
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32553-32605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11819]



[[Page 32553]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 99

May 23, 2016

Part III





 Department of Transportation





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





National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





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





23 CFR Part 1300





Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2016 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 32554]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1300

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


Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs

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

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes revised uniform procedures 
implementing State highway safety grant programs, as a result of 
enactment of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. It 
also reorganizes, streamlines and updates some grant requirements. This 
document is being issued as an interim final rule to provide timely 
guidance to States about the application procedures for highway safety 
grants starting in year 2017. The agency requests comments on the rule. 
The agency will publish a notice responding to any comments received 
and, if appropriate, will amend provisions of the regulation.

DATES: This interim final rule is effective on May 23, 2016. Comments 
concerning this interim final rule are due October 31, 2016. In 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking 
comment on a revised information collection. See the Paperwork 
Reduction Act section under Regulatory Analyses and Notices below. 
Comments concerning the revised information collection requirements are 
due October 31, 2016 to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section.

ADDRESSES: You may submit number identified in the heading of this 
document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, please mention the 
docket number of this document.
    You may also call the Docket at 202-366-9324.
    Comments regarding the revised information collection should be 
submitted to NHTSA through one of the preceding methods and a copy 
should also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory 
Analyses and Notices.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. General Provisions
III. Highway Safety Plan
IV. National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection
V. Administration of Highway Safety Grants
VI. Special Provisions for Fiscal Year 2017 Highway Safety Grants
VII. MAP-21 Comments
VIII. Notice and Comment, Effective Date and Request for Comments
IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
X. Public Participation

I. Executive Summary

    On July 6, 2012, the President signed into law the ``Moving Ahead 
for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, 
which restructured and made various substantive changes to the highway 
safety grant programs administered by the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA issued an interim final rule (IFR) 
implementing the MAP-21 provisions and sought public comment. 78 FR 
4986 (Jan. 23, 2013). Because MAP-21 was a two-year authorization with 
short extensions, the agency did not have an opportunity to address the 
comments received in response to the MAP-21 IFR.
    On December 4, 2015, the President signed into law the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law 114-94, the 
first authorization enacted in over ten years that provides long-term 
funding certainty for surface transportation. The FAST Act amended 
NHTSA's highway safety grant program (23 U.S.C. 402 or Section 402) and 
the National Priority Safety Program grants (23 U.S.C. 405 or Section 
405), and it restored a small grant from a previous authorization. The 
FAST Act requires NHTSA to award grants pursuant to rulemaking. Today's 
action implements the FAST Act provisions, taking into account comments 
received in response to the MAP-21 IFR.
    Unlike MAP-21, the FAST Act did not significantly change the 
structure of the grant programs. The FAST Act primarily made targeted 
amendments to the existing grant programs, providing more flexibility 
for States to qualify for some of the grants. Specifically, the FAST 
Act made limited administrative changes to the Section 402 grant 
program and made no changes to the contents of the Highway Safety Plan. 
However, the FAST Act made the following changes to the Section 405 
grant program:

 Occupant Protection Grants--no substantive changes
 State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants--
no substantive changes
 Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants--no substantive 
changes
 Motorcyclist Safety Grants--no substantive changes
 Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants--Added flexibility for 
States to qualify for grants
 Distracted Driving Grants--Added flexibility for States to 
qualify for grants
 State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grants--Added 
flexibility for States to qualify for grants
 24-7 Sobriety Programs Grants--Established a new grant
 Nonmotorized Safety Grants--Established a new grant

In addition, the FAST Act restored (with some changes) the racial 
profiling grant authorized under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Sec. 1906, 
Public Law 109-59 (Section 1906).

[[Page 32555]]

    The FAST Act requires NHTSA to award highway safety grants pursuant 
to rulemaking. In order to provide States with as much advance time as 
practicable to prepare grant applications and to ensure the timely 
award of all grants, the agency is proceeding with an expedited 
rulemaking. Accordingly, NHTSA is publishing this rulemaking as an IFR, 
with immediate effectiveness, to implement the application and 
administrative requirements of the highway safety grant programs.
    This IFR sets forth the application, approval, and administrative 
requirements for all 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 grants and the Section 1906 
grants. Section 402, as amended by the FAST Act, continues to require 
each State to have an approved highway safety program designed to 
reduce traffic crashes and the resulting deaths, injuries, and property 
damage. Section 402 sets forth minimum requirements with which each 
State's highway safety program must comply. Under existing procedures, 
each State must submit for NHTSA approval an annual Highway Safety Plan 
(HSP) that identifies highway safety problems, establishes performance 
measures and targets, and describes the State's countermeasure 
strategies and projects to achieve its performance targets. (23 U.S.C. 
402(k)) The agency is making several specific amendments to the HSP 
contents to foster consistency across all States and to facilitate the 
electronic submission of HSPs required under the FAST Act. (23 U.S.C. 
402(k)(3))
    As noted above, the FAST Act made no substantive changes to many of 
the National Priority Safety Program grants, provided additional 
qualification flexibility for others, and established new grants. For 
grants without substantive changes (Occupant Protection Grants, State 
Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants, Impaired Driving 
Countermeasures Grants and Motorcyclist Safety Grants), the agency is 
simply aligning the application requirements with the HSP requirements 
under Section 402 to streamline and ease State burdens in applying for 
Section 402 and 405 grants. For Section 405 grants with additional 
flexibility (Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants, Distracted Driving 
Grants and Stated Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grants) and for 
the new grants (24-7 Sobriety Program Grants, Nonmotorized Grants and 
Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants), where the FAST Act identified 
specific qualification requirements, today's action adopts the 
statutory language with limited changes. The agency is also aligning 
the application requirements for these grants with the HSP 
requirements.
    While many procedures and requirements continue unchanged by 
today's action, this IFR makes limited changes to administrative 
provisions to address changes in the HSP and changes made by the 
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit 
Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 200.
    Finally, this IFR recodifies 23 CFR part 1200 at 23 CFR part 1300, 
the part associated with NHTSA programs. The section numbers remain 
largely the same as before except for the change from 1200 to 1300. 
(For example, Sec. 1200.3 Definitions becomes Sec. 1300.3 Definitions, 
Sec. 1200.11 Contents (Highway Safety Plan) becomes Sec. 1300.11 
Contents (Highway Safety Plan), etc.) In this preamble, all references 
are to part 1300 instead of the corresponding part 1200.
    The FAST Act retained the MAP-21 requirement for a consolidated 
single application due by July 1 of the fiscal year preceding the 
fiscal year of the grant. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(2) and 402(k)(3)) 
Therefore, for fiscal year 2017 and subsequent fiscal years, the 
application deadline remains July 1 prior to the fiscal year of the 
grant. Because of the short timeframe between today's action and the 
July 1 application deadline, the agency is taking the following 
approach to ease the application burden on States. For those programs 
without substantive changes (Occupant Protection, State Traffic Safety 
Information System Improvements, Impaired Driving Countermeasures, and 
Motorcyclist Safety), we are delaying the requirement for States to 
follow the new regulatory process until fiscal year 2018 grant 
applications. For these grants, States may follow the application 
requirements in 23 CFR part 1200, switching to the part 1300 
requirements for fiscal year 2018 grants and thereafter. (To provide 
maximum advance notice, the agency informed States of this option in a 
March 31, 2016 letter.) However, for grants with substantive changes 
(Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Laws, Distracted Driving, and State 
Graduated Driver Licensing) and for new grants (24-7 Sobriety Program, 
Nonmotorized Safety, and Racial Profiling Data Collection), States must 
follow the application requirements in today's IFR at 23 CFR part 1300, 
commencing with fiscal year 2017 grant applications. For additional 
flexibility, States may elect to follow the new, more streamlined 
procedures (i.e., the part 1300 requirements) for fiscal year 2017 
grant applications for the former group of grants as well (i.e., those 
without substantive changes). In all cases, the requirements under 23 
CFR part 1300 to submit grant application and administration 
information through the Grants Management Solutions Suite (discussed 
below) will not apply until FY 2018 applications, when that system 
becomes fully functional.
    In this IFR, the agency also responds to comments from the MAP-21 
IFR. Because MAP-21 was a two-year authorization with multiple short 
extensions, the agency did not have the opportunity to address 
comments. Those comments are now addressed within the relevant sections 
below and in Section VII below.
    For ease of reference, the preamble identifies in parentheses 
within each subheading and at appropriate places in the explanatory 
paragraphs the new CFR citation for the corresponding regulatory text.

II. General Provisions

A. Definitions. (23 CFR 1300.3)

    This IFR adds definitions for the following terms: Annual report 
file, countermeasure strategy, data-driven, evidence-based, fatality 
rate, Fatality Analysis Reporting System, final FARS, five-year rolling 
average, number of fatalities, number of serious injuries, performance 
measure, performance target, Section 1906, and serious injuries. Most 
of these terms and definitions are generally understood by States. 
Today's action also amends a few definitions, such as those for program 
area and project, to clarify and distinguish terms that often have been 
used interchangeably. These amended definitions will help provide 
consistency across all State HSPs. Finally, this IFR deletes the term 
``Approving Official'' and replaces it with ``Regional Administrator,'' 
used throughout this part.

B. State Highway Safety Agency. (23 CFR 1300.4)

    Today's action updates the authorities and functions of the State 
Highway Safety Agency, also referred to as the State Highway Safety 
Office. While the IFR explicitly adds the duty to manage Federal grant 
funds in accordance with all Federal and State requirements, this is 
not a new obligation of State Highway Safety Offices, but rather one 
that has always been required. Consistent with the Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for 
Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 200, the agency is adding the requirement 
that State Highway Safety Offices must conduct a risk assessment

[[Page 32556]]

of subrecipients and monitor subrecipients based on risk.

III. Highway Safety Plan

    MAP-21 made significant changes to highway safety programs under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4. It required a performance-based Highway Safety Plan 
with performance measures and targets. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)) Prior to MAP-
21, there was a clear separation between the ``Highway Safety 
Performance Plan,'' where States included performance measures and 
targets, and the ``Highway Safety Plan,'' where States developed 
projects and activities to implement the highway safety program. MAP-21 
consolidated these requirements under the Highway Safety Plan, where 
the performance plan was an element of the development of the State 
highway safety program.
    In addition to establishing a performance-based HSP, MAP-21 
established the HSP as the single, consolidated application for all 
highway safety grants under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4. While the MAP-21 IFR 
established the beginnings of a single, consolidated application, 
today's action more fully integrates the Section 402 and Section 405 
programs, establishing the HSP as the State's single planning document 
accounting for all behavioral highway safety activities.
    This IFR clarifies the HSP content (highway safety planning 
process, performance measures and targets, and countermeasure 
strategies and projects), so that these elements may also serve as a 
means to fulfill some of the application requirements for certain 
Section 405 grants. By creating a link between the HSP content 
requirements provided in Section 402 and the Section 405 grant 
application requirements, this IFR streamlines the NHTSA grant 
application process and relieves some of the burdens associated with 
the previous process.
    The FAST Act amended Section 402 to require NHTSA to develop 
procedures to allow States to submit highway safety plans, including 
any attachments to the plans, in electronic form. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(3)) 
NHTSA intends to implement this provision of the FAST Act with the 
Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS) beginning with fiscal year 
2018 grants, as discussed in more detail below. GMSS is the improved 
and enhanced electronic system that States will use to submit the HSP 
to apply for grants, receive grant funds, make amendments to the HSP 
throughout the fiscal year, manage grant funds and invoice expenses. 
This electronic system will replace the Grants Tracking System that 
States currently use to receive grant funds and invoice expenses.

A. General

    The Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) established 
a formula grant program to improve highway safety in the United States. 
As a condition of the grant, States must meet certain requirements 
contained in Section 402. The FAST Act made limited administrative 
changes to Section 402 requirements and made no changes to the contents 
of the Highway Safety Plan. Section 402(a) continues to require each 
State to have a highway safety program, approved by the Secretary of 
Transportation (delegated to NHTSA), which is designed to reduce 
traffic crashes and the resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage 
from those crashes. Section 402(a) also continues to require State 
highway safety programs to comply with uniform guidelines promulgated 
by the Secretary.
    Section 402(b), which sets forth the minimum requirements with 
which each State highway safety program must comply, requires the HSP 
to provide for a data-driven traffic safety enforcement program to 
prevent traffic violations, crashes, and crash fatalities and injuries 
in areas most at risk for such incidents. Section 402(b) continues to 
require each State to coordinate its HSP, data collection, and 
information systems with the State strategic highway safety plan as 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a). This requirement to coordinate these 
elements into a unified State approach to highway safety promotes 
comprehensive transportation and safety planning and program efficiency 
in the States. Coordinating the HSP planning process with the programs 
of other DOT agencies, where possible, will ensure alignment of State 
performance targets where common measures exist, such as for fatalities 
and serious injuries. States are encouraged to use data to identify 
performance measures beyond these consensus performance measures (e.g., 
distracted driving, bicycles). NHTSA collaborated with other DOT 
agencies to promote alignment among performance measures, and that 
alignment is reflected in this IFR.

B. Highway Safety Plan Contents

    The FAST Act retained the significant changes in MAP-21 for States 
to develop performance-based highway safety programs. Beginning with 
fiscal year 2014 HSPs, States provided additional information in the 
HSP to meet the performance-based, evidence-based requirements of MAP-
21. This IFR reorganizes and further refines the information provided 
in the MAP-21 IFR to help streamline the HSP content requirements and 
align them with the Section 405 grant requirements.
    In response to the MAP-21 IFR, one commenter asked why two separate 
plans were required, and recommended a single highway safety 
performance plan, the first part describing processes used to develop 
the plan and the second part describing a detailed spending plan. The 
change required under MAP-21 did not create two plans. Rather, under 
MAP-21, the HSP is the only plan that the State submits as its 
application for highway safety grants. The required content of the HSP 
includes a description of the highway safety planning process, a 
performance plan identifying performance measures and targets, and 
countermeasure strategies and projects. These content requirements 
encourage the linkage of each step of the planning process: Problem 
identification linked to data driven performance measures and targets, 
followed by countermeasure strategies and projects to achieve those 
targets. The ``performance plan'' is an integral part of the HSP. The 
agency believes that MAP-21 made it clear that problem identification 
and performance measures drive the specific projects and activities in 
the HSP.
1. Highway Safety Planning Process. (23 CFR 1300.11(a))
    Today's action reorganizes and clarifies the section of the HSP 
that describes the State's highway safety planning process. As in the 
MAP-21 IFR, the State must describe data sources and processes used to 
develop its highway safety program, including problem identification, 
description of performance measures, establishment of performance 
targets, and selection of countermeasure strategies and projects. This 
section continues to require identification of participants in the 
planning process, the data sources consulted, and the results of 
coordination of the HSP with the State HSIP. This IFR clarifies that 
this section of the HSP must also include a description of the State's 
problems and methods for project selection. These elements are a 
typical part of the State highway safety planning process.
2. Performance Report. (23 CFR 1300.11(b))
    This requirement is unchanged from the one codified at 23 CFR 
1200.11(d). States should review and analyze the previous year's HSP as 
part of the development of a data-driven HSP. As required in the MAP-21 
IFR, States

[[Page 32557]]

must provide a program-area-level report on their success in meeting 
performance targets. The agency believes that such information is 
valuable in the development of the HSP. If a State has not met its 
performance targets in the previous year's HSP, today's action also 
requires the State to describe how it will adjust the upcoming HSP to 
better meet performance targets. However, the agency believes that 
States should continuously evaluate and change their HSP to meet the 
statutory requirement that the highway safety program be ``designed to 
reduce traffic crashes and the resulting deaths, injuries, and property 
damage from those crashes.''
3. Performance Plan. (23 CFR 1300.11(c))
    MAP-21 specified that HSPs must contain the performance measures 
identified in ``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and 
Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 025), jointly developed by NHTSA and the 
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). NHTSA and GHSA agreed on a 
minimum set of performance measures to be used by States and federal 
agencies in the development and implementation of behavioral highway 
safety plans and programs. An expert panel from NHTSA, the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, State highway safety offices, academic and research 
organizations, and other key groups assisted in developing these 
measures. Originally, 14 measures were established. In accordance with 
MAP-21, NHTSA and GHSA coordinated to identify a new performance 
measure--bicyclist fatalities. Currently, States report on 15 
measures--11 core outcome measures,\1\ one core behavior measure,\2\ 
and three activity measures \3\--that cover the major areas common to 
HSPs, using existing data systems. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)) This minimum set 
of performance measures addresses most of the National Priority Safety 
Program areas, but it does not address all of the possible highway 
safety problems in a State or all of the National Priority Safety 
Programs specified in Section 405. For highway safety problems 
identified by the State or relevant to a particular Section 405 grant 
application, and for which consensus performance measures have not been 
identified (e.g., distracted driving and bicycles), this IFR clarifies 
the existing requirements for States to develop their own evidence-
based performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ States set goals and report progress on the following 
outcome measures: Number of traffic fatalities (FARS); Number of 
serious injuries in traffic crashes (State crash data files); 
Fatalities/VMT (FARS, FHWA); Number of unrestrained passenger 
vehicle occupant fatalities, all seat positions (FARS); Number of 
fatalities in crashes involving a driver or motorcycle operator with 
a BAC of .08 and above (FARS); Number of speeding-related fatalities 
(FARS); Number of motorcyclist fatalities (FARS); Number of 
unhelmeted motorcyclist fatalities (FARS); Number of drivers age 20 
or younger involved in fatal crashes (FARS); Number of pedestrian 
fatalities (FARS); and Number of bicyclist fatalities (FARS).
    \2\ States set goals and report progress on one behavior core 
measure--observed seat belt use for passenger vehicles, front seat 
outboard occupants (survey).
    \3\ States report on the following activity core measures: 
Number of seat belt citations issued during grant-funded enforcement 
activities (grant activity reporting); Number of impaired driving 
arrests made during grant-funded enforcement activities (grant 
activity reporting); Number of speeding citations issued during 
grant-funded enforcement activities (grant activity reporting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MAP-21 provided additional linkages between NHTSA-administered 
programs and the programs of other DOT agencies coordinated through the 
State strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) administered by FHWA, as 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a). NHTSA and FHWA collaborated to harmonize 
three common performance measures across the programs of the two 
agencies (fatalities, fatality rate, and serious injuries) to ensure 
that the highway safety community is provided uniform measures of 
progress. Today's action aligns the State performance measures and 
targets that are common to both NHTSA and FHWA. Consistent with FHWA's 
rulemaking on performance measures (81 FR 13882, Mar. 15, 2016), 
today's action requires that performance measures use 5-year rolling 
averages and that the performance targets for the three common 
performance measures be identical to the State DOT targets reported in 
the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) annual report, as 
coordinated through the SHSP.
    The 5-year rolling average is calculated by adding the number of 
fatalities or the number of serious injuries, as they pertain to the 
performance measure, for the most recent 5 consecutive calendar years 
ending in the year for which the targets are established. The annual 
report file (ARF) for FARS may be used, but only if final FARS is not 
yet available. The sum of the fatalities or the serious injuries is 
divided by five and then rounded to the tenth decimal place for the 
fatality number and the serious injury number. The fatality rate is 
determined by calculating the number of fatalities per vehicle mile 
traveled for each of the five years, dividing by five, and then 
rounding to the thousandth decimal place.
    States must report serious injuries using the Model Minimum Uniform 
Crash Criteria (MMUCC) Guideline, 4th Edition by April 15, 2019. States 
may use serious injuries coded as ``A'' on the KABCO \4\ injury 
classification scale, through use of the conversion tables developed by 
NHTSA, until April 15, 2019. After that date, all States must use 
``suspected serious injury (A)'' as defined in the MMUCC, 4th Edition. 
This requirement will provide for greater consistency in the reporting 
of serious injuries and allow for better communication of serious 
injury data at the national level. For clarity, NHTSA also adds a 
definition for serious injuries and number of serious injuries. 
Consistent with the FHWA rulemaking on performance measures, the 
``number of serious injuries'' performance measure must account for 
crashes involving a motor vehicle traveling on a public road, which is 
consistent with FARS. State crash databases may contain serious injury 
crashes that did not involve a motor vehicle. In order to make the data 
consistent for the performance measures, States will only report 
serious injury crashes that involved a motor vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ KABCO refers to the coding convention system for injury 
classification established by the National Safety Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters to the MAP-21 IFR recommended that the 
agency include performance measures for bicycle and pedestrian 
fatalities and injuries. Since fiscal year 2014, States have been 
required to report on a performance measure for the number of 
pedestrian fatalities, as provided in the ``Traffic Safety Performance 
Measures for States and Federal Agencies.'' As noted earlier, NHTSA and 
GHSA collaborated to identify a new performance measure--bicyclist 
fatalities--on which States must report beginning with fiscal year 2015 
HSPs. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)) While this IFR does not require performance 
measures for bicycle and pedestrian serious injuries, the agency refers 
commenters to FHWA's new non-motorized performance measure for the 
number of combined non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized serious 
injuries in a State.
    One commenter stated that the requirement for GHSA coordination 
acted as a limitation on the performance measures that could be 
required by NHTSA. The statute requires NHTSA to coordinate with GHSA 
in making revisions to the set of required performance measures (23 
U.S.C.

[[Page 32558]]

402(k)), and NHTSA does not intend to impose additional performance 
measures without such coordination. For example, NHTSA and GHSA worked 
quickly to develop the new bicyclist fatalities performance measure to 
address this growing highway safety problem.
4. Highway Safety Program Area Problem Identification, Countermeasure 
Strategies, Projects and Funding. (23 CFR 1300.11(d))
    The Federal statute requires the State to describe its strategies 
in developing its countermeasure programs and selecting the projects to 
allow it to meet the highway safety performance targets. The HSP must 
continue to include a description of the countermeasure strategies and 
projects the State plans to implement to reach the performance targets 
identified by the State in the HSP. Today's action reorganizes and 
clarifies these requirements.
    For each Program Area, the HSP must describe the countermeasure 
strategies and the process (including data analysis) for selecting that 
countermeasure strategy and the corresponding projects. At a minimum, 
the HSP must describe the overall projected traffic safety impacts, 
just as the MAP-21 regulation required. The HSP must also link the 
countermeasure strategies to the problem identification data, 
performance targets and allocation of the funds to projects. One 
commenter to the MAP-21 IFR was concerned that this is beyond what was 
mandated by MAP-21. Section 402(k)(e)(B) required then and still 
requires the contents of the HSP to include ``a strategy for programing 
funds apportioned to the State under this section on projects and 
activities that will allow the State to meet the performance targets . 
. . .'' An overall assessment of the impact of chosen strategies 
provides the necessary evidence and justification to support the 
projects and activities selected by the State to achieve its 
performance targets. In order to develop a program to achieve its 
targets, the State needs to conduct such an assessment or analysis. 
Accordingly, today's action retains this requirement from the MAP-21 
IFR.
    For each countermeasure strategy, the HSP must also provide project 
level information, including identification of project name and 
description, subrecipient/contractor, funding sources, funding amounts, 
amount for match, indirect cost, local benefit and maintenance of 
effort (as applicable), project number, and funding code. Finally, for 
each countermeasure strategy, the HSP must include data analysis to 
support the effectiveness of the selected countermeasure strategy. A 
number of States already include much of this information, but today's 
action now requires this information to promote uniformity among HSPs 
and also to allow the agency to implement the GMSS for the electronic 
submission of HSPs. The agency anticipates that beginning in fiscal 
year 2018 States will be able to enter this information in the GMSS as 
part of the HSP.
    NHTSA does not intend to discourage innovative countermeasures, 
especially where few established countermeasures currently exist, such 
as in distracted driving. Innovative countermeasures that may not be 
fully proven but that show promise based on limited practical 
application are encouraged when a clear data-driven safety need has 
been identified. As evidence of potential success, justification of new 
countermeasures can also be based on the prior success of specific 
elements from other effective countermeasures.
    The FAST Act continues the requirement for States to include a 
description of their evidence-based traffic safety enforcement program 
to prevent traffic violations, crashes, crash fatalities, and injuries 
in areas most at risk for crashes. Today's action clarifies this 
requirement and allows States to cross-reference existing projects in 
the HSP to demonstrate an evidence-based traffic safety enforcement 
program. Allowing States to cross-reference projects identified under 
countermeasure strategies will alleviate the burden of duplicative 
entries.
    The FAST Act continues the requirement that a State must provide 
assurances that it will implement activities in support of national 
high-visibility law enforcement mobilizations coordinated by the 
Secretary of Transportation. In addition to providing such assurances, 
the State must describe in its HSP the planned high-visibility 
enforcement strategies to support national mobilizations for the 
upcoming grant year and provide information on those activities. Based 
on requests to define the level of participation required, today's 
notice clarifies this requirement. For example, the FAST Act requires 
NHTSA to implement three high-visibility enforcement campaigns on 
impaired driving and occupant protection each year. (23 U.S.C. 404) 
States are required to support these three campaigns as a condition of 
a Section 402 grant. NHTSA intends to identify the specific dates of 
the national mobilizations and provide programmatic ideas and resources 
for the campaigns on www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov.
    Under the MAP-21 IFR, States submitted as part of their HSP a 
program cost summary (HS Form 217) and a list of projects (including an 
estimated amount of Federal funds for each project) that the State 
proposed to conduct in the upcoming fiscal year to meet the performance 
targets identified in the HSP. States were required to keep the project 
list up-to-date and to include identifying project numbers for each 
project on the list. Today's action eliminates the HS Form 217 and the 
corresponding list of projects beginning with fiscal year 2018 grants, 
but not the reporting requirement. Instead, States will be required to 
provide project information electronically in the GMSS. This will allow 
States to rely on project information in the HSP to apply for some 
Section 405 grants without providing duplicative information. States 
will be able to cross reference the information in their Section 405 
application.
    The FAST Act continues the Teen Traffic Safety Program that 
provides for Statewide efforts to improve traffic safety for teen 
drivers. States may elect to incorporate such a Statewide program as an 
HSP program area. If a State chooses to do so, it must include project 
information related to the program in the HSP.
    Finally, the FAST Act continues the ``single application'' 
requirement that State applications for Section 405 grants be included 
in the HSP submitted on July 1 of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
year of the grant. Today's action also requires the Section 1906 grant 
application to be submitted as part of the HSP. As under the MAP-21 
IFR, States will continue to submit certifications and assurances for 
all 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 grants, signed by the 
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, certifying the HSP 
application contents and providing assurances that they will comply 
with applicable laws and regulations, financial and programmatic 
requirements and any special funding conditions. Only the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety may sign the certifications and 
assurances required under this IFR. The Certifications and Assurances 
will now be included as appendices to this part.

C. Review and Approval Procedures. (23 CFR 1300.14)

    Effective October 1, 2016, the FAST Act specifies that NHTSA must 
approve or disapprove the HSP within 45 days after receipt. This 
provision will be implemented with fiscal year 2018 grant applications. 
(See Section VI.) As in past practice, NHTSA may request

[[Page 32559]]

additional information from a State regarding the contents of the HSP 
to determine whether the HSP meets statutory, regulatory and 
programmatic requirements. To ensure that HSPs are approved or 
disapproved within 45 days, States must respond promptly to NHTSA's 
request for additional information. Failure to respond promptly may 
delay approval and funding of the State's Section 402 grant.
    Within 45 days, the Regional Administrator will approve or 
disapprove the HSP, and specify any conditions to the approval. If the 
HSP is disapproved, the Regional Administrator will specify the reasons 
for disapproval. The State must resubmit the HSP with the necessary 
modifications to the Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator 
will notify the State within 30 days of receipt of the revised HSP 
whether it is approved or disapproved.
    NHTSA will also complete review of Section 405 grant applications 
within 45 days and notify States of grant award amounts early in the 
fiscal year. Because the calculation of Section 405 grant awards 
depends on the number of States meeting the qualification requirements, 
States must respond promptly to NHTSA's request for additional 
information or face disqualification from consideration for a Section 
405 grant. The agency does not intend to delay grant awards to States 
that comply with grant submission procedures due to the inability of 
other States to meet submission deadlines.

D. Apportionment and Obligation of Grant Funds. (23 CFR 1300.15)

    The provisions in the MAP-21 IFR regarding the apportionment and 
obligation of grant funds remain largely unchanged. As discussed above, 
the agency will replace the HS Form 217 so that States can enter the 
information directly in the GMSS. States will be able to use the GMSS 
to obligate and voucher for expenses as well as to amend the HSP 
throughout the fiscal year. beginning with fiscal year 2018 grants.

IV. National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data 
Collection.

    Under this heading, we describe the requirements set forth in 
today's action for the grants under Section 405--Occupant Protection, 
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements, Impaired Driving 
Countermeasures, Distracted Driving, Motorcyclist Safety, State 
Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive and Nonmotorized Safety-- and the 
Section 1906 grant--Racial Profiling Data Collection. The subheadings 
and explanatory paragraphs contain references to the relevant sections 
of this IFR where a procedure or requirement is implemented, as 
appropriate.

A. General. (23 CFR 1300.20)

    Some common provisions apply to most or all of the grants 
authorized under Sections 405 and 1906. The agency is retaining most of 
these provisions without substantive change in this IFR--definitions 
(Sec.  1300.20(b)); qualification based on State statutes (Sec.  
1300.20(d)); and matching (Sec.  1300.20(f)).
1. Eligibility and Application. (23 CFR 1300.20(c))
    The eligibility provision in this IFR remains unchanged from the 
MAP-21 IFR. For all but the Motorcyclist Safety Grant program, 
eligibility under Section 405 and Section 1906 is controlled by the 
definition of ``State'' under 23 U.S.C. 401, which includes 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. For the Motorcyclist Safety grants, the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are eligible to apply. This IFR, 
however, adds a provision related to general application requirements 
for Section 405 and Section 1906 grants. Specifically, in its 
application for Section 405 or Section 1906 grants, a State must 
identify specific page numbers in the HSP if it is relying on 
information in the HSP as part of its application for those programs. 
For example, if a State is relying on the occupant protection program 
area of the HSP to demonstrate problem identification, countermeasure 
strategies and specific projects required to meet the qualification 
requirements for an occupant protection plan (Sec.  1300.21(d)(1)), it 
must provide specific page numbers for the occupant protection program 
area in the HSP in its application for the Section 405 Occupant 
Protection Grant.
2. Award Determination and Transfer of Funds. (23 CFR 1300.20(e))
    The FAST Act made changes conforming the grant allocations under 
Section 405. For all Section 405 grants except State Graduated Driver 
Licensing Incentive Grants, grant awards will be allocated in 
proportion to the State's apportionment under Section 402 for fiscal 
year 2009. For Section 1906, the FAST Act does not specify how the 
grant awards are to be allocated. For consistency with the other 
grants, and in accordance with past practice, NHTSA will allocate 
Section 1906 grant awards in the same manner. The FAST Act specifies a 
different treatment for State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive 
Grant awards, which must be allocated in proportion to the State's 
apportionment under Section 402 for the particular fiscal year of the 
grant.
    In determining grant awards, NHTSA will apply the apportionment 
formula under 23 U.S.C. 402(c) to all qualifying States, in proportion 
to the amount each such State receives under 23 U.S.C. 402(c), so that 
all available amounts are distributed to qualifying States to the 
maximum extent practicable. (Sec.  1300.20(e)(1)) However, the IFR 
provides that the amount of an award for each grant program may not 
exceed 10 percent of the total amount made available for that grant 
programs (except for the Motorcyclist Safety Grant and the Racial 
Profiling Data Collection Grant, which have a different limit imposed 
by statute). This limitation on grant amounts is necessary to prevent 
unintended large distributions to a small number of States in the event 
only a few States qualify for a grant award. (Sec.  1300.20(e)(2))
    In the event that all funds authorized for Section 405 grants are 
not distributed, the FAST Act authorizes NHTSA to transfer the 
remaining amounts before the end of the fiscal year for expenditure 
under the Section 402 program. (23 U.S.C. 405(a)(8)) In accordance with 
this provision, NHTSA will transfer any unawarded Section 405 grant 
funds to the Section 402 program, using the apportionment formula. 
(Sec.  1300.20(e)(3)) In the event that all grant funds authorized for 
Section 1906 grants are not distributed, the FAST Act does not 
authorize NHTSA to reallocate unawarded Section 1906 funds to other 
State grant programs. Rather, any such funds will be returned for use 
under 23 U.S.C. 403, and do not fall within the scope of this IFR.

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

    Under MAP-21, States were required to provide an assurance that 
they would maintain their aggregate expenditures from all sources 
within the State. The FAST Act amended this provision to focus only on 
State level expenditures, making compliance easier for States. The 
applicable provision now requires the lead State agency for occupant 
protection programs, impaired driving programs and traffic safety 
information system improvement programs to maintain its aggregate 
expenditures for those programs at or above the average level of such 
expenditures in fiscal

[[Page 32560]]

years 2014 and 2015 (``maintenance of effort'' requirement). As under 
MAP-21, the agency has the authority to waive or modify this 
requirement for not more than one fiscal year. However, since the FAST 
Act makes compliance with the maintenance of effort requirement easier, 
waivers will be granted to States only under exceptional or 
uncontrollable circumstances. Maintenance of effort requirements have 
been a feature of these grants for many years, and States should not 
expect to receive waivers. We expect the State highway safety agency to 
plan for and meet these requirements each year.
    In response to the MAP-21 IFR, two commenters requested guidance on 
maintenance of effort, stating that it was difficult for States to 
assure that local resources were maintained. The requirement for 
maintenance of effort to include local resources was a feature of MAP-
21. As noted above, the FAST Act amendment limits the level of effort 
determination to the lead State agency responsible for the applicable 
programs.

C. Occupant Protection Grants. (23 CFR 1300.21)

    The FAST Act continues the MAP-21 Occupant Protection Grants with 
only one substantive amendment regarding the use of funds by high seat 
belt use rate States. Today's IFR makes changes to effect the 
amendment. High belt use rate States are now permitted to use up to 100 
percent of their Occupant Protection funds for any project or activity 
eligible for funding under section 402.
    This IFR also amends program requirements to streamline the 
application and review process. Commenters to the MAP-21 IFR have 
noted, and the agency recognizes, that some Occupant Protection 
application materials are already required as part of the State's 
annual Highway Safety Plan. Today's notice addresses this 
consideration, where feasible, by directing States in their Occupant 
Protection application to cite to page numbers in the HSP containing 
descriptions and lists of projects and activities, in lieu of providing 
separate submissions.
1. Eligibility Determination. (23 CFR 1300.21(c))
    Under the Occupant Protection Grant program, an eligible State can 
qualify for grant funds as either a high seat belt use rate State or a 
lower seat belt use rate State. A high seat belt use rate State is a 
State that has an observed seat belt use rate of 90 percent or higher; 
a lower seat belt use rate State is a State that has an observed seat 
belt use rate lower than 90 percent. Today's IFR retains the 
eligibility determination in the MAP-21 IFR.
2. Qualification Requirements for All States
    To qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant, all States must meet 
several requirements. The agency is updating and amending some of these 
requirements to streamline application requirements, in light of 
information already provided in the HSP.
i. Occupant Protection Plan. (23 CFR 1300.21(d)(1))
    The agency is amending this criterion to require States to submit 
an occupant protection plan each fiscal year, but the requirement may 
be satisfied by submissions typically included in the HSP.\5\ Under the 
MAP-21 IFR, States were required to submit an occupant protection plan 
in the first fiscal year (FY 2013) and provide updates to the plan in 
subsequent years. States were also required to submit an occupant 
protection program area plan in the HSP under 23 CFR 1200.11. The 
occupant protection program area in the HSP contains many of the same 
elements included in an occupant protection plan, such as problem 
identification, countermeasure strategies and projects to meet 
performance targets. This occupant protection program area is a 
continuing requirement in the HSP under Sec.  1300.11. For this reason, 
this IFR is streamlining the occupant protection plan requirement for a 
Section 405(b) Occupant Protection Grant. The IFR now directs States to 
reference the material already provided in the HSP (by page number), 
and does not include additional burdens or requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The first year allowance under the MAP-21 IFR for providing 
an assurance related to the occupant protection plan no longer 
applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Click It or Ticket. (23 CFR 1300.21(d)(2))
    The FAST Act continues the requirement that States participate in 
the Click It or Ticket national mobilization in order to qualify for an 
Occupant Protection Grant. States are required to describe Click it or 
Ticket activities in their HSP. The agency is amending this criterion 
only to direct the States to cite to this description of activities in 
their HSP, in lieu of including a separate submission as part of their 
application.
iii. Child Restraint Inspection Stations. (23 CFR 1300.21(d)(3))
    The FAST Act continues the requirement that States have ``an active 
network of child restraint inspection stations.'' The agency is 
amending this criterion to address considerations that the submission 
of comprehensive lists of inspection stations are burdensome and 
unnecessary. Today's IFR will require States to submit a table in their 
HSP documenting where the inspection stations are located and what 
populations they serve, including high risk groups. The State will also 
be required to certify that each location is staffed with certified 
technicians. The agency believes that this information will be 
sufficient for reviewers to evaluate whether there is an active network 
of stations.
iv. Child Passenger Safety Technicians. (23 CFR 1300.21(d)(4))
    The FAST Act continues the requirement that States have a plan to 
recruit, train and maintain a sufficient number of child passenger 
safety technicians. The agency is amending this criterion to allow 
States to document this information in a table and submit it as part of 
the annual HSP, in lieu of providing a separate submission.
3. Additional Requirements for Lower Seat Belt Use Rate States
    In addition to meeting the above requirements, States with a seat 
belt use rate below 90 percent must meet at least three of six criteria 
to qualify for grant funds. The agency is making changes to some of 
these criteria in today's IFR. Many of these changes address comments 
to streamline application materials. This IFR allows States to 
reference page numbers in the HSP in cases where such information has 
already been provided, in lieu of providing a separate submission.
i. Law-Based Criteria. (23 CFR 1300.21(e)(1) and (2))
    The FAST Act continues two law-based criteria--primary seat belt 
use law and occupant protection laws--for Lower Seat Belt Use Rate 
States. The agency has reviewed comments related to legal requirements 
and exemptions under the primary belt and occupant protection law 
criteria. Commenters requested that NHTSA amend criteria to allow 
States more flexibility regarding minimum fines, additional exemptions 
and primary seat belt requirements. Legal criteria for primary seat 
belt and child restraint laws have been included in several of NHTSA's 
predecessor occupant protection grant programs. The agency adopted the 
specific requirements under the MAP-21 IFR with this consideration in 
mind. Given the maturity of the criteria under these

[[Page 32561]]

programs and safety considerations in moving highway safety laws 
forward, the agency does not believe any changes are warranted.
ii. Seat Belt Enforcement. (23 CFR 1300.21(e)(3))
    This criterion requires a lower seat belt use rate State to 
``conduct sustained (on-going and periodic) seat belt enforcement at a 
defined level of participation during the year.'' The agency is 
amending this criterion to clarify that sustained enforcement must 
include a program of recurring seat belt and child restraint 
enforcement efforts throughout the year, and that it must be in 
addition to the Click it or Ticket mobilization. The agency is also 
amending the defined level of participation to require that it be based 
on problem identification in the State. States will be required to show 
that enforcement activity involves law enforcement covering areas where 
at least 70 percent of unrestrained fatalities occur.
    States are already required to include in the HSP an evidence-based 
traffic safety enforcement program and planned high-visibility 
enforcement strategies to support national mobilizations. (Sec.  
1300.11(d)(5) and (6)) States should include information related to 
seat belt enforcement in these sections of the HSP. In this discussion, 
States must describe efforts to integrate seat belt enforcement into 
routine traffic enforcement throughout the year and engage law 
enforcement agencies in at-risk locations with high numbers of 
unrestrained fatalities to increase seat belt use throughout the year. 
The use of a few scheduled efforts to promote seatbelt use will not be 
sufficient to meet the standard of sustained enforcement. The agency is 
requiring that States submit the seat belt enforcement application 
material as part of the HSP, in lieu of a separate submission.
iii. High Risk Population Countermeasure Programs. (23 CFR 
1300.21(e)(4))
    As noted earlier, States are already required to cover the occupant 
protection program area, including an evidence-based traffic safety 
enforcement program and planned high-visibility enforcement strategies 
to support national mobilizations, in the HSP. These sections of the 
HSP contain many of the same elements to address high risk populations, 
such as problem identification, countermeasure strategies and projects 
to meet performance targets. If a State wishes to qualify under this 
criterion, it should include information related to at least two at-
risk populations in those sections of the HSP. The agency is requiring 
that States submit high risk population countermeasure program 
materials as part of the HSP, in lieu of a separate submission.
iv. Comprehensive Occupant Protection Program. (23 CFR 1300.21(e)(5))
    A lower seat belt use rate State must implement a comprehensive 
occupant protection program in which the State has conducted a NHTSA-
facilitated program assessment, developed a Statewide strategic plan, 
designated an occupant protection coordinator, and established a 
Statewide occupant protection task force. The MAP-21 IFR permitted an 
assessment reaching back to 2005. Today's IFR includes an amendment to 
require that States have a more recent assessment of their program 
(within five years prior to the application date). Today's IFR also 
makes updates to the program requirements to emphasize the importance 
of a comprehensive occupant protection program that is based on data 
and designed to achieve performance targets set by the States. The IFR 
also stresses the importance of the occupant protection coordinator's 
role in managing the entire Statewide program. With enhanced knowledge 
of the Statewide program and activities, a strategic approach to the 
development of the occupant protection program area of the annual HSP 
can be developed and executed.
4. Use of Grant Funds. (23 CFR 1300.21(f))
    In addition to listing all the qualifying uses, the agency has 
reorganized this section under the IFR to list special rules that cover 
any other statutory requirement conditioning how grant funds are spent. 
Specifically, high belt use rate States are now permitted to use up to 
100 percent of their occupant protection funds for any project or 
activity eligible for funding under section 402.

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

    The FAST Act made no changes to the State Traffic Safety 
Information System Improvements Grants authorized under MAP-21. 
However, in this IFR, NHTSA streamlines the application process to 
reduce the burden on States.
    In response to the MAP-21 IFR, commenters generally expressed 
concern that application requirements were burdensome. One commenter 
objected to the requirement that States submit different data for the 
applications for fiscal years 2013 and 2014, despite being allowed to 
use the same performance measures for both years. The agency does not 
address this comment as it is specific to those years and no longer 
applies. The agency addresses additional comments under the relevant 
headings below.
1. Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) Requirement. (23 CFR 
1300.22(b)(1))
    The role of the TRCC in the State Traffic Safety Information System 
Improvements Grant program under this IFR remains the same as it was 
under the MAP-21 IFR, but the application requirements have been 
streamlined. NHTSA has removed many TRCC requirements, and is instead 
requiring a more refined set of information in order to determine that 
a State's TRCC can meet the goals of the statute.
    Two commenters stated that the documentation requirements for the 
TRCC in the MAP-21 IFR, including meeting minutes, reports and 
guidance, were burdensome. While it remains good practice to keep and 
retain meeting minutes, reports and guidance, this IFR requires 
submission of only the dates of the TRCC meetings held in the 12 months 
prior to application. In order to meet this requirement in future grant 
years, States will have to schedule at least 3 meetings for the 
upcoming fiscal year, but NHTSA no longer requires States to provide 
proposed dates of the meetings.
    One commenter proposed reducing the required number of TRCC 
meetings from three times a year to twice a year. However, the statute 
explicitly requires that the TRCC meet at least 3 times each year. The 
statute also requires that the State designate a TRCC coordinator.
    In order to ensure that the TRCC has a diverse membership that is 
able to provide necessary expertise, the State must submit a list 
identifying at least one member (including the member's home 
organization), that represents each of the following core safety 
databases: (1) Crash, (2) citation or adjudication, (3) driver, (4) 
emergency medical services/injury surveillance system, (5) roadway, and 
(6) vehicle databases. The State's TRCC should have a broad 
multidisciplinary membership that includes, among others, owners, 
operators, collectors and users of traffic records and public health 
and injury control data systems; highway safety, highway 
infrastructure, law enforcement or adjudication officials; and public 
health, emergency medical services (EMS), injury control, driver 
licensing and motor carrier agencies and

[[Page 32562]]

organizations. This diverse membership should serve to ensure that the 
TRCC has the authority and ability to access and review any of the 
State's highway safety data and traffic records systems.
2. Strategic Plan Requirement. (23 CFR 1300.22(b)(2))
    This IFR requires a State to have a traffic records strategic plan 
that has been approved by the TRCC and describes specific quantifiable 
and measurable anticipated improvements in the State's core safety 
databases. More information on the requirements for performance 
measures is set forth in Section IV.D.3 below.
    The Strategic Plan must identify all recommendations from the 
State's most recent traffic records system assessment and explain how 
each recommendation will be implemented or the reason a recommendation 
will not be addressed. One commenter stated that the requirement that a 
State explain why it will not address a particular recommendation is 
too burdensome and should be removed. However, NHTSA believes that the 
State's response to each recommendation, even those that it decides not 
to address, is necessary to ensure that the assessment recommendations 
serve their intended purpose of improving the State traffic safety 
information system. In order to emphasize the importance of 
coordinating the traffic records strategic plan with the State HSP, 
this IFR requires the State to identify the project in the HSP that 
will address each recommendation to be addressed in that fiscal year.
3. Quantifiable and Measurable Progress Requirement. (23 CFR 
1300.22(b)(3))
    Continuing the emphasis on performance measures and measurable 
progress, this IFR requires the State to provide a written description 
of the State's chosen performance measures along with supporting 
documentation. Performance measures must use the methodology set forth 
in the Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems 
(DOT HS 811 441) collaboratively developed by NHTSA and GHSA. Because 
NHTSA and GHSA may update this publication in future years, and intend 
the most recent version to be used, this IFR adds the language ``as 
updated.'' The Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), the Model 
Impaired Driving Records Information System (MIDRIS), the Model 
Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) and the National Emergency Medical 
Services Information System (NEMSIS) model data sets continue to be 
central to States' efforts to improve their highway safety data and 
traffic records systems. For this reason, NHTSA strongly encourages 
States to achieve a higher level of compliance with a national model 
inventory in order to demonstrate measurable progress.
    To satisfy this quantitative progress requirement, the State must 
submit supporting documentation demonstrating that quantitative 
improvement was achieved within the preceding 12 months. The 
documentation must cover a contiguous 12 month performance period 
preceding the date of application starting no earlier than April of the 
preceding calendar year as well as a comparative 12 month baseline 
period. In the fiscal year 2017 application, for example, a State would 
submit documentation covering a performance period starting no earlier 
than April 1, 2015, and extending through March 31, 2016, and a 
baseline period starting no earlier than April 1, 2014, and extending 
through March 31, 2015. Acceptable supporting documentation will vary 
depending on the performance measure and database used, but may include 
analysis spreadsheets, system screen shots of the related query and 
aggregate results.
    States are strongly encouraged to submit one or more voluntary 
interim progress reports to their Regional office documenting 
performance measures and supporting data that demonstrate quantitative 
progress in relation to one or more of the six significant data program 
attributes. NHTSA recommends submission of the interim progress reports 
prior to the application due date to provide time for the agency to 
interact with the State to obtain any additional information needed to 
verify the State's quantifiable, measurable progress. However, Regional 
office review of an interim progress report does not constitute pre-
approval of the performance measure for the grant application.
4. Requirement To Conduct or Update a Traffic Records System 
Assessment. (23 CFR 1300.22(b)(4))
    This IFR requires that a State's certification be based on an 
assessment that complies with the procedures and methodologies outlined 
in NHTSA's Traffic Records Highway Safety Program Advisory. As in the 
past, NHTSA will continue to conduct State assessments that meet the 
requirements of this section without charge, subject to the 
availability of funding.
5. Use of Grant Funds. (23 CFR 1300.22(d))
    States may use grant funds awarded under this subsection for making 
data program improvements to their core highway safety databases 
(including crash, citation and adjudication, driver, EMS or injury 
surveillance system, roadway and vehicle databases) related to 
quantifiable, measurable progress in any of the significant data 
program attributes of accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, 
accessibility or integration. This IFR makes no change to the allowable 
use of funds under this grant program.

E. Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants. (23 CFR 1300.23)

    The FAST Act did not make substantive changes to the basic impaired 
driving countermeasures grants authorized under MAP-21, but added 
flexibility to the separate grant program for States with mandatory 
ignition interlock laws and created a new grant for States with 24-7 
sobriety programs.
1. Determination of Range for Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants
    The FAST Act made no changes to the classification of low-, mid- 
and high-range States and to the use of average impaired driving 
fatality rates to determine what requirements a State must meet in 
order to receive a grant. This IFR retains those requirements in the 
MAP-21 IFR. To provide ample time to meet any application requirements, 
the agency will make the classification information available to the 
States in January each year.
2. Low-Range States. (23 CFR 1300.23(d))
    States that have an average impaired driving fatality rate of 0.30 
or lower are considered low-range States. Under the MAP-21 IFR, all 
States, including low-range States, were required to submit certain 
assurances indicating their intent to meet statutory requirements 
related to qualifying uses of funds and maintenance of effort 
requirements. This IFR makes no changes to that requirement.
3. Mid-Range States. (23 CFR 1300.23(e))
    States that have an average impaired driving fatality rate that is 
higher than 0.30 and lower than 0.60 are considered mid-range States. 
The statute specifies that States qualifying as mid-range States are 
required to submit a Statewide impaired driving plan that addresses the 
problem of impaired driving. The submitted plan must have

[[Page 32563]]

been developed by a Statewide impaired driving task force within three 
years prior to the application due date.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The first year allowance under the MAP-21 IFR for providing 
an assurance that the State will convene a statewide impaired 
driving task force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan no 
longer applies. Because the FAST Act continues the impaired driving 
countermeasures grant without substantive change, the agency 
interprets the first year of the grant as the first year that the 
impaired driving countermeasure grants were awarded, i.e., fiscal 
year 2013. Accordingly, States no longer have the option to provide 
assurances that the State will convene a statewide impaired driving 
task force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to streamline the application process developed under 
the MAP-21 IFR, mid-range States will be required to submit only a 
single document (in addition to any required certifications and 
assurances)--a Statewide impaired driving plan--to demonstrate 
compliance with the statute. In the past, a wide-range of formats and 
efforts were used by States to meet the plan requirements. In this IFR, 
the agency is requiring the use of a uniform format. Compliance will be 
determined based on the review of three specific sections.
    The first section requires the State to provide a narrative 
statement that explains the authority of the task force to operate and 
describes the process used by the task force to develop and approve the 
plan. The State must also identify the date of approval of the plan in 
this section. This information will allow the agency to determine 
compliance with the requirement that the impaired driving plan be 
developed by a task force within three years prior to the application 
due date.
    The second section continues the MAP-21 IFR requirement for a list 
of task force members. This IFR clarifies that the list must include 
the names, titles and organizations of all task force members. From 
that information, the agency must be able to determine that the task 
force includes key stakeholders from the State highway safety agency, 
State law enforcement groups, and the State's criminal justice system, 
covering areas such as prosecution, adjudication, and probation. The 
State may include other individuals on the task force, as determined 
appropriate, from areas such as 24-7 sobriety programs, driver 
licensing, data and traffic records, treatment and rehabilitation, 
public health, communication, alcohol beverage control, and ignition 
interlock programs. The State must include a variety of individuals 
from different offices that bring different perspectives and 
experiences to the task force. Such an approach ensures that the 
required plan will be a comprehensive treatment of impaired driving 
issues in a State. For guidance on the development of these types of 
task forces, we encourage States to review the NHTSA report entitled, 
``A Guide for State-wide Impaired Driving Task Forces.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The guide is Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Impaired+Driving/A+Guide+for+Local+Impaired-Driving+Task+Forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final section requires the State to provide its strategic plan 
for preventing and reducing impaired driving behavior. The agency is 
requiring that an impaired driving plan be organized in accordance with 
Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 8--Impaired Driving (``the 
Guideline'') \8\ and cover certain identified areas. The identified 
areas include prevention, criminal justice system, communications 
programs, alcohol and other drug misuse, and program evaluation and 
data. Each area is defined within the Guideline. States are free to 
cover other areas in their plans provided the areas meet one of the 
qualifying uses of funds (as identified in the FAST Act), but the plans 
must cover the identified areas. Plans that do not cover these areas 
are not eligible to receive a grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The guideline is Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs/pages/ImpairedDriving.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NHTSA has identified the areas that must be considered, the 
agency has not defined a level of effort that must be exerted by the 
State in the development of the strategic plan (e.g., how many task 
force meetings should be held; how many hours should be spent 
considering these issues). The agency expects that States will spend 
the time necessary to consider and address these important issues, in 
view of the substantial amount of grant funds involved. In our view, an 
optimal process involves a task force of 10 to 15 members from 
different impaired driving disciplines, meeting on a regular basis (at 
least initially), to review and apply the principles of the Guideline 
to the State's impaired driving issues and to determine which aspects 
of the Guideline deserve special focus. The result of that process 
should be a comprehensive strategic plan that forms the State's basis 
to address impaired driving issues.
    To receive a grant in subsequent years, once a plan has been 
approved, a mid-range State is required to submit the certifications 
and assurances covering qualifying uses of funds, maintenance of effort 
requirements, and use of previously submitted plan (as applicable). 
This assurance about the previously submitted plan does not apply to a 
Statewide plan that has been revised. In that case, the State is 
required to submit the revised Statewide plan for review to determine 
compliance with the statute and implementing regulation.
4. High-Range States. (23 CFR 1300.23(f))
    States that have an average impaired driving fatality rate that is 
0.60 or higher are considered high-range States. High-range States are 
required to have conducted an assessment of the State's impaired 
driving program within the three years prior to the application due 
date.\9\ This IFR continues to define an assessment as a NHTSA-
facilitated process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The first year allowance under the MAP-21 IFR for providing 
an assurance that the State will conduct an assessment of the 
State's impaired driving program and convene a statewide impaired 
driving task force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan no 
longer applies. Because the FAST Act continues the impaired driving 
countermeasures grant without substantive change, the agency 
interprets the first year of the grant as the first year that the 
impaired driving countermeasure grants were awarded, i.e., fiscal 
year 2013. Accordingly, States no longer have the option to provide 
assurances that the State will conduct an assessment of the State's 
impaired driving program and convene a statewide impaired driving 
task force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this assessment, a high-range State is required to convene 
an impaired driving task force to develop a Statewide impaired driving 
plan (both the task force and plan requirements are described in the 
preceding section under mid-range States). In addition to meeting the 
requirements associated with developing a Statewide impaired driving 
plan, the plan also must include a separate section that expressly 
addresses the recommendations from the required assessment. The 
assessment review should be an obvious section of a high-range plan. A 
high-range State must address each of the recommendations in the 
assessment and explain how it intends to carry out each recommendation 
(or explain why it cannot carry out a recommendation).
    The plan also must include a section that provides a detailed 
project list for spending grant funds on impaired driving activities, 
which must include high-visibility enforcement efforts as one of the 
projects (required by statute). The section also must include a 
description of how the spending supports the State's impaired driving 
program and achievement of its performance targets.
    To receive a grant in subsequent years, the State's impaired 
driving task force must update the Statewide plan and submit the 
updated plan for NHTSA's review and comment. The statutory requirements 
also include

[[Page 32564]]

updating the assessment review and the spending plan and submitting 
those for approval.
5. Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants. (23 CFR 1300.23(g))
    The FAST Act continues a separate grant program for States that 
adopt and enforce mandatory alcohol-ignition interlock laws covering 
all individuals convicted of a DUI offense, but adds flexibility for 
States to qualify for a grant. The FAST Act amends the program to 
include exceptions that allow an individual to drive a vehicle in 
certain situations without an interlock. Specifically, a State's law 
may include exceptions from mandatory interlock use in the following 
three situations: (1) An individual is required to drive an employer's 
motor vehicle in the course and scope of employment, provided the 
business entity that owns the vehicle is not owned or controlled by the 
individual (``employment exception''); (2) an individual is certified 
in writing by a physician as being unable to provide a deep lung breath 
sample for analysis by an ignition interlock device (``medical 
exception''); or (3) a State-certified ignition interlock provider is 
not available within 100 miles of the individual's residence 
(``locality exception''). In response to the statutory change, the 
agency has included these exceptions in the IFR.
    In this IFR, the agency increases the minimum period that a State 
law must authorize an offender to use an ignition interlock from 30 
days to six months. Under the MAP-21 IFR, the agency required only 30 
days as the minimum period because no exceptions were permitted from 
the mandatory requirement to use an interlock. With the addition of the 
exceptions under the FAST Act, States are afforded significantly more 
flexibility in their interlock programs, and the justification for 
allowing a shorter period of interlock use no longer exists. This is 
also consistent with comments the agency received under the MAP-21 IFR, 
urging the agency to adopt a longer restriction. These comments 
asserted that several States require interlock use for offenders for 
six months or more, and that the agency should adopt a period 
consistent with these existing State laws. The laws identified by the 
commenters were examples that contained exceptions, and would not have 
qualified under the MAP-21 IFR for that reason. We recognize that 
several States amended their laws, removing exceptions in order to 
comply with the grant requirements under the MAP-21 IFR. In all cases, 
these amended laws required interlock use for at least six months, 
despite the 30-day requirement in the MAP-21 IFR. With the addition of 
permissible exceptions under the FAST Act, we do not believe that the 
six-month duration requirement is an onerous one.
    Under the MAP-21 IFR, the agency received several other comments 
regarding these grants, including a criticism of the program under the 
assumption that taxpayers typically pay for interlock programs. In 
fact, States often defray their own program costs by making the 
offender, and not taxpayers, responsible for the costs associated with 
the installation and maintenance of an interlock. We believe that 
interlock programs should be part of every State's strategy for 
eliminating impaired driving. Strong evidence exists supporting the 
effectiveness of interlock programs for reducing drunk driving 
recidivism while the technology is installed on an individual's 
vehicle.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Raub, R.A., Lucke, R.E., & Wark, R.I., Breath Alcohol 
Ignition Interlock Devices: Controlling the Recidivist. Traffic 
Injury Prevention 4, p. 199-205 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among several comments that were supportive of the grant program, 
one commenter requested that the agency add criteria to the interlock 
requirements beyond those stated in the statute. Since the statute 
directs the basis for qualification, we decline to include other 
requirements. We agree, however, with the comment that States should 
consider agency-supported studies and materials that identify and 
explain best practices for improving ignition interlock programs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Mayer, R., Ignition Interlocks-What You Need to Know: A 
Toolkit for Program Administrators, Policymakers, and Stakeholders, 
2nd Ed., DOT-HS-811-883 (Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 2014). Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/IgnitionInterlocks_811883.pdf; Model Guideline 
for State Ignition Interlock Programs, DOT-HS-811-859 (Washington, 
DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2013). Available 
at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811859.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to qualify, a State must submit legal citations to its 
mandatory ignition interlock laws each year with its application. In 
accordance with the statute, not more than 12 percent of the total 
amount available for impaired driving countermeasures grants may be 
used to fund these grants. The agency plans to continue to calculate 
the award amounts for this program in the same manner as it did under 
the MAP-21 IFR. This IFR makes no change to this provision.
    At present, few States qualify for these grants. To avoid the 
circumstance where a relatively few States might receive large grant 
amounts, the agency may choose to reduce the percent of total funding 
made available for these grants, consistent with the flexibility 
afforded by the statute, which specifies that ``not more than 12 
percent'' may be made available for these grants.
6. 24-7 Sobriety Program Grants. (23 CFR 1300.23(h))
    The FAST Act includes a separate grant program for States that meet 
requirements associated with having a 24-7 sobriety program. NHTSA 
recognizes the value of impaired driving interventions such as 24-7 
sobriety programs. The agency acknowledges that the effectiveness of 
such programs is likely associated with their alignment with 
traditional principles of deterrence: swift and certain. 24-7 sobriety 
programs typically approach this deterrence model by focusing on the 
most high-risk offenders, requiring abstinence from alcohol or illegal 
drugs, testing compliance multiple times per day, and swiftly 
delivering defined consequences for noncompliance.
    Under this provision, grants are provided to States that meet two 
separate requirements, and this IFR implements these requirements. The 
first requirement mandates that a State enact and enforce a law that 
requires all individuals convicted of driving under the influence of 
alcohol or of driving while intoxicated to receive a restriction on 
driving privileges. Under this first requirement, the license 
restriction must apply for at least a 30-day period. The IFR adds a 
definition of the term ``restriction on driving privileges'' to clarify 
the type of restrictions that comply and to make clear that States have 
broad flexibility in meeting the requirement. The definition covers any 
type of State-imposed limitation and provides examples of the most 
common restrictions, including license revocations or suspensions, 
location restrictions, alcohol-ignition interlock device requirements 
or alcohol use prohibitions.
    The second requirement mandates that a State provide a 24-7 
sobriety program. Under the statute, a 24-7 sobriety program means a 
State law or program that authorizes a State court or an agency with 
jurisdiction to require an individual who has committed a DUI offense 
to abstain totally from alcohol or drugs for a period of time and be 
subject to testing for alcohol or drugs at least twice per day at a 
testing location, by continuous transdermal monitoring device, or by an 
alternative method approved by NHTSA. In order to comply, the State 
must be able to point to a law or program that meets this requirement. 
Also, the law or program must have Statewide applicability. Although 
the law or program need not

[[Page 32565]]

require that every DUI offender be subject to a 24-7 sobriety program, 
it must be authorized to apply on a Statewide basis. Consequently, a 
pilot program that may be in use in a small portion of a State or a 
program that is based solely at a local government level (e.g., county-
based) would not be eligible for these funds. However, States that 
qualify for a general impaired driving countermeasures grant may use 
those funds to support 24-7 sobriety pilot programs or county programs.
    In line with the statutory definition, a compliant law or program 
must use certain types of testing to regularly monitor DUI offenders 
under the 24-7 sobriety program. Under the MAP-21 IFR, the agency 
received comments suggesting additional testing methods and minimum 
performance requirements for testing devices. However, we do not 
believe that approach is necessary. The statute defines a testing 
process that States must apply to offenders in a 24-7 program. 
Specifically, in accordance with the definition, an offender must be 
subject to testing for alcohol or drugs at least twice per day at a 
testing location, or by continuous monitoring via electronic monitoring 
device, or by an alternative method approved by NHTSA. If the State 
uses these types of identified test methods, it will be eligible to 
receive a grant. Although the agency does not identify additional 
testing methods or set specific performance requirements in this IFR, 
it reserves the right to do so, consistent with the statutory allowance 
for alternative methods to be approved. Any additional testing method 
that might be approved must allow the program to meet the general 
deterrence model discussed above, ensuring a swift and certain response 
from the State for program violators. For example, a method used for 
alcohol testing should be conducted at least twice per day and a method 
used for drug testing should be conducted on at least a scheduled 
basis. In addition, the periods for testing must be clear in the law or 
program cited, so that a State has the ability to take swift action. 
For these requirements, covering the types and periods of testing that 
should be used in 24-7 sobriety programs, we are particularly 
interested in public comments.
    Under the MAP-21 IFR, the agency received several comments 
regarding the inclusion of 24-7 sobriety programs as a qualifying use 
of grant funds. The prior IFR simply added the statutory definition 
without intended change.\12\ States that met this definition were 
allowed to use grant funds for a 24-7 sobriety program. One commenter 
indicated that the statute contained a drafting mistake and that 
participating offenders under a 24-7 sobriety program were required to 
be tested for both drugs and alcohol to meet the definition, instead of 
for drugs or alcohol as stated in MAP-21 (and included without change 
in the FAST Act). A separate commenter disagreed with this position. In 
reviewing this issue, we find no evidence to suggest that Congress 
intended something different in the statutory definition provided. 
Since the purpose of the section covers grants to States for programs 
designed to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a 
the combination of alcohol and drugs, we believe that the definition 
for testing under 24-7 sobriety programs also applies to any one of 
these circumstances. Consistent with the statutory language, States 
have the flexibility to test offenders for alcohol, drugs or a 
combination of both to meet program requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Several commenters noted the typographical error in the 
IFR. We have corrected the definition here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to qualify, a State must submit the required legal 
citations or program information by the application deadline. A State 
wishing to receive a grant is required to submit legal citations to its 
law authorizing a restriction on driving privileges for all DUI 
offenders for at least 30 days. The State must also submit legal 
citations to its law or a copy of its program information that 
authorizes a Statewide 24-7 sobriety program.
    In accordance with the statute, not more than 3 percent of the 
total amount available under this section may be used to fund these 
grants. The agency plans to calculate award amounts in the same manner 
as for Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants. Amounts not used for 
these grants will be used for grants to low-, mid- and high-range 
States. The agency believes it is possible that few States will 
initially qualify for a grant. Therefore, as with Alcohol-Ignition 
Interlock Law Grants, the agency may choose to reduce the percent of 
total funding made available for these grants, consistent with the 
flexibility afforded by the statute, which specifies that ``not more 
than 3 percent'' may be made available for these grants.
7. Use of Grant Funds. (23 CFR 1300.23(i))
    States may use grant funds for any of the uses identified in the 
FAST Act. In this IFR, the agency includes definitions for some of the 
uses. In all cases, the definitions are consistent with those provided 
for in the FAST Act or were developed under the MAP-21 IFR. The agency 
received comments related to a State's ability to fund certain projects 
using grant funds provided for impaired driving countermeasures. These 
comments related to the use of funds for specific impaired driving 
programs, arguing for specific approaches over others and for more 
funds to be spent on drug impaired driving programs. In general, we 
agree that States should use several different types of programs as 
part of a comprehensive approach to addressing impaired driving. 
However, the programs for which grant funds may be used are limited to 
those identified by Congress in the statute. We choose not to 
prioritize one type of authorized program over another, and qualifying 
States may use the funds on any of the identified programs. Unless the 
program is specifically identified to alcohol enforcement, grant funds 
may be used for programs identified in statute that address the problem 
of drug-impaired driving. We encourage States to have programs that 
focus on this growing problem.
    In addition to listing all the qualifying uses, the agency has 
reorganized this section under today's IFR to list special rules that 
cover any other statutory requirements conditioning how grant funds are 
spent. For low-range States, grant funds may be used for any of the 
projects identified in the statute and for those designed to reduce 
impaired driving based on problem identification. In addition, low-
range States may use up to 50 percent of grant funds for any eligible 
project or activity under Section 402.
    For mid-range States, grant funds may be used for any of the 
projects identified in the statute and for projects designed to reduce 
impaired driving based on problem identification, provided the State 
has received advance approval from NHTSA for such projects based on 
problem identification. The agency received one comment questioning the 
approval requirement under the MAP-21 IFR. However, that requirement is 
a statutory one. Although the requirement did not appear in SAFETEA-LU, 
it was added by Congress in MAP-21 and continued under the FAST Act. We 
agree with the commenter that programs based on problem identification 
included in the application of a mid-range State that receives approval 
do not need further review. However, if the State creates a separate 
spending plan in its HSP based on its Statewide impaired driving plan 
and later revises that plan,

[[Page 32566]]

it will be required to receive approval for that revision, consistent 
with the statutory requirement.
    High-range States may use grant funds for the projects identified 
above only after submission of a Statewide impaired driving plan, and 
review and approval of the plan by NHTSA. States receiving Alcohol-
Ignition Interlock Law Grants or 24-7 Sobriety Program Grants may use 
those grant funds for any of the projects identified and for any 
eligible project or activity under Section 402.

F. Distracted Driving Grants. (23 CFR 1300.24)

    MAP-21 created a new program authorizing incentive grants to States 
that enact and enforce laws prohibiting distracted driving. Few States 
qualified for a Distracted Driving Grant under the statutory 
requirements of MAP-21. The FAST Act amended the qualification criteria 
for a Distracted Driving Grant, revising the requirements for a 
Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant and providing for Special 
Distracted Driving Grants for States that do not qualify for a 
Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant.
1. Qualification Criteria for a Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant. 
(23 CFR 1300.24(c))
    The basis for a Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant is a 
requirement that the State tests for distracted driving issues on the 
driver's license examination and that the State have a statute that 
complies with the criteria set forth in 23 U.S.C. 405(e), as amended by 
the FAST Act. Specifically, the State must have a conforming law that 
prohibits texting while driving and youth cell phone use while driving.
i. Testing Distracted Driving Issues. (23 CFR 1300.24(c)(1))
    To qualify for a grant under MAP-21, the State statute had to 
require distracted driving issues to be tested as part of the State 
driver's license examination. Few States met this requirement. In 
response to the MAP-21 IFR, one commenter disagreed with this 
requirement and believed that the State should be able to certify that 
State driver licensing examinations tested for distracted driving 
questions. The agency need not address this comment because it is no 
longer applicable. The FAST Act amended this requirement to allow a 
State to qualify for a grant if it does, in fact, test for distracted 
driving issues on the driver's license examination, without the need 
for a statutory mandate. To demonstrate that it tests for distracted 
driving issues under today's IFR, the State must submit sample 
distracted driving questions from its driver's license examination as 
part of its application.
ii. Definition of Driving. (23 CFR 1300.24(b)
    The FAST Act amended the definition of ``driving'' to strike the 
words ``including operation while temporarily stationary because of 
traffic, a traffic light or stop sign, or otherwise''. As amended, 
``driving'' means ``operating a motor vehicle on a public road; and 
does not include operating a motor vehicle when the vehicle has pulled 
over to the side of, or off, an active roadway and has stopped in a 
location where it can safely remain stationary.'' The IFR adopts this 
definition without change.
iii. Texting Prohibition. (23 CFR 1300.24(c)(2)(i))
    The FAST Act retained much of the MAP-21 requirements related to 
the texting prohibition, including the types of behaviors prohibited, 
primary enforcement, and a minimum fine. Those provisions are retained 
in this section. The FAST Act removed the requirement for increased 
fines for repeat violations and added the requirement that the State 
statute may not include an exemption that specifically allows a driver 
to text through a personal wireless communications device while stopped 
in traffic. Those FAST Act amendments are adopted in this section 
without change.
iv. Youth Cell Phone Use Prohibition. (23 CFR 1300.24(c)(2)(ii))
    The FAST Act retained much of the MAP-21 requirements related to 
the prohibition on young drivers using a personal wireless 
communications device while driving, including the types of behaviors 
prohibited, and the requirements for primary enforcement and a minimum 
fine. Those provisions are retained in this section.
    MAP-21 required the State statute to prohibit a driver who is 
younger than 18 years of age from using a personal wireless 
communications device while driving. The FAST Act amended this 
provision to allow a State to qualify for a grant if the State statute 
prohibited a driver under 18 years of age or a driver with a learner's 
permit or intermediate license from using a personal wireless 
communications device while driving. As with the texting prohibition, 
the FAST Act removed the requirement for increased fines for repeat 
violations and added the requirement that the State statute not include 
an exemption that specifically allows a driver to text through a 
personal wireless communications device while stopped in traffic. Those 
FAST Act amendments are adopted in this section without change.
2. Use of Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant Funds. (23 CFR 
1300.24(d))
    MAP-21 provided that each State that receives a Section 405(e) 
grant must use at least 50 percent of the grant funds for specific 
distracted driving related activities and up to 50 percent for any 
eligible project or activity under Section 402. In addition to listing 
all the qualifying uses, the agency has reorganized this section under 
today's IFR to list special rules that cover any other statutory 
requirement conditioning how grant funds are spent.
    The FAST Act allows a State to use up to 75 percent of Section 
405(e) funds for any eligible project or activity under Section 402 if 
the State has conformed its distracted driving data to the most recent 
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), a voluntary guideline 
designed to help States determine what crash data to collect on their 
police accident reports (PARs) and what data to code and carry in their 
crash databases. In ``Mapping to MMUCC: A process for comparing police 
crash reports and state crash databases to the Model Minimum Uniform 
Crash Criteria'' (DOT HS 812 184), NHTSA and the Governors Highway 
Safety Association developed a methodology for mapping the data 
collected on PARs and the data entered and maintained on crash 
databases to the data elements and attributes in the MMUCC Guideline. 
This methodology will be the basis for determining whether a State has 
conformed its distracted driving data to the most recent MMUCC. Because 
NHTSA may update this publication in future years, and intends the most 
recent version to be used, this IFR adds the language ``as updated.'' 
If a State qualifies for a Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant, the 
State must demonstrate that its distracted driving data collection 
conforms with MMUCC, i.e., is 100 percent mappable. NHTSA intends to 
develop an excel spreadsheet that States may use to demonstrate that 
their distracted driving data collection conforms with MMUCC. States 
must submit the executed spreadsheet showing 100 percent mappable 
distracted driving data collection within 30 days after award 
notification.

[[Page 32567]]

3. Special Distracted Driving Grants. (23 CFR 1300.24(e)(3))
    The FAST Act authorized additional distracted driving grants for 
those States that do not qualify for a Comprehensive Distracted Driving 
Grant for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. In this IFR, the agency refers to 
these additional distracted driving grants as ``Special Distracted 
Driving Grants.'' For fiscal year 2017, a State qualifies for a Special 
Distracted Driving Grant if it has a ``basic text messaging statute'' 
that is enforced on a primary or secondary basis and the State does not 
qualify for a Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant. The statute uses 
the term, ``basic text messaging statute,'' but does not define it. The 
agency believes the intent was to distinguish ``basic text messaging'' 
from ``texting'' as defined by MAP-21 (and unchanged by the FAST Act). 
For this reason, the agency is defining ``basic text messaging 
statute'' as a statute that prohibits a driver from manually inputting 
or reading from an electronic device while driving for the purpose of 
written communication.
    The requirements for a Special Distracted Driving Grant become 
stricter in fiscal year 2018. In addition to the requirement for a 
basic text messaging statute, the State must also enforce the law on a 
primary basis, impose a fine for a violation of the law, and prohibit 
drivers under the age of 18 from using a personal wireless 
communications device while driving. As is the case for fiscal year 
2017, the State must also not qualify for a Comprehensive Distracted 
Driving Grant. The IFR adopts these statutory provisions without 
change.
    The FAST Act specifies allowable uses for grant funds--activities 
related to the enforcement of distracted driving laws, including public 
information and awareness. In addition, States may use up to 15 percent 
of the grant funds in fiscal year 2017 and 25 percent in fiscal year 
2018 for any eligible project or activity under Section 402. This IFR 
makes no change to the allowable use of funds under this grant program.

G. Motorcyclist Safety Grants. (23 CFR 1300.25)

    In 2005, Congress enacted the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), 
Public Law 109-59, which authorized the Motorcyclist Safety Grants 
under section 2010. MAP-21 adopted the SAFETEA-LU Motorcyclist Safety 
Grants largely unchanged. (23 U.S.C. 405(f)) The Fast Act amended the 
Motorcyclist Safety grants to address the allocation of funds, provide 
flexibility in the use of funds, and add a requirement that the 
Secretary update and provide to the States model Share The Road 
language. The FAST Act did not amend the qualifications for the 
Motorcyclist Safety grants, which remain the same as under MAP-21. 
States qualify for a grant by meeting two of the following six grant 
criteria: Motorcycle Rider Training Courses; Motorcyclists Awareness 
Program; Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles; 
Impaired Driving Program; Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents 
Involving Impaired Motorcyclists; and Use of Fees Collected from 
Motorcyclists for Motorcycle Programs. (23 U.S.C. 405(f)(3)). To 
streamline the application process for section 405 grants, this IFR 
amends the six grant criteria to require that materials demonstrating 
compliance for each criterion be submitted with the State's HSP.
1. General Revision to the Six Motorcyclist Safety Grant Criteria
    Prior to today's IFR, the Motorcyclist Safety Grant regulation 
first identified the elements to satisfy a specific criterion and then 
the elements to demonstrate compliance. In general, States provided 
application information and data as attachments to their HSP. This 
approach required States to submit a significant number of documents 
and data, and often required the States and the agency to engage in 
additional efforts to clarify whether a State demonstrated compliance. 
Today's IFR streamlines the regulatory text for each of the six 
Motorcyclist Safety Grant criteria and reduces State application 
burdens for a Motorcyclist Safety Grant. This IFR eliminates the 
requirement for separate submissions to satisfy each criterion, as long 
as the relevant required information is included in the HSP. This 
approach is intended to shift the focus to ensure that each State bases 
its motorcycle safety programs on data-driven problem identification 
and countermeasures to meet the criteria for a Motorcycle Safety Grant.
2. Motorcycle Rider Training Course. (23 CFR 1300.25(e))
    To qualify for a grant under this criterion, section 405(f)(3)(A) 
requires a State to have ``an effective motorcycle rider training 
course that is offered throughout the State, provides a formal program 
of instruction in accident avoidance and other safety-oriented 
operational skills to motorcyclists and that may include innovative 
training opportunities to meet unique regional needs.'' Based upon many 
years of experience in administering the Motorcycle Safety Grants, the 
agency is reevaluating the requirements to demonstrate compliance with 
this criterion. At this time, every State has adopted an established 
motorcycle rider training program that is a result of a systematic and 
standardized approach to teach crash avoidance and the safe operation 
of motorcycles. Therefore, States will no longer be required to submit 
multiple documents to justify and support the selected training 
curriculum. Instead, States must use one of the following four 
identified training programs: The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) 
Basic Rider Course, TEAM OREGON Basic Rider Training (TEAM OREGON), 
Idaho STAR Basic I (Idaho STAR), or the California Motorcyclist Safety 
Program Motorcyclist Training Course (California). These curricula are 
well-established, formal instruction programs in common use across the 
United States. Each of them has been formalized and standardized 
through scientific research and field testing. And, each offers 
instruction in crash avoidance, motorcycle operation and other safety-
oriented skills that require in-class instruction and on-the-motorcycle 
training, provide certified trainers, and have institutionalized 
quality control measures. With the requirement to use one of these 
well-established training courses, the need for documentation 
establishing the merits of the training course no longer exists.
    In lieu of the previously required documentation submission, 
today's IFR instead requires a certification from the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety identifying the head of the 
designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety 
issues and that head of the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues has approved and the State 
has adopted and uses one of these four established and standardized 
introductory motorcycle rider curricula. Alternatively, in order to 
allow development of training that meets unique regional needs, the IFR 
permits the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety to certify 
that head of the designated State authority has approved and the State 
has adopted and uses a curriculum that meets NHTSA's Model National 
Standards for Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training. Such curriculum 
must have been approved by NHTSA as meeting NHTSA's Model National 
Standards for Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training before the 
application.
    The statute requires the State motorcycle rider training program to 
be Statewide. (23 U.S.C. 405(f)(e)) To meet

[[Page 32568]]

this requirement, today's IFR requires the State to provide a list of 
the counties or political subdivisions in the State where motorcycle 
rider training courses will be conducted in the 12 months of the fiscal 
year of the grant and the corresponding number of registered 
motorcycles in each county or political subdivision, according to 
official State motor vehicle records, provided that the State offers at 
least one motorcycle rider training course in counties or political 
subdivisions that collectively account for a majority of the State's 
registered motorcycles.
    Finally, to meet this criterion, the State must submit the official 
State document identifying the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues, as was required under the 
MAP-21 IFR.
3. Motorcycle Awareness Program, (23 CFR 1300.25(e))
    To qualify under this criterion, a State must have ``an effective 
statewide program to enhance motorist awareness of the presence of 
motorcyclists on or near roadways and safe driving practices that avoid 
injuries to motorcyclists.'' (23 U.S.C. 405(f)(3)(B)) The statute 
defines Motorcycle Awareness Program as ``an informational or public 
awareness program designed to enhance motorcyclist awareness that is 
developed by or in coordination with the designated State authority 
having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues, which may include 
the State motorcycle safety administrator or a motorcycle advisory 
council appointed by the governor of the State.'' (23. U.S.C. 
405(f)(5)(B)) Motorcycle Awareness is also defined by the statute to 
mean ``individual or collective awareness of (i) the presence of 
motorcycles on or near roadways; and (ii) safe driving practices that 
avoid injury to motorcyclists.'' (23 U.S.C. 405(f)(5)(C)) The FAST Act 
did not amend the statutory criterion or these definitions.
    The agency is streamlining the submission requirements under this 
criterion. Today's IFR continues to require the State's Motorcycle 
Awareness Program to be developed by, or in coordination with, the 
designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety 
issues. It requires a certification from the Governor's Representative 
for Highway Safety identifying the head of the designated State 
authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues and that 
the State's motorcyclist awareness program was developed by or in 
coordination with the designated State authority having jurisdiction 
over motorcyclist safety issues. The IFR no longer requires submission 
of the detailed strategic communications plan. One commenter under the 
MAP-21 IFR stated that the requirement for a strategic communications 
plan did not reflect the practical realities of the program (especially 
considering the small amount of grant funds), and should be scaled 
back. The agency agrees, and we have substituted a different approach.
    Based upon experience, the agency believes that State motorcycle 
awareness programs have not used available State crash data to its 
fullest extent to target specific motorcycle problem areas. Rather, the 
awareness programs have been based upon generalized use of crash data 
that has resulted in messages and slogans that bear little relation to 
the causes of motorcycle crashes. Therefore, to demonstrate that a 
State is implementing a data-driven State awareness program that 
targets problem areas, this IFR requires the State to submit in its HSP 
a performance measure and performance targets with a list of 
countermeasure strategies and projects that will be deployed to meet 
these targets. True data-driven problem identification and 
prioritization will take into account crash location and causation in 
the development of specific countermeasures.
    In the problem identification process, the State must use crash 
data queries to determine, at a minimum, the jurisdictions with the 
highest to lowest number of multi-vehicle crashes involving 
motorcycles. The State must select countermeasure strategies and 
projects implementing the motorist awareness activities based on the 
geographic location of crashes. For example, if a State plans to 
procure a digital media buy aimed at educating motorists about speed 
variability and blind spots, it should specify in which counties the 
digital media buy will take place to effectuate the statutory 
requirement that the motorcycle awareness program be Statewide. 
Creating awareness messages infrequently during the year or in only a 
few geographic locations will not be sufficient to meet the requirement 
for a Statewide awareness program. Today's IFR provides the State 
flexibility to address specific motorcycle awareness issues while 
focusing the State's resources to target motorist behaviors or 
geographic area based upon problem identification.
4. Impaired Driving Program. (23 CFR 1300.25(h))
    Previously, a State had to submit separate data and specific 
countermeasures to reduce impaired motorcycle operation. This 
requirement was separate from the performance measures, targets and 
countermeasure strategies required in the HSP under Sec.  1300.11. 
Today's IFR directs States to use the HSP process of problem 
identification, performance measures and targets, and countermeasure 
strategies to apply under this criterion. A State must provide 
performance measures and corresponding performance targets developed to 
reduce impaired motorcycle operation in its HSP in accordance with 
Sec.  1300.11(c). In addition, the State must list the countermeasure 
strategies and projects the State plans to implement to achieve its 
performance targets in the HSP.
5. Criteria With No Substantive Amendments
i. Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles. (23 CFR 
1300.25(g); Reduction in Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired 
Motorcyclists. (23 CFR 1300.25(i))
    Today's action makes no structural amendments to two criteria--
reduction of fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles and reduction 
in fatalities and accidents involving impaired motorcyclists. However, 
to provide additional flexibility, the IFR amends the age of the data 
that States must use. Specifically, the IFR allows States to use FARS 
data from up to three calendar years before the application date. The 
agency will make this information available to the States in January 
each year.
ii. Use of Fees Collected From Motorcyclists for Motorcycle Programs. 
(23 CFR 1300.25(j))
    Today's action does not make any changes to this criterion. 
However, the agency is explaining its requirements in further detail to 
better assist States in demonstrating compliance and to address some 
continuing confusion.
    To be eligible for a Motorcyclist Safety Grant under this 
criterion, the Federal statute requires that ``[a]ll fees collected by 
the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle 
training and safety programs will be used for motorcycle training and 
safety purposes.'' (23 U.S.C. 405(f)(3)(F)) This requires a State to 
take two actions with respect to fees for motorcyclist training: (1) 
Collect and deposit all the fees from motorcyclists; and (2) distribute 
all fees collected, without diversion, for training and safety 
programs. Whether a State applies as a ``Law State'' or a ``Data 
State'' under this criterion, NHTSA requires

[[Page 32569]]

sufficient documentation to show that the State's process does not 
permit any diversion.
    In response to the MAP-21 IFR, one commenter raised concerns that 
some States might seek to transfer the fees collected for motorcycle 
training to other uses, thereby jeopardizing the State's ability to 
qualify under the Use of Fees criterion. The agency shares these 
concerns, and they form the basis for the requirements described below.
    To confirm that a Law State has not diverted motorcyclist fees to 
another program, the agency requires the State to provide the citation 
to the law or laws collecting all fees requiring that the fees be used 
for motorcyclist training or safety and to the law appropriating the 
fees from the State treasury to fund the authorized program. This is so 
because it is possible for a State to have a law specifying that 
motorcycle fees are to be set aside only for training, yet divert some 
of these funds by subsequent appropriation. In fact, the agency has 
encountered this circumstance in an application under this criterion.
    Under the typical legislative process, a legislature enacts two 
laws: One that authorizes a particular governmental action (an 
authorizing statute) and another that draws money from the State 
treasury to fund the action (an appropriation). In the typical case, 
appropriations are enacted annually in the State's budget process. 
Because an authorizing act and an appropriation are generally not 
enacted simultaneously, and often originate in separate legislative 
committees, there is the potential during the budget cycle for a 
diversion of motorcyclist fees to other purposes than motorcycle 
training or safety, even though language in the originating account may 
specify otherwise. For this reason, the agency requires citations to 
both the authorizing statute and the appropriation.
    In response to the MAP-21 IFR, one commenter suggested that the 
agency be flexible and permit a State to demonstrate compliance without 
the need to submit its appropriation law as there are other laws that 
transfer funds without an appropriation. The commenter cites to one 
State's law as an example of a law that transfers motorcycle fees 
collected without an appropriation. That State's law provides that 
motorcycle fees are ``appropriated on a continual basis'' to the State 
Department of Transportation which shall administer the account. This 
is an example of a continuing appropriation, and citation to this 
provision would meet the requirement for a State to provide the 
citation to its appropriation law.\13\ The agency requires the citation 
information described here to verify eligibility under this criterion, 
and declines to adopt the commenter's recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The agency recognizes that certain statutes can act as both 
an authorization establishing the account into which the fees are 
deposited and a continuous appropriation (or ``revolving fund'') to 
pay out those fees for training, without the need for further 
appropriation. In such cases, the requirement to provide citations 
for both the statute authorizing the collection of fees and the 
appropriation would be met by providing a single citation to the 
continuous appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To confirm that a Data State has not diverted motorcyclist fees to 
another program, the State must submit detailed data and/or 
documentation that show that motorcyclist fees are collected and used 
only on motorcyclist training and safety. This requires a detailed 
showing from official records that revenues collected for the purposes 
of funding motorcycle training and safety programs were placed into a 
distinct account and expended only for motorcycle training and safety 
programs. The detailed documentation must include the account string, 
starting with the collection of the motorcycle fees into a specific 
location or account and following it to the expenditure of the funds, 
over a time period including the previous fiscal year. The 
documentation must provide NHTSA with the ability to ``follow the 
money'' to ensure that no diversion of funds takes place.
6. Award Limitation (23 CFR 1300.25(k))
    The FAST Act amended the formula for allocation of grant funds 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(f), specifying that the allocation is to be in 
proportion to the State's apportionment under Section 402 for fiscal 
year 2009, instead of fiscal year 2003, bringing this grant into 
conformance with other Section 405 grants. In addition, the FAST Act 
amended the total amount a State may receive under 23 U.S.C. 405(f). 
Unlike the regulatory 10 percent cap identified for the other Section 
405 grants in Sec.  1300.20(e), the statute provides that a State may 
not receive more than 25% of its Section 402 apportionment for fiscal 
year 2009.
7. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.25(l))
    The FAST Act amended the eligible use of funds under this section. 
In addition to listing all the qualifying uses, the agency has 
reorganized this section under the IFR to list special rules that cover 
any other statutory requirement conditioning how grant funds are spent. 
Specifically, a State may use up to 50 percent of its grant funds under 
this section for any eligible project or activity under Section 402 if 
the State is in the lowest 25 percent of all States for motorcyclist 
deaths per 10,000 motorcycle registrations, based on the most recent 
data that conforms to criteria established by the Secretary (by 
delegation, NHTSA).
    To determine if a State is eligible for this use of funds under 
Section 402, NHTSA will continue to use final FARS and FHWA 
registration data, as under MAP-21. Final FARS data provide the most 
comprehensive and quality-controlled fatality data for all 50 States, 
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. FHWA motorcycle registration 
data are compiled in a single source for all 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The agency will make calculations and notify 
the States in January each year prior to the application due date of 
July 1.
8. Share the Road Model Language
    The FAST Act mandates that within 1 year after its enactment, NHTSA 
update and provide to the States model language for use in traffic 
safety education courses, driver's manuals, and other driver training 
materials that provide instruction for drivers of motor vehicles on the 
importance of sharing the road safely with motorcyclists. NHTSA intends 
to update Share the Road language and make it available on its Web site 
located at http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov. In addition, the FAST 
Act requires a State to include the share the road language in its 
public awareness, public service announcements, and other outreach 
programs to enhance driver awareness of motorcyclists. (23 U.S.C. 
405(f)(4)(A)(iv)) Today's IFR reflects this change.
9. Response to MAP-21 IFR Comments
    In response to the MAP-21 IFR, the agency received two comments 
that are not addressed above. One commenter recommended that a 
universal motorcycle helmet law be included as a requirement to qualify 
for a Motorcyclist Safety Grant. Because the Federal statute does not 
include such a requirement to qualify for the grant, we decline to 
adopt this recommendation. Another commenter recommended that the 
agency allow States to cite to internet links to meet some 
requirements. We decline to adopt the use of internet links, as they 
are subject to change and therefore provide inadequate documentation 
and an insufficient audit trail.

[[Page 32570]]

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

    In general, a graduated driver's licensing (GDL) system consists of 
a multi-staged process for issuing driver's licenses to young, novice 
drivers to ensure that they gain valuable driving experience under 
controlled circumstances and demonstrate responsible driving behavior 
and proficiency to move through each level of the system before 
graduating to the next. All 50 States and the District of Columbia have 
enacted GDL laws as a means of providing a safe transition for novice 
drivers to the driving task. MAP-21 reintroduced an incentive grant for 
States to adopt and implement GDL laws (codified at 23 U.S.C. 405(g)). 
MAP-21 established a series of criteria that were prescriptive and 
difficult for States to meet. No State GDL incentive grants were 
awarded under MAP-21 due to the statute's strict compliance 
requirements.
    The FAST Act resets the State GDL incentive grant program by 
significantly amending the statutory compliance criteria. It makes 
technical corrections, allows States additional flexibility to comply, 
reduces some driving restrictions, and better aligns the compliance 
criteria with commonly accepted best practices for GDL programs. The 
statutory requirements remain challenging, and it is possible that few 
States may comply in the first year of the revised program. However, 
the agency believes that because the new compliance criteria better 
reflect commonly accepted best practices and are more feasible for 
States to meet, some States will take action to amend their laws in 
order to qualify for a grant.
    NHTSA based some of its implementation decisions in the MAP-21 IFR 
on research evidence, commonly accepted best practices, and public 
comments received under that program. Two commenters raised concerns 
about the agency's reliance on research evidence to establish certain 
qualification criteria. However, the FAST Act codified into law many of 
the NHTSA-established qualification criteria, including those cited by 
one of the commenters (minimum number of supervised behind-the-wheel 
training hours and nighttime driving restriction hours). As a result, 
NHTSA may no longer deviate from these criteria, and many of these 
requirements are therefore retained in this IFR.
    The following sections explain the requirements of the State GDL 
incentive grant program under the FAST Act. In addition, the agency 
addresses public comments received on the MAP-21 IFR and, where 
appropriate, public comments received on a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) that NHTSA published on October 5, 2012, in the 
Federal Register seeking public comment on the statutory GDL 
requirements in MAP-21 (see 77 FR 60956).
1. Minimum Qualification Criteria
    To qualify for a State GDL incentive grant, a State must submit an 
application with legal citations to the State statute(s) demonstrating 
compliance with the minimum qualification criteria specified in this 
IFR. (Sec.  1300.26(c)) Under 23 U.S.C. 405(g), as amended by the FAST 
Act, a State qualifies for an incentive grant if its driver's license 
law requires novice drivers younger than 18 years of age to comply with 
a ``learner's permit stage'' and an ``intermediate stage'' prior to 
receiving an unrestricted driver's license. (Sec.  1300.26(a)) 
Previously, under MAP-21, all novice drivers younger than 21 years of 
age were required to comply with such a 2-stage licensing process prior 
to receiving an unrestricted driver's license. This IFR reflects the 
statutory change from 21 years of age to 18 years of age. (Sec. Sec.  
1300.26(a), (d)(1)(i))
    This change has significant impacts on NHTSA's interpretation of 
the minimum qualification criteria and their application to State laws. 
A number of commenters to the MAP-21 IFR and the NPRM requested 
clarification on the application of the GDL requirements to novice 
drivers age 18 and older. The agency need not address these comments 
because the FAST Act amendment lowered the evaluation age to 18, and 
therefore the requirements of the FAST Act do not extend to the State's 
treatment of novice drivers once they have reached that age. For 
example, under this IFR, the automatic issuance of an unrestricted 
driver's license upon turning 18 years of age (regardless of the length 
of time an intermediate license was held) will no longer prevent a 
State from qualifying for an incentive grant because the minimum 
qualification criteria must apply only up to, but not including, 18 
years of age.
    This IFR uses the commonly accepted term ``unrestricted driver's 
license,'' as used in the FAST Act instead of ``full driver's 
license,'' which was used in the MAP-21 IFR. (Sec.  1300.26(b)) In the 
MAP-21 IFR, NHTSA used the term ``full driver's license'' to avoid 
confusion with driver licenses containing such restrictions as a 
requirement to wear corrective lenses. However, the FAST Act continues 
to use ``unrestricted driver's license,'' and NHTSA believes that 
phrase is well-understood. This IFR defines ``unrestricted driver's 
license'' to mean ``full, non-provisional driver's licensure to operate 
a motor vehicle on public roadways.'' An ``unrestricted driver's 
license'' for purposes of this section may include narrow restrictions 
such as requiring use of corrective lenses or assistive devices. 
However, it does not include learner's permits, intermediate licenses, 
or other similar restricted licenses.
    The following sections describe the minimum qualification criteria 
for the learner's permit stage and the intermediate stage that all 
novice drivers younger than 18 years of age must complete prior to 
receiving an unrestricted driver's license in order for the State to 
qualify for an incentive grant. The agency does not have statutory 
authority in 23 U.S.C. 405(g) to allow States to meet only a few of the 
minimum qualification criteria dictated by the FAST Act or to phase in 
the program over several years, as recommended by some commenters. In 
addition, because the FAST Act sets minimum qualification criteria, 
NHTSA cannot award grants while allowing States complete flexibility to 
set ``their own restrictions based on their unique conditions and 
problems,'' as one commenter suggested.
2. Learner's Permit Stage (23 CFR 1300.26(d))
    The FAST Act requires all 2-stage licensing processes to begin with 
a learner's permit stage. This IFR requires a State driver's licensing 
statute to include a learner's permit stage that applies to any driver 
who is younger than 18 years of age prior to being issued by the State 
any other permit, license, or endorsement to operate a motor vehicle on 
public roadways. However, recognizing that some drivers younger than 18 
years of age may change residence across State lines, a learner's 
permit stage is not required for any driver who has already received an 
intermediate license or unrestricted driver's license from any State, 
including a State that does not meet the minimum qualification criteria 
for an incentive grant. Drivers younger than 18 years of age who 
possess only a learner's permit from another State must be integrated 
into the State's learner's permit stage.
    The FAST Act requires applicants to successfully pass a vision and 
knowledge assessment prior to receiving a learner's permit. A 
``knowledge assessment'' (commonly called a ``written test'') is 
generally written or

[[Page 32571]]

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

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

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

[[Page 32572]]

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

[[Page 32573]]

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

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

I. Nonmotorized Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.27)

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 32574]]

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

V. Administration of Highway Safety Grants

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

A. Nonsubstantive Changes

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

B. Governmentwide Uniform Grant Requirements

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

C. Updated Administrative Procedures of Note

    The agency is responsible for overseeing and monitoring 
implementation of the grant programs to help ensure that recipients are 
meeting program and accountability requirements. Oversight procedures 
for monitoring the recipients' use of awarded funds can help the agency 
determine whether recipients are operating efficiently and effectively. 
Effective oversight procedures based on internal control standards for 
monitoring the recipients' use of awarded funds are key to ensuring 
that program funds are being spent in a manner consistent with statute 
and regulation. In order to improve oversight of grantee activities and 
management of federal funds, this IFR updates the procedures for 
administering the highway safety grant programs.
1. Amendments to the Highway Safety Plans (23 CFR 1300.32)
    As noted in Section II.A. above, NHTSA anticipates implementing the 
Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS) beginning with fiscal year 
2018 grants. GMSS satisfies the FAST Act requirement that NHTSA allow 
States to submit HSPs electronically. States will submit their HSPs 
electronically in GMSS to apply for grants. In addition, States will 
amend their HSPs and submit vouchers in GMSS. The agency expects GMSS 
to reduce the administrative burden on States. This IFR continues the 
existing requirement for approval of changes in the HSP by Regional 
Administrators. Today's action makes conforming changes to Sec.  
1300.32, including deleting the reference to the HS Form 217, which 
will no longer be required.
2. Vouchers and Project Agreement (23 CFR 1300.33)
    While grantees or recipients have primary responsibility to 
administer, manage, and account for the use of grant funds, the Federal 
grant-awarding agency retains responsibility for oversight in 
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Changes to the 
regulation are necessary to reflect the complexity of current grant 
programs

[[Page 32575]]

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

D. Sanctions

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

VI. Special Provisions for Fiscal Year 2017 Grants

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

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

[[Page 32576]]



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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. MAP-21 Comments

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

[[Page 32577]]

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

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

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

IX. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

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

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

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires NHTSA to develop 
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State 
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999). ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order 
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, an agency 
may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute 
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the 
direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments or the 
agency consults with State and local governments in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. An agency also may not issue a 
regulation with Federalism implications that preempts a State law 
without consulting with State and local officials.

[[Page 32578]]

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with 
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, and has 
determined that this IFR would not have sufficient Federalism 
implications as defined in the order to warrant formal consultation 
with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism 
summary impact statement. However, NHTSA continues to engage with State 
representatives regarding general implementation of the FAST Act, 
including these grant programs, and expects to continue these informal 
dialogues.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), as implemented by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320, a person 
is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal 
agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The 
grant application requirements in this IFR are considered to be a 
collection of information subject to requirements of the PRA. Because 
the agency cannot reasonably comply with the submission time periods 
under the PRA and provide States sufficient time to apply for the 
grants to be awarded in fiscal year 2017, the agency is seeking 
emergency clearance for the information collection related to the 
fiscal year 2017 grant application process. The agency is proceeding 
under the regular PRA clearance process for the collection of 
information related to grants beginning with fiscal year 2018 grants. 
Accordingly, in compliance with the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is 
seeking comment on a new information collection for grant programs 
beginning with fiscal year 2018 grants.
    Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
    Title: State Highway Safety Grant Programs.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Form Number: N/A (Highway Safety Plan and Annual Plan).
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the 
approval date.
    Summary of Collection of Information: On December 4, 2015, the 
President signed into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation 
Act (FAST Act), Public Law 114-94, which reauthorized highway safety 
grant programs administered by NHTSA. Specifically, these grant 
programs include the Highway Safety Program grants (23 U.S.C. 402 or 
Section 402), the National Priority Safety Program grants (23 U.S.C. 
405 or Section 405) and a separate grant on racial profiling restored 
(with some changes) from a previous authorization (Sec. 1906, Pub. L. 
109-59, as amended by Sec. 4011, Pub. L. 114-94, or Section 1906). The 
FAST Act requires NHTSA to award these grants to States pursuant to a 
rulemaking.
    Unlike the prior authorization under MAP-21, the FAST Act does not 
significantly change the structure of these grant programs. The FAST 
Act instead made targeted amendments, adding more flexibility for 
States to qualify for some of the grants. For Section 402, the FAST Act 
made limited administrative changes and no substantive changes to the 
contents of the required Highway Safety Plan (HSP). For Section 405, 
the FAST Act made no substantive changes to four programs covering 
occupant protection grants, state traffic safety information systems 
improvements grants, impaired driving countermeasures grants and 
motorcyclist safety grants; made limited changes that added flexibility 
for States to qualify for three grant programs covering alcohol-
ignition interlock law grants, distracted driving grants and state 
graduated driving licensing incentive grants; and created two new grant 
programs covering 24-7 sobriety programs grants and nonmotorized safety 
grants. For Section 1906, the FAST Act made changes that simplified the 
basis for States to receive a grant.
    Consequently, for all of these grants, the agency continues to 
follow the process directed in MAP-21 establishing a consolidated 
application that uses the HSP States submit under the Section 402 
program as a single application. The information required to be 
submitted for these grants includes the HSP consisting of information 
on the highway safety planning process, performance plan, highway 
safety countermeasure strategies and projects, performance report, 
certifications and assurances, and application materials that covers 
Section 405 grants and the reauthorized Section 1906 grant. In 
addition, States must submit an annual report evaluating the State's 
progress in achieving performance targets.
    Under this IFR, the agency has taken significant steps to 
streamline the application process. This includes allowing States to 
more easily cross reference sections of their HSP under Section 402 
where similar information is required to be submitted to qualify for a 
Section 405 grant and the introduction of a revised electronic 
submission process. As discussed above, in accordance with FAST Act 
requirements that require the agency to make greater use of an 
electronic application process, the agency intends to start using the 
Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS) for fiscal year 2018 grants. 
GMSS replaces the current grants tracking system and represents an 
enhanced and improved electronic system that will allow States to apply 
for and receive grants and also manage grants and invoicing 
electronically. The agency's approach will contribute overall to 
reducing the paperwork requirements associated with responding to the 
statutory requirements.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the 
Information: As noted above, the statute provides that the Highway 
Safety Plan is the application for the grants identified each fiscal 
year. This information is necessary to determine whether a State 
satisfies the criteria for grant awards. The annual report tracks 
progress in achieving the aims of the grant program. The information is 
necessary to verify performance under the grants and to provide a basis 
for improvement.
    Description of the Likely Respondents: 57 (50 States, the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana 
Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs on 
behalf of the Indian Country).
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 
Resulting from the Collection of Information:
    The Highway Safety Plan (HSP) is a planning document for a State's 
entire traffic safety program and outlines the countermeasure 
strategies, program activities, and funding for key program areas as 
identified by State and Federal data and problem identification. By 
statute, States must submit and NHTSA must approve the HSP as a 
condition of Section 402 grant funds. States also are required to 
submit their Sections 405

[[Page 32579]]

and 1906 grant applications as part of the HSP. States must submit the 
HSP each fiscal year in order to qualify for grant funds. In addition, 
States provide an annual report evaluating their progress under the 
programs.
    The estimated burden hours for the collection of information are 
based on all eligible respondents for each of the grants:
     Section 402 grants: 57 (fifty States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Secretary of 
the Interior);
     Section 405 Grants (except Motorcyclist Safety Grants) and 
Section 1906 Grant: 56 (fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and
     Section 405, Motorcyclist Safety Grants: 52 (fifty States, 
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).
    We estimate that it will take each respondent approximately 240 
hours to collect, review and submit the required information to NHTSA 
for the Section 402 program. We further estimate that it will take each 
respondent approximately 180 hours to collect, review and submit the 
required information to NHTSA for the Section 405 program. Based on the 
above information, the estimated annual burden hours for all 
respondents are 23,760 hours.
    Assuming the average salary of individuals responsible for 
submitting the information is $50.00 per hour, the estimated cost for 
each respondent is $21,000; the estimated total cost for all 
respondents is $1,197,000. These estimates are based on every eligible 
respondent submitting the required information for every available 
grant every year. However, all States do not apply for and receive a 
grant each year under each of these programs. Similarly, under Section 
405 grants, some requirements allow States to submit a single 
application covering multiple years allowing States to simply recertify 
in subsequent years. Considering the agency's steps to streamline the 
current submission process under this IFR and the greater use of an 
electronic submission process beginning in fiscal year 2018, these 
estimates represent the highest possible burden hours and amounts 
possible for States submitting the required information.
    Comments are invited on:
     Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether 
the information will have practical utility.
     Whether the Agency's estimate for the burden of the 
information collection is accurate.
     Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.

Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the 
heading of this document, by any of the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document. Comments are due by October 31, 
2016.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. National Environmental Policy Act

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

H. Executive Order 13211

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

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

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

L. Plain Language

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

M. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

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

N. Privacy Act

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

[[Page 32580]]

(65 FR19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

X. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data 
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

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

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business 
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent 
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after 
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider 
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will 
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking 
action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address 
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated 
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the 
Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. 
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file 
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1300

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 32581]]

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

Subpart A--General


Sec.  1300.1  Purpose.

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


Sec.  1300.2  [Reserved].


Sec.  1300.3  Definitions.

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

[[Page 32582]]

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


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

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


Sec.  1300.5  Due dates--interpretation.

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

Subpart B--Highway Safety Plan


Sec.  1300.10  General.

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


Sec.  1300.11  Contents.

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

[[Page 32583]]

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

[[Page 32584]]

Sec.  1300.12  Due date for submission.

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


Sec.  1300.13  Special funding conditions for Section 402 Grants.

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


Sec.  1300.14  Review and approval procedures.

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


Sec.  1300.15  Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.

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

[[Page 32585]]

contingent upon the State's submission of up-to-date and approved 
projects in the HSP, in accordance with Sec. Sec.  1300.11(d) and 
1300.32.

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


Sec.  1300.20  General.

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


Sec.  1300.21  Occupant protection grants.

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

[[Page 32586]]

agencies, during the fiscal year of the grant, as required under Sec.  
1300.11(d)(6);
    (3) Child restraint inspection stations. (i) Table in the HSP that 
documents an active network of child passenger safety inspection 
stations and/or inspection events, including:
    (A) The total number of inspection stations/events in the State; 
and
    (B) The total number of inspection stations and/or inspection 
events that service rural and urban areas and at-risk populations 
(e.g., low income, minority); and
    (ii) Certification, signed by the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety, that the inspection stations/events are staffed with at 
least one current nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety 
Technician.
    (4) Child passenger safety technicians. Table in the HSP that 
identifies the number of classes to be held, location of classes, and 
estimated number of students needed to ensure coverage of child 
passenger safety inspection stations and inspection events by 
nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians.
    (5) Maintenance of effort. The assurance in Part 1 of Appendix B 
that the lead State agency responsible for occupant protection programs 
shall maintain its aggregate expenditures for occupant protection 
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal 
years 2014 and 2015.
    (e) Qualification criteria for a lower seat belt use rate State. To 
qualify for an Occupant Protection Grant in a fiscal year, a lower seat 
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall satisfy all the 
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, and submit as part of 
its HSP documentation demonstrating that it meets at least three of the 
following additional criteria, in accordance with Part 1 of Appendix B:
    (1) Primary enforcement seat belt use statute. The State shall 
provide legal citations to the State law demonstrating that the State 
has enacted and is enforcing occupant protection statutes that make a 
violation of the requirement to be secured in a seat belt or child 
restraint a primary offense.
    (2) Occupant protection statute. The State shall provide legal 
citations to State law demonstrating that the State has enacted and is 
enforcing occupant protection statutes that:
    (i) Require--
    (A) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle who is under 
eight years of age, weighs less than 65 pounds and is less than four 
feet, nine inches in height to be secured in an age-appropriate child 
restraint;
    (B) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle other than an 
occupant identified in paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) of this section to be 
secured in a seat belt or age-appropriate child restraint;
    (C) A minimum fine of $25 per unrestrained occupant for a violation 
of the occupant protection statutes described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of 
this section.
    (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(2)(i), permit no exception from 
coverage except for--
    (A) Drivers, but not passengers, of postal, utility, and commercial 
vehicles that make frequent stops in the course of their business;
    (B) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because of a medical condition, provided there is written documentation 
from a physician;
    (C) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because all other seating positions are occupied by persons properly 
restrained in seat belts or child restraints;
    (D) Emergency vehicle operators and passengers in emergency 
vehicles during an emergency;
    (E) Persons riding in seating positions or vehicles not required by 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to be equipped with seat belts; 
or
    (F) Passengers in public and livery conveyances.
    (3) Seat belt enforcement. The State shall identify the 
countermeasure strategies and projects demonstrating that the State 
conducts sustained enforcement (i.e., a program of recurring efforts 
throughout the fiscal year of the grant to promote seat belt and child 
restraint enforcement), at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.11(d)(5), that based on the State's problem identification, 
involves law enforcement agencies responsible for seat belt enforcement 
in geographic areas in which at least 70 percent of the State's 
unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities occurred.
    (4) High risk population countermeasure programs. The State shall 
identify the countermeasure strategies and projects, at the level of 
detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State 
will implement data-driven programs to improve seat belt and child 
restraint use for at least two of the following at-risk populations:
    (i) Drivers on rural roadways;
    (ii) Unrestrained nighttime drivers;
    (iii) Teenage drivers;
    (iv) Other high-risk populations identified in the occupant 
protection program area required under paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section.
    (5) Comprehensive occupant protection program. The State shall 
submit the following:
    (i) Date of NHTSA-facilitated program assessment that was conducted 
within five years prior to the application due date that evaluates the 
occupant protection program for elements designed to increase seat belt 
usage in the State;
    (ii) Multi-year strategic plan based on input from Statewide 
stakeholders (task force) under which the State developed--
    (A) Data-driven performance targets to improve occupant protection 
in the State, at the level of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(c);
    (B) Countermeasure strategies (such as enforcement, education, 
communication, policies/legislation, partnerships/outreach) designed to 
achieve the performance targets of the strategic plan, at the level of 
detail required under Sec.  1300.11(d);
    (C) A program management strategy that provides leadership and 
indicates who is responsible for implementing various aspects of the 
multi-year strategic plan; and
    (D) An enforcement strategy that includes activities such as 
encouraging seat belt use policies for law enforcement agencies, 
vigorous enforcement of seat belt and child safety seat statutes, and 
accurate reporting of occupant protection system information on police 
accident report forms, at the level of detail required under Sec.  
1300.11(d)(5).
    (iii) The name and title of the State's designated occupant 
protection coordinator responsible for managing the occupant protection 
program in the State, including developing the occupant protection 
program area of the HSP and overseeing the execution of the projects 
designated in the HSP; and
    (iv) A list that contains the names, titles and organizations of 
the Statewide occupant protection task force membership that includes 
agencies and organizations that can help develop, implement, enforce 
and evaluate occupant protection programs.
    (6) Occupant protection program assessment. The State shall 
identify the date of the NHTSA-facilitated assessment of all elements 
of its occupant protection program, which must have been conducted 
within three years prior to the application due date.
    (f) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section, a State may use grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C.

[[Page 32587]]

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


Sec.  1300.22  State Traffic safety information system improvements 
grants.

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


Sec.  1300.23  Impaired driving countermeasures grants.

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

[[Page 32588]]

monitoring device or by an alternative method approved by NHTSA.
    Alcohol means wine, beer and distilled spirits.
    Average impaired driving fatality rate means the number of 
fatalities in motor vehicle crashes involving a driver with a blood 
alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 percent for every 100,000,000 
vehicle miles traveled, based on the most recently reported three 
calendar years of final data from the FARS.
    Assessment means a NHTSA-facilitated process that employs a team of 
subject matter experts to conduct a comprehensive review of a specific 
highway safety program in a State.
    Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of 
alcohol and drugs means operating a vehicle while the alcohol and/or 
drug concentration in the blood or breath, as determined by chemical or 
other tests, equals or exceeds the level established by the State, or 
is equivalent to the standard offense, for driving under the influence 
of alcohol or drugs in the State.
    Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Court means a court that 
specializes in cases involving driving while intoxicated and abides by 
the Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts in effect on the date of the 
grant, as established by the National Center for DWI Courts.
    Drugs means controlled substances, as that term is defined under 
section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802(6).
    High-visibility enforcement efforts means participation in national 
impaired driving law enforcement campaigns organized by NHTSA, 
participation in impaired driving law enforcement campaigns organized 
by the State, or the use of sobriety checkpoints and/or saturation 
patrols conducted in a highly visible manner and supported by publicity 
through paid or earned media.
    High-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate of 0.60 or higher.
    Low-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate of 0.30 or lower.
    Mid-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate that is higher than 0.30 and lower than 0.60.
    Restriction on driving privileges means any type of State-imposed 
limitation, such as a license revocation or suspension, location 
restriction, alcohol-ignition interlock device, or alcohol use 
prohibition.
    Saturation patrol means a law enforcement activity during which 
enhanced levels of law enforcement are conducted in a concentrated 
geographic area (or areas) for the purpose of detecting drivers 
operating motor vehicles while impaired by alcohol and/or other drugs.
    Sobriety checkpoint means a law enforcement activity during which 
law enforcement officials stop motor vehicles on a non-discriminatory, 
lawful basis for the purpose of determining whether the operators of 
such motor vehicles are driving while impaired by alcohol and/or other 
drugs.
    Standard offense for driving under the influence of alcohol or 
drugs means the offense described in a State's statute that makes it a 
criminal offense to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence 
of alcohol or drugs, but does not require a measurement of alcohol or 
drug content.
    (c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a 
grant under this section as a low-range State, a mid-range State or a 
high-range State, in accordance with paragraph (d), (e), or (f) of this 
section, as applicable. Independent of qualification on the basis of 
range, a State may also qualify for separate grants under this section 
as a State with an alcohol-ignition interlock law, as provided in 
paragraph (g) of this section, or as a State with a 24-7 sobriety 
program, as provided in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (d) Qualification criteria for a low-range State. To qualify for an 
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant in a fiscal year, a low-range 
State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of its HSP the 
assurances in Part 3 of Appendix B that--
    (1) The State shall use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(1) 
only for the implementation and enforcement of programs authorized in 
paragraph (j) of this section; and
    (2) The lead State agency responsible for impaired driving programs 
shall maintain its aggregate expenditures for impaired driving programs 
at or above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 2014 
and 2015.
    (e) Qualification criteria for a mid-range State. (1) To qualify 
for an Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant in a fiscal year, a mid-
range State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of its HSP 
the assurances required in paragraph (d) of this section and a copy of 
a Statewide impaired driving plan that contains the following 
information, in accordance with part 3 of appendix B:
    (i) Section that describes the authority and basis for the 
operation of the Statewide impaired driving task force, including the 
process used to develop and approve the plan and date of approval;
    (ii) List that contains names, titles and organizations of all task 
force members, provided that the task force includes key stakeholders 
from the State highway safety agency, law enforcement and the criminal 
justice system (e.g., prosecution, adjudication, probation) and, as 
determined appropriate by the State, representatives from areas such as 
24-7 sobriety programs, driver licensing, treatment and rehabilitation, 
ignition interlock programs, data and traffic records, public health 
and communication;
    (iii) Strategic plan based on the most recent version of Highway 
Safety Program Guideline No. 8--Impaired Driving, which, at a minimum, 
covers the following--
    (A) Prevention;
    (B) Criminal justice system;
    (C) Communication programs;
    (D) Alcohol and other drug misuse, including screening, treatment, 
assessment and rehabilitation; and
    (E) Program evaluation and data.
    (2) Previously submitted plan. A mid-range State that has received 
a grant for a previously submitted Statewide impaired driving plan 
under paragraph (e)(1) or (f)(1) of this section that was developed and 
approved within three years prior to the application due date may, in 
lieu of submitting the plan required under paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section, submit the assurances required in paragraph (d) of this 
section and a separate assurance that the State continues to use the 
previously submitted plan.
    (f) Qualification criteria for a high-range State. (1) To qualify 
for an Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grant in a fiscal year, a high-
range State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit as part of its HSP 
the assurances required in paragraph (d) of this section, the date of a 
NHTSA-facilitated assessment of the State's impaired driving program 
conducted within three years prior to the application due date, a copy 
of a Statewide impaired driving plan that contains the information 
required in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and that 
includes the following additional information, in accordance with part 
3 of appendix B:
    (i) Review that addresses in each plan area any related 
recommendations from the assessment of the State's impaired driving 
program;
    (ii) Detailed project list for spending grant funds on impaired 
driving activities listed in paragraph (j)(4) of this section that must 
include high-visibility enforcement efforts, at the

[[Page 32589]]

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


Sec.  1300.24  Distracted driving grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(e), for awarding grants to States that enact and enforce 
a statute prohibiting distracted driving.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Driving means operating a motor vehicle on a public road, and does 
not

[[Page 32590]]

include operating a motor vehicle when the vehicle has pulled over to 
the side of, or off, an active roadway and has stopped in a location 
where it can safely remain stationary.
    Texting means reading from or manually entering data into a 
personal wireless communications device, including doing so for the 
purpose of SMS texting, emailing, instant messaging, or engaging in any 
other form of electronic data retrieval or electronic data 
communication.
    (c) Qualification criteria for a Comprehensive Distracted Driving 
Grant. To qualify for a Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant in a 
fiscal year, a State shall submit as part of its HSP, in accordance 
with Part 6 of Appendix B--
    (1) Sample distracted driving questions from the State's driver's 
license examination; and
    (2) Legal citations to the State statute demonstrating compliance 
with the following requirements:
    (i) Prohibition on texting while driving. The State statute shall--
    (A) Prohibit all drivers from texting through a personal wireless 
communications device while driving;
    (B) Make a violation of the statute a primary offense;
    (C) Establish a minimum fine of $25 for a violation of the statute; 
and
    (D) Not include an exemption that specifically allows a driver to 
text through a personal wireless communication device while stopped in 
traffic.
    (ii) Prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving. The State 
statute shall--
    (A) Prohibit a driver who is younger than 18 years of age or in the 
learner's permit or intermediate license stage set forth in Sec.  
1300.26(d) and (e) from using a personal wireless communications device 
while driving;
    (B) Make a violation of the statute a primary offense;
    (C) Establish a minimum fine of $25 for a violation of the statute; 
and
    (D) Not include an exemption that specifically allows a driver to 
text through a personal wireless communication device while stopped in 
traffic.
    (iii) Permitted exceptions. A State statute providing for the 
following exceptions, and no others, shall not be deemed out of 
compliance with the requirements of this section:
    (A) A driver who uses a personal wireless communications device to 
contact emergency services;
    (B) Emergency services personnel who use a personal wireless 
communications device while operating an emergency services vehicle and 
engaged in the performance of their duties as emergency services 
personnel; or
    (C) An individual employed as a commercial motor vehicle driver or 
a school bus driver who uses a personal wireless communications device 
within the scope of such individual's employment if such use is 
permitted under the regulations promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
31136.
    (d) Use of funds for Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grants. (1) 
Eligible uses. Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this 
section, a State may use grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(1) 
only to educate the public through advertising that contains 
information about the dangers of texting or using a cell phone while 
driving, for traffic signs that notify drivers about the distracted 
driving law of the State, or for law enforcement costs related to the 
enforcement of the distracted driving law.
    (2) Special rule. Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) of this section, 
a State may elect to use up to 50 percent of the grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(1) for any eligible project or activity under 
Section 402.
    (3) Special rule--MMUCC conforming States. Notwithstanding 
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, a State may also use up to 
75 percent of amounts received under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(1) for any 
eligible project or activity under Section 402 if the State has 
conformed its distracted driving data to the most recent Model Minimum 
Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). To demonstrate conformance with MMUCC, 
the State shall submit within 30 days after notification of award, the 
NHTSA-developed MMUCC Mapping spreadsheet, as described in ``Mapping to 
MMUCC: A process for comparing police crash reports and state crash 
databases to the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria'' (DOT HS 812 
184), as updated.
    (e) Qualification criteria for Special Distracted Driving Grants. 
For fiscal years 2017 and 2018, to qualify for a Special Distracted 
Driving Grant, a State shall submit as part of its HSP the legal 
citations to the State statute demonstrating compliance with the 
following requirements, in accordance with part 6 of appendix B:
    (1) For fiscal year 2017--
    (i) The State has enacted and is enforcing a basic text messaging 
statute that applies to drivers of all ages;
    (ii) The State statute makes a violation of the basic text 
messaging statute a primary or secondary offense; and
    (iii) The State is not eligible for a Comprehensive Distracted 
Driving Grant under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) For fiscal year 2018--
    (i) The State has enacted and is enforcing a basic text messaging 
statute that applies to drivers of all ages;
    (ii) The State statute makes a violation of the basic text 
messaging statute a primary offense;
    (iii) The State imposes a fine for a violation of the basic text 
messaging statute;
    (iv) The State has enacted and is enforcing a statute that 
prohibits drivers under the age of 18 from using a personal wireless 
communications device while driving; and
    (v) The State is not eligible for a Comprehensive Distracted 
Driving Grant under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) For purposes of this paragraph (e), ``basic text messaging 
statute'' means a statute that prohibits a driver, for the purpose of 
written communication, from manually inputting or reading from an 
electronic device while driving.
    (4) Use of grant funds for Special Distracted Driving Grants--(i) 
Eligible uses. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this 
section, a State may use grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(6) 
only for activities related to the enforcement of distracted driving 
laws, including public information and awareness.
    (ii) Special rule. Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this 
section--
    (A) In fiscal year 2017, a State may elect to use up to 15 percent 
of grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(6) for any eligible 
project or activity under Section 402.
    (B) In fiscal year 2018, a State may elect to use up to 25 percent 
of grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(6) for any eligible 
project or activity under Section 402.
    (f) Award. (1) The amount available for grants under paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section shall be determined after deduction of the 
amounts necessary to fund grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(6).
    (ii) The amount available for grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(e)(6) 
shall not exceed 25 percent of the total amount made available to 
States under 23 U.S.C. 405(e) for fiscal years 2017 and 2018.


Sec.  1300.25  Motorcyclist safety grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(f), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective programs to reduce the number of single-vehicle and 
multiple-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--

[[Page 32591]]

    Data State means a State that does not have a statute or regulation 
requiring that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for 
the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to 
be used for motorcycle training and safety programs but can show 
through data and/or documentation from official records that all fees 
collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding 
motorcycle training and safety programs were, in fact, used for 
motorcycle training and safety programs, without diversion.
    Impaired means alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired as defined by 
State law, provided that the State's legal alcohol-impairment level 
does not exceed .08 BAC.
    Law State means a State that has a statute or regulation requiring 
that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to be 
used for motorcycle training and safety programs an no statute or 
regulation diverting any of those fees.
    Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or 
saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than 
three wheels in contact with the ground.
    State means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.
    (c) Eligibility. The 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico are eligible to apply for a Motorcyclist Safety Grant.
    (d) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a Motorcyclist Safety 
Grant in a fiscal year, a State shall submit as part of its HSP 
documentation demonstrating compliance with at least two of the 
criteria in paragraphs (e) through (j) of this section.
    (e) Motorcycle rider training course. A State shall have an 
effective motorcycle rider training course that is offered throughout 
the State and that provides a formal program of instruction in accident 
avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills to 
motorcyclists. To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State 
shall submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B--
    (1) A certification identifying the head of the designated State 
authority over motorcyclist safety issues and stating that the head of 
the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues has 
approved and the State has adopted one of the following introductory 
rider curricula:
    (i) Motorcycle Safety Foundation Basic Rider Course;
    (ii) TEAM OREGON Basic Rider Training;
    (iii) Idaho STAR Basic I;
    (iv) California Motorcyclist Safety Program Motorcyclist Training 
Course;
    (v) A curriculum that has been approved by the designated State 
authority and NHTSA as meeting NHTSA's Model National Standards for 
Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training; and
    (2) A list of the counties or political subdivisions in the State 
where motorcycle rider training courses will be conducted during the 
fiscal year of the grant and the number of registered motorcycles in 
each such county or political subdivision according to official State 
motor vehicle records, provided that the State must offer at least one 
motorcycle rider training course in counties or political subdivisions 
that collectively account for a majority of the State's registered 
motorcycles.
    (f) Motorcyclist awareness program. A State shall have an effective 
Statewide program to enhance motorist awareness of the presence of 
motorcyclists on or near roadways and safe driving practices that avoid 
injuries to motorcyclists. To demonstrate compliance with this 
criterion, the State shall submit, in accordance with part 7 of 
appendix B--
    (1) A certification identifying head of the designated State 
authority over motorcyclist safety issues and stating that the State's 
motorcyclist awareness program was developed by or in coordination with 
the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues; and
    (2) One or more performance measures and corresponding performance 
targets developed for motorcycle awareness at the level of detail 
required under Sec.  1300.11(c) that identifies, using State crash 
data, the counties or political subdivisions within the State with the 
highest number of motorcycle crashes involving a motorcycle and another 
motor vehicle. Such data shall be from the most recent calendar year 
for which final State crash data is available, but data no older than 
three calendar years prior to the application due date (e.g., for a 
grant application submitted on July 1, 2016, a State shall provide 
calendar year 2015 data, if available, and may not provide data older 
than calendar year 2013); and
    (3) Countermeasure strategies and projects, at the level of detail 
required under Sec.  1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State will 
implement data-driven programs in a majority of counties or political 
subdivisions where there is at least one motorcycle crash causing a 
serious or fatal injury. The State shall select countermeasure 
strategies and projects to address the State's motorcycle safety 
problem areas in order to meet the performance targets identified in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (g) Reduction of fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles. A 
State shall demonstrate a reduction for the preceding calendar year in 
the number of motorcyclist fatalities and in the rate of motor vehicle 
crashes involving motorcycles in the State (expressed as a function of 
10,000 registered motorcycle registrations), as computed by NHTSA. To 
demonstrate compliance a State shall in accordance with part 7 of 
appendix B--
    (1) Submit in its HSP State data showing the total number of motor 
vehicle crashes involving motorcycles in the State for the most recent 
calendar year for which final State crash data is available, but data 
no older than three calendar years prior to the application due date 
and the same type of data for the calendar year immediately prior to 
that calendar year (e.g., for a grant application submitted on July 1, 
2016, the State shall submit calendar year 2014 data and 2013 data, if 
both data are available, and may not provide data older than calendar 
year 2013 and 2012, to determine the rate);
    (2) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of 
motorcyclist fatalities for the most recent calendar year for which 
final FARS data is available as compared to the final FARS data for the 
calendar year immediately prior to that year; and
    (3) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 
motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), 
experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of crashes 
involving motorcycles for the most recent calendar year for which final 
State crash data is available, but data no older than three calendar 
years prior to the application due date, as compared to the calendar 
year immediately prior to that year.
    (h) Impaired driving program. A State shall implement a Statewide 
program to reduce impaired driving, including specific measures to 
reduce impaired motorcycle operation. The State shall submit, in 
accordance with part 7 of appendix B--
    (1) One or more performance measures and corresponding performance 
targets developed to reduce impaired motorcycle operation at the level 
of detail required under Sec.  1300.11(c). Each performance measure and 
performance target shall identify

[[Page 32592]]

the impaired motorcycle operation problem area to be addressed. Problem 
identification must include an analysis of motorcycle crashes involving 
an impaired operator by county or political subdivision in the State; 
and
    (2) Countermeasure strategies and projects, at the level of detail 
required under Sec.  1300.11(d), demonstrating that the State will 
implement data-driven programs designed to reach motorcyclists in those 
jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes involving an 
impaired operator is highest (i.e., the majority of counties or 
political subdivisions in the State with the highest numbers of 
motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator) based upon State 
data. Such data shall be from the most recent calendar year for which 
final State crash data is available, but data no older than three 
calendar years prior to the application due date (e.g., for a grant 
application submitted on July 1, 2016, a State shall provide calendar 
year 2014 data, if available, and may not provide data older than 
calendar year 2013). Countermeasure strategies and projects shall 
prioritize the State's impaired motorcycle problem areas to meet the 
performance targets identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
    (i) Reduction of fatalities and accidents involving impaired 
motorcyclists. A State shall demonstrate a reduction for the preceding 
calendar year in the number of fatalities and in the rate of reported 
crashes involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle 
operators (expressed as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations), 
as computed by NHTSA. The State shall, in accordance with part 7 of 
appendix B--
    (1) Submit in its HSP State data showing the total number of 
reported crashes involving alcohol- and drug-impaired motorcycle 
operators in the State for the most recent calendar year for which 
final State crash data is available, but data no older than three 
calendar years prior to the application due date and the same type of 
data for the calendar year immediately prior to that year (e.g., for a 
grant application submitted on July 1, 2016, the State shall submit 
calendar year 2014 data and 2013 data, if both data are available, and 
may not provide data older than calendar year 2013 and 2012, to 
determine the rate);
    (2) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of 
fatalities involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle 
operators for the most recent calendar year for which final FARS data 
is available as compared to the final FARS data for the calendar year 
immediately prior to that year; and
    (3) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 
motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), 
experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of reported 
crashes involving alcohol-and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for 
the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data is 
available, but data no older than three calendar years prior to the 
application due date, as compared to the calendar year immediately 
prior to that year.
    (j) Use of fees collected from motorcyclists for motorcycle 
programs. A State shall have a process under which all fees collected 
by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle 
training and safety programs are used for motorcycle training and 
safety programs. A State may qualify under this criterion as either a 
Law State or a Data State.
    (1) To demonstrate compliance as a Law State, the State shall 
submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B, the legal citation to 
the statutes or regulations requiring that all fees collected by the 
State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle 
training and safety programs are to be used for motorcycle training and 
safety programs and the legal citations to the State's current fiscal 
year appropriation (or preceding fiscal year appropriation, if the 
State has not enacted a law at the time of the State's application) 
appropriating all such fees to motorcycle training and safety programs.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance as a Data State, the State shall 
submit, in accordance with part 7 of appendix B, data or documentation 
from official records from the previous State fiscal year showing that 
all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of 
funding motorcycle training and safety programs were, in fact, used for 
motorcycle training and safety programs. Such data or documentation 
shall show that revenues collected for the purposes of funding 
motorcycle training and safety programs were placed into a distinct 
account and expended only for motorcycle training and safety programs.
    (k) Award limitation. A grant awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(f) may 
not exceed 25 percent of the amount apportioned to the State for fiscal 
year 2009 under Section 402.
    (l) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraph (l)(2) of this section, a State may use grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(f) only for motorcyclist safety training and 
motorcyclist awareness programs, including--
    (i) Improvements to motorcyclist safety training curricula;
    (ii) Improvements in program delivery of motorcycle training to 
both urban and rural areas, including--
    (A) Procurement or repair of practice motorcycles;
    (B) Instructional materials;
    (C) Mobile training units; and
    (D) Leasing or purchasing facilities for closed-course motorcycle 
skill training;
    (iii) Measures designed to increase the recruitment or retention of 
motorcyclist safety training instructors; or
    (iv) Public awareness, public service announcements, and other 
outreach programs to enhance driver awareness of motorcyclists, 
including ``share-the-road'' safety messages developed using Share-the-
Road model language available on NHTSA's Web site at http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov.
    (2) Special rule--low fatality States. Notwithstanding paragraph 
(l)(1) of this section, a State may elect to use up to 50 percent of 
grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(f) for any eligible project or 
activity under Section 402 if the State is in the lowest 25 percent of 
all States for motorcycle deaths per 10,000 motorcycle registrations 
(using FHWA motorcycle registration data) based on the most recent 
calendar year for which final FARS data is available, as determined by 
NHTSA.
    (3) Suballocation of funds. A State that receives a grant under 
this section may suballocate funds from the grant to a nonprofit 
organization incorporated in that State to carry out grant activities 
under this section.


Sec.  1300.26  State graduated driver licensing incentive grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(g), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement a graduated driver's licensing statute that requires novice 
drivers younger than 18 years of age to comply with a 2-stage licensing 
process prior to receiving an unrestricted driver's license.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Driving-related offense means any offense under State or local law 
relating to the use or operation of a motor vehicle, including but not 
limited to driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, driving without 
wearing a seat belt, child restraint violation, speeding, prohibited 
use of a personal wireless communications device, violation of the 
driving-related restrictions applicable to the stages of the graduated 
driver's

[[Page 32593]]

licensing process set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, 
and moving violations. The term does not include offenses related to 
motor vehicle registration, insurance, parking, or the presence or 
functionality of motor vehicle equipment.
    Licensed driver means an individual who possesses a valid 
unrestricted driver's license.
    Unrestricted driver's license means full, non-provisional driver's 
licensure to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.
    (c) Qualification criteria--General. To qualify for a State 
Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grant in a fiscal year, a State 
shall provide as part of its HSP legal citations to the State statute 
demonstrating compliance with the requirements provided in paragraphs 
(d) and (e) of this section, in accordance with in part 8 of appendix 
B.
    (d) Learner's permit stage. A State's graduated driver's licensing 
statute shall include a learner's permit stage that--
    (1) Applies to any driver, prior to being issued by the State any 
permit, license, or endorsement to operate a motor vehicle on public 
roadways other than a learner's permit, who--
    (i) Is younger than 18 years of age; and
    (ii) Has not been issued an intermediate license or unrestricted 
driver's license by any State;
    (2) Commences only after an applicant for a learner's permit passes 
a vision test and a knowledge assessment (e.g., written or 
computerized) covering the rules of the road, signs, and signals;
    (3) Is in effect for a period of at least 6 months, and remains in 
effect until the learner's permit holder--
    (i) Reaches at least 16 years of age and enters the intermediate 
stage; or
    (ii) Reaches 18 years of age;
    (4) Requires the learner's permit holder to be accompanied and 
supervised, at all times while operating a motor vehicle, by a licensed 
driver who is at least 21 years of age or is a State-certified driving 
instructor;
    (5) Requires the learner's permit holder to either--
    (i) Complete a State-certified driver education or training course; 
or
    (ii) Receive at least 50 hours of behind-the-wheel training, with 
at least 10 of those hours at night, with a licensed driver who is at 
least 21 years of age or is a State-certified driving instructor;
    (6) Prohibits the learner's permit holder from using a personal 
wireless communications device while driving (as defined in Sec.  
1300.24(b)) except as permitted under Sec.  1300.24(c)(2)(iii), 
provided that the State's statute--
    (i) Makes a violation of the prohibition a primary offense; and
    (ii) Does not include an exemption that specifically allows a 
driver to text through a personal wireless communication device while 
stopped in traffic; and
    (7) Requires that, in addition to any other penalties imposed by 
State statute, the duration of the learner's permit stage be extended 
if the learner's permit holder is convicted of a driving-related 
offense or misrepresentation of a driver's true age during at least the 
first 6 months of that stage.
    (e) Intermediate stage. A State's graduated driver's licensing 
statute shall include an intermediate stage that--
    (1) Commences--
    (i) After an applicant younger than 18 years of age successfully 
completes the learner's permit stage;
    (ii) Prior to the applicant being issued by the State another 
permit, license, or endorsement to operate a motor vehicle on public 
roadways other than an intermediate license; and
    (iii) Only after the applicant passes a behind-the-wheel driving 
skills assessment;
    (2) Is in effect for a period of at least 6 months, and remains in 
effect until the intermediate license holder reaches at least 17 years 
of age;
    (3) Requires the intermediate license holder to be accompanied and 
supervised, while operating a motor vehicle between the hours of 10:00 
p.m. and 5:00 a.m. during the first 6 months of the intermediate stage, 
by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age or is a State-
certified driving instructor, except when operating a motor vehicle for 
the purposes of work, school, religious activities, or emergencies;
    (4) Prohibits the intermediate license holder from operating a 
motor vehicle with more than 1 nonfamilial passenger younger than 21 
years of age unless a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age 
or is a State-certified driving instructor is in the motor vehicle;
    (5) Prohibits the intermediate license holder from using a personal 
wireless communications device while driving (as defined in Sec.  
1300.24(b)) except as permitted under Sec.  1300.24(c)(2)(iii), 
provided that the State's statute--
    (i) Makes a violation of the prohibition a primary offense; and
    (ii) Does not include an exemption that specifically allows a 
driver to text through a personal wireless communication device while 
stopped in traffic; and
    (6) Requires that, in addition to any other penalties imposed by 
State statute, the duration of the intermediate stage be extended if 
the intermediate license holder is convicted of a driving-related 
offense or misrepresentation of a driver's true age during at least the 
first 6 months of that stage.
    (f) Exceptions. A State that otherwise meets the minimum 
requirements set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section will 
not be deemed ineligible for a grant under this section if--
    (1) The State enacted a statute prior to January 1, 2011, 
establishing a class of permit or license that allows drivers younger 
than 18 years of age to operate a motor vehicle--
    (i) In connection with work performed on, or for the operation of, 
a farm owned by family members who are directly related to the 
applicant or licensee; or
    (ii) If demonstrable hardship would result from the denial of a 
license to the licensee or applicant, provided that the State requires 
the applicant or licensee to affirmatively and adequately demonstrate 
unique undue hardship to the individual; and
    (2) A driver younger than 18 years of age who possesses only the 
permit or license described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and 
applies for any other permit, license, or endorsement to operate a 
motor vehicle is subject to the graduated driver's licensing 
requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section and is required 
to begin with the learner's permit stage.
    (g) Award determination. Subject to Sec.  1300.20(e)(2), the amount 
of a grant award to a State in a fiscal year under 23 U.S.C. 405(g) 
shall be in proportion to the amount each such State received under 
Section 402 for that fiscal year.
    (h) Use of grant funds--(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in 
paragraphs (h)(2) and (3), a State may use grant funds awarded under 23 
U.S.C. 405(g) only as follows:
    (i) To enforce the State's graduated driver's licensing process;
    (ii) To provide training for law enforcement personnel and other 
relevant State agency personnel relating to the enforcement of the 
State's graduated driver's licensing process;
    (iii) To publish relevant educational materials that pertain 
directly or indirectly to the State's graduated driver's licensing law;
    (iv) To carry out administrative activities to implement the 
State's graduated driver's licensing process; or
    (v) To carry out a teen traffic safety program described in 23 
U.S.C. 402(m).
    (2) Special rule. Notwithstanding paragraph (h)(1) of this section, 
a State may elect to use up to 75 percent of the grant funds awarded 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(g) for any eligible project or activity under 
Section 402.
    (3) Special rule--low fatality States. Notwithstanding paragraphs 
(h)(1) and (2) of this section, a State may elect to

[[Page 32594]]

use up to 100 percent of the grant funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(g) 
for any eligible project or activity under Section 402 if the State is 
in the lowest 25 percent of all States for the number of drivers under 
age 18 involved in fatal crashes in the State as a percentage of the 
total number of drivers under age 18 in the State, as determined by 
NHTSA.


Sec.  1300.27  Nonmotorized safety grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(h), for awarding grants to States for the purpose of 
decreasing pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries that result 
from crashes involving a motor vehicle.
    (b) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible for a grant 
under this section if the State's annual combined pedestrian and 
bicyclist fatalities exceed 15 percent of the State's total annual 
crash fatalities based on the most recent calendar year for which final 
FARS data is available, as determined by NHTSA.
    (c) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a Nonmotorized Safety 
Grant in a fiscal year, a State meeting the eligibility requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section shall submit as part of its HSP the 
assurances that the State shall use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 
405(h) only for the authorized uses identified in paragraph (d) of this 
section, in accordance with part 9 of appendix B.
    (d) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
23 U.S.C. 405(h) only for--
    (1) Training of law enforcement officials on State laws applicable 
to pedestrian and bicycle safety;
    (2) Enforcement mobilizations and campaigns designed to enforce 
State traffic laws applicable to pedestrian and bicycle safety; or
    (3) Public education and awareness programs designed to inform 
motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists of State traffic laws applicable 
to pedestrian and bicycle safety.


Sec.  1300.28  Racial profiling data collection grants.

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

Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants


Sec.  1300.30  General.

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


Sec.  1300.31  Equipment.

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


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

    During the fiscal year of the grant, States may amend the HSP, 
except performance targets, after approval under Sec.  1300.14. States 
shall document changes to the HSP electronically, including project 
information. Such changes are subject to approval by the Regional 
Administrator. The Regional Administrator must approve changes in the 
HSP before reimbursement of vouchers related to such changes.

[[Page 32595]]

Sec.  1300.33  Vouchers and project agreements.

    (a) General. Each State shall submit official vouchers for expenses 
incurred to the Regional Administrator.
    (b) Content of vouchers. At a minimum, each voucher shall provide 
the following information for expenses:
    (1) Project numbers for which expenses were incurred and for which 
reimbursement is being sought;
    (2) Amount of Federal funds for reimbursement;
    (3) Amount of Federal funds allocated to local benefit (provided no 
less than mid-year (by March 31) and with the final voucher);
    (4) Amount of indirect cost;
    (5) Amount of Planning and Administration costs;
    (6) Matching rate (or special matching writeoff used, i.e., sliding 
scale rate authorized under 23 U.S.C. 120); and
    (7) Program funding code.
    (c) Project agreements. Copies of each project agreement for which 
expenses are being claimed under the voucher (and supporting 
documentation for the vouchers) shall be made promptly available for 
review by the Regional Administrator upon request. Each project 
agreement shall bear the project number to allow the Regional 
Administrator to match the voucher to the corresponding activity.
    (d) Submission requirements. At a minimum, vouchers shall be 
submitted to the Regional Administrator on a quarterly basis, no later 
than 15 working days after the end of each quarter, except that where a 
State receives funds by electronic transfer at an annualized rate of 
one million dollars or more, vouchers shall be submitted on a monthly 
basis, no later than 15 working days after the end of each month. A 
final voucher for the fiscal year shall be submitted to the Regional 
Administrator no later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, 
and all unexpended balances shall be carried forward to the next fiscal 
year.
    (e) Reimbursement. (1) Failure to provide the information specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section shall result in rejection of the 
voucher.
    (2) Failure to meet the deadlines specified in paragraph (d) of 
this section may result in delayed reimbursement.
    (3) Vouchers that request reimbursement for projects whose project 
numbers or amounts claimed do not match the projects or exceed the 
estimated amount of Federal funds provided under Sec.  1300.11(d) or 
amended under Sec.  1300.32, shall be rejected, in whole or in part, 
until an amended project and/or estimated amount of Federal funds is 
submitted to and approved by the Regional Administrator in accordance 
with Sec.  1300.32.


Sec.  1300.34  [Reserved].


Sec.  1300.35  Annual report.

    Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, each State shall 
submit electronically an Annual Report providing--
    (a) An assessment of the State's progress in achieving performance 
targets identified in the prior year HSP;
    (b) A description of the projects and activities funded and 
implemented along with the amount of Federal funds obligated and 
expended under the prior year HSP;
    (c) A description of the State's evidence-based enforcement program 
activities;
    (d) An explanation of reasons for projects that were not 
implemented; and
    (e) A description of how the projects funded under the prior year 
HSP contributed to meeting the State's highway safety performance 
targets.


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

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

Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation


Sec.  1300.40  Expiration of the Highway Safety Plan.

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


Sec.  1300.41  Disposition of unexpended balances.

    (a) Carry-forward balances. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of 
this section, grant funds that remain unexpended at the end of a fiscal 
year and the expiration of a Highway Safety Plan shall be credited to 
the State's highway safety account for the new fiscal year, and made 
immediately available for use by the State, provided the following 
requirements are met:
    (1) The State's new Highway Safety Plan has been approved by the 
Regional Administrator pursuant to Sec.  1300.14 of this part, 
including any amendments to the HSP pursuant to Sec.  1300.32; and
    (2) The State has assigned all available 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 
Section 1906 funds to specific project agreements, including project 
numbers.
    (b) Deobligation of funds. (1) Except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, unexpended grant funds shall not be available 
for expenditure beyond the period of three years after the last day of 
the fiscal year of apportionment or allocation.
    (2) NHTSA shall notify States of any such unexpended grant funds no 
later than 180 days prior to the end of the period of availability 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and inform States of the 
deadline for commitment. States may commit such unexpended grant funds 
to a specific project by the specified deadline, and shall provide 
documentary evidence of that commitment, including a copy of an 
executed project agreement, to the Regional Administrator.
    (3) Grant funds committed to a specific project in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall remain committed to that project 
and must be expended by the end of the succeeding fiscal year. The 
final voucher for that project shall be submitted within 90 days after 
the end of that fiscal year.
    (4) NHTSA shall deobligate unexpended balances at the end of the 
time period in paragraph (b)(1) or (3) of this section, whichever is 
applicable, and the funds shall lapse.


Sec.  1300.42  Post-grant adjustments.

    The expiration of a Highway Safety Plan does not affect the ability 
of NHTSA to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later 
audit or

[[Page 32596]]

other review or the State's obligation to return any funds due as a 
result of later refunds, corrections, or other transactions.


Sec.  1300.43  Continuing requirements.

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

Subpart F--Non-Compliance


Sec.  1300.50  General.

    Where a State is found to be in non-compliance with the 
requirements of the grant programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 
or Section 1906, or with other applicable law, the sanctions in 
Sec. Sec.  1300.51 and 1300.52, and any other sanctions or remedies 
permitted under Federal law, including the special conditions of 2 CFR 
200.207 and 200.388, may be applied as appropriate.


Sec.  1300.51  Sanctions--reduction of apportionment.

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


Sec.  1300.52  Risk assessment and non-compliance.

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

Subpart G--Special Provisions for Fiscal Year 2017 Highway Safety 
Grants


Sec.  1300.60  Fiscal Year 2017 grant applications.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fiscal 
year 2017 grant applications due July 1, 2016 shall be governed by the 
following provisions:
    (1) For the Highway Safety Plans, 23 CFR 1200.11 (April 1, 2015);
    (2) For occupant protection grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(b), 23 CFR 
1200.21(d)(1) through (4) and (e) (April 1, 2015) and 23 CFR 
1300.21(d)(5) (maintenance of effort);
    (3) For State traffic safety information system improvements grants 
under 23 U.S.C. 405(c), 23 CFR 1200.22(b) through (e) (April 1, 2015) 
and 23 CFR 1300.22(c) (maintenance of effort);
    (4) For impaired griving countermeasures grants under 23 U.S.C. 
405(d)(1), 23 CFR 1200.23(d)(1), (e), and (f) (April 1, 2015), and 23 
CFR 1300.23(d)(2) (maintenance of effort);
    (5) For grants to States with alcohol-ignition interlock laws and 
24-7 sobriety programs under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6), 23 CFR 1300.23(g) and 
(h);
    (6) For distracted driving grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(e), 23 CFR 
1300.24;
    (7) For motorcyclist safety grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(f), 23 CFR 
1200.25(d)-(j) (April 1, 2015);
    (8) For State graduated driver licensing incentive grants under 23 
U.S.C. 405(g), 23 CFR 1300.26;
    (9) For nonmotorized safety grants under 23 U.S.C. 405(h), 23 CFR 
1300.27;
    (10) For racial profiling data collection grants under Section 
1906, 23 CFR 1300.28.
    (b) States may elect to apply under 23 CFR part 1300 for any of the 
grants under paragraph (a) of this section.


Sec.  1300.61  Fiscal Year 2017 grants--general and administrative 
provisions.

    (a) Fiscal year 2017 grants awarded under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and 
Section 1906 are governed by the following general and administrative 
provisions in part 1300:
    (1) Subpart A--all sections;
    (2) Subpart B:
    (i) 23 CFR 1300.10 General;
    (ii) 23 CFR 1300.12 Due date for submission;
    (iii) 23 CFR 1300.13 Special funding conditions for Section 402 
Grants;

[[Page 32597]]

    (iv) 23 CFR 1300.15 Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds;
    (3) Subpart C:
    (i) 23 CFR 1300.20 General;
    (ii) 23 CFR 1300.21(a) through (c) and (f) Occupant protection 
grants--purpose, definitions, elibigibility determination, and use of 
grant funds;
    (iii) 23 CFR 1300.22(a) and (d) State traffic safety information 
system improvements grants--purpose and use of grant funds;
    (iv) 23 CFR 1300.23(a) through (c), (i), and (j) Impaired driving 
countermeasures grants--purpose, definitions, eligibility 
determinations, award and use of grant funds;
    (v) 23 CFR 1300.1300.24 Distracted driving grants--all paragraphs;
    (vi) 23 CFR 1300.25(a) through (c), (k) and (l) Motorcyclist safety 
grants--purpose, definitions, eligibility, award limitation, use of 
grant funds;
    (vii) 23 CFR 1300.26 State graduated driving licensing incentive 
grants--all paragraphs;
    (viii) 23 CFR 1300.27 Nonmotorized safety grants--all paragraphs;
    (ix) 23 CFR 1300.28 Racial profiling data collection grants--all 
paragraphs.
    (4) Subpart D:
    (i) 23 CFR 1300.30 General;
    (ii) 23 CFR 1300.31 Equipment;
    (iii) 23 CFR 1300.35 Annual report;
    (iv) 23 CFR 1300.36 Appeals of written decision by Regional 
Administrator;
    (5) Subpart E--all sections;
    (6) Subpart F--all sections.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, fiscal 
year 2017 grants awarded under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Section 1906 are 
also governed by the following general and administrative provisions in 
part 1200:
    (1) Subpart B--23 CFR 1200.14 Review and approval procedures;
    (2) Subpart D:
    (i) 23 CFR 1200.32 Changes--approval of the approving official 
(Regional Administrator);
    (ii) 23 CFR 1200.33 Vouchers and project agreements.
    (c) States may elect to follow all sections of part 1300.

Appendix A to Part 1300--Certifications and Assurances for Highway 
Safety Grants (23 U.S.C. Chapter 4; Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, As 
Amended By Sec. 4011, Public Law 114-94)

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

State: ___ Fiscal Year: __

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

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

    The State will comply with applicable statutes and regulations, 
including but not limited to:

 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4--Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended
 Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Sec. 4011, 
Public Law 114-94
 23 CFR part 1300--Uniform Procedures for State Highway 
Safety Grant Programs
 2 CFR part 200--Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
 2 CFR part 1201--Department of Transportation, Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements 
for Federal Awards

INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

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

FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT (FFATA)

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

NONDISCRIMINATION

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

    The State highway safety agency will comply with all Federal 
statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination 
(``Federal Nondiscrimination Authorities''). These include but are 
not limited to:
     Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis 
of race, color, national origin) and 49 CFR part 21;
     The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. 4601), (prohibits 
unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been 
acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects);
     Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. 324 et 
seq.), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended 
(20 U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686) (prohibit discrimination on the 
basis of sex);
     Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 
U.S.C. 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the 
basis of disability) and 49 CFR part 27;
     The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 
U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
age);
     The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (Pub. L. 100-
209), (broadens scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the 
definition of the terms ``programs or activities'' to include all of 
the programs or activities of the Federal aid recipients, sub-
recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are 
Federally-funded or not);
     Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12189) (prohibits discrimination on the basis 
of disability in the operation of public entities, public and 
private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and 
certain testing) and 49 CFR parts 37 and 38;
     Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (prevents discrimination against minority populations by 
discouraging programs, policies, and activities with 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations); and
     Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for 
Persons with Limited English Proficiency (guards against Title VI 
national origin discrimination/discrimination because of limited 
English proficiency (LEP) by ensuring that funding recipients take 
reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access 
to programs (70 FR 74087-74100).

[[Page 32598]]

    The State highway safety agency--
     Will take all measures necessary to ensure that no 
person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, 
national origin, disability, sex, age, limited English proficiency, 
or membership in any other class protected by Federal 
Nondiscrimination Authorities, be excluded from participation in, be 
denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination 
under any of its programs or activities, so long as any portion of 
the program is Federally-assisted.
     Will administer the program in a manner that reasonably 
ensures that any of its subrecipients, contractors, subcontractors, 
and consultants receiving Federal financial assistance under this 
program will comply with all requirements of the Non-Discrimination 
Authorities identified in this Assurance;
     Agrees to comply (and require any of its subrecipients, 
contractors, subcontractors, and consultants to comply) with all 
applicable provisions of law or regulation governing US DOT's or 
NHTSA's access to records, accounts, documents, information, 
facilities, and staff, and to cooperate and comply with any program 
or compliance reviews, and/or complaint investigations conducted by 
US DOT or NHTSA under any Federal Nondiscrimination Authority;
     Acknowledges that the United States has a right to seek 
judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under these 
Non-Discrimination Authorities and this Assurance;
     Insert in all contracts and funding agreements with 
other State or private entities the following clause:
    ``During the performance of this contract/funding agreement, the 
contractor/funding recipient agrees--
    a. To comply with all Federal nondiscrimination laws and 
regulations, as may be amended from time to time;
    b. Not to participate directly or indirectly in the 
discrimination prohibited by any Federal non-discrimination law or 
regulation, as set forth in appendix B of 49 CFR part 2l and herein;
    c. To permit access to its books, records, accounts, other 
sources of information, and its facilities as required by the State 
highway safety office, US DOT or NHTSA;
    d. That, in event a contractor/funding recipient fails to comply 
with any nondiscrimination provisions in this contract/funding 
agreement, the State highway safety agency will have the right to 
impose such contract/agreement sanctions as it or NHTSA determine 
are appropriate, including but not limited to withholding payments 
to the contractor/funding recipient under the contract/agreement 
until the contractor/funding recipient complies; and/or cancelling, 
terminating, or suspending a contract or funding agreement, in whole 
or in part; and
    e. To insert this clause, including paragraphs a through e, in 
every subcontract and subagreement and in every solicitation for a 
subcontract or sub-agreement, that receives Federal funds under this 
program.

THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT OF 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8103)

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

POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT)

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

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

CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements

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

RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

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

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

Instructions for Primary Certification (States)

    1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective 
primary participant is providing the certification set out below and

[[Page 32599]]

agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1300.
    2. The inability of a person to provide the certification 
required below will not necessarily result in denial of 
participation in this covered transaction. The prospective 
participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the 
certification set out below. The certification or explanation will 
be considered in connection with the department or agency's 
determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, 
failure of the prospective primary participant to furnish a 
certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from 
participation in this transaction.
    3. The certification in this clause is a material representation 
of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency 
determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined 
that the prospective primary participant knowingly rendered an 
erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to 
the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this 
transaction for cause or default or may pursue suspension or 
debarment.
    4. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate 
written notice to the department or agency to which this proposal is 
submitted if at any time the prospective primary participant learns 
its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become 
erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
    5. The terms covered transaction, debarment, suspension, 
ineligible, lower tier, participant, person, primary tier, 
principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have 
the meaning set out in the Definitions and coverage sections of 2 
CFR part 180. You may contact the department or agency to which this 
proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of 
those regulations.
    6. The prospective primary participant agrees by submitting this 
proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered 
into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered 
transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR 
part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or 
voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, 
unless authorized by NHTSA.
    7. The prospective primary participant further agrees by 
submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled 
``Instructions for Lower Tier Certification'' including the 
``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and 
Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transaction,'' provided by 
the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, 
without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in 
all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will 
require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 
1300.
    8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a 
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered 
transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 
9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily 
excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the 
certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and 
frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. 
Each participant may, but is not required to, check the list of 
Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement 
Programs.
    9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to 
require establishment of a system of records in order to render in 
good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge 
and information of a participant is not required to exceed that 
which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary 
course of business dealings.
    10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of 
these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction 
knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person 
who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, 
suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from 
participation in this transaction, the department or agency may 
disallow costs, annul or terminate the transaction, issue a stop 
work order, debar or suspend you, or take other remedies as 
appropriate.

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

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

Instructions for Lower Tier Certification

    1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective 
lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below 
and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 
1300.
    2. The certification in this clause is a material representation 
of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was 
entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower 
tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in 
addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the 
department or agency with which this transaction originated may 
pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.
    3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide 
immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is 
submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant 
learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has 
become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
    4. The terms covered transaction, debarment, suspension, 
ineligible, lower tier, participant, person, primary tier, 
principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have 
the meanings set out in the Definition and Coverage sections of 2 
CFR part 180. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is 
submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.
    5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting 
this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be 
entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier 
covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment 
under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared 
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this 
covered transaction, unless authorized by NHTSA.
    6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by 
submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled 
``Instructions for Lower Tier Certification'' including the 
``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and 
Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transaction,'' without 
modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all 
solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require 
lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1300.
    7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a 
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered 
transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 
9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily 
excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the 
certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and 
frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. 
Each participant may, but is not required to, check the List of 
Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement 
Programs.
    8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to 
require establishment of a system of records in order to render in 
good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge 
and information of a participant is not required to exceed that 
which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary 
course of business dealings.

[[Page 32600]]

    9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these 
instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly 
enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is 
proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, 
debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in 
this transaction, the department or agency with which this 
transaction originated may disallow costs, annul or terminate the 
transaction, issue a stop work order, debar or suspend you, or take 
other remedies as appropriate.

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

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

BUY AMERICA ACT

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

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

PROHIBITION ON USING GRANT FUNDS TO CHECK FOR HELMET USAGE

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

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

POLICY ON SEAT BELT USE

    In accordance with Executive Order 13043, Increasing Seat Belt 
Use in the United States, dated April 16, 1997, the Grantee is 
encouraged to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt use policies 
and programs for its employees when operating company-owned, rented, 
or personally-owned vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for providing leadership and 
guidance in support of this Presidential initiative. For information 
on how to implement such a program, or statistics on the potential 
benefits and cost-savings to your company or organization, please 
visit the Buckle Up America section on NHTSA's Web site at 
www.nhtsa.dot.gov. Additional resources are available from the 
Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), a public-private 
partnership headquartered in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, 
and dedicated to improving the traffic safety practices of employers 
and employees. NETS is prepared to provide technical assistance, a 
simple, user-friendly program kit, and an award for achieving the 
President's goal of 90 percent seat belt use. NETS can be contacted 
at 1 (888) 221-0045 or visit its Web site at www.trafficsafety.org.

POLICY ON BANNING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING

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

SECTION 402 REQUIREMENTS

    1. To the best of my personal knowledge, the information 
submitted in the Highway Safety Plan in support of the State's 
application for a grant under 23 U.S.C. 402 is accurate and 
complete.
    2. The Governor is the responsible official for the 
administration of the State highway safety program, by appointing a 
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety who shall be 
responsible for a State highway safety agency that has adequate 
powers and is suitably equipped and organized (as evidenced by 
appropriate oversight procedures governing such areas as 
procurement, financial administration, and the use, management, and 
disposition of equipment) to carry out the program. (23 U.S.C. 
402(b)(1)(A))
    3. The political subdivisions of this State are authorized, as 
part of the State highway safety program, to carry out within their 
jurisdictions local highway safety programs which have been approved 
by the Governor and are in accordance with the uniform guidelines 
promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation. (23 U.S.C. 
402(b)(1)(B))
    4. At least 40 percent of all Federal funds apportioned to this 
State under 23 U.S.C. 402 for this fiscal year will be expended by 
or for the benefit of political subdivisions of the State in 
carrying out local highway safety programs (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(C)) 
or 95 percent by and for the benefit of Indian tribes (23 U.S.C. 
402(h)(2)), unless this requirement is waived in writing. (This 
provision is not applicable to the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.)
    5. The State's highway safety program provides adequate and 
reasonable access for the safe and convenient movement of physically 
handicapped persons, including those in wheelchairs, across curbs 
constructed or replaced on or after July 1, 1976, at all pedestrian 
crosswalks. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(D))
    6. The State will provide for an evidenced-based traffic safety 
enforcement program to prevent traffic violations, crashes, and 
crash fatalities and injuries in areas most at risk for such 
incidents. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E))
    7. The State will implement activities in support of national 
highway safety goals to reduce motor vehicle related fatalities that 
also reflect the primary data-related crash factors within the 
State, as identified by the State highway safety planning process, 
including:
     Participation in the National high-visibility law 
enforcement mobilizations as identified annually in the NHTSA 
Communications Calendar, including not less than 3 mobilization 
campaigns in each fiscal year to--
    [cir] Reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of 
motor vehicles; and
    [cir] Increase use of seatbelts by occupants of motor vehicles;
     Submission of information regarding mobilization 
participation into the HVE Database;
     Sustained enforcement of statutes addressing impaired 
driving, occupant protection, and driving in excess of posted speed 
limits;
     An annual Statewide seat belt use survey in accordance 
with 23 CFR part 1340 for the measurement of State seat belt use 
rates, except for the Secretary of Interior on behalf of Indian 
tribes;
     Development of Statewide data systems to provide timely 
and effective data analysis to support allocation of highway safety 
resources;
     Coordination of Highway Safety Plan, data collection, 
and information systems with the State strategic highway safety 
plan, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a).

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

    8. The State will actively encourage all relevant law 
enforcement agencies in the State to follow the guidelines 
established for vehicular pursuits issued by the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police that are currently in effect. (23 
U.S.C. 402(j))
    9. The State will not expend Section 402 funds to carry out a 
program to purchase, operate, or maintain an automated traffic 
enforcement system. (23 U.S.C. 402(c)(4))
    The State: [CHECK ONLY ONE]
    [squ] Certifies that automated traffic enforcement systems are 
not used on any public road in the State;

OR

    [squ] Is unable to certify that automated traffic enforcement 
systems are not used on

[[Page 32601]]

any public road in the State, and therefore will conduct a survey 
meeting the requirements of 23 CFR 1300.13(d)(3) AND will submit the 
survey results to the NHTSA Regional office no later than March 1 of 
the fiscal year of the grant.
    I understand that my statements in support of the State's 
application for Federal grant funds are statements upon which the 
Federal Government will rely in determining qualification for grant 
funds, and that knowing misstatements may be subject to civil or 
criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001. I sign these Certifications 
and Assurances based on personal knowledge, and after appropriate 
inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Governor's Representative for Highway Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed name of Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

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

[Each fiscal year, to apply for a grant under 23 U.S.C. 405 or 
Section 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Section 4011, Public 
Law 114-94, the State must complete and submit all required 
information in this appendix, and the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety must sign the Certifications and Assurances.]

State: ___ Fiscal Year: __
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

All States:

[Fill in all blanks below.]
     The lead State agency responsible for occupant 
protection programs will maintain its aggregate expenditures for 
occupant protection programs at or above the average level of such 
expenditures in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. (23 U.S.C. 405(a)(9))
     The State's occupant protection program area plan for 
the upcoming fiscal year is provided as HSP page or attachment # 
___.
     The State will participate in the Click it or Ticket 
national mobilization in the fiscal year of the grant. The 
description of the State's planned participation is provided as HSP 
page or attachment # ___.
     A table that documents the State's active network of 
child restraint inspection stations is provided as HSP page or 
attachment # ___. Such table includes (1) the total number of 
inspection stations/events in the State; and (2) the total number of 
inspection stations and/or inspection events that service rural and 
urban areas and at-risk populations (e.g., low income, minority). 
Each inspection station/event is staffed with at least one current 
nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety Technician.
     A table, as provided in HSP page or attachment # ___, 
identifies the number of classes to be held, location of classes, 
and estimated number of students needed to ensure coverage of child 
passenger safety inspection stations and inspection events by 
nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians.

Lower Seat belt Use States Only:

[Check at least 3 boxes below and fill in all blanks under those 
checked boxes.]

    [squ] The State's primary seat belt use law, requiring all 
occupants riding in a passenger motor vehicle to be restrained in a 
seat belt or a child restraint, was enacted on __/__/__ and last 
amended on __/__/__, is in effect, and will be enforced during the 
fiscal year of the grant. Legal citation(s): ___.
    [squ] The State's occupant protection law, requiring occupants 
to be secured in a seat belt or age-appropriate child restraint 
while in a passenger motor vehicle and a minimum fine of $25, was 
enacted on __/__/__ and last amended on __/__/__, is in effect, and 
will be enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.

Legal citations:

     ___ Requirement for all occupants to be secured in seat 
belt or age appropriate child restraint;
     ___ Coverage of all passenger motor vehicles ;
     ___ Minimum fine of at least $25;
     ___ Exemptions from restraint requirements.
    [squ] The State's seat belt enforcement plan is provided as HSP 
page or attachment # ___.
    [squ] The State's high risk population countermeasure program is 
provided as HSP page or attachment # ___.
    [squ] The State's comprehensive occupant protection program is 
provided as follows:
     Date of NHTSA-facilitated program assessment conducted 
within 5 years prior to the application date: __/__/__;
     Multi-year strategic plan: HSP page or attachment # __;
     Name and title of State's designated occupant 
protection coordinator: ___
     List that contains the names, titles and organizations 
of the Statewide occupant protection task force membership: HSP page 
or attachment # ___.
    [squ] The State's NHTSA-facilitated occupant protection program 
assessment of all elements of its occupant protection program was 
conducted on ___/___/___ (within 3 years of the application due 
date);
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

All States:

     The lead State agency responsible for traffic safety 
information system improvements programs will maintain its aggregate 
expenditures for traffic safety information system improvements 
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in 
fiscal years 2014 and 2015. (23 U.S.C. 405(a)(9))

[Fill in all blanks for each bullet below.]

     A list of at least 3 TRCC meeting dates during the 12 
months preceding the application due date is provided as HSP page or 
attachment # ___.
     The name and title of the State's Traffic Records 
Coordinator is ______.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
     A list of the TRCC members by name, title, home 
organization and the core safety database represented is provided as 
HSP page or attachment # ___.
     The State Strategic Plan is provided as follows:
    [ssquf] Description of specific, quantifiable and measurable 
improvements: HSP page or attachment # ___;
    [ssquf] List of all recommendations from most recent assessment: 
HSP page or attachment # ___;
    [ssquf] Recommendations to be addressed, including projects and 
performance measures: HSP page or attachment # ___;
    [ssquf] Recommendations not to be addressed, including reasons 
for not implementing: HSP page or attachment # ___.
     Written description of the performance measures, and 
all supporting data, that the State is relying on to demonstrate 
achievement of the quantitative improvement in the preceding 12 
months of the application due date in relation to one or more of the 
significant data program attributes is provided as HSP page or 
attachment # ___.
     The State's most recent assessment or update of its 
highway safety data and traffic records system was completed on ___/
___/___.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

All States:

     The lead State agency responsible for impaired driving 
programs will maintain its aggregate expenditures for impaired 
driving programs at or above the average level of such expenditures 
in fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
     The State will use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 
405(d) only for the implementation of programs as provided in 23 CFR 
1200.23(j) in the fiscal year of the grant.

Mid-Range State Only:

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

    [squ] The State submits its Statewide impaired driving plan 
approved by a Statewide impaired driving task force on ___/___/___. 
Specifically--

[[Page 32602]]

    [ssquf] HSP page or attachment # ___ describes the authority and 
basis for operation of the Statewide impaired driving task force;
    [ssquf] HSP page or attachment # ___ contains the list of names, 
titles and organizations of all task force members;
    [ssquf] HSP page or attachment # ___ contains the strategic plan 
based on Highway Safety Guideline No. 8--Impaired Driving.
    [squ] The State has previously submitted a Statewide impaired 
driving plan approved by a Statewide impaired driving task force on 
___/___/___ and continues to use this plan.

High-Range State Only:

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

    [squ] The State submits its Statewide impaired driving plan 
approved by a Statewide impaired driving task force on ___/___/___ 
that includes a review of a NHTSA-facilitated assessment of the 
State's impaired driving program conducted on ___/___/___. 
Specifically,--

    [ssquf] HSP page or attachment # ___ describes the authority and 
basis for operation of the Statewide impaired driving task force;
    [ssquf] HSP page or attachment # ___ contains the list of names, 
titles and organizations of all task force members;
    [ssquf] HSP page or attachment # ___ contains the strategic plan 
based on Highway Safety Guideline No. 8--Impaired Driving;
    [ssquf] HSP page or attachment # ___ addresses any related 
recommendations from the assessment of the State's impaired driving 
program;
    [ssquf] HSP page or attachment # ___ contains the detailed 
project list for spending grant funds;
    [ssquf] HSP page or attachment # ___ describes how the spending 
supports the State's impaired driving program and achievement of its 
performance targets.
    [squ] The State submits an updated Statewide impaired driving 
plan approved by a Statewide impaired driving task force on ___/___/
___ and updates its assessment review and spending plan provided as 
HSP page or attachment # ___.

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

[Check the box above only  if applying for this grant.]
[Fill in all blanks.]

    The State provides citations to a law that requires all 
individuals convicted of driving under the influence or of driving 
while intoxicated to drive only motor vehicles with alcohol-ignition 
interlocks for a period of 6 months that was enacted on ___/___/ ___ 
and last amended on ___/___/ ___, is in effect, and will be enforced 
during the fiscal year of the grant. Legal citation(s): 
____________.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Check the box above only if applying for this grant.]
[Fill in all blanks.]

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

[Check at least one of the boxes below and fill in all blanks under 
that checked box.]

    [squ] Law citation. The State provides citations to a law that 
authorizes a Statewide 24-7 sobriety program that was enacted on 
___/___/___ and last amended on ___/___/___, is in effect, and will 
be enforced during the fiscal year of the grant. Legal citation(s): 
_________.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    [squ] Program information. The State provides program 
information that authorizes a Statewide 24-7 sobriety program. The 
program information is provided as HSP page or attachment # ___.

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

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

    [squ] Comprehensive Distracted Driving Grant
     The State provides sample distracted driving questions 
from the State's driver's license examination in HSP page or 
attachment # ___.
     Prohibition on Texting While Driving
    The State's texting ban statute, prohibiting texting while 
driving, a minimum fine of at least $25, was enacted on ___/___/ ___ 
and last amended on ___/___/ ___, is in effect, and will be enforced 
during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
    [ssquf] ___ Prohibition on texting while driving;
    [ssquf] ___ Definition of covered wireless communication 
devices;
    [ssquf] ___ Minimum fine of at least $25 for an offense;
    [ssquf] ___ Exemptions from texting ban.
     Prohibition on Youth Cell Phone Use While Driving
    The State's youth cell phone use ban statute, prohibiting youth 
cell phone use while driving, driver license testing of distracted 
driving issues, a minimum fine of at least $25, was enacted on ___/
___/___ and last amended on ___/___/ ___, is in effect, and will be 
enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
    [ssquf] ___ Prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving;
    [ssquf] ___ Definition of covered wireless communication 
devices;
    [ssquf] ___ Minimum fine of at least $25 for an offense;
    [ssquf] ___ Exemptions from youth cell phone use ban.
     The State has conformed its distracted driving data to 
the most recent Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) and 
will provide supporting data (i.e., NHTSA-developed MMUCC Mapping 
spreadsheet) within 30 days after notification of award.
    [squ] Special Distracted Driving Grant for Fiscal Year 2017
     The State's basic text messaging statute applying to 
drivers of all ages was enacted on ___/___/___ and last amended on 
___/___/__, is in effect, and will be enforced during the fiscal 
year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
    [ssquf] ___ Basic text messaging statute;
    [ssquf] ___ Primary or secondary enforcement.
     The State is NOT eligible for a Comprehensive 
Distracted Driving Grant.
    [squ] Special Distracted Driving Grant for Fiscal Year 2018
     The State's basic text messaging statute applying to 
drivers of all ages was enacted ___/___/___ and last amended on ___/
___/___, is in effect, and will be enforced during the fiscal year 
of the grant.
    Legal citations:
    [ssquf] ___ Basic text messaging statute;
    [ssquf] ___ Primary enforcement;
    [ssquf] ___ Fine for a violation of the basic text messaging 
statute;
     The State's youth cell phone use ban statute, 
prohibiting youth cell phone use while driving, was enacted on ___/
___/___ and last amended on ___/___/___, is in effect, and will be 
enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
    [ssquf] ___ Prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving;
    [ssquf] ___ Definition of covered wireless communication 
devices.
     The State is NOT eligible for a Comprehensive 
Distracted Driving Grant.

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

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

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

    [squ] Motorcycle riding training course:
     The name and organization of the head of the designated 
State authority over motorcyclist safety issues is ___.
     The head of the designated State authority over 
motorcyclist safety issues has approved and the State has adopted 
one of the following introductory rider curricula: [Check one of the 
following boxes below and fill in any blanks.]
    [squ] Motorcycle Safety Foundation Basic Rider Course;
    [squ] TEAM OREGON Basic Rider Training;
    [squ] Idaho STAR Basic I;
    [squ] California Motorcyclist Safety Program Motorcyclist 
Training Course;
    [squ] Other curriculum that meets NHTSA's Model National 
Standards for Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training and that has 
been approved by NHTSA.
     On HSP page or attachment # ___, a list of counties or 
political subdivisions in the State where motorcycle rider training 
courses will be conducted during the fiscal year of the grant AND 
number of registered

[[Page 32603]]

motorcycles in each such county or political subdivision according 
to official State motor vehicle records.
    [squ] Motorcyclist awareness program:
     The name and organization of the head of the designated 
State authority over motorcyclist safety issues is ___.
     The State's motorcyclist awareness program was 
developed by or in coordination with the designated State authority 
having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues.
     On HSP page or attachment # ___, performance measures 
and corresponding performance targets developed for motorcycle 
awareness that identifies, using State crash data, the counties or 
political subdivisions within the State with the highest number of 
motorcycle crashes involving a motorcycle and another motor vehicle.
     On HSP page or attachment # ___, countermeasure 
strategies and projects demonstrating that the State will implement 
data-driven programs in a majority of counties or political 
subdivisions corresponding with the majority of crashes involving at 
least one motorcycle and at least one motor vehicle causing a 
serious or fatal injury to at least one motorcyclist or motor 
vehicle occupant.
    [squ] Reduction of fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles:
     Data showing the total number of motor vehicle crashes 
involving motorcycles is provided as HSP page or attachment # ___.
     Description of the State's methods for collecting and 
analyzing data is provided as HSP page or attachment # ___.
    [squ] Impaired driving program:
     On HSP page or attachment # ___, performance measures 
and corresponding performance targets developed to reduce impaired 
motorcycle operation.
     On HSP page or attachment # ___, countermeasure 
strategies and projects demonstrating that the State will implement 
data-driven programs designed to reach motorcyclists and motorists 
in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes 
involving an impaired operator is highest (i.e., the majority of 
counties or political subdivisions in the State with the highest 
numbers of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator) based 
upon State data.
    [squ] Reduction of fatalities and accidents involving impaired 
motorcyclists:
     Data showing the total number of reported crashes 
involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle operators is 
provided as HSP page or attachment # ___.
     Description of the State's methods for collecting and 
analyzing data is provided as HSP page or attachment # ___.
    [squ] Use of fees collected from motorcyclists for motorcycle 
programs:

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

    [squ] Applying as a Law State--
     The State law or regulation requires all fees collected 
by the State from motorcyclists for the purpose of funding 
motorcycle training and safety programs are to be used for 
motorcycle training and safety programs. Legal citation(s): 
_________.

AND

     The State's law appropriating funds for FY ___ requires 
all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purpose 
of funding motorcycle training and safety programs be spent on 
motorcycle training and safety programs. Legal citation(s): 
____________.
    [squ] Applying as a Data State--
     Data and/or documentation from official State records 
from the previous fiscal year showing that all fees collected by the 
State from motorcyclists for the purpose of funding motorcycle 
training and safety programs were used for motorcycle training and 
safety programs is provided HSP page or attachment # ___.

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

[squ] Part 8: State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grants (23 CFR 
1300.26)

[Check the box above only if applying for this grant.]
[Fill in all applicable blanks below.]

    The State's graduated driver licensing statute, requiring both a 
learner's permit stage and intermediate stage prior to receiving a 
full driver's license, was last amended on ___/___/___, is in 
effect, and will be enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Learner's Permit Stage--
    Legal citations:
     ___ Applies prior to receipt of any other permit, 
license, or endorsement if applicant is younger than 18 years of 
age.
     ___Applicant must pass vision test and knowledge 
assessments
     ___In effect for at least 6 months
     ___In effect until driver is at least 16 years of age
     ___Must be accompanied and supervised at all times
     ___Requires completion of State-certified driver 
education course or at least 50 hours of behind-the-wheel training 
with at least 10 of those hours at night
     ___Prohibition on use of personal wireless 
communications device
     ___Extension of learner's permit stage if convicted
     ___Exemptions from graduated driver licensing law
    Intermediate Stage--
    Legal citations:
     ___Commences after applicant younger than 18 years of 
age successfully completes the learner's permit stage, but prior to 
receipt of any other permit, license, or endorsement
     ___Applicant must pass behind-the-wheel driving skills 
assessment
     ___In effect for at least 6 months
     ___In effect until driver is at least 17 years of age
     ___Must be accompanied and supervised between hours of 
10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. during first 6 months of stage, except when 
operating a motor vehicle for the purposes of work, school, 
religious activities, or emergencies
     ___No more than 1 nonfamilial passenger younger than 21 
allowed
    ___Prohibition on use of personal wireless 
communications device
     ___Extension of intermediate stage if convicted
     ___Exemptions from graduated driver licensing law

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

[squ] Part 9: Nonmotorized Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.27)

[Check the box above only applying for this grant AND only if NHTSA 
has identified the State as eligible because the State annual 
combined pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities exceed 15 percent of 
the State's total annual crash fatalities based on the most recent 
calendar year final FARS data.]

    The State affirms that it will use the funds awarded under 23 
U.S.C. 405(h) only for the implementation of programs as provided in 
23 CFR 1200.27(d) in the fiscal year of the grant.

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

[squ] Part 10: Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants (23 CFR 1300.28)

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

    [squ] On HSP page or attachment # ___, the official document(s) 
(i.e., a law, regulation, binding policy directive, letter from the 
Governor or court order) demonstrates that the State maintains and 
allows public inspection of statistical information on the race and 
ethnicity of the driver for each motor vehicle stop made by a law 
enforcement officer on a Federal-aid highway.
    [squ] On HSP page or attachment # ___, the State will undertake 
projects during the fiscal year of the grant to maintain and allow 
public inspection of statistical information on the race and 
ethnicity of the driver for each motor vehicle stop made by a law 
enforcement officer on a Federal-aid highway.

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

    In my capacity as the Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety, I hereby provide the following certifications and 
assurances--
     I have reviewed the above information in support of the 
State's application for 23 U.S.C. 405 and Section 1906 grants, and 
based on my review, the information is accurate and complete to the 
best of my personal knowledge.
     As condition of each grant awarded, the State will use 
these grant funds in accordance with the specific statutory and 
regulatory requirements of that grant, and will comply with all 
applicable laws, regulations, and financial and programmatic 
requirements for Federal grants.
     I understand and accept that incorrect, incomplete, or 
untimely information submitted in support of the State's application 
may result in the denial of a grant award.
    I understand that my statements in support of the State's 
application for Federal grant funds are statements upon which the 
Federal Government will rely in determining qualification for grant 
funds, and that

[[Page 32604]]

knowing misstatements may be subject to civil or criminal penalties 
under 18 U.S.C. 1001. I sign these Certifications and Assurances 
based on personal knowledge, and after appropriate inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Governor's Representative for Highway Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

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

Appendix C to Part 1300--Participation by Political Subdivisions

    (a) Policy. To ensure compliance with the provisions of 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(C) and 23 U.S.C. 402(h)(2), which require that at 
least 40 percent or 95 percent of all Federal funds apportioned 
under Section 402 to the State (except the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) or the Secretary of 
Interior, respectively, will be expended by political subdivisions 
of the State, including Indian tribal governments, in carrying out 
local highway safety programs, the NHTSA Regional Administrator will 
determine if the political subdivisions had an active voice in the 
initiation, development and implementation of the programs for which 
funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are expended.
    (b) Terms.
    Local participation refers to the minimum 40 percent or 95 
percent (Indian Nations) that must be expended by or for the benefit 
of political subdivisions.
    Political subdivision includes Indian tribes, for purpose and 
application to the apportionment to the Secretary of Interior.
    (c) Determining local share.
    (1) In determining whether a State meets the local share 
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 entity 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 Interior) from each year's 
authorizations must be used in the highway safety programs of its 
political subdivisions prior to the period when funds would normally 
lapse. The local participation requirement is applicable to the 
State's total federally funded safety program irrespective of 
Standard designation or Agency responsibility.
    (2) When Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are 
expended by a political subdivision, such expenditures are clearly 
part of the local share. Local highway safety-project-related 
expenditures and associated indirect costs, which are reimbursable 
to the grantee local governments, are classifiable as local share. 
Illustrations of such expenditures are the costs incurred by a local 
government in planning and administration of highway safety project-
related activities, such as occupant protection, traffic records 
system improvements, emergency medical services, pedestrian and 
bicycle safety activities, police traffic services, alcohol and 
other drug countermeasures, motorcycle safety, and speed control.
    (3) When Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are 
expended by a State agency for the benefit of a political 
subdivision, such funds may be considered as part of the local 
share, provided that the political subdivision has had an active 
voice in the initiation, development, and implementation of the 
programs for which such funds are expended. A State may not 
arbitrarily ascribe State agency expenditures as ``benefitting local 
government.'' Where political subdivisions have had an active voice 
in the initiation, development, and implementation of a particular 
program or activity, and a political subdivision which has not had 
such active voice agrees in advance of implementation to accept the 
benefits of the program, the Federal share of the cost of such 
benefits may be credited toward meeting the local participation 
requirement. Where no political subdivisions have had an active 
voice in the initiation, development, and implementation of a 
particular program, but a political subdivision requests the 
benefits of the program as part of the local government's highway 
safety program, the Federal share of the cost of such benefits may 
be credited toward meeting the local participation requirement. 
Evidence of consent and acceptance of the work, goods or services on 
behalf of the local government must be established and maintained on 
file by the State until all funds authorized for a specific year are 
expended and audits completed.
    (4) State agency expenditures which are generally not classified 
as local are within such areas as vehicle inspection, vehicle 
registration and driver licensing. However, where these areas 
provide funding for services such as driver improvement tasks 
administered by traffic courts, or where they furnish computer 
support for local government requests for traffic record searches, 
these expenditures are classifiable as benefitting local programs.
    (d) Waivers. While the local participation requirement may be 
waived in whole or in part by the NHTSA Administrator, it is 
expected that each State program will generate political subdivision 
participation to the extent required by the Act so that requests for 
waivers will be minimized. Where a waiver is requested, however, it 
must be documented at least by 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 local share.

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

    (a) Policy. Federal participation in P&A activities shall not 
exceed 50 percent of the total cost of such activities, or the 
applicable sliding scale rate in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120. The 
Federal contribution for P&A activities shall not exceed 13 percent 
of the total funds the State receives under 23 U.S.C. 402. In 
accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120(i), the Federal share payable for 
projects in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be 100 percent. 
The Indian country, as defined by 23 U.S.C. 402(h), is exempt from 
these provisions. NHTSA funds shall be used only to finance P&A 
activities attributable to NHTSA programs.
    (b) Terms.
    Direct costs are those costs identified specifically with a 
particular planning and administration activity or project. The 
salary of an accountant on the State Highway Safety Agency staff is 
an example of a direct cost attributable to P&A. The salary of a DWI 
(Driving While Intoxicated) enforcement officer is an example of 
direct cost attributable to a project.
    Indirect costs are those costs (1) incurred for a common or 
joint purpose benefiting more than one cost objective within a 
governmental unit and (2) not readily assignable to the project 
specifically benefited. For example, centralized support services 
such as personnel, procurement, and budgeting would be indirect 
costs.
    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.
    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).
    (c) Procedures. (1) P&A activities and related costs shall be 
described in the P&A module of the State's Highway Safety Plan. The 
State's matching share shall be determined on the basis of the total 
P&A costs in the module. Federal participation shall not exceed 50 
percent (or the applicable sliding scale) of the total P&A costs. A 
State shall not use NHTSA funds to pay more than 50 percent of the 
P&A costs attributable to NHTSA programs. In addition, the Federal 
contribution for P&A activities shall not exceed 13 percent of the 
total funds in the State received under 23 U.S.C. 402 each fiscal 
year.
    (2) A State at its option may allocate salary and related costs 
of State highway safety agency employees to one of the following:
    (i) P&A
    (ii) Program management of one or more program areas contained 
in the HSP; or
    (iii) Combination of P&A activities and the program management 
activities in one or more program areas.
    (3) If an employee works solely performing P&A activities, the 
total salary and related costs may be programmed to P&A. 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). If an employee is 
working time 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

[[Page 32605]]

area(s). 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.

    Issued on: May 16, 2016.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-11819 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


