including convertibles, an occupant restraint system consisting of a
lap belt or a lap belt and a detachable shoulder belt, and with respect
to other motor vehicles, an occupant restraint system consisting of
integrated lap and shoulder belts.
    (c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a
grant under this section as a high seat belt use rate State or as a
lower seat belt use rate State, in accordance with paragraph (d) or (e)
of this section, as applicable.
    (d) Qualification criteria for a high seat belt use rate State. To
qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant in a fiscal year, a high seat
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of
its HSP the following documentation, in accordance with Part 1 of
Appendix B:
    (1) Occupant protection plan. State occupant protection program
area plan that identifies the safety problems to be addressed,
performance measures and targets, and the countermeasure strategies and
projects the State will implement to address those problems, at the
level of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(c) and (d).
    (2) Participation in Click-it-or-Ticket national mobilization.
Description of the State's planned participation in the Click it or
Ticket national mobilization, including a list of participating

agencies, during the fiscal year of the grant, as required under Sec.
1300.11(d)(6);
    (3) Child restraint inspection stations. (i) Table in the HSP that
documents an active network of child passenger safety inspection
stations and/or inspection events, including:
    (A) The total number of inspection stations/events in the State;
and
    (B) The total number of inspection stations and/or inspection
events that service rural and urban areas and at-risk populations
(e.g., low income, minority); and
    (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. Table in the HSP that
identifies the number of classes to be held, location of classes, and
estimated number of students needed to ensure coverage of child
passenger safety inspection stations and inspection events by
nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians.
    (5) Maintenance of effort. The assurance in Part 1 of Appendix B
that the lead State agency responsible for occupant protection programs
shall maintain its aggregate expenditures for occupant protection
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal
years 2014 and 2015.
    (e) Qualification criteria for a lower seat belt use rate State. To
qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant in a fiscal year, a lower seat
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall satisfy all the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, and submit as part of
its HSP documentation demonstrating that it meets at least three of the
following additional criteria, in accordance with Part 1 of Appendix B:
    (1) Primary enforcement seat belt use statute. The State shall
provide legal citations to the State law demonstrating that the State
has enacted and is enforcing occupant protection statutes that make a
violation of the requirement to be secured in a seat belt or child
restraint a primary offense.
    (2) Occupant protection statute. The State shall provide legal
citations to State law demonstrating that the State has enacted and is
enforcing occupant protection statutes that:
    (i) Require--
    (A) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle who is under
eight years of age, weighs less than 65 pounds and is less than four
feet, nine inches in height to be secured in an age-appropriate child
restraint;
    (B) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle other than an
occupant identified in paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) of this section to be
secured in a seat belt or age-appropriate child restraint;
    (C) A minimum fine of $25 per unrestrained occupant for a violation
of the occupant protection statutes described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of
this section.
    (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(2)(i), permit no exception from
coverage except for--
    (A) Drivers, but not passengers, of postal, utility, and commercial
vehicles that make frequent stops in the course of their business;
    (B) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint
because of a medical condition, provided there is written documentation
from a physician;
    (C) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint
because all other seating positions are occupied by persons properly
restrained in seat belts or child restraints;
    (D) Emergency vehicle operators and passengers in emergency
vehicles during an emergency;
    (E) Persons riding in seating positions or vehicles not required by
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to be equipped with seat belts;
or
    (F) Passengers in public and livery conveyances.
    (3) Seat belt enforcement. The State shall identify the
countermeasure strategies and projects 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), at the level of detail required under Sec.
1300.11(d)(5), 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 the State's
unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities occurred.
    (4) High risk population countermeasure programs. The State shall
identify the countermeasure strategies and projects, at the level of
detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State
will implement data-driven programs to improve seat belt and child
restraint use for at least two of the following at-risk populations:
    (i) Drivers on rural roadways;
    (ii) Unrestrained nighttime drivers;
    (iii) Teenage drivers;
    (iv) Other high-risk populations identified in the occupant
protection program area 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
usage in the State;
    (ii) Multi-year strategic plan based on input from Statewide
stakeholders (task force) under which the State developed--
    (A) Data-driven performance targets to improve occupant protection
in the State, at the level of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(c);
    (B) Countermeasure strategies (such as enforcement, education,
communication, policies/legislation, partnerships/outreach) designed to
achieve the performance targets of the strategic plan, at the level of
detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d);
    (C) A program management strategy that provides leadership and
indicates who is responsible for implementing various aspects of the
multi-year strategic plan; and
    (D) An enforcement strategy that includes activities such as
encouraging seat belt use policies for law enforcement agencies,
vigorous enforcement of seat belt and child safety seat statutes, and
accurate reporting of occupant protection system information on police
accident report forms, at the level of detail required under Sec.
1300.11(d)(5).
    (iii) The name and title of the State's designated occupant
protection coordinator responsible for managing the occupant protection
program in the State, including developing the occupant protection
program area of the HSP and overseeing the execution of the projects
designated in the HSP; and
    (iv) A list that contains the names, titles and organizations of
the Statewide occupant protection task force membership that includes
agencies and organizations that can help develop, implement, enforce
and evaluate occupant protection programs.
    (6) Occupant protection program assessment. The State shall
identify the date of the NHTSA-facilitated assessment of all elements
of its occupant protection program, which must have been conducted
within three years prior to the application due date.
    (f) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, a State may use grant funds awarded
under 23 U.S.C.

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

Sec.  1300.22  State Traffic safety information system improvements
grants.

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

Sec.  1300.23  Impaired driving countermeasures grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with
23 U.S.C. 405(d), for awarding grants to States that adopt and
implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems
resulting from individuals driving motor vehicles while under the
influence of alcohol, drugs, or the combination of alcohol and drugs;
that enact alcohol-ignition interlock laws; or that implement 24-7
sobriety programs.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    24-7 sobriety program means a State law or program that authorizes
a State court or an agency with jurisdiction, as a condition of bond,
sentence, probation, parole, or work permit, to require an individual
who was arrested for, pleads guilty to or was convicted of 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 or by an alternative method approved by NHTSA.
    Alcohol means wine, beer and distilled spirits.
    Average impaired driving fatality rate means the number of
fatalities in motor vehicle crashes involving a driver with a blood
alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 percent for every 100,000,000
vehicle miles traveled, based on the most recently reported three
calendar years of final data from the FARS.
    Assessment means a NHTSA-facilitated process that employs a team of
subject matter experts to conduct a comprehensive review of a specific
highway safety program in a State.
    Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of
alcohol and drugs means operating a vehicle while the alcohol and/or
drug concentration in the blood or breath, as determined by chemical or
other tests, equals or exceeds the level established by the State, or
is equivalent to the standard offense, for driving under the influence
of alcohol or drugs in the State.
    Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Court means a court that
specializes in cases involving driving while intoxicated and abides by
the Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts in effect on the date of the
grant, as established by the National Center for DWI Courts.
    Drugs means controlled substances, as that term is defined under
section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802(6).
    High-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.
    High-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving
fatality rate of 0.60 or higher.
    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