drug impaired driving countermeasures align with alcohol and drug
misuse and criminal justice systems. Although the agency identified
specific groups as a minimum baseline, States are free to add other
groups.
    The Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers requested that
their members be considered as a group for inclusion on task forces as
opposed to making a more general reference to ignition interlocks. With
the exception of the State highway safety office, the agency has not
identified specific groups or organizations for inclusion on task
forces under these requirements and we decline to take that approach
now. We believe it is more appropriate to maintain flexibility and
identify only broad stakeholder areas from which the State are free to
select individual members. In addition to the specific areas identified
in the requirement, as we have noted in the past, States may consider
adding individual members from areas representing 24-7 sobriety
programs, driver licensing, data and traffic records, ignition
interlock, treatment and rehabilitation, and alcohol beverage control.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, however, and States retain
significant discretion to determine the groups to be represented on the
required task force, subject only to ensuring that the specified areas
are covered.
    Mitchell Berger urged that the task force requirements be revised
to include ``behavioral health providers,'' such as ``psychiatrists,
child and adolescent psychiatrists, addiction psychiatrists, addiction
medicine specialists, psychologists, licensed clinical social workers,
licensed professional counselors, and marriage and family therapists.''
He stated that this type of expertise is necessary to address the parts
of an impaired driving plan that focus on prevention, screening and
treatment. In general, NHTSA agrees that a State should consider adding
such expertise to its task force, provided the focus of the task force
remains on confronting the problems of impaired driving. In recognition
of the value of this and similar expertise, the NPRM includes public
health as one of the broad groups that must be represented in some way
on the task force, while stopping short of prescriptive language to
afford flexibility.
    GHSA sought clarification about whether the HSP is the appropriate
reference for an Appendix B provision that covers high-range States and
their responsibility to submit updated information on an annual basis
in the HSP. We confirm that the proposal inadvertently retained the
reference to the HSP from the prior rule. The agency has revised the
reference to indicate that the updated information must be provided in
the annual grant application, consistent with the statutory
requirement.
2. Grants to States With Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Laws (23 CFR
1300.23(g))
    The NPRM explained that the BIL continued a grant from prior
authorizations providing grant funds to

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

F. Distracted Driving Grants (23 CFR 1300.24)

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

G. Motorcyclist Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.25)

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

H. Nonmotorized Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.26)

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

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

I. Preventing Roadside Deaths Grants (23 CFR 1300.27)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Vouchers and Project Agreements (23 CFR 1300.33)

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

C. Annual Report (23 CFR 1300.35)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

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

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

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

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. National Environmental Policy Act

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

H. Executive Order 13211

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

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

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

L. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

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

M. Privacy Act

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

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1300

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

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

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

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

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 402; 23 U.S.C. 405; Sec. 1906, Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1468, as amended by Sec. 25024, Pub. L. 117-58,
135 Stat. 879; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

Subpart A--General

Sec.  1300.1  Purpose.

    This part establishes uniform procedures for State highway safety
programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Sec. 1906, Public Law
109-59, as amended by section 25024, Public Law 117-58.

Sec.  1300.2  [Reserved]

Sec.  1300.3  Definitions.

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

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

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

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

Sec.  1300.5  Due dates--interpretation.

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

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

Sec.  1300.10  General.

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

Sec.  1300.11  Triennial Highway Safety Plan.

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

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

Sec.  1300.12  Annual grant application.

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

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

Sec.  1300.13  Special funding conditions for Section 402 grants.

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

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

Sec.  1300.14  [Reserved]

Sec.  1300.15  Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.

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

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

Sec.  1300.20  General.

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

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

Sec.  1300.21  Occupant Protection Grants.

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

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

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

Sec.  1300.22  State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements
Grants.

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

Sec.  1300.23  Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with
23 U.S.C. 405(d), for awarding grants to States that adopt and
implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems
resulting from individuals driving motor vehicles while under the
influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs;
that enact alcohol-ignition interlock laws; or that implement 24-7
sobriety programs.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--