Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs, 4985-5033 [2013-00682]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4985-5033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00682]



[[Page 4985]]

Vol. 78

Wednesday,

No. 15

January 23, 2013

Part II





 Department of Transportation





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





 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration





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





23 CFR Parts 1200, 1205, 1206 et al.





 Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 15 / Wednesday, January 23, 2013 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 4986]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Parts 1200, 1205, 1206, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1313, 1335, 1345, 
and 1350

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0001]
RIN 2127-AL30; RIN 2127-AL29


Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs

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

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes new uniform procedures governing the 
implementation of State highway safety grant programs as amended by the 
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). It also 
reorganizes and amends existing requirements to implement the 
provisions of MAP-21.
    This document is being issued as an interim final rule to provide 
timely guidance about the application procedures for national priority 
safety program grants in fiscal year 2013 and all Chapter 4 highway 
safety grants beginning in fiscal year 2014. The agency requests 
comments on the rule. The agency will publish a notice responding to 
any comments received and, if appropriate, will amend provisions of the 
regulation.

DATES: This interim final rule becomes effective on January 23, 2013. 
Comments on this interim final rule are due April 23, 2013. In 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking 
comment on a new information collection. See the Paperwork Reduction 
Act section under Regulatory Analyses and Notices below. Comments 
relating to new information collection requirements are due March 25, 
2013 to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the 
address listed in the ADDRESSES section.

ADDRESSES: Written comments to NHTSA may be submitted using any one of 
the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments to: Docket Management Facility, M-30, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the US 
Government regulations Web site at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Hand Delivery: If you plan to submit written comments by 
hand or courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.
    Whichever way you submit your comments, please remember to identify 
the docket number of this document within your correspondence. You may 
contact the docket by telephone at (202) 366-9324. Note that all 
comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Comments regarding the proposed information collection should be 
submitted to NHTSA through one of the preceding methods and a copy 
should also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory 
Analyses and Notices.
    Docket: All documents in the dockets are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at the Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC. The Docket Management Facility is 
open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues: Dr. Mary D. 
Gunnels, Associate Administrator, Regional Operations and Program 
Delivery, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Telephone 
number: (202) 366-2121; Email: Maggi.Gunnels@dot.gov.
    For legal issues: Ms. Jin Kim, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
Telephone number: (202) 366-1834; Email: Jin.Kim@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Section 402 Grant Program
III. Section 405 Grant Program
IV. Administration of Highway Safety Grants (Section 402 and 405 
Grants)
V. Immediate Effective Date and Request for Comments
VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

    On July 6, 2012, the President signed into law the ``Moving Ahead 
for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, 
which restructured and made various substantive changes to the highway 
safety grant programs administered by the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA). Specifically, MAP-21 modified the 
existing formula grant program codified at 23 U.S.C. 402 (Section 402) 
by requiring States to develop and implement the State highway safety 
program using performance measures. MAP-21 also rescinded a number of 
separate incentive grant programs that existed under the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, and replaced them with the 
``National Priority Safety Programs,'' codified in a single section of 
the United States Code (23 U.S.C. 405 (Section 405)). The National 
Priority Safety Programs include Occupant Protection, State Traffic 
Safety Information Systems, Impaired Driving Countermeasures, 
Motorcyclist Safety, and two new grant programs--Distracted Driving and 
State Graduated Driver Licensing. MAP-21 specifies a single application 
deadline for all highway safety grants and directs NHTSA to establish a 
consolidated application process, using the Highway Safety Plan that 
States have traditionally submitted for the Section 402 program. See 
Sections 31101(f) and 31102, MAP-21.
    MAP-21 provides additional linkages between NHTSA-administered 
programs and the programs of other DOT agencies coordinated through the 
State strategic highway safety plan administered by the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), as defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a). The Department 
will harmonize performance measures that are common across programs of 
DOT agencies (e.g., fatalities and serious injuries) to ensure that the 
highway safety community is provided uniform measures of progress.
    Section 402, as amended by MAP-21, continues to require each State 
to have an approved highway safety program designed to reduce traffic 
crashes and the resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage. 
Section 402 sets forth minimum requirements with which each State's 
highway safety program must comply. Under existing procedures, States 
must submit a Highway Safety Plan (HSP) each year to NHTSA for 
approval, describing their highway safety program and the

[[Page 4987]]

activities they plan to undertake. The HSP is a critical element that 
illustrates the linkage between highway safety program planning and 
program performance. NHTSA has worked collaboratively with the 
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) on improvements to the HSPs 
and the planning process for many years, and expects that continuous 
improvement efforts will demonstrate measurable progress in traffic 
safety. Going forward, HSP coordination with the State strategic 
highway safety plan as defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a) will continue that 
improvement. NHTSA intends to collaborate with other DOT agencies to 
ensure there are not multiple measures and targets for the performance 
measures common across the various Federal safety programs.
    DOT will continue to analyze the linkage between specific safety 
investments made by the States and States' safety outcomes to learn 
more about the associations between the application of resources and 
safety outcomes. DOT will perform this analysis using data provided by 
States to build and improve the foundation of evidence to inform future 
reauthorization proposals. DOT's analysis could inform additional 
requirements for safety programs and potentially additional data from 
States.
    MAP-21 amended Section 402 to require, among other things, States 
to submit for fiscal year 2014 and thereafter an HSP with performance 
measures and targets as a condition of approval of the State's highway 
safety program. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(3)) MAP-21 specifies in more detail 
the contents of the HSP that States must submit, including strategies 
for programming funds, data supporting those strategies, and a report 
on the degree of success in meeting the performance measure targets. 
Id. MAP-21 also directs States to include in the HSP their application 
for all other grants under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4, and to submit their HSP 
by July 1 of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year of the grant. 
(23 U.S.C. 402(k)(2) and 402(k)(3))
    The National Priority Safety Programs created by MAP-21 continue 
many aspects of previous grants, but also include changes. (23 U.S.C. 
405) Specifically, MAP-21 consolidated several previously separate 
occupant protection grants into a single occupant protection grant 
under new Section 405(b), updated the requirements for a State traffic 
safety information system improvements grant under new Section 405(c), 
revised the impaired driving countermeasures grant under new Section 
405(d), including a new grant for State ignition interlock laws, 
created a new distracted driving grant under new Section 405(e), 
extended the motorcyclist safety grant largely unchanged under new 
Section 405(f), and created a new graduated driver licensing grant 
under new Section 405(g). None of these grant programs under MAP-21 is 
identical to a grant program that existed under SAFETEA-LU, but many 
continue various requirements of the prior grant programs. For each of 
these grants, MAP-21 specifies the criteria for a grant award (some of 
which are prescriptive), the mechanism for allocation of grant funds, 
and the eligible uses of grant funds.
    MAP-21 requires NHTSA to award highway safety grants pursuant to 
rulemaking and separately requires NHTSA to establish minimum 
requirements for the graduated driver licensing (GDL) grant in 
accordance with the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative 
Procedure Act. (Section 31101(d), MAP-21; 23 U.S.C. 405(g)(3)(A)) In 
order to provide States with as much advance time as practicable to 
prepare grant applications and to ensure the timely award of all grants 
in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, the agency is proceeding with an 
expedited rulemaking. Accordingly, NHTSA is publishing this rulemaking 
as an interim final rule (IFR), with immediate effectiveness, to 
implement the application and administrative requirements of the 
highway safety grant programs. Responding to the notice and comment 
requirement for the GDL grant program, NHTSA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for that program on October 5, 2012. (77 FR 
60956) The comment period for the GDL NPRM closed on October 25, 2012. 
Today's IFR addresses the comments received and incorporates 
requirements for the GDL program. See Section III.G. below.
    This IFR sets forth the application, approval, and administrative 
requirements for all MAP-21 grant programs. It updates the Uniform 
Procedures for State Highway Safety Programs to incorporate the new 
performance measures process and the single application requirement. It 
adds requirements for the new Section 405 incentive grant programs. 
Finally, it updates and consolidates into one rule a number of old 
regulations (State Highway Safety Agency, Political Subdivision 
Participation in State Highway Safety Programs, State Matching of 
Planning and Administration Costs, Rules of Procedure for Invoking 
Sanctions under the Highway Safety Act of 1966) that remain applicable 
to the highway safety grants. While many procedures and requirements 
continue unchanged by today's action, organization and section numbers 
have changed.
    For ease of reference, the preamble identifies in parentheses 
within each subheading and at appropriate places in the explanatory 
paragraphs the new CFR citation for the corresponding regulatory text.

II. Section 402 Grant Program

A. General

    The Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) established 
a formula grant program to improve highway safety in the United States. 
As a condition of the grant, States must meet certain requirements 
contained in 23 U.S.C. 402. While MAP-21 reorganized a number of 
provisions within Section 402, it retained much of the existing 
requirements of the formula grant program. Section 402(a) continues to 
require each State to have a highway safety program, approved by the 
Secretary of Transportation, which is designed to reduce traffic 
crashes and the resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage from 
those crashes. Section 402(a) also continues to require State highway 
safety programs to comply with uniform guidelines promulgated by the 
Secretary.
    MAP-21 amended Section 402(b), which sets forth the minimum 
requirements with which each State highway safety program must comply, 
to require the Highway Safety Plan (HSP) to provide for a data-driven 
traffic safety enforcement program to prevent traffic violations, 
crashes, and crash fatalities and injuries in areas most at risk for 
such incidents. As is evident with other amendments to Section 402 
discussed below, MAP-21 highlights the importance of strategies 
supported by data to reduce crashes. While data-driven program 
development has long been a practice of jurisdictions in the highway 
safety grant program, requiring States to have a data-driven traffic 
safety enforcement program and targeted enforcement based on data will 
promote improved safety outcomes. MAP-21 also amended Section 402(b) to 
require each State to coordinate its HSP, data collection, and 
information systems with the State strategic highway safety plan as 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a). Such a requirement to coordinate these 
elements into a unified State approach to highway safety promotes 
comprehensive transportation and safety planning and program efficiency 
in the States. Coordinating the HSP planning process with the programs 
of

[[Page 4988]]

other DOT agencies where possible will ensure alignment of State 
performance targets where common measurements exist, such as fatalities 
and serious injuries. States are encouraged to use data to identify 
performance measures beyond these consensus performance measures (e.g., 
distracted driving, bicycles). NHTSA will collaborate with other DOT 
agencies to promote alignment among performance measures.
    MAP-21 also amends the uses of Section 402 grant funds. Section 
402(b) prohibits the use of automated traffic enforcement systems. Such 
systems include red light and speed cameras, but do not include hand 
held radar or devices that law enforcement officers use to take an 
enforcement action at the time of a violation. Section 402(c) provides 
that States may use grant funds in cooperation with neighboring States 
for highway safety purposes that benefit all participating States. For 
States that share a common media market, enforcement corridors and 
program needs, such interstate initiatives recognize the mutual 
benefits that may be gained by multiple jurisdictions through the 
sharing of resources. Finally, Section 402(g) provides an exception to 
the general prohibition against using Section 402 grant funds for 
activities carried out under 23 U.S.C. 403. States may now use Section 
402 funds to supplement demonstration projects carried out under 
Section 403.

B. Highway Safety Plan Contents

    The most significant changes in the Section 402 grant program are 
the new performance-based requirements for the HSP and the reporting 
requirements. Under the old regulation, State HSPs were required to 
contain a performance plan with (1) a list of objective and measurable 
highway safety goals, (2) performance measures for each of the safety 
goals, and (3) a description of the processes used by the State to 
identify highway safety problems, define highway safety performance 
measures, and develop projects to address problems and achieve the 
State's goals. In addition, States were to include descriptions of 
program strategies they planned to implement to reach highway safety 
targets. Many of these requirements remain unchanged by today's action. 
However, based on the new requirements in MAP-21, States will need to 
provide additional information in the HSP to meet the performance-
based, evidence-based requirements of MAP-21. (23 CFR 1200.11)
    Under the old regulation, States were required to describe the 
highway safety planning process in the HSP. This continues to be 
required by today's action. However, the agency made some changes to 
reflect the terms used in MAP-21 (e.g., performance measures and 
targets, data-based, evidence-based). The IFR also includes a new 
requirement that the State include a description of the efforts and the 
outcomes of the effort the State has made to coordinate the highway 
safety plan, data collection, and information systems with the State 
strategic highway safety plan, as required by MAP-21. (23 CFR 
1200.11(a))
    While the most significant change in MAP-21 is the performance-
based requirements for the HSP, States have been moving in that 
direction over the past several years based on a cooperative effort 
with GHSA and DOT to establish voluntary performance measures for 
highway safety grant programs. Over the years, NHTSA and GHSA have 
developed numerous tools and resource documents to enhance the 
effectiveness of the HSPs and promote linkage to measurable traffic 
safety improvements that will support requirements under MAP-21. State 
HSPs must now provide for performance measures and targets that are 
evidence-based, and this is consistent with the report, ``Traffic 
Safety Performance Measures for States and Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 
811 025), that States have been using to develop performance measures 
since 2010. The agency will regularly review with the States the 
performance measures and coordinate with other DOT agencies to ensure 
consistent application. As directed by MAP-21, NHTSA must ``coordinate 
with [GHSA] in making revisions to the set of required performance 
measures.'' (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)) The Department will harmonize 
performance measures that are common across programs of DOT agencies 
(e.g., fatalities and serious injuries) to ensure that the highway 
safety community is provided uniform measures of progress.
    The State process for setting targets in the HSP must be based on 
an analysis of data trends and a resource allocation assessment. For 
purposes of the current rulemaking, evidence-based analysis should 
include States' programming of resources compared to the specific 
measures in ``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and 
Federal Agencies.'' As required by MAP-21, the HSP must provide 
documentation of the current safety levels for each performance 
measure, quantifiable annual performance targets for each performance 
measure, and a justification for each performance target, including an 
explanation of why each target is appropriate and evidence based. 
Consistent with the Highway Safety Plan for continuous safety 
improvement, selected targets, should whenever reasonable, represent an 
improvement from the current status rather than a simple maintenance of 
the current rate. Targets for each program area should be consistent, 
compatible and provide sufficient coverage of State geographic areas 
and road users. When aggregated, strategies should lead logically to 
overall statewide performance and be linked to the anticipated success 
of the countermeasures or strategies selected and funded in the HSP. 
(23 CFR 1200.11(b))
    The agency will collaborate regularly with FHWA, Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and other DOT agencies along with 
the Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and the State Highway 
Safety Agencies to ensure the integration of highway safety planning 
with the broader aspects of Statewide transportation. This broad-based 
collaboration will assist NHTSA and GHSA to revise, update and improve 
highway safety program performance measures as necessary, while 
ensuring a consistent Departmental approach to surface transportation 
safety.
MAP-21 specifies that for the HSP submitted for fiscal year 2014 
grants, the required performance measures are limited to those 
developed by NHTSA and GHSA in the Traffic Safety Performance Measures 
report. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)) NHTSA and GHSA agreed on a minimum set of 
performance measures to be used by States and federal agencies in the 
development and implementation of behavioral highway safety plans and 
programs. An expert panel from NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA, State highway safety 
offices, academic and research organizations, and other key groups 
assisted in developing these measures. Fourteen measures--10 core 
outcome

[[Page 4989]]

measures \1\, one core behavior measure \2\, and three activity 
measures \3\--were established covering the major areas common to State 
HSPs and using existing data systems. The minimum set of performance 
measures developed by NHTSA and GHSA addresses most of the national 
priority safety program areas, but do not address all the possible 
highway safety problems in a State or all of the National Priority 
Safety Programs specified in Section 405. For highway safety problems 
identified by the State, but where performance measures have not been 
jointly developed (e.g., distracted driving and bicycles), a State must 
develop its own evidence-based performance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NHTSA will continue to work with States to ensure that annual HSPs 
identify priority traffic safety problems. For HSPs for subsequent 
fiscal years, NHTSA will also coordinate with GHSA on an annual basis 
and with other DOT agencies to identify emerging traffic safety issues 
and incorporate new national performance measures where feasible. NHTSA 
will continue to provide ongoing technical assistance to States on 
emerging priority traffic safety issues and encourage States to use 
data to identify measures beyond the required consensus performance 
measures. As the Department promulgates new regulations for programs to 
improve highway safety, common definitions of performance measures and 
targets will be adopted.
    Under the old regulation, States were required to describe at least 
one year of strategies and activities the State planned to implement. 
As provided in the IFR, Highway Safety Plans must continue to include a 
description of the countermeasure program area strategies the State 
plans to implement to reach the performance targets identified by the 
State in the HSP. In addition, the HSP must also include a description 
of the projects that make up each program area that will implement the 
program area strategies. For performance targets that are common across 
DOT agencies, the projects that will be deployed to achieve those 
targets may be a combination of those projects contained in the HSP and 
other State and local plans. As required by MAP-21, the identified 
program area strategies must also identify funds from other sources, 
including Federal, State, local and private sector funds, used to carry 
out the program area strategies. (23 CFR 1200.11(c))
    MAP-21 also requires the State to describe its strategy in 
developing its countermeasure programs and selecting the projects to 
allow it to meet the highway safety performance targets. In selecting 
the strategies and projects, States should be guided by the data and 
data analysis supporting the effectiveness of the proposed 
countermeasures and, if applicable, the emphasis areas in the State 
strategic highway safety plan. NHTSA does not intend to discourage 
innovative countermeasures, especially where few established 
countermeasures exist, such as in distracted driving. Innovative 
countermeasures that may not be scientifically proven to work but that 
contain promise based on limited practical applications are encouraged 
when a clear data-driven safety need has been identified. As evidence 
of potential success, justification of new countermeasures can also be 
based on the prior success of specific elements from other effective 
countermeasures.
    MAP-21 requires that a State must provide assurances that the State 
will implement activities in support of national high-visibility law 
enforcement mobilizations coordinated by the Secretary of 
Transportation. In addition to providing such assurances, the State 
must also describe in its HSP the State's planned high visibility 
enforcement strategies to support national mobilizations for the 
upcoming grant year. (23 CFR 1200.11(c); Appendix A)
    As required under MAP-21, the State must also include a description 
of its evidence-based traffic safety enforcement program to prevent 
traffic violations, crashes, crash fatalities, and injuries in areas 
most at risk for crashes. The IFR sets forth the minimum requirements 
for the traffic safety enforcement program. (23 CFR 1200.11(c))
    MAP-21 also specifies that the HSP must include a report on the 
State's success in meeting its performance targets from the previous 
fiscal year's HSP. Unlike the comprehensive, annual performance report 
required under the old regulation, which is retained by today's action, 
this performance report is a status report on the core performance 
measures. (23 CFR 1200.11(d))
    Under the old regulation, States submitted as part of their HSP a 
program cost summary (HS Form 217). This requirement continues under 
the IFR. States will continue to provide the proposed allocation of 
funds (including carry-forward funds) by program area. However, under 
today's action, States must also provide an accompanying list of the 
projects and an estimated amount of Federal funds for each such project 
that the State proposes to conduct in the upcoming fiscal year to meet 
the performance targets identified in the HSP. Prior to and as a 
condition of reimbursement, the project list must be updated to include 
identifying project numbers for each project on the list. Several 
States currently provide this level of information on the HS Form 217, 
and would not need to provide a separate list. However, States that do 
not provide this level of detail on the HS Form 217 must either begin 
doing so or provide a separate list in addition to the HS Form 217. For 
example, a number of States have grants tracking systems that can 
generate reports with this information, and such reports would be 
acceptable even if other information is included. No specific format is 
required so long as the list includes the projects, project identifier 
and estimated Federal funding for each project. (23 CFR 1200.11(e); 
Appendix B)
    As under the old regulations, States will continue to submit 
certifications and assurances, signed by the Governor's Representative 
for Highway Safety, certifying the HSP application contents and 
providing assurances that they will comply with applicable laws and 
regulations, financial and programmatic requirements and any special 
funding conditions. Only the Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety may sign the certifications and assurances required under this 
IFR. The certifications and assurances will now be included as Appendix 
A to this part.
    MAP-21 provides for a new Teen Traffic Safety Program for statewide 
efforts to improve traffic safety for teen drivers. States may elect to 
incorporate such a statewide program as an HSP

[[Page 4990]]

program area. If a State chooses to do so, it must include a 
description of the projects it intends to conduct in the HSP and 
provide assurances that the program meets certain statutory 
requirements. The assurances for the Teen Traffic Safety Program are 
included as an appendix to this part. (23 CFR 1200.11(g); Appendix C)
    Finally, as noted above, MAP-21 requires that applications for all 
grants under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 (including any of the six new grants 
under Section 405) be part of the HSP submitted on July 1 of the fiscal 
year preceding the fiscal year of the grant. The IFR provides for this 
new deadline. (23 CFR 1200.12) Beginning with fiscal year 2014 grants, 
each State must include its application for the Section 405 grants as 
part of its HSP. (23 CFR 1200.11(h)) Details about the application 
contents and qualification requirements of Section 405 grants are 
provided in Section III below.

C. Review and Approval Procedures

    MAP-21 specifies that NHTSA must approve or disapprove the HSP 
within 60 days after receipt. As has been past practice, NHTSA may 
request additional information from a State regarding the contents of 
the HSP to determine whether the HSP meets statutory, regulatory and 
programmatic requirements. To ensure that HSPs are approved or 
disapproved within 60 days, States must respond promptly to NHTSA's 
request for additional information. Failure to respond promptly may 
delay approval and funding of the State's Section 402 grant. (23 CFR 
1200.14(a))
    Within 60 days, the Approving Official will approve or disapprove 
the HSP, and specify any conditions to the approval. If the HSP is 
disapproved, the Approving Official will specify the reasons for 
disapproval. The State must resubmit the HSP with the necessary 
modifications to the Approving Official. The Approving Official will 
notify the State within 30 days of receipt of the revised HSP whether 
the HSP is approved or disapproved. (23 CFR 1200.14(b)(1))
    NHTSA expects to notify States of Section 405 grant qualification 
before the start of the fiscal year of the grant, and to notify States 
of grant award amounts early in the fiscal year. However, because the 
calculation of Section 405 grant awards depends on the number of States 
meeting the qualification requirements, States must respond promptly to 
NHTSA's request for additional information or be disqualified from 
consideration of a Section 405 grant. The agency does not intend to 
delay grant awards to States that comply with grant submission 
procedures due to the inability of other States to meet submission 
deadlines.

D. Apportionment and Obligation of Grant Funds

    The requirements of the old regulation regarding the apportionment 
and obligation of Section 402 funds remain largely unchanged. However, 
these requirements now apply both to Section 402 and 405 grant funds. 
For Section 405 grants, each State must also provide an update to the 
HSP in addition to the updated HS Form 217 for approval to address the 
grant funds awarded for that fiscal year for each of the Section 405 
grant programs for which it is applying. The IFR contains new language 
clarifying that grant funds are available for expenditure for three 
years after the last day of the fiscal year of apportionment or 
allocation. (23 CFR 1200.15) See Section IV below for further 
discussion of this important clarification.

III. Section 405 Grant Program

A. General (Sec.  1200.20)

    Under this heading, we describe the requirements set forth in 
today's action for each of the six new MAP-21 grant programs under 23 
U.S.C. 405 (Occupant Protection, State Traffic Safety Information 
System Improvements, Impaired Driving Countermeasures, Distracted 
Driving, Motorcyclist Safety and State Graduated Driver Licensing). The 
subheadings and explanatory paragraphs contain references to the 
relevant sections of the IFR where a procedure or requirement is 
implemented, as appropriate.
    MAP-21 contains some provisions that apply in common to most or all 
of the grants authorized under Section 405, such as definitions. In 
addition, in some cases the agency has determined that it is 
appropriate to impose certain requirements consistently across all of 
these grants. For example, ``passenger motor vehicle'' is defined in 
accordance with the agency's statutory jurisdiction to regulate motor 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds. 
These include passenger cars, minivans, vans, SUVs and pickup trucks. 
Also, for all but the motorcyclist safety grant program, eligibility 
under Section 405 is controlled by the definition of ``State'' under 23 
U.S.C. 401, which includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (As noted in Sec.  1200.25, 
the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are eligible to 
apply for motorcyclist safety grants.)
1. Qualification for a Grant Based on State Statutes
    For most of the grants authorized under 23 U.S.C. 405, States may 
qualify for a grant based on the existence of a conforming State 
statute. In order to qualify for a grant on this basis, the State 
statute must be enacted by the application due date and be in effect 
and enforced, without interruption, by the beginning of and throughout 
the fiscal year of the grant award. (23 CFR 1200.20(d))
    Historically, NHTSA has interpreted the term ``enforce'' in other 
highway safety programs from previous authorizations (e.g., SAFETEA-LU, 
Section 2005, Pub. L. 109-59) to mean that the enacted law must be in 
effect, allowing citations and fines to be issued. NHTSA will continue 
to interpret ``enforce'' as it has in the past for these Section 405 
grant programs. Therefore, a statute that has a future effective date 
or that includes a provision limiting enforcement (e.g., by imposing 
written warnings) during a ``grace period'' after the statute goes into 
effect would not be deemed in effect or being enforced until the 
effective date is reached or the grace period ends. A State whose law 
is either not in effect, contains a ``grace period,'' ``warning 
period'' or sunset provision during the grant year will not qualify for 
a grant for that fiscal year.
2. Award Determination and Transfer of Funds
    MAP-21 specifies that for three of the Section 405 grant programs 
(Occupant Protection, State Traffic Safety Information System 
Improvements and Impaired Driving Countermeasures) grant awards will be 
allocated in proportion to the State's apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 
402 for fiscal year 2009. For two of the grant programs (Distracted 
Driving and Motorcyclist Safety), MAP-21 does not specify how the grant 
awards will be allocated. For consistency with the other three Section 
405 grant programs, and in accordance with past practice in a number of 
highway safety grant programs, NHTSA will allocate Distracted Driving 
and Motorcyclist Safety grant awards in proportion to the State's 
apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 402 for fiscal year 2009. For Graduated 
Driver Licensing grants, MAP-21 specifies that grant awards will be 
allocated in proportion to the State's apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 
402 for that fiscal year. In determining the grant award, NHTSA will 
apply the apportionment formula under 23 U.S.C.

[[Page 4991]]

402(c) for fiscal year 2009 or the applicable fiscal year to all 
qualifying States, in proportion to the amount each such State receives 
under 23 U.S.C. 402(c), so that all available amounts are distributed 
to qualifying States to the maximum extent practicable. (23 CFR 
1200.20(e)(1)) However, the IFR provides that the amount of an award 
for each grant program may not exceed 10 percent of the total amount 
made available for that grant program, except for the motorcyclist 
safety grant program, which has a different limit imposed by statute. 
This limitation on grant amounts is necessary to prevent unintended 
large distributions to a small number of States in the event only a few 
States qualify for a grant award. (23 CFR 1200.20(e)(2))
    In the event that all grant funds authorized for Section 405 grants 
are not distributed, MAP-21 authorizes NHTSA to reallocate the 
remaining amounts before the end of the fiscal year for expenditure 
under the Section 402 program or in any Section 405 program area. (23 
U.S.C. 405(a)(1)(G)) In accordance with this provision, NHTSA intends 
to transfer these remaining grant funds among other programs to ensure 
that to the maximum extent practicable each State receives the maximum 
funding for which it qualifies. (23 CFR 1200.20(e)(3))
    3. Matching. Section 31105 of MAP-21 specifies a Federal share of 
80 percent for three of the grant programs (Occupant Protection, State 
Traffic Safety Information System Improvements and Impaired Driving 
Countermeasures) in Section 405. For the other three grant programs 
(Distracted Driving, Motorcyclist Safety and State Graduated Driver 
Licensing), MAP-21 does not specify Federal share. However, because 23 
U.S.C. 120 specifies a Federal share of 80 percent for any project or 
activity carried out under Title 23, unless otherwise specified, the 
federal share for all of these other grant programs, which are programs 
in Title 23, is 80 percent. (23 CFR 1200.20(f))

B. Occupant Protection Grants (Sec.  1200.21)

    The purpose of this program is to encourage States to adopt and 
implement occupant protection laws and programs to reduce highway 
deaths and injuries from individuals riding unrestrained in motor 
vehicles. NHTSA has administered a State occupant protection incentive 
grant program since 1998, starting with a program authorized under the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 
105-178. That program was reauthorized largely unchanged in 2005 under 
SAFETEA-LU (formerly codified at 23 U.S.C. 405), along with two 
additional occupant protection grant programs--Safety Belt Performance 
Grants (formerly codified at 23 U.S.C. 406) and Child Safety and Child 
Booster Seat Incentive Grants (Section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU).
    MAP-21 consolidated these previously separate occupant protection 
grants into a single occupant protection grant under new Section 
405(b). Under this program, an eligible State can qualify for grant 
funds as either a high seat belt use rate State or lower seat belt use 
rate State. A high seat belt use rate State is a State that has an 
observed seat belt use rate of 90 percent or higher; a lower seat belt 
use rate State is a State that has an observed seat belt use rate of 
lower than 90 percent. MAP-21 provides that a high seat belt use rate 
State may qualify for funds by submitting an occupant protection plan 
and meeting three programmatic criteria (Click or Ticket It, child 
restraint inspection stations, and child passenger safety technicians). 
MAP-21 provides that a lower seat belt use rate State must meet these 
same requirements, and additionally qualify for three of the following 
six legal or programmatic criteria: primary seat belt use law, occupant 
protection laws, high risk population countermeasure programs, seat 
belt enforcement, comprehensive occupant protection program and 
occupant protection assessment.
    1. Definitions. MAP-21 defines ``child restraint'' and ``seat 
belt.'' The IFR adopts these definitions without substantive change. In 
today's action, the agency also includes definitions for ``high seat 
belt use rate State'' and ``lower seat belt use rate State'' to clarify 
how the agency will determine the seat belt use rates for States. The 
agency is also including a definition for ``problem identification'' to 
clarify a specific strategy used in developing State occupant 
protection plans and programs. (See ``Eligibility Determinations, 
below, for more information about these two categories.) (23 CFR 
1200.21(b))
2. Eligibility Determination
    Under this program, a State is eligible for occupant protection 
incentive grant funds as either a high seat belt use rate State or a 
lower seat belt use rate State. The State's seat belt use rate 
determines whether a State qualifies for a grant under this section as 
a high seat belt use rate State or a lower seat belt use rate State. 
States must follow the procedures set forth in the IFR for submitting 
seat belt use rates and documentation to the agency. (23 CFR 
1200.21(d))
    States conduct annual seat belt use observational surveys each 
calendar year based on survey designs approved under 23 CFR part 1340, 
Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use. 
Under the existing procedures, States submit the results of the seat 
belt use survey March 1 each year. Based on the information submitted 
by the States, NHTSA will determine which States are eligible for a 
grant as high seat belt use rate States and which States are eligible 
as lower seat belt use rate States.
    The definition of the terms ``high seat belt use rate State'' and 
``lower seat belt use rate State'' clarify how these determinations 
will be made. Specifically, a State's status will be based on the 
actual seat belt use rate without rounding and without taking into 
account the standard deviation. Thus, for example, neither a State with 
a seat belt use rate of 89.95 nor a State with a rate of 89.95 +/- a 
2.5 percent standard error will be considered a high seat belt use rate 
State. Consistent with current practice, the agency will review the 
State submitted seat belt use rate derived from the approved statewide 
seat belt use survey and provide confirmation of the rate or request 
additional information within 30 days. For fiscal year 2013 grants, the 
agency will determine eligibility based on the seat belt use rates from 
the calendar year 2011 statewide seat belt use surveys.
    The IFR sets forth how a State may qualify for a grant as a high 
seat belt use rate State (23 CFR 1200.21(d)) or a lower seat belt use 
rate State (23 CFR 1200.21(e))
    3. Qualification Requirements for All States. To qualify for an 
occupant protection grant under this section, States must meet the 
following requirements:
i. Occupant Protection Plan
    For the first fiscal year of the grant program, States must submit 
an occupant protection plan that describes programs the State will 
implement for achieving reductions in traffic crashes, fatalities and 
injuries on public roads. (23 CFR 1200.21(d)(1)) In subsequent fiscal 
years, States must update the occupant protection plan if there are 
changes to the programs. States have long included occupant protection 
plan material in the HSP they submit under Section 402. The agency 
intends that States continue to be guided by the elements prescribed 
under Uniform Guidelines for the State Highway Safety No. 20 Occupant 
Protection Programs, promulgated under 23 U.S.C. 402, in

[[Page 4992]]

developing their occupant protection plan.
ii. Click It or Ticket
    MAP-21 specifically requires States to participate in the Click It 
or Ticket national mobilization in order to qualify for an occupant 
protection grant. Click It or Ticket is an annual nationwide high 
visibility enforcement campaign to reduce highway fatalities and 
injuries by cracking down on seat belt nonuse. To satisfy this 
criterion, the IFR requires that a State must provide a description of 
the State's planned participation and an assurance signed by the 
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety that it will participate 
in the Click It or Ticket national mobilization in the fiscal year of 
the grant. (23 CFR 1200.21(d)(2))
iii. Child Restraint Inspection Stations
    MAP-21 requires States to have ``an active network of child 
restraint inspection stations.'' Although MAP-21 does not define 
``active network,'' the IFR specifies that an ``active network'' is one 
where inspection stations are located in areas that service the 
majority of the State's population and show evidence of outreach to 
underserved areas. The agency used a version of this population-based 
approach in the Motorcyclist Safety grant program authorized by 
SAFETEA-LU. The agency will use population data from the most recent 
national census (currently 2010) to validate that the stations are 
representative of a majority of the population.
    In addition, today's action specifies that these stations must be 
staffed with nationally certified CPS technicians during posted working 
hours. It is permissible for the State to have one technician 
responsible for more than one inspection station. (23 CFR 
1200.21(d)(3))
iv. Child Passenger Safety Technicians
    MAP-21 also requires that States must have a plan to recruit, train 
and maintain a sufficient number of child passenger safety technicians. 
The IFR specifies that a ``sufficient number'' means at least one 
nationally certified CPS technician responsible for coverage of each 
inspection station and inspection event throughout the State. As noted 
above, it is permissible for the State to plan to have one technician 
responsible for more than one inspection station. (23 CFR 
1200.21(d)(4))
v. Requirement for Maintenance of Effort
    MAP-21 requires the State to maintain its aggregate expenditures 
from all State and local sources for occupant protection programs at or 
above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 2010 and 
2011. The agency has the authority to waive or modify this requirement 
for not more than one fiscal year. The agency expects that waivers will 
only be granted under exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances. As a 
condition of the grant, States will be required to provide assurances 
that the State will maintain its aggregate expenditures in accordance 
with this provision. (23 CFR 1200.21(c)(2); Appendix D)
    4. Additional Requirements for Lower Seat Belt Use Rate States. In 
addition to meeting the above requirements, States with a seat belt use 
rate below 90 percent must meet at least three of six legal or 
programmatic criteria to qualify for grant funds. The legal criteria 
options are a primary seat belt use law and an occupant protection law. 
(23 CFR 1200.21(e)(1)-(e)(2)) The programmatic criteria options are a 
seat belt enforcement plan, high risk population countermeasure 
programs, a comprehensive occupant protection program and completion of 
an occupant protection program assessment. (23 CFR 1200.21(e)(3)-
(e)(6))
i. Primary Seat Belt Use Law
    MAP-21 specifies that a State must enact and enforce a primary 
enforcement seat belt use law. To qualify for this criterion, the IFR 
requires that a State have primary enforcement of all seating positions 
covered under the State's seat belt use law and child restraint law. 
(23 CFR 1200.21(e)(1)) Thus, for example, if a State seat belt use law 
requires all front seat passengers to be secured in a seat belt and its 
child restraint law requires all children under 16 years of age to be 
secured in a child restraint or seat belt, the State must provide for 
primary enforcement for all violations of those requirements in order 
to qualify for this criterion.
ii. Occupant Protection Laws
    MAP-21 requires a lower seat belt use rate State to have occupant 
protection laws requiring front and rear occupant protection use by all 
occupants in an ``age-appropriate restraint.'' Because MAP-21 requires 
coverage in an age-appropriate restraint, the agency is continuing the 
requirements set forth in the predecessor child and booster seat grant 
program (Section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU) that were tied to the agency's 
child restraint performance standards (FMVSS 213). Thus, under today's 
IFR, to meet this criterion, a State must require each occupant who is 
under eight years of age, weighs less than 65 pounds and is less than 
four feet, nine inches in height to be secured in an age-appropriate 
child restraint. (23 CFR 1200.21(e)(2)(i)) All occupants riding in 
passenger motor vehicles other than those identified above must be 
secured in a seat belt or appropriate child restraint. (23 CFR 
1200.21(e)(2)(ii)) These provisions require that there be no gaps in 
coverage in the State occupant protection laws. (23 CFR 
1200.21(e)(2)(ii))
    The IFR also continues the minimum fine requirements of the 
predecessor Section 405 program for a violation of the occupant program 
law. To qualify under this criterion, the State must provide for the 
imposition of a minimum fine of not less than $25 per unrestrained 
occupant. This provision ensures that the State is enforcing the law in 
a meaningful manner that can deter violations.
    MAP-21 does not specify any permissible exemptions for this 
criterion. Most, if not all, States have some exemptions in their 
occupant protection laws. The agency recognizes that the goals of 
higher seat belt use would not be served by denying grants to States 
regardless of the nature of the exemption. However, some exemptions 
would severely undermine the safety considerations underlying the 
statute. Based on NHTSA's review of seat belt laws under previous 
authorizations and given the maturity of occupant protection programs, 
the IFR permits some exemptions, or variations of exemptions, that the 
agency has accepted by long-standing application in seat belt programs, 
such as Section 405, 406 and 2011 grant programs under previous 
authorizations. (23 CFR 1200.21(e)(2)(iv)) The permitted exemptions 
include the following:
    (A) Drivers, but not passengers, of postal, utility, and commercial 
vehicles that make frequent stops in the course of their business;
    (B) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because of a medical condition, provided there is written documentation 
from a physician;
    (C) Persons who are unable wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because all other seating positions are occupied by persons properly 
restrained in seat belts or child restraints;

[[Page 4993]]

    (D) Emergency vehicle operators and passengers in emergency 
vehicles during an emergency;
    (E) Persons riding in seating positions or vehicles not required by 
Federal law to be equipped with seat belts;
    (F) Passengers in public and livery conveyances;
    Many States include exemptions for commercial drivers, such as 
postal workers and utility workers, who make frequent stops in the 
course of their business. However, in the IFR the agency limits this 
exemption to the drivers themselves, and only during the course of 
their route.
    In predecessor grant programs, the agency permitted an exemption 
for passengers who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because of a medical condition, provided the person has written 
documentation of the condition from a physician. The agency is aware of 
several variations of this exemption under State laws. The IFR 
specifically limits the exemption to a ``medical condition'' that is 
``documented'' by a ``physician.'' Provisions that exempt passengers 
for size, weight or unfitness, for example, are not permissible. 
Exemptions that do not require ``written'' documentation and that such 
documentation be from a ``physician,'' meaning a licensed medical 
professional, are similarly not permissible. The agency has not found 
compelling evidence of medical conditions that impair a passenger's 
ability to wear a seat belt or child restraint, and for this reason, 
this medical exemption will be interpreted narrowly.
    By long-standing practice under predecessor grant programs, the 
agency has permitted an exemption when all seating positions are 
occupied by other belted or restrained passengers, or when vehicles are 
not required to be equipped with seat belts, and the IFR continues to 
permit these exemptions. However, exemptions of the first kind are not 
permitted unless all other seating positions in the vehicle are 
occupied with properly belted or restrained passengers. Exemptions for 
persons riding in seating positions not required by Federal law to be 
equipped with seat belts recognize that some older vehicles that are 
still on the road were originally manufactured without seat belts.
    States also include exemptions for emergency situations. The agency 
understands that passengers and operators of emergency vehicles during 
an emergency may not be belted or in child restraints due to the 
circumstances. While it is unlikely that law enforcement personnel 
would ticket persons in these situations, even with the exemption, the 
IFR permits an exemption for emergency vehicles in emergency 
situations. This exemption is specific to ``emergency vehicles.'' 
Exemptions for persons transporting passengers in an emergency 
situation or attending to the emergency needs of a passenger are 
impermissibly over broad, because they are subjective in nature, and 
the IFR does not allow them.
    The IFR allows exemptions for passengers in public and livery 
conveyances, such as taxi cabs. The agency recognizes that many States 
find it impractical to impose liability in these situations.
    Under the predecessor grant program for child safety seats and 
booster seats, an exemption for children when no combination lap and 
shoulder belt is available for any seating position was permitted. The 
IFR continues this exemption, but applies it narrowly. The exemption is 
permissible only with respect to the use of a booster seat, because 
booster seats cannot be safely used with a two-point belt. The 
exemption may not leave the child without a child restraint 
requirement.
    The market for child restraints and booster seats has changed 
significantly during the last decade. Many child safety seats can be 
secured with a lap belt only, and many child safety seats are available 
for children weighing up to 80 pounds. The agency finds no continuing 
reason why a child should be exempted from all child restraint 
requirements (leaving the child to be restrained only by a two-point 
belt) because a combination lap and shoulder belt is not available to 
accommodate a booster seat. Accordingly, the agency will no longer 
permit an exemption from a booster seat requirement when no combination 
lap and shoulder belt is available, unless it requires the use of other 
age-appropriate child restraints.
    Consistent with past practice, NHTSA will review State laws to 
determine whether all ``passenger motor vehicles'' are covered by the 
State occupant protection law. Some State laws omit coverage for 
vehicles that fall within the definition of passenger motor vehicle. 
For example, some State laws exempt commercial vehicles or school 
buses, but define these terms expansively to include passenger cars, 
SUVs, or minivans used for those purposes. In those circumstances, such 
laws do not meet the vehicle coverage requirements specified in this 
IFR. On the other hand, exemptions to occupant protection laws that 
apply only to vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds do not 
render the State ineligible for this criterion.
iii. Seat Belt Enforcement
    Under MAP-21, this criterion requires a lower seat belt use rate 
State to ``conduct sustained (on-going and periodic) seat belt 
enforcement at a defined level of participation during the year.'' To 
satisfy this criterion, the IFR specifies that the State must submit a 
seat belt enforcement plan that documents how law enforcement agencies 
will participate in the sustained seat belt enforcement to cover at 
least 70 percent of the State's population as shown by the latest 
available Federal census or how law enforcement agencies covering 
geographic areas in which at least 70 percent of the State's 
unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities occurred (reported 
in the HSP) will be responsible for seat belt enforcement. (23 CFR 
1200.21(e)(3))
iv. High Risk Population Countermeasure Programs
    MAP-21 requires a lower seat belt use rate State to implement 
``countermeasure programs for high-risk populations, such as drivers on 
rural roadways, unrestrained nighttime drivers, or teenage drivers.'' 
To qualify under this criterion, the IFR directs the State to provide 
documentation of its countermeasure programs for at least two of the 
high-risk populations identified in MAP-21 or other high-risk 
populations identified by the State in its occupant protection plan. 
The countermeasure programs must identify strategies for increasing 
seat belt and child restraint use in these population classes. (23 CFR 
1200.21(e)(4))
v. Comprehensive Occupant Protection Program
    Under MAP-21, a lower seat belt use rate State must implement a 
comprehensive occupant protection program in which the State has 
conducted a NHTSA-facilitated program assessment, developed a statewide 
strategic plan, designated an occupant protection coordinator, and 
established a statewide occupant protection task force. Under this 
criterion, in addition to submitting the occupant protection plan 
required of all States, a lower seat belt use rate State must 
demonstrate that it has a comprehensive program under which it has 
developed a multi-year strategic plan based on input from statewide 
stakeholders. (23 CFR 1200.21(e)(5)(ii-iii)) In prescribing the 
required elements of the multi-year strategic plan, the agency was 
guided by the NHTSA's Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety 
Programs No. 20--Occupant Protection, promulgated

[[Page 4994]]

under 23 U.S.C. 402. The multi-year strategic plan must include a 
program management strategy, a program evaluation strategy, a 
communication and education program strategy and an enforcement 
strategy. MAP-21 also requires under this criterion that the State has 
designated an occupant protection coordinator and established a 
statewide occupant protection task force. The comprehensive occupant 
protection program must also include evidence that the State has 
conducted a NHTSA-facilitated program assessment that evaluates the 
program for elements designed to increase seat belt use in the State. 
(23 CFR 1200.21(e)(5)(i))
vi. Occupant Protection Program Assessment
    A separate criterion in MAP-21 requires a lower seat belt use rate 
State to demonstrate that it has completed an assessment of its 
occupant protection program during the three-year period preceding the 
grant year or will conduct such an assessment during the first year of 
the grant. A lower seat belt use rate State must provide evidence that 
it has conducted a comprehensive NHTSA-facilitated assessment of all 
elements of its occupant protection program within the three years 
prior to the application due date. If the State has not conducted such 
an assessment, it may meet the criterion by providing assurances that 
it will conduct a NHTSA-facilitated assessment by September 1 of the 
grant year. (23 CFR 1200.21(e)(6)) If the State fails to conduct a 
NHTSA-facilitated assessment by September 1, the agency will seek the 
return of Section 405(b) grant funds that the State qualified for on 
the basis of the State's assurance that it would conduct such an 
assessment by the deadline, and the agency will redistribute the grant 
funds in accordance with Sec.  1200.20(e) to other qualifying States 
under this section. Seeking the return of grant funds and 
redistributing the funds to other qualifying States is the most 
equitable resolution since the State did not meet the conditions of the 
grant, and those grant funds should properly be awarded to other 
qualifying States. Further, the failure of a State to conduct this 
assessment will disqualify the State from the next fiscal year's grant.
    5. Use of Grant Funds. MAP-21 identifies with particularity how 
States may use grant funds awarded under this program, but permits high 
seat belt use rate States to use up to 75 percent for any project or 
activity eligible for funding under 23 U.S.C. 402. The IFR adopts this 
language without change in 23 CFR 1200.21(f).

C. State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants (Sec.  
1200.22)

    MAP-21 continues, with some changes, the traffic safety information 
system improvements grant program authorized under SAFETEA-LU (formerly 
codified at 23 U.S.C. 408). The purpose of the new grant program, as 
under SAFETEA-LU, is to support State efforts to improve the data 
systems needed to help identify priorities for Federal, State and local 
highway and traffic safety programs, to link intra-State data systems, 
and to improve the compatibility and interoperability of these data 
systems with national data systems and the data systems of other States 
for highway safety purposes, such as enhancing the ability to analyze 
national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes and 
circumstances. (23 CFR 1200.22(a))
1. Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC) Requirement
    The role and function of a TRCC in the State Traffic Safety 
Information System Improvements grant program is very similar to that 
of the TRCC in the predecessor data program. Consistent with those 
requirements (pursuant to which many States already have established 
the necessary organizational structure for their TRCC), a State's TRCC 
under this section must have a multidisciplinary membership that 
includes, among others, owners, operators, collectors and users of 
traffic records and public health and injury control data systems, 
highway safety, highway infrastructure, law enforcement and 
adjudication officials, and public health, emergency medical services 
(EMS), injury control, driver licensing and motor carrier agencies and 
organizations. (23 CFR 1200.22(b)(1))
    Building on guidance issued under the predecessor data program, 
this IFR requires that a TRCC have specific review and approval 
authority with respect to State highway safety data and traffic records 
systems, technologies used to keep such systems current, TRCC 
membership, the TRCC coordinator, changes to the State's multi-year 
Strategic Plan, and performance measures used to demonstrate 
quantitative progress. It also charges a TRCC with considering, 
coordinating and representing to outside organizations the views of the 
State organizations involved in the administration, collection and use 
of highway safety data and traffic records. (23 CFR 1200.22(b)(2))
2. Strategic Plan Requirement
    This IFR, as under the predecessor program, requires a State to 
have a traffic records strategic plan that has been approved by the 
TRCC and describes specific quantifiable and measurable anticipated 
improvements in the State's core safety databases. The data collection 
and information systems sections of the traffic records strategic plan 
should be coordinated with the State strategic highway safety plan. 
Identified performance measures, using the formats set forth in the 
Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems (DOT HS 
811 441, February 2011), collaboratively developed by NHTSA and GHSA, 
continue to be critical components of a State's strategic plan, as do 
recommendations resulting from its most recent highway safety data and 
traffic records system assessment. (23 CFR 1200.22(c))
3. Quantifiable and Measurable Progress Requirement
    Continuing the emphasis on performance measures and measurable 
progress, this IFR emphasizes that a valid and unequivocal method of 
demonstrating quantitative improvement in the data attributes of 
accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility, and 
integration in a core database is by showing an improved consistency 
within the State's record system or achievement of a higher level of 
compliance with a national model inventory of data elements, such as 
the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), the Model Impaired 
Driving Records Information System (MIDRIS), the Model Inventory of 
Roadway Elements (MIRE) or the National Emergency Medical Services 
Information System (NEMSIS). These model data elements include the 
measure of Crash uniformity (C-U-1, the number of MMUCC-compliant data 
elements entered into the crash database); the measure of Roadway 
uniformity (R-U-1, the number of MIRE-compliant data elements entered 
into the roadway database); one of the measures of Citation/
Adjudication uniformity (C/A-U-1, the number of MIDRIS-compliant data 
elements entered into the citation database); and both of the measures 
of EMS/Injury Surveillance uniformity (I-U-1 and I-U-2, the percentage 
and number of records on the State EMS data file that are NEMSIS-
compliant). (23 CFR 1200.22(d))
    Performance measures must be in the formats set forth in the Model

[[Page 4995]]

Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems (DOT HS 811 441, 
February 2011) collaboratively developed by NHTSA and GHSA. To satisfy 
this progress requirement, the supporting data must demonstrate that 
the progress was achieved, at least in part, within the preceding 12 
months.
    Under the predecessor data program, a State had to certify that it 
had adopted and was using the model data elements or that the grant 
funds it received under the program would be used toward adopting and 
using the maximum number of model data elements as soon as practicable. 
To qualify for a grant under this IFR, States do not need to make this 
same certification. However, the MMUCC, MIRE, MIDRIS and NEMSIS model 
data sets continue to be central to States' efforts to improve their 
highway safety data and traffic records systems. For this reason, in 
order to demonstrate measurable progress, this IFR strongly encourages 
a State to achieve a higher level of compliance with a national model 
inventory.
    States are strongly encouraged to submit one or more voluntary 
interim progress reports documenting performance measures and 
supportive data that demonstrate quantitative progress in relation to 
one or more of the six significant data program attributes. NHTSA 
recommends submission of the interim progress reports prior to the 
application due date to provide time for NHTSA to interact with the 
State to obtain any additional information that NHTSA may need to 
verify the State's quantifiable, measurable progress.
4. Requirement To Conduct or Update a Traffic Records System Assessment
    This IFR requires that a State certification be based on an 
assessment that complies with the procedures and methodologies outlined 
in NHTSA's Traffic Records Highway Safety Program Advisory (DOT HS 811 
644). As in the past, NHTSA will continue to conduct State assessments 
that meet the requirements of this section without charge, subject to 
the availability of funding. (23 CFR 1200.22(e))
    A State that satisfies this certification requirement on the basis 
of having updated an assessment of its highway safety data and traffic 
records system during the preceding five years must submit with its 
application an assessment update report including (1) the date on which 
the most recent assessment was completed, (2) a listing of all 
recommendations to the State contained in the assessment report, (3) an 
explanation of how the State has addressed each recommendation since 
the date the assessment was completed, and (4) the date on which the 
assessment update report was prepared.
5. Requirement for Maintenance of Effort
    MAP-21 requires the State to maintain its aggregate expenditures 
from all State and local sources for State traffic safety information 
system programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in 
fiscal years 2010 and 2011. The agency has the authority to waive or 
modify this requirement for not more than one fiscal year. The agency 
expects that waivers will be granted only under exceptional 
circumstances. As a condition of the grant, each State will be required 
to provide assurances that the State will maintain its aggregate 
expenditures in accordance with this provision. (23 CFR 1200.22(f); 
Appendix D)
    6. Use of Grant Funds. States may use grant funds awarded under 
this subsection for making data program improvements to core highway 
safety databases related to quantifiable, measurable progress in any of 
the significant data program attributes of accuracy, completeness, 
timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or integration of a core highway 
safety database.

D. Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants (Sec.  1200.23)

    The impaired driving countermeasures grant program was created by 
the Drunk Driving Prevention Act of 1988 and codified at 23 U.S.C. 410. 
As originally conceived, States could qualify for basic and 
supplemental grants under this program. Since the inception of the 
Section 410 program, it has been amended several times to change the 
grant criteria and grant award amounts. The most recent amendments 
prior to those leading to today's action arose out of the program 
authorized under SAFETEA-LU. These amendments modified the grant 
criteria and the award amounts and made a number of structural changes 
to streamline the program.
    Under SAFETEA-LU, States could meet the grant program requirements 
by qualifying either on the basis of a low alcohol-related fatality 
rate, based on the agency's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 
data, or by meeting a number of specified programmatic criteria each 
year of the grant (three in the first fiscal year, four in the 
following fiscal year, and five in the remaining fiscal years of the 
program). Specifically, the programmatic requirements included the 
following criteria: high visibility impaired driving enforcement 
program; prosecution and adjudication outreach program; BAC testing 
program; high risk drivers program; alcohol rehabilitation or DWI court 
program; underage drinking prevention program; administrative license 
suspension and revocation program; and self-sustaining impaired driving 
prevention program. In addition, a separate grant program provided 
funds to the 10 States with the highest alcohol-related fatality rates.
    MAP-21 modified the grant award criteria and the award amounts and 
included a number of structural changes to the impaired driving 
countermeasures grant program.
1. Impaired Driving Countermeasures Program Under MAP-21
    As directed in MAP-21, States qualify for a grant based on a 
determination of the State's average impaired driving fatality rate 
using the most recently available final data from NHTSA's FARS. States 
are then classified as either low-range, mid-range, or high-range 
States and are required to meet certain statutory requirements 
associated with each classification. In addition, under MAP-21, a new 
grant is created to separately reward States that have mandatory 
ignition interlock laws applicable to all DUI offenders (``alcohol-
ignition interlock State'' grants). There are no longer formal 
programmatic requirements under MAP-21. (23 CFR 1200.23(c))
    The average impaired driving fatality rate, the basis for most 
grant awards under this section, is based on the number of fatalities 
in motor vehicle crashes in a State that involve a driver with a blood 
alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 percent for every 100,000,000 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Rate determinations based on FARS data 
from the most recently reported three calendar years for a State are 
then averaged to determine the rate. These determinations will be used 
to identify States as either low-, mid- or high-range States in 
accordance with MAP-21 requirements. (23 CFR 1200.23(d)-(f)) Consistent 
with the predecessor grant program requirements, the agency expects to 
make rate information available to the States by June 1. This date will 
allow the agency to use the most recently available final FARS data in 
its calculations. If there is any delay in the availability of FARS 
data in a given year, the agency will use the rate calculations from 
the preceding year. This approach will ensure that any delay in data 
availability will not affect the awarding of grants under this section.

[[Page 4996]]

    MAP-21 specifies that low-range States are those with an average 
impaired driving fatality rate of 0.30 or lower; mid-range States are 
those with an average impaired driving fatality rate that is higher 
than 0.30 and lower than 0.60; and high-range States are those that 
have an average impaired driving fatality rate of 0.60 or higher. The 
agency will not round any rates for the purposes of determining how a 
State should be classified among these ranges.
    MAP-21 provides for separate grants to be made to ``alcohol-
ignition interlock States,'' as further described below. Each State 
with a law that requires every individual convicted of driving under 
the influence or driving while intoxicated to be subject to the use of 
an alcohol-ignition interlock for a minimum of 30 days is eligible for 
a separate grant. MAP-21 provides that up to 15 percent of the amount 
available to carry out the impaired driving countermeasures program 
shall be available for grants to States meeting this criterion. (23 CFR 
1200.23(g))
2. Low-Range States
    Under MAP-21, States that have an average impaired driving fatality 
rate of 0.30 or lower are considered low-range States. Prior to the 
start of the application period (on or about June 1 of each fiscal 
year), the agency will inform each State that qualifies for a grant as 
a low-range State. These States are not required to provide any 
additional information in order to receive grant funds. However, these 
States will be required to submit information that identifies how the 
grant funds will be used in accordance with the requirements of MAP-21 
(see qualifying uses below). (23 CFR 1200.23(d)(1))
    In addition, MAP-21 requires the State to maintain its aggregate 
expenditures from all State and local sources for impaired driving 
programs at or above the average level of such expenditure in fiscal 
years 2010 and 2011. (23 CFR 1200.23(d)(2)) As a condition of the 
grant, each State will be required to provide assurances that the State 
will maintain its aggregate expenditures in accordance with this 
provision. (Appendix D) The agency has the authority to waive or modify 
this requirement for not more than one fiscal year. The agency expects 
that waivers will only be granted under exceptional circumstances.
    The above requirements that apply to low-range States are minimum 
requirements that apply to all States that receive a grant under 
Section 405(d).
3. Mid-Range States
    Under MAP-21, States that have an average impaired driving fatality 
rate that is higher than 0.30 and lower than 0.60 are considered mid-
range States. In accordance with the statutory requirements, States 
qualifying as mid-range States are required to submit a statewide 
impaired driving plan that addresses the problem of impaired driving. 
The plan must have been developed by a statewide impaired driving task 
force within the three years prior to the application due date. If the 
State has not developed and submitted a plan that meets the statutory 
criteria at the time of the application deadline, then it must provide 
an assurance that one will be developed and submitted to NHTSA by 
September 1 of the grant year. (23 CFR 1200.23(e)) If the State fails 
to submit the plan by September 1, the agency will seek the return of 
Section 405(d) grant funds that the State qualified for based on its 
assurance that it would submit the plan by the deadline, and will 
redistribute the grant funds in accordance with Sec.  1200.20(e) to 
other qualifying States under this section, consistent with the 
treatment of similarly situated States under Section III.B.4.iv, above.
    The purpose of a statewide impaired driving plan is to provide a 
comprehensive strategy for preventing and reducing impaired driving 
behavior. The agency is requiring the plan to be organized in 
accordance with the general areas stated in NHTSA's Uniform Guidelines 
for State Highway Safety Programs No. 8--Impaired Driving. These 
general areas provide the basis for a comprehensive approach to 
addressing problems of impaired driving. States also should consider 
including sections on data-driven problem identification, strategies 
for addressing identified problems and target groups, plans for 
measuring progress and outcomes, and steps to achieve stakeholder input 
and participation in the plan. (23 CFR 1200.23(e)(1))
    In accordance with MAP-21, all qualifying plans must be developed 
by a statewide impaired driving task force. The IFR requires that the 
task force include key stakeholders in the State from the State Highway 
Safety Office and the areas of law enforcement and criminal justice 
system (e.g., prosecution, adjudication, probation). The IFR also 
requires that the task force include, as appropriate, stakeholders from 
the areas of driver licensing, treatment and rehabilitation, ignition 
interlock programs, data and traffic records, public health, and 
communication. The State should include a variety of individuals from 
different functions or disciplines that bring different perspectives 
and experiences to the task force. Such an approach ensures that the 
plan developed by the task force will be a comprehensive treatment of 
the issues of impaired driving in a State. (23 CFR 1200.23(e)(2)(iii)) 
States may consider reviewing NHTSA's report entitled, ``A Guide for 
State-wide Impaired Driving Task Forces'' in developing a statewide 
impaired driving task force.
    In addition to a list of the members of the task force, the State 
must provide information that supports the basis for the operation of 
the task force, including any charter or establishing documents that 
describe its purpose and operations. The State also must provide the 
meeting schedule for the task force for the 12 months that preceded the 
application deadline and include any reports or documents that the task 
force produced during that period. This information shall be included 
in the State's application for a grant. (23 CFR 1200.23(e)(2)(i)-(ii))
4. High-Range States
    Under MAP-21, States that have an average impaired driving fatality 
rate that is 0.60 or higher are considered high-range States. A State 
qualifying as a high-range State is required to have conducted a NHTSA-
facilitated assessment of the State's impaired driving program within 
the three years prior to the application due date or provide an 
assurance that it will conduct an assessment during the first year of 
the grant year. (23 CFR 1200.23(f)(1)) NHTSA's involvement will ensure 
a comprehensive treatment of impaired driving issues in the State and 
consistency in the administration of the assessments. This approach is 
also consistent with NHTSA's longstanding involvement in conducting 
assessments of State traffic safety activities and programs.
    During the first year of the grant, the State is also required to 
convene a statewide impaired driving task force to develop a statewide 
impaired driving plan (both the task force and plan requirements are 
described in the preceding section under mid-range States). In addition 
to meeting the requirements associated with developing a statewide 
impaired driving plan, the plan also must address any recommendations 
from the required assessment. The plan also must include a detailed 
strategy for spending grant funds and include a description of how such 
spending supports the statewide impaired driving programs and will

[[Page 4997]]

contribute to the State meeting its impaired driving program 
performance targets. (23 CFR 1200.23(f)(2)(i))
    MAP-21 requires the plan to be submitted to NHTSA during the first 
year of the grant for review and approval. The IFR requires that such a 
plan be submitted to NHTSA by September 1 of the grant year. After the 
first year, MAP-21 requires high-range States to update the plan in 
each subsequent year of the grant and then submit each updated 
statewide plan for NHTSA's review. (23 CFR 1200.23(f)(2)(ii))
5. Alcohol-Ignition Interlock States
    MAP-21 provides a separate grant to those States that adopt and 
enforce mandatory alcohol-ignition interlock laws. In order to qualify, 
the IFR requires that a State must have enacted a law by the 
application deadline that requires that all individuals convicted of a 
DUI offense to be limited to driving motor vehicles equipped with an 
ignition interlock. The IFR further requires the restriction to apply 
for a mandatory minimum period of 30 days. This length of time is 
consistent with the relatively short timeframe that a State might use 
for first-time DUI offenders. A State wishing to receive a grant is 
required to submit the assurances in Part 3 of Appendix D, signed by 
the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, providing legal 
citation to the State statute demonstrating a compliant law. (23 CFR 
1200.23(g))
    Up to 15 percent of the total amount available under this section 
may be used to fund alcohol-ignition interlock grants. The agency 
believes, however, that in the first years of the program few States 
may qualify for this grant. To avoid the situation where a small number 
of States might receive inordinately large grant awards, the agency may 
adjust the funding made available for these grants. This is consistent 
with the statute, which specifies that up to ``15 percent'' may be made 
available for the grants. (23 CFR 1200.23(h))
6. Use of Grant Funds
    With the exceptions discussed below, grant funds may be distributed 
among any of the uses identified in MAP-21. In the IFR, the agency has 
included definitions for some of the uses. The definitions are 
generally consistent with those provided for in MAP-21 or with those 
developed under the prior regulation for this grant program. (23 CFR 
1200.23(b) and (i))
    For low-range States and States receiving grants as alcohol-
ignition interlock States, funds may be used for any of the uses 
identified. Mid-range States may use grants funds for any of the uses 
identified except programs designed to reduce impaired driving based on 
problem identification. In accordance with the statute, mid-range 
States may use funds for these programs only after review and approval 
by NHTSA.
    High-range States may use grants funds for any uses only after 
submission and NHTSA approval of the statewide impaired driving plan. A 
high-range State will not be allowed to voucher against these funds 
until it has submitted its plan and received approval. States receiving 
alcohol-ignition interlock grants may use grants funds for any of the 
uses identified and for any eligible activities described under 23 
U.S.C. 402.

E. Distracted Driving Grants (Sec.  1200.24)

    MAP-21 created a new distracted driving grant program, authorizing 
incentive grants to States that enact and enforce laws prohibiting 
distracted driving. Specifically, States must have statutes that 
prohibit drivers from texting while driving and youths from using cell 
phones while driving. In order to give States an opportunity to submit 
applications for the newly authorized distracted driving grants as soon 
as possible in fiscal year 2013, NHTSA published a notice of funding 
availability (NOFA) on August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51610). Due to the 
unavailability of funds for that program under the current interim 
appropriations, whose enactment post-dated the NOFA, NHTSA published an 
updated notice on October 5, 2012, extending the due date for 
application submissions. (77 FR 61048) NHTSA will award distracted 
driving grants for fiscal year 2013 as provided in the NOFA. For fiscal 
year 2014 and future years, NHTSA will award distracted driving grants 
in accordance with the implementing regulations published in this IFR.
    1. Qualification Criteria. The basis for an award under this grant 
program is a State statute that complies with the criteria set forth in 
in MAP-21. Specifically, a State must have a conforming statute that 
prohibits texting while driving and youth cell phone use while driving.
i. Texting Prohibition
    MAP-21 provides that the State statute must prohibit drivers from 
texting through a personal wireless communications device while 
driving. (23 CFR 1200.24(c)(1)) MAP-21 defines ``personal wireless 
communications device,'' ``texting'' and ``driving''. (23 CFR 1200.20; 
23 CFR 1200.24(b)) The State statute prohibiting texting must be 
consistent with these definitions. For example, MAP-21 defines texting 
to include ``reading'' from personal wireless communications devices. A 
State statute that does not prohibit reading texts or similar forms of 
electronic data communications would not enable the State to qualify 
for a distracted driving grant. Similarly, MAP-21 defines ``driving'' 
to include being temporarily stopped because of traffic or at a traffic 
light. If the State statute does not prohibit texting under these 
circumstances (e.g., a statute prohibiting texting while the vehicle is 
in motion), it would not enable the State to qualify for a distracted 
driving grant.
ii. Youth Cell Phone Use Prohibition
    MAP-21 requires the State statute to prohibit a driver who is 
younger than 18 years of age from using a personal wireless 
communications device while driving. (23 CFR 1200.24(c)(2)) As noted 
above, MAP-21 defines ``personal wireless communications device'' and 
``driving,'' and a State statute prohibiting youth cell phone use while 
driving must be consistent with these definitions.
iii. Enforcement
    MAP-21 requires that the State statute make a violation of both the 
texting prohibition and the youth cell phone use prohibition a primary 
offense. (23 CFR 1200.24(c)(1)(ii) and 1200.24(c)(2)(ii)). As defined 
by MAP-21, a primary offense is ``an offense for which a law 
enforcement officer may stop a vehicle solely for the purpose of 
issuing a citation in the absence of evidence of another offense.'' (23 
CFR 1200.20(b))
iv. Fines
    MAP-21 requires that the State statute provide for a minimum fine 
for a first violation and increased fines for repeat violations. In 
order to meet the minimum fine requirement, the IFR specifies a minimum 
fine of $25 for a first violation of the texting and youth cell phone 
use law. (23 CFR 1200.24(c)(1)(iii)(A) and 1200.24(c)(2)(iv)(A)) This 
minimum fine amount is consistent with past practice in other highway 
safety grant programs from previous authorizations. State laws that 
provide for fines ``up to,'' ``not more than,'' ``not to exceed'' or 
similar terms would not satisfy the minimum fine requirement in MAP-21. 
Such language does not mandate a minimum fine for a violation.
    In order to meet the increased fines for repeat violations 
requirement, the State statute must provide for a fine

[[Page 4998]]

greater than the minimum fine for the first violation. (23 CFR 
1200.24(c)(1)(iii)(B) and 1200.24(c)(2)(iv)(B)) For State statutes that 
provide a range of fine amounts for a first violation, the State 
statute must provide a fine for a repeat violation greater than the 
maximum fine assessed for a first violation. For example, if the State 
statute provides that a fine for a first violation is not less than 
$25, but not more than $50, the statute must provide for a fine of more 
than $50 for a repeat violation. Further, the IFR requires that 
violations within five years of the previous violation must be treated 
as repeat violations. (23 CFR 1200.24(c)(1)(iii)(B) and 
1200.24(c)(2)(iv)(B)) This is consistent with past practice in other 
highway safety grant programs from previous authorizations.
    MAP-21 does not require that fines increase with each subsequent 
offense. In order to qualify for a distracted driving grant, the State 
statute need not provide for increasing fine amounts for third and 
subsequent offenses, beyond the increased fine for a second (or repeat) 
offense.
v. Testing Distracted Driving Issues
    MAP-21 provides that the State statute must require distracted 
driving issues to be tested as part of the State driver's license 
examination. In order to meet this requirement, the State statute must 
specifically require distracted driving issues to be tested as part of 
the State's driver's license examination. To satisfy this requirement, 
it is not sufficient that a State may, as a matter of current practice, 
be testing for distracted driving issues--the State statute must 
require it in statute. (23 CFR 1200.24(c)(2)(iii))
vi. Allowable Exceptions
    MAP-21 specifies that a State statute may provide for the following 
exceptions and still meet the qualification requirements for a 
distracted driving grant: a driver who uses a personal wireless 
communications device to contact emergency services; emergency services 
personnel who use a personal wireless communications device while 
operating an emergency services vehicle and engaged in the performance 
of their duties as emergency services personnel; and an individual 
employed as a commercial motor vehicle driver or a school bus driver 
who uses a personal wireless communications device within the scope of 
such individual's employment if such use is permitted under the 
regulations promulgated pursuant to section 31136 of title 49. No other 
exceptions are permitted under MAP-21. Accordingly, the IFR does not 
permit any other exceptions. (23 CFR 1200.24(c)(3))
    2. Use of Grant Funds. MAP-21 provides that each State that 
receives a Section 405(e) grant must use at least 50 percent of the 
grant funds for specific distracted driving related activities and up 
to 50 percent for any eligible project or activity under 23 U.S.C. 402. 
The IFR adopts this language without change. (23 CFR 1200.24(d))

F. Motorcyclist Safety Grants (Sec.  1200.25)

    Unlike the other Section 405 grant programs authorized by MAP-21, 
only the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are 
eligible to apply for a motorcyclist safety grant. The territories are 
not eligible. The qualification criteria for these grants remain 
largely unchanged from those required for Motorcyclist Safety grants 
under section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU. Under MAP-21 States qualify for a 
grant by meeting two of six grant criteria: Motorcycle Rider Training 
Courses; Motorcyclists Awareness Program; Reduction of Fatalities and 
Crashes Involving Motorcycles; Impaired Driving Program; Reduction of 
Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired Motorcyclists; and Use of 
Fees Collected from Motorcyclists for Motorcycle Programs. (23 U.S.C. 
405(f)(3))
1. Motorcycle Rider Training Courses
    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, MAP-21 requires a 
State to have ``an effective motorcycle rider training course that is 
offered throughout the State, which (i) provides a formal program of 
instruction in accident avoidance and other safety-oriented operational 
skills to motorcyclists and (ii) that may include innovative training 
opportunities to meet unique regional needs.'' (23 U.S.C. 405(f)(3)(A)) 
This remains unchanged from SAFETEA-LU.
    To implement this criterion, the IFR sets forth the elements of 
motorcycle rider training courses that would meet the requirements of 
MAP-21. (23 CFR 1200.25(e)) In developing these requirements, the 
agency was guided by the specific language of MAP-21 and by established 
motorcycle safety programs and practices implemented under SAFETEA-LU. 
The MAP-21 language is nearly identical to the statutory language in 
the predecessor program. For this reason, the agency intends to leave 
in place the familiar practices and programs established under SAFETEA-
LU. The motorcyclist training program is well known to the States and 
provides significant support for State efforts on motorcyclist 
training.
    In order to provide the formal program of instruction in crash 
avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills required by MAP-
21, the IFR requires that the State use a curriculum approved by the 
designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety 
issues. (23 CFR 1200.25(e)(1)(i)) Although MAP-21 uses the term 
``motorcycle rider training'' for this criterion, it defines the term 
``motorcyclist safety training'' as a ``formal program of instruction 
approved for use in a State by the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues, which may include the 
State motorcycle safety administrator or motorcycle advisory council 
appointed by the Governor of the State.'' (23 U.S.C. 405(f)(5)(C)) 
NHTSA believes Congress intended the terms to apply synonymously and 
that Congress defined ``motorcyclist safety training'' in order to give 
additional meaning to the motorcycle rider training courses criterion. 
This is reflected in the IFR. (23 CFR 1200.25(b)).
    Additionally, because State motorcycle rider training courses 
typically include both in-class and on-the-motorcycle training and both 
are critical to the effectiveness of a motorcycle rider training 
course, the IFR requires that the curriculum include both types of 
training. (23 CFR 1200.25(e)(1)(i))
    To effectuate the MAP-21 requirement that a State offer its 
effective motorcycle rider training course throughout the State, NHTSA 
intends to follow the process it applied in the predecessor program. 
The IFR requires that a State offer at least one motorcycle rider 
training course in a majority of the State's counties or political 
subdivisions or offer at least one motorcycle rider training course in 
counties or political subdivisions that account for a majority of the 
State's registered motorcycles. (23 CFR 1200.25(e)(1)(ii)) For the 
purposes of this criterion, majority means greater than 50 percent, and 
the IFR recognizes that locations for motorcycle rider training courses 
may vary widely from State to State. Accordingly, the agency believes 
this requirement provides flexibility to States seeking to qualify 
under this criterion. To implement the MAP-21 requirements for ``an 
effective motorcycle rider training course that is offered throughout 
the State,'' the IFR requires States to submit information regarding 
the motorcycle rider training courses offered in the 12 months

[[Page 4999]]

preceding the due date of the grant application. (23 CFR 
1200.25(e)(2)(iii))
    NHTSA continues to believe it is important that training reach 
motorcyclists in rural areas because about half of all motorcycle-
related fatalities occur in rural areas. Accordingly, consistent with 
the practice under SAFETEA-LU, in selecting counties or political 
subdivisions in which to conduct training, NHTSA encourages States to 
establish training courses and course locations that are accessible to 
both rural and urban residents. The IFR provides that the State may 
offer motorcycle rider training courses throughout the State at 
established training centers, using mobile training units, or any other 
method defined as effective by the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues. (23 CFR 1200.25(e)(1)(i))
    Another requirement is that motorcycle rider training instructors 
be certified by either the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues or by a nationally 
recognized motorcycle safety organization with certification 
capability. (23 CFR 1200.25(e)(1)(iii)) Requiring instructors to attain 
certification in order to teach a motorcycle rider training course will 
contribute to the course's effectiveness by ensuring that instructors 
have obtained an appropriate level of expertise qualifying them to 
instruct less experienced motorcycle riders.
    Finally, the IFR requires that, to qualify for a grant under this 
criterion, a State must carry out quality control procedures to assess 
motorcycle rider training courses and instructor training courses 
conducted in the State. (23 CFR 1200.25(e)(1)(iv)) Quality control 
procedures promote course effectiveness by encouraging improvements to 
courses when needed. The IFR does not specify the quality control 
procedures a State must use. Instead, the IFR requires the State to 
describe in detail what quality control procedures it uses and the 
changes the State made to improve courses. (23 CFR 1200.25(e)(2)(v)) At 
a minimum, a State should gather evaluative information on an ongoing 
basis (e.g., by conducting site visits or gathering student feedback) 
and take actions to improve courses based on the information collected.
2. Motorcyclist Awareness Program
    To satisfy this criterion, MAP-21 requires a State to have ``an 
effective statewide program to enhance motorists' awareness of the 
presence of motorcyclists on or near roadways and safe driving 
practices that avoid injuries to motorcyclists.'' (23 U.S.C. 
405(f)(3(B)) MAP-21 defines ``Motorcyclist Awareness'' and 
``Motorcyclist Awareness Program,'' and these definitions are adopted 
by the IFR. (23 CFR 1200.25(b))
    To implement this criterion, the IFR sets forth the elements of 
motorcyclist awareness programs that meet the MAP-21 requirements. (23 
CFR 1200.25(f)(1)) In developing these requirements, the agency was 
guided by the specific language of MAP-21, the history of the 
motorcyclist awareness criterion implemented under SAFETEA-LU and the 
highway safety guidelines on motorcycle safety.
    First, the definition of ``motorcyclist awareness program'' in MAP-
21 is identical to the definition under SAFETEA-LU and specifies that a 
program under this criterion be developed by or in coordination with 
the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist 
safety issues. Before a problem can be effectively addressed, the 
agency believes that problem identification and prioritization must be 
performed. Therefore, the IFR requires the State, consistent with 
practice under SAFETEA-LU, to include as an element under this 
criterion problem identification and prioritization through the use of 
State data. (23 CFR 1200.25(f)(1)(ii)) The IFR also requires that a 
State's motorcyclist awareness program encourage collaboration among 
agencies and organizations responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle 
safety issues. (23 CFR 1200.25(f)(1)(iii))
    Additionally, the IFR requires that a State's motorcyclist 
awareness program incorporate a strategic communications plan to 
support the overall policy and program because this criterion 
contemplates an informational or public awareness program to enhance 
motorist awareness of the presence of motorcyclists and because 
awareness efforts rely heavily on communication strategies and 
implementation. To ensure statewide application, the IFR requires that 
the communications plan be designed to educate motorists in those 
jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes is highest 
(i.e., the majority of counties or political subdivisions in the State 
with the highest numbers of motorcycle crashes, using data from the 
most recent calendar year, but no older than two calendar years prior 
to the application due date). For the purposes of this criterion, 
majority means greater than 50 percent. Finally, based on NHTSA's 
experience with dispersing traffic safety messages, the IFR requires 
that a communications plan include marketing and educational efforts 
and use a variety of communication mechanisms to increase awareness of 
a problem. (23 CFR 1200.25(f)(1)(iv))
3. Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles
    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, MAP-21 requires a 
State to experience ``a reduction for the preceding calendar year in 
the number of motorcycle fatalities and the rate of motor vehicle 
crashes involving motorcycles in the State (expressed as a function of 
10,000 motorcycle registrations).'' (23 U.S.C. 405(f)(3(C))
    To satisfy this criterion, the IFR requires that, based on final 
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, the State must 
experience a reduction of at least one in the number of motorcyclist 
fatalities for most recent calendar year for which final FARS data are 
available as compared to the final FARS data for the calendar year 
immediately prior to that year; and based on State crash data expressed 
as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle 
registration data), the State must experience at least a whole number 
reduction (i.e., at least a 1.0 reduction) in the rate of motor vehicle 
crashes involving motorcycles for the most recent calendar year for 
which final State crash data is available, but no older than two 
calendar years prior to the application due date, as compared to the 
calendar year immediately prior to that year. (E.g., for a grant 
application submitted on July 1, 2013, a State must provide data from 
the most recently available crash data, but no older than calendar 2011 
year data, which would be compared to the data from the calendar year 
immediately prior to that year.) (23 CFR 1200.25(g)(1))
    The IFR does not use the term ``preceding calendar year'' because 
NHTSA and most States do not have final FARS and State crash data 
available for the preceding calendar year at the time of the grant 
application. However, in order to have the most recent data available, 
the IFR specifies computing the rates required under this criterion 
using the most recently available FARS data and State crash data. Using 
the final FARS data, FHWA motorcycle registration data and State crash 
data, NHTSA will calculate the rates to determine a State's compliance 
with this criterion.
    Consistent with the predecessor program, using the most recent 
final FARS data will ensure that the most accurate fatality numbers are 
used to determine each State's compliance with

[[Page 5000]]

this criterion. The FARS contains data derived from a census of fatal 
traffic crashes within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico. All FARS data on fatal motor vehicle crashes are gathered 
from the States' own documents and coded into FARS formats with common 
standards. Final FARS data provide the most comprehensive and quality-
controlled fatality data available to the agency.
    NHTSA will use FHWA motorcycle registration data because it 
contains reliable motorcycle registration data compiled in a single 
source for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 
The FHWA reports and releases motorcycle registration data annually.
    Requiring a whole number reduction (i.e., at least a 1.0 reduction) 
is consistent with MAP-21's requirement that there be a reduction in 
the number of fatalities and the rate of motor vehicle crashes 
involving motorcycles in the State. The agency believes that such a 
reduction remains meaningful when viewed in light of the increase in 
motorcycle use and registrations in recent years.
    Finally, NHTSA data systems for all 50 States, the District of 
Columbia and Puerto Rico cover only fatal crashes. No national data 
system currently exists that covers both crashes resulting in injuries 
and crashes involving property damage. Accordingly, NHTSA will rely on 
crash data provided by each State for the crash-related portion of this 
criterion.
4. Impaired Driving Program
    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, MAP-21 requires 
that a State implement ``a statewide program to reduce impaired 
driving, including specific measures to reduce impaired motorcycle 
operation.'' (23 U.S.C. 405(f)(3)(D))
    To satisfy this criterion, the IFR requires that a State have an 
impaired driving program that, at a minimum, uses State data to 
identify and prioritize the State's impaired driving and impaired 
motorcycle operation problem areas, and includes specific 
countermeasures to reduce impaired motorcycle operation with strategies 
designed to reach motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence 
of impaired motorcycle crashes is highest. (23 CFR 1200.25(h)(1)) For 
the purposes of this criterion, ``impaired'' will refer to alcohol-or 
drug-impaired as defined by State law, provided that the State's legal 
impairment level does not exceed .08 BAC. Id.
    NHTSA recognizes that the definition of impairment differs from 
State to State, but that all States' definitions of alcohol-impaired 
driving currently include at most a .08 BAC limit. Because of the 
differences among the States, the IFR allows each State to use its 
definition of impairment for the purposes of this criterion, provided 
that the State maintains at most a .08 BAC limit. In order to implement 
a program to reduce impaired driving, a State would use its own data to 
perform problem identification and prioritization to reduce impaired 
driving and impaired motorcycle operation in problem areas in the 
State.
    NHTSA considers a State's program that includes specific 
countermeasures to reduce impaired motorcycle operation with strategies 
designed to reach motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence 
of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator is highest (i.e., 
the majority of counties or political subdivisions in the State with 
the highest numbers of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired 
operator), to be consistent with the MAP-21 requirement that the 
impaired driving program under this criterion be implemented statewide. 
For the purposes of this criterion, majority means greater than 50 
percent. Finally, as identified in MAP-21, the IFR requires that a 
State's impaired driving program include specific countermeasures to 
reduce impaired motorcycle operation. (23 CFR 1200.25(h)(1)(ii))
5. Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired 
Motorcyclists
    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, MAP-21 requires 
that a State must experience ``a reduction for the preceding calendar 
year in the number of fatalities and the rate of reported crashes 
involving alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired motorcycle operators 
(expressed as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations).'' (23 
U.S.C. 405(f)(3)(E))
    To satisfy this criterion, the IFR requires that, based on final 
FARS data, the State must experience a reduction of at least one in the 
number of fatalities involving alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired 
motorcycle operators for the most recent calendar year for which final 
FARS data is available, as compared to the final FARS data for the 
calendar year immediately prior to that year; and based on State crash 
data expressed as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations (using 
FHWA motorcycle registration data), the State must experience at least 
a whole number reduction (i.e., at least a 1.0 reduction) in the rate 
of reported crashes involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired 
motorcycle operators in the most recent calendar year for which final 
State crash data is available, but data no older than two calendar 
years prior to the application due date, as compared to the calendar 
year immediately prior to that year. (23 CFR 1200.25(i)(1))
    As with the criterion for reduction of fatalities and crashes 
involving motorcycles, the IFR does not use the term ``preceding 
calendar year'' because NHTSA and most States do not have final FARS 
and State crash data available for the preceding calendar year at the 
time of the grant application. However, in order to have the most 
recent data available, the IFR requires computing the rates required 
under this criterion using the most recently available FARS data and 
State crash data. Using the final FARS data, FHWA motorcycle 
registration data and State crash data, NHTSA will calculate the rates 
to determine a State's compliance with this criterion.
    As with the impaired driving program criterion, ``impaired'' refers 
to alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired as defined by State law, provided 
that the State's legal alcohol impairment level does not exceed .08 
BAC.
    The use of FARS data, FHWA motorcycle registration data, and State 
crash data under this criterion mirror the use of these data under the 
reduction of fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles, as described 
above, and the rationale is the same. Additionally, the use of FARS 
data for this criterion will be particularly helpful because one of the 
limitations of the State crash data files is unknown alcohol use. In 
order to calculate alcohol-related crash involvement for a State, NHTSA 
uses a statistical model based on crash characteristics to impute 
alcohol involvement in fatal crashes where alcohol use was unknown or 
not reported.
6. Use of Fees Collected From Motorcyclists for Motorcycle Programs
    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, MAP-21 requires 
that ``all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs will be 
used for motorcycle training and safety programs.'' (23 U.S.C. 
405(f)(3)(F)) Under the IFR, a State may qualify for a grant under this 
criterion as a ``Law State'' or a ``Data State.'' (23 CFR 
1200.25(j)(1)) For the purposes of this criterion, a Law State means a 
State that has a statute or regulation requiring that all fees 
collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of

[[Page 5001]]

funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to be used for 
motorcycle training and safety programs. For the purposes of this 
criterion, a Data State means a State that does not have such a statute 
or regulation, but in practice uses all fees collected by the State 
from motorcyclists for the purpose of funding motorcycle training and 
safety programs. The IFR permits a State to qualify under this 
criterion as either a Law State or a Data State to provide flexibility 
to States, and is consistent with the MAP-21 language requiring that 
all fees collected by a State from motorcyclists for the purposes of 
funding motorcycle training and safety programs be used for motorcycle 
training and safety programs.
    To qualify for a grant under this criterion as a Law State, the IFR 
requires that a State have in place the statute or regulation as 
described above. (23 CFR 1200.25(j)(1)(i)) The State statute or 
regulation must provide that all fees collected by the State from 
motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and 
safety programs are to be used for motorcycle training and safety 
programs. Id. In addition, the current State fiscal year law (or 
preceding State fiscal year law, if the State has not enacted a law at 
the time of the State's application) appropriating all such fees to 
motorcycle training and safety programs must reflect that all such fees 
are appropriated to motorcycle training and safety programs. (23 CFR 
1200.25(j)(2)(i))
    To qualify for a grant under this criterion as a Data State, the 
IFR requires that a State demonstrate that revenues collected for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are placed 
into a distinct account and expended only for motorcycle training and 
safety programs. (23 CFR 1200.25(j)(1)(ii)) State data and/or 
documentation from official records from the previous State fiscal year 
must show that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for 
the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs were, 
in fact, used for motorcycle training and safety programs. (23 CFR 
1200.25(j)(2)(ii)) Such data and/or documentation must show that 
revenues collected for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and 
safety programs were placed into a distinct account and expended only 
for motorcycle training and safety programs.
    7. Uses of Grant Funds. MAP-21 specifies with particularity how 
States may use motorcyclist safety grant funds. The IFR adopts this 
language without change. (23 CFR 1200.25(l))

G. State Graduated Driver Licensing Grant (Sec.  1200.26)

    In general, a graduated driver's licensing system consists of a 
multi-staged process for issuing driver's licenses to young, novice 
drivers to ensure that they gain valuable driving experience under 
controlled circumstances and demonstrate responsible driving behavior 
and proficiency. Under a previous NHTSA authorization (TEA-21), 
Congress provided for the adoption of a GDL system as one means that 
States could use to satisfy the requirements for an alcohol-impaired 
driving prevention program incentive grant. (formerly codified at 23 
U.S.C. 410) The agency issued a rule implementing those GDL provisions. 
In 2005, Section 2007 of SAFETEA-LU eliminated the GDL option.
    MAP-21 reintroduces an incentive grant for States to adopt and 
implement GDL laws. The minimum qualification criteria set forth for 
the GDL grant by MAP-21 are prescriptive; few potential applicants 
currently meet all of the minimum qualification criteria prescribed by 
MAP-21. Beyond the minimum qualification criteria, MAP-21 provides 
discretion to the agency to establish additional requirements. This IFR 
establishes minimum qualification criteria for the GDL Incentive Grant.
    MAP-21 requires NHTSA to seek public comment on how to implement 
the minimum qualification criteria for the GDL program. Accordingly, on 
October 5, 2012, NHTSA published an NPRM in the Federal Register 
seeking public comment. 77 FR 60956 (Oct. 5, 2012). The agency received 
comments from the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and from other entities as follows: 
four from States, seven from interest groups and safety organizations, 
three from insurance companies, and four from private citizens. 
Commenters generally expressed support for the GDL State incentive 
grant and provided specific feedback on particular aspects of the 
minimum requirements. The IFR addresses these comments under the 
relevant headings below.
1. Minimum Qualification Criteria
    To qualify for a GDL Incentive Grant, the IFR requires a State to 
submit an application and certain documentation demonstrating 
compliance with the minimum qualification criteria specifically 
established by MAP-21 and with certain other requirements. (23 CFR 
1200.26(c)(1)) To receive a grant, MAP-21 requires a State's graduated 
driver's licensing law to include a learner's permit stage and an 
intermediate stage meeting the minimum requirements set forth below.
2. Learner's Permit Stage
    MAP-21 requires that young, novice drivers complete a GDL program 
prior to receiving an ``unrestricted driver's license''. Although MAP-
21 uses the phrase ``unrestricted driver's license,'' NHTSA has elected 
not to use that terminology in the IFR. Driver's licenses commonly 
contain restrictions, such as requirements that the driver wear 
corrective lenses while operating the motor vehicle. In order to avoid 
confusion, the IFR uses and defines ``full driver's license'' to mean a 
license to operate a passenger motor vehicle on public roads at all 
times. Therefore, the learner's permits and intermediate stage licenses 
required under this program are not considered full driver's licenses, 
and neither are restricted licenses (such as those permitting operation 
of a motor vehicle for limited purposes, and therefore not allowing 
operation of a passenger motor vehicle at all times).
    The IFR requires that a State's GDL system begin with a learner's 
permit stage that applies to any novice driver who is younger than 21 
years of age prior to the receipt by such driver from the State of any 
other permit or license to operate a motor vehicle. (23 CFR 
1200.26(c)(2)(i)(A)) To receive a grant, a State may not issue any 
other motor vehicle permit or license (including a motorcycle permit or 
license), to a young, novice driver until he or she completes a GDL 
program. Because the IFR defines a novice driver as a driver who has 
not been issued an intermediate license or full driver's license by any 
State (23 CFR 1200.26(b)), the GDL requirements stop short of covering 
drivers who have been issued such a license in another State but later 
become residents of a State with a GDL requirement. However, NHTSA 
encourages States to integrate new residents who possess intermediate 
licenses into their GDL programs. Drivers younger than 21 years of age 
who possess only a learner's permit from another State are still 
considered novice drivers under the IFR and must satisfy all minimum 
requirements of the applicable stages.
    MAP-21 creates limited exceptions for States that enacted a law 
prior to January 1, 2011, establishing either of the following two 
classes of permit or license: a permit or license that allows drivers 
younger than 18 years of age to

[[Page 5002]]

operate a motor vehicle in connection with work performed on, or the 
operation of, a farm owned by family members who are directly related; 
or a permit or license that is issued because demonstrable hardship 
would result from its denial to the licensee or applicant. For the 
second class of permit or license, the IFR clarifies that a 
demonstration of unique, individualized hardship is required. Although 
a driver may possess one of these classes of permits or licenses, the 
IFR does not permit States to provide them any other permit, license or 
endorsement until they complete the GDL process if they are younger 
than 21 years of age. (23 CFR 1200.26(c)(4))
    Similar to the Section 410 GDL regulations, the IFR requires that 
the learner's permit stage commence only after an applicant passes 
vision and knowledge tests, including tests about the rules of the 
road, signs, and signals. (23 CFR 1200.26(c)(2)(i)(B)) This ensures 
that novice drivers have a basic level of competency regarding the 
rules and requirements of driving before being permitted to operate a 
motor vehicle on public roadways. As required by MAP-21, the learner's 
permit stage must be at least six months in duration, and it also may 
not expire until the driver reaches at least 16 years of age. (23 CFR 
1200.26(c)(2)(i)(C))
    MAP-21 allows the agency discretion to prescribe additional 
requirements on a learner's permit holder, and it identifies three 
potential requirements for the agency's consideration: (1) 
Accompaniment and supervision by a licensed driver who is at least 21 
years of age at all times while the learner's permit holder is 
operating a motor vehicle, (2) receipt by the permit holder of at least 
40 hours of behind-the-wheel training with a licensed driver who is at 
least 21 years of age, and (3) completion by the permit holder of a 
driver education or training course. The Director of the West Virginia 
Governor's Highway Safety Program (GHSP) submitted a comment supporting 
implementation of the first requirement, and GHSA recommended that the 
supervising adult be required to possess a valid driver's license. In 
response to these comments, NHTSA has adopted the recommended 
requirement and has defined ``licensed driver'' to be ``a driver who 
possess a valid full driver's license.'' (23 CFR 1200.26(b), 
1200.26(c)(2)(i)(D)(1))
    Comments regarding a behind-the-wheel training requirement were 
more varied. GHSA questioned whether there is definitive research on 
the amount of supervised driving time that is effective for reducing 
accidents and fatalities, and suggested that a supervised driving 
requirement would be ``premature.'' In contrast, several other 
commenters expressed strong support for minimum requirements for 
behind-the-wheel training. Nationwide Insurance, Allstate, and 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety expressed support for at least 
thirty hours of minimum behind-the-wheel training. IIHS, Consumers 
Union, and the GHSP supported a minimum requirement of forty hours, and 
State Farm supported a minimum requirement of fifty hours. The IFR 
adopts the requirement for 40 hours of behind-the-wheel training, 
consistent with the comments and with the MAP-21 suggested approach. 
(23 CFR 1200.26(c)(2)(i)(D)(2))
    GHSA asked whether behind-the-wheel driver training would be 
provided by public or private providers, or whether it called for 
supervised behind-the-wheel driving. One individual commenter noted 
that some people, such as young drivers with single parents, may be 
unable to satisfy a supervised driving requirement. The IFR requires 
``40 hours of behind-the-wheel training with a licensed driver who is 
at least 21 years of age.'' It does not specify that the training be 
provided by a public or private organization; such training may be 
provided by anyone who possesses a valid unrestricted driver's license 
and is at least 21 years of age, including individuals or professional 
driving instructors. The IFR requirements provide significant 
flexibility, and the agency does not believe that they will result in 
undue burden.
    NHTSA received numerous comments regarding the value or burden of 
imposing a driver education or training course requirement on learner's 
permit holders. GHSA stated that there is mixed evidence regarding the 
effectiveness of driver training courses, which also tend to be 
expensive for States to provide. IIHS and State Farm expressed concern 
about studies showing either little effectiveness or increased crash 
risk resulting from driver training courses. West Virginia noted that, 
as a rural State, it has many areas where neither schools nor private 
companies offer driver training, creating a burden on novice drivers 
without access to those courses. In contrast, AAA recommended that 
NHTSA include a basic driver education course requirement. The State of 
New York Department of Motor Vehicles (New York DMV) asked NHTSA to 
provide guidance on what would qualify as a ``driver training course'' 
under the regulations, while both AAA and the NTSB suggested that NHTSA 
should base any such guidance on the Novice Teen Driver Education and 
Training Administrative Standards.
    Integrating driver education more thoroughly with GDL systems, 
strengthening driver testing, involving parents in the driver education 
process and preparing them to manage risks for their new driver, and 
extending the duration of young driver training may have significant 
safety benefits. Driver education is a key part of the comprehensive 
approach needed to reduce tragic young driver crashes. NHTSA further 
believes that requiring driver education is not overly burdensome, and 
States can choose to implement the requirement so as to best manage the 
associated costs. The IFR adopts the driver education or training 
course requirement and adds the requirement that the course attended by 
the permit holder be certified by the State. (23 CFR 
1200.26(c)(2)(i)(D)(3)) NHTSA strongly encourages States to consider 
establishing driver training curriculum standards based on the national 
standards recommended in the Driver Education Working Group (Novice 
Teen Driver Education and Training Administrative Standards. Report 
from National Conference on Driver Education. NHTSA, October 2009).
    Finally, consistent with the requirements under the regulations for 
the predecessor GDL program, the IFR requires a learner's permit holder 
to pass a driving skills test prior to entering the intermediate stage 
or being issued another permit, license or endorsement. (23 CFR 
1200.26(c)(2)(i)(D)(4)) This requirement ensures that all novice 
drivers who enter the learner's permit stage will be evaluated by the 
State prior to being permitted to drive unsupervised.
3. Intermediate Stage
    Under MAP-21, the State must require that all drivers who complete 
the learner's permit stage and are younger than 18 years of age enter 
an intermediate stage that commences immediately upon the expiration of 
the learner's permit stage. The intermediate stage must be in effect 
for a period of at least six months, but may not expire until the 
driver reaches at least 18 years of age. The IFR implements these 
requirements. (23 CFR 1200.26(c)(2)(ii)(A)-(C)) The New York DMV noted 
that it issues adult licenses to young drivers who turn 18 years old 
regardless of how long they have had their intermediate license. Under 
MAP-21, however, this system would not meet the minimum requirements. 
While the intermediate stage may not expire

[[Page 5003]]

prior to the driver turning 18 years of age, the intermediate stage 
must also last a minimum of six months in duration.
    The New York DMV also requested that NHTSA include an exemption 
such that novice drivers who receive driver education or training may 
receive an unrestricted driver's license prior to reaching 18 years of 
age. The State expressed concern that, without such an exemption, there 
would be no incentive for school districts or parents to provide, or 
young drivers to take, driver education. The State suggests that this 
could result in the loss of employment and business for numerous 
traffic safety instructors and driving schools. As a result, New York 
DMV requested either the exemption or an analysis under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980 (``RFA'') to minimize or analyze the potential 
effects on small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions.
    MAP-21 does not provide the authority for the exemption New York 
DMV requests. The statute explicitly requires that the intermediate 
stage last until the driver reaches 18 years of age. Furthermore, NHTSA 
does not believe that there will be any adverse impact on driver 
education businesses or instructors, and therefore no analysis is 
required under the RFA. First, these regulations require that all 
learner's permit holders complete a driver education or training course 
in order to receive an intermediate or unrestricted driver's license. 
Second, no RFA analysis is required because these regulations do not 
affirmatively mandate anything that would have a direct impact on small 
businesses. Rather, MAP-21 and this IFR create an incentive grant 
program for States that elect to comply; States are free to structure 
their driver's licensing systems and associated training as they see 
fit.
    MAP-21 requires that a State's intermediate stage ``restricts 
driving at night,'' but leaves the details of that requirement to the 
discretion of the agency. NHTSA received numerous comments on how best 
to address the most dangerous driving hours for novices. Comments 
generally assumed that the most effective restriction would be to 
require that the driver be accompanied and supervised by a licensed 
driver who is at least 21 years of age during some period of the night. 
The NTSB proposed that the restriction period start no later than 
midnight. IIHS, the National Safety Council, Nationwide Insurance, 
State Farm, Allstate, Consumers Union, AAA, and Advocates for Highway 
and Auto Safety proposed that the mandatory driving restrictions begin 
at 10 p.m., with many proposing that they end at 5 a.m. In addition, 
most of those commenters emphasized that there should be no exceptions 
other than for emergencies. The New York DMV and an individual 
commenter allowed for exceptions, including for driving related to work 
and education. Finally, AAA proposed that the restrictions last for at 
least the first six months of independent driving.
    NHTSA agrees that the proper restriction for nighttime driving is 
to require accompaniment and supervision of the intermediate license 
holder by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age. NHTSA also 
agrees that a 10 p.m. through 5 a.m. restriction would effectively 
cover the time period when intermediate drivers are most at risk, and 
the IFR imposes this requirement. While the IFR provides for exceptions 
in the case of emergency, it does not permit other exceptions during 
the restricted driving hours. (23 CFR 1200.26(c)(2)(ii)(D)) Such 
exceptions may be difficult to enforce and could undermine the safety 
goals of the restriction.
    This IFR also adopts the requirement that, during the intermediate 
stage, drivers must be prohibited from operating a motor vehicle with 
more than one non-familial passenger younger than 21 years of age 
unless a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age is in the 
motor vehicle. (23 CFR 1200.26(c)(2)(ii)(E)) This restriction is 
specifically mandated by MAP-21, and the National School Transportation 
Association commented in support of this requirement.
4. Additional Requirements
    MAP-21 requires that, during both the learner's permit and 
intermediate stages, the driver must be prohibited from using a 
cellular telephone or any communications device while driving except in 
case of an emergency. The IFR includes this requirement and specifies 
that this prohibition be enforced as a primary offense. (23 CFR 
1200.26(c)(2)(iii)(A)) The IFR also imposes a requirement that, during 
both the learner's permit and intermediate stages, the driver must 
remain conviction-free for a period of not less than six consecutive 
months immediately prior to the expiration of the current stage. (23 
CFR 1200.26(c)(2)(iii)(B)) To remain ``conviction-free,'' a driver 
cannot be convicted of any offense under State or local law relating to 
the use or operation of a motor vehicle. The definition provides 
examples of driving-related offenses. (23 CFR 1200.26(b)) With this 
requirement, any conviction related to the use or operation of a motor 
vehicle would result in ``resetting the clock'' for the driver's 
current stage.
    The IFR establishes a requirement for license distinguishability 
similar to the one in the regulations for the predecessor GDL program. 
Specifically, it requires that the State's learner's permit, 
intermediate license, and full driver's license be distinguishable from 
each other. This is necessary to ensure that law enforcement officers 
are informed about the proper driving restrictions that apply to the 
driver during a traffic stop. The IFR also clarifies the documentation 
grant applicants are required to submit in order to prove license 
distinguishability. (23 CFR 1200.26(c)(3))
5. Grant Awards and Use of Grant Funds
    As required by MAP-21, NHTSA will award grants to States that meet 
the qualification criteria on the basis of the apportionment formula 
under 23 U.S.C. 402 for that fiscal year. (23 CFR 1200.26(d)(1)) 
Because it is possible that few States will qualify for grants during 
the first few years of the GDL incentive grant program, the IFR imposes 
a cap on awards to prevent any States from receiving an unanticipated 
and disproportionate share of the available grant funds. The amount of 
a grant award may not exceed 10 percent of the total amount made 
available for the grant for that fiscal year. (23 CFR 1200.26(d)(2))
    MAP-21 also specifies the permitted uses of grant funds. The IFR 
implements those limitations and clarifies the permitted uses where 
necessary. At least 25 percent of the grant funds must be used for 
expenses connected with a compliant GDL law. (23 CFR 1200.26(e)(1)) If 
a State has received grant funds but later falls out of compliance with 
the minimum requirements established by the IFR, the State will not be 
permitted to use this portion of the grant funds. No more than 75 
percent of the grant funds may be used for any eligible project under 
23 U.S.C. 402. (23 CFR 1200.26(e)(2))
    The NTSB commented that NHTSA should include an evaluation element 
to the grant process to ensure that States are using the grants 
effectively to improve their GDL programs. MAP-21 does not provide for 
performance-based evaluation requirements as a condition of receiving 
grant funds. Therefore, NHTSA declines to impose this additional burden 
on the States. NHTSA will continue to conduct and/or evaluate new 
research regarding the effectiveness of various elements of GDL 
programs.

[[Page 5004]]

IV. Administration of Highway Safety Grants (Section 402 and 405 
Grants)

    NHTSA has administered the Section 402 grant program in accordance 
with implementing regulations found at 23 CFR parts 1200, 1205, 1206, 
1250, 1251 and 1252 for many years. Those regulations, which are 
amended by today's action, contain detailed procedures governing the 
HSP and administration of the Section 402 grant program. Today's action 
rescinds part 1205 and updates and incorporates parts 1206, 1250, 1251 
and 1252 into part 1200 to improve clarity and organization. (With that 
incorporation, parts 1206, 1250, 1251, and 1252 are rescinded.) Many of 
the older provisions in 23 CFR Chapter II contain outdated references 
to the FHWA and the Annual Work Plan (AWP). Since NHTSA assumed sole 
responsibility for the administration of the Section 402 program, these 
references to FHWA and the AWP no longer apply, and today's action 
deletes these references. However, NHTSA and FHWA continue to work 
closely to coordinate respective State highway safety programs.
    Finally, as discussed in more detail below, today's action amends 
portions of part 1200 to clarify existing requirements and to provide 
for improved accountability of Federal funds, and it specifies that the 
grant administration provisions apply to all 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 
grants.

A. Rescission and Reorganization

    Under previous authorizations, the Highway Safety Act required the 
agency to determine, through a rulemaking process, those programs 
``most effective'' in reducing crashes, injuries and deaths. 
Previously, the Act provided that only those programs established under 
the rule as most effective in reducing crashes, injuries and deaths 
would be eligible for Federal financial assistance under the Section 
402 grant program. The rule identifying those ``most effective'' 
programs was set forth at 23 CFR part 1205. Under MAP-21, States may 
use grant funds more broadly in accordance with an HSP approved by the 
agency. Accordingly, the agency rescinds part 1205 as it no longer 
applies.
    The old regulations for the Section 402 program are contained 
throughout Chapter II of Title 23, CFR. The IFR reorganizes parts 1250 
and 1252, which establish the agency's policies for determining 
political subdivision participation in State highway safety programs 
and State matching of planning and administration (P&A) costs, 
respectively, by moving these parts into two new appendices to part 
1200. (Appendices E and F)
    Many of the provisions in Sec.  1200.11, special funding 
conditions, of the old regulations (for the Section 402 program) 
identify statutory requirements that States must continue to meet. 
These conditions are part of the certifications and assurances in 
Appendix A that States submit as part of the HSP. The IFR retains the 
non-statutory provisions regarding the P&A costs as special funding 
conditions in the renumbered Sec.  1200.13. The IFR also increases the 
State's allowance for P&A costs from 10 percent to 13 percent to help 
offset the additional costs associated with project-level reporting and 
oversight of Section 405 grant funds. In addition, as more State 
highway safety offices transition to implementing e-grant systems to 
manage their highway safety program, the increased P&A allowance will 
help with the high start-up costs and regular maintenance costs. (23 
CFR 1200.13; Appendix F) No P&A costs are allowed from Section 405 
grant funds. Finally, the IFR also adds the new MAP-21 statutory 
condition that States may not use Section 402 grant funds for automated 
traffic enforcement systems. (23 CFR 1200.13)
    The IFR incorporates part 1251, which describes the authority and 
functions of the State Highway Safety Agency, into Sec.  1200.4 under 
subpart A of part 1200. This change clarifies the role of the State 
Highway Safety Agency in administering the grant programs under 
Sections 402 and 405. The IFR also updates these provisions to include 
critical authorities and functions related to the State Highway Safety 
Agency's responsibility to provide oversight and management of the 
highway safety program. For example, the State Highway Safety Agency 
must have the ability to establish and maintain adequate staffing to 
effectively plan, manage, and provide oversight of highway safety 
projects. It must also be responsible for monitoring changes in the 
State statute or regulation that would affect the State's qualification 
for grants and impact the State's highway safety program. In addition, 
the State Highway Safety Agency must have ready access to State data 
systems that are critical to having a data-driven highway safety 
program. Finally, IFR revises these provisions to reflect applicable 
laws and regulations and to update language. (23 CFR 1200.4)
    Part 1206 under the old regulation provides for the rules of 
procedure for invoking sanctions under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. 
The IFR incorporates part 1206, along with old Sec.  1200.26, non-
compliance, under a new subpart F of part 1200. The provisions of this 
subpart remain largely unchanged and are applicable to the Section 402 
and 405 grant programs. (23 CFR 1200.50 and 1200.51)
    As a result of the reorganization of 23 CFR Chapter II, a number of 
sections have been renumbered, such as the section on Definitions (23 
CFR 1200.3), Equipment (23 CFR 1200.31), Program Income (23 CFR 
1200.34), Annual Report (23 CFR 1200.35), Appeals (23 CFR 1200.36), 
Post-Grant Adjustments (23 CFR 1200.42) and Continuing Requirements (23 
CFR 1200.43). The IFR deletes the old provision regarding improvement 
plans as the agency currently provides recommendations and technical 
assistance to States that have had little or no progress towards 
achieving State performance targets. While new definitions have been 
added (performance measure, project, project agreement), as mentioned 
in Section II.B. and discussed in Section IV.B., and existing 
definitions clarified (Highway Safety Plan, highway safety program, 
program area), no other substantive changes have been made to these 
provisions.
    A number of other requirements apply to the Section 402 and 405 
programs, including such government-wide provisions as the Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to 
State and Local Governments (49 CFR part 18) and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars containing cost principles and 
audit requirements. These provisions are independent of today's notice, 
and continue to apply in accordance with their terms.
    Several provisions in 23 CFR Chapter III (parts 1313, 1335, 1345 
and 1350) pertain to grant programs whose authorizations have expired. 
Those parts are being rescinded by today's action.
    For ease of reference, the provisions that have been reorganized 
are republished in this notice.

B. New Administrative Procedures of Note

    The agency is responsible for overseeing and monitoring 
implementation of the grant programs to help ensure that recipients are 
meeting program and accountability requirements. Oversight procedures 
for monitoring the recipients' use of awarded funds can help the agency 
determine whether recipients are operating efficiently and effectively. 
Effective oversight procedures based on internal control standards for 
monitoring the recipients' use of

[[Page 5005]]

awarded funds are key to ensuring that program funds are being spent in 
a manner consistent with statute and regulation. In order to improve 
oversight of grantee activities and management of federal funds, the 
IFR makes changes to the procedures for administering the highway 
safety grant programs.
1. Program Cost Summary
    Since the 1980s, States have used HS Form 217 (program cost 
summary) to provide cost information for the State highway safety 
program. States will continue to use this form for Section 402 and 
Section 405 grants. However, States that allocate the grant funds by 
program area in the HS Form 217 must also provide a list of projects 
(and project numbers and estimated amount of Federal funds) that will 
be conducted under each program area. (23 CFR 1200.32; see also 23 CFR 
1200.15) The IFR defines project, project agreement and project number 
in Sec.  1200.3 to provide clarification so that the agency can better 
track information submitted by the States.
    Each State submits this form as part of its HSP and then submits an 
updated HSP and HS Form 217 within 30 days after the beginning of the 
fiscal year or date of award. Some States routinely update their HSP 
and HS Form 217 throughout the fiscal year of the grant. Today's action 
amends the regulation to clarify that the Approving Official must 
approve both the amended HSP and amended HS Form 217. This change is 
intended to help the agency ensure that grant funds are expended for 
purposes authorized by statute or regulation (e.g., eligibility of use 
of grant funds, tracking Federal share, local participation). States 
must also update the list of projects submitted pursuant to Sec.  
1200.11(e). As discussed below, reimbursement of vouchers for projects 
is subject to receipt by NHTSA of an updated list of projects. (23 CFR 
1200.32; see also 23 CFR 1200.15)
2. Additional Documentation for Reimbursement of Expenses
    While grantees or recipients have primary responsibility to 
administer, manage, and account for the use of grant funds, the Federal 
grant-awarding agency also maintains responsibility for oversight in 
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Changes to the 
regulation are necessary to reflect the complexity of current grant 
programs and to ensure effective oversight. Today's action requires 
additional documentation from States when submitting vouchers so that 
the agency has information linking vouchers to expenditures prior to 
approving reimbursements and to assist subsequent audits and reviews.
    Under the old regulation, States submitted vouchers providing 
detail only at the program area level. Vouchers will still be submitted 
at the program area level, but the State must also provide an 
itemization of project numbers and amount of Federal funds expended for 
each project for which reimbursement is being sought. This can be 
provided through the State's summary financial reports. In addition, 
the project numbers (and amount of Federal funds) for which the State 
seeks reimbursement must match the list of project numbers (and not 
exceed the identified amount) submitted to NHTSA pursuant to Sec.  
1200.11(e) or amended pursuant to Sec.  1200.32. If there is an 
inconsistency in either the project number or the amount of Federal 
funds claimed, the voucher will be rejected, in whole or part, until an 
amended list of projects and/or estimated amount of Federal funds is 
submitted to and approved by the Approving Official pursuant to Sec.  
1200.32.
    As under the old regulation, States must make copies of project 
agreements and other supporting documentation available for review by 
the Approving Official. However, the IFR now requires that project 
agreements bear the project number reported in the list of projects 
submitted by States pursuant to Sec.  1200.11(e). Supporting 
documentation must also be retained in a manner that enables the agency 
to track the expenditures to vouchers and projects. With this change, 
the agency will be better able to track the State's expenditure of 
grant funds. (23 CFR 1200.33)
3. Availability of Funds
    A fundamental expectation of Congress is that funds made available 
to States will be used promptly and effectively to address the highway 
safety problems for which they were authorized. To encourage States to 
liquidate grant funds in a timely fashion, today's action sets forth 
the procedures for deobligating grant funds that remain unexpended for 
long periods. We believe that as States increase the timeliness of 
their grant fund expenditures, safety outcomes can improve.
    Section 402 and 405 grant funds are authorized for apportionment or 
allocation each fiscal year. Because these funds are made available 
each fiscal year, it is expected that States will strive to use these 
grant funds to carry out highway safety programs during the fiscal year 
of the grant. In the past, expending all of the incentive grant funds 
within the fiscal year was impractical in part because such funds were 
awarded late in the fiscal year. States often carried forward 
unexpended grant funds into the next fiscal year.
    With the enactment of MAP-21, NHTSA expects to apportion or 
allocate grant funds early in the fiscal year. States should, to the 
fullest extent possible, expend these funds during the fiscal year to 
meet the intent of the Congress in funding an annual program. To 
address the issue of unexpended balances, the IFR provides that grant 
funds are available for expenditure for three years after the last day 
of the fiscal year of apportionment or allocation. (23 CFR 1200.41(b)) 
This is consistent with section 31101 of MAP-21 that provides that 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 1 applies to the Chapter 4 grant programs. See 23 U.S.C. 
118 (funds in a State shall remain available for obligation in that 
State for a period of three years after the last day of the fiscal year 
for which the funds are authorized). During the last year of 
availability of funds, NHTSA will notify States of unexpended grant 
funds subject to this requirement no later than 180 days before the end 
of the period of availability. Id. States may commit such unexpended 
grant funds to a specific project before the end of the period of the 
availability. Grant funds committed to a specific project must be 
expended before the end of the succeeding fiscal year and only on that 
project. At the end of that time period, unexpended grant funds will 
lapse, and NHTSA will deobligate unexpended balances. Id.
4. Reconciliation
    Closeout procedures are intended to ensure that recipients have met 
all financial requirements, provided final reports, and returned any 
unused funds. NHTSA's grant programs, especially the Section 402 
program, are formula grant programs that continue each fiscal year 
until rescinded by Congress. Each year States submit Highway Safety 
Plans detailing their highway safety programs. Under the old 
regulation, with the approval of the Approving Official, States could 
extend the right to incur costs for up to 90 days and then submit final 
vouchers. Any funds remaining at the end of the closeout were carried 
forward to the next fiscal year.
    The IFR continues to provide that the HSP expires at the end of the 
fiscal year. (23 CFR 1200.40) Unlike the old regulation, the IFR 
provides that States will no longer be permitted to extend the right to 
incur costs under the old fiscal year's Highway Safety Plan. However, 
grant funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year are available for

[[Page 5006]]

expenditure during the next fiscal year (unless they have lapsed as 
explained in the previous section), provided the State has a new HSP 
approved by the Approving Official and the remaining funds are 
identified and programmed in the HSP, and in an updated and approved HS 
Form 217. (23 CFR 1200.41(a))
    States will still have 90 days after the end of the fiscal year to 
submit a final voucher against the old fiscal year's Highway Safety 
Plan. The Approving Official may extend the time period to submit a 
final voucher against the old fiscal year's Highway Safety Plan only in 
extraordinary circumstances. This does not constitute an extension of 
the right to incur costs under the old fiscal year's Highway Safety 
Plan. (23 CFR 1200.40)
    The additional requirement, noted above, is that the funds must not 
be from a fiscal year earlier than four years prior. The requirement 
for an annual report evaluating performance on a fiscal year basis is 
retained. The IFR also allows for extending the due date for submission 
of the annual report, subject to approval of the Approving Official.

C. Special Provisions for Fiscal Year 2013 Grants and Prior Fiscal Year 
Grants

    MAP-21 provides that most of the new requirements in Section 402 
apply to fiscal year 2014 grants, whose grant applications are due on 
July 1, 2013. The IFR clarifies that the codified regulations in place 
at the time of grant award continue to apply to fiscal year 2013 
Section 402 grants. (23 CFR 1200.60)
    The IFR provides that, except for fiscal year 2013 distracted 
driving grants, the remaining Section 405 grants will be administered 
through the provisions set forth in today's action. The application due 
date is 60 days from the publication date of the IFR. MAP-21 sets forth 
a single application due date for fiscal year 2014 grants under Chapter 
4. The application (the HSP) for fiscal year 2014 Section 402 and 405 
grants is due July 1, 2013. (23 CFR 1200.61)
    As noted above, the agency recognizes that States will have 
unexpended balances of grant funds from grant programs that have been 
rescinded by MAP-21 (before fiscal year 2013). Those grant funds will 
be governed by the laws and implementing regulations or guidance that 
were in effect during those grant years (23 CFR 1200.62), and must be 
tracked separately.

V. Immediate Effective Date and Request for Comments

    The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) requires that a 
rule be published 30 days prior to its effective date unless one of 
three exceptions applies. One of these exceptions is when the agency 
finds good cause for a shorter period. We have determined that it is in 
the public interest for this final rule to have an immediate effective 
date. NHTSA is expediting a rulemaking to provide notice to the States 
of the new requirements for the HSP required by Section 402 and the 
criteria for different components of the Section 405 grants. The fiscal 
year 2013 grant funds must be awarded to States before the end of the 
fiscal year, and States need the time to complete their fiscal year 
2013 grant applications. For fiscal year 2014 grants, the statutory 
grant application due date is July 1, 2013, and States need time to 
complete these applications as well. Early publication of the rule 
setting forth the requirements for State applications for multiple 
grants that have separate qualification requirements is therefore 
imperative.
    For these reasons, NHTSA is issuing this rulemaking as an interim 
final rule that will be effective immediately. As an interim final 
rule, this regulation is fully in effect and binding upon its effective 
date. No further regulatory action by the agency is necessary to make 
this rule effective. However, in order to benefit from comments which 
interested parties and the public may have, the agency is requesting 
that comments be submitted to the docket for this notice.
    Specifically, MAP-21 directs NHTSA to use these existing 
performance measures from the report, ``Traffic Safety Performance 
Measures for States and Federal Agencies,'' now, and make revisions to 
the set of performance measures going forward, in coordination with 
GHSA. (23 U.S.C. 402(k)(4)) In anticipation of such further 
coordination by NHTSA and GHSA in revising the performance measures, 
NHTSA is seeking comment in this IFR on ways to improve data 
requirements from States, improve performance measures and criteria, 
possible additional performance measures to be considered, and test and 
analyze the effectiveness of programs based on these performance 
measures to help inform the allocation of resources. In particular, we 
seek public comment on whether the measures are capturing the correct 
outcomes and whether the measures and the data submitted by the States 
enable NHTSA and States to test and identify the cost-effectiveness of 
highway safety grant programs.
    Comments received in response to this notice, as well as continued 
interaction with interested parties and the public during fiscal years 
2013 and 2014, will be considered for making future changes to the 
programs through these rule provisions. Following the close of the 
comment period, the agency will publish a notice responding to the 
comments and, if appropriate, the agency will amend the provisions of 
this rule.
    For ease of reference, the IFR sets forth in full the revised part 
1200.

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

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

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' provides 
for making determinations whether a regulatory action is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. 
Executive Order 13563 supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. In accordance with Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563, this rulemaking was reviewed by OMB and 
designated by OMB as a ``significant regulatory action.'' A 
``significant regulatory action'' is defined as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    The annual amount authorized by MAP-21 for highway safety grants 
($500 million in FY 2013 and $507 million in FY 2014) exceeds the $100 
million threshold. However, the annual amount authorized by SAFETEA-LU 
for highway safety grants was $564 million in FY 2012. MAP-21 grant 
programs replace SAFETEA-LU grant programs. The difference in the 
amount of grant funds authorized for highway safety

[[Page 5007]]

grants from the Highway Trust Fund in MAP-21 is less than $100 million 
than was authorized under SAFETEA-LU. In addition, MAP-21 authorizes 
two new grants (distracted driving and graduated driver licensing) that 
were not available under SAFETEA-LU. These two grants account for less 
than $27 million, much less than $100 million.
    MAP-21 highway safety grants are non-discretionary grants directly 
authorized by Congress. NHTSA's action details grant application 
procedures and qualification criteria; it does not impact the aggregate 
amount of grant funds distributed to the States. That amount is 
specified by MAP-21, as is the manner of distribution--most of the 
funds are required by MAP-21 to be awarded to qualifying States through 
a formula (75 percent in the ratio of the State population to the total 
population and 25 percent in the ratio of public road mileage in the 
State to the total road mileage in the United States, with a specified 
minimum apportionment for the Section 402 program). A minor exception 
is that, consistent with past practice, the rule applies the statutory 
formula in two cases where MAP-21 does not mandate its application, 
affecting less than $28 million annually.
    The statutory distribution formula continued under MAP-21 for State 
highway safety grants has been in place for decades. MAP-21 directs 
NHTSA to ``ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that all [grant 
funds] are obligated during [the] fiscal year.'' These statutory 
provisions--the distribution formula and the direction to obligate all 
grant funds--are prescriptive, and leave little room for discretion. 
Consequently, the rule does not confer any benefit on the economy that 
goes beyond what Congress has already specified in law to be 
distributed in these non-discretionary grants, nor does the rule 
materially alter the grants' budgetary impacts or the rights or 
obligations of grant recipients. The rule also does not create an 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency.
    The following information is provided for general information about 
the benefits of the grants. Based on the statutory formula, FY 2013 
grants for States to conduct highway safety programs under the Section 
402 grant program (totaling $235 million) range from $21.2 million for 
the State of California to $1.7 million for 13 States and the District 
of Columbia (minimum apportionment), and all States receive a 
distribution. MAP-21 generally prescribes the criteria for the Section 
405 grants (totaling $265 million for six grants in FY 2013), and NHTSA 
has limited discretion in this rulemaking to implement these criteria. 
However, given differing levels of interest among States and competing 
State priorities, it is possible that the qualification criteria for 
the Section 405 grants could result in some States failing to apply or 
to qualify for some of these grants. NHTSA cannot predict the spread of 
annual Section 405 grant applications and awards with precision, and 
therefore we cannot assess likely allocation effects, but it remains 
true that all Section 405 grant funds will be distributed by operation 
of the statute.
    In the aggregate, the highway safety grant funds required to be 
distributed under MAP-21 are the driving influence behind the traffic 
safety activities implemented by all the States (including the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the four territories, and the Indian 
Country), as they have been under previous authorizations for many 
years. From 2006 to 2010, highway fatalities have decreased by 23 
percent and highway injuries have decreased by 13 percent. The 
traditionally most significant areas of highway safety activities under 
the formula grant program--occupant protection and alcohol programs--
have experienced similarly dramatic safety benefits over the same five-
year period. Unbelted passenger vehicle occupant fatalities have 
decreased by 33 percent and alcohol-impaired driving fatalities have 
decreased by 24 percent.
    The central purpose of the rule is to set forth the application 
procedures for States seeking highway safety grant funds, and also to 
identify the MAP-21 qualification criteria for receiving grant funds. 
While complying with the application procedures is a requirement for 
receiving grant funds, and the requirement for States to submit a 
``highway safety plan'' as part of this application is directed by 
statute, the rule does not impose any mandate on States to submit an 
application. However, should a State choose to do so, there are some 
costs and burdens associated with the application process. The agency 
is seeking emergency clearance from OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA) for FY 2013 grant applications, and elsewhere in this 
document we detail the estimated costs and burden hours associated with 
the State application process. Interested persons should consult that 
information. NHTSA intends to submit a request for PRA clearance for 
the highway safety grant program under the non-emergency process in the 
near future. Because MAP-21 introduces a single application process, 
enabling States to submit one application for all grants rather than 
the separate applications for individual grants required under previous 
authorizations, burdens on State resources are likely to be 
substantially reduced.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed 
and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to 
certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed 
rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amended the RFA to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that an action would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    This IFR is a rulemaking that will implement new grant programs 
enacted by Congress in MAP-21. 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

[[Page 5008]]

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and 
local governments or the agency consults with State and local 
governments in the process of developing the proposed regulation. An 
agency also may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications 
that preempts a State law without consulting with State and local 
officials.
    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with 
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, and has 
determined that this IFR would not have sufficient Federalism 
implications as defined in the order to warrant formal consultation 
with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism 
summary impact statement. However, NHTSA continues to engage with State 
representatives regarding general implementation of MAP-21, including 
these grant programs, and expects to continue these informal dialogues.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks)

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, 
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. This rule does not concern an 
environmental, health, or safety risk that may have a disproportionate 
effect on children.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), as implemented by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320, a person 
is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal 
agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The 
grant applications and reporting requirements in this IFR are 
considered to be a collection of information subject to requirements of 
the PRA. Because the agency cannot reasonably comply with the 
submission time periods under the PRA and provide States sufficient 
time to apply for the grants to be awarded in fiscal year 2013, the 
agency is seeking emergency clearance for information collection 
related to the fiscal year 2013 Section 405 grants. The agency is 
proceeding under the regular PRA clearance process for the collection 
of information related to grants beginning with fiscal year 2014 
grants. Accordingly, in compliance with the PRA, we announce that NHTSA 
is seeking comment on a new information collection for grant 
applications and reporting requirements beginning with fiscal year 2014 
grants.

    Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
    Title: State Highway Safety Grant Programs.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Form Number: N/A (Highway Safety Plan); HS Form 217.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the 
approval date.

    Summary of Collection of Information: On July 6, 2012, the 
President signed into law the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act'' (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, which restructured and made 
various substantive changes to the highway safety grant programs 
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA). Specifically, MAP-21 modified the existing formula grant 
program codified at 23 U.S.C. 402 (Section 402) by requiring States to 
develop and implement the State highway safety program using 
performance measures.
    MAP-21 also rescinded a number of separate incentive grant programs 
that existed under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 
109-59, and replaced them with the ``National Priority Safety 
Programs,'' codified in a single section of the United States Code (23 
U.S.C. 405 (Section 405)). The National Priority Safety Programs 
include Occupant Protection, State Traffic Safety Information Systems, 
Impaired Driving Countermeasures, Motorcyclist Safety, and two new 
grant programs--Distracted Driving and State Graduated Driver 
Licensing. MAP-21 specifies a single application deadline for all 
highway safety grants and directs NHTSA to establish a consolidated 
application process, using the Highway Safety Plan that States have 
traditionally submitted for the Section 402 program. See Sections 
31101(f) and 31102, MAP-21.
    The statute provides that the Highway Safety Plan is the 
application for grants under 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405 each fiscal year. 
The information collected under this rulemaking is to include a Highway 
Safety Plan consisting of information on the highway safety planning 
process, performance plan, highway safety strategies and projects, 
performance report, program cost summary (HS Form 217) and list of 
projects, certifications and assurances, and application for Section 
405 grants. See 23 CFR 1200.10. After award of grant funds, States are 
required to update the program cost summary (HS Form 217) and the list 
of projects. See 23 CFR 1200.15.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the 
Information: As noted above, the statute provides that the Highway 
Safety Plan is the application for grants under 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405 
each fiscal year. This information is necessary to determine whether a 
State satisfies the criteria for a grant award under Section 402 and 
Section 405.
    Description of the Likely Respondents: 57 (50 States, District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana 
Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs on 
behalf of the Indian Country).
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 
Resulting from the Collection of Information:
    The Highway Safety Plan (HSP) is a planning document for a State's 
entire traffic safety program and outlines the countermeasures, program 
activities, and funding for key program areas as identified by State 
and Federal data and problem identification. By statute, States must 
submit and NHTSA must approve the HSP as a condition of Section 402 
grant funds. MAP-21 also requires States to submit its Section 405 
grant application as part of the HSP. States must submit the HSP each 
fiscal year in order to qualify for Section 402 and 405 grant funds.
    The estimated burden hours for the collection of information are 
based on all eligible respondents (i.e., applicants) for each of the 
grants:
     Section 402 grants: 57 (fifty States, the District of 
Columba, Puerto Rico,

[[Page 5009]]

U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Secretary of the Interior);
     Section 405(f) grants: 52 (fifty States, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico);
     Section 405(a)-(e), (g) grants: 56 (fifty States, the 
District of Columba, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).
    We estimate that it will take each respondent approximately 240 
hours to collect, review, and submit the reporting information to NHTSA 
for the Section 402 program. We further estimate that it will take each 
respondent approximately 180 hours to collect, review, and submit the 
reporting information to NHTSA for the Section 405 program. During the 
fiscal year the States prepare a HS Form 217 initially and are required 
to change the funding category amounts 30 days after Section 402 and 
405 funding is received. Each respondent will produce approximately 
forty HS Form 217s annually. It takes approximately \1/2\ hour or less 
to complete the document. Therefore, we estimate that it will take each 
respondent approximately 20 hours to complete the HS Form 217 each 
year. Based on the above information, the estimated annual burden hours 
for all respondents are 25,080 hours.
    Assuming the average salary of these individuals is $50.00 per 
hour, the estimated cost for each respondent is $22,000; the estimated 
total cost for all respondents is $1,254,000.
    These estimates present the highest possible burden hours and 
amounts possible. All States do not apply for and receive a grant each 
year under each of these programs.
    NHTSA notes that under the previous authorization, SAFETEA-LU, 
States submitted applications separately throughout the fiscal year for 
various grants (highway safety programs, occupant protection incentive 
grants, safety belt performance grants, State traffic safety 
information system improvements, alcohol-impaired driving 
countermeasures, motorcyclist safety, child safety and child booster 
seat safety incentive grants). Under the consolidated grant application 
process, NHTSA estimates that the overall paperwork burden on the 
States will be reduced by this rulemaking.
    Comments are invited on:
     Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the Department, including 
whether the information will have practical utility.
     Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the 
information collection is accurate.
     Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.

Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the 
heading of this document, by any of the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document. Comments are due by March 25, 2013.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the 
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus 
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test 
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as 
the Society of Automotive Engineers. We have determined that no 
voluntary consensus standards apply to this action.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

I. National Environmental Policy Act

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

J. Executive Order 13211

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

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

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

L. Plain Language

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

If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in 
your comments on this IFR.

M. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. MAP-21 requires NHTSA to award highway safety 
grants pursuant to rulemaking and separately requires NHTSA to 
establish minimum requirements for the graduated driver licensing (GDL) 
grant in accordance with the notice and comment provisions

[[Page 5010]]

of the Administrative Procedure Act. (Section 31101(d), MAP-21; 23 
U.S.C. 405(g)(3)(A)) For this reason, the Department assigned two 
separate RINs for each regulatory action--GDL and interim final rule. 
On October 25, 2012, NHTSA published a separate notice of proposed 
rulemaking for the GDL grant. (77 FR 60956) As stated in NPRM, NHTSA is 
combining the GDL regulatory action into this interim final rule.
    The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified 
Agenda in or about April and October of each year. You may use the RIN 
contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this 
action in the Unified Agenda.

N. Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of 
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Parts 1200, 1205, 1206, 1250, 1251, 
1252, 1313, 1335, 1345, and 1350

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of 
23 U.S.C. 401 et seq., the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration amends 23 CFR Chapter II and Chapter III as follows:

0
1. Revise part 1200 to read as follows:

PART 1200--UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANT 
PROGRAMS

Sec.
Subpart A--General
1200.1 Purpose.
1200.2 Applicability.
1200.3 Definitions.
1200.4 State Highway Safety Agency--Authority and Functions.
1200.5 Due Dates--Interpretation.
Subpart B--Highway Safety Plan
1200.10 General.
1200.11 Contents.
1200.12 Due Date for Submission.
1200.13 Special Funding Conditions for Section 402 Grants.
1200.14 Review and Approval Procedures.
1200.15 Apportionment and Obligation of Federal Funds.
Subpart C--National Priority Safety Program Grants
1200.20 General.
1200.21 Occupant Protection Grants.
1200.22 State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants.
1200.23 Impaired Driving Countermeasures Grants.
1200.24 Distracted Driving Grants.
1200.25 Motorcyclist Safety Grants.
1200.26 State Graduated Driver Licensing Grants.
Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants
1200.30 General.
1200.31 Equipment.
1200.32 Changes--Approval of the Approving Official.
1200.33 Vouchers and Project Agreements.
1200.34 Program Income.
1200.35 Annual Report.
1200.36 Appeals of Written Decision by Approving Official.
Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation
1200.40 Expiration of the Highway Safety Plan.
1200.41 Disposition of Unexpended Balances.
1200.42 Post-Grant Adjustments.
1200.43 Continuing Requirements.
Subpart F--Noncompliance
1200.50 General.
1200.51 Sanctions--Reduction of Apportionment.
Subpart G--Special Provisions for Fiscal Year 2013 Highway Safety 
Grants and Highway Safety Grants Under Prior Authorizations
1200.60 Fiscal Year 2013 Section 402 Grants.
1200.61 Fiscal Year 2013 Section 405 Grants.
1200.62 Pre-2013 Fiscal Year Grants.
Appendix A to Part 1200--Certification and Assurances for Highway 
Safety Grants (23 U.S.C. Chapter 4)
Appendix B to Part 1200--Highway Safety Program Cost Summary (HS-
217)
Appendix C to Part 1200--Assurances for Teen Traffic Safety Program
Appendix D to Part 1200--Certification and Assurances for National 
Priority Safety Program Grants (23 U.S.C. 405)
Appendix E to Part 1200--Participation by Political Subdivisions
Appendix F to Part 1200--Planning and Administration (P&A) Costs

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; 23 U.S.C. 405; delegation of authority 
at 49 CFR 1.95.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  1200.1  Purpose.

    This part establishes uniform procedures for State highway safety 
programs authorized under Chapter 4, Title 23, United States Code.


Sec.  1200.2  Applicability.

    The provisions of this part apply to highway safety programs 
authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402 beginning fiscal year 2014 and, except 
as specified in Sec.  1200.24(a), to national priority safety programs 
authorized under 23 U.S.C. 405 beginning fiscal year 2013.


Sec.  1200.3  Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    Approving Official means a Regional Administrator of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    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 being brought forward and made available for 
expenditure in a subsequent fiscal year.
    Contract authority means the statutory language that authorizes an 
agency to incur an obligation without the need for a prior 
appropriation or further action from Congress and which, when 
exercised, creates a binding obligation on the United States for which 
Congress must make subsequent liquidating appropriations.
    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 means the official 
appointed by the Governor to implement the State's highway safety 
program or, for the application of this part to Indian Country as 
provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), an official of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs or other Department of Interior official who is duly designated 
by the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Indian highway safety 
program.
    Highway Safety Plan (HSP) means the document, coordinated with the 
State strategic highway safety plan as defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a), 
that the State submits each fiscal year as its application for highway 
safety grants, which describes the strategies and projects the State 
plans to implement and the resources from all sources it plans to use 
to achieve its highway safety performance targets.
    Highway safety program means the planning, strategies and 
performance measures, and general oversight and

[[Page 5011]]

management of highway safety strategies and projects by the State 
either directly or through sub-recipients to address highway safety 
problems in the State. A State highway safety program is defined in the 
annual Highway Safety Plan and any amendments.
    MAP-21 or ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' 
means Public Law 112-141.
    NHTSA means the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    Program area means any of the national priority safety program 
areas identified in 23 U.S.C. 405 or a program area identified by the 
State in the highway safety plan as encompassing a major highway safety 
problem in the State and for which documented effective or projected by 
analysis to be effective countermeasures have been identified.
    Project means any undertaking or activity proposed or implemented 
with grant funds under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4.
    Project agreement means a written agreement at the State level or 
between the State and a subgrantee or contractor under which the State 
agrees to provide 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 funds in exchange for the 
subgrantee's or contractor's performance of one or more undertakings or 
activities supporting the highway safety program.
    Project number means a unique identifier assigned by a State to 
each project in the HSP.
    Public road means any road under the jurisdiction of and maintained 
by a public authority and open to public travel.
    Section 402 means section 402 of title 23 of the United States 
Code.
    Section 405 means section 405 of title 23 of the United States 
Code.
    State means, except as provided in Sec.  1200.25(b), any of the 
fifty States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands, or, for the application of this part 
to Indian Country as provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(h), the Secretary of the 
Interior.
    State highway safety improvement program means the program defined 
in section 148(a)(11) of title 23 of the United States Code.
    State strategic highway safety plan means the plan defined in 
section 148(a)(12) of title 23, United States Code.


Sec.  1200.4  State Highway Safety Agency--Authority and Functions.

    (a) Policy. In order for a State to receive grant funds under this 
part, the Governor shall exercise responsibility for the highway safety 
program through a State Highway Safety Agency that has adequate powers 
and is suitably equipped and organized to carry out the State's highway 
safety program.
    (b) Authority. Each State Highway Safety Agency shall be authorized 
to--
    (1) Develop and execute the Highway Safety Plan and highway safety 
program in the State;
    (2) Obtain information about programs to improve highway safety and 
projects administered by other State and local agencies;
    (3) Maintain or have ready access to information contained in State 
highway safety data systems, including crash, citation, adjudication, 
emergency medical services/injury surveillance, roadway and vehicle 
record keeping systems, and driver license data;
    (4) Periodically review and comment to the Governor on the 
effectiveness of programs to improve highway safety in the State from 
all funding sources that the State plans to use for such purposes;
    (5) Provide financial and technical assistance to other State 
agencies and political subdivisions to develop and carry out highway 
safety strategies and projects; and
    (6) Establish and maintain adequate staffing to effectively plan, 
manage, and provide oversight of highway safety projects approved in 
the Highway Safety Plan.
    (c) Functions. Each State Highway Safety Agency shall--
    (1) Develop and prepare the Highway Safety Plan based on evaluation 
of highway safety data, including crash fatalities and injuries, 
roadway, driver and other data sources to identify safety problems 
within the State;
    (2) Establish highway safety projects to be funded within the State 
under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 based on identified safety problems and 
priorities;
    (3) Provide direction, information and assistance to sub-grantees 
concerning highway safety grants, procedures for participation, and 
development of projects;
    (4) Encourage and assist sub-grantees to improve their highway 
safety planning and administration efforts;
    (5) Review and approve, and evaluate the implementation and 
effectiveness of State and local highway safety programs and projects 
from all funding sources that the State plans to use under the HSP, and 
approve and monitor the expenditure of grant funds awarded under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4;
    (6) Assess program performance through analysis of highway safety 
data and data-driven performance measures;
    (7) Ensure that the State highway safety program meets the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 and applicable Federal and State 
laws, including but not limited to the standards for financial 
management systems required under 49 CFR 18.20;
    (8) Ensure that all legally required audits of the financial 
operations of the State Highway Safety Agency and of the use of highway 
safety grant funds are conducted;
    (9) Track and maintain current knowledge of changes in State 
statute or regulation that could affect State qualification for highway 
safety grants or fund transfer programs; and
    (10) Coordinate the Highway Safety Plan and highway safety data 
collection and information systems activities with other federally and 
non-federally supported programs relating to or affecting highway 
safety, including the State strategic highway safety plan as defined in 
23 U.S.C. 148(a).


Sec.  1200.5  Due Dates--Interpretation.

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

Subpart B--Highway Safety Plan


Sec.  1200.10  General.

    Beginning with grants authorized in fiscal year 2014, to apply for 
any highway safety grant under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4, a State shall 
submit a Highway Safety Plan meeting the requirements of this subpart.


Sec.  1200.11  Contents.

    Each fiscal year, the State's Highway Safety Plan shall consist of 
the following components:
    (a) Highway safety planning process. (1) A brief description of the 
data sources and processes used by the State to identify its highway 
safety problems, describe its highway safety performance measures and 
define its performance targets, develop and select evidence-based 
countermeasure strategies and projects to address its problems and 
achieve its performance targets. In describing these data sources and 
processes, the State shall identify the participants in the processes 
(e.g., highway safety committees, program stakeholders, community and 
constituent groups), discuss the strategies for project selection 
(e.g., constituent outreach, public meetings, solicitation of 
proposals), and list the information and data sources consulted (e.g., 
Countermeasures That Work, Sixth Edition, 2011).
    (2) A description of the efforts to coordinate and the outcomes 
from the

[[Page 5012]]

coordination of the highway safety plan, data collection, and 
information systems with the State strategic highway safety plan (as 
defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)).
    (b) Performance plan. A performance plan containing the following 
elements:
    (1) A list of annual quantifiable and measurable highway safety 
performance targets that is data-driven, consistent with the Uniform 
Guidelines for Highway Safety Program and based on highway safety 
problems identified by the State during the planning process conducted 
under paragraph (a) of this section.
    (2) Performance measures developed by DOT in collaboration with the 
Governor's Highway Safety Association and others, beginning with the 
MAP-21 directed ``Traffic Safety Performance Measures for States and 
Federal Agencies'' (DOT HS 811 025), which are used as a minimum in 
developing the performance targets identified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section. Beginning with grants awarded after fiscal year 2014, the 
performance measures common to the State's HSP and the State highway 
safety improvement program (fatalities, fatality rate, and serious 
injuries) shall be defined identically, as coordinated through the 
State strategic highway safety plan. At least one performance measure 
and performance target that is data driven shall be provided for each 
program area that enables the State to track progress, from a specific 
baseline, toward meeting the target (e.g., a target to ``increase seat 
belt use from X percent in Year 1 to Y percent in Year 2,'' using a 
performance measure of ``percent of restrained occupants in front 
outboard seating positions in passenger motor vehicles''). For each 
performance measure, the State shall provide:
    (i) Documentation of current safety levels;
    (ii) Quantifiable annual performance targets; and
    (iii) Justification for each performance target that explains why 
the target is appropriate and data-driven.
    (3) Additional performance measures, not included under paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section. For program areas where performance measures 
have not been jointly developed, a State shall develop its own 
performance measures and performance targets that are data-driven 
(e.g., distracted driving, bicycles). The State shall provide the same 
information as required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (c) Highway safety strategies and projects. A description of--
    (1) Each countermeasure strategy and project the State plans to 
implement to reach the performance targets identified in paragraph (b) 
of this section. At a minimum, the State shall describe one year of 
Section 402 and 405 countermeasure strategies and projects (which 
should include countermeasure strategies identified in the State 
strategic highway safety plan) and shall identify funds from other 
sources, including Federal, State, local, and private sector funds, 
that the State plans to use for such projects or use to achieve program 
area performance targets.
    (2) The State's process for selecting the countermeasure strategies 
and projects described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section to allow the 
State to meet the highway safety performance targets described in 
paragraph (b) of this section. At a minimum, the State shall provide an 
assessment of the overall traffic safety impacts of the strategies 
chosen and proposed or approved projects to be funded.
    (3) The data and data analysis or other documentation supporting 
the effectiveness of proposed countermeasure strategies described in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section (e.g., the State may include 
information on the cost effectiveness of proposed countermeasure 
strategies, if such information is available).
    (4) The evidence-based traffic safety enforcement program to 
prevent traffic violations, crashes, and crash fatalities and injuries 
in areas most at risk for such incidents. At a minimum, the State shall 
provide for--
    (i) An analysis of crashes, crash fatalities, and injuries in areas 
of highest risk;
    (ii) Deployment of resources based on that analysis; and
    (iii) Continuous follow-up and adjustment of the enforcement plan.
    (5) The planned high visibility enforcement strategies to support 
national mobilizations.
    (d) Performance report. A program-area-level report on the State's 
success in meeting State performance targets from the previous fiscal 
year's Highway Safety Plan.
    (e) Program cost summary and list of projects. (1) HS Form 217, 
meeting the requirements of Appendix B, completed to reflect the 
State's proposed allocations of funds (including carry-forward funds) 
by program area. The funding level used shall be an estimate of 
available funding for the upcoming fiscal year based on amounts 
authorized for the fiscal year and projected carry-forward funds.
    (2) For each program area, an accompanying list of projects that 
the State proposes to conduct for that fiscal year and an estimated 
amount of Federal funds for each such project.
    (f) Certifications and assurances. Appendix A--Certifications and 
Assurances for Section 402 Grants, signed by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety, certifying the HSP application 
contents and providing assurances that the State will comply with 
applicable laws and regulations, financial and programmatic 
requirements, and, in accordance with Sec.  1200.13 of this part, the 
special funding conditions for the Section 402 program.
    (g) Teen Traffic Safety Program. If the State elects to include the 
Teen Traffic Safety Program authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402(m), a 
description of projects that the State will conduct as part of the Teen 
Traffic Safety Program--a statewide program to improve traffic safety 
for teen drivers--and the assurances in Appendix C, signed by the 
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety.
    (h) Section 405 grant application. Application for any of the 
national priority safety program grants, in accordance with the 
requirements of subpart C, including Appendix D--Certifications and 
Assurances for Section 405 Grants, signed by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety.


Sec.  1200.12  Due Date for Submission.

    (a) Except as specified under Sec.  1200.61(a), a State shall 
submit its Highway Safety Plan electronically to the NHTSA regional 
office no later than July 1 preceding the fiscal year to which the 
Highway Safety Plan applies.
    (b) Failure to meet this deadline may result in delayed approval 
and funding of a State's Section 402 grant or disqualification from 
receiving Section 405 grants.


Sec.  1200.13  Special Funding Conditions for Section 402 Grants.

    The State's highway safety program under Section 402 shall be 
subject to the following conditions, and approval under Sec.  1200.14 
of this part shall be deemed to incorporate these conditions:
    (a) Planning and administration costs. (1) Federal participation in 
P&A activities shall not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of such 
activities, or the applicable sliding scale rate in accordance with 23 
U.S.C. 120. The Federal contribution for P&A activities shall not 
exceed 13 percent of the total funds the State receives under 23 U.S.C. 
402. In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120(i), the Federal share payable for 
projects in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be 100 percent. The 
Indian

[[Page 5013]]

Country, as defined by 23 U.S.C. 402(h), is exempt from the provisions 
of P&A requirements. NHTSA funds shall be used only to finance P&A 
activities attributable to NHTSA programs. Determinations of P&A shall 
be in accordance with the provisions of Appendix F.
    (2) P&A tasks and related costs shall be described in the P&A 
module of the State's Highway Safety Plan. The State's matching share 
shall be determined on the basis of the total P&A costs in the module.
    (b) Automated traffic enforcement systems prohibition. The State 
may not expend funds apportioned to the State under 23 U.S.C. 402 to 
carry out a program to purchase, operate, or maintain an automated 
traffic enforcement system. The term ``automated traffic enforcement 
system'' includes any camera which 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.


Sec.  1200.14  Review and Approval Procedures.

    (a) General. Upon receipt and initial review of the Highway Safety 
Plan, NHTSA may request additional information from a State to ensure 
compliance with the requirements of this part. Failure to respond 
promptly to a request for additional information concerning the Section 
402 grant application may result in delayed approval and funding of a 
State's Section 402 grant. Failure to respond promptly to a request for 
additional information concerning any of the Section 405 grant 
applications may result in a State's disqualification from 
consideration for a Section 405 grant.
    (b) Approval and disapproval of Highway Safety Plan. Within 60 days 
after receipt of the Highway Safety Plan under this subpart--
    (1) For Section 402 grants, the Approving Official shall issue--
    (i) A letter of approval with conditions, if any, to the Governor 
and the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety; or
    (ii)(A) A letter of disapproval to the Governor and the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety informing the State of the reasons 
for disapproval and requiring resubmission of the Highway Safety Plan 
with proposed modifications necessary for approval; and
    (B) A letter of approval or disapproval upon resubmission of the 
Highway Safety Plan within 30 days after NHTSA receives the revised 
Highway Safety Plan.
    (2) For Section 405 grants--
    (i) The NHTSA Administrator shall notify States in writing of 
Section 405 grant awards and specify any conditions or limitations 
imposed by law on the use of funds; or
    (ii) The Approving Official shall notify States in writing if a 
State's application does not meet the qualification requirements for 
any of the Section 405 grants.


Sec.  1200.15  Apportionment and Obligation of Federal Funds.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, on October 
1 of each fiscal year, or soon thereafter, the NHTSA Administrator 
shall, in writing, distribute funds available for obligation under 23 
U.S.C. Chapter 4 to the States and specify any conditions or 
limitations imposed by law on the use of the funds.
    (b) In the event that authorizations exist but no applicable 
appropriation act has been enacted by October 1 of a fiscal year the 
NHTSA Administrator may, in writing, distribute a part of the funds 
authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 contract authority to the States 
to ensure program continuity, and in that event shall specify any 
conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of the funds. Upon 
appropriation of grant funds, the NHTSA Administrator shall, in 
writing, promptly adjust the obligation limitation, and specify any 
conditions or limitations imposed by law on the use of the funds.
    (c) Funds distributed under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section 
shall be available for expenditure by the States to satisfy the Federal 
share of expenses under the approved Highway Safety Plan, and shall 
constitute a contractual obligation of the Federal Government, subject 
to any conditions or limitations identified in the distributing 
document. Such funds shall be available for expenditure by the States 
as provided in Sec.  1200.41(b), after which the funds shall lapse.
    (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c) of this 
section--
    (1) Reimbursement of State expenses for Section 402 grant funds 
shall be contingent upon the submission of an updated HS Form 217 and 
an updated project list that includes project numbers for each project 
within 30 days after the beginning of the fiscal year or the date of 
the written approval provided under Sec.  1200.14(b)(1) of this part, 
whichever is later, and approval of the updated HS Form 217 by the 
Approving Official.
    (2) Reimbursement of State expenses for Section 405 grant funds 
shall be contingent upon the submission of an updated Highway Safety 
Plan, HS Form 217, and project list to address the grant funds awarded 
under subpart C, within 30 days after the beginning of the fiscal year 
or the date of the grant award notice provided under Sec.  
1200.14(b)(2), whichever is later, and approval of the updated Highway 
Safety Plan and HS Form 217 by the Approving Official. Submitting the 
updated Highway Safety Plan and HS Form 217 is a precondition to 
reimbursement of grant expenses.
    (3) The updated HS Form 217 required under paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(d)(2) of this section shall reflect the State's allocation of grant 
funds made available for expenditure during the fiscal year, including 
carry-forward funds. Within each program area, the State shall provide 
a project list to be conducted during the fiscal year.

Subpart C--National Priority Safety Program Grants


Sec.  1200.20  General.

    (a) Scope. This subpart establishes criteria, in accordance with 23 
U.S.C. 405, for awarding grants to States that adopt and implement 
programs and laws to address national priorities for reducing highway 
deaths and injuries.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this subpart--
    Blood alcohol concentration or BAC means grams of alcohol per 
deciliter or 100 milliliters blood, or grams of alcohol per 210 liters 
of breath.
    FARS means NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System.
    Majority means greater than 50 percent.
    Passenger motor vehicle means a passenger car, pickup truck, van, 
minivan or sport utility vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 
less than 10,000 pounds.
    Personal wireless communications device means a device through 
which personal wireless services (commercial mobile services, 
unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange 
access services) are transmitted, but does not include a global 
navigation satellite system receiver used for positioning, emergency 
notification, or navigation purposes.
    Primary offense means an offense for which a law enforcement 
officer may stop a vehicle and issue a citation in the absence of 
evidence of another offense.
    (c) Eligibility. Except as provided in Sec.  1200.25(c), the 50 
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American

[[Page 5014]]

Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands are each eligible to apply for national priority 
safety program grants under this subpart.
    (d) Qualification based on State statutes. Whenever a State statute 
is the basis for a grant award under this subpart, such statute shall 
have been enacted by the application due date and be in effect and 
enforced, without interruption, by the beginning of and throughout the 
fiscal year of the grant award.
    (e) Award determinations and transfer of funds.
    (1) Except as in provided Sec.  1200.26(d), the amount of a grant 
award to a State in a fiscal year under this subpart shall be 
determined by applying the apportionment formula under 23 U.S.C. 402(c) 
for fiscal year 2009 to all qualifying States, in proportion to the 
amount each such State received under 23 U.S.C. 402(c) for fiscal year 
2009, so that all available amounts are distributed to qualifying 
States to the maximum extent practicable.
    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and except as 
provided in Sec.  1200.25(k), a grant awarded to a State in a fiscal 
year under this subpart may not exceed 10 percent of the total amount 
made available for that section for that fiscal year.
    (3) If it is determined after review of applications that funds for 
a grant program under this subpart will not all be distributed, such 
funds shall be transferred to other programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 
402 and 405 to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that each 
State receives the maximum funding for which it qualifies.
    (f) Matching. The Federal share of the costs of activities or 
programs funded using amounts from grants awarded under this subpart 
may not exceed 80 percent.


Sec.  1200.21   Occupant protection grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(b), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective occupant protection programs to reduce highway 
deaths and injuries resulting from individuals riding unrestrained or 
not properly restrained in motor vehicles.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Child restraint means any device (including a child safety seat, 
booster seat used in conjunction with 3-point belts, or harness, but 
excluding seat belts) that is designed for use in a motor vehicle to 
restrain, seat, or position a child who weighs 65 pounds (30 kilograms) 
or less and that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standard 
prescribed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for 
child restraints.
    High seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed 
seat belt use rate of 90.0 percent or higher (not rounded) based on 
validated data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during 
the previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for 
State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR Part 1340 (e.g., 
for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2014, the ``previous 
calendar year'' would be 2013).
    Lower seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed 
seat belt use rate below 90.0 percent (not rounded) based on validated 
data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during the 
previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for 
State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR Part 1340 (e.g., 
for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2014, the ``previous 
calendar year'' would be 2013).
    Seat belt means, with respect to open-body motor vehicles, 
including convertibles, an occupant restraint system consisting of a 
lap belt or a lap belt and a detachable shoulder belt, and with respect 
to other motor vehicles, an occupant restraint system consisting of 
integrated lap and shoulder belts.
    Problem identification means the data collection and analysis 
process for identifying areas of the State, types of crashes, or types 
of populations (e.g., high-risk populations) that present specific 
safety or usage challenges in efforts to improve occupant protection.
    (c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a 
grant under this section as a high seat belt use rate State or as a 
lower seat belt use rate State, in accordance with paragraph (d) or (e) 
of this section, as applicable.
    (d) Qualification criteria for a high seat belt use rate State. To 
qualify for an occupant protection grant in a fiscal year, a high seat 
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit an executed 
Part 1 of Appendix D and the following documentation:
    (1) Occupant protection plan. (i) For a first fiscal year award, a 
copy of the State occupant protection program area plan to be included 
in the State HSP that describes the programs the State will implement 
to achieve reductions in traffic crashes, fatalities, and injuries on 
public roads.
    (ii) For subsequent fiscal year awards, an update of the State's 
occupant protection plan provided in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this 
section.
    (2) Participation in Click-it-or-Ticket national mobilization. A 
description of the State's planned participation, and the assurance 
provided in Part 1 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Highway 
Safety Representative, that the State will participate in the Click it 
or Ticket national mobilization during the fiscal year of the grant;
    (3) Child restraint inspection stations. Documentation that the 
State has an active network of child inspection stations and/or 
inspection events that are--
    (i) Located in areas that service the majority of the State's 
population and show evidence of outreach to underserved areas; and
    (ii) Staffed with at least one current nationally Certified Child 
Passenger Safety Technician during official posted hours.
    (4) Child passenger safety technicians. A copy of the State's plan 
to recruit, train and retain nationally Certified Child Passenger 
Safety Technicians to staff each child inspection station and 
inspection events located in the State.
    (5) Maintenance of effort. The assurance provided in Part 1 of 
Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Highway Safety Representative, 
that the State shall maintain its aggregate expenditures from all State 
and local sources for occupant protection programs at or above the 
average level of such expenditure in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
    (e) Qualification criteria for a lower seat belt use rate State. To 
qualify for an occupant protection grant in a fiscal year, a lower seat 
belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall satisfy all the 
requirements of and submit all the documentation required under 
paragraph (d) of this section, and submit documentation demonstrating 
that it meets at least three of the following additional criteria:
    (1) Primary enforcement seat belt use law. The assurance provided 
in Part 1 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Highway Safety 
Representative, providing legal citations to the State statute or 
statutes demonstrating that the State has enacted and is enforcing 
occupant protection laws that make a violation of the requirement to be 
secured in a seat belt or child restraint a primary offense.
    (2) Occupant protection laws. The assurance provided in Part 1 of 
Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Highway Safety Representative, 
providing legal citations to State statute or statutes demonstrating 
that the State has enacted and is enforcing occupant protection laws 
that require--

[[Page 5015]]

    (i) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle who is under 
eight years of age, weighs less than 65 pounds and is less than four 
feet, nine inches in height to be secured in an age-appropriate child 
restraint;
    (ii) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle other than 
an occupant identified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section to be 
secured in a seat belt or appropriate child restraint;
    (iii) A minimum fine of $25 per unrestrained occupant for a 
violation of the occupant protection laws described in paragraphs 
(e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (iv) No exemption from coverage, except the following:
    (A) Drivers, but not passengers, of postal, utility, and commercial 
vehicles that make frequent stops in the course of their business;
    (B) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because of a medical condition, provided there is written documentation 
from a physician;
    (C) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint 
because all other seating positions are occupied by persons properly 
restrained in seat belts or child restraints;
    (D) Emergency vehicle operators and passengers in emergency 
vehicles during an emergency;
    (E) Persons riding in seating positions or vehicles not required by 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to be equipped with seat belts;
    (F) Passengers in public and livery conveyances.
    (3) Seat belt enforcement. Documentation of the State's plan to 
conduct ongoing and periodic seat belt and child restraint enforcement 
during the fiscal year of the grant involving--
    (i) At least 70 percent of the State's population as shown by the 
latest available Federal census; or
    (ii) Law enforcement agencies responsible for seat belt enforcement 
in geographic areas in which at least 70 percent of the State's 
unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities occurred (reported 
in the HSP).
    (4) High risk population countermeasure programs. Documentation 
that the State has implemented data-driven programs to improve seat 
belt and child restraint use for at least two of the following at-risk 
populations:
    (i) Drivers on rural roadways;
    (ii) Unrestrained nighttime drivers;
    (iii) Teenage drivers;
    (iv) Other high-risk populations identified in the occupant 
protection plan required under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (5) Comprehensive occupant protection program. Documentation 
demonstrating that the State has--
    (i) Conducted a NHTSA-facilitated program assessment that evaluates 
the program for elements designed to increase seat belt usage in the 
State;
    (ii) Developed a multi-year strategic plan based on input from 
statewide stakeholders (task force) under which the State developed--
    (A) A program management strategy that provides leadership, 
training and technical assistance to other State agencies and local 
occupant protection programs and projects;
    (B) A program evaluation strategy that assesses performance in 
achieving the State's measurable goals and objectives for increasing 
seat belt and child restraint usage for adults and children;
    (C) A communication and education program strategy that has as its 
cornerstone the high visibility enforcement model that combines use of 
media, both paid and earned, and education to support enforcement 
efforts at the State and community level aimed at increasing seat belt 
use and correct usage of age appropriate child restraint systems; and
    (D) An enforcement strategy that includes activities such as 
encouraging seat belt use policies for law enforcement agencies, 
vigorous enforcement of seat belt and child safety seat laws, and 
accurate reporting of occupant protection system information on police 
accident report forms.
    (iii) designated an occupant protection coordinator; and
    (iv) established a statewide occupant protection task force that 
includes agencies and organizations that can help develop, implement, 
enforce and evaluate occupant protection programs.
    (6) Occupant protection program assessment.
    (i) A NHTSA-facilitated assessment of all elements of its occupant 
protection program within the three years prior to October 1 of the 
grant year; or
    (ii) For the first year of the grant, the assurance provided in 
Part 1 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety, that the State will conduct a NHTSA-facilitated 
assessment by September 1 of the grant year. The agency will require 
the return of grant funds awarded under this section if the State fails 
to conduct such an assessment by the deadline and will redistribute any 
such grant funds in accordance with Sec.  1200.20(e) to other 
qualifying States under this section.
    (f) Use of grant funds.
    (1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section, use of grant funds awarded under this section shall be limited 
to the following programs or purposes:
    (i) To support high-visibility enforcement mobilizations, including 
paid media that emphasizes publicity for the program, and law 
enforcement;
    (ii) To train occupant protection safety professionals, police 
officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, educators, and parents 
concerning all aspects of the use of child restraints and occupant 
protection;
    (iii) To educate the public concerning the proper use and 
installation of child restraints, including related equipment and 
information systems;
    (iv) To provide community child passenger safety services, 
including programs about proper seating positions for children and how 
to reduce the improper use of child restraints;
    (v) To establish and maintain information systems containing data 
concerning occupant protection, including the collection and 
administration of child passenger safety and occupant protection 
surveys; and
    (vi) To purchase and distribute child restraints to low-income 
families, provided that not more than five percent of the funds 
received in a fiscal year are used for such purpose.
    (2) Eligible uses for high seat belt use rate States. 
Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(1) of this section, a State that 
qualifies for grant funds as a high seat belt use rate State may use up 
to 75 percent of such funds for any project or activity eligible for 
funding under 23 U.S.C. 402.


Sec.  1200.22  State traffic safety information system improvements 
grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(c), for grants to States to develop and implement 
effective programs that improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 
uniformity, integration, and accessibility of State safety data needed 
to identify priorities for Federal, State, and local highway and 
traffic safety programs, evaluate the effectiveness of such efforts, 
link State data systems, including traffic records and systems that 
contain medical, roadway, and economic data, improve the compatibility 
and interoperability of State data systems with national data systems 
and the data systems of other States, and enhance the agency's ability 
to observe and analyze national trends in crash occurrences, rates, 
outcomes, and circumstances.
    (b) Requirement for traffic records coordinating committee (TRCC).
    (1) Structure and composition. The State shall have a traffic 
records coordinating committee that--

[[Page 5016]]

    (i) Is chartered or legally mandated;
    (ii) Meets at least three times annually;
    (iii) Has a multidisciplinary membership that includes owners, 
operators, collectors and users of traffic records and public health 
and injury control data systems, highway safety, highway 
infrastructure, law enforcement and adjudication officials, and public 
health, emergency medical services, injury control, driver licensing, 
and motor carrier agencies and organizations; and
    (iv) Has a designated TRCC coordinator.
    (2) Functions. The traffic records coordinating committee shall--
    (i) Have authority to review any of the State's highway safety data 
and traffic records systems and any changes to such systems before the 
changes are implemented;
    (ii) Consider and coordinate the views of organizations in the 
State that are involved in the collection, administration, and use of 
highway safety data and traffic records systems, and represent those 
views to outside organizations;
    (iii) Review and evaluate new technologies to keep the highway 
safety data and traffic records system current; and
    (iv) Approve annually the membership of the TRCC, the TRCC 
coordinator, any change to the State's multi-year Strategic Plan 
required under paragraph (c) of this section, and performance measures 
to be used to demonstrate quantitative progress in the accuracy, 
completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or integration of a 
core highway safety database.
    (c) Requirement for a state traffic records strategic plan. The 
State shall have a Strategic Plan, approved by the TRCC, that--
    (1) Describes specific, quantifiable and measurable improvements 
anticipated in the State's core safety databases, including crash, 
citation or adjudication, driver, emergency medical services or injury 
surveillance system, roadway, and vehicle databases;
    (2) For any identified performance measure, uses the formats set 
forth in the Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records 
Systems collaboratively developed by NHTSA and the Governors Highway 
Safety Association (GHSA);
    (3) Includes a list of all recommendations from its most recent 
highway safety data and traffic records system assessment;
    (4) Identifies which such recommendations the State intends to 
implement and the performance measures to be used to demonstrate 
quantifiable and measurable progress; and
    (5) For recommendations that the State does not intend to 
implement, provides an explanation.
    (d) Requirement for quantitative improvement. A State shall 
demonstrate quantitative improvement in the data attributes of 
accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility and 
integration in a core database by demonstrating an improved consistency 
within the State's record system or by achieving a higher level of 
compliance with a national model inventory of data elements, such as 
the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), the Model Impaired 
Driving Records Information System (MIDRIS), the Model Inventory of 
Roadway Elements (MIRE) or the National Emergency Medical Services 
Information System (NEMSIS).
    (e) Requirement for assessment. The State shall have conducted or 
updated, within the five years prior to the application due date, an 
in-depth, formal assessment of its highway safety data and traffic 
records system accurately performed by a group knowledgeable about 
highway safety data and traffic records systems that complies with the 
procedures and methodologies outlined in NHTSA's Traffic Records 
Highway Safety Program Advisory (DOT HS 811 644).
    (f) Requirement for maintenance of effort. The State shall maintain 
its aggregate expenditures from all State and local sources for State 
traffic safety information system programs at or above the average 
level of such expenditure in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, as provided in 
Part 2 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Highway Safety 
Representative.
    (g) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a grant under this 
section in a fiscal year, a State shall submit an executed Part 2 of 
Appendix D and the following documentation:
    (1) Either the TRCC charter or legal citation(s) to the statute or 
regulation legally mandating a TRCC with the functions required by 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
    (2) Meeting schedule, all reports and data system improvement and 
policy guidance documents promulgated by the TRCC during the 12 months 
immediately preceding the grant application due date;
    (3) A list of the TRCC membership and the organizations and 
functions they represent;
    (4) The name and title of the State's Traffic Records Coordinator.
    (5) A copy of the Strategic Plan required under paragraph (c) of 
this section, including any updates to the Strategic Plan.
    (6) Either a written description of the performance measures, and 
all supporting data, that the State is relying on to demonstrate 
quantitative improvement in the preceding 12 months of the grant 
application due date in one or more of the significant data program 
attributes or the location where this information is detailed in the 
Strategic Plan.
    (7) The certification provided in Part 2 of Appendix D, signed by 
the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, that an assessment of 
the State's highway safety data and traffic records system was 
conducted or updated within the five years prior to the application due 
date as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (h) Use of grant funds. Grant funds awarded under this section 
shall be used to make quantifiable, measureable progress improvements 
in the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or 
integration of data in a core highway safety database.


Sec.  1200.23  Impaired driving countermeasures grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(d), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems 
resulting from individuals driving motor vehicles while under the 
influence of alcohol, drugs, or the combination of alcohol and drugs or 
that enact alcohol ignition interlock laws.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    24-7 sobriety program means a State law or program that authorizes 
a State court or a State agency, as a condition of sentence, probation, 
parole, or work permit, to require an individual who pleads guilty to 
or was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs 
to--
    (1) Abstain totally from alcohol or drugs for a period of time; and
    (2) Be subject to testing for alcohol or drugs at least twice per 
day by continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring via an electronic 
monitoring device, or by an alternative method approved by NHTSA.
    Alcohol means wine, beer and distilled spirits.
    Average impaired driving fatality rate means the number of 
fatalities in motor vehicle crashes involving a driver with a blood 
alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 percent for every 100,000,000 
vehicle miles traveled, based on the

[[Page 5017]]

most recently reported three calendar years of final data from the 
FARS.
    Assessment means a NHTSA-facilitated process that employs a team of 
subject matter experts to conduct a comprehensive review of a specific 
highway safety program in a State.
    Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of 
alcohol and drugs means operating a vehicle while the alcohol and/or 
drug concentration in the blood or breath, as determined by chemical or 
other tests, equals or exceeds the level established by the State or is 
equivalent to the standard offense for driving under the influence of 
alcohol or drugs in the State.
    Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Court means a court that 
specializes in cases involving driving while intoxicated and abides by 
the Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts in effect on the date of the 
grant, as established by the National Center for DWI Courts.
    Drugs means controlled substances as that term is defined under 
section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802(6).
    High visibility enforcement efforts means participation in national 
impaired driving law enforcement campaigns organized by NHTSA, 
participation in impaired driving law enforcement campaigns organized 
by the State, or the use of sobriety checkpoints and/or saturation 
patrols, conducted in a highly visible manner and supported by 
publicity through paid or earned media.
    High-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate of 0.60 or higher.
    Low-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate of 0.30 or lower.
    Mid-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving 
fatality rate that is higher than 0.30 and lower than 0.60.
    Saturation patrol means a law enforcement activity during which 
enhanced levels of law enforcement are conducted in a concentrated 
geographic area (or areas) for the purpose of detecting drivers 
operating motor vehicles while impaired by alcohol and/or other drugs.
    Sobriety checkpoint means a law enforcement activity during which 
law enforcement officials stop motor vehicles on a non-discriminatory, 
lawful basis for the purpose of determining whether the operators of 
such motor vehicles are driving while impaired by alcohol and/or other 
drugs.
    Standard offense for driving under the influence of alcohol or 
drugs means the offense described in a State's law that makes it a 
criminal offense to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence 
of alcohol or drugs, but does not require a measurement of alcohol or 
drug content.
    (c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a 
grant under this section as a low-range State, a mid-range State or a 
high-range State, in accordance with paragraphs (d), (e) or (f) of this 
section, as applicable. Independent of this range determination, a 
State may also qualify for a separate grant under this section as an 
ignition interlock State, as provided in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (d) Qualification criteria for a low-range State. To qualify for an 
impaired driving countermeasures grant in a fiscal year, a low-range 
State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit an executed Part 3 of 
Appendix D providing assurances, signed by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety, that the State will--
    (1) Use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(1) only for the 
implementation and enforcement of programs authorized in paragraph (i) 
of this section; and
    (2) Maintain its aggregate expenditures from all State and local 
sources for impaired driving programs at or above the average level of 
such expenditure in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, as provided in Part 3 
of Appendix D.
    (e) Qualification criteria for a mid-range State. To qualify for an 
impaired driving countermeasures grant in a fiscal year, a mid-range 
State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit the information required in 
paragraph (d) of this section and the following additional 
documentation:
    (1) Statewide impaired driving plan. If the State has not received 
a grant under this section for a previously submitted statewide 
impaired driving plan, the State shall submit a copy of a statewide 
impaired driving plan that--
    (i) Has been developed within the three years prior to the 
application due date;
    (ii) Has been approved by a statewide impaired driving task force 
that meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(2) of this section;
    (iii) Provides a comprehensive strategy that uses data and problem 
identification to identify measurable goals and objectives for 
preventing and reducing impaired driving behavior and impaired driving 
crashes; and
    (iv) Covers general areas that include program management and 
strategic planning, prevention, the criminal justice system, 
communication programs, alcohol and other drug misuse, and program 
evaluation and data.
    (2) Statewide impaired driving task force. The State shall submit a 
copy of information describing its statewide impaired driving task 
force that--
    (i) Provides the basis for the operation of the task force, 
including any charter or establishing documents;
    (ii) Includes a schedule of all meetings held in the 12 months 
preceding the application due date and any reports or documents 
produced during that time period; and
    (iii) Includes a list of membership and the organizations and 
functions represented and includes, at a minimum, key stakeholders from 
the State Highway Safety Office and the areas of law enforcement and 
criminal justice system (e.g., prosecution, adjudication, probation), 
and, as appropriate, stakeholders from the areas of driver licensing, 
treatment and rehabilitation, ignition interlock programs, data and 
traffic records, public health, and communication.
    (3) Assurances. For the first year of the grant as a mid-range 
State, if the State is not able to meet the requirements of paragraph 
(e)(1) of this section, the State may provide the assurances provided 
in Part 3 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for 
Highway Safety, that the State will convene a statewide impaired 
driving task force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan that 
meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section and submit 
the statewide impaired driving plan by September 1 of the grant year. 
The agency will require the return of grant funds awarded under this 
section if the State fails to submit the plan by the deadline and will 
redistribute any such grant funds in accordance with Sec.  1200.20(e) 
to other qualifying States under this section.
    (f) Qualification criteria for a high-range State. To qualify for 
an impaired driving countermeasures grant in a fiscal year, a high-
range State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit the information 
required in paragraph (d) of this section and the following additional 
documentation:
    (1) Impaired driving program assessment. (i) The assurances 
provided in Part 3 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety, providing the date of the NHTSA-
facilitated assessment of the State's impaired driving program 
conducted within the three years prior to the application due date; or
    (ii) For the first year of the grant as a high-range State, the 
assurances provided in Part 3 of Appendix D,

[[Page 5018]]

signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, that the 
State will conduct a NHTSA-facilitated assessment by September 1 of the 
grant year.
    (2) Statewide impaired driving plan. (i) First year compliance. For 
the first year of the grant as a high-range State, the assurances 
provided in Part 3 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety, that the State will convene a 
statewide impaired driving task force to develop a statewide impaired 
driving plan, which will be submitted to NHTSA for review and approval 
by September 1 of the grant year that--
    (A) Meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section;
    (B) Addresses any recommendations from the assessment of the 
State's impaired driving program required in paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section;
    (C) Includes a detailed plan for spending any grant funds provided 
for high visibility enforcement efforts; and
    (D) Describes how the spending supports the State's impaired 
driving program and achievement of its performance goals and targets;
    (ii) Subsequent year compliance. For subsequent years of the grant 
as a high-range State, the State shall submit for NHTSA review and 
comment a statewide impaired driving plan that meets the requirements 
of paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) through (D) of this section or an update to 
its statewide impaired driving plan, as part of its application for a 
grant.
    (g) Ignition interlock State. To qualify for a separate grant as an 
ignition interlock State in a fiscal year, a State shall submit the 
assurances in Part 3 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety, providing legal citation(s) to the 
State statute demonstrating that the State has enacted and is enforcing 
a law that requires all individuals convicted of driving under the 
influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated to drive only 
vehicles with alcohol ignition interlocks for a period of not less than 
30 days.
    (h) Award. (1) The amount available for grants under paragraphs 
(d), (e) and (f) of this section shall be determined based on the total 
amount of eligible States for these grants and after deduction of the 
amount necessary to fund grants under paragraph (g) of this section.
    (2) The amount available for grants under paragraph (g) of this 
section shall not exceed 15 percent of the total amount made available 
to States under this section for the fiscal year.
    (i) Use of grant funds. (1) Low-range States may use grant funds 
awarded under this section for the following authorized programs:
    (i) High visibility enforcement efforts;
    (ii) Hiring a full-time or part-time impaired driving coordinator 
of the State's activities to address the enforcement and adjudication 
of laws regarding driving while impaired by alcohol;
    (iii) Court support of high visibility enforcement efforts, 
training and education of criminal justice professionals (including law 
enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and probation officers) to assist 
such professionals in handling impaired driving cases, hiring traffic 
safety resource prosecutors, hiring judicial outreach liaisons, and 
establishing driving while intoxicated courts;
    (iv) Alcohol ignition interlock programs;
    (v) Improving blood-alcohol concentration testing and reporting;
    (vi) Paid and earned media in support of high visibility 
enforcement of impaired driving laws, and conducting standardized field 
sobriety training, advanced roadside impaired driving evaluation 
training, and drug recognition expert training for law enforcement, and 
equipment and related expenditures used in connection with impaired 
driving enforcement;
    (vii) Training on the use of alcohol screening and brief 
intervention;
    (viii) Developing impaired driving information systems; and
    (ix) Costs associated with a 24-7 sobriety program.
    (x) Programs designed to reduce impaired driving based on problem 
identification.
    (2) Mid-range States may use grant funds awarded under this section 
for any of the authorized uses described in paragraph (i)(1) of this 
section, provided that use of grant funds for programs described in 
paragraph (i)(1)(x) of this section requires advance approval from 
NHTSA.
    (3) High-range States may use grant funds awarded under this 
section for high visibility enforcement efforts and any of the 
authorized uses described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section, provided 
the proposed uses are described in a statewide impaired driving plan 
submitted to and approved by NHTSA in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) 
of this section and subject to the conditions in paragraph (j) of this 
section.
    (4) Ignition interlock States may use grant funds awarded under 
this section for any of the authorized uses described under paragraph 
(i)(1) of this section and for eligible activities under 23 U.S.C. 402.
    (j) Special conditions for use of funds by high-range States. No 
expenses incurred or vouchers submitted by a high-range State shall be 
approved for reimbursement until such State submits for NHTSA review 
and approval a statewide impaired driving plan as provided in paragraph 
(f)(2) of this section. If a high-range State fails to timely provide 
the statewide impaired driving plan required under paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section, the agency will redistribute any grant funds in 
accordance with Sec.  1200.20(e) to other qualifying States under this 
section.


Sec.  1200.24  Distracted driving grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(e), for awarding grants to States that enact and enforce 
laws prohibiting distracted driving, beginning with fiscal year 2014 
grants.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Driving means operating a motor vehicle on a public road, including 
operation while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic 
light or stop sign, or otherwise, but does not include operating a 
motor vehicle when the vehicle has pulled over to the side of, or off, 
an active roadway and has stopped in a location where it can safely 
remain stationary.
    Texting means reading from or manually entering data into a 
personal wireless communications device, including doing so for the 
purpose of SMS texting, emailing, instant messaging, or engaging in any 
other form of electronic data retrieval or electronic data 
communication.
    (c) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a distracted driving 
grant in a fiscal year, a State shall submit the assurances in Part 4 
of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety, providing legal citations to the State statute or statutes 
demonstrating compliance with the following requirements:
    (1) Prohibition on texting while driving. The statute shall--
    (i) Prohibit drivers from texting through a personal wireless 
communications device while driving;
    (ii) Make a violation of the law a primary offense; and
    (iii) Establish--
    (A) A minimum fine of $25 for a first violation of the law; and
    (B) Increased fines for repeat violations within five years of the 
previous violation.
    (2) Prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving. The statute 
shall--

[[Page 5019]]

    (i) Prohibit a driver who is younger than 18 years of age from 
using a personal wireless communications device while driving;
    (ii) Make a violation of the law a primary offense;
    (iii) Require distracted driving issues to be tested as part of the 
State's driver's license examination; and
    (iv) Establish--
    (A) A minimum fine of $25 for a first violation of the law; and
    (B) Increased fines for repeat violations within five years of the 
previous violation.
    (3) Permitted exceptions. A State statute providing for the 
following exceptions, and no others, shall not be deemed out of 
compliance with the requirements of this section:
    (i) A driver who uses a personal wireless communications device to 
contact emergency services;
    (ii) Emergency services personnel who use a personal wireless 
communications device while operating an emergency services vehicle and 
engaged in the performance of their duties as emergency services 
personnel; and
    (iii) An individual employed as a commercial motor vehicle driver 
or a school bus driver who uses a personal wireless communications 
device within the scope of such individual's employment if such use is 
permitted under the regulations promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
31136.
    (d) Use of grant funds. (1) At least 50 percent of the grant funds 
awarded under this section shall be used to educate the public through 
advertising containing information about the dangers of texting or 
using a cell phone while driving, for traffic signs that notify drivers 
about the distracted driving law of the State, or for law enforcement 
costs related to the enforcement of the distracted driving law;
    (2) Not more than 50 percent of the grant funds awarded under this 
section may be used for any eligible project or activity under 23 
U.S.C. 402.


Sec.  1200.25  Motorcyclist safety grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C. 405(b), for awarding grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective programs to reduce the number of single-vehicle and 
multiple-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Impaired means alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired as defined by 
State law, provided that the State's legal alcohol-impairment level 
does not exceed .08 BAC.
    Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or 
saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than 
three wheels in contact with the ground.
    Motorcyclist awareness means individual or collective awareness of 
the presence of motorcycles on or near roadways and of safe driving 
practices that avoid injury to motorcyclists.
    Motorcyclist awareness program means an informational or public 
awareness or education program designed to enhance motorcyclist 
awareness that is developed by or in coordination with the designated 
State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues, 
which may include the State motorcycle safety administrator or a 
motorcycle advisory council appointed by the Governor of the State.
    Motorcyclist safety training or Motorcycle rider training means a 
formal program of instruction that is approved for use in a State by 
the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist 
safety issues, which may include the State motorcycle safety 
administrator or a motorcycle advisory council appointed by the 
governor of the State.
    State means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.
    (c) Eligibility. The 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico are eligible to apply for a motorcyclist safety grant.
    (d) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a motorcyclist safety 
grant in a fiscal year, a State shall submit an executed Part 5 of 
Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, 
and submit documentation demonstrating compliance with at least two of 
the criteria in paragraphs (e) through (j) of this section.
    (e) Motorcycle rider training course. (1) To satisfy this 
criterion, a State shall have an effective motorcycle rider training 
course that is offered throughout the State and that provides a formal 
program of instruction in accident avoidance and other safety-oriented 
operational skills to motorcyclists. The program shall--
    (i) Use a training curriculum that--
    (A) Is approved by the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;
    (B) Includes a formal program of instruction in crash avoidance and 
other safety-oriented operational skills for both in-class and on-the-
motorcycle training to motorcyclists; and
    (C) May include innovative training opportunities to meet unique 
regional needs;
    (ii) Offer at least one motorcycle rider training course either--
    (A) In a majority of the State's counties or political 
subdivisions; or
    (B) In counties or political subdivisions that account for a 
majority of the State's registered motorcycles;
    (iii) Use motorcycle rider training instructors to teach the 
curriculum who are certified by the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues or by a nationally 
recognized motorcycle safety organization with certification 
capability; and
    (iv) Use quality control procedures to assess motorcycle rider 
training courses and instructor training courses conducted in the 
State.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State shall 
submit--
    (i) A copy of the official State document (e.g., law, regulation, 
binding policy directive, letter from the Governor) identifying the 
designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues;
    (ii) Document(s) demonstrating that the training curriculum is 
approved by the designated State authority having jurisdiction over 
motorcyclist safety issues and includes a formal program of instruction 
in crash avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills for 
both in-class and on-the-motorcycle training to motorcyclists;
    (iii) Either:
    (A) A list of the counties or political subdivisions in the State, 
noting in which counties or political subdivisions and when motorcycle 
rider training courses were offered in the 12 months preceding the due 
date of the grant application, if the State seeks to qualify under this 
criterion by showing that it offers at least one motorcycle rider 
training course in a majority of counties or political subdivisions in 
the State; or
    (B) A list of the counties or political subdivisions in the State, 
noting in which counties or political subdivisions and when motorcycle 
rider training courses were offered in the 12 months preceding the due 
date of the grant application and the corresponding number of 
registered motorcycles in each county or political subdivision 
according to official State motor vehicle records, if the State seeks 
to qualify under this criterion by showing that it offers at least one 
motorcycle rider training course in counties or political subdivisions 
that account for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles;
    (iv) Document(s) demonstrating that the State uses motorcycle rider 
training instructors to teach the curriculum who are certified by the 
designated State authority having jurisdiction over

[[Page 5020]]

motorcyclist safety issues or by a nationally recognized motorcycle 
safety organization with certification capability; and
    (v) A brief description of the quality control procedures to assess 
motorcycle rider training courses and instructor training courses used 
in the State (e.g., conducting site visits, gathering student feedback) 
and the actions taken to improve the courses based on the information 
collected.
    (f) Motorcyclist awareness program. (1) To satisfy this criterion, 
a State shall have an effective statewide program to enhance motorist 
awareness of the presence of motorcyclists on or near roadways and safe 
driving practices that avoid injuries to motorcyclists. The program 
shall--
    (i) Be developed by, or in coordination with, the designated State 
authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;
    (ii) Use State data to identify and prioritize the State's 
motorcyclist awareness problem areas;
    (iii) Encourage collaboration among agencies and organizations 
responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety issues; and
    (iv) Incorporate a strategic communications plan that--
    (A) Supports the State's overall safety policy and countermeasure 
program;
    (B) Is designed, at a minimum, to educate motorists in those 
jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes is highest or 
in those jurisdictions that account for a majority of the State's 
registered motorcycles;
    (C) Includes marketing and educational efforts to enhance 
motorcyclist awareness; and
    (D) Uses a mix of communication mechanisms to draw attention to the 
problem.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State shall 
submit--
    (i) A copy of the State document identifying the designated State 
authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;
    (ii) A letter from the Governor's Highway Safety Representative 
stating that the State's motorcyclist awareness program was developed 
by or in coordination with the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;
    (iii) Data used to identify and prioritize the State's motorcycle 
safety problem areas, including either--
    (A) A list of counties or political subdivisions in the State 
ranked in order of the highest to lowest number of motorcycle crashes 
per county or political subdivision, if the State seeks to qualify 
under this criterion by showing that it identifies and prioritizes the 
State's motorcycle safety problem areas based on motorcycle crashes. 
Such data shall be from the most recent calendar year for which final 
State crash data is available, but data no older than two calendar 
years prior to the application due date (e.g., for a grant application 
submitted on July 1, 2013, a State shall provide calendar year 2012 
data, if available, and may not provide data older than calendar year 
2011); or
    (B) A list of counties or political subdivisions in the State and 
the corresponding number of registered motorcycles for each county or 
political subdivision according to official State motor vehicle 
records, if the State seeks to qualify under this criterion by showing 
that it identifies and prioritizes the State's motorcycle safety 
problem areas based on motorcycle registrations;
    (iv) A brief description of how the State has achieved 
collaboration among agencies and organizations responsible for, or 
impacted by, motorcycle safety issues; and
    (v) A copy of the strategic communications plan showing that it--
    (A) Supports the State's overall safety policy and countermeasure 
program;
    (B) Is designed to educate motorists in those jurisdictions where 
the incidence of motorcycle crashes is highest (i.e., the majority of 
counties or political subdivisions in the State with the highest 
numbers of motorcycle crashes) or is designed to educate motorists in 
those jurisdictions that account for a majority of the State's 
registered motorcycles (i.e., the counties or political subdivisions 
that account for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles as 
evidenced by State motor vehicle records);
    (C) Includes marketing and educational efforts to enhance 
motorcyclist awareness; and
    (D) Uses a mix of communication mechanisms to draw attention to the 
problem (e.g., newspapers, billboard advertisements, email, posters, 
flyers, mini-planners, or instructor-led training sessions).
    (g) Reduction of fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles. (1) 
To satisfy this criterion, a State shall demonstrate a reduction for 
the preceding calendar year in the number of motorcyclist fatalities 
and in the rate of motor vehicle crashes involving motorcycles in the 
State (expressed as a function of 10,000 registered motorcycle 
registrations), as computed by NHTSA. The State shall--
    (i) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of 
motorcyclist fatalities for the most recent calendar year for which 
final FARS data is available as compared to the final FARS data for the 
calendar year immediately prior to that year; and
    (ii) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 
motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), 
experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of crashes 
involving motorcycles for the most recent calendar year for which final 
State crash data is available, but data no older than two calendar 
years prior to the application due date, as compared to the calendar 
year immediately prior to that year.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State shall 
submit--
    (i) State data showing the total number of motor vehicle crashes 
involving motorcycles in the State for the most recent calendar year 
for which final State crash data is available, but data no older than 
two calendar years prior to the application due date and the same type 
of data for the calendar year immediately prior to that year (e.g., for 
a grant application submitted on July 1, 2013, the State shall submit 
calendar year 2012 data and 2011 data, if both data are available, and 
may not provide data older than calendar year 2011 and 2010, to 
determine the rate); and
    (ii) A description of the State's methods for collecting and 
analyzing data submitted in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section, 
including a description of the State's efforts to make reporting of 
motor vehicle crashes involving motorcycles as complete as possible.
    (h) Impaired driving program. (1) To satisfy this criterion, a 
State shall implement a statewide program to reduce impaired driving, 
including specific measures to reduce impaired motorcycle operation. 
The program shall--
    (i) Use State data to identify and prioritize the State's impaired 
driving and impaired motorcycle operation problem areas; and
    (ii) Include specific countermeasures to reduce impaired motorcycle 
operation with strategies designed to reach motorcyclists and motorists 
in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes 
involving an impaired operator is highest.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State shall 
submit--
    (i) State data used to identify and prioritize the State's impaired 
driving and impaired motorcycle operation problem areas, including a 
list of counties or political subdivisions in the State ranked in order 
of the highest to lowest number of motorcycle crashes involving an 
impaired operator per county or political subdivision. Such data shall 
be from the most recent

[[Page 5021]]

calendar year for which final State crash data is available, but data 
no older than two calendar years prior to the application due date 
(e.g., for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2013, a State shall 
provide calendar year 2012 data, if available, and may not provide data 
older than calendar year 2011);
    (ii) A detailed description of the State's impaired driving program 
as implemented, including a description of each countermeasure 
established and proposed by the State to reduce impaired motorcycle 
operation, the amount of funds allotted or proposed for each 
countermeasure and a description of its specific strategies that are 
designed to reach motorcyclists and motorists in those jurisdictions 
where the incidence of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired 
operator is highest (i.e., the majority of counties or political 
subdivisions in the State with the highest numbers of motorcycle 
crashes involving an impaired operator); and
    (iii) The legal citation(s) to the State statute or regulation 
defining impairment. (A State is not eligible for a grant under this 
criterion if its legal alcohol-impairment level exceeds .08 BAC.)
    (i) Reduction of fatalities and accidents involving impaired 
motorcyclists. (1) To satisfy this criterion, a State shall demonstrate 
a reduction for the preceding calendar year in the number of fatalities 
and in the rate of reported crashes involving alcohol-impaired and 
drug-impaired motorcycle operators (expressed as a function of 10,000 
motorcycle registrations), as computed by NHTSA. The State shall--
    (i) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of 
fatalities involving alcohol-and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for 
the most recent calendar year for which final FARS data is available as 
compared to the final FARS data for the calendar year immediately prior 
to that year; and
    (ii) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 
motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), 
experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of reported 
crashes involving alcohol-and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for 
the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data is 
available, but data no older than two calendar years prior to the 
application due date, as compared to the calendar year immediately 
prior to that year.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State shall 
submit--
    (i) State data showing the total number of reported crashes 
involving alcohol- and drug-impaired motorcycle operators in the State 
for the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data is 
available, but data no older than two calendar years prior to the 
application due date and the same type of data for the calendar year 
immediately prior to that year (e.g., for a grant application submitted 
on July 1, 2013, the State shall submit calendar year 2012 and 2011 
data, if both data are available, and may not provide data older than 
calendar year 2011 and 2010, to determine the rate); and
    (ii) A description of the State's methods for collecting and 
analyzing data submitted in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section, 
including a description of the State's efforts to make reporting of 
crashes involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle 
operators as complete as possible; and
    (iii) The legal citation(s) to the State statute or regulation 
defining alcohol-impaired and drug-impairment. (A State is not eligible 
for a grant under this criterion if its legal alcohol-impairment level 
exceeds .08 BAC.)
    (j) Use of fees collected from motorcyclists for motorcycle 
programs. (1) To satisfy this criterion, a State shall have a process 
under which all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are used 
for motorcycle training and safety programs. A State may qualify under 
this criterion as either a Law State or a Data State.
    (i) A Law State is a State that has a statute or regulation 
requiring that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for 
the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to 
be used for motorcycle training and safety programs.
    (ii) A Data State is a State that does not have a statute or 
regulation requiring that all fees collected by the State from 
motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and 
safety programs are to be used for motorcycle training and safety 
programs but can show through data and/or documentation from official 
records that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs were, in 
fact, used for motorcycle training and safety programs, without 
diversion.
    (2)(i) To demonstrate compliance as a Law State, the State shall 
submit the legal citation(s) to the statute or regulation requiring 
that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to be 
used for motorcycle training and safety programs and the legal 
citation(s) to the State's current fiscal year appropriation (or 
preceding fiscal year appropriation, if the State has not enacted a law 
at the time of the State's application) appropriating all such fees to 
motorcycle training and safety programs.
    (ii) To demonstrate compliance as a Data State, a State shall 
submit data or documentation from official records from the previous 
State fiscal year showing that all fees collected by the State from 
motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and 
safety programs were, in fact, used for motorcycle training and safety 
programs. Such data or documentation shall show that revenues collected 
for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs 
were placed into a distinct account and expended only for motorcycle 
training and safety programs.
    (k) Award limitation. A grant awarded under the procedures 
described in Sec.  1200.20(e)(1) may not exceed the amount of a grant 
made to State for fiscal year 2003 under 23 U.S.C. 402.
    (l) Use of grant funds. (1) Eligible uses. A State may use grant 
funds awarded under this section for motorcyclist safety training and 
motorcyclist awareness programs, including--
    (i) Improvements to motorcyclist safety training curricula;
    (ii) Improvements in program delivery of motorcycle training to 
both urban and rural areas, including--
    (A) Procurement or repair of practice motorcycles;
    (B) Instructional materials;
    (C) Mobile training units; and
    (D) Leasing or purchasing facilities for closed-course motorcycle 
skill training;
    (iii) Measures designed to increase the recruitment or retention of 
motorcyclist safety training instructors; and
    (iv) Public awareness, public service announcements, and other 
outreach programs to enhance driver awareness of motorcyclists, such as 
the ``share-the-road'' safety messages developed using Share-the-Road 
model language available on NHTSA's Web site at https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov.
    (2) Suballocation of funds. A State that receives a grant under 
this section may suballocate funds from the grant to a nonprofit 
organization incorporated in that State to carry out grant activities 
under this section.


Sec.  1200.26  State graduated driver licensing incentive grants.

    (a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 
23 U.S.C.

[[Page 5022]]

405(g), for awarding grants to States that adopt and implement 
graduated driver's licensing laws that require novice drivers younger 
than 21 years of age to comply with a 2-stage licensing process prior 
to receiving a full driver's license.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Conviction-free means that, during the term of the permit or 
license covered by the program, the driver has not been convicted of 
any offense under State or local law relating to the use or operation 
of a motor vehicle, including but not limited to driving while 
intoxicated, reckless driving, driving without wearing a seat belt, 
speeding, prohibited use of a personal wireless communications device, 
and violation of the driving-related restrictions applicable to the 
stages of the graduated driver's licensing process set forth in 
paragraph (c) of this section, as well as misrepresentation of a 
driver's true age.
    Driving, for purposes of paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, 
means operating a motor vehicle on a public road, including operation 
while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic light or 
stop sign, or otherwise, but does not include operating a motor vehicle 
when the vehicle has pulled over to the side of, or off, an active 
roadway and has stopped in a location where it can safely remain 
stationary.
    Full driver's license means a license to operate a passenger motor 
vehicle on public roads at all times.
    Licensed driver means a driver who possesses a valid full driver's 
license.
    Novice driver means a driver who has not been issued by a State an 
intermediate license or full driver's license.
    (c) Qualification criteria. (1) General. To qualify for a grant 
under this section, a State shall submit the assurances in Part 6 of 
Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, 
providing legal citations to the State statute or statutes 
demonstrating compliance with the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section, and provide legal citation(s) to the statute or 
regulation or provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (2) Graduated driver's licensing law. A State's graduated driver's 
licensing law shall include a learner's permit stage and an 
intermediate stage meeting the following minimum requirements:
    (i) The learner's permit stage shall--
    (A) Apply to any novice driver who is younger than 21 years of age 
prior to the receipt by such driver from the State of any other permit 
or license to operate a motor vehicle;
    (B) Commence only after an applicant for a leaner's permit passes 
vision and knowledge tests, including tests about the rules of the 
road, signs, and signals;
    (C) Subject to paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B), be in effect for a period 
of at least six months, but may not expire until the driver reaches at 
least 16 years of age; and
    (D) Require the learner's permit holder to--
    (1) Be accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver who is at 
least 21 years of age at all times while the learner's permit holder is 
operating a motor vehicle;
    (2) Receive not less than 40 hours of behind-the-wheel training 
with a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age;
    (3) Complete a driver education or training course that has been 
certified by the State; and
    (4) Pass a driving skills test prior to entering the intermediate 
stage or being issued another permit, license or endorsement.
    (ii) The intermediate stage shall--
    (A) Apply to any driver who has completed the learner's permit 
stage and who is younger than 18 years of age;
    (B) Commence immediately after the expiration of the learner's 
permit stage;
    (C) Subject to paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B), be in effect for a period 
of at least six months, but may not expire until the driver reaches at 
least 18 years of age;
    (D) Require the intermediate license holder to be accompanied and 
supervised by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age during 
the period of time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., 
except in case of emergency; and
    (E) Prohibit the intermediate license holder from operating a motor 
vehicle with more than one nonfamilial passenger younger than 21 years 
of age unless a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age is in 
the motor vehicle.
    (iii) During both the learner's permit and intermediate stages, the 
State shall--
    (A) Impose a prohibition enforced as a primary offense on use of a 
cellular telephone or any communications device by the driver while 
driving, except in case of emergency; and
    (B) Require that the driver who possesses a learner's permit or 
intermediate license remain conviction-free for a period of not less 
than six consecutive months immediately prior to the expiration of that 
stage.
    (3) Requirement for license distinguishability. The State learner's 
permit, intermediate license, and full driver's license shall be 
distinguishable from each other. A State may satisfy this requirement 
by submitting--
    (i) Legal citations to the State statute or regulation requiring 
that the State learner's permit, intermediate license, and full 
driver's license be visually distinguishable:
    (ii) Sample permits and licenses that contain visual features that 
would enable a law enforcement officer to distinguish between the State 
learner's permit, intermediate license, and full driver's license; or
    (iii) A description of the State's system that enables law 
enforcement officers in the State during traffic stops to distinguish 
between the State learner's permit, intermediate license, and full 
driver's license.
    (4) Exceptions. A State that otherwise meets the minimum 
requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section will not be 
deemed ineligible for a grant under this section if--
    (i) The State enacted a law prior to January 1, 2011, establishing 
a class of permit or license that allows drivers younger than 18 years 
of age to operate a motor vehicle--
    (A) In connection with work performed on, or for the operation of, 
a farm owned by family members who are directly related to the 
applicant or licensee; or
    (B) If demonstrable hardship would result from the denial of a 
license to the licensees or applicants, provided that the State 
requires the applicant or licensee to affirmatively and adequately 
demonstrate unique undue hardship to the individual; and
    (ii) Drivers who possess only the permit or license permitted under 
paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section are treated as novice drivers 
subject to the graduated driver's licensing requirements of paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section as a pre-condition of receiving any other 
permit, license or endorsement.
    (d) Award. (1) Grant Amount. Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section, grant funds for a fiscal year under this section shall be 
allocated among States that meet the qualification criteria on the 
basis of the apportionment formula under 23 U.S.C. 402 for that fiscal 
year.
    (2) Limitation. Amount of grant award to a State under this section 
may not exceed 10 percent of the total amount made available for 
Section 405(g) for that fiscal year.
    (e) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under 
this section as follows:
    (1) At least 25 percent of the grant funds shall be used, in 
connection with the State's graduated driver's licensing law that 
complies with the minimum requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of 
this section, to:

[[Page 5023]]

    (i) Enforce the graduated driver's licensing process;
    (ii) Provide training for law enforcement personnel and other 
relevant State agency personnel relating to the enforcement of the 
graduated driver's licensing process;
    (iii) Publish relevant educational materials that pertain directly 
or indirectly to the State graduated driver's licensing law;
    (iv) Carry out administrative activities to implement the State's 
graduated driver's licensing process; or
    (v) Carry out a teen traffic safety program described in 23 U.S.C. 
402(m);
    (2) No more than 75 percent may be used for any eligible project or 
activity under 23 U.S.C. 402.

Subpart D--Administration of the Highway Safety Grants


Sec.  1200.30  General.

    Subject to the provisions of this subpart, the requirements of 49 
CFR part 18 and applicable cost principles govern the implementation 
and management of State highway safety programs and projects carried 
out under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4. Cost principles include those referenced 
in 49 CFR 18.22.


Sec.  1200.31  Equipment.

    (a) Title. Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this 
section, title to equipment acquired under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 will 
vest upon acquisition in the State or its subgrantee, as appropriate.
    (b) Use. All equipment shall be used for the originally authorized 
grant purposes for as long as needed for those purposes, as determined 
by the Approving Official, and neither the State nor any of its 
subgrantees or contractors shall encumber the title or interest while 
such need exists.
    (c) Management and disposition. Subject to the requirement of 
paragraphs (b), (d), (e) and (f) of this section, States and their 
subgrantees and contractors shall manage and dispose of equipment 
acquired under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 in accordance with State laws and 
procedures.
    (d) Major purchases and dispositions. Equipment with a useful life 
of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more shall 
be subject to the following requirements--
    (1) Purchases shall receive prior written approval from the 
Approving Official;
    (2) Dispositions shall receive prior written approval from the 
Approving Official unless the age of the equipment has exceeded its 
useful life as determined under State law and procedures.
    (e) Right to transfer title. The Approving Official may reserve the 
right to transfer title to equipment acquired under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 
to the Federal Government or to a third party when such third party is 
eligible under Federal statute. Any such transfer shall be subject to 
the following requirements:
    (1) The equipment shall be identified in the grant or otherwise 
made known to the State in writing;
    (2) The Approving Official shall issue disposition instructions 
within 120 calendar days after the equipment is determined to be no 
longer needed for highway safety purposes, in the absence of which the 
State shall follow the applicable procedures in 49 CFR part 18.
    (f) Federally-owned equipment. In the event a State or its 
subgrantee is provided Federally-owned equipment:
    (1) Title shall remain vested in the Federal Government;
    (2) Management shall be in accordance with Federal rules and 
procedures, and an annual inventory listing shall be submitted;
    (3) The State or its subgrantee shall request disposition 
instructions from the Approving Official when the item is no longer 
needed for highway safety purposes.


Sec.  1200.32  Changes--Approval of the Approving Official.

    States shall provide documentary evidence of any reallocation of 
funds between program areas by submitting to the NHTSA regional office 
an amended HS Form 217, reflecting the changed allocation of funds and 
updated list of projects under each program area, as provided in Sec.  
1200.11(e), within 30 days of implementing the change. The amended HS 
Form 217 and list of projects is subject to the approval of the 
Approving Official.


Sec.  1200.33  Vouchers and Project Agreements.

    (a) General. Each State shall submit official vouchers for expenses 
incurred to the Approving Official.
    (b) Content of vouchers. At a minimum, each voucher shall provide 
the following information for expenses claimed in each program area:
    (1) Program Area for which expenses were incurred and an 
itemization of project numbers and amount of Federal funds expended for 
each project for which reimbursement is being sought;
    (2) Federal funds obligated;
    (3) Amount of Federal funds allocated to local benefit (provided no 
less than mid-year (by March 31) and with the final voucher);
    (4) Cumulative Total Cost to Date;
    (5) Cumulative Federal Funds Expended;
    (6) Previous Amount Claimed;
    (7) Amount Claimed this Period;
    (8) Matching rate (or special matching writeoff used, i.e., sliding 
scale rate authorized under 23 U.S.C. 120).
    (c) Project agreements. Copies of each project agreement for which 
expenses are being claimed under the voucher (and supporting 
documentation for the vouchers) shall be made promptly available for 
review by the Approving Official upon request. Each project agreement 
shall bear the project number to allow the Approving Official to match 
the voucher to the corresponding activity.
    (d) Submission requirements. At a minimum, vouchers shall be 
submitted to the Approving Official on a quarterly basis, no later than 
15 working days after the end of each quarter, except that where a 
State receives funds by electronic transfer at an annualized rate of 
one million dollars or more, vouchers shall be submitted on a monthly 
basis, no later than 15 working days after the end of each month. A 
final voucher shall be submitted to the Approving Official no later 
than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, and all unexpended 
balances shall be carried forward to the current fiscal year.
    (e) Reimbursement. (1) Failure to provide the information specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section shall result in rejection of the 
voucher.
    (2) Failure to meet the deadlines specified in paragraph (d) of 
this section may result in delayed reimbursement.
    (3) Vouchers that request reimbursement for projects whose project 
numbers or amounts claimed do not match the list of projects or exceed 
the estimated amount of Federal funds provided under Sec.  1200.11(e), 
or exceed the allocation of funds to a program area in the HS Form 217, 
shall be rejected, in whole or in part, until an amended list of 
projects and/or estimated amount of Federal funds and an amended HS 
Form 217 is submitted to and approved by the Approving Official in 
accordance with Sec.  1200.32.


Sec.  1200.34  Program Income.

    (a) Definition. Program income means gross income received by the 
grantee or subgrantee directly generated by a program supported 
activity, or earned only as a result of the grant agreement during the 
period of time between the effective date of the grant award and the 
expiration date of the grant award.
    (b) Inclusions. Program income includes income from fees for 
services performed, from the use or rental of real

[[Page 5024]]

or personal property acquired with grant funds, from the sale of 
commodities or items fabricated under the grant agreement, and from 
payments of principal and interest on loans made with grant funds.
    (c) Exclusions. Program income does not include interest on grant 
funds, rebates, credits, discounts, refunds, taxes, special 
assessments, levies, fines, proceeds from the sale of real property or 
equipment, income from royalties and license fees for copyrighted 
material, patents, and inventions, or interest on any of these.
    (d) Use of program income. (1) Addition. Program income shall 
ordinarily be added to the funds committed to the Highway Safety Plan. 
Such program income shall be used to further the objectives of the 
program area under which it was generated.
    (2) Cost sharing or matching. Program income may be used to meet 
cost sharing or matching requirements only upon written approval of the 
Approving Official. Such use shall not increase the commitment of 
Federal funds.


Sec.  1200.35  Annual Report.

    Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, each State shall 
submit an Annual Report describing--
    (a) A general assessment of the State's progress in achieving 
highway safety performance measure targets identified in the Highway 
Safety Plan;
    (b) A general description of the projects and activities funded and 
implemented under the Highway Safety Plan;
    (c) The amount of Federal funds expended on projects from the 
Highway Safety Plan; and
    (d) How the projects funded during the fiscal year contributed to 
meeting the State's highway safety targets. Where data becomes 
available, a State should report progress from prior year projects that 
have contributed to meeting current State highway safety targets.


Sec.  1200.36  Appeals of Written Decision by Approving Official.

    Review of any written decision regarding the administration of the 
grants by an Approving Official under this subpart may be obtained by 
submitting a written appeal of such decision, signed by the Governor's 
Representative for Highway Safety, to the Approving Official. Such 
appeal shall be forwarded promptly to the NHTSA Associate 
Administrator, Regional Operations and Program Delivery. The decision 
of the NHTSA Associate Administrator shall be final and shall be 
transmitted to the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety through 
the cognizant Approving Official.

Subpart E--Annual Reconciliation


Sec.  1200.40  Expiration of the Highway Safety Plan.

    (a) The State's Highway Safety Plan for a fiscal year and the 
State's authority to incur costs under that Highway Safety Plan shall 
expire on the last day of the fiscal year.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each State 
shall submit a final voucher which satisfies the requirements of Sec.  
1200.33 within 90 days after the expiration of the State's Highway 
Safety Plan as provided in paragraph (a) of this section. The final 
voucher constitutes the final financial reconciliation for each fiscal 
year.
    (c) The Approving Official may extend the time period to submit a 
final voucher only in extraordinary circumstances. States shall submit 
a written request for an extension describing the extraordinary 
circumstances that necessitate an extension. The approval of any such 
request for extension shall be in writing, shall specify the new 
deadline for submitting the final voucher, and shall be signed by the 
Approving Official.


Sec.  1200.41  Disposition of Unexpended Balances.

    (a) Carry-forward balances. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of 
this section, grant funds that remain unexpended at the end of a fiscal 
year and the expiration of a Highway Safety Plan shall be credited to 
the State's highway safety account for the new fiscal year, and made 
immediately available for use by the State, provided the following 
requirements are met:
    (1) The State's new Highway Safety Plan has been approved by the 
Approving Official pursuant to Sec.  1200.14 of this part;
    (2) The State has identified Section 402 carry-forward funds by the 
program area from which they are removed and identified by program area 
the manner in which the carry-forward funds will be used under the new 
Highway Safety Plan.
    (3) The State has identified Section 405 carry-forward funds by the 
national priority safety program under which they were awarded (i.e., 
occupant protection, state traffic safety information system 
improvements, impaired driving, ignition interlock, distracted driving, 
motorcyclist safety or graduated driver licensing). These funds shall 
not be used for any other program.
    (4) The State has submitted for approval an updated HS Form 217 for 
funds identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section. 
Reimbursement of costs is contingent upon the approval of updated 
Highway Safety Plan and HS Form 217.
    (5) Funds carried forward from grant programs rescinded by MAP-21 
shall be separately identified and shall be subject to the statutory 
and regulatory requirements that were in force at the time of award.
    (b) Deobligation of funds. (1) Except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, unexpended grant funds shall not be available 
for expenditure beyond the period of three years after the last day of 
the fiscal year of apportionment or allocation.
    (2) NHTSA shall notify States of any such unexpended grant funds no 
later than 180 days prior to the end of the period of availability 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and inform States of the 
deadline for commitment. States may commit such unexpended grant funds 
to a specific project by the specified deadline, and shall provide 
documentary evidence of that commitment, including a copy of an 
executed project agreement, to the Approving Official.
    (3) Grant funds committed to a specific project in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall remain committed to that project 
and be expended by the end of the succeeding fiscal year. The final 
voucher for that project shall be submitted within 90 days of the end 
of that fiscal year.
    (4) NHTSA shall deobligate unexpended balances at the end of the 
time period in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(3) of this section, whichever is 
applicable, and the funds shall lapse.


Sec.  1200.42  Post-Grant Adjustments.

    The expiration of a Highway Safety Plan does not affect the ability 
of NHTSA to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later 
audit or other review or the State's obligation to return any funds due 
as a result of later refunds, corrections, or other transactions.


Sec.  1200.43  Continuing Requirements.

    Notwithstanding the expiration of a Highway Safety Plan, the 
provisions for post-award requirements in 49 CFR part 18, including but 
not limited to equipment and audit, continue to apply to the grant 
funds authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4.

Subpart F--Non-Compliance


Sec.  1200.50  General.

    Where a State is found to be in non-compliance with the 
requirements of the

[[Page 5025]]

grant programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or with applicable 
law, the special conditions for high-risk grantees and the enforcement 
procedures of 49 CFR part 18, the sanctions procedures in Sec.  
1200.51, and any other sanctions or remedies permitted under Federal 
law may be applied as appropriate.


Sec.  1200.51  Sanctions--Reduction of Apportionment.

    (a) Determination of sanctions. (1) The Administrator shall not 
apportion any funds under 23 U.S.C. 402 to any State which is not 
implementing an approved highway safety program.
    (2) If the Administrator has apportioned funds to a State and 
subsequently determines that the State is not implementing an approved 
highway safety program, the Administrator shall reduce the funds 
apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 to the State by amounts equal to not 
less than 20 percent, until such time as the Administrator determines 
that the State is implementing an approved highway safety program.
    (3) The Administrator shall consider the gravity of the State's 
failure to implement an approved highway safety program in determining 
the amount of the reduction.
    (4) If the Administrator determines that a State has begun 
implementing an approved highway safety program not later than July 31 
of the fiscal year for which the funds were withheld, the Administrator 
shall promptly apportion to the State the funds withheld from its 
apportionment.
    (5) If the Administrator determines that the State did not correct 
its failure by July 31 of the fiscal year for which the funds were 
withheld, the Administrator shall reapportion the withheld funds to the 
other States, in accordance with the formula specified in 23 U.S.C. 
402(c), not later than the last day of the fiscal year.
    (b) Reconsideration of sanctions determination. (1) In any fiscal 
year, if the Administrator determines that a State is not implementing 
an approved highway safety program in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402 and 
other applicable Federal law, the Administrator shall issue to the 
State an advance notice, advising the State that the Administrator 
expects to either withhold funds from apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 
402, or reduce the State's apportioned funds under 23 U.S.C. 402. The 
Administrator shall state the amount of the expected withholding or 
reduction. The advance notice will normally be sent not later than 60 
days prior to final apportionment.
    (2) If the Administrator issues an advance notice to a State, under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the State may, within 30 days of its 
receipt of the advance notice, submit documentation demonstrating that 
it is implementing an approved highway safety program. Documentation 
shall be submitted to the NHTSA Administrator, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    (3) If the Administrator decides, after reviewing all relevant 
information submitted, that the State is not implementing an approved 
highway safety program in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402, the 
Administrator shall issue a final notice, advising the State either of 
the funds being withheld from apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 402, or of 
the amount of funds reduced from the apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 402. 
The final notice will normally be issued no later than September 30. 
The final notice of a reduction will be issued at the time of a final 
decision.

Subpart G--Special Provisions for Fiscal Year 2013 Highway Safety 
Grants and Highway Safety Grants Under Prior Authorizations


Sec.  1200.60  Fiscal Year 2013 Section 402 Grants.

    Highway safety grants apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 for fiscal 
year 2013 shall be governed by the applicable implementing regulations 
at the time of grant award.


Sec.  1200.61  Fiscal Year 2013 Section 405 Grants.

    (a) For fiscal year 2013 grants authorized under 23 U.S.C. 405(b), 
(c), (d), (f) and (g), a State shall submit electronically its 
application as provided in Sec.  1200.11(h) to NHTSAGrants@dot.gov no 
later than March 25, 2013.
    (b) If a State's application contains incomplete information, NHTSA 
may request additional information from the State prior to making a 
determination of award for each component of the Section 405 grant 
program. Failure to respond promptly for request of additional 
information may result in a State's disqualification from one or more 
Section 405 grants for fiscal year 2013.
    (c) After reviewing applications and making award determinations, 
NHTSA shall, in writing, distribute funds available for obligation 
under Section 405 to qualifying States and specify any conditions or 
limitations imposed by law on the use of the funds.
    (d) Grant awards are subject to the availability of funds. If there 
are insufficient funds to award full grant amounts to qualifying 
States, NHTSA may release interim amounts and release the remainder, up 
to the State's proportionate share of available funds, when it becomes 
available in the fiscal year.
    (e) The administration, reconciliation and noncompliance provisions 
of subparts D through F of this part apply to fiscal year 2013 grants 
awarded to qualifying States.


Sec.  1200.62  Pre-2013 Fiscal Year Grants.

    Highway safety grants rescinded by MAP-21 are governed by the 
applicable implementing regulations at the time of grant award.

APPENDIX A TO PART 1200--CERTIFICATION AND ASSURANCES FOR HIGHWAY 
SAFETY GRANTS (23 U.S.C. CHAPTER 4)

State:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year:--------

    Each fiscal year the State must sign these Certifications and 
Assurances that it complies with all requirements including 
applicable Federal statutes and regulations that are in effect 
during the grant period. (Requirements that also apply to 
subrecipients are noted under the applicable caption.)
    In my capacity as the Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety, I hereby provide the following certifications and 
assurances:

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

    To the best of my personal knowledge, the information submitted 
in the Highway Safety Plan in support of the State's application for 
Section 402 and Section 405 grants is accurate and complete. 
(Incomplete or incorrect information may result in the disapproval 
of the Highway Safety Plan.)
    The Governor is the responsible official for the administration 
of the State highway safety program through a State highway safety 
agency that has adequate powers and is suitably equipped and 
organized (as evidenced by appropriate oversight procedures 
governing such areas as procurement, financial administration, and 
the use, management, and disposition of equipment) to carry out the 
program. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(A))
    The State will comply with applicable statutes and regulations, 
including but not limited to:
     23 U.S.C. Chapter 4--Highway Safety Act of 1966, as 
amended
     49 CFR Part 18--Uniform Administrative Requirements for 
Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments
     23 CFR Part 1200--Uniform Procedures for State Highway 
Safety Grant Programs
    The State has submitted appropriate documentation for review to 
the single point of contact designated by the Governor to review 
Federal programs, as required by Executive Order 12372 
(Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs).

[[Page 5026]]

FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT (FFATA)

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

NONDISCRIMINATION

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

    The State highway safety agency will comply with all Federal 
statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination. 
These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352), which prohibits discrimination 
on the basis of race, color or national origin (and 49 CFR Part 21); 
(b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 
U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on 
the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and the Americans with Disabilities Act 
of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-336), as amended (42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.), 
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disabilities (and 49 
CFR Part 27); (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
age; (e) the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-259), 
which requires Federal-aid recipients and all subrecipients to 
prevent discrimination and ensure nondiscrimination in all of their 
programs and activities; (f) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act 
of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination 
on the basis of drug abuse; (g) the comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 
(Pub. L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the 
basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (h) Sections 523 and 527 of 
the Public Health Service Act of 1912, as amended (42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 
and 290ee-3), relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse 
patient records; (i) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.), relating to nondiscrimination in 
the sale, rental or financing of housing; (j) any other 
nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which 
application for Federal assistance is being made; and (k) the 
requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may 
apply to the application.

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

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

BUY AMERICA ACT

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

    The State will comply with the provisions of the Buy America Act 
(49 U.S.C. 5323(j)), which contains the following requirements:
    Only steel, iron and manufactured products produced in the 
United States may be purchased with Federal funds unless the 
Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestic purchases 
would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials 
are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality, or that 
inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the 
overall project contract by more than 25 percent. Clear 
justification for the purchase of non-domestic items must be in the 
form of a waiver request submitted to and approved by the Secretary 
of Transportation.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT)

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

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

CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

    Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative 
Agreements
    The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge 
and belief, that:
    1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, 
by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or 
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a 
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an 
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of 
any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of 
any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, 
and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification 
of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
    2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been 
paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to 
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of 
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a 
Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, 
loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and 
submit Standard Form-LLL, ``Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,'' in 
accordance with its instructions.
    3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this 
certification be included in the award documents for all sub-award 
at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under 
grant, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients 
shall certify and disclose accordingly.
    This certification is a material representation of fact upon 
which reliance

[[Page 5027]]

was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. 
Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or 
entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, 
U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification 
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not 
more than $100,000 for each such failure.

RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

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

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION

(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

    Instructions for Primary Certification
    1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective 
primary participant is providing the certification set out below.
    2. The inability of a person to provide the certification 
required below will not necessarily result in denial of 
participation in this covered transaction. The prospective 
participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the 
certification set out below. The certification or explanation will 
be considered in connection with the department or agency's 
determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, 
failure of the prospective primary participant to furnish a 
certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from 
participation in this transaction.
    3. The certification in this clause is a material representation 
of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency 
determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined 
that the prospective primary participant knowingly rendered an 
erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to 
the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this 
transaction for cause or default.
    4. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate 
written notice to the department or agency to which this proposal is 
submitted if at any time the prospective primary participant learns 
its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become 
erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
    5. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, 
ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, 
primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily 
excluded, as used in this clause, have the meaning set out in the 
Definitions and coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contact 
the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted 
for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.
    6. The prospective primary participant agrees by submitting this 
proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered 
into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered 
transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR 
Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or 
voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, 
unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this 
transaction.
    7. The prospective primary participant further agrees by 
submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled 
``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and 
Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transaction,'' provided by 
the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, 
without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in 
all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.
    8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a 
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered 
transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 
9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily 
excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the 
certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and 
frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. 
Each participant may, but is not required to, check the list of 
Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement 
Programs.
    9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to 
require establishment of a system of records in order to render in 
good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge 
and information of a participant is not required to exceed that 
which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary 
course of business dealings.
    10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of 
these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction 
knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person 
who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, 
suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from 
participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies 
available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may 
terminate this transaction for cause or default.

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

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

Instructions for Lower Tier Certification

    1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective 
lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below.
    2. The certification in this clause is a material representation 
of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was 
entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower 
tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in 
addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the 
department or agency with which this transaction originated may 
pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.
    3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide 
immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is 
submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant 
learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has 
become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
    4. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, 
ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, 
primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily 
excluded, as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the 
Definition and Coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contact 
the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in 
obtaining a copy of those regulations.
    5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting 
this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be 
entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier 
covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment 
under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared 
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this 
covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency 
with which this transaction originated.
    6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by 
submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled

[[Page 5028]]

``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and 
Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transaction,'' without 
modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all 
solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. (See below)
    7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a 
certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered 
transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 
9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily 
excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the 
certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and 
frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. 
Each participant may, but is not required to, check the List of 
Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement 
Programs.
    8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to 
require establishment of a system of records in order to render in 
good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge 
and information of a participant is not required to exceed that 
which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary 
course of business dealings.
    9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these 
instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly 
enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is 
proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, 
debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in 
this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the 
Federal government, the department or agency with which this 
transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including 
suspension and/or debarment.
    Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and 
Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions:
    1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by 
submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is 
presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared 
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this 
transaction by any Federal department or agency.
    2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to 
certify to any of the statements in this certification, such 
prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this 
proposal.

POLICY ON SEAT BELT USE

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

POLICY ON BANNING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    The Governor's Representative for Highway Safety has reviewed 
the State's Fiscal Year highway safety planning document and hereby 
declares that no significant environmental impact will result from 
implementing this Highway Safety Plan. If, under a future revision, 
this Plan is modified in a manner that could result in a significant 
environmental impact and trigger the need for an environmental 
review, this office is prepared to take the action necessary to 
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321, et seq.) and the implementing regulations of the Council on 
Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1517).

SECTION 402 REQUIREMENTS

    The political subdivisions of this State are authorized, as part 
of the State highway safety program, to carry out within their 
jurisdictions local highway safety programs which have been approved 
by the Governor and are in accordance with the uniform guidelines 
promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation. (23 U.S.C. 
402(b)(1)(B))
    At least 40 percent (or 95 percent, as applicable) of all 
Federal funds apportioned to this State under 23 U.S.C. 402 for this 
fiscal year will be expended by or for the benefit of the political 
subdivision of the State in carrying out local highway safety 
programs (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(C), 402(h)(2)), unless this 
requirement is waived in writing.
    The State's highway safety program provides adequate and 
reasonable access for the safe and convenient movement of physically 
handicapped persons, including those in wheelchairs, across curbs 
constructed or replaced on or after July 1, 1976, at all pedestrian 
crosswalks. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(D))
    The State will provide for an evidenced-based traffic safety 
enforcement program to prevent traffic violations, crashes, and 
crash fatalities and injuries in areas most at risk for such 
incidents. (23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E))
    The State will implement activities in support of national 
highway safety goals to reduce motor vehicle related fatalities that 
also reflect the primary data-related crash factors within the State 
as identified by the State highway safety planning process, 
including:
     Participation in the National high-visibility law 
enforcement mobilizations;
     Sustained enforcement of statutes addressing impaired 
driving, occupant protection, and driving in excess of posted speed 
limits;
     An annual statewide seat belt use survey in accordance 
with 23 CFR Part 1340 for the measurement of State seat belt use 
rates;
     Development of statewide data systems to provide timely 
and effective data analysis to support allocation of highway safety 
resources;
     Coordination of Highway Safety Plan, data collection, 
and information systems with the State strategic highway safety 
plan, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(a).

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

    The State will actively encourage all relevant law enforcement 
agencies in the State to follow the guidelines established for 
vehicular pursuits issued by the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police that are currently in effect. (23 U.S.C. 402(j))
    The State will not expend Section 402 funds to carry out a 
program to purchase, operate, or maintain an automated traffic 
enforcement system. (23 U.S.C. 402(c)(4))
    I understand that failure to comply with applicable Federal 
statutes and regulations may subject State officials to civil or 
criminal penalties and/or place the State in a high risk grantee 
status in accordance with 49 CFR 18.12.
    I sign these Certifications and Assurances based on personal 
knowledge, after appropriate inquiry, and I understand that the 
Government will rely on these representations in awarding grant 
funds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Governor's Representative for Highway Safety Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed name of Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

APPENDIX B TO PART 1200--HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM COST SUMMARY (HS-217)

State ----------
Number ----------
Date ----------

[[Page 5029]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Federally funded programs
                                    Approved      State/   ------------------------------------------   Federal
          Program area               program       local      Previous       Increase/      Current    share to
                                      costs        funds       balance      (Decrease)      Balance      local
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total NHTSA                       ............  ..........  ............  ..............  ..........  ..........
Total FHWA                        ............  ..........  ............  ..............  ..........  ..........
    Total NHTSA & FHWA            ............  ..........  ............  ..............  ..........  ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Official Authorized Signature:

Name:
Title:
Date:

Federal Official Authorized Signature:

NHTSA Name:
Title:
Date:
Effective Date:
    This form is to be used to provide funding documentation for 
grant programs under Title 23, United States Code. A federal agency 
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond 
to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply 
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information 
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number 
for this information collection is --------------. Public reporting 
for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 
30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions and completing the form. All responses to this 
collection of information are required to obtain or retain benefits. 
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing 
this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington DC 20590.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROGRAM COST SUMMARY

    State--The State submitting the HS Form-217
    Number--Each HS-217 will be in sequential order by fiscal year 
(e.g., 99-01, 99-02, etc.)
    Date--The date of occurrence of the accounting action(s) 
described.
    Program Area--The code designating a program area (e.g., PT-99, 
where PT represents the Police Traffic Services and 99 represents 
the Federal fiscal year). Funds should be entered only at the 
program area level, not at the task level or lower.
    Approved Program Costs--The current balance of Federal funds 
approved (but not obligated) under the HSP or under any portion of 
or amendment to the HSP.
    State/local Funds--Those funds which the State and its political 
subdivisions are contributing to the program, including both hard 
and soft match.
    Previous Balance--The balance of Federal funds obligated and 
available for expenditure by the State in the current fiscal year, 
as of the last Federally-approved transaction. The total of this 
column may not exceed the sum of the State's current year obligation 
limitation and prior year funds carried forward. (The column is left 
blank on the updated Cost Summary required to be submitted under 23 
CFR 1200.11(e). For subsequent submissions, the amounts in this 
column are obtained from the ``Current Balance'' column of the 
immediately preceding Cost Summary.)
    Increase/(Decrease)--The amount of change in Federal funding, by 
program area, from the funding reflected under the ``Previous 
Balance''.
    Current Balance--The net total of the ``Previous Balance'' and 
the ``Increase/(Decrease)'' amounts. The total of this column may 
not exceed the sum of the State's current year obligation limitation 
and prior year funds carried forward.

APPENDIX C TO PART 1200--ASSURANCES FOR TEEN TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM

State:-----------------------------------------------------------------

Fiscal Year:-----------------------------------------------------------

    The State has elected to implement a Teen Traffic Safety 
Program--a statewide program to improve traffic safety for teen 
drivers--in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 402(m).
    In my capacity as the Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety, I have verified that--
     The Teen Traffic Safety Program is a separately 
described Program Area in the Highway Safety Plan, including a 
specific description of the strategies and projects, and appears in 
HSP page number(s) --------------------------.
     as required under 23 U.S.C. 402(m), the statewide 
efforts described in the pages identified above include peer-to-peer 
education and prevention strategies the State will use in schools 
and communities that are designed to--
    [cir] increase seat belt use;
    [cir] reduce speeding;
    [cir] reduce impaired and distracted driving;
    [cir] reduce underage drinking; and
    [cir] reduce other behaviors by teen drivers that lead to 
injuries and fatalities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Governor's Representative for Highway Safety
Date --------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed name of Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

APPENDIX D TO PART 1200--CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES FOR NATIONAL 
PRIORITY SAFETY PROGRAM GRANTS (23 U.S.C. 405)

State:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year: ------

    Each fiscal year the State must sign these Certifications and 
Assurances that it complies with all requirements, including 
applicable Federal statutes and regulations that are in effect 
during the grant period.
    In my capacity as the Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety, I:
     certify that, to the best of my personal knowledge, the 
information submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration in support of the State's application for Section 405 
grants below is accurate and complete.
     understand that incorrect, incomplete, or untimely 
information submitted in support of the State's application may 
result in the denial of an award under Section 405.
     agree that, as condition of the grant, the State will 
use these grant funds in accordance with the specific requirements 
of Section 405(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), as applicable.
     agree that, as a condition of the grant, the State will 
comply with all applicable laws and regulations and financial and 
programmatic requirements for Federal grants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Governor's Representative for Highway Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed name of Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

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

[squ] Part 1: Occupant Protection (23 CFR 1200.21)

    All States: [Fill in all blanks below.]
     The State will maintain its aggregate expenditures from 
all State and local sources for occupant protection programs at or 
above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 2010 
and 2011. (23 U.S.C. 405(a)(1)(H))
     The State will participate in the Click it or Ticket 
national mobilization in the fiscal year of the grant. The 
description of the State's planned participation is provided as HSP 
attachment or page  ----.
     The State's occupant protection plan for the upcoming 
fiscal year is provided as HSP attachment or page  ----.
     Documentation of the State's active network of child 
restraint inspection stations is provided as HSP attachment or page 
 ----.

[[Page 5030]]

     The State's plan for child passenger safety technicians 
is provided as HSP attachment or page  ----.
    Lower Seat belt Use States: [Check at least 3 boxes below and 
fill in all blanks under those checked boxes.]
    [squ] The State's primary seat belt use law, requiring all 
occupants riding in a passenger motor vehicle to be restrained in a 
seat belt or a child restraint, was enacted on ----/----/---- and 
last amended on ----/----/----, is in effect, and will be enforced 
during the fiscal year of the grant.
Legal citation(s):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    [squ] The State's occupant protection law, requiring occupants 
to be secured in a seat belt or age-appropriate child restraint 
while in a passenger motor vehicle and a minimum fine of $25, was 
enacted on ----/----/---- and last amended on ----/----/----, is in 
effect, and will be enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
     -------------------- Requirement for all occupants to 
be secured in seat belt or age appropriate child restraint
     -------------------- Coverage of all passenger motor 
vehicles
     -------------------- Minimum fine of at least $25
     -------------------- Exemptions from restraint 
requirements
    [squ] The State's seat belt enforcement plan is provided as HSP 
attachment or page  ----.
    [squ] The State's comprehensive occupant protection program is 
provided as HSP attachment  ----.
    [Check one box below and fill in any blanks under that checked 
box.]
    [squ] The State's NHTSA-facilitated occupant protection program 
assessment was conducted on ----/----/----;
    OR
    [squ] The State agrees to conduct a NHTSA-facilitated occupant 
protection program assessment by September 1 of the fiscal year of 
the grant. (This option is available only for fiscal year 2013 
grants.)

[squ] Part 2: State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements (23 
CFR 1200.22)

     The State will maintain its aggregate expenditures from 
all State and local sources for traffic safety information system 
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in 
fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
    [Fill in at least one blank for each bullet below.]
     A copy of [check one box only] the [square] TRCC 
charter or the [square] statute legally mandating a State TRCC is 
provided as HSP attachment  ---- or submitted 
electronically through the TRIPRS database on ----/----/----.
     A copy of meeting schedule and all reports and other 
documents promulgated by the TRCC during the 12 months preceding the 
application due date is provided as HSP attachment  ---- or 
submitted electronically through the TRIPRS database on ----/----/--
--.
     A list of the TRCC membership and the organization and 
function they represent is provided as HSP attachment  ---- 
or submitted electronically through the TRIPRS database on ----/----
/----.
     The name and title of the State's Traffic Records 
Coordinator is
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
     A copy of the State Strategic Plan, including any 
updates, is provided as HSP attachment  ---- or submitted 
electronically through the TRIPRS database on ----/----/----.
     [Check one box below and fill in any blanks under that 
checked box.]
    [squ] The following pages in the State's Strategic Plan provides 
a written description of the performance measures, and all 
supporting data, that the State is relying on to demonstrate 
achievement of the quantitative improvement in the preceding 12 
months of the application due date in relation to one or more of the 
significant data program attributes: pages ----------.
    OR
    [squ] If not detailed in the State's Strategic Plan, the written 
description is provided as HSP attachment  ----.
     The State's most recent assessment or update of its 
highway safety data and traffic records system was completed on ----
/----/----.

[squ] Part 3: Impaired Driving Countermeasures (23 CFR 1200.23)

    All States:
     The State will maintain its aggregate expenditures from 
all State and local sources for impaired driving programs at or 
above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 2010 
and 2011.
     The State will use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 
405(d) only for the implementation of programs as provided in 23 CFR 
1200.23(i) in the fiscal year of the grant.
    Mid-Range State:
     [Check one box below and fill in any blanks under that 
checked box.]
    [squ] The statewide impaired driving plan approved by a 
statewide impaired driving task force was issued on ----/----/---- 
and is provided as HSP attachment  ----.
    OR
    [squ] For this first year of the grant as a mid-range State, the 
State agrees to convene a statewide impaired driving task force to 
develop a statewide impaired driving plan and submit a copy of the 
plan to NHTSA by September 1 of the fiscal year of the grant.
     A copy of information describing the statewide impaired 
driving task force is provided as HSP attachment  ----.
    High-Range State:
    [Check one box below and fill in any blanks under that checked 
box.]
    [squ] A NHTSA-facilitated assessment of the State's impaired 
driving program was conducted on ----/----/----;
    OR
    [squ] For the first year of the grant as a high-range State, the 
State agrees to conduct a NHTSA-facilitated assessment by September 
1 of the fiscal year of the grant;
     [Check one box below and fill in any blanks under that 
checked box.]
    [squ] For the first year of the grant as a high-range State, the 
State agrees to convene a statewide impaired driving task force to 
develop a statewide impaired driving plan addressing recommendations 
from the assessment and submit the plan to NHTSA for review and 
approval by September 1 of the fiscal year of the grant;
    OR
    [squ] For subsequent years of the grant as a high-range State, 
the statewide impaired driving plan developed or updated on ----/--
--/---- is provided as HSP attachment  ----.
     A copy of the information describing the statewide 
impaired driving task force is provided as HSP attachment  
----.
    Ignition Interlock Law: [Fill in all blanks below.]
     The State's ignition interlock law was enacted on ----/
----/---- and last amended on ----/----/----, is in effect, and will 
be enforced during the fiscal year of the grant.
    Legal citation(s):
.----------------------------------------------------------------------

[squ] Part 4: Distracted Driving (23 CFR 1200.24)

    [Fill in all blanks below.]
    Prohibition on Texting While Driving
    The State's texting ban statute, prohibiting texting while 
driving, a minimum fine of at least $25, and increased fines for 
repeat offenses, was enacted on ----/----/---- and last amended on 
----/----/----, is in effect, and will be enforced during the fiscal 
year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
     -------------------- Prohibition on texting while 
driving
     -------------------- Definition of covered wireless 
communication devices
     -------------------- Minimum fine of at least $25 for 
first offense
     -------------------- Increased fines for repeat 
offenses
     -------------------- Exemptions from texting ban

Prohibition on Youth Cell Phone Use While Driving

    The State's youth cell phone use ban statute, prohibiting youth 
cell phone use while driving, driver license testing of distracted 
driving issues, a minimum fine of at least $25, increased fines for 
repeat offenses, was enacted on ----/----/---- and last amended on 
----/----/----, is in effect, and will be enforced during the fiscal 
year of the grant.
    Legal citations:
     -------------------- Prohibition on youth cell phone 
use while driving
     -------------------- Driver license testing of 
distracted driving issues
     -------------------- Minimum fine of at least $25 for 
first offense
     -------------------- Increased fines for repeat 
offenses
     -------------------- Exemptions from youth cell phone 
use ban

[squ] Part 5: Motorcyclist Safety (23 CFR 1200.25)

    [Check at least 2 boxes below and fill in any blanks under those 
checked boxes.]
    [squ] Motorcycle riding training course:
     Copy of official State document (e.g., law, regulation, 
binding policy directive,

[[Page 5031]]

letter from the Governor) identifying the designated State authority 
over motorcyclist safety issues is provided as HSP attachment 
 ----.
     Document(s) showing the designated State authority 
approving the training curriculum that includes instruction in crash 
avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills for both in-
class and on-the-motorcycle is provided as HSP attachment  
----.
     Document(s) regarding locations of the motorcycle rider 
----.
     Document showing that certified motorcycle rider 
training instructors teach the motorcycle riding training course is 
provided as HSP attachment  ----.
     Description of the quality control procedures to assess 
motorcycle rider training courses and instructor training courses 
and actions taken to improve courses is provided as HSP attachment 
 ----.
    [ballot] Motorcyclist awareness program:
     Copy of official State document (e.g., law, regulation, 
binding policy directive, letter from the Governor) identifying the 
designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues is 
provided as HSP attachment  ----.
     Letter from the Governor's Representative for Highway 
Safety regarding the development of the motorcyclist awareness 
program is provided as HSP attachment  ----.
     Data used to identify and prioritize the State's 
motorcyclist safety program areas is provided as HSP attachment or 
page  ----.
     Description of how the State achieved collaboration 
among agencies and organizations regarding motorcycle safety issues 
is provided as HSP attachment  or page ----.
     Copy of the State strategic communications plan is 
provided as HSP attachment  ----.
    [ballot] Reduction of fatalities and crashes involving 
motorcycles:
     Data showing the total number of motor vehicle crashes 
involving motorcycles is provided as HSP attachment or page 
 ----.
     Description of the State's methods for collecting and 
analyzing data is provided as HSP attachment or page  ----.
    [ballot] Impaired driving program:
     Data used to identify and prioritize the State's 
impaired driving and impaired motorcycle operation problem areas is 
provided as HSP attachment or page  ----.
     Detailed description of the State's impaired driving 
program is provided as HSP attachment or page  ----.
     The State law or regulation defines impairment. Legal 
citation(s):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    [ballot] Reduction of fatalities and accidents involving 
impaired motorcyclists:
     Data showing the total number of reported crashes 
involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle operators is 
provided as HSP attachment or page  ----.
     Description of the State's methods for collecting and 
analyzing data is provided as HSP attachment or page  ----.
     The State law or regulation defines impairment. Legal 
citation(s):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    [ballot] Use of fees collected from motorcyclists for motorcycle 
programs: [Check one box below and fill in any blanks under the 
checked box.]
    [ballot] Applying as a Law State--
     The State law or regulation requires all fees collected 
by the State from motorcyclists for the purpose of funding 
motorcycle training and safety programs are to be used for 
motorcycle training and safety programs. Legal citation(s):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    AND
     The State's law appropriating funds for FY ---- 
requires all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purpose of funding motorcycle training and safety programs be spent 
on motorcycle training and safety programs. Legal citation(s):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    [ballot] Applying as a Data State--
     Data and/or documentation from official State records 
from the previous fiscal year showing that all fees collected by the 
State from motorcyclists for the purpose of funding motorcycle 
training and safety programs were used for motorcycle training and 
safety programs is provided as HSP attachment  ----.

[ballot] Part 6: State Graduated Driver Licensing Laws (23 CFR 1200.26)

    [Fill in all applicable blanks below.]
    The State's graduated driver licensing statute, requiring both a 
learner's permit stage and intermediate stage prior to receiving a 
full driver's license, was enacted on ----/----/---- and last 
amended on ----/----/----, is in effect, and will be enforced during 
the fiscal year of the grant.
    Learner's Permit Stage--requires testing and education, driving 
restrictions, minimum duration, and applicability to novice drivers 
younger than 21 years of age.
    Legal citations:
     -------------------- Testing and education requirements
     -------------------- Driving restrictions
     -------------------- Minimum duration
     -------------------- Applicability to notice drivers 
younger than 21 years of age
     -------------------- Exemptions from graduated driver 
licensing law
    Intermediate Stage--requires driving restrictions, minimum 
duration, and applicability to any driver who has completed the 
learner's permit stage and who is younger than 18 years of age.
    Legal citations:
     -------------------- Driving restrictions
     -------------------- Minimum duration
     -------------------- Applicability to any driver who 
has completed the learner's permit stage and is younger than 18 
years of age
     -------------------- Exemptions from graduated driver 
licensing law

Additional Requirements During Both Learner's Permit and Intermediate 
Stages

    Prohibition enforced as a primary offense on use of a cellular 
telephone or any communications device by the driver while driving, 
except in case of emergency. Legal citation(s):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Requirement that the driver who possesses a learner's permit or 
intermediate license remain conviction-free for a period of not less 
than six consecutive months immediately prior to the expiration of 
that stage. Legal citation(s):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    License Distinguishability (Check one box below and fill in any 
blanks under that checked box.)
    [ballot] Requirement that the State learner's permit, 
intermediate license, and full driver's license are visually 
distinguishable. Legal citation(s):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    OR
    [ballot] Sample permits and licenses containing visual features 
that would enable a law enforcement officer to distinguish between 
the State learner's permit, intermediate license, and full driver's 
license, are provided as HSP attachment --------.
    OR
    [ballot] Description of the State's system that enables law 
enforcement officers in the State during traffic stops to 
distinguish between the State learner's permit, intermediate 
license, and full driver's license, are provided as HSP attachment 
--------.

APPENDIX E TO PART 1200--PARTICIPATION BY POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS

    (a) Policy. To ensure compliance with the provisions of 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(C) and 23 U.S.C. 402(h)(2), which require that at 
least 40 percent or 95 percent of all Federal funds apportioned 
under Section 402 to the State or the Secretary of Interior, 
respectively, will be expended by political subdivisions of the 
State, including Indian tribal governments, in carrying out local 
highway safety programs, the NHTSA Approving Official will determine 
if the political subdivisions had an active voice in the initiation, 
development and implementation of the programs for which funds 
apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are expended.
    (b) Terms.
    Local participation refers to the minimum 40 percent or 95 
percent (Indian Nations) that must be expended by or for the benefit 
of political subdivisions.
    Political subdivision includes Indian tribes, for purpose and 
application to the apportionment to the Secretary of Interior.
    (c) Determining local share.
    (1) In determining whether a State meets the local share 
requirement in a fiscal year, NHTSA will apply the requirement 
sequentially to each fiscal year's apportionments, treating all 
apportionments made from a single fiscal year's authorizations as a 
single entity for this purpose. Therefore, at least 40 percent of 
each State's apportionments (or at least 95 percent of the 
apportionment to the Secretary of Interior) from each year's 
authorizations must be used in the highway safety programs of its 
political subdivisions prior to the period when funds would normally 
lapse.

[[Page 5032]]

The local participation requirement is applicable to the State's 
total federally funded safety program irrespective of Standard 
designation or Agency responsibility.
    (2) When Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are 
expended by a political subdivision, such expenditures are clearly 
part of the local share. Local highway safety-project-related 
expenditures and associated indirect costs, which are reimbursable 
to the grantee local governments, are classifiable as local share. 
Illustrations of such expenditures are the costs incurred by a local 
government in planning and administration of highway safety project-
related activities, such as occupant protection, traffic records 
system improvements, emergency medical services, pedestrian and 
bicycle safety activities, police traffic services, alcohol and 
other drug countermeasures, motorcycle safety, and speed control.
    (3) When Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 are 
expended by a State agency for the benefit of a political 
subdivision, such funds may be considered as part of the local 
share, provided that the political subdivision has had an active 
voice in the initiation, development, and implementation of the 
programs for which such funds are expended. A State may not 
arbitrarily ascribe State agency expenditures as ``benefitting local 
government.'' Where political subdivisions have had an active voice 
in the initiation, development, and implementation of a particular 
program or activity, and a political subdivision which has not had 
such active voice agrees in advance of implementation to accept the 
benefits of the program, the Federal share of the cost of such 
benefits may be credited toward meeting the local participation 
requirement. Where no political subdivisions have had an active 
voice in the initiation, development, and implementation of a 
particular program, but a political subdivision requests the 
benefits of the program as part of the local government's highway 
safety program, the Federal share of the cost of such benefits may 
be credited toward meeting the local participation requirement. 
Evidence of consent and acceptance of the work, goods or services on 
behalf of the local government must be established and maintained on 
file by the State until all funds authorized for a specific year are 
expended and audits completed.
    (4) State agency expenditures which are generally not classified 
as local are within such areas as vehicle inspection, vehicle 
registration and driver licensing. However, where these areas 
provide funding for services such as driver improvement tasks 
administered by traffic courts, or where they furnish computer 
support for local government requests for traffic record searches, 
these expenditures are classifiable as benefitting local programs.
    (d) Waivers. While the local participation requirement may be 
waived in whole or in part by the NHTSA Administrator, it is 
expected that each State program will generate political subdivision 
participation to the extent required by the Act so that requests for 
waivers will be minimized. Where a waiver is requested, however, it 
must be documented at least by a conclusive showing of the absence 
of legal authority over highway safety activities at the political 
subdivision levels of the State and must recommend the appropriate 
percentage participation to be applied in lieu of the local share.

APPENDIX F TO PART 1200--PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION (P&A) COSTS

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

PART 1205--[Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Remove and reserve part 1205.

PART 1206--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
3. Remove and reserve part 1206.

PART 1250--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
4. Remove and reserve part 1250.

PART 1251--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
5. Remove and reserve part 1251.

PART 1252--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
6. Remove and reserve part 1252.

PART 1313--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
7. Remove and reserve part 1313.

PART 1335--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
8. Remove and reserve part 1335.

PART 1345--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
9. Remove and reserve part 1345.

PART 1350--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
10. Remove and reserve part 1350.


[[Page 5033]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on: January 4, 2013 under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-00682 Filed 1-16-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P