Rule2023-01819
Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 6, 2023
Effective
March 8, 2023
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
This final rule makes changes and clarifications to the revised uniform procedures implementing State highway safety grant programs in response to comments received on the notice of proposed rulemaking published September 15, 2022.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 24 (Monday, February 6, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7780-7832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01819]
[[Page 7779]]
Vol. 88
Monday,
No. 24
February 6, 2023
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
23 CFR Part 1300
Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7780]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
23 CFR Part 1300
[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0036]
RIN 2127-AM45
Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule makes changes and clarifications to the
revised uniform procedures implementing State highway safety grant
programs in response to comments received on the notice of proposed
rulemaking published September 15, 2022.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 8, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For program issues: Barbara Sauers, Associate Administrator,
Regional Operations and Program Delivery, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration; Telephone number: (202) 366-0144; Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1d3d0c3d3d0c3d09fc2d0c4d4c3c2f1d5dec59fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f3d3e2d3d3e2d3e712c3e2a3a2d2c1f3b302b71383029">[email protected]</span></a>.
For legal issues: Megan Brown, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the
Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone number: (202) 366-
1834; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbd6dedcdad595d9c9d4ccd5fbdfd4cf95dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e737b797f70307c6c7169705e7a716a30797168">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Public Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
IV. General Provisions
V. Triennial Highway Safety Plan and Annual Grant Application
VI. National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data
Collection
VII. Administration of Highway Safety Grants, Annual Reconciliation
and Non-Compliance
VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Background
We face a crisis on our roadways. NHTSA projects that an estimated
42,915 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2021.\1\ Estimates for
the first three quarters of 2022 are bleak: an estimated 31,785 people
died in motor vehicle crashes during this period.\2\ Behind each of
these numbers is a life tragically lost, and family and friends left
behind. The crisis is both urgent and preventable. The third quarter of
2022 shows promise, representing the second straight quarterly decline
in fatalities after seven consecutive quarters of year-to-year
increases. We need to build on the declining trends and work to ensure
safer roads for everyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2022, May).
Early estimates of motor vehicle traffic fatalities and fatality
rate by sub-categories in 2021 (Crash<bullet>Stats Brief Statistical
Summary. Report No. DOT HS 813 298). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Available at <a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813298">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813298</a>.
\2\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2022,
December). Early estimates of motor vehicle traffic fatalities for
the first 9 months (January-September) of 2022 (Crash<bullet>Stats
Brief Statistical Summary. Report No. DOT HS 813 406). National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at <a href="https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813406">https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813406</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is redoubling our safety efforts and is asking our State and
local partners to join us in this critical pursuit. The programs to be
implemented under today's rulemaking are an important part of that
effort. Now, more than ever, we all must seize the opportunity to
deliver accountable, efficient, and data-driven highway safety programs
to save lives and reverse the deadly trend on our Nation's roads. The
highway safety grants implemented in today's action fit within a
broader framework involving many stakeholders working synergistically
across many programs. We encourage States to view their triennial
Highway Safety Plans in the context of the National Roadway Safety
Strategy and the Safe System Approach discussed later in this document
in response to comments.
On November 15, 2021, the President signed into law the
``Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act'' (known also as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, or BIL), Public Law 117-58. The BIL
provides for a once-in-a-generation investment in highway safety,
including a significant increase in the amount of funding available to
States under NHTSA's highway safety grants. It introduced expanded
requirements for public and community participation in funding
decisions, holding the promise of ensuring better and more equitable
use of Federal funds to address highway safety problems in the
locations where they occur. The BIL amended the highway safety grant
program (23 U.S.C. 402 or Section 402) and the National Priority Safety
Program grants (23 U.S.C. 405 or Section 405). The legislation
significantly changed the application structure of the grant programs
that were in place under prior DOT authorizations, MAP-21 and the FAST
Act. The legislation replaced the current annual Highway Safety Plan
(HSP), which serves as both a planning and application document, with a
triennial HSP and annual grant application and it codified the annual
reporting requirement. The BIL also made the following changes to the
Section 405 grant program:
<bullet> Maintenance of Effort--Removed the maintenance of effort
requirement for the Occupant Protection Grants, State Traffic Safety
Information System Improvements Grants, and Impaired Driving
Countermeasures Grants;
<bullet> Occupant Protection Grants--Expanded allowable uses of
funds and specified that at least 10 percent of grant funds must be
used to implement child occupant protection programs for low-income and
underserved populations;
<bullet> State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements
Grants--Streamlined application requirements (allows certification to
several eligibility requirements and removes assessment requirement)
and expanded allowable uses of funds;
<bullet> Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants--Expanded
allowable uses of funds;
<bullet> Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Law Grants--Added criteria for
States to qualify for grants (specifies three ways for a State to
qualify) and amended allocation formula;
<bullet> 24-7 Sobriety Programs Grants--Amended program definition
and allocation formula;
<bullet> Distracted Driving Grants--Amended definitions, changed
allocation formula, and amended requirements for qualifying laws;
<bullet> Motorcyclist Safety Grants--Added an eligibility criterion
(helmet law);
<bullet> State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grants--
Discontinued grant;
<bullet> Nonmotorized Safety Grants--Amended the definition of
nonmotorized road user and expanded allowable uses of funds;
<bullet> Preventing Roadside Deaths Grants--Established new grant;
and
<bullet> Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants--Established
new grant.
In addition, the BIL amended the racial profiling data collection
grant authorized under the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU), Sec.
1906, Public Law 109-59 (Section 1906), as amended by the FAST Act, to
expand the allowable uses of funds and amend the cap on grant award
amounts. It also removed the time limit for States to qualify for a
grant using assurances.
[[Page 7781]]
As in past authorizations, the BIL requires NHTSA to implement the
grants pursuant to rulemaking.
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On April 21, 2022, the agency published a notification of public
meetings and request for comments (RFC). 87 FR 23780. NHTSA held
virtual public meetings on May 2, May 4, and May 5, 2022, and accepted
written comments submitted through May 23, 2022. Twenty-three people
provided oral comments at the public meetings, and 55 written comments
were submitted to the docket at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>. NHTSA also added three
letters to the docket that were sent directly to the agency prior to
the RFC.
On September 14, 2022, NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), proposing regulatory language to implement the BIL
provisions and addressing comments received at the public meetings and
in response to the RFC. 87 FR 56756. It set forth the application,
approval, and administrative requirements for all 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4
grants and the Section 1906 grants. Section 402, as amended by the BIL,
continues to require each State to have an approved highway safety
program designed to reduce traffic crashes and the resulting deaths,
injuries, and property damage. Section 402 sets forth minimum
requirements with which each State's highway safety program must
comply.
Under new procedures proposed in the NPRM, each State would submit
for NHTSA approval a triennial Highway Safety Plan (``triennial HSP'')
that identifies highway safety problems, describes the State's public
participation and engagement efforts, establishes performance measures
and targets, describes the State's countermeasure strategies for
programming funds to achieve its performance targets, and reports on
the State's progress in achieving the targets set in the prior HSP. 23
U.S.C. 402(k). Each State would also submit for NHTSA approval an
annual grant application that provides any necessary updates to the
triennial HSP, identifies all projects and subrecipients to be funded
by the State with highway safety grant funds during the fiscal year,
describes how the State's strategy to use grant funds was adjusted
based on the State's latest annual report, and includes an application
for additional grants available under Chapter 4. 23 U.S.C. 402(l). The
agency proposed to reorganize and rewrite subpart B of part 1300 and 23
CFR 1300.35 to implement these changes.
As noted above, the BIL expanded the allowable uses of funds for
many of the National Priority Safety Program grants, amended allocation
formulas, added criteria for some grants and streamlined application
requirements for others, deleted one grant, and established two new
grants. For Section 405 grants with additional flexibility (Occupant
Protection Grants, State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements
Grants, Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants, Alcohol-Ignition
Interlock Law Grants, Distracted Driving Grants, Motorcyclist Safety
Grants, Nonmotorized Safety Grants, and Racial Profiling Data
Collection Grants) and for the new grants (Preventing Roadside Deaths
Grants and Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants), where the BIL
identified specific qualification requirements, the NPRM proposed
adopting the statutory language with limited changes. The agency also
proposed amendments to align the application requirements for all
Section 405 and Section 1906 grants with the new triennial HSP and
annual grant application framework.
Finally, the NPRM proposed limited changes to administrative
provisions to accommodate the triennial framework and address changes
made by revisions to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR part 200.
III. Public Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to the NPRM, the following submitted comments to the
public docket on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA); Coalition of Ignition Interlock
Manufacturers (CIIM); Connecticut Highway Safety Office (CT HSO);
Delaware Office of Highway Safety (DE OHS); Foundation for Advancing
Alcohol Responsibility (<a href="http://Responsibility.org">Responsibility.org</a>); Governor's Highway Safety
Association (GHSA); Haas Alert; League of American Bicyclists (League);
Maine Bureau of Highway Safety (MeBHS); Massachusetts Office of Grants
and Research, Highway Safety Division (MA OGR); Missouri Department of
Transportation (MoDOT); Mitchell Berger; Minnesota Department of Public
Safety (MN DPS); National Association of State 911 Administrators
(NASNA); National EMS Management Association (NEMSMA); Nevada Office of
Traffic Safety (NV OTS); Pamela Bertone; Tennessee Highway Safety
Office (TN HSO); Wyoming Department of Health, Office of Emergency
Medical Services (WY OEMS); joint submission by the Departments of
Transportation of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and
Wyoming (5-State DOTs); and two anonymous commenters. Eight of these
commenters (5-State DOTs; AASHTO; CT HSO; DE OHS; NV OTS; MeBHS; MoDOT;
and MN DPS) expressed general support for GHSA's comments.
In this preamble, NHTSA addresses all comments and identifies any
changes made to the NPRM's regulatory text.\3\ In addition, NHTSA makes
several technical corrections to cross-references and other non-
substantive editorial corrections necessitated by proposed changes to
the rule. For ease of reference, the preamble identifies in parentheses
within each subheading and at appropriate places in the explanatory
paragraphs the CFR citation for the corresponding regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Two commenters submitted comments that are outside the scope
of this rulemaking; these comments covered infrastructure and road
design, and a ban on all-terrain vehicles. As these comments are
outside the scope of NHTSA's Section 402 and 405 grant programs,
they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and will not be
addressed further in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters provided general input about the rulemaking process
or about overarching aspects of highway safety that cannot be tied to a
single regulatory provision. Those comments are discussed below.
A. Rulemaking Process
Multiple commenters \4\ expressed appreciation for NHTSA's shared
commitment to completing this rulemaking in an expedient manner. They
explained that States need time to integrate the new requirements into
their highway safety planning for FY24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ AAMVA, AASHTO, GHSA, MN DPS, and TN HSO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters \5\ repeated their comments from the RFC,
broadly reiterating that NHTSA should ensure fidelity to the spirit and
letter of Congressional directives, minimize the administrative burden
on States, and provide greater flexibility in the use of funds. They
explained that unnecessary administrative burdens shift States' focus
away from program delivery and discourage subrecipient participation.
The CT HSO further argued that burdens imposed by the proposed
regulation would deprive governors of their prerogative to set roadway
safety policy within their States. HAAS Alert noted that small towns
are frequently
[[Page 7782]]
underserved when it comes to receiving transportation funding and
encouraged NHTSA to consider the administrative burdens on those areas
when determining grant requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ AASHTO, AAMVA, DE OHS, GHSA, MN DPS, MoDOT, and 5-State
DOTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not our intention to impose unnecessary administrative
burdens on States or their subrecipients, and we have amended and
streamlined several areas of this rulemaking in response to specific
comments received. The agency's task is to promulgate a regulation that
will implement the statutory requirements for the highway safety grant
program. We address specific comments about burden in the sections that
follow but note that, as a Federal awarding agency, we have a
responsibility to ensure that Federal grant funds are spent for the
purposes Congress specifies and consistent with all legal requirements,
including the Section 402 and 405 statutory text and other Federal
grant laws and regulations. Our intent is to impose reasonable
administrative requirements to ensure that recipients of Federal funds
adhere to applicable legal requirements that are consistent with our
responsibilities as a steward of taxpayer funds.
Finally, GHSA and the MoDOT requested that NHTSA provide a red-
lined or track changes copy of the regulatory text so that States can
more easily see the changes made by this rule. NHTSA appreciates the
importance of ensuring that States are well-versed on the changes to
the rule and that they understand the impacts of those changes and
their implications for applications and program management. Ensuring
that understanding is, in fact, the precise purpose and goal of this
preamble and of the full exposition of the regulatory text that
follows. We encourage all States to embrace this document in its
entirety. States are responsible for complying with the entire rule--
not just with the specific changes made in this rulemaking. In our
view, it is important and instructive to read all of the rule anew, as
a red-lined version would underemphasize important context necessary to
assist in planning and program implementation. For example, in some
cases, regulatory text may remain the same but have a different meaning
or impact within the new triennial framework or due to other BIL-
related nuances. NHTSA is committed to providing States with ongoing
training, guidance and technical assistance as they work to implement
the changes made in the BIL, as carried out through this regulation.
B. Guidance
NHTSA received several comments stating the importance of and need
for clear guidance on various aspects of the highway safety grant
program. Some of those comments relate to specific grant programs and
will be discussed in the relevant section of the preamble. The DE OHS
stressed the importance of consistent guidance so that States can rely
on the same information. The League of American Bicyclists encouraged
NHTSA to share information about programs and State practices and
identified several specific guidance documents published by NHTSA, FHWA
and DOT that it would like the agency to review and update. NHTSA
recognizes that some existing guidance may require modification or
rescission as a result of changes to the statute and this rule. We
intend to begin reviewing existing guidance after this rulemaking is
complete and will keep the specific suggestions provided by these
commenters, as well as the comments received in response to the RFC, in
mind at that time.
C. Equity
NHTSA received comments stressing the importance of equity in
traffic safety programs. Given the importance of the topic and
thoughtfulness of the comments, here we summarize and briefly respond
to all comments we received relating to equity.
The League of American Bicyclists expressed appreciation for
NHTSA's commitment to and discussions about equity and looked forward
to seeing the continued results of these efforts. The League of
American Bicyclists also requested that NHTSA provide definitions and
examples of ``centering equity'' and ``equitable enforcement.'' NHTSA
strongly supports the policies and commitment to equity laid out in
Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through Federal Government, and is committed to
fulfilling our responsibilities under the Order and to following its
principles. The highway safety grant program plays an important role;
the meaningful public participation and engagement requirements
implemented in this rulemaking form a critical part of State planning
to help ensure that equity is centered in the grant program. Under BIL,
States are expected to engage affected and potentially affected
communities during their triennial HSP planning process and throughout
the life of the grant, including through particular emphasis on
underserved communities and communities over-represented in the data.
NHTSA will offer technical assistance to States on how to meaningfully
engage communities to inform traffic safety programs that promote safe
and accessible roadways, all while reducing transportation-related
disparities, adverse community impacts, and health effects through
their traffic safety programs.
The CT HSO requested that NHTSA allow States to use alternative
methods to fund equity partnerships that do not involve reimbursement-
based funding arrangements, noting that many potential partners are
unable to participate in the highway safety grant program because they
do not have sufficient funds available to cover costs prior to
reimbursement. NHTSA encourages States to think creatively about ways
to support the participation of non-traditional traffic safety
partners, including equity partnerships, consistent with Federal grant
rules. Federal grant rules allow for advance payments in some
situations. NHTSA commits to issuing guidance on advance and
reimbursement-based payments in State highway safety grant programs. In
addition, as part of our goal to support the inclusion of equity in the
highway safety program, NHTSA will work closely with States and
national organizations to brainstorm new and creative ways to encourage
the involvement of new and diverse groups in the highway safety grant
program.
The League of American Bicyclists reiterated its prior comment to
the RFC, expressing concern about NHTSA's continued support for the
Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) program. It
noted that DDACTS combines traffic safety and other law enforcement
data, making traffic-related activities difficult to separate from
ineligible activities because of difficulties in determining whether a
traffic stop is traffic-related or merely pretextual. As NHTSA
explained in the NPRM, DDACTS is a law enforcement operational model
that integrates location-based traffic-crash and crime data to
determine the most effective methods for deploying law enforcement and
other resources. It focuses on community collaboration to reinforce the
role that partnerships play in improving the quality of life in
communities and encourages law enforcement agencies to use effective
engagement and new strategies. NHTSA continuously reviews the content
of DDACTS training and works to ensure that the training focuses on
community engagement and the appropriate application of fair and
equitable traffic enforcement strategies. NHTSA will
[[Page 7783]]
continue to evaluate DDACTS to ensure that it promotes only enforcement
that is implemented fairly and equitably.
NHTSA also notes that DDACTS is not part of NHTSA's highway safety
grant program, and not all DDACTS-related activities are eligible uses
of NHTSA's grant funds. NHTSA's grant funds may only be used for
traffic safety activities; any other law enforcement purpose is not
eligible. Further, as we stated previously, use of NHTSA grant funds
for discriminatory practices, including those associated with
pretextual policing, violates Federal civil rights laws, and NHTSA will
seek repayment of any grant funds that are found to be used for such
purposes and refer any discriminatory incidents to the Department of
Justice.
Finally, the League of American Bicyclists thanked NHTSA for
responding to its prior comments on the discriminatory outcomes of
countermeasures included in NHTSA's Countermeasures That Work guide.\6\
It clarified that it was not accusing NHTSA or States of using NHTSA
grant funds for discriminatory enforcement, but rather requesting that
NHTSA discuss potential or observed disparities in impact from
enforcement or other countermeasures within the Countermeasures That
Work. As an example, it noted that the Countermeasures That Work
designates mandatory bicycle helmet laws as highly effective and low
cost while designating bicycle helmet use promotions as less effective
and high cost, and argued that these disparate designations fail to
account for several costs and impacts associated with helmet use laws,
such as the related to education and enforcement, and the impacts of
potentially discouraging bicycle use due to enforcement efforts. GHSA
similarly argued that Countermeasures That Work over-encourages
investment in enforcement-related countermeasures. As we noted in the
NPRM, NHTSA is currently working on the next edition of the
Countermeasures That Work and will explore the considerations raised in
these comments in the course of that undertaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Available online at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2021-09/Countermeasures-10th_080621_v5_tag.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2021-09/Countermeasures-10th_080621_v5_tag.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. National Roadway Safety Strategy and the Safe System Approach
NHTSA received several comments regarding the implementation of the
National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) and the Safe System Approach
(SSA). NHTSA is committed to working with the States to successfully
implement the NRSS and the SSA within the formula grant programs and
views the grant program as an important part of a much broader strategy
involving multiple DOT modes and stakeholders. NHTSA urges states to
consider how their triennial Highway Safety Plans fit into a broader
SSA, to work collaboratively to consider the ways in which multiple
strategies--including grant-funded strategies and other State and local
programs--can work synergistically, and to think holistically about
using all available tools to reduce roadway fatalities and crashes. For
example, in addressing pedestrian safety, a State might consider
improvements in infrastructure by providing more crosswalks and better
lighting, reductions in speeds in areas with high pedestrian use, and
enforcement and education in areas of high pedestrian injuries and
fatalities. Even though highway safety grant funding is available for
only some of these strategies, SHSOs should work with other entities on
holistic solutions to problems identified in their triennial HSPs.
States should also consider making recommendations within the Executive
Branch about possible changes in State laws that can reduce fatalities
and crashes even though SHSOs cannot engage in direct lobbying of their
legislatures using highway safety grant funds. NHTSA appreciates the
continued support and feedback from commenters on NRSS and SSA
implementation, and provides responses below.
The CT HSO repeated its previous comment that implementing the NRSS
and the SSA will require NHTSA to afford administrative flexibility to
States. As expressed in the NPRM, NHTSA intends to provide such
flexibility consistent with applicable law.
AAMVA suggested that, in addition to administrative flexibility,
NHTSA provide centralized guidance and support to assist State efforts
in implementing the NRSS and the SSA. The League of American Bicyclists
reiterated that NHTSA and States should do more to promote the
understanding, acceptance, and implementation of the SSA in State
transportation agency cultures. NHTSA agrees that the agency should
work to ensure that grantees understand and properly implement the NRSS
and the SSA. As announced in May 2022, NHTSA offers and will continue
to offer expanded safety program technical assistance to States to
assist them with understanding and implementing the NRSS and the SSA,
and will continually assess States' needs in this area.
AAMVA stressed the importance of quality data that can be exchanged
among stakeholders. NHTSA agrees that the objectives of the NRSS/SSA
are inherently intertwined with the agency's data-driven mission to
save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to road
traffic crashes through education, research, safety standards, and
enforcement. To address the unacceptable increases in fatalities on our
nation's roadways, the NRSS/SSA adopts a data-driven, holistic, and
comprehensive approach focused on reducing the role that human mistakes
play in negative traffic outcomes and in recognizing the vulnerability
of humans on the road. NHTSA expects States to use the best and most
comprehensive data available (extending beyond fatality data) to
conduct problem identification, set performance targets, and assess
their progress in meeting those targets. States are also encouraged to
think critically about how available data can and should be used to
analyze their highway safety programs beyond the information that is
specifically required. Further, NHTSA encourages States to consider
ways to improve State data systems in order to increase data
availability and data-sharing opportunities.
E. Transparency
NHTSA appreciates the League of American Bicyclists' support of
NHTSA's proposed approach to satisfy the BIL's expanded transparency
requirements, particularly in relation to the information provided in
the annual grant application. The League of American Bicyclists
expressed broad support for greater transparency and specifically
encouraged NHTSA to make publicly available the information provided in
the annual report by States about the community collaboration efforts
that are part of the State's evidence-based enforcement program. NHTSA
notes that this information will be made available, as the BIL requires
NHTSA to publicly release, on a DOT website, all approved triennial
HSPs and annual reports. 23 U.S.C. 402(n). NHTSA will post this
information on <a href="http://NHTSA.gov">NHTSA.gov</a>, consistent with the statutory requirements.
The BIL further requires that the website allow the public to
search specific information included in the released documents:
performance measures, the State's progress towards meeting the
performance targets, program areas and expenditures, and a description
(if provided) of any sources of funds other than NHTSA highway
[[Page 7784]]
safety grant funds that the State proposes to use to carry out the
triennial HSP. 23 U.S.C. 402(n)(2). In response to this statutory
requirement, GHSA requested that NHTSA clarify that non-Federal funds
are no longer required to be reported by the States. We confirm that
the BIL removed the requirement to describe all non-Federal funds that
the State intends to use to carry out countermeasure strategies in the
triennial HSP. However, States are still required to provide
information on matching funds that will be used to meet the non-Federal
share of the cost of the program. NHTSA will post information on State
matching funds and any other non-Federal funding sources that States
choose to provide in their triennial HSPs and annual grant
applications. However, for improved accountability and transparency in
the highway safety grant program, NHTSA encourages States to continue
reporting State, local, or private funds they propose to use. As the
League of American Bicyclists noted, having such information publicly
available would strengthen understanding of the funding uses.
In response to the RFC, NHTSA received many comments advocating for
an electronic grant management (e-grant) system. In contrast, in
response to the NPRM, MN DPS recommended that NHTSA not develop a new
e-grant system, explaining that it would be too difficult to transition
to such a system at the same time as adjusting to the new authorization
of the grant program. As stated in the NPRM, an e-grant system would
foster greater transparency in the use of NHTSA highway safety grant
funds by allowing State program information to be aggregated,
organized, and made available to the public in a user-friendly manner.
NHTSA has not yet deployed such a system, as the TN HSO pointed out,
and the agency does not plan to do so concurrently with the initial
deployment of the newly authorized grant programs. Currently, NHTSA is
in the exploration stages of developing an e-grant system. The TN HSO
requested that States participate in developing the grant management
system. We expect that any future e-grant system will facilitate
greater cross-state collaboration, data analysis, and transparency in
the use of program funds. To facilitate this outcome, NHTSA will
actively engage States and other stakeholders in its development.
NHTSA sought comment in the NPRM on whether a standardized
template, codified as an appendix to the regulation, would be helpful
as an interim measure for States to provide information in a uniform
manner similar to what we hope will be enabled by a future e-grant
system. In response, three commenters \7\ recommended against
developing a standardized template at this time in favor of waiting for
the deployment of the future e-grant system. Accordingly, NHTSA will
not develop a standardized template as part of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ AAMVA, GHSA, and TN HSO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Emergency Medical Services
Five commenters provided comments related to various aspects of
emergency medical services (EMS), post-crash care, and 911 systems.
These comments covered three general themes: eligibility for NHTSA
grant funds, allowable use of grant funds, and NHTSA's actions related
to EMS and 911.
Three commenters discussed eligibility for funding under NHTSA's
highway safety grant program. NEMSMA requested that NHTSA ensure that
grant funds go to rural EMS providers, including volunteer groups. WY
OEMS recommended that NHTSA require States to provide funding to EMS
and State or local trauma systems. Pamela Bertone requested that for-
profit EMS companies be deemed ineligible for funding and that, if they
were to remain eligible, States should be required to look at the
financial portfolio and tax returns of the CEO. NHTSA supports the EMS
communities' efforts to integrate post-crash care initiatives into
State highway safety programs where supported by the data and
encourages States to consider funding eligible EMS activities with
NHTSA's highway safety grant funds. However, under our grant statute,
NHTSA does not have the authority to direct State funding choices or to
provide funding directly to EMS agencies. Similarly, NHTSA does not
have the authority to prohibit States from entering into grants with
for-profit entities; however, Federal grant rules prohibit an entity
from earning profits from a Federal award or subaward. See 2 CFR
200.400(g).
Three commenters \8\ provided recommendations that certain costs be
considered allowable uses of NHTSA highway safety grant funds.
Identified costs included training, Centers of Excellence related to
emergency responder highway safety, purchase of safety and personal
protective equipment, development of technologies to notify drivers
they are approaching a crash scene with responders present, data
collection, and enhancements to 911 systems and collision notification
systems. An anonymous commenter argued that grants should provide
funding for EMS systems based on a ratio of population and
regionalization. As we explained in the NPRM, determinations of
allowable use of funds are highly fact-specific and are dependent on
many factors, including the funding source to be used (i.e., Section
402 or one of the Section 405 incentive grants) and the details of the
activity to be funded. In cases where there is not a sufficient nexus
to traffic safety to fund the entirety of the project, projects may be
limited to proportional funding. In addition, all activities funded by
NHTSA highway safety grant funds must be tied to countermeasure
strategies for programming funds in the State's triennial HSP, which in
turn must be based on a State's problem identification and performance
targets. NHTSA strongly encourages all stakeholders, including the EMS
community, to work closely with State HSOs to offer ideas for potential
activities that may be eligible for NHTSA formula grant funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Anonymous commenter, NASNA, and NEMSMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMSMA also provided comments related to many activities of NHTSA's
Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS). The Office of EMS is a
knowledgeable and useful resource to States, EMS agencies, and to NHTSA
itself in addressing the post-crash care component of the highway
safety grant program. However, those comments were outside the scope of
this rulemaking because they relate to NHTSA's activities outside of
the highway safety grant program.
G. Other
Pamela Bertone commented that the NPRM seemed to focus more on
impaired and distracted driving than it did on speed, which she stated
is the most common cause of fatalities, and recommended that NHTSA put
more focus on speed. NHTSA emphasizes the importance of speed
management as a central component of highway safety programs and works
closely with States to combat risky driving behaviors such as speed,
including through a recent National safety campaign named ``Speed
Wrecks Lives,'' conducted in June 2022. Impaired and distracted driving
are also important components of highway safety programs and received
comparatively more discussion in the NPRM and in this final rule
because those program areas are National priority safety areas
identified by Congress for Section 405 incentive grants. Nevertheless,
States are encouraged to continue to carry out substantial speed
management
[[Page 7785]]
campaigns using Section 402 grant funds.
IV. General Provisions (Subpart A)
A. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.3)
GHSA commented that the definitions of ``program area'' and
``project (or funded project)'' should reference either the annual
grant application or the triennial HSP instead of the HSP. Where the
NPRM referenced the ``HSP,'' NHTSA intended it to refer to the
``triennial HSP.'' Consequently, NHTSA has amended the definitions for
clarity to reference the triennial HSP.
In addition, NHTSA made purely technical amendments to several
definitions. The agency updated citations within the definitions of
``Section 1906,'' \9\ ``State highway safety improvement program,'' and
``State strategic highway safety plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NHTSA has similarly made a technical correction to update
the citation for Section 1906 throughout the regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, NHTSA removed reference to the KABCO scale in the
definition of ``serious injuries'' as the scale is no longer used for
this purpose.
B. State Highway Safety Agency (23 CFR 1300.4)
The CT HSO and GHSA both expressed concern with the proposal that
the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety (GR) may not be
employed by a subrecipient of the State highway safety agency (commonly
referred to as the State Highway Safety Office, or SHSO). CT HSO
explained that the CT HSO is a subcomponent agency of the CT DOT; the
GR is employed by the CT DOT, which receives subawards from the CT HSO.
GHSA explained that in some States, the GR is an employee of the SHSO
and that the SHSO awards grants to itself; or that, as in CT, the GR
may be an employee of an overarching State department that receives
subawards from the SHSO.
The two examples given do not cause a problem with the regulatory
text as proposed in the NPRM, as an agency is never a subrecipient of
itself, nor can a parent agency be a subrecipient of a subagency.
However, NHTSA recognizes that using the term subrecipient in this
context may be confusing, and especially so in light of the many varied
configurations of State governments. NHTSA has amended the regulatory
text to provide that, in order to carry out the responsibilities
required by the GR and to avoid a potential conflict of interest, the
GR must have ready access to the Governor and be the head of the SHSO
or be in the chain of command between the SHSO and the Governor. This
framework will achieve the goal of the NPRM, while using more direct
language that is easier for States to apply. NHTSA notes, however, that
this provision serves as a minimum floor to ensure that GRs have the
capability to fulfill their required functions in the grant program, as
provided in the whole of Sec. 1300.4 and other Federal requirements,
such as OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200). The GR remains
responsible for carrying out those responsibilities.
V. Triennial Highway Safety Plan and Annual Grant Application (Subpart
B)
As explained in the NPRM, the BIL created a new triennial framework
for the Highway Safety Grant Program, replacing the annual Highway
Safety Plan (HSP) with a triennial HSP and annual grant application. As
part of this new triennial framework, Congress increased community
participation requirements and codified the annual reporting
requirement.
In addition to the broader comments urging that the agency ensure
fidelity to the law in drafting the regulatory text, CT HSO requested
that NHTSA refrain from requiring application or reporting requirements
beyond those explicitly authorized by law. As we explained in response
to GHSA's similar comment in the NPRM, NHTSA has striven to do so and
to streamline requirements wherever possible. However, relevant legal
requirements for these Federal grants are not limited to those in the
BIL. For example, OMB's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200)
provide many requirements applicable to the grant program, both for
States as award recipients and for NHTSA as the Federal awarding
agency. We have included or referred to several of those requirements
throughout this regulation.
AAMVA, the CT HSO, and the MN DPS requested that NHTSA avoid
duplication between the three different submissions that make up the
triennial framework (the triennial HSP, the annual grant application,
and the annual report). NHTSA will discuss specific requirements in
more detail in the relevant sections of the preamble, but notes here
that the triennial framework created by the BIL was designed to allow
the three program documents to build on each other. While the required
components of the submissions never overlap completely, they frequently
focus on the same types of information captured at different times
throughout the life of the grant, from long-range planning (triennial
HSP), to grant year implementation (annual grant application), to end
of year oversight and performance reporting (annual report), to
triennial performance reporting (triennial HSP). Viewed in this
context, these requirements are not duplicative, but rather relate to
program information developed at various stages along a timeline. Where
information is truly duplicative, we have striven to avoid redundancy,
as noted earlier.
AAMVA requested that NHTSA provide front-end support and
flexibility to States as they transition to the new triennial
framework. NHTSA is committed to providing States with all necessary
support during this transition, and continuing onward, as they
implement highway safety programs. With the recent increase in traffic
fatalities, it is more important than ever that States carry out
strong, data-driven, and performance-based highway safety programs.
NHTSA believes that the triennial framework created by the BIL, with
annual projects tied to longer-range planning based on performance
targets and countermeasure strategies, will be a valuable tool for
States as they work in partnership with NHTSA to address the recent
traffic. NHTSA, including its Office of Regional Operations and Program
Delivery and our ten regions, stand ready to assist the States in
deploying successful programs under the new authority. While we have
worked to implement the statutory requirements without imposing
unnecessary burdens on States, we are committed to ensuring through our
review and approval authority that State triennial HSPs and annual
grant applications provide for data-driven and performance-based
highway safety programs. We will provide States with the support
necessary to reach these goals, but will look to the States to provide
high quality programs that NHTSA is able to approve.
A. First Year Flexibility
Several commenters \10\ expressed concern about the States' ability
to comply with the new triennial framework in the first fiscal year of
the authorization (FY24). These commenters specifically requested that
NHTSA provide States with flexibility with regard to the public
engagement requirements for the first triennial HSP, arguing that
States would not be able to comply with public engagement requirements
in the time between publication of the final rule and the July
[[Page 7786]]
1, 2023 due date for the first triennial HSP. AAMVA suggested that
NHTSA excuse States from meeting any non-descriptive requirements
associated with public engagement in the FY24 triennial HSP. The MN DPS
and MoDOT requested that NHTSA not strictly enforce the public
engagement requirements and instead treat FY24 triennial HSP
submissions as a good faith building block for future triennial
periods. GHSA, supported by AASHTO, recommended that NHTSA create a
one-time allowance for States to submit public participation plans in
the FY24 triennial HSP (without the requirement to conduct any public
engagement efforts) and report on efforts carried out in the FY25
annual grant application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ AAMVA, GHSA, MN DPS, and MoDOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA declines to delay these public engagement requirements, which
form one of the seminal requirements of the new BIL grants. In enacting
BIL, Congress recognized the need to allow States time to ramp up their
efforts in this and other areas of the new grant programs, and so
delayed the start of the new requirements for almost two years after
enactment. This delay provided the States ample time to prepare for
needed adjustments, and NHTSA is not able to waive the statutory
directive for ``meaningful public participation and engagement from
affected communities.'' Moreover, in an era of increasing traffic
fatalities and disparate outcomes, NHTSA will not compromise on the
quality of the approved highway safety programs under the new statutory
framework, and that includes the critical component of public
engagement. Accordingly, all requirements will take full effect for
FY24 grants. The public engagement requirements in this regulation
implement important requirements set out in the BIL and in accordance
with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 \11\ (or Title VI), as
well as NHTSA's own commitment to ensuring that equity is centered in
the planning and implementation of the highway safety grant program.
They are also of clear importance to the populace within the States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA is committed to ensuring that States have the assistance
necessary to help in implementing the public engagement requirements.
In October 2022, DOT published a guide titled ``Promising Practices for
Meaningful Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making.'' \12\
NHTSA recently hired two staff members dedicated to providing technical
assistance to States on outreach and engagement efforts and will
provide a suite of resources in this area in coordination with NHTSA's
Office of Civil Rights, which provides technical assistance regarding
Title VI and other Federal civil rights laws. Shortly after the
issuance of this final rule, NHTSA will conduct webinars discussing
meaningful public engagement and involvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Available online at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/priorities/equity/promising-practices-meaningful-public-involvement-transportation-decision-making">https://www.transportation.gov/priorities/equity/promising-practices-meaningful-public-involvement-transportation-decision-making</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Triennial Highway Safety Plan (23 CFR 1300.11)
The triennial HSP documents the State's planning for a three-year
period of the State's highway safety program that is data-driven in
establishing performance targets and selecting the countermeasure
strategies for programming funds to meet those performance targets. As
the CT HSO reiterated in its comments, the triennial HSP is intended to
focus on program-level information. It serves as the long-range
planning document for State highway safety programs.
GHSA expressed concern that the descriptive elements of the
triennial HSP might lead to subjective consideration during NHTSA's
review and approval or lead to Regional misinterpretation of the
requirements. It recommended that NHTSA establish a sense of the
parameters for all descriptive elements. NHTSA provided significant
clarification regarding some of these elements in the preamble to the
NPRM and provides more clarification below. However, it is also NHTSA's
intention to leave flexibility for States to structure their triennial
HSPs in the manner that best reflects the data and resources of the
State. And, since a State's triennial HSP is essentially a document
customized to its own needs, based on problem identification within its
borders, NHTSA is avoiding being overly prescriptive and taking a one-
size-fits-all approach to review of these documents.
1. Highway Safety Planning Process and Problem Identification (23 CFR
1300.11(b)(1))
AAMVA expressed support for NHTSA's decision in the NPRM not to
specify problem areas that States must consider in triennial HSP
problem identification, but instead to provide States with the
flexibility to identify problems based on the data. AAMVA further noted
that States will likely explore non-conventional data sources in
response to this rulemaking and requested that NHTSA provide support
and flexibility to States as they establish and refine these data
sources. As noted in the NPRM, NHTSA encourages States to consider and
use non-conventional data sources (e.g., socio-demographic data) and
will provide States with assistance upon request.
As explained in more detail in the annual grant application section
below, NHTSA has amended the regulatory text to provide that States
should consult geospatial data as part of their problem identification
process. 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(1)(ii). This could include consulting
location-based data sources to provide insight into the selection of
specific roadways and/or intersections to conduct enforcement
activities where they are most needed.
Finally, AAMVA also supported NHTSA's view, stated in the NPRM in
response to a comment, that it is unnecessary for States to provide a
plan for regular data assessments in the triennial HSP, because States
are already required to submit annual reports that assess their
progress in meeting performance targets.
2. Public Participation and Engagement (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(2))
In BIL, Congress added a requirement that State highway safety
programs result from meaningful public participation and engagement
from affected communities, particularly those most significantly
impacted by traffic crashes resulting in injuries and fatalities. 23
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B). AAMVA and the 5-State DOTs expressed broad support
for the new emphasis on public engagement.
GHSA reiterated its prior comment that many States already have
successful public engagement initiatives underway, but noted that their
strategies have not been effectively shared. It offered to collaborate
with NHTSA to support States in implementing broader public engagement
and in sharing best practices. AAMVA similarly requested that NHTSA
provide guidance to States on how to meet public engagement
requirements. The League of American Bicyclists requested that NHTSA
analyze State activities in this area and publish a report. GHSA and
AASHTO recommended that NHTSA refer to FHWA's experience with the
public participation process as it develops its own guidance. NHTSA
appreciates this shared commitment to public engagement and looks
forward to working with the States and GHSA to share best practices and
effective strategies to increase community engagement. As mentioned
previously in this document, NHTSA recently hired two staff members
dedicated to providing technical assistance to States on outreach and
engagement efforts and
[[Page 7787]]
will provide a suite of resources in this area in coordination with
NHTSA's Office of Civil Rights, including webinars that will be
conducted shortly after the issuance of this final rule.
As explained in the preamble to the NPRM, NHTSA structured the
public engagement section of the triennial HSP so that States can meet
both the BIL requirements and the Title VI Community Participation Plan
requirements with the same submission. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or
national origin (including limited English proficiency) in any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. As implemented
through the U.S. Department of Transportation Title VI Program Order
(DOT Order 1000.12C), Title VI requires, among other things,\13\ that
all recipients submit a Community Participation Plan. The purpose of
the Community Participation Plan is to facilitate full compliance with
the community participation requirement of Title VI by requiring
meaningful public participation and engagement to ensure that
applicants and recipients are adequately informed about how programs or
activities will potentially impact affected communities, and to ensure
that diverse views are heard and considered throughout all stages of
the consultation, planning, and decision-making process. MN DPS
supported NHTSA's efforts to combine the two requirements. GHSA sought
clarification about whether States must submit or maintain on file a
separate file to fulfill the Community Participation Plan requirements
from Title VI. NHTSA confirms that the triennial HSP submission is
sufficient to satisfy the Community Participation Plan requirements,
and no further documentation is needed for that component of Title VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For example, consistent with Title VI, the DOT Title VI
Program Order also requires that NHTSA conduct a pre-award
assessment of each applicant for financial assistance and that every
grant recipient have on file a Title VI plan. As these requirements
are not specifically part of the triennial HSP or annual grant
application, the substance of these requirements has not been
incorporated into the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHSA and the MoDOT argued that the BIL limits the requirement for
meaningful public participation and engagement to the ``program,''
interpreting that to refer only to the triennial HSP and countermeasure
strategy level planning, not to project level implementation. On a
similar note, AASHTO and the 5-State DOTs expressed concern that States
would be required to bring public engagement into all levels of project
management, including at the project level. These commenters requested
that NHTSA change the proposed regulatory language to make clear that
public engagement is only required for program planning, not throughout
program implementation and management. NHTSA disagrees. A State highway
safety ``program,'' as described in 23 U.S.C. 402(b), refers to the
entire lifespan of the State's highway safety efforts, from planning to
project implementation to program evaluation. The public engagement
requirements in Sec. 1300.11(b)(2) reflect this, by requiring public
participation and engagement not just in the planning processes leading
up to the triennial HSP (see Sec. 1300.11(b)(2)(i)), but also
throughout the life of the grant (see Sec. 1300.11(b)(2)(iii)). States
must consider community input while planning and implementing projects
under the highway safety program, but are not expected to conduct
public participation and engagement efforts on a project-by-project
basis. For example, a State could conduct public participation and
engagement efforts related to its impaired driving program for a fiscal
year and then use the input received during those engagement efforts
when it implements its impaired driving projects, rather than
conducting engagement efforts for each impaired driving project. We
have amended the requirement to clarify that the State's statement of
starting goals for public engagement needs to include discussion of how
the public engagement efforts will contribute to the development of the
State's highway safety program as a whole, including countermeasure
strategies for programming funds. Sec. 1300.11(b)(2)(i)(A).
Further, Sec. 1300.11(b)(2)(ii)(C) requires the State to discuss
how the comments and views received in engagement opportunities
conducted for the triennial HSP have been incorporated into the
development of the triennial HSP. This also reflects the comprehensive
community participation requirements in accordance with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and supports NHTSA's goal of ensuring that the
public participation and engagement opportunities that are conducted
are meaningful and that equity is a focus throughout all stages of the
highway safety grant program. However, NHTSA notes that States will
still be able to make management and even programmatic decisions
without conducting public engagement opportunities for each decision.
The goal is for a State to provide sufficient opportunities for public
engagement so that the State can be informed by the input received
during those opportunities as it plans, implements, and manages the
highway safety grant program.
In order to clarify the stages of public engagement required, NHTSA
has reformatted Sec. 1300.11(b)(2) to better identify the components
of the State's public participation and engagement submission: (1)
triennial HSP engagement planning; (2) triennial HSP engagement
outcomes; and (3) ongoing engagement planning. As explained in more
detail later, States will later be required to describe the ongoing
engagement efforts that they conduct in each grant year in the annual
report. See 23 CFR 1300.35(b)(2). Limited, non-substantive changes have
been made to the regulatory text to accommodate this reorganization.
For clarity, we have also written specific requirements for State plans
for ongoing engagement in Sec. 1300.11(b)(2)(iii), rather than relying
on an internal citation.
The NV OTS commented that the requirement to provide lists of
engagement opportunities conducted, with additional descriptive
information, is too burdensome. NV OTS argued that such lists could
become too extensive for NHTSA to adequately assess and argued that
States should only be required to develop an engagement plan with
projected activities, not provide details about engagement conducted.
Upon consideration, NHTSA agrees that lists of every engagement
opportunity conducted may become too voluminous and may not be useful
for NHTSA's approval process or for transparency purposes. However, we
disagree that States should be allowed to submit only plans, with no
requirement to describe engagement actually conducted as part of the
triennial HSP planning process. We have therefore amended the
regulatory text to require that States must provide narrative
assessments and descriptions of their community engagement efforts
instead of a list. 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(2)(ii).
MN DPS argued that being required to identify specific engagement
efforts would hinder State efforts that are currently underway by
requiring States to reengineer existing public engagement plans. AAMVA
noted that it agreed with GHSA's comment to the RFC that the volume of
comments received would be an inaccurate and unreliable benchmark for
public engagement. We note that, while the regulation requires States
to describe the engagement efforts conducted, it does not require
specific forms of public
[[Page 7788]]
participation and engagement, nor require specified outcomes. However,
the agency expects that if a State does not achieve reasonable
participation through the participation plan described in the triennial
HSP, it will use that experience to inform its plans for continuing
public participation during the triennial period and into the next
triennial HSP. As long as a State is able to meet the requirements of
the triennial HSP and annual report, it may facilitate public
participation in the manner best suited to the needs of the State and
its communities.
In addition to the comments in response to the RFC on the topic,
NHTSA received several comments expressing the need for funding for the
BIL's increased public engagement requirements. GHSA, MN DPS and MoDOT
requested clarification about whether NHTSA grant funds may be used to
support public participation and engagement efforts in general. As
NHTSA explained in the preamble to the NPRM, the specifics of whether
and how NHTSA grant funds may be used to pay for these types of costs
are highly fact specific and implicate many different Federal and State
laws and regulations. However, as a general matter, States may use
NHTSA grant funds for costs associated with public participation and
engagement activities, including activities required to plan and
conduct public engagement required for submission of the triennial HSP.
Any such costs are Planning and Administration costs and are subject to
the allowance for such costs, as laid out in 23 CFR 1300.13(a).
The League of American Bicyclists requested that NHTSA compile
information on how States use NHTSA grant funds for purposes of
compensating community members for their public participation and
publish a report on those uses of funds. GHSA did not think it likely
that States would consider compensating participants, but nonetheless
sought clarification from NHTSA on whether such compensation would be
an allowable use of grant funds. As explained above, whether a specific
cost is an allowable use of funds is highly fact specific and subject
to many different Federal laws and regulations. Differences in State
laws and regulations may also affect whether a State may compensate
participants in public engagement efforts. That said, these sorts of
costs are potentially allowable uses of grant funds and NHTSA will work
with States to determine whether any specific participation costs are
allowable. Since no States currently use NHTSA grant funds for this
purpose and it is unknown if any States will do so, NHTSA has no plans
to publish a report at this time.
3. Performance Plan (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(3))
The BIL continues to rely on performance measures as a fundamental
component of State highway safety program planning in the triennial
HSP. The BIL maintains the existing structure that requires States to
provide documentation of the current safety levels for each performance
measure, quantifiable performance targets for each performance measure,
and a justification for each performance target.
The BIL provides that States must set performance targets that
demonstrate constant or improved performance and provide a
justification for each performance target that explains why the target
is appropriate and evidence-based. 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(A)(ii) and
(iii). As NHTSA explained in the preamble to the NPRM, the requirement
for constant or improved performance will facilitate open discussions
about desired safety outcomes and how to allocate resources to reach
those outcomes. In an era of increasing fatalities, it is vital that
performance targets offer realistic expectations that work toward the
long-term goal of zero roadway fatalities and provide a greater
understanding of how safety issues are being addressed. Roadway deaths
are unacceptable and preventable; we must all work toward making the
goal of zero roadway fatalities a reality, and performance management
is a vital tool for making that happen.
Several commenters \14\ reiterated arguments they made in response
to the RFC that requiring targets showing constant or improved
performance is contrary to the requirement that targets be appropriate
and evidence-based, and asked that NHTSA explain how a State can set a
data-driven target if the evidence does not demonstrate constant or
improved performance. GHSA disagreed with NHTSA's response in the NPRM,
which explained that States should consider different countermeasure
strategies or adjust funding within a countermeasure strategy in order
to achieve constant or improved performance. GHSA argued that States do
not have unlimited resources to do so, nor do they have an unlimited
menu of acceptable countermeasures. Instead, GHSA requested that, if a
State's data analysis shows that an appropriate target would not
demonstrate constant or improved performance and the State cannot
allocate additional resources, NHTSA should nonetheless allow that
State to adjust the target to be ``constant.'' The agency recognizes
that resources are not unlimited, but the BIL greatly expanded highway
safety grant funds available to the States, providing a more than 30
percent increase. The traveling public has a right to expect that the
nearly 4 billion dollars in highway safety grant funding authorized by
the BIL will result in fewer lives lost on our Nation's roadways. With
that in mind, lack of resources is not an acceptable justification for
failure to demonstrate constant or improved performance, and NHTSA will
not label as ``constant'' any target that demonstrates worsening
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ AASHTO, GHSA and MN DPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA also disagrees with the implied premise that States lack the
ability to influence safety numbers and stands by our prior response;
performance targets are inextricably tied to countermeasure strategies
for programming funds. Targets should reflect the outcomes that States
expect to achieve after implementing their planned programs. If a
projected outcome shows worsening safety levels, then the State needs
to change its planned program either at or below the countermeasure
strategy level. States receive highway safety grant funds in order to
achieve important safety outcomes. NHTSA strongly encourages States to
consider innovative countermeasure strategies as long as they are
consistent with Federal statutes and regulations; we have seen States
implement several such strategies successfully in the past.
Some commenters \15\ requested that, in order to meet the
requirement to set data-driven targets that show constant or improved
performance, States be allowed to ``reset'' targets based on recent
data. These comments suggest a belief that States must set ever-lower
performance targets every triennial cycle, regardless of the data at
the time the triennial HSP is submitted. Such a construction would
divorce performance management from the underlying data. NHTSA has
therefore added regulatory language to make clear that States must set
performance targets that show constant or improved performance compared
to the safety levels, based on the most currently available data, not
based on the target from the prior triennial HSP. 23 CFR
1300.11(b)(3)(ii)(B). This will serve as a constructive ``reset'' of
performance targets based on documented safety levels for each
triennial HSP. This clarification should also resolve the CT
[[Page 7789]]
HSO's concern that States not be penalized for failure to meet measures
that were inflated due to being set based on prior targets that don't
reflect current safety levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ AASHTO, CT HSO, and GHSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters expressed concern that States will face
penalties if they fail to meet aggressive targets. Section 402 requires
States to assess in both the triennial HSP (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(E)) and
the annual report (23 U.S.C. 402(l)(2)) the progress made in achieving
performance targets in the annual grant application the means by which
the State's countermeasure strategy for programming funds was adjusted
and informed by that assessment (23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(C)), and NHTSA is
required to publicly release an evaluation of State achievement of
performance targets (23 U.S.C. 402(n)(1)). However, there are no
monetary or programmatic penalties for failure to achieve a performance
target in NHTSA's highway safety grant program. GHSA requested that
NHTSA acknowledge that failure to meet performance measures reflects
poorly on State programs and that they may face additional
administrative steps (the required assessment and adjustment of
countermeasure strategies). AASHTO noted that added administrative
burdens have cost and resource impacts. The MoDOT argued that
performance targets are not performance predictions and requested that
NHTSA acknowledge that failure to meet performance targets does not
mean that a State's programs are ineffective. NHTSA believes that
performance measures bring transparency to the safety outcomes of State
programs and can be helpful to States in planning a program designed to
help them meet performance targets. NHTSA acknowledges that this
transparency may sometimes be uncomfortable for a State, but believes
it is vital to ensuring that highway safety programs produce meaningful
improvements every year.
As GHSA notes, States are required to describe plans to adjust
their countermeasure strategies for programming funds if they are not
on track to meet performance measures. However, we disagree with
labelling such work a penalty; it is a response designed to address an
identified safety problem that has not been resolved and to encourage
redirecting the investment of funds to better meet performance targets.
NHTSA and the States share the common goal of reducing highway
fatalities and injuries. It is our joint responsibility to deploy grant
funds squarely toward that end. NHTSA challenges States to think
creatively and critically about ways to improve the safety outcomes of
their programs.
NHTSA received many comments specifically related to the common
performance measures that States also report annually to FHWA for the
State highway safety improvement program (HSIP).\16\ AASHTO, the CT
HSO, and the MN DPS all recommended that NHTSA collaborate with FHWA,
GHSA, and AASHTO to reevaluate how performance measures are established
and used and to assist States in complying with both NHTSA and FHWA
performance requirements. NHTSA appreciates this suggestion and will
continue to work closely with these partners to provide needed
technical assistance to States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Common performance measures are set out in 23 CFR
490.209(a)(1) and 23 CFR 1300.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters \17\ stated that the common performance measures
should focus only on variables within the direct control of the State
highway safety office. They explained that common measures, such as
total fatalities and injuries, are dependent on many factors and that
the SHSO focuses only on behavioral aspects of traffic safety. As
stated in the NPRM, NHTSA disagrees that the common performance
measures should be so narrowly focused. While we recognize that the
common measures are impacted by many variables, the SHSO and its
programs are an integral part of those overall safety numbers. The
SHSO, under the auspices of the Governor, is expected to coordinate the
triennial HSP, annual grant application, and highway safety data
collection and information systems activities with other federally and
non-federally supported programs in the State relating to or affecting
highway safety, including the State strategic highway safety plan
(SHSP). 23 CFR 1300.4(c)(11). The common measures show the overall
highway safety outcomes in the State, including the programs
implemented by the SHSO. For context, we also note that the common
measures are only three of many performance measures: there are three
common measures, fourteen minimum measures, and States are always
encouraged to develop their own additional measures for problems not
covered by existing performance measures.\18\ The minimum performance
measures created in cooperation with GHSA focus more specifically on
areas within the SHSO control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ AASHTO, AAMVA, GHSA, MN DPS, and MoDOT.
\18\ In fact, States are required to submit performance measures
for any program area for which a minimum performance measure does
not already exist (for example, distracted driving), because all
projects funded with NHTSA grant funds must be tied to a
countermeasure strategy for programming funds that is addresses a
performance target in the triennial HSP. See 23 CFR
1300.12(b)(2)(ix) and 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AASHTO expressed appreciation for NHTSA's proposal that States be
allowed to update the targets for the three common performance measures
in the annual grant application. See 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(1)(ii). It asked
how States should reflect those changes in the triennial HSP. The
annual grant application includes a section for updates to the
triennial HSP. See 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(1). Upon approval of the annual
grant application, any changes that a State makes to the triennial HSP
under that provision will be presumed by NHTSA to be incorporated into
the triennial HSP and will not require any further efforts on the part
of the State to amend the triennial HSP itself.
AAMVA and GHSA requested that NHTSA and GHSA work together to
update the minimum performance measures that were developed in 2008
\19\ in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(5). In contrast, the 5-State
DOTs reiterated that they do not believe any new performance measures
are required. NHTSA intends to convene meetings with stakeholders and
to collaborate with GHSA to update the minimum performance measures
well in advance of the FY 2027 triennial HSP submission date. NHTSA
will draw all of the comments received under this rulemaking into that
effort and will seek further input from these and other groups at that
time. As we did previously, NHTSA commits to publishing the proposed
minimum performance measures in the Federal Register for public
inspection and comment. For the purposes of the FY24 triennial HSP,
States are encouraged to develop additional measures, consistent with
23 CFR 1300.11(b)(3)(iii), for problems identified by the State that
are not covered by existing minimum performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and
Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 025) (Aug. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AASHTO reiterated its comment to the RFC, stating that the
regulation should more clearly vest target establishment authority in
the States, arguing that it is inconsistent to require NHTSA approval
for performance targets when 23 U.S.C. 150(d)(1) provides States with
authority to establish targets for the HSIP without FHWA approval.
AASHTO argued that NHTSA cannot appropriately rely on the reasoning set
forth by FHWA in its final rule for the National Performance Management
Measures: Highway Safety Improvement Program, which set out
[[Page 7790]]
the parameters of the common performance measures,\20\ because the
statutes have changed since that time. However, the relevant portions
of those statutes have not changed. Regardless, as we noted in the
NPRM, NHTSA does not have the discretion to override the statutory
requirement for approval or disapproval of triennial HSPs, including
the performance measures contained therein. See 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 81 FR 13882, 13901 (Mar. 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Countermeasure Strategy for Programming Funds (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(4))
The BIL requires each State to submit, as part of the triennial
HSP, a countermeasure strategy for programming funds for projects that
will allow the State to meet the performance targets set in the
triennial HSP. 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(B-D).
GHSA noted that NHTSA seems to use the terms ``countermeasure'' and
``countermeasure strategy for programming funds'' inconsistently
throughout the regulation, occasionally using ``countermeasure'' where
GHSA believes it should read ``countermeasure strategy for programming
funds''. Upon reviewing the regulatory text, NHTSA found one instance
where the terms were used in an unclear context and has amended the
regulatory text in Sec. 1300.11(b)(4)(ii)(B) to refer to
``countermeasures'' rather than ``countermeasure strategies.'' The term
``countermeasure'' is used singularly in several of the Section 405
grant sections; however, NHTSA confirms that those uses are appropriate
based on the statutory text and intent.
For each countermeasure strategy, the State must provide: (1)
identification of the problem ID that the countermeasure strategy
addresses and a description of the link between the problem ID and the
countermeasure strategy; (2) a list of the countermeasures that the
State will implement as part of the countermeasure strategy, with
justification supporting the countermeasures; (3) identification of the
performance targets the countermeasure strategy will address with a
description of the link between the countermeasure strategy and the
target; (4) a description of the Federal funds the State plans to use;
(5) a description of the considerations the State will use to determine
what projects to fund to implement the countermeasure strategy; and (6)
a description of the manner in which the countermeasure strategy was
informed by the uniform guidelines issued by NHTSA in accordance with
23 U.S.C. 402(a)(2). Sec. 1300.11(b)(4).
NHTSA received many comments related to the requirement to provide
justification supporting countermeasures that are included in a
countermeasure strategy for programming funds. See 23 U.S.C.
402(k)(4)(C) and 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(4)(ii). As a preliminary matter,
NHTSA points out that this provision is largely similar in substance to
the requirements under the FAST Act, in which States were required to
provide justification supporting the potential effectiveness of
innovative countermeasures as they relate to the problem identified.
NHTSA proposed two changes to the requirement in the NPRM: (1) the
agency provided that any countermeasure rated 3 stars or higher in
Countermeasures That Work are proven effective and do not require
justification; and (2) the agency added data and data analysis to the
requirements for supporting an innovative countermeasure. The
requirement to provide data and data analysis is taken directly from
the BIL, which requires States to provide data and data analysis
supporting the effectiveness of proposed countermeasures. See 23 U.S.C.
402(k)(4)(C).
The CT HSO, DE OHS, GHSA, MN DPS, and MO DOT argued that requiring
States to provide justification for countermeasures not identified as 3
stars or above in Countermeasures That Work adds an unnecessary burden
on states and would stifle innovation. The League of American
Bicyclists expressed concern that the requirement would encourage
States to focus on countermeasures in Countermeasures That Work at the
expense of other promising countermeasures. The League of American
Bicyclists and GHSA both noted that this could incentivize States to
conduct more enforcement. GHSA recommended that NHTSA allow States to
cite to the Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs \21\
and to recommendations in NHTSA-affiliated program assessment reports.
NHTSA reminds commenters that the requirement to justify
countermeasures derives from the statute. In exempting countermeasures
rated 3 stars and above from the requirement to provide justification
of effectiveness, NHTSA sought to limit the burden on States by not
requiring each State to provide independent justification for
countermeasures that have already been proven over time. To further
that goal, NHTSA has adopted GHSA's suggestion to also exempt
countermeasures included in the Uniform Guidelines and as
recommendations in NHTSA-affiliated program assessment supports. Sec.
1300.11(b)(4)(ii)(A). NHTSA encourages innovation and urges States not
to rely overly on the same set of countermeasures that have not
produced positive programmatic change to date, even if they are rated 3
stars or above. Even though these countermeasures are exempted from the
requirement to provide independent justification of effectiveness, as
with all countermeasure strategies, States must still describe the link
between the problem identification and the countermeasure strategy and
the link between the effectiveness of the countermeasure strategy and
the performance target. Sec. Sec. 1300.11(b)(4)(i) and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Available online at: <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/guidance-documents#52986">https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/guidance-documents#52986</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The League of American Bicyclists suggested that NHTSA accept the
SSA principles as a justification for choosing countermeasure
strategies in the triennial HSP. While NHTSA agrees that the SSA
principles are great guiding principles for a State to use in selecting
countermeasures, NHTSA notes that principles do not qualify as data and
data analysis required to justify the use of a countermeasure.
The DE OHS argued that justification of the effectiveness of
innovative countermeasure strategies is better suited to be addressed
in the annual report than in the triennial HSP. The MoDOT argued that
requiring justification of countermeasures is an overreach by NHTSA,
reasoning that SHSOs are responsible for identifying and implementing
countermeasures and that NHTSA need only ensure the State administers a
compliant program. MoDOT further questioned why States should have to
justify countermeasures when they will be evaluated on their ability to
meet performance measures. NHTSA reminds the States that the BIL
specifically requires States to submit data and data analysis
supporting the effectiveness of proposed countermeasures in the
triennial HSP. See 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)(C). However, NHTSA also strongly
encourages States to evaluate the effectiveness of all innovative
countermeasures after implementation and to share those results with
NHTSA and with other States. Furthermore, the statute provides that
NHTSA has responsibility for reviewing the triennial HSPs submitted by
the States and ensuring that the triennial HSPs satisfy the statutory
and regulatory requirements prior to approval. See 23 U.S.C. 402(k)(6).
[[Page 7791]]
GHSA and DE OHS sought clarification about the level of detail
required to justify innovative countermeasures, requesting that NHTSA
keep the requirement similar to the existing requirement for innovative
countermeasures under the FAST Act. They cautioned that States should
not be required to submit detailed research reports. NHTSA confirms
that the level of justification required for innovative countermeasures
is fundamentally the same as in the regulation implementing the FAST
Act. Commenters may be misinterpreting the level of justification
required. For example, a State could cite to a countermeasure from a
different program area in the Countermeasures That Work and briefly
explain why it believes that countermeasure would be similarly
effective in the relevant program area. Alternatively, a State could
provide a citation to a report on a pilot program carried out
elsewhere, or to existing research demonstrating the effectiveness of a
strategy in a different context, potentially outside of the highway
safety context. To clarify that States are not required to submit
research reports, NHTSA has amended the regulatory text to require that
the justification use available data, data analysis, research,
evaluation and/or substantive anecdotal evidence. Sec.
1300.11(b)(4)(ii)(B).
5. Performance Report (23 CFR 1300.11(b)(5))
The BIL requires that the triennial HSP include a report on the
State's success in meeting its safety goals and performance targets set
forth in the most recently submitted highway safety plan. In order to
foster a connection between the triennial HSP and annual reports, NHTSA
specified that the performance report in the triennial HSP contain the
same level of detail as the annual report. Both AAMVA and GHSA
expressed confusion over the level of detail expected for the triennial
HSP performance report. GHSA noted confusion because the regulation
cites to the entirety of Sec. 1300.35, not just the performance report
section at Sec. 1300.35(a), and asked whether NHTSA wants States to
combine three years of annual report performance reports into a single
analysis.
In order to avoid confusion, NHTSA has removed the internal
citation and inserted regulatory language specific to the triennial
HSP. 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(5). While the language still mirrors the
language for the annual performance report, it has been adjusted to
reflect the triennial nature of the analysis. For example, while the
annual report focuses on activities conducted during a single grant
year, the triennial HSP focuses on countermeasure strategies
implemented during the triennial period. NHTSA believes that States
will be able to benefit from the yearly analysis they have already
conducted in their annual reports when writing their triennial
performance reports. As noted in the preamble to the NPRM, for the FY24
triennial HSP, NHTSA expects only analysis of the State's progress
towards meeting the targets set in the FY23 HSP.
C. Annual Grant Application (23 CFR 1300.12)
NHTSA received comments on the proposed submission date and
components of annual grant applications. We address each of these
comments in the respective sections below and make necessary updates to
the regulatory language for clarification and simplification.
1. Due Date (23 CFR 1300.12(a))
The MA OGR requested that the due date of August 1 be changed to
July 1 and/or that NHTSA reduce the 60-day review period to 30 or 45
days. The MA OGR noted that a due date of August 1, with a 60-day
review period, would provide for a September 30 award date, which they
argue provides insufficient time for States to award projects starting
October 1. The due date of August 1 ensures that both States and NHTSA
have adequate time to prepare, submit, and review annual grant
applications. As explained in the NPRM, NHTSA proposed a deadline of
August 1 to provide States with a due date different from the triennial
HSP's July 1 deadline. Requiring both the annual grant application and
the triennial HSP to be submitted on July 1 would impose more burden on
States during the years when both submissions are required. This
approach is informed by comments received in response to the RFC and
discussed in more detail in the NPRM. Additionally, the statute affords
60 days for NHTSA to review and approve or disapprove annual grant
applications. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(D). NHTSA notes that our ability to
review and ultimately approve applications within the 60-day statutory
timeline depends on the quality of the information provided by States.
Where possible, we will strive to work with States to expedite the
review process.
2. Updates to Triennial HSP (23 CFR 1300.12(b)(1))
As part of annual grant applications, the BIL requires States to
provide updates to their triennial HSPs, including a description of the
means by which the strategy for programming funds was adjusted and
informed by the most recent annual report. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(C)(iii).
In the NPRM, NHTSA fleshed out this requirement by providing that where
a State determined in its annual report that it was not on track to
meet all performance targets, it must explain either how it will adjust
the strategy for programming funds or why it is not doing so.
Otherwise, a State must briefly state that it was on track to meet all
performance targets. NHTSA appreciates AAMVA's support for streamlining
the requirement for States that are on track to meet their performance
targets.
In addition, States may make certain changes related to performance
measures in the annual grant application. As explained in the NPRM,
States may add new performance measures and amend common performance
measures. GHSA requested NHTSA to clarify that States are allowed to
amend common performance targets, rather than common performance
measures as stated in the NPRM. As GHSA noted, States may amend
performance targets associated with the common performance measures
(i.e., number of fatalities) rather than the measures themselves (i.e.,
fatality, fatality rate, and serious injuries). NHTSA has made a
conforming change to the language at 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(1)(ii) in
accordance with this clarification.
The CT HSO stated that any updated data analysis should be required
only in the triennial HSP, not the annual grant application. It is not
clear to what data analysis the State is referring; however, NHTSA
notes that States provide all updates to the triennial HSP via the
annual grant application under the new triennial framework.
Functionally, it is the same as updating or amending the triennial HSP
itself.
GHSA, joined by the MN DPS, repeated its previous comment that the
statute clearly provides that it is the State, not NHTSA, that
determines when updates to the triennial HSP are necessary. As
explained in the NPRM, NHTSA disagrees with this interpretation. The
statute provides that an annual grant application must include any
necessary updates to analysis in the State's triennial HSP. 23 U.S.C.
402(l)(1)(C)(i). The statute, however, is silent as to who determines
what updates to analysis are necessary. While the statute allows a
State to include such updates, it does not limit the determination of
whether those updates are sufficient to States. The statute requires
NHTSA to approve or disapprove a State's annual grant
[[Page 7792]]
application in part on the basis of whether it demonstrates alignment
with the approved triennial HSP. 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(1)(A)(i). Updates to
analysis in the State's triennial HSP may be necessary in order to
demonstrate that the annual grant application aligns with the triennial
HSP, as required by the BIL. See 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(A)(i). NHTSA will not
approve an annual grant application that is inconsistent with the
approved triennial HSP.
3. Project and Subrecipient Information (23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2))
The BIL requires States to submit, as part of their annual grant
application, identification of each project and subrecipient to be
funded by the State using grants during the fiscal year covered by the
application. The statute further provides that States may submit
information for additional projects throughout the grant year as that
information becomes available. See 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(C)(ii).
To satisfy those statutory requirements, States must submit the
following information in their annual grant applications: project name
and description, Federal funding source(s), project agreement number,
subrecipient(s), amount of Federal funds, eligible use of funds,
identification of Planning and Administration costs, identification of
costs subject to Section 1300.41(b), and the countermeasure strategy
for programming funds that the project supports. 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2).
These requirements ensure that NHTSA is able to understand whether the
identified projects are sufficient for the State to carry out the
countermeasure strategies in the triennial HSP, to identify projects
against later submitted vouchers, and to meet statutory transparency
requirements.
GHSA requested clarification about several items to be included in
the project and subrecipient information. GHSA asked what NHTSA means
by ``eligible use of funds'' and the level of detail that States will
be expected to provide. NHTSA's purpose in including this information
in the annual grant application, as well as in State vouchers (see 23
CFR 1300.33(b)(3)), is to facilitate transparency in the use of NHTSA
grant funds, to ensure consistency between planned and actual project
expenses, and to facilitate verification of allowability of costs
within specific program areas. For example, there are six specific
eligible uses of Section 405(b) Occupant Protection Grants. See 23 CFR
1300.21(g)(1). One such eligible use is ``to train occupant protection
safety professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical
personnel, educators, and parents concerning all aspects of the use of
child restraints and occupant protection''. 23 CFR 1300.21(g)(1)(ii).
For projects on occupant protection training, States should notate this
specific eligible use as Occupant Protection Training and ensure that
the project description includes the nature of the training and the
intended audience. This same eligible use notation would apply to
projects using Section 402 grant funds for occupant protection
training. As another example, there are two eligible uses of Section
402 grant funds for automated traffic enforcement (school zone or work
zone). See 23 CFR 1300.13(g). Projects using Section 402 grant funds
for automated traffic enforcement in a school zone should notate the
eligible use as Automated Traffic Enforcement--school zone and ensure
that the project description includes the appropriate information per
1300.12(b)(2)(i). If a State is uncertain about a specific use of
funds, we encourage the State to reach out to the Region for
assistance.
Next, GHSA requested that NHTSA clarify the requirement at 23 CFR
1300.12(b)(2)(viii), which requires States to identify whether a
project will be used to meet the requirements of Sec. 1300.41(b)
(commonly referred to as promised projects). NHTSA confirms GHSA's
understanding that States must identify whether the State is committing
unexpended grant funds that would otherwise be deobligated and lapsed
to a particular project consistent with Sec. 1300.41(b).
GHSA also sought clarification about how States should organize
information on the countermeasure strategy that the project supports,
and asked for flexibility. States may format their project list by
grouping projects based on the countermeasure strategy. It is incumbent
on States to ensure that they submit all required information in an
organized manner to minimize delays in NHTSA's review and avoid the
need for follow-up information.
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to include zip codes as an example of
information that may be provided as part of a project description. In
addition, NHTSA proposed to require States to provide zip codes for all
projects in the annual report and sought comment on whether there is a
better metric for obtaining relevant location information for projects.
In response, the DE OHS, GHSA, and MN DPS expressed concern that
providing zip code information in annual grant applications and annual
reports would impose an excessive burden on States and suggested
finding a more efficient way to collect location data. NHTSA
appreciates the feedback but also emphasizes that it is our
responsibility to ensure that project information is consistent with
States' triennial HSPs. As noted by the CT HSO, NHTSA's intent in
proposing zip code information was to identify the location where a
project is taking place, and location information is essential for
NHTSA to verify that States are executing projects in the areas
identified by the problem identification and/or countermeasure
strategies in their triennial HSPs. However, NHTSA agrees that zip code
information might not be the most relevant data point or may be
cumbersome for States to compile, depending on project type.
Accordingly, to avoid an unnecessary burden on States, we have removed
specific references to zip codes from both the annual grant application
and annual report sections of the regulation. Instead, NHTSA has
amended the regulatory text to provide that States must provide
information on the location where the project is performed as part of
the project description in the annual grant application (which may
include zip codes), but leaves it to the State's discretion what form
this location information takes. Sec. 1300.12(b)(2)(i).
NHTSA expects that States will provide information at the lowest
geographic level applicable to each project. NHTSA notes that,
consistent with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
(FFATA), States are already required to separately report the location
of both the entity receiving the subaward and the primary location of
performance for all subawards of $30,000 and above.\22\ As previously
mentioned, in order to ensure that States include location information
in their triennial HSP problem identification, NHTSA has amended the
data sources that a State should consult for problem identification to
include geospatial data. Sec. 1300.11(b)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Public Law 109-282, as amended by section 6202 of Public
Law 110-252. Implemented at 2 CFR part 170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, NHTSA has made a technical amendment to rearrange the
order of required project information so that Federal funding source(s)
is now the second required information item. 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2)(ii).
NHTSA believes this will better reflect the connection States place
between project descriptions and the funding source.
[[Page 7793]]
4. Amendments to Project and Subrecipient Information (23 CFR
1300.12(d))
As is explained in more detail in the annual report section, below,
NHTSA is amending Sec. 1300.12(d) to provide that all project
information in the annual grant application must be complete at the
time the State submits the annual report consistent with Sec. 1300.35.
D. Special Funding Conditions for Section 402 Grants (23 CFR 1300.13)
1. Planning and Administration (P & A) Costs (23 CFR 1300.13(a))
Three commenters \23\ reiterated comments in response to the RFC
requesting that NHTSA increase the percentage of funds that can be
allocated to Planning and Administration (P & A) costs from 15% to 18%
to cover increased costs due to the new BIL planning requirements,
inflation, and the competitive employment market. GHSA further
explained that this increase would give States greater flexibility in
determining whether to fund staff programmatically or through P & A. NV
OTS noted that the increase would help States like Nevada that need to
maintain two separate offices for the HSO. In response to these last
two points, the agency notes that whether highway safety staff is
funded programmatically or through P & A is not dependent on the amount
of funds available but rather on specific roles and duties, and NV
OTS's maintenance of two separate offices for the HSO is not a
requirement imposed by NHTSA. However, after considering these comments
in light of new BIL requirements, NHTSA is increasing the States'
allowance for P & A costs to 18 percent to help offset rising costs and
to ensure that States have sufficient resources to fully implement the
planning and public engagement requirements in the BIL. The agency
expects that this P & A funding increase will lead to fulsome
implementation of the new longer-range planning structure created by
the BIL and robust public engagement efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ GHSA, MN DPS, and NV OTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Participation by Political Subdivisions (Local Expenditure
Requirement) (23 CFR 1300.13(b))
NHTSA is committed to ensuring that local political subdivisions
are an integral and valued part of State highway safety programs. Local
participants have unique knowledge of the specific safety problems and
a close connection to the communities that are ultimately served by the
programs funded by the highway safety grants. It is clear that Congress
shares this goal, as evidenced by the longstanding statutory
requirement that 40 percent of Section 402 grant funds apportioned to a
State be expended by the State's political subdivisions to carry out
local highway safety programs. See 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(C). This
statutory provision necessarily requires specific administrative effort
to ensure that political subdivisions receive their share of Federal
highway safety grant funds. The BIL amended the operation of this
provision by removing the requirement that the local highway safety
programs to be funded be approved by the Governor while retaining the
rest of the local expenditure requirement. In response, the NPRM
proposed a new framework for this statutory requirement.
GHSA expressed general support for reform of the local expenditure
requirement provided it resulted in less burden for States and
subrecipients. However, GHSA took issue with NHTSA's view that the BIL
amendment nullified one of the existing regulatory avenues for States
to demonstrate participation by political subdivisions, stating that
political subdivisions should still be allowed to request safety
expenditures on their behalf. NHTSA disagrees. The prior construction
of the requirement depended on a request by a political subdivision
that was connected to an approved local highway safety program. Without
that connection, there is no remaining link to demonstrate substantive
political subdivision participation. Moreover, the BIL's amendments
were not the only impetus for reconceptualizing the regulatory
implementation of the local expenditure requirement. As noted in the
NPRM, the proposed change was also informed by the new triennial
framework for highway safety programs, NHTSA's historical experience
administering this requirement, and comments received through the RFC
(addressed in the NPRM).
Several commenters \24\ stated that the new process would increase
burdens for States and localities by creating unnecessary
administrative requirements. Congress' imposition of a local
expenditure requirement necessarily adds procedural responsibilities
that States must address. In NHTSA's view, active participation in the
selection of projects by the citizenry in local jurisdictions is a
desirable objective that should be welcomed in efforts to deploy grants
to improving highway safety. NHTSA recognizes that this requirement
poses some challenges, but believes that the proposed procedures are
less burdensome than commenters fear. Below, we walk through these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ DE OHS, GHSA, MN DPS, and NV OTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States have three methods to demonstrate that expenditures qualify
as local expenditures: (1) direct expenditure by a political
subdivision; (2) expenditure on behalf of a subdivision where the
political subdivision is involved in the highway safety planning
process; (3) expenditure on behalf of a political subdivision where the
political subdivision directs expenditure through a documented request.
The first method--direct expenditures--requires no further
explanation because it is well-understood by States and political
subdivisions and unquestionably falls within the statutory requirement.
However, NHTSA has long recognized that in some cases, it may be
advantageous for political subdivisions to allow States to expend grant
funds on their behalf. This enables smaller political subdivisions that
may have fewer resources to direct grant funds toward their highway
safety needs and allows political subdivisions, in general, to benefit
from the economies of scale that a State-run program can provide. That
said, because the statute provides that funds must be expended by
political subdivisions, it is incumbent on NHTSA and the States to
ensure that there is adequate documentation that the political
subdivision was involved in identifying its traffic safety needs and
provided input into the implementation of the activity. Following are
examples of how a State can demonstrate that expenditures on behalf of
a political subdivision qualify as local expenditures.
Under the second method identified above, the State may provide
evidence that the political subdivision was involved in the State's
highway safety program planning processes. States can incorporate this
into existing processes, such as the public participation component of
the triennial HSP, the planning process to determine projects for
annual applications, or during the State's ongoing program planning
processes. For example, a representative of a local school board might
attend a virtual public engagement session for the State's triennial
HSP planning process and speak to the need for impaired driving
educational programs to be provided to students in that district. The
input by the school board at that time could simply consist of a broad
statement of need for an
[[Page 7794]]
educational program related to impaired driving in that district. If
the State wanted to determine whether other school districts had a
similar need, it could plan a specific virtual public engagement on the
need for educational programs in schools and invite all school
districts in the State or regions of the State to participate. The
State would enter into projects based on the identification of need and
implementation notes by the school board during the planning process.
Finally, to ensure that the activities implemented meet the needs of
the specific political subdivision, the State would obtain written
confirmation of acceptance by the school board for the project that the
State implements.
Under the third method described above, the State may demonstrate
that a political subdivision directed the expenditure of funds through
a documented request by the political subdivision for an activity to be
carried out on its behalf. As noted in the NPRM, the request need not
be a formal application, but must contain a description of the
political subdivision's problem identification and a description of how
or where the activity should be deployed within the political
subdivision. For example, a representative of a town's government could
submit a request to the SHSO via letter or email showing that the town
has increased traffic crashes associated with a large sporting event
held in the area and requesting increased enforcement to be conducted
by the State's highway patrol during those events. It might also
request that the State carry out an accompanying media campaign leading
up to and during those times. If the town government has trouble
identifying the data to document the problem, the State may offer
technical assistance.
The key in all situations where the State is relying on
expenditures on behalf of political subdivisions to qualify as a local
expenditure is the connection between the need identified and activity
requested by the political subdivision and the project that the State,
or another entity, carries out on the political subdivision's behalf.
Some comments suggest a misunderstanding of the fundamental premise
of the local expenditure requirement. NV OTS argued that it is too
difficult for the State to process and for NHTSA to verify
documentation that supports the required political subdivision
involvement, and argued that NHTSA should allow States to allocate
resources based on problem identification without the burden of proving
political subdivision involvement. MoDOT argued that NHTSA should allow
statewide programs with local benefit to qualify as local expenditure.
However, it was clearly the intent of Congress, sustained over decades,
that State highway safety programs ensure that Federal funds make their
way into the hands (and decision-making authority) of political
subdivisions. The new BIL requirements concerning public input only
serve to reaffirm and amplify this interest in greater participation in
decision-making, and NHTSA has a responsibility to ensure that this
statutory command for local participation is effectively carried out.
The statutory requirement is focused on the expenditure of funds by
political subdivisions, not merely on local benefit.
Several commenters \25\ argued that many localities do not have
sufficient resources to participate in the highway safety planning
process or to submit a detailed request for expenditures on their
behalf and worried that the new requirements would risk losing local
participants in State highway safety programs. The requirement for
local participation is not inherently burdensome for local
participants, and in any event, is an obligation imposed by statute.
The State is simply required to obtain identification of need and a
request for activities to be conducted, whether during the State's
highway safety planning process or as a direct request from the
political subdivision. A State could even solicit requests, and provide
a template for requests from political subdivisions. Under the BIL, as
before, States have a responsibility to ensure that political
subdivisions have the ability to participate in the highway safety
program. Whether it is at the planning level, via the meaningful public
engagement requirement, or through a request that the State execute a
project on behalf of a political subdivision, States have many
opportunities to work with localities to support their needs and meet
the local expenditure requirement. States can and should conduct
outreach and provide assistance to locals throughout the planning and
project development such processes, and NHTSA is available to assist
States in these efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ DE OHS, GHSA, MN DPS, and NV OTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHSA requested that NHTA allow groups of localities to request
expenditures on their collective behalf. MN DPS explained that in many
grants, multiple local agencies partner to conduct activities and that
it would be difficult for the State to have each participating
political subdivision participate in the triennial HSP planning
process. NHTSA notes that the proposed definition of political
subdivision adopted in this rule includes associations comprised of
representatives of political subdivisions acting in their official
capacities. Similarly, a group of localities may submit a joint request
for activities that meets the requirements of Sec. 1300.13(b)(3)(ii),
so long as it is signed by each locality or a duly authorized
representative of the group.
GHSA also noted that States have found more efficient ways of
reaching localities than the local expenditure mechanism by using
agreements with non-profit entities. NHTSA notes that a State may use
an agreement with a non-profit entity to carry out expenditures on
behalf of political subdivisions provided there is sufficient
documentation under Sec. 1300.13(b)(3) to demonstrate that the
political subdivisions were involved in identifying their traffic
safety needs and provided input into the implementation of the
activity.
Finally, in response to a comment to the RFC, the NPRM noted that
State-sponsored communication efforts tied to high visibility
enforcement (HVE) campaigns may never qualify as local expenditures.
Several commenters \26\ expressed strong disagreement with this
position, arguing that media campaigns are an integral part of high
visibility enforcement whose benefits extend to localities throughout
the State. The agency notes that it is possible for some costs under a
program to qualify as local expenditures while other costs do not.
Local law enforcement participation in HVE campaigns via enforcement
subawards qualifies as a direct expenditure by political subdivisions.
States, however, are directly responsible for carrying out the
associated statewide advertising campaigns, although they may do so via
a contract. Contracts for statewide HVE media campaigns, even if made
with political subdivision, do not qualify as local expenditures
because they are, by definition, an extension of State performance. See
2 CFR 200.331. NHTSA has added regulatory text to clarify that direct
expenditures for media efforts may be credited to political
subdivisions only if those expenditures are made under a subaward from
the State. Note that this restriction on media campaigns applies only
to statewide media efforts associated with HVE campaigns. States are
encouraged to enter into subawards with political subdivisions to carry
out targeted local media campaigns, and the
[[Page 7795]]
costs of such efforts would qualify as local expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ CT HSO, DE OHS, GHSA, and MN DPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Congressionally Specified Uses of Funds (23 CFR 1300.13(c-g))
The BIL amended the prohibition on funding automated traffic
enforcement systems. 23 U.S.C. 402(c)(4). Pamela Bertone urged that
laws related to speed camera placement be changed, and also recommended
using police officers as ``mobile cameras'' that write digital
citations instead of making a traffic stop. Congress and the States--
not NHTSA--have the authority to pass laws, and NHTSA lacks the
discretion to compel issuance of ``digital citations.'' NHTSA has
incorporated BIL language that specifically defines automated traffic
enforcement systems as a camera and specifically excludes devices
operated by law enforcement officers. See 23 U.S.C. 402(c)(4)(A) and 23
CFR 1300.3.
VI. National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data
Collection (Subpart C)
The Section 405 and Section 1906 grant programs provide incentive
grants that focus on National priority safety areas identified by
Congress. Under this heading, NHTSA responds to comments related to the
grants under Section 405--Occupant Protection, State Traffic Safety
Information System Improvements, Impaired Driving Countermeasures,
Distracted Driving, Motorcyclist Safety, Nonmotorized Safety,
Preventing Roadside Deaths, and Driver and Officer Safety Education, as
well as the Section 1906 grant--Racial Profiling Data Collection, as
applicable.
GHSA reiterated its request under the RFC that NHTSA create a
complete qualification checklist for each Section 405 grant program in
order to assist States in developing and providing the required
information, and clarified that this checklist could be provided as
guidance rather than as part of the final rule. The agency again
declines to adopt this request. As noted in the NPRM, appendix B is
formatted to serve as the application framework for States and provides
a list of application requirements at a high level similar to a
checklist. However, States remain responsible for reading and complying
with the relevant statutory and regulatory text, which contain the full
details of application criteria and qualification requirements. A
separate checklist could lead States to overlook important aspects of
application requirements.
A. General (23 CFR 1300.20)
The 5-State DOTs noted their support for the NPRM provisions that
ensure that any unawarded Section 405 grant funds are transferred to
the Section 402 program and encouraged NHTSA to retain those provisions
in the final rule. This is a statutory requirement and NHTSA retains
those provisions without change in this final rule.
B. Maintenance of Effort (23 CFR 1300.21, 1300.22 and 1300.23)
The 5-State DOTs acknowledged that NHTSA removed the Maintenance of
Effort (MOE) requirement in the NPRM and requested that NHTSA retain
that change. The BIL removed this requirement, and therefore NHTSA
retains that change.
C. Occupant Protection Grants (23 CFR 1300.21)
The BIL removed the maintenance of effort requirement that was in
effect under the FAST Act, extended the period of time between
assessments for the assessment criterion for lower seat belt use
states, and expanded the allowable uses of funds under this grant
program. In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed amendments to the existing
regulatory language to implement those changes and to update existing
requirements to align with the new triennial HSP and annual application
framework. NHTSA received no comments related to the occupant
protection grants and therefore proposes no further changes to the
regulatory text in this final rule.
D. State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants (23 CFR
1300.22)
The BIL streamlined the application requirements by allowing States
to submit a certification regarding the State traffic records
coordinating committee (TRCC) and the State traffic records strategic
plan and removing the FAST Act requirement that States have an
assessment of their highway safety data and traffic records system.
States must still submit documentation demonstrating a quantitative
improvement in relation to a significant data program attribute of a
core highway safety database. The BIL removed the maintenance of effort
requirement that was in effect under the FAST Act and expanded the
allowable uses of funds under this grant program.
AAMVA expressed general support for this grant program, including
the changes made by the BIL and proposed in the NPRM. AAMVA sought
clarification regarding how a State can quantify a previously
unavailable data element as a contributing element to a program that
previously did not use that data, and sought guidance on how to
incorporate new data to augment safety programs. First, NHTSA
encourages States to consider making improvements to the completeness
or integration of their traffic safety information systems and
specifically points States to two NHTSA publications that set forth
model minimum data elements in State traffic safety information
systems: the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) and the Model
Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE). While these publications do not
list every single data element that may be useful for a State highway
safety program, they provide an important set of data elements for the
crash and roadway data systems, respectively, and are a strong tool for
greater uniformity between and among State data systems. Second, NHTSA
confirms that States may add a new, not previously included, data
element to demonstrate the required quantitative improvement for their
Section 405(c) applications. Depending on the specific circumstances of
the improvement, a State may be able to demonstrate a baseline period
consisting of no (or ``zero'') data element paired with a performance
period showing either full or partial incorporation of that data
element into the system. These clarifications do not require amendments
to the regulatory text, so NHTSA makes no changes to the proposed
language.
E. Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants (23 CFR 1300.23)
The BIL made targeted amendments to the impaired driving
countermeasures grant programs, with the most significant changes
occurring to the interlock grant program, including allowing additional
means of compliance and a use of funds section that adds several
funding categories.
1. Qualification Criteria for Mid-Range and High-Range States (23 CFR
1300.23(e) and 23 CFR 1300.23(f))
In the NPRM, NHTSA explained the basic requirements for States to
receive an impaired driving countermeasures grant. The qualifying
criteria in the BIL remain focused on the State's average impaired
driving fatality rate and a determination of whether the State
qualifies as a low-, mid-, or high-range State. For low-range States,
the agency's proposal provides for the submission of assurances, while
States with higher fatality rates are required, at a minimum, to
establish an impaired driving task force and develop and submit a
statewide impaired driving plan. The agency continues the streamlined
aspects of the application process, noting that all that is required
[[Page 7796]]
is the submission of a single document--the statewide impaired driving
plan (in addition to any required assurances and certifications).
The agency explained in the NPRM that it had reviewed the prior
implementation of these terms and determined that some changes were
necessary to ensure that States with higher average impaired driving
fatality rates continue to take a sufficiently comprehensive approach.
For the impaired driving plan, required for mid- and high-range States,
the proposal specified that the plan should continue to be organized in
accordance with NHTSA's Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety
Programs No. 8--Impaired Driving.\27\ The proposal reinforced the
concept that overall program management and strategic direction are
features of the plan, as well as community engagement and involvement
in coalitions. Although States are free to address other related areas,
the impaired driving plan must consist of sections covering program
management and strategic planning; prevention, including community
engagement and coalitions; criminal justice systems; communications
programs; alcohol and other drug misuse, including screening,
treatment, assessment and rehabilitation; and program evaluation and
data. The agency received no comments on the proposed changes to the
impaired driving plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ One commenter provided an out-of-scope comment for this
rulemaking requesting that the agency revise Guideline No. 8 to be
more inclusive of behavioral health providers with more focus on the
treatment of alcohol and substance abuse. The agency notes the
information provided and will consider it as part of any effort to
revise Guideline No. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its proposal, the agency also revised the requirements
associated with the statewide impaired driving task force by
identifying additional key members, explaining that the fields
identified help ensure that the required impaired driving plans remain
comprehensive. In addition to key stakeholders from the State highway
safety office, State and local law enforcement, and representatives of
the criminal justice system, the agency's proposal added stakeholders
from the following groups to align with the components of the impaired
driving plans: public health, drug-impaired driving countermeasures
(such as a DRE coordinator), and communications and community
engagement.
In response to these proposed additions, the agency received
comments from GHSA, the Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers,
and Mitchell Berger. GHSA thought the inclusion of the additional
groups was ``arbitrary'' and identified other groups that could be
included as part of a comprehensive task force requirement. GHSA also
stated that the change to increase the task force membership was not
dictated by the statute and that the agency should show more deference
to States on task force membership. Generally, the agency's proposal
does defer to States on task force membership and the process by which
the task force creates the impaired driving plan. NHTSA's intent was to
identify broad stakeholder groups, without imposing other requirements
such as experience or background for individuals or even the process by
which the State identifies a particular individual to a group. In a few
areas, the proposal used terms specific to a particular skillset such
as an expert or specialist. Since our intent was to identify broad
groups only, these terms have been removed in the final rule. Sec.
1300.23(e)(1)(ii)(E) and Sec. 1300.23(e)(1)(ii)(F).
The agency also continues to defer to the States on the process
used to create the plan itself. However, as the agency explained, it
reviewed the plan and task force requirements under the BIL to make
sure they align with each other and keep pace with the evolving nature
of impaired driving problems across the nation. The agency is concerned
about the increasing number of impaired driving fatalities, including
those that are associated with a rise in drug impairment. When the task
force requirement was originally implemented nearly 10 years ago, the
agency focused mostly on ensuring that members of law enforcement and
the criminal justice system were represented. We understand now that
other disciplines must be part of the process. As the agency explained
in its proposal, the newly identified groups align with a specific part
of the required impaired driving plan--i.e., communications and
community engagement respond to the plan requirements on communications
and prevention; public health aligns with alcohol and drug misuse; and
drug impaired driving countermeasures align with alcohol and drug
misuse and criminal justice systems. Although the agency identified
specific groups as a minimum baseline, States are free to add other
groups.
The Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers requested that
their members be considered as a group for inclusion on task forces as
opposed to making a more general reference to ignition interlocks. With
the exception of the State highway safety office, the agency has not
identified specific groups or organizations for inclusion on task
forces under these requirements and we decline to take that approach
now. We believe it is more appropriate to maintain flexibility and
identify only broad stakeholder areas from which the State are free to
select individual members. In addition to the specific areas identified
in the requirement, as we have noted in the past, States may consider
adding individual members from areas representing 24-7 sobriety
programs, driver licensing, data and traffic records, ignition
interlock, treatment and rehabilitation, and alcohol beverage control.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, however, and States retain
significant discretion to determine the groups to be represented on the
required task force, subject only to ensuring that the specified areas
are covered.
Mitchell Berger urged that the task force requirements be revised
to include ``behavioral health providers,'' such as ``psychiatrists,
child and adolescent psychiatrists, addiction psychiatrists, addiction
medicine specialists, psychologists, licensed clinical social workers,
licensed professional counselors, and marriage and family therapists.''
He stated that this type of expertise is necessary to address the parts
of an impaired driving plan that focus on prevention, screening and
treatment. In general, NHTSA agrees that a State should consider adding
such expertise to its task force, provided the focus of the task force
remains on confronting the problems of impaired driving. In recognition
of the value of this and similar expertise, the NPRM includes public
health as one of the broad groups that must be represented in some way
on the task force, while stopping short of prescriptive language to
afford flexibility.
GHSA sought clarification about whether the HSP is the appropriate
reference for an Appendix B provision that covers high-range States and
their responsibility to submit updated information on an annual basis
in the HSP. We confirm that the proposal inadvertently retained the
reference to the HSP from the prior rule. The agency has revised the
reference to indicate that the updated information must be provided in
the annual grant application, consistent with the statutory
requirement.
2. Grants to States With Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Laws (23 CFR
1300.23(g))
The NPRM explained that the BIL continued a grant from prior
authorizations providing grant funds to
[[Page 7797]]
States that adopted and enforced mandatory alcohol-ignition interlock
laws for all individuals convicted of a DUI offense. In addition to the
existing qualification criterion, the BIL added two alternate methods
of compliance, allowing a State to receive a grant if it restricts
driving privileges of an individual convicted of driving under the
influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated until the
individual installs on each motor vehicle registered, owned, or leased
an ignition interlock for a period of not less than 180 days; or,
separately, if the State requires an individual that refuses a test to
determine the presence or concentration of an intoxicating substance to
install an interlock for a period of not less than 180 days. The latter
criterion also requires the State to have a compliance-based interlock
removal program that requires an individual convicted of a DUI to have
an interlock installed for not less than 180 days and to serve a
minimum period of interlock use without program violations before
removal of the interlock. 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6)(ii)-(iii). Due to some
confusion over preamble language in the NPRM, the Coalition of Ignition
Interlock Manufacturers and <a href="http://Responsibility.org">Responsibility.org</a> sought confirmation that
the agency's proposal implements three separate compliance methods for
the grant. NHTSA confirms that, consistent with the BIL, the NPRM
proposes three ways for a State to achieve compliance. In response to
these comments, the agency has reviewed its proposal and determined
that no changes to the regulatory text are necessary.
3. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.23(j))
As noted in the NPRM, the BIL specified the eligible uses of grant
funds and the agency's proposal included them without change. The
agency received two comments regarding the use of grant funds. The
Coalition of Ignition Interlock Manufacturers stated that ``impaired
driving enforcement is an activity the agency should aggressively
support and fund . . . [and] reject any attempts to redirect funding to
other activities.'' The eligible uses of these grant funds under BIL
are broader than impaired driving enforcement. States may use impaired
driving countermeasures grant funds for any of the purposes identified
in the statute. Consistent with its longstanding approach, the agency
declines to prioritize the uses and States may use grant funds for any
activities that meet applicable requirements.
In developing its proposal, the agency responded to a comment
regarding a new BIL provision that allowed grant funding to be used to
provide compensation for a law enforcement officer to carry out safety
grant activities while another law enforcement officer is temporarily
away receiving drug recognition expert training or participating as an
instructor in drug recognition expert training (the ``backfill''
provision). The comment sought expansion of the provision to compensate
officers who are not involved in grant eligible activities. As the
agency explained in the NPRM, the backfill provision allows police
agencies to send officers to training without sacrificing overall
levels of service, but the law expressly limits compensation to law
enforcement officers that carry out highway safety grant activities. 23
U.S.C. 405(d)(4)(B)(iii). <a href="http://Responsibility.org">Responsibility.org</a> opposed the approach of
limiting funding to compensating officers carrying out safety grant
activities. The commenter urged ``NHTSA to reassess the legislative
intent authorizing the use of grant funds to allow for backfills to
include both safety and non-safety grant activities.''
Where the statute is clear, as it is in this case, the agency does
not have authority to follow another approach or expand the statutory
language, which is what the comment asks the agency to do. Accordingly,
we decline to make this change in the final rule. In NHTSA's view,
Congress limited the backfill provision to traffic safety activities so
that NHTSA grant funds remain connected to their traffic safety
purpose. We note that the traffic safety activities that would allow
for compensation need not be limited to alcohol impaired driving
countermeasure activities under Section 405d; any NHTSA-funded traffic
safety activities may be eligible. However, because the statute hinges
the ability to backfill on whether the officer to be replaced is out
for DRE training or to serve as a DRE instructor, it is likely in the
majority of instances that backfill compensation would apply to
impaired driving activities.
F. Distracted Driving Grants (23 CFR 1300.24)
As noted in the NPRM, few States qualified for a distracted driving
grant under the statutory requirements of MAP-21 and the FAST Act. The
BIL resets the distracted driving incentive grant program by
significantly amending the statutory compliance criteria. The statute
establishes two types of distracted driving grants--distracted driving
awareness on the driver's license examination and distracted driving
laws. A State may qualify for both types of distracted driving grants.
As proposed in the NPRM, a State may qualify for a distracted driving
law with four different types of laws: (1) prohibition on texting while
driving; (2) prohibition on handheld phone use while driving; (3)
prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving; and (4) prohibition
on viewing a personal wireless communications device while driving.
In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received only two comments, both
from GHSA regarding technical corrections to Part 6 of appendix B,
under the heading ``Prohibition on Viewing Devices While Driving''. The
agency accepts those technical corrections, removing the apostrophe
from ``driver's'' and aligning the legal citation requirement to match
the statutory language to read ``prohibition on viewing devices while
driving''. In addition, NHTSA makes an additional technical correction
to Part 6 of appendix B--removing the requirement to identify
exemptions for State laws banning viewing devices while driving. This
correction aligns Part 6 of appendix B with the regulatory text in
Sec. 1300.24(d)(4)-(5).
G. Motorcyclist Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.25)
Under BIL, Congress amended the Motorcyclist Safety Grants by
adding a new criterion for a State to qualify for a grant if it has a
helmet law that requires the use of a helmet for each motorcycle rider
under the age of 18, and made a minor terminology change to ``crash''
from accident in two paragraphs. The NPRM proposed amendments to
incorporate these changes and to update references for the new
triennial framework. NHTSA received no comments related to the
motorcycle safety grants and therefore proposes no further changes to
the regulatory text in this final rule.
H. Nonmotorized Safety Grants (23 CFR 1300.26)
The BIL changed the nonmotorized safety grant program with a
revised definition of nonmotorized road user to include, not just
pedestrians and bicyclists, but also an individual using a nonmotorized
mode of transportation, including a bicycle, scooter, or personal
conveyance and an individual using a low-speed or low-horse powered
motorized vehicle, including an electric bicycle, electric scooter,
personal mobility assistance device, personal transporter, or all-
terrain vehicle. In addition, the BIL made significant amendments to
the use of funds for the
[[Page 7798]]
nonmotorized safety grant program, providing States with additional
flexibility to use behavioral safety countermeasures that will best
address the nonmotorized road user problem, both at the State level and
at the local level.
NHTSA received three comments regarding the nonmotorized safety
grants. GHSA and the League of American Bicyclists both commented on
the requirement to identify projects and subrecipients in the annual
grant application. In the NPRM, the agency proposed changing the self-
certification as the application for a nonmotorized safety grant that
existed under the previous regulation and requiring States to submit a
list of project(s) and subrecipient(s) information in the fiscal year
of the grant consistent with Sec. 1300.12(b)(2). NHTSA proposed this
change to align the application requirements with the other highway
safety grants. The League of American Bicyclists agreed with the
proposed change stating that this information would improve
understanding of funding uses, facilitate comparisons and best
practices, and align with other grant programs. GHSA agreed that the
proposal aligned with other application requirements, but requested
further justification for the additional burden this would impose on
States because there were no changes in the underlying statute.
NHTSA disagrees that there were no changes to the underlying
statute. Not only did the statute change the definition of nonmotorized
user, the basis for determining eligibility for a grant, but it also
significantly expanded the eligible use of grant funds for a
nonmotorized safety grant. Previously, the FAST Act limited the use of
funds to activities related to State traffic laws on pedestrian and
bicycle safety, such as law enforcement training, mobilizations and
campaigns, and public education and awareness programs. However, BIL's
broadened eligible use of funds provide States with the flexibility to
use behavioral safety countermeasures that will best address the
nonmotorized road user problem, both at the State level and at the
local level. In addition to aligning with the other grant application
requirements, project-level details allow NHTSA to evaluate whether the
submitted projects are sufficient to reasonably carry out the
countermeasure strategies in the State's triennial HSP and to check for
high-level regulatory compliance issues. This information is also be
needed to identify projects against later submitted vouchers.
Accordingly, NHTSA declines to amend the grant application requirement
set forth in the NPRM in response to GHSA's comment.
The League of American Bicyclists also commented that NHTSA should
publish or share information on the use of nonmotorized safety grant
funds for educational efforts on the interaction between the built
environment and behavior. The BIL requires NHTSA to establish a public
website that publishes each State's triennial HSP, performance targets,
and evaluation of a State's achievement of performance targets. See 23
U.S.C. 402(n)(1). The statute also requires that the public be provided
a means to search the public website for ``program areas and
expenditures''. See 23 U.S.C. 402(n)(2)(B)(III). Consistent with this
requirement, NHTSA expects to publish information about State
expenditures supporting the triennial highway safety plan, including
grant expenditures from Section 405 grants, on this public website. No
changes to the final rule are necessary in response to this comment.
I. Preventing Roadside Deaths Grants (23 CFR 1300.27)
The BIL created a new preventing roadside deaths grant program,
authorizing grants to prevent deaths and injuries from crashes
involving motor vehicles striking other vehicles and individuals
stopped at the roadside.
HAAS Alert expressed concern that countermeasure strategies for 23
U.S.C. 405(h) are not available in NHTSA's Countermeasures That Work
and noted that it is unclear when the guidance will be updated to
include a section related to preventing roadside deaths. It recommended
that NHTSA offer guidance on this program or offer amended or separate
guidance as soon as possible to guide State applicants. HAAS Alert also
noted that, due to the limited guidance on countermeasures, NHTSA
should minimize administrative burden to avoid constricting States and
permit maximum flexibility.
As with any new traffic safety program, proven and effective
countermeasures may be unavailable at the nascent stages. NHTSA
encourages States to use data-driven, innovative approaches, and will
support a State that seeks to implement a preventing roadside deaths
grant. NHTSA's traffic safety grant programs provide flexibility for
States to run programs that respond to their problem identification;
however, a State should design a new program that is based on the
provisions of the authorizing statute and implementing regulations for
effective execution and sustained success.
1. Definitions (23 CFR 1300.27(b))
The MN DPS recommended that NHTSA increase flexibility by using
broad language and terms for the preventing roadside deaths grants,
taking into consideration the continually evolving technology.
Similarly, GHSA recommended that the definition of ``digital alert
technology'' be further generalized to better reflect the statute
(which does not specify that alerts pertain to vehicles, that the
vehicles be stopped at the roadside, or the specific means by which a
motorist would receive an alert) and to anticipate future potential
technological developments. HAAS Alert suggested that ``digital alert
technology'' be expanded to include ``roadside professionals'' other
than first responders (State-owned, contracted, or funded fleets and
roadside workers like roadside assistance/towing providers,
construction and work zone crews, school busses, snowplows, etc.). HAAS
Alert added that these ``roadside professionals'' face the same risk as
first responders, and drivers must slow down and move over in nearly
every State.
NHTSA agrees that the definition of ``digital alert technology''
should not limit the technology to a specific type or be limited to
certain locations. By removing such potential limitations, States will
have the flexibility to develop innovative strategies to prevent
roadside deaths. Accordingly, NHTSA is amending the definition as
follows: ``Digital alert technology means a system that provides
electronic notification to drivers.'' Note that the agency removed the
term ``first responders'' since the statutory language specifically
addresses the capability of the technology to reach these road users.
We decline to expand the definition to include ``roadside
professionals'' as proposed by HAAS Alert, to avoid appearing to single
out particular categories of individuals.
GHSA commented that NHTSA does not need a definition of ``public
information campaign'' because it is a commonly understood term similar
to other terms NHTSA did not define, such as ``educating the public,''
``paid media,'' ``earned media,'' ``education campaign,''
``advertising,'' and ``public awareness.'' In contrast to GHSA, HAAS
Alert requested that NHTSA specifically clarify that the definition of
``public information campaign'' must include digital alert technology,
because HAAS Alert contends that the technology is itself a messaging
delivery mechanism for traffic safety issues.
[[Page 7799]]
After consideration of these comments, NHTSA retains the definition
of ``public information campaign'' as proposed in the NPRM. In our
experience, ``public information campaign'' is not a commonly
understood term and does not have a uniform meaning among States. NHTSA
believes that a definition will provide a baseline for States that will
facilitate the education of motorists when using funds pursuant to
paragraph 1300.27(e)(2). We also believe that HAAS Alert's proposal to
compel digital alert technology would limit States' broad flexibility
to educate the public as contemplated by Congress. If NHTSA required a
specific mechanism in the deployment of public information campaigns,
it would unduly limit options, curtail innovation, and potentially
reduce the reach of campaigns to educate the public.
2. Qualification Criteria (23 CFR 1300.27(c))
GHSA commented that the proposal's detailed requirements for the
plan that States would be required to submit are similar to the
requirements that States would have to meet under sections 1300.11(b)
1, 3 and 4. GHSA proposes that if a State establishes this information
and underpins the basis of a roadside safety program in its triennial
HSP, it should be able to refer back to the triennial HSP. GHSA
contends this is an approach similar to the approach for other Section
405 grant programs, with the project information included in the annual
grant application. The MN DPS echoed these comments.
NHTSA's proposed approach for a plan that includes minimum
requirements separate from the triennial HSP is consistent with the
statute and other 405 grant programs. To obtain a preventing roadside
deaths grant, a State must submit annually a plan that describes how
the State will use the grant funds. See 23 U.S.C. 405(h). Consistent
with the statute, NHTSA believes it is appropriate for a State to
provide minimum information in the annual grant application, consistent
with 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(3), to permit NHTSA to determine whether a State
will use the funds appropriately for the fiscal year of the grant.
Other 405 grants, such as Occupant Protection, State Traffic Safety
Information System Improvement, and Motorcyclist Safety also require
the submission of specific performance targets and countermeasure
strategies without reference to the triennial HSP. While we have made
some minor, non-substantive editorial changes, NHTSA adopts section
1300.27(c) as proposed.
3. Use of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1300.27(e))
NHTSA received three comments related to the use of preventing
roadside deaths grant funds from GHSA, the MN DPS and HAAS Alert.
GHSA recommended that NHTSA address whether 1300.27(e)(5) (funding
efforts to increase the visibility of stopped and disabled vehicles)
authorizes States to purchase equipment or safety items for public
distribution as defined in NHTSA's 2016 Guidance on Use of NHTSA
Highway Safety Grant Funds for Certain Purchases,\28\ such as vehicle
reflectivity gear. The MN DPS requested further clarification about the
allowable use of funds for all equipment purchases under the grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Publicly available on NHTSA's website at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/guidance-documents">https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/guidance-documents</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA declines to address authorization for purchase of specific
items of equipment under the preventing roadside deaths grant generally
and, specifically, under section 1300.27(e)(5) at this time. As
mentioned previously in this preamble, NHTSA recognizes that some
existing guidance may require modification or recission as a result of
changes to the statute and this rule. We intend to begin reviewing
existing guidance after this rulemaking is complete and will consider
the comments from GHSA and MN DPS at that time. Until that time,
however, we note that the 2016 guidance provides that States may
purchase items whose sole purpose is to improve highway safety,
provided those items are specifically identified in a project agreement
and based on problem ID. All equipment purchases must be necessary for
the purpose of a project that is based on problem identification,
performance measures and targets, and countermeasure strategies, and
must be consistent with the provisions in 2 CFR part 200 and 1201, and
23 CFR 1300.31.
HAAS Alert requested that NHTSA amend or remove three types of
eligible use (public education, enforcement efforts, and State records)
since they are already eligible for funding under other 402 and 405
programs. HAAS Alert speculates that States will allocate their funding
to already-existing efforts instead of innovative life-saving
equipment. HAAS Alert also commented that less emphasis should be given
to enforcement as a traffic safety countermeasure. NHTSA declines to
amend, deemphasize, or remove the three types of eligible uses
identified in 1300.27(e)(2)-(4), as those three uses are specifically
authorized by the statute.
J. Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants (23 CFR 1300.28)
The BIL created a new driver and officer safety education grant
program, authorizing incentive grants to States that enact and enforce
laws or adopt and implement programs that include certain information
on law enforcement practices during traffic stops in driver education
and driving safety courses or peace officer training programs, or that
have taken meaningful steps to do so. 23 U.S.C. 405(i).
The BIL provides that States may qualify for a driver and officer
safety education grant in one of two ways: (a) with a current law or
program that requires specified information to be provided in either
driver education and driving safety courses or peace officer training
programs (i.e., law or program State); or (b) for a period not to
exceed 5 years, by providing proof that the State is taking meaningful
steps towards establishing such a law or program (i.e., qualifying
State). 23 U.S.C. 405(i)(4). In the NPRM, NHTSA identified an incorrect
reference within the proposed regulatory text, and has amended Sec.
1300.28(g)(3) to provide that any funds remaining after the funding
limitation in Sec. 1300.28(g)(2) is applied to qualifying States will
be redistributed to States that qualify for a grant under paragraph (d)
(i.e., law or program States).
The League of American Bicyclists requested that NHTSA make
available to the public any documentation, including curricula, that
States submit as part of their application for a driver and officer
safety education grant so that the public can analyze the documents
provided. They also requested that NHTSA publish a report about the
documents submitted with applications for this grant. NHTSA will
evaluate whether to publish these materials. NHTSA does not intend to
publish a report on the documentation provided in State's application
materials at this time, but will keep this request in mind as the needs
of the program develop.
K. Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants (23 CFR 1300.29)
The BIL continues the intent of the Section 1906 grant program,
first established under Section 1906 of SAFETEA-LU, which is to
encourage States to enact and enforce laws that prohibit the use of
racial profiling in traffic law enforcement and to maintain and allow
public inspection of statistical information regarding the race and
ethnicity of the driver for each motor vehicle stop in the State. The
BIL revised several aspects of the Section 1906 Program, including by
removing
[[Page 7800]]
the limitation that a State may not receive a grant by providing
assurances for more than 2 fiscal years and amending the limitation on
the maximum amount of funds a State may receive under the grant.
The BIL also expanded the allowable uses of the grant funds awarded
under the Section 1906 Program by allowing States to expend grant funds
to develop and implement programs, public outreach, and training to
reduce the impact of traffic stops. The League of American Bicyclists
expressed appreciation for the expansion of allowable uses of funds and
requested that NHTSA provide additional guidance on how States should
differentiate between traffic stops and pretextual stops for the
purposes of this grant program. NHTSA never condones a pretextual stop
or racial profiling and, through the 1906 grant program, works to
encourage States to enact and enforce laws that prohibit racial
profiling in traffic law enforcement. When it comes to statistical
information regarding the race and ethnicity of the driver in motor
vehicle stops, the statute does not differentiate between stops that
are pretextual in nature and those that are not. Indeed, the purpose of
maintaining and allowing public inspection of data gathered about the
race and ethnicity of drivers in all motor vehicle traffic stops is a
step towards better understanding the problem that needs to be solved.
The League of American Bicyclists also suggested that the new,
dedicated technical assistance for the Section 1906 grant program be
conducted by a third-party, reasoning that it would provide more
insight into best practices, barriers to State use of grant funds, or
other issues. Annually, the BIL makes available up to 10 percent of
Section 1906 grant funds to provide technical assistance to States.
NHTSA is committed to providing technical assistance to States as they
work to implement traffic safety programs, including Section 1906, and
has many years of experience doing so. As part of this effort, NHTSA is
currently in the process of procuring contract support, which may
include assistance with information exchanges to discuss needs and
opportunities, a repository of best practices, and a suite of
assistance tools.
VII. Administration of Highway Safety Grants, Annual Reconciliation,
and Non-Compliance (Subparts D Through F)
A. Amendments to the Annual Grant Applications (23 CFR 1300.32)
The CT HSO reiterated its prior comment expressing concern about
the amount of time it currently takes NHTSA to approve amendments to
the HSP and asked that NHTSA consider changes to requirements for
amendments to the annual grant application, such as potentially setting
a funding threshold for requiring approval. NHTSA appreciates the
feedback and will continue to strive to respond promptly to States. We
acknowledge that the new requirement for States to submit project-level
information in the annual grant application and to update it throughout
the year will likely increase the number of amendments that States need
to make and that Regional offices need to approve. In order to reduce
this pressure, NHTSA has amended the regulatory language to provide
that States may amend certain project level information in the annual
grant applications (23 CFR 1300(b)(2)(iii-vii)) without the approval of
the Regional Administrator unless prior approval is otherwise required
under 2 CFR 200.407. Examples of amendments that require approval under
2 CFR 200.407 are specific costs related to equipment and changes to
the amount of Federal funds that are significant enough to change the
scope of the effort. The agency will provide further guidance.
With this change, States may amend the project agreement number,
subrecipient information, amount of Federal funds, eligible use of
funds, and whether the costs are P&A costs. We recognize that details
such as these may evolve as a State finalizes implementation of its
program, without affecting the fundamental nature and purpose of a
project. However, any such changes must be consistent with the project
name, purpose, and description, the Federal funding source(s), the
countermeasure strategy for programming funds identified for the
project, and, as noted earlier, not otherwise require approval under 2
CFR 200.407. NHTSA has also made edits to the title of this regulatory
provision and conforming amendments to 23 CFR 1300.23(e)(2) to reflect
that not all amendments require approval by the Regional Administrator.
B. Vouchers and Project Agreements (23 CFR 1300.33)
The NPRM proposed that, in addition to the information currently
required to be in a voucher, States also provide the eligible use(s) of
funds that the voucher covers. 23 CFR 1300.33(b)(3). This addition was
intended to ensure that NHTSA has the information necessary to
understand the costs that are being vouchered for prior to approving
reimbursements and to assist subsequent audits and reviews. GHSA
commented that this addition would create substantial administrative
burdens for States because they would need to update internal systems
in order to add this information. GHSA also noted that this information
is already required for the project information that States must
include, and update, in the annual grant application.
Vouchers allow both the State and NHTSA to identify details about
the expenditures for which a State is seeking reimbursement and to
ensure that the expenditures match the project information provided in
the State's annual grant application and meet Federal requirements. A
voucher is separate and distinct from the project list in the annual
grant application because it is tied to specific expenditures for which
the State seeks reimbursement at a point in time, and it serves as the
official request for reimbursement of expenses. Moreover, at the time
of voucher submission, a State must necessarily be deemed to know, with
certainty, the expenses for which it is submitting the voucher to the
Federal Government. NHTSA therefore does not agree that it would pose a
substantial burden for States to provide such information and declines
to remove ``eligible use(s)'' of funds from the required voucher
information. The information is necessary to ensure a proper audit
trail.
We also, as explained above, made a minor edit to the regulatory
text to reflect that not all amendments require approval by the
Regional Administrator. Finally, we made a technical amendment to
ensure consistent terminology related to the requirement for local
expenditure.
C. Annual Report (23 CFR 1300.35)
As explained in the NPRM, consistent with OMB rules that apply to
all Federal grants,\29\ NHTSA has long required each State to submit an
annual report providing performance and financial information on the
State's activities during the grant year. 23 CFR 1300.35. The BIL
codified the requirement and specified that the annual report must
include an assessment of the State's progress in achieving performance
targets identified in the triennial HSP and a description of the extent
to which that progress is aligned with the State's triennial HSP. The
BIL also provided that the State must describe any plans to adjust the
strategy for programming funds in order to achieve performance
[[Page 7801]]
targets, if applicable. See 23 U.S.C. 402(l)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Currently implemented at 2 CFR 200.328 and 200.329
(financial and performance reporting, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHSA, supported by the MoDOT, reiterated its prior comment
requesting that NHTSA limit the annual report to the components
explicitly required by the BIL. As NHTSA explained in the NPRM, the
annual report serves many purposes for NHTSA's grant program, including
implementing government-wide grant reporting rules issued by OMB. The
annual report not only satisfies the requirements of the BIL, but it
also serves as the State's required annual performance report,
consistent with 2 CFR 200.329. It also satisfies the government-wide
requirement that Federal award recipients must submit annual financial
reports. See 2 CFR 200.328.\30\ Finally, the contents of the annual
report foster transparency in the results achieved with taxpayer funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ NHTSA has an exemption that allows the agency to use its
own financial reporting, instead of commonly used and OMB-approved
Federal Financial Report. 2 CFR 1200.327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA sought comment in the NPRM on whether a mandatory template
for the annual report would be helpful for States. GHSA stated that the
development of annual reports is a longstanding practice that would not
benefit from a mandatory template. MN DPS argued that States should be
allowed to continue to use their existing templates for annual reports.
Based on these comments, NHTSA will not develop a mandatory template
for the annual report, but cautions that, while States are welcome to
use their own templates, an existing template based on the annual
report requirements under the FAST Act will not satisfy the
requirements for an annual report under this regulation and will need
to be updated. Similar to other grant program submissions, NHTSA
expects that the e-grant system that the agency plans to develop may
provide a uniform submission format for this requirement in the future.
GHSA, MN DPS, and MoDOT recommended removing the proposed
requirement that the annual report include a description of how the
projects funded under the prior year annual grant application
contributed to meeting the State's highway safety performance targets,
and instead only require reporting of overall statewide performance
progress. They argued that there is no legal basis to require a
project-by-project analysis and that to do so would be burdensome
because States have hundreds of individual project agreements. NHTSA
agrees that it is not necessary for States to report progress on each
project separately, but that the State's assessment must nonetheless
cover all activities (which may consist of a group of related projects)
implemented by the State during the grant year, including projects
carried out via subaward(s). We have amended the regulatory text to
clarify that the State's performance assessment must include an
analysis of all State activities. Sec. 1300.35(a)(1)(ii). While States
must assess the how all projects contributed to meeting the State's
performance targets, they may do so by grouping related projects
together into a single activity for assessment. Government-wide grant
rules require that subrecipients submit performance reports to the
State within 90 days of the end of the performance period. 2 CFR
200.329(c)(1). This deadline is intentionally set 30 days prior to the
120-day deadline for State performance reporting so that those results
may be incorporated into the overall analysis conducted by the State.
GHSA noted that the proposal requires States to provide an
explanation in both the annual grant application and the annual report
of how the State plans to adjust countermeasure strategies to achieve
performance targets if the State has not met or is not on track to meet
those targets. It acknowledged that this duplication is based on the
requirements of the BIL, but asked that NHTSA minimize duplication by
allowing for high-level strategic planning in the annual report, with
project-level plans in the annual grant application. As GHSA
acknowledged, the BIL requires States to explain plans to adjust
countermeasure strategies in both the annual report and annual grant
application. NHTSA does not have discretion to ignore either statutory
requirement. However, the two requirements are distinguishable as the
State is required to provide plans to adjust the countermeasure
strategy for programming funds in the annual report, but then to
explain how the countermeasure strategy for programming funds was
actually adjusted in the annual grant application. States have the
flexibility to change or adjust their plans in the time between the
annual report and the annual grant application, and the nature of their
reporting in each of these documents should reflect these nuances.
GHSA provided several arguments for condensing or streamlining the
activity report section of the annual report. GHSA requested that NHTSA
link the triennial HSP, annual grant applications, and annual reports
through implementation of an e-grants system, not through duplicative
reporting requirements. Both GHSA and MN DPS requested that NHTSA avoid
duplicative reporting requirements and noted that some of the
requirements in the activity report duplicate requirements in the
annual grant application or vouchers. As explained in more detail
below, NHTSA's intent in this rulemaking is to implement the BIL
requirements, which include a strong link between the triennial HSP,
annual grant applications, and annual reports, while avoiding
unnecessary duplication.
GHSA specifically pointed to duplicative project information
reporting that it argued is proposed in both 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2), 23
CFR 1300.33(b) and 23 CFR 1300.35(b)(1)(i), and requested that NHTSA
remove the requirement about project information from the annual report
and instead require States only to provide an explanation of the
projects that were not implemented in the year. NHTSA agrees that it is
unnecessary to separately collect project information in both the
annual grant application and the annual report, because States are
required to maintain updated project information in the annual grant
application throughout the course of the grant year. We have therefore
removed the proposed requirement for States to provide a description in
the annual report of the projects and activities funded and implemented
for each countermeasure strategy and will rely on the project
information in the annual grant application instead. In order to ensure
that the project information is complete, NHTSA has added a statement
that project information must be complete in the annual grant
application at the time the State submits the annual report. 23 CFR
1300.12(d).
GHSA also pointed to the activity report requirements about the
State's ongoing public engagement efforts proposed in the triennial HSP
at 23 CFR 1300.12(b)(2) and also proposed in the annual report at 23
CFR 1300.35(b)(2), and requested that NHTSA eliminate this section of
the annual report. GHSA stated that the BIL does not require States to
link their projects to their engagement activities. NHTSA declines to
eliminate the requirement to describe how public engagement efforts
informed projects conducted during the grant year. However, we have
made revisions to clarify that States need not describe how public
participation and engagement efforts informed every individual project.
Rather, States must describe the public participation and engagement
efforts conducted during the grant year and explain how those efforts
generally informed the projects
[[Page 7802]]
implemented under the State's countermeasure strategies. Sec.
1300.35(b)(2). As revised, the provisions in the triennial HSP and the
annual report are now distinguishable, as the State is required to
provide information on the public participation and engagement efforts
that the State plans to undertake and how it plans to incorporate the
comments and views received into State decision-making during the 3-
year period in the triennial HSP, but then to provide a description of
the public participation and engagement efforts actually carried out
and how those efforts actually informed the State's program during the
grant year in the annual report.
GHSA requested that NHTSA remove proposed activity report
requirements related to activities covered by the certifications and
assurances States provide with the annual grant application, arguing
that certifications are designed to be attestations without supporting
documentation. NHTSA disagrees with this view and declines to remove
activity report requirements. As stated in the preamble to the NPRM,
NHTSA implements several threshold grant requirements through
certifications and assurances up front, but it is appropriate and
important for grant oversight that NHTSA obtain year-end information to
ensure that States have met those assurances. While certifications and
assurances are front-end attestations at the time of application,
States must be ready and able to provide documentation during and after
performance that requirements have been met, in support of NHTSA's
grant oversight responsibilities. Upon review of the assurances,
however, the agency noted that one of the assurances reflects
discontinued practice. Accordingly, the agency has removed the
assurance that the State will submit information regarding mobilization
participation into the HVE Database. As discussed below, that
information is now reported by States in the annual report. See 23 CFR
1300.35(b)(4).
GHSA and MN DPS had several comments about the proposed evidence-
based enforcement program requirements. The agency's proposal requires
States to describe the evidence-based enforcement program activities in
the annual report, including discussion of the community collaboration
efforts and data collection and analysis required by the BIL. See 23
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E). GHSA, supported by MN DPS, recommended that the
annual report focus on discussing community collaboration activities
and efforts related to the BIL's requirement for evidence-based
enforcement program activities instead of discussing the State's
evidence-based enforcement program activities including community
collaboration and data collection and analysis. NHTSA believes that a
discussion of community collaboration and data collection and analysis
activities, without the added context of the full data-based
enforcement program, would not sufficiently capture the way in which
the community collaboration and data collection and analysis both
inform and grow out of the data-based enforcement program. GHSA argued
that requiring discussion of the data-based enforcement program is
duplicative of the project list in the annual grant application. NHTSA
disagrees. The annual report requirement provides narrative context to
the activities conducted and links those activities to the State's
responsibility to support enforcement programs that foster community
collaboration and data collection and analysis. Accordingly, NHTSA
makes no changes to the regulatory text proposed in the NPRM.
GHSA and MN DPS requested that NHTSA provide more information about
the substance of the proposed requirement that States support data-
based enforcement programs that foster effective community
collaboration. Because those comments were tied to the annual report
requirement to discuss these efforts, we address them here. GHSA argued
that the proposed requirement for evidence-based enforcement programs
should be limited to State program efforts, or at the countermeasure
strategy level, not to individual enforcement programs. GHSA noted that
this would be comparable to the public engagement requirements in the
triennial HSP. NHTSA disagrees. As noted in the NPRM, the proposed
requirement that States support enforcement programs that foster
community collaboration is separate, though related, to the proposed
requirement that State traffic safety programs result from meaningful
public participation and engagement. The proposed community
collaboration requirement is specifically placed on enforcement
programs, not merely on the State's highway safety program. While
States are not required to ensure that every single enforcement agency
that receives a subaward undertakes community collaboration efforts
related to the grant, States must discuss their efforts to facilitate
community collaboration by enforcement agencies and discuss community
collaboration efforts that do take place. NHTSA makes no changes to the
NPRM in response to these comments.
GHSA and MN DPS requested that NHTSA afford States flexibility in
the manner in which they carry out the required community collaboration
efforts. At the same time, MN DPS sought further guidance on what NHTSA
expects to see in terms of community collaboration activities. While
NHTSA supports flexibility and the regulatory language does not
prescribe specific activities to meet the evidence-based enforcement
program requirements, we note that States must meet the statutory
requirement. The BIL requires that the State highway safety program
must support data-driven traffic safety enforcement programs that
foster effective community collaboration to increase public safety. See
23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E)(i). As written, this requires the State to
support individual enforcement programs that foster effective community
collaboration. NHTSA expects States to, at a minimum, also discuss
actions that enforcement programs in the State have taken to facilitate
community collaboration during the grant year. This provision is
essential to ensuring that highway safety programs carried out by law
enforcement agencies are equitable and community-based. While there
certainly are actions that States can undertake or sponsor to
facilitate community collaboration in enforcement programs within the
State, an annual report discussion focused only on State-level programs
or countermeasure strategies would be insufficient to ensure that
States are meeting the requirement to facilitate evidence-based
enforcement programs that foster community collaboration throughout the
State.
Finally, GHSA requested that NHTSA clarify what information States
are expected to have on file related to community collaboration during
NHTSA oversight activities. While the specific documentation may vary
depending on specific circumstances, the documentation on file must
demonstrate that the State is satisfying the statutory requirement and
must support the narrative description provided in the State's annual
reports.
VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's
[[Page 7803]]
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not
reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. This
action establishes revised uniform procedures implementing State
highway safety grant programs, as a result of enactment of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, also referred to as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL). While this final rule would
establish minimum criteria for highway safety grants, most of the
criteria are based on statute. NHTSA has no discretion over the grant
amounts, and its implementation authority is limited and non-
controversial. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined to be not
``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management
and Budget.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed
and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to
certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed
rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amended the RFA to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying
that an action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This final rule establishes revised uniform procedures implementing
State highway safety grant programs, as a result of enactment of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, also referred to as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL). Under these grant programs,
States will receive funds if they meet the application and
qualification requirements. These grant programs will affect only State
governments, which are not considered to be small entities as that term
is defined by the RFA. Therefore, I certify that this action will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and
find that the preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
unnecessary.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires NHTSA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999). ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, an agency
may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute
unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the
direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments or the
agency consults with State and local governments in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. An agency also may not issue a
regulation with Federalism implications that preempts a State law
without consulting with State and local officials.
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132. First,
we note that the regulation implementing these grant programs is
required by statute. Moreover, the agency has determined that this
final rule would not have sufficient Federalism implications as defined
in the order to warrant formal consultation with State and local
officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
Nevertheless, NHTSA notes that it has consulted with States
representatives through public meetings, continues to engage with State
representatives regarding general implementation of the BIL, including
these grant programs, and expects to continue these informal dialogues.
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996)),
``Civil Justice Reform,'' the agency has considered whether this rule
would have any retroactive effect. I conclude that it would not have
any retroactive or preemptive effect, and judicial review of it may be
obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a
petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. There are 5
information collections associated with this final rule. NHTSA sought
public comment on these information collections in the NPRM that was
published on September 15, 2022 and submitted an information collection
request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
As OMB deferred review while NHTSA reviewed the comments to the
NPRM, NHTSA is resubmitting the ICR for this final rule. NHTSA's ICR
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected
burden. As described in the NPRM, the ICR consists of the following
information collections: (1) the submission of a triennial Highway
Safety Plan (triennial HSP); (2) the submission of an annual grant
application; (3) the submission of an annual report; (4) responses
provided by States who wish to apply for Section 405(b) occupant
protection grant funds using the occupant protection grant assessment
criterion; and (5) responses provided by States who wish to apply for
Section 405(d) impaired driving grant funds using the impaired driving
grant assessment criterion.
NHTSA did not receive any comments in response to the ICR, but
received several comments to the rulemaking docket that pertain to the
information collections. Those comments are discussed in full in the
preamble to this final rule, above. As we explained in the preamble,
NHTSA strove to minimize duplication of submissions and to reduce
administrative burdens throughout the rulemaking, consistent with legal
requirements. For the triennial HSP, NHTSA amended the regulatory text
to require States to provide a narrative description of engagement
opportunities conducted, rather than provide an exhaustive list (Sec.
1300.11(b)(2)(ii)) and added two additional resources that States can
cite to without further need to justify use of a countermeasure
strategy; (Sec. 1300.11(b)(4)(ii)(A)); and clarified the level of
detail required in the triennial HSP performance report (Sec.
1300.11(b)(5)). For the annual grant application, NHTSA amended the
provision relating to amendments to the annual grant application to
provide that some amendments do not require approval by the Regional
Administrator. Sec. 1300.32. For the annual report,
[[Page 7804]]
NHTSA amended the regulatory text to clarify that the performance
report must describe how activities, rather than individual projects,
contributed to meeting performance targets (Sec. 1300.35(a)(1)(ii)),
and removed the requirement for States to provide a description of
projects funded during the grant year in the annual report (Sec.
1300.35(b)). NHTSA made no changes related to the occupant protection
grant assessment or impaired driving grant assessment.
NHTSA is submitting supporting statements to OMB explaining how the
final rule's collections of information respond to the comments
received from the public. None of the changes made in this final rule
affect the estimates in the NPRM of these requirements.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million
annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). This
rulemaking would not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because
the resulting annual State expenditures would not exceed the minimum
threshold. The program is voluntary and States that choose to apply and
qualify would receive grant funds.
G. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action for the
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has
determined that this rulemaking would not have a significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
H. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and is likely to have a
significantly adverse effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use
of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.
This rulemaking is not likely to have a significantly adverse effect on
the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy. This rulemaking has
not been designated as a significant energy action. Accordingly, this
rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13211.
K. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribes)
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking under Executive Order
13175, and has determined that today's action would not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments, and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not required.
L. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The BIL requires NHTSA to award highway safety
grants pursuant to rulemaking. (Section 24101(d), BIL; and 23 U.S.C.
406). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in or about April and October of each year. You may use the RIN
contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this
action in the Unified Agenda.
M. Privacy Act
Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR19477) or you may visit <a href="http://dms.dot.gov">http://dms.dot.gov</a>.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1300
Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Administrative
practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Motor vehicles--
motorcycles.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of 23
U.S.C. 401 et seq., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
amends 23 CFR chapter III by revising part 1300 to read as follows:
PART 1300--UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANT
PROGRAMS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
1300.1 Purpose.
1300.2 [Reserved]
1300.3 Definitions.
1300.4 State highway safety agency--authority and functions.
1300.5 Due dates--interpretation.
Subpart B--Triennial Highway Safety Plan and Annual Grant Application
1300.10 General.
1300.11 Triennial Highway Safety Plan.
1300.12 Annual grant application.
1300.13 Special funding conditions for Section 402 grants.
1300.14 [Reserved]
1300.15 Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.
Subpart C--National Priority Safety Program and Racial Profiling Data
Collection Grants
1300.20 General.
1300.21 Occupant Protection Grants.
1300.22 State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants.
1300.23 Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants.
1300.24 Distracted Driving Grants.
1300.25 Motorcyclist Safety Grants.
1300.26 Nonmotorized Safety Grants.
1300.27 Preventing Roadside Deaths Grants.
1300.28 Driver and Officer Safety Education Grants.
1300.29 Racial Profiling Data Collection Grants.
Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants
1300.30 General.
1300.31 Equipment.
1300.32 Amendments to annual grant applications.
1300.33 Vouchers and project agreements.
1300.34 Program income.
1300.35 Annual report.
1300.36 Appeals of written decision by the Regional Administrator.
Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation
1300.40 Expiration of the annual grant application.
1300.41 Disposition of unexpended balances.
1300.42 Post-grant adjustments.
1300.43 Continuing requirements.
Subpart F--Non-Compliance
1300.50 General.
1300.51 Sanctions--reduction of apportionment.
1300.52 Sanctions--risk assessment and non-compliance.
Appendix A to Part 1300--Certifications and Assurances for Highway
Safety Grants.
Appendix B to Part 1300--Application requirements for Section 405
and Section 1906 Grants.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; 23 U.S.C. 405; Sec. 1906, Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1468, as amended by Sec. 25024, Pub. L. 117-58,
135 Stat. 879; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 1300.1 Purpose.
This part establishes uniform procedures for State highway safety
programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and Sec. 1906, Public Law
109-59, as amended by section 25024, Public Law 117-58.
[[Page 7805]]
Sec. 1300.2 [Reserved]
Sec. 1300.3 Definitions.
As used in this part--
Annual grant application means the document that the State submits
each fiscal year as its application for highway safety grants (and
amends as necessary), which provides any necessary updates to the
State's most recent triennial HSP, identifies all projects the State
will implement during the fiscal year to achieve its highway safety
performance targets, describes how the State has adjusted its
countermeasure strategy for programming funds based on the annual
report, and includes the application for grants under Sections 405 and
1906.
Annual Report File (ARF) means FARS data that are published
annually, but prior to final FARS data.
Automated traffic enforcement system (ATES) means any camera that
captures an image of a vehicle for the purposes only of red light and
speed enforcement, and does not include hand held radar and other
devices operated by law enforcement officers to make an on-the-scene
traffic stop, issue a traffic citation, or other enforcement action at
the time of the violation.
Carry-forward funds means those funds that a State has not expended
on projects in the fiscal year in which they were apportioned or
allocated, that are within the period of availability, and that are
being brought forward and made available for expenditure in a
subsequent fiscal year.
Community means populations sharing a particular characteristic or
geographic location.
Contract authority means the statutory language that authorizes an
agency to incur an obligation without the need for a prior
appropriation or further action from Congress and which, when
exercised, creates a binding obligation on the United States for which
Congress must make subsequent liquidating appropriations.
Countermeasure strategy for programming funds (or countermeasure
strategy) means a proven effective or innovative countermeasure or
group of countermeasures along with information on how the State plans
to implement those countermeasures (i.e., funding amounts, subrecipient
types, location or community information) that the State proposes to be
implemented with grant funds under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906
to address identified problems and meet performance targets.
Data-driven means informed by a systematic review and analysis of
quality data sources when making decisions related to planning, target
establishment, resource allocation and implementation.
Evidence-based means based on approaches that are proven effective
with consistent results when making decisions related to countermeasure
strategies and projects.
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) means the nationwide
census providing yearly public data regarding fatal injuries suffered
in motor vehicle traffic crashes, as published by NHTSA.
Final FARS means the FARS data that replace the annual report file
and contain additional cases or updates that became available after the
annual report file was released.
Fiscal year means the Federal fiscal year, consisting of the 12
months beginning each October 1 and ending the following September 30.
Governor means the Governor of any of the fifty States, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Mayor of the District
of Columbia, or, for the application of this part to Indian Country as
provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), the Secretary of the Interior.
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety (GR) means the
official appointed by the Governor to implement the State's highway
safety program or, for the application of this part to Indian Country
as provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), an official of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs or other Department of Interior official who is duly designated
by the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Indian highway safety
program.
Highway safety program means the planning, strategies and
performance measures, and the general oversight and management of
highway safety strategies and projects by the State either directly or
through subrecipients to address highway safety problems in the State,
as defined in the triennial Highway Safety Plan and the annual grant
application, including any amendments.
Indian country means all land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States,
notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and including rights-of-way
running through the reservation; all dependent Indian communities
within the borders of the United States, whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof and whether within or without
the limits of a State; and all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to
which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running
through such allotments.
NHTSA means the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Performance measure means a metric that is used to establish
targets and to assess progress toward meeting the established targets.
Performance target means a quantifiable level of performance or a
goal, expressed as a value, to be achieved through implementation of
countermeasure strategies within a specified time period.
Political subdivision of a State means a separate legal entity of a
State that usually has specific governmental functions, and includes
Indian tribal governments. Political subdivision includes, but is not
limited to, local governments and any agencies or instrumentalities
thereof, school districts, intrastate districts, associations comprised
of representatives from political subdivisions acting in their official
capacities (including State or regional conferences of mayors or
associations of chiefs of police), local court systems, and any other
regional or interstate government entity.
Problem identification means the data collection and analysis
process for identifying areas of the State, types of crashes, types of
populations (e.g., high-risk populations), related data systems or
other conditions that present specific highway safety challenges within
a specific program area.
Program area means any of the national priority safety program
areas identified in 23 U.S.C. 405 or a program area identified by a
State in the triennial Highway Safety Plan as encompassing a major
highway safety or related data problem in the State and for which
documented effective countermeasure strategies have been identified or
projected by analysis to be effective.
Project (or funded project) means a discrete effort involving
identified subrecipients or contractors to be funded, in whole or in
part, with grant funds under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906 and
that addresses countermeasure strategies identified in the triennial
Highway Safety Plan.
Project agreement means a written agreement at the State level or
between the State and a subrecipient or contractor under which the
State agrees to perform a project or to provide Federal funds in
exchange for the subrecipient's or contractor's performance of a
project that supports the highway safety program.
Project agreement number means a unique State-generated identifier
assigned to each project agreement.
Public road means any road under the jurisdiction of and maintained
by a
[[Page 7806]]
public authority and open to public travel.
Section 402 means section 402 of title 23 of the United States
Code.
Sectio
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on February 6, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.