Rule2026-11770
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
June 11, 2026
Effective
July 13, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
This action finalizes proposed revisions to certain documentation requirements relating to public participation and engagement in the Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35391-35397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11770]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
23 CFR Part 1300
[Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0061]
RIN 2127-AM73
Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (Department or DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes proposed revisions to certain
documentation requirements relating to public participation and
engagement in the Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant
Programs.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 13, 2026.
ADDRESSES: This document may be viewed online through the Federal
eRulemaking portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> using the RIN number listed
above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the
website. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by
accessing the Office of the Federal Register's website at:
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a> and the U.S. Government Publishing Office's
website at: <a href="http://www.GovInfo.gov">www.GovInfo.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Program issues: Barbara Sauers, Associate Administrator, Regional
Operations and Program Delivery, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e7c7f6c7c7f6c7f306d7f6b7b6c6d5e7a716a30797168"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05676477676477642b76647060777645616a712b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.
Legal issues: Megan Brown, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c2afa7a5a3aceca0b0adb5ac82a6adb6eca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="19747c7e7877377b6b766e77597d766d377e766f">[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. Discussion
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
I. Background
In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),\1\ Congress
created a new requirement that State highway safety programs funded by
NHTSA highway safety grants ``result[] from meaningful public
participation and engagement from affected communities, particularly
those most significantly impacted by traffic crashes resulting in
injuries and fatalities.'' \2\ NHTSA implemented the public
participation and engagement (PP&E) requirement in the highway safety
grant program through a final rule published on February 6, 2023.\3\
The final rule was the result of extensive efforts to facilitate
opportunities for States and other stakeholders to provide input
throughout the rulemaking process, including a published request for
comments and three public hearings in addition to NHTSA's solicitation
of comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
\2\ 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B).
\3\ 88 FR 7780 (Feb. 6, 2023).
\4\ Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs,
Notification of public meetings; request for comments (RFC), 87 FR
23780 (Apr. 21, 2022); Notice of proposed rulemaking, 87 FR 56756
(Sept. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To support State implementation of PP&E requirements, NHTSA
provided extensive training and technical assistance. States began
implementing the PP&E requirements in Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 and
have now completed these requirements for nearly the full triennial
grant cycle.
Public participation and engagement are statutory conditions of the
use of NHTSA grant funds and remain a priority for DOT in the overall
implementation of State highway safety programs.<SUP>5 6</SUP> These
requirements serve as an important activity in ensuring meaningful
opportunities for communities and community members to be engaged in
the planning and development of these activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See DOT Order 2100.7, Ensuring Reliance Upon Sound Economic
Analysis in Department of Transportation Policies, Programs, and
Activities, 4 (Jan. 29, 2025), section 6(e)(3), available at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/mission/ensuring-reliance-upon-sound-economic-analysis-department-transportation-policies-programs">https://www.transportation.gov/mission/ensuring-reliance-upon-sound-economic-analysis-department-transportation-policies-programs</a>
(accessed April 17, 2026).
\6\ 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of feedback received from State recipients and the
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), and NHTSA's own experience
implementing the current requirement, NHTSA recognized the need to
adjust
[[Page 35392]]
the PP&E documentation requirements to eliminate unnecessary burdens
and facilitate compliance for State highway safety offices. After
consideration of this input, NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on September 19, 2025.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 90 FR 45164 (Sept. 19, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed eliminating the PP&E documentation
section in the triennial Highway Safety Plan (HSP) (23 CFR
1300.11(b)(2)) while maintaining the PP&E reporting requirement in the
Annual Report. In the Annual Report, States would demonstrate
compliance with the statutory PP&E requirement through ``a narrative
description of the public participation and engagement efforts carried
out and how those efforts informed projects implemented under
countermeasure strategies during the grant year.'' 23 CFR
1300.35(b)(2). With this proposal, NHTSA sought to lessen
administrative burden and to increase flexibility for State grant
programs while still allowing NHTSA to fulfill its duty to ensure that
States satisfy the statutory requirement.
NHTSA also proposed minor related amendments to three parts of the
regulatory text that reference the PP&E section of the triennial HSP.
Specifically, NHTSA proposed to remove the term ``public participation
and engagement'' from the definition of triennial Highway Safety Plan
(23 CFR 1300.3) and from the clarifying clause in 23 CFR
1300.11(b)(1)(i) that lists the triennial HSP sections. In addition,
NHTSA proposed to delete the reference to 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(2) in the
local expenditure section at 23 CFR 1300.13(b)(3)(i) and to rewrite the
clause to reference PP&E activities more generally as an example of a
way that a State may solicit political subdivision involvement during
the highway safety planning process.
III. Public Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to the NPRM, the following groups submitted comments to
the public docket on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>: Arizona Game and Fish
Department (AZGFD); \8\ Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Colorado
Highway Safety Office (CO HSO); Connecticut Department of
Transportation (CTDOT); the Departments of Transportation of Idaho,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, jointly (Joint State
DOTs); Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); GHSA; Iowa
Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau (IA GTSB); Maine Bureau of Highway
Safety (MeBHS); Michael Ravnitzky; \9\ Minnesota Department of Public
Safety Office of Traffic Safety (MN DPS OTS); Nevada Office of Traffic
Safety (NV OTS); North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program (NC
GHSP); Oregon Transportation Safety Office (OR TSO); South Carolina
Office of Highway Safety and Justice Programs (SC OHSJP); Tennessee
Highway Safety Office (TN HSO); Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT); Virginia Highway Safety Office (VA HSO); Washington Traffic
Safety Commission (WTSC); and two anonymous commenters. MeBHS expressed
general support for the comments submitted by GHSA, IA GTSB, NV OTS,
and the Joint State DOTs. NHTSA appreciates the input of all commenters
and addresses their comments in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The AZGFD also submitted a second clarifying comment to the
docket after the comment period closed. NHTSA considered both
comments submitted by AZGFD in this final rule.
\9\ Among other comments discussed in more detail below, Michael
Ravnitzky also requested that NHTSA clarify that the planning
processes identified in 23 CFR 1300.13(b)(3)(i) for a State to
demonstrate local involvement in the State's highway safety program
planning processes for purposes of supporting expenditures on behalf
of a political subdivision are intended as examples and are not
mandatory. Though amending substantive local expenditure
requirements are outside the scope of this rulemaking, NHTSA
confirms that processes identified in the cited regulation are
intended as examples, and are neither mandatory nor exclusive
planning processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters submitted general input about public
participation and engagement that cannot be tied to a single regulatory
provision. Those comments are discussed below.
A. Support for Public Participation and Engagement
Several commenters \10\ expressed strong support for PP&E in
highway safety programs and described longstanding State efforts to
ensure public engagement in their programs. NHTSA appreciates the
shared commitment to PP&E and recognizes the valuable work that States
have already put into incorporating PP&E and community feedback into
their programs. We believe the input received by States through PP&E
yields better informed and more effective programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ FDOT, MN DPS OTS, NC GHSP, OR TSO, and TxDOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AZGFD emphasized the importance of PP&E in supporting
coordination between State wildlife agencies and highway safety offices
to address highway safety concerns related to wildlife-vehicle
collisions and requested that NHTSA require SHSOs to coordinate with
affected stakeholders like the game and fish department. NHTSA
encourages SHSOs to work with all relevant State partners, including
game and fish departments. However, intra-State government
coordination, while valuable, is not public participation and is
therefore outside the scope of this rulemaking. That said, NHTSA notes
that States may, and many do, work with other partners within the State
to leverage their expertise and networks to reach broader segments of
the public.
The IA GTSB commented that PP&E activities are challenging for
SHSOs to facilitate and are usually carried out on the local level by
municipalities and counties. However, the statute requires that the
State highway safety program result from meaningful public
participation and engagement from affected communities. 23 U.S.C.
402(b)(1)(B). NHTSA recognizes that local jurisdictions frequently
carry out engagement specific to their communities and that States may
benefit from the knowledge locals can share with the SHSO. In this
regard, we emphasize that States can use Section 402 funds to enter
into project agreements with local jurisdictions that include PP&E
components that the locals carry out, and the information collected and
the outcomes produced are used to inform the State's highway safety
program.
B. Administrative Burden
Seven commenters \11\ noted that they have experienced an increase
in the administrative burden associated with the funding that States
receive from NHTSA over the past several years. AZGFD recognized the
benefits of reducing administrative burden and stated its support for
the steps taken by the proposal to reduce administrative burden. The
Joint State DOTs and BIA agreed that removal of the PP&E requirements
from the triennial HSP is a good starting point and encouraged NHTSA to
continue efforts to reduce administrative burden. NHTSA agrees with the
comments: reduction of administrative burden and general streamlining
of requirements in a way that allows NHTSA to provide appropriate
stewardship over taxpayer dollars remain major priorities. This
rulemaking seeks to reduce burden associated with public participation
and engagement requirements, and NHTSA is committed to working with
stakeholders to seek other opportunities for reducing administrative
burden
[[Page 35393]]
throughout all aspects of its grant programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GHSA, IA GTSB, MN DPS OTS, NV OTS, SC OHSJP, TN HSO, and
TxDOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An anonymous commenter noted that the public participation
requirements in the 2023 final rule were well-intended, but led to
excessive paperwork that substituted formality for substance.
Similarly, the CO HSO commented that it believes NHTSA's original
implementation of the PP&E requirements focused too much on process
oversight instead of achieving engagement outcomes. Nine other
commenters \12\ agreed and added that States need to be able to design
and conduct data-driven PP&E appropriate for their unique communities.
Those nine commenters and an anonymous citizen noted the importance of
maintaining flexibility for States. SC OHSJP stated that it felt that
PP&E requirements limited its flexibility to adjust its highway safety
program, stating that it felt constrained to follow only the PP&E plan
laid out in the triennial HSP and that it was unable to implement
feedback gained from engagement with communities not identified in the
triennial HSP. NHTSA regrets this perception but respectfully disagrees
with the assertion; States can update their PP&E plans based on
feedback or changing facts and are not limited to conducting only
engagement that fell within the triennial HSP plan. NHTSA confirms that
States may always amend their triennial HSP--PP&E or otherwise--to
adapt to changing data or other conditions, as provided in 23 CFR
1300.32. Further, NHTSA clarifies that States retain the authority to
make management and programmatic decisions without conducting public
engagement opportunities for each decision they make and are not
required to implement every request from a participating community.
Public participation and engagement should inform, not dictate, State
highway safety programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ CN DOT, GHSA, MN DPS OTS, NV OTS, OR TSO, SC OHSJP, TN HSO,
TxDOT, and VA HSO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Prior Year Implementation Problems
Several States \13\ submitted comments detailing specific problems
they experienced during the three years that NHTSA and the States have
been implementing IIJA's PP&E requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CTDOT, CO HSO, OR TSO, and SC OHSJP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR TSO explained that the rapid turnaround time between publication
of the 2023 final rule and submission of the FY24 grant application
required the State to redirect its PP&E efforts quickly to meet the
requirement. OR TSO also stated that updated rules under IIJA added to
the administrative burden that the State faced and caused the State not
to meet a separate statutory provision requiring that at least 40
percent of Section 402 grant funds be expended by political
subdivisions.\14\ NHTSA recognizes that IIJA transformed many aspects
of the grant program and appreciates the effort that Oregon and all
States put into implementing the new IIJA requirements for the first
triennial cycle. As the States and NHTSA enter into the second
triennial cycle under IIJA, the agency anticipates that the States'
efforts in the first triennial cycle will make the second cycle easier.
NHTSA will also continue to provide States with guidance and technical
assistance as needed or upon request by States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO HSO expressed concerns about allowable uses of funds to pay for
PP&E activities. Allowable use of funds in the NHTSA highway safety
grant program is based on the programmatic scope laid out in Section
402 and the government-wide cost principles set out by the Office of
Management and Budget,\15\ and is therefore outside the scope of this
rulemaking. However, NHTSA issued guidance on June 17, 2025 \16\ to
provide clarification on the types of funds that States may use for
PP&E activities and encourages States to reach out to their Regional
Office with any specific use of funds questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 2 CFR part 200, subpart E.
\16\ Paying for Public Participation and Engagement Activities
with Program Funds (June 17, 2025), available at <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2025-07/public-participation-engagement-funding-guidance-2025_0.pdf">https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2025-07/public-participation-engagement-funding-guidance-2025_0.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTDOT stated that it felt an expectation to have a highway safety
office staff member attend every PP&E event, which was unnecessarily
burdensome. NHTSA would like to clarify that attendance by a SHSO
employee is not required for every PP&E event. A State may enter into
agreements with subrecipients for the subrecipient (or even another
State agency) to carry out some PP&E efforts on behalf of the State,
provided the State provides direction on the implementation of the PP&E
(for example, the State could identify the affected communities or
specific traffic safety problems where the PP&E should be directed) and
the subrecipient conducts engagement with the affected community and
conveys feedback from the effort to the State to inform the State's
program. In its June 17, 2025 guidance,\17\ NHTSA clarified that States
may use Section 402 program funds for PP&E efforts. The information
makes clear that a State is able to use NHTSA grant funds to pay
subrecipients that conduct PP&E efforts for the State's highway safety
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion
A. Triennial Highway Safety Plan
All commenters supported the agency's proposal to eliminate the
PP&E requirements from the triennial HSP. Fifteen commenters \18\
expressed strong support for NHTSA's proposal to remove PP&E
requirements from the triennial HSP and affirmed that the removal would
reduce administrative burden. AZGFD argued that the existing PP&E
requirements provide transparency and that their removal could lead to
inconsistency in how PP&E is conducted and reported on by various
States. They later submitted a second comment to clarify that it
supports consolidation of PP&E reporting requirements, but urged NHTSA
to continue to ensure public participation and transparency. OR TSO
expressed support because it believes the triennial HSP and Annual
Report requirements are redundant. The Joint State DOTs noted the
proposed removal of PP&E requirements from the triennial HSP should
enhance safety by allowing departments to redirect staff time and
resources towards implementing effective safety programs, rather than
meeting reporting requirements. TxDOT added that while public input is
valuable, it is important to have an adaptable approach that allows
States to consider public input thoughtfully while ensuring timely
coherent program decisions. An anonymous citizen stated that they
support NHTSA's proposed streamlining of public participation
documentation in the grant program to maintain essential accountability
without Federal overreach and stressed the importance of maintaining
transparency. NHTSA appreciates the comments and, consistent with the
proposal in the NPRM, is removing 23 CFR 1300.11(b)(2)--which laid out
the public participation and engagement requirements for the triennial
HSP--in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ BIA, CO HSO, CT DOT, GHSA, IA GTSB, MeBHS, MN DPS OTS, NC
GHSP, NV OTS, SC OHSJP, TN HSO, TxDOT, VA HSO, WTSC, and Joint State
DOTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Annual Report
In addition to removing the PP&E planning requirements from the
triennial HSP, fifteen commenters \19\ recommended that NHTSA should
also remove the PP&E reporting
[[Page 35394]]
requirements from the Annual Report at 23 CFR 1300.35(b)(2). These
commenters argue that NHTSA can verify State implementation of the PP&E
requirement through added Certifications and Assurances \20\ that
States submit with their Annual Grant Applications. These comments
mirror the comment GHSA submitted \21\ in response to the Department's
April 3, 2025 Request for Information.\22\ The Joint DOTs submitted a
related comment recommending wholesale elimination of the annual report
requirement, or alternatively, limiting PP&E reporting to every other
annual report. The CO HSO argued that streamlining PP&E requirements by
removing both the triennial HSP and Annual Report requirements would
allow each State to adopt a flexible PP&E strategy best suited to its
communities and programs. VA HSO explained that streamlining PP&E
requirements would ensure States retain flexibility to design, adapt
and evaluate lifesaving programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ CN DOT, CO HSO, FDOT, GHSA, IA GTSB, MeBHS, MN DPS OTS, NV
OTS, OR TSO, SC OHSJP, TN HSO, TxDOT, VA HSO, WTSC, and Joint State
DOTs.
\20\ See Appendix A to 23 CFR part 1300.
\21\ Available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0776">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-0026-0776</a>.
\22\ Ensuring Lawful Regulation; Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, 90 FR 14593.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTDOT explained that it believes the annual report narrative is
redundant with the certification already in the Appendix A
certifications and assurances that States will comply with requirements
in Section 402. Seven commenters \23\ argue that verification through
the certifications and assurances would be similar to other section 402
requirements already covered in the certifications and assurances. Some
commenters \24\ argued that requiring only a certification and
assurance would minimize administrative burden while providing
appropriate oversight to ensure States meet the statutory requirements.
Commenters argued that eliminating the triennial HSP and Annual Report
PP&E requirements and instead relying on an annual certification and
assurance would decrease a perceived disproportionate emphasis on PP&E
\25\ and still require States to conduct meaningful PP&E
activities.\26\ NHTSA clarifies that, while it implements several
threshold grant requirements through certifications and assurances up
front, the agency ensures that States have met those assurances through
a variety of means, including routine oversight during the grant year
and State year-end reporting in the Annual Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ GHSA, MN DPS OTS, NV OTS, SC OHSJP, TxDOT, VA HSO, and
WTSC.
\24\ GHSA, IA GTSB, MN DPS OTS, SC OHSJP, TxDOT, and VA HSO.
\25\ GHSA, MN DPS OTS, SC OHSJP, and TxDOT.
\26\ TN HSO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA carefully considered the relative benefits and burdens
associated with the annual report narrative versus certifications and
assurances (supported with routine oversight). NHTSA believes that
retaining the annual report narrative is the least burdensome approach
for States while still allowing the agency to conduct proper oversight
of statutory requirements. Under a certifications and assurances model,
NHTSA would need to conduct additional oversight to ensure that a State
is meeting the statutory PP&E requirement. This approach would require
States to maintain sufficient documentation to demonstrate their PP&E
activities, as well as how those activities informed their highway
safety program. In NHTSA's experience, documentation of more
qualitative statutory requirements creates confusion over what level
and type of documentation is acceptable and creates serious challenges
for States to cure insufficient documentation during oversight reviews.
This concern is compounded if the statutory compliance issue is not
discovered for longer periods of time, decreasing the potential
solutions available to resolve the issue and increasing the risk that a
recovery or payback of grant funds is required. A requirement to
provide a high-level narrative summary of PP&E activities in an Annual
Report allows States simply to describe how they meet the requirement--
avoiding confusion over documentary support sufficiency and allowing
for an easier cure if the initial narrative is insufficient to
demonstrate compliance. Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that a summary
statement in the annual report balances the need for streamlining and
burden reduction across the program while providing enough insight into
the State's efforts that reasonable concerns over compliance are
mitigated.
NHTSA appreciates the information provided in the comments and the
viewpoints expressed over this requirement. As NHTSA continues to
review other requirements of the program as part of streamlining and
burden reduction efforts, NHTSA expects that a robust dialogue will
continue with the States and stakeholder organizations on how best to
improve the program.
As is explained in further detail in the preamble to this final
rule, the Annual Report narrative is intended to be only a high-level
discussion of PP&E efforts and should impose minimal burden on States.
The Joint DOTs expressed appreciation for NHTSA's statement in the
NPRM that the Annual Report narrative is intended to be a high-level
discussion and requested that NHTSA reaffirm this in the final rule.
Commenter Michael Ravnitzky asked that NHTSA describe the standards the
agency will use to determine whether an Annual Report PP&E narrative is
adequate, and explain what happens if NHTSA determines the narrative is
inadequate. Mr. Ravnitzky recommended that NHTSA require that the
narrative describe the outreach methods used, the main affected
communities identified, and one concrete example of how engagement
changed a project or its design. NHTSA reaffirms that the Annual Report
narrative is a high-level discussion. A narrative should discuss, in
general terms, engagement activities the State carried out in the year,
the communities engaged in those activities, and how the State's PP&E
efforts informed projects implemented during the grant year. States
need not describe how PP&E efforts informed every individual project.
Instead, States can describe in more general terms how the efforts
conducted informed the projects it implemented. NHTSA does not set a
minimum required number of PP&E events, nor does the agency require a
specific outcome from those efforts. To provide States with additional
clarity, NHTSA will separately provide examples of successful Annual
Report narratives. In recent years, States have submitted successful
Annual Report narratives that were as short as two to three paragraphs.
Other States opted to provide several pages to detail their activities
and report on their PP&E accomplishments. Though PP&E requirements will
be removed from the triennial HSP, States may wish to consider
developing brief narrative descriptions of PP&E efforts as they are
conducted throughout the grant year so the information is available
easily at year end for the Annual Report.
C. Other
NC GHSP encouraged NHTSA to ensure that guidance and feedback
provided to States are clear and consistent. Michael Ravnitzky
similarly recommended that NHTSA issue concise guidance materials and
optional templates illustrating acceptable PP&E approaches and
documentation for the Annual Report. He suggested providing targeted
technical assistance and a limited transition period for States to
update internal HSP formats. After
[[Page 35395]]
publication of the 2023 Final Rule, NHTSA provided extensive training
and technical assistance, including examples of sufficient Annual
Report narratives. NHTSA will continue to provide guidance and webinars
as needed and upon request by States. NHTSA will also continue to offer
technical assistance to any State that seeks it. As this rule simply
removes requirements, rather than adding new ones, NHTSA has determined
that a transition period is not necessary.
Michael Ravnitzky submitted several comments aimed at NHTSA's
rulemaking process and guidance for the PP&E requirement. Specifically,
he recommended that NHTSA amend all regulatory text to remove any
components that require prospective PP&E content in the triennial HSP.
NHTSA proposed to do so, and this final rule maintains the removal of
23 CFR 1300.11(b)(2) as proposed. Mr. Ravnitzky also requested that
NHTSA use a single definition for PP&E in 23 CFR 1300.3 (definitions),
1300.11 (triennial Highway Safety Plan), and 1300.13 (local
expenditure). To preserve flexibility for each State to conduct PP&E
and solicit feedback from affected communities in a manner that is
conducive to data trends and conditions in the State, NHTSA does not
create a regulatory definition for public participation and engagement
at this time. In the proposal, NHTSA proposed to eliminate the term
``public participation and engagement'' from the definition of
triennial Highway Safety Plan in 23 CFR 1300.3 and to rewrite
1300.13(b)(3)(i) to remove the reference to 1300.11(b)(2) to reference
PP&E activities more generally. The agency finalizes those proposed
revisions in this action.
Michael Ravnitzky also advised NHTSA to create a brief one-page
prospective notice that would be required for States with weak annual
reports to describe their planned PP&E approach for major program
areas. NHTSA declines to do so. As stated in the NPRM, NHTSA's
experience implementing the first triennial cycle under IIJA led the
agency to determine that the prospective triennial planning information
provided limited value to States in implementing PP&E or to NHTSA in
conducting oversight.\27\ If NHTSA finds that a State has not submitted
a sufficient annual report narrative, NHTSA will provide technical
assistance to assist the State in meeting the minimum requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 90 FR 45164, 45165 (Sept. 19, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.\28\ This rulemaking does not meet the
criteria of a ``significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866.
Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed
this rule under that E.O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of a triennial Highway Safety Plan is required for any
State to receive a highway safety grant. The triennial HSP is submitted
only once every three years, and there are a total of 57 eligible
respondents (fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs). NHTSA
projects that this rulemaking would save each applicant 64 hours that
was used previously to collect, review, and submit the PP&E section of
the triennial HSP.
For the costs associated with respondents preparing application
materials, NHTSA used the estimated average wage for ``Management
Analysts,'' Occupation Code 13-1111. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates that the average hourly wage for management analysts in State
and local government is $34.63.\29\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics
estimates that wages for State and local government workers represent
61.5 percent of total compensation costs.\30\ Therefore, NHTSA
estimates the hourly labor costs to be $56.31 and estimates that hourly
labor cost associated with preparing the PP&E section of the triennial
HSP to be $3,603.84 per respondent. Historically, all eligible States
apply for and receive grants, so the total labor costs saved by all
respondents by this action would be $205,418.88, once every three
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See May 2023 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,
Industry: State Government, excluding Schools and Hospitals (OEWS
Designation), available at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/naics4_999200.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/naics4_999200.htm</a> (accessed March 2, 2026).
\30\ See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by
ownership, available at <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm</a> (accessed Mar. 2, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
This rulemaking is an E.O. 14192 \31\ deregulatory action. The
rulemaking decreases States' administrative burden by removing
requirements to document public participation and engagement in
triennial Highway Safety Plan submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation, 90 FR 9065
(Feb. 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA estimates the cost savings of this rule would be $205,418.88,
once every three years. See discussion in section V.A., E.O. 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, above for more information.
C. 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 agencies to
certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-21, 110 Stat. 857) 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 makes a limited revision to the uniform procedures
implementing State highway safety grant programs, which were determined
previously not to have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The grant programs impacted by this rule will affect
State governments, which are not considered to be small entities as
that term is defined by the RFA. Therefore, NHTSA certifies that the
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities and finds that preparing a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is unnecessary.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E.O. 13132, ``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 (Aug. 10, 1999). ``Policies that
have federalism implications'' are defined in the E.O. 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 E.O. 13132, an agency may not issue a regulation
with federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs not required by statute
[[Page 35396]]
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 the State and local government in the process of
developing the regulation. An agency also may not issue a regulation
with federalism implications that preempts a State law without
consulting with State and local officials.
NHTSA analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in E.O. 13132. The revisions made in
this rulemaking will decrease reporting requirements for States
submitting triennial Highway Safety Plans as a basis to receive grant
funding. Therefore, NHTSA determines that this action would not have
federalism implications as defined in the Order that warrant formal
consultation with State and local officials or preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729,
Feb. 7, 1996) requires that executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected
conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4)
clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General.
NHTSA has reviewed this rulemaking action and determined that it
conforms to the applicable standards in section 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. The issue of preemption is discussed above in
connection with E.O. 13132 (Federalism). NHTSA believes that this final
rule specifies clearly the removal of the PP&E requirements from the
triennial HSP and the related technical changes to the regulatory text
to reflect the change to the triennial HSP. The amendments do not take
effect retroactively. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement
that a recipient submit a petition for reconsideration before they may
file suit in court.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain
approval from the OMB for each collection of information they conduct,
sponsor, or require through regulations. A person is not required to
respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the
collection displays a valid OMB control number. NHTSA sought public
comment on revisions to the existing information collection described
below in the NPRM that was published on September 19, 2025 and
submitted a revision to the existing information collection request
(ICR) to OMB for approval. The OMB Control Number for the information
collection is 202212-2127-0730.
NHTSA did not receive any comments in response to the ICR but
received several comments to the rulemaking docket that pertain to the
information collection. Those comments are discussed in full in the
preamble to this final rule, above. As explained in the preamble, in
this action NHTSA sought to reduce administrative burden consistent
with the agency's legal responsibilities. NHTSA finalizes the proposed
regulatory amendments that eliminated the PP&E section of the triennial
HSP.
NHTSA is submitting a supporting statement to OMB explaining how
the final rule's collection of information responds to the comments
received from the public. The final rule does not affect the estimates
in the NPRM of these requirements.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 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 the
base year of 1995). This rulemaking would not result in annual State
expenditures exceeding the minimum threshold; instead, this rule likely
will decrease administrative costs for States. Further, this rulemaking
action updates NHTSA's State highway safety grant program, a voluntary
program, and States become eligible in part based on the choice to
submit an application.
H. National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this final
rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NHTSA has determined that this rule is
categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4). Categorical
exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined
normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order
5610.1D Sec. 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical
exclusion (CE), the agency must also consider whether extraordinary
circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA
or EIS. Id. Sec. 9(b). The Department's Operating Administrations
(OAs) may apply CEs established in another OA's procedures. Id. Sec.
9(f). To do so, the Operating Administration ``must evaluate the action
for extraordinary circumstances identified in the OA procedures in
which the CE is established to determine if a normally excluded action
may have a significant impact and coordinate with the originating OA to
ensure that the CE is being applied correctly.'' Id. This rulemaking,
which eliminates reporting requirements related to public participation
and engagement from the triennial Highway Safety Plan, is categorically
excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), ``Planning and
administrative activities not involving or leading directly to
construction, such as: Training, technical assistance and research;
promulgation of rules, regulations, directives, or program guidance;
approval of project concepts; engineering; and operating assistance to
transit authorities to continue existing service or increase service to
meet routine demand.'' NHTSA has coordinated with the Federal Transit
Administration to ensure that this CE is being applied correctly. NHTSA
does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no
extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.
I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribes)
E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000) requires Federal agencies to
consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis
on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations,
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. NHTSA has assessed
the impact of this
[[Page 35397]]
rule on Indian tribes and determined that this action would not have
Tribal implications that require consultation under E.O. 13175.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. NHTSA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of this rule in the Federal Register. Because this rule
does not meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) for a major rule, it will
be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
DOT assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
twice a year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the
beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
L. Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, as described in the system of
records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through <a href="http://www.dot.gov/privacy">www.dot.gov/privacy</a>. To facilitate comment tracking and response, NHTSA encourages
commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization;
however, submission of names is optional. 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.).
For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/privacy">https://www.transportation.gov/privacy</a>.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1300
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety, Intergovernmental
relations, Motor vehicles--motorcycles, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 23
U.S.C. 401 et seq., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
amends 23 CFR part 1300 as follows:
PART 1300--UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANT
PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1300 continues to read as follows:
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
0
2. Amend Sec. 1300.3 by revising the definition of ``Triennial Highway
Safety Plan'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1300.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Triennial Highway Safety Plan (triennial HSP) means the document
that the State submits once every three fiscal years documenting its
highway safety program, including the State's highway safety planning
process and problem identification, performance plan, countermeasure
strategy for programming funds, and performance report.
Subpart B--Triennial Highway Safety Plan and Annual Grant
Application
0
3. Amend Sec. 1300.11 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(i); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 1300.11 Triennial Highway Safety Plan.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Description of the processes, data sources, and information
used by the State in its highway safety planning (i.e., problem
identification, performance measures, and countermeasure strategies);
and
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 1300.13 by revising paragraph (b)(3)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1300.13 Special funding conditions for Section 402 grants.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The specific political subdivision is involved in the planning
process of the State's highway safety program (for example, as part of
the State's public participation and engagement, as part of the State's
planning for the annual grant application, or as part of ongoing
planning processes), and the State then enters into agreements based on
identification of need by the political subdivision and implements the
project or activity accordingly. The State must maintain documentation
that shows the political subdivision's participation in the planning
processes (e.g., meeting minutes, data submissions), and also must
obtain written acceptance by the political subdivision of the project
or activity being provided on its behalf prior to implementation.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.81 and 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.4 and 501.5.
Jonathan Morrison,
Administrator
[FR Doc. 2026-11770 Filed 6-10-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 11, 2026.
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.