[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34397-34405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16779]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Parts 1200 and 1205
[NHTSA Docket No. 93-55, Notice 5]
RIN 2127-AG69
Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Programs
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal
Highway Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document establishes new uniform procedures governing the
implementation of State highway safety programs. It amends existing
requirements by providing a more flexible system under which States are
responsible for setting highway safety goals and implementing programs
to achieve those goals.
This document is being issued as an interim final rule to provide
guidance to the States before the start of fiscal year 1998. The
agencies request comments on the rule. The agencies will publish a
notice responding to the comments received and, if appropriate, will
amend provisions of the regulation.
DATES: This interim final rule becomes effective June 26, 1997.
Comments on this interim rule are due no later than August 11, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number set forth above
and be submitted (preferably in 10 copies) to the Docket Section, Room
5109, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4
p.m. Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In NHTSA, Marlene Markison, Office of
State and Community Services, 202-366-2121; John Donaldson, Office of
the Chief Counsel. In FHWA, Mila Plosky, Office of Highway Safety, 202-
366-6902; Michael Falk, 202-366-0834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Statutory Requirements
The Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) established
a formula grant program to improve highway safety in the States. As a
condition of the grant, the Act provides that the States must meet
certain requirements contained in 23 U.S.C. 402.
Section 402(a) requires each State to have a highway safety
program, approved by the Secretary of Transportation, which is designed
to reduce traffic crashes and the deaths, injuries, and property damage
resulting from those crashes. Section 402(b) sets forth the minimum
requirements with which each State's highway safety program must
comply. For example, the Secretary may not approve a program unless it
provides that the Governor of the State is responsible for its
administration through a State highway safety agency which has adequate
powers and is suitably equipped and organized to carry out the program
to the satisfaction of the Secretary. Additionally, the program must
authorize political subdivisions of the State to carry out local
highway safety programs and provide a certain minimum level of funding
for these local programs each fiscal year. The enforcement of these and
other continuing requirements is entrusted to the Secretary and, by
delegation, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (the agencies).
When it was originally enacted in 1966, the Highway Safety Act
required the agencies to establish uniform standards for State highway
safety programs to assist States and local communities in implementing
their highway safety programs. Eighteen such standards were established
and, until 1976, the Section 402 program was directed principally
toward achieving State and local compliance with these standards. Over
time, State highway safety programs matured and, in 1976, the Highway
Safety Act was amended to provide for more flexible implementation of
the program. States were no longer required to comply with every
uniform standard or with each element of every uniform standard. As a
result, the standards became more like guidelines for use by the
States, and management of the program shifted from enforcing standards
to using the standards as a framework for problem identification,
countermeasure development, and program evaluation. In 1987, Section
402 of the Highway Safety Act was amended, formally changing the
standards to guidelines.
Another amendment to the Highway Safety Act required the Secretary
to determine, through a rulemaking process, those programs ``most
effective'' in reducing crashes, injuries, and deaths, taking into
account ``consideration of the States having a major role in
establishing (such) programs.'' The Secretary was authorized to revise
the rule from time to time. The Act, as amended, provides 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 program. In accordance with this
provision, the agencies have identified, over time, nine such programs,
the ``National Priority Program areas.'' These programs appear in a
rule at 23 CFR part 1205, discussed further below, under the heading
``Current Regulations.''
B. Current Regulations
1. Part 1200
In recent years, the agencies have administered the Section 402
program in accordance with an implementing regulation, Uniform
Procedures for State Highway Safety Programs (23 CFR part 1200). That
regulation, portions of which are amended by today's action, contains
detailed procedures governing the content and Federal approval of a
``Highway Safety Plan,'' to be submitted each fiscal year by the
States. In particular, under the regulation each
[[Page 34398]]
State's highway safety plan is required to contain a ``problem
identification summary,'' highlighting highway safety problems in the
State, describing countermeasures planned to address those problems,
and providing supporting statistical crash data. Additionally, in the
highway safety plan, the State must describe and justify program areas
to be funded, discuss planning and administration and training needs,
and provide certain certifications and financial documentation.
The regulation requires Federal approval for proposed expenditures
within program areas, both under the State's initially submitted
Highway Safety Plan and subsequently for any proposed changes in
expenditures exceeding ten percent of the total amount in a given
program area. Federal approval is also required, on a year-by-year
basis, if a State wishes to continue a NHTSA project beyond three
years. Such approval is conditioned on a showing that the project has
demonstrated great merit or the potential for significant long-range
benefits, and is subject to increased cost assumption by the State. The
regulation provides the agencies with broad discretion to approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove a highway safety plan or any
portion of the document. Agency approving officials are centrally
involved in an evaluation of whether the highway safety plan
establishes the existence of bona fide highway safety problems,
identifies countermeasures and projects reasonably calculated to
address the problems, and proposes an efficient use of Federal funds.
Under the regulation, States are required to submit a comprehensive
and detailed annual evaluation report. The annual report is required to
contain a three-to-five page statewide overview of highway safety
accomplishments, a description of projects conducted and costs incurred
by program area, a discussion of legislative and administrative
accomplishments, and a report on the status of remedial actions.
The submission and approval requirements under the current Part
1200 place a greater emphasis on Federal oversight of State highway
safety programs than the agencies believe is necessary or desirable at
this time. State highway safety programs have matured substantially
since the inception of the Section 402 program. Accordingly, under the
heading ``Changes to Regulation,'' the agencies discuss amendments to
these portions of the regulation, made by today's notice, that provide
the States more flexibility.
Part 1200 contains other provisions, such as those concerning the
apportionment and obligation of Federal funds, financial accounting
(including submission of vouchers, program income, and the like), and
closeout of each year's program. These provisions remain essentially
unchanged by today's action.
2. Part 1205
Today's action also amends portions of another regulation, 23 CFR
part 1205, Highway Safety Programs; Determinations of Effectiveness.
Part 1205 lists each highway safety program area that the agencies have
determined, in accordance with the Highway Safety Act, to be most
effective in reducing crashes, injuries, and deaths. The agencies have,
through a series of rulemaking actions, as discussed above, identified
these program areas as ``National Priority Program Areas.'' There are
currently nine priority program areas: Alcohol and Other Drug
Countermeasures, Police Traffic Services, Occupant Protection, Traffic
Records, Emergency Medical Services, Motorcycle Safety, Roadway Safety,
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, and Speed Control.
Part 1205 currently provides for expedited funding approval of
programs developed in any of the National Priority Program Areas. Part
1205 provides that programs developed under other program areas may
also be funded, but they must be approved under a more detailed
approval process. As further described under the heading ``Changes to
Regulation,'' today's notice provides States with more flexibility also
with regard to their ability to fund these programs.
C. The Pilot Program
In the years since the original enactment of Section 402, States
have developed the infrastructure, tools, and resources necessary to
conduct effective highway safety programs. Increasingly, States have
expressed interest in assuming more responsibility for the planning and
direction of their programs, with a decreased emphasis on the detailed
Federal oversight that exists under the current regulation. Just as
Congress earlier recognized the desirability of changing the mandatory
standards to more flexible guidelines, the agencies believe it is
appropriate at this time to provide the States with added flexibility
to set their own goals, define their own performance measures, and
determine the best means of accomplishing their goals, subject to the
existing statutory parameters requiring overall program approval.
Consistent with efforts to relieve burdens on the States under the
President's regulatory reform initiative, the agencies took the first
step in providing more flexibility for the States by establishing a
pilot program in fiscal years1996 and 1997 for highway safety programs
conducted under Section 402. The pilot program was announced in the
Federal Register on September 12, 1995 (60 FR 47418) for fiscal year
1996 and on September 6, 1996 (61 FR 46895) for fiscal year 1997.
1. Procedures
The pilot program waived the requirement for State submission and
Federal approval of the Highway Safety Plan required under part 1200
for those States that chose to participate, and instead provided for a
benchmarking process by which the States set their own highway safety
goals and performance measures. Under the benchmarking process,
participating States were required to submit a planning document and a
benchmarking report, rather than the previously required highway safety
plan. The planning document, which described how Federal funds would be
used, consistent with the guidelines, priority areas, and other
requirements of Section 402, was required to be approved by the
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety.
The States were required to submit the benchmark report to the
agencies for approval by August 1 prior to the fiscal year for which
the highway safety program was to be conducted.
The benchmark report was required to contain three components: a
Process Description, Performance Goals, and a Highway Safety Program
Cost Summary. Under the Process Description component, States were
required to describe the processes used to identify highway safety
problems, establish performance goals, and develop the programs and
projects in their plans. Under the Performance Goals component, States
were required to identify highway safety performance goals (developed
through a problem identification process) and to identify performance
measures to be used to track progress toward each goal. Under the
Highway Safety Program Cost Summary component, States submitted HS Form
217, a financial accounting form that was previously required under
part 1200.
The focus of the Federal review and approval process under the
pilot program shifted away from a review of the substantive details of
the program, on a project-by-project basis, as required under part
1200. Instead, the process
[[Page 34399]]
focused on verification that the State had committed itself, through a
performance-based planning document approved by the Governor's
Representative for Highway Safety and a benchmark report, to a highway
safety program that targeted identified State highway safety concerns.
The agencies waived the requirement under part 1200 that States seek
approval for changes in expenditures exceeding ten percent in a given
program area.
Under the pilot program, the requirements governing the annual
evaluation report were changed to accommodate the shift to a
performance-based process. States were required to report on their
progress toward meeting goals, using performance measures identified in
the benchmark report, and the steps they took toward meeting goals.
States were also required to describe State and community projects
funded during the year.
In other respects, the pilot program followed the requirements of
part 1200 without change. Provisions concerning the submission of
certifications and assurances, the apportionment and obligation of
Federal funds, financial accounting (including submission of vouchers,
program income, and the like), and the closeout of each year's program
continued to apply to the pilot program.
The Federal Register notices announcing the pilot program explained
that, if the pilot program was successful, the agencies expected to
revise the regulations governing State highway safety programs to adopt
the pilot procedures permanently.
2. Experience Under the Pilot Program
Over the two-year period during which the pilot program has been in
place, it has met with support from States. Sixteen States participated
in the pilot program during fiscal year 1996, and 41 States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands participated during fiscal
year 1997. Most participating States expressed enthusiasm about the
goal-setting process used in the pilot program, and felt a greater
sense of ``ownership'' of their highway safety programs under the pilot
procedures. Prior to their participation in the pilot program, many of
these States had already adopted performance measures in their State
budgeting and management processes, which eased the transition for
these States to a performance-based process under the pilot program.
The majority of participating States reported that the pilot program
procedures resulted in reduced Federally-imposed burdens and increased
State flexibility in administering their highway safety programs.
In December 1996, the 16 States that participated in the pilot
program during its initial year submitted their annual evaluation
reports regarding their highway safety accomplishments under the pilot
program. Overall, the reports revealed improvements in data systems,
goal-setting, and project selection. They also reported reductions in
costs and time expended for the administration of the program, and a
broadening of highway safety partnerships. In addition, the reports
revealed that pilot States are making steady progress toward achieving
established goals. Experience to date confirms that the pilot program
has resulted in the implement of successful highway safety programs,
consistent with national highway safety goals and Federal goals for
regulatory reform, streamlining procedures, and improvements in
performance.
In January 1997, during the second year of the pilot program, the
agencies held a meeting that was attended by representatives of all
States and territories. State representatives identified concerns and
offered suggestions in an effort to make further improvements in the
pilot program procedures. States generally expressed a desire for more
flexibility, such as by extending the due date for submission of
application documents, permitting a multi-year planning process, and
accommodating short and long range goals in the goal-setting process.
States agreed that, if progress toward meeting goals does not occur in
a State, both State and Federal officials should cooperate to develop
an improvement plan for the State.
D. Changes to the Regulation
1. In General
Based on the success of the pilot program during its nearly two
years of operation, today's interim final rule revises the regulations
governing State highway safety programs to implement the pilot
procedures. It also addresses issues raised during the January 1997
meeting. It extends the due date for submission of application
documents from August 1 to September 1, which is a change in both the
pilot procedures and the procedures under part 1200. The interim final
rule accommodates the States' desire for flexibility to plan and set
goals covering time periods that best meet State needs. It also
provides for a joint effort by Federal and State officials to develop
an improvement plan, where a State fails to progress to meet goals.
States are free at any time to request assistance or advice from the
agencies' field offices, which remain ready to devote available
resources as needed.
This interim final rule replaces the existing procedures governing
the preparation, submission, review, and approval of State Highway
Safety Plans, contained in the Uniform Procedures for State Highway
Safety Programs (23 CFR part 1200) and discussed generally under the
heading ``Part 1200,'' above, with new procedures that are modeled
after those used in the pilot program. The interim final rule requires
the States to submit information detailing their highway safety
programs in the same format as required under the pilot program.
However, the rule makes some adjustments to the pilot program
procedures, as discussed above.
In addition, the interim final rule makes some changes in
terminology from that used in the pilot program. The more descriptive
terms ``performance plan'' and ``highway safety plan'' replace the
terms ``benchmark report'' and ``planning document,'' which were used
in the pilot program to describe State highway safety goals and planned
activities. However, the functions of these documents remain
essentially unchanged from those existing under the pilot program, as
described under the heading ``The Pilot Program.'' (Retention of the
familiar term ``highway safety plan'' is for convenience, and does not
convey that procedures predating the pilot program continue to apply to
that document.) States may choose (and are encouraged) to prepare their
Performance Plan and Highway Safety Plan as comprehensive documents
which also include goals and activities for highway safety programs
other than the Section 402 program (such as Federal incentive grants).
If this is done, the Highway Safety Plan should identify those programs
or activities funded from other sources in a separate section or should
identify them clearly in some other manner.
Under the interim final rule, the nature of the Federal approval
process has been changed. Instead of approving a highway safety plan
based on a project-by-project justification, the agencies instead will
review the State's highway safety program as a whole, to verify that
the State has developed a goal-oriented highway safety program that has
been approved by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, and
that identifies the State's highway safety problems, establishes
[[Page 34400]]
goals and performance measures to effect improvements in highway
safety, and describes activities designed to achieve those goals. When
establishing performance measures, States may wish to consult the
``Examples of Performance Measures'' section of the Pilot State Highway
Safety Program Notice of Waiver published in the Federal Register on
September 5, 1996 (61 FR 46895).
The agencies have retained the requirement, contained in both part
1200 and the pilot procedures, that States must submit an annual
report. However, the interim final rule changes the contents of the
annual report from those required by part 1200 (described under the
heading ``Part 1200''). Under the interim final rule, the States are
required to describe their progress in meeting State highway safety
goals, using performance measures identified in the Performance Plan,
and the projects and activities funded during the fiscal year. They
must also include in these reports an explanation of how these projects
and activities contributed to meeting the State's highway safety goals.
The agencies believe that the performance-based process, which
places the States in charge of determining the best means of improving
traffic safety within their borders, is an effective means of ensuring
the proper identification of highway safety problems and the efficient
deployment of resources to address those problems. Experience under the
pilot program confirms that States are uniquely qualified to assess
their highway safety deficiencies, and that they are able to
effectively address these deficiencies by establishing goals and using
performance measures, without the need for detailed Federal review at
the project level.
No substantive changes have been made to provisions relating to the
apportionment and obligation of Federal funds, financial accounting,
and the like. These sections of the regulation are being republished in
this notice simply for ease of reference.
2. Highlighted Provisions
In order to complete the change to procedures modeled after those
of the pilot program, and to improve clarity and organization, the
agencies have made certain other changes to part 1200. For example, the
requirement that States must seek Federal approval before implementing
program changes (including changes exceeding ten percent of the funding
in a program area), has been replaced with a simple notification
requirement in the interim final rule, consistent with the pilot
program procedures. This change reduces administrative burdens and
increases the States' ability to make efficient adjustments to their
programs. The section on equipment has been simplified in the interim
final rule, making it easier to follow. There are no longer separate
definitions for major and non-major equipment since, for most purposes,
all equipment used in the Section 402 program is treated alike.
Instead, within the section on equipment, a paragraph concerning major
purchases and dispositions identifies the threshold at which Federal
approval is necessary.
The agencies have made some structural refinements throughout the
regulation to improve clarity or to include useful information or
cross-references. For example, the interim final rule changes, deletes,
or streamlines some definitions, where they are no longer needed or
where the text of the proposed rule is sufficiently clear without the
definition. The interim final rule also sets forth the minimum
statutory requirements for approval of a state highway safety program
(responsibility of the Governor for program administration,
participation by political subdivisions, access for handicapped
persons, and programs for use of safety belts). These elements have
been longstanding requirements of the Section 402 program under the
Highway Safety Act, and are restated in the interim final rule for
convenience. Additionally, the interim final rule includes a cross-
reference to sanctions required by the Highway Safety Act to be imposed
for failure to have or to implement a highway safety program, also for
convenience.
The agencies have changed the definition of ``approving official,''
due to a change in the appropriation process for the Section 402
program. In fiscal year 1997, Congress placed all Section 402 funding
under NHTSA's appropriation, while retaining separate authorizing
legislation for the Section 402 program for both NHTSA and the FHWA.
(Previously, NHTSA and the FHWA had separate appropriations as well as
authorizations for the Section 402 program.) As a result, NHTSA has
assumed the lead responsibility for administration of the Section 402
program, though the agencies will continue to coordinate many
decisions. The proposed definition reflects this new relationship.
The agencies have deleted the requirement that States must seek
Federal approval and assume a greater share of project costs prior to
continuing a NHTSA-funded project or activity beyond three years. Over
the years, this requirement has been used to ensure that NHTSA funds
are predominantly used as ``seed money,'' to assist states with the
start-up of innovative new projects whose implementation would later be
taken over by the State. With the change to a performance-based
program, the agencies no longer are involved in project-by-project
review, and this project-level approval provision is no longer
appropriate. However, States are encouraged to develop their own ``seed
money'' and cost sharing requirements for local highway safety projects
and activities, to stimulate the continued introduction of innovative
new solutions to highway safety problems at the local level. The
agencies are pleased to note that several States (e.g., Florida,
Georgia, and Mississippi) have developed and are implementing such
requirements.
Finally, this interim final rule makes conforming changes to the
funding procedures for National Priority Program Areas and other
program areas, appearing in 23 CFR part 1205, Highway Safety Programs;
Determinations of Effectiveness, consistent with the agencies'
objectives of placing more decisionmaking responsibilities in the hands
of the States. With these changes, States can now pursue activities in
program areas identified either by the agencies as National Priority
Program areas or by the States as State priorities. In pursuing
activities under the latter category, States will be required to
identify programs that address problems of State concern and for which
effective countermeasures have been identified. The current regulation
specifies a formal process for approval of activities under program
areas identified by the States and requires detailed Federal review.
Under this interim final rule, States are given more flexibility in the
processes they may use to identify program areas that are State
priorities, and the level of Federal oversight has been reduced.
A number of other requirements apply to the Section 402 program,
including those appearing in other parts of Chapter II of Title 23 CFR,
and 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
(e.g., OMB Circulars A-21, A-87, A-122, A-128, and A-133). These
provisions are unaffected by today's notice, and continue to apply in
accordance with their terms.
[[Page 34401]]
E. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that it does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism assessment. This action increases the
flexibility of the States by implementing a performance-based process
under which the States are responsible for setting highway safety
goals, in accordance with their individual needs. In other respects,
this action is consistent with the procedures of a common rule for the
administration of grants to State and local governments (49 CFR part
18) which has as its basis the principles of Federalism, and which
recognizes that States possess unique constitutional authority,
resources, and competence to administer national grant programs, and
provides for the application of State laws and procedures to many
aspects of grant administration.
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rule does not have any preemptive or retroactive effect. It
merely revises existing requirements imposed on States to afford States
more flexibility in implementing a grant program. The enabling
legislation does not establish a procedure for judicial review of final
rules promulgated under its provisions. There is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The agencies have determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This rule does not impose any
additional burden on the public, but rather reduces burdens and
improves the flexibility afforded to States in implementing highway
safety programs. This action does not affect the level of funding
available in the highway safety program. Accordingly, neither a
Regulatory Impact Analysis nor a full Regulatory Evaluation is
required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the agencies have evaluated the effects of this action on small
entities. We hereby certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
States are the recipients of any funds awarded under the Section 402
program. The preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
unnecessary.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The requirement relating to this action, that each State must
submit certain documents to receive Section 402 grant funds, is
considered to be an information collection requirement, as that term is
defined by OMB. This information collection requirement has been
previously submitted to and approved by OMB, pursuant to the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The
requirement has been approved through September 30, 1998; OMB Control
No. 2127-0003.
Environmental Impacts
The agencies have reviewed this action for the purpose of
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) and have determined that it will not have a significant effect
on the human environment.
F. Interim Final Rule
This notice is published as an interim final rule, without prior
notice and opportunity to comment. Because this regulation relates to a
grant program, the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, are not applicable. Moreover, even if the notice
and comment provisions of the APA did apply, the agencies believe that
there is good cause for finding that providing notice and comment in
connection with this rulemaking action is impracticable, unnecessary,
and contrary to the public interest, since it would delay the
availability of guidance to States concerning new procedures applicable
to fiscal year 1998 highway safety programs under 23 U.S.C. 402. States
require this information well in advance of the start of the fiscal
year to which the highway safety program applies in order to comply
with application procedures and to allow sufficient time for program
planning activities. This finding is further supported because the
amendments made in this interim final rule are consistent with the
provisions of a pilot program whose procedures are already known to the
States. The pilot program is in its second year of operation, with most
States participating, and its procedures were closely coordinated with
the States prior to the start of the pilot program. For these reasons,
the agencies also believe that there is good cause to make the rule
effective immediately upon publication.
As an interim final rule, this regulation is fully in effect and
binding upon its effective date. No further regulatory action by the
agencies is necessary to make the rule effective. However, in order to
benefit from comments which interested parties and the public may have,
the agencies are requesting that comments be submitted to the docket
for this notice. All comments submitted in response to this notice, in
accordance with the procedures outlined below, will be considered by
the agency. Following the close of the comment period, the agencies
will publish a notice responding to the comments and, if appropriate,
the agencies will amend the provisions of this rule.
G. Comments to the Docket
The agencies are providing a 45-day comment period for interested
parties to present data, views, and arguments concerning this notice.
The agencies invite comments on the issues raised in this notice and
any other issues commenters believe are relevant to this action.
Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary
arguments in a concise fashion. Necessary attachments may be appended
to these submissions without regard to the 15-page limit.
All comments received by the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address both before and
after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the
closing date will also be considered. However, the rulemaking action
may proceed at any time after that date. Following the close of the
comment period, the agencies will publish a notice responding to the
comments and, if appropriate, the agencies will amend the provisions of
this rule. The agencies will continue to file relevant material in the
docket as it becomes available after the closing date, and it is
recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for
new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified of receipt of their comments
by the docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope with their comments. Upon receipt of the comments, the docket
supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
[[Page 34402]]
Copies of all comments will be placed in Docket 93-55, Notice 5 of
the NHTSA Docket Section in Room 5109, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Parts 1200 and 1205
Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 23, chapter II of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.
1. Subchapter A, part 1200, is revised to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER A--PROCEDURES FOR STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
PART 1200--UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
1200.1 Purpose.
1200.2 Applicability.
1200.3 Definitions.
Subpart B--Application, Approval, and Funding of the Highway Safety
Program
1200.10 Application.
1200.11 Special funding conditions.
1200.12 Due date.
1200.13 Approval.
1200.14 Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.
Subpart C--Implementation and Management of the Highway Safety Program
1200.20 General.
1200.21 Equipment.
1200.22 Changes.
1200.23 Vouchers and project agreements.
1200.24 Program income.
1200.25 Improvement plan.
1200.26 Non-compliance.
1200.27 Appeals.
Subpart D--Closeout
1200.30 Expiration of the right to incur costs.
1200.31 Extension of the right to incur costs.
1200.32 Final voucher.
1200.33 Annual report.
1200.34 Disposition of unexpended balances.
1200.35 Post-grant adjustments.
1200.36 Continuing requirements.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.48 and 1.50.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 1200.1 Purpose.
This part establishes uniform application, approval,
implementation, and closeout procedures for State highway safety
programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402.
Sec. 1200.2 Applicability.
The provisions of this part apply to highway safety programs
conducted by States under 23 U.S.C. 402.
Sec. 1200.3 Definitions.
As used in this subchapter--
Approving Official means a Regional Administrator of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, with the concurrence of a
Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration as
necessary.
Carry-forward funds means those funds that a State has obligated
but not expended in the fiscal year in which they were apportioned,
that are being reprogrammed to fund activities in a subsequent fiscal
year.
Contract authority means the statutory language that authorizes the
agencies 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.
Equipment means any tangible personal property acquired for use
under the State's approved highway safety program.
FHWA means the Federal Highway Administration.
Fiscal year means the Federal fiscal year, consisting of twelve
months beginning each October 1 and ending the following September 30.
Governor means the Governor of any of the fifty States, Puerto
Rico, the 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 Indians as provided in 23
U.S.C. 402(i), 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 Indians as provided in
23 U.S.C. 402(i), an official of the Bureau of Indian Affairs who is
duly designated by the Secretary of the Interior to implement the
Indian highway safety program.
NHTSA means the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Program area means a National Priority Program Area identified in
Sec. 1205.3 of this chapter 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 effective countermeasures have been
identified.
Program income means gross income received by the State or any of
its subgrantees or contractors that is directly or indirectly generated
by a Federally-supported project during the project performance period.
Section 402 means section 402 of title 23 of the United States
Code.
State means any of the fifty States of the United States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or, for the
application of this part to Indians as provided in 23 U.S.C. 402(i),
the Secretary of the Interior.
Subpart B--Application, Approval, and Funding of the Highway Safety
Program
Sec. 1200.10 Application.
Each fiscal year, a State's application for funds for its highway
safety program shall consist of the following components:
(a) A Performance Plan, containing the following elements:
(1) A list of objective and measurable highway safety goals, within
the National Priority Program Areas and other program areas, based on
highway safety problems identified by the State during the processes
under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Each goal must be accompanied
by at least one performance measure that enables the State to track
progress, from a specific baseline, toward meeting the goal (e.g., a
goal to ``increase safety belt use from XX percent in 19__ to YY
percent in 20__,'' using a performance measure of ``percent of
restrained occupants in front outboard seating positions in passenger
motor vehicles'').
(2) A brief description of the processes used by the State to
identify its highway safety problems, define its highway safety goals
and performance measures, and develop projects and activities to
address its problems and achieve its goals. In describing these
processes, the State shall identify the participants in the processes
(e.g., highway safety committees, community and constituent groups),
discuss the strategies for project or activity selection (e.g.,
constituent outreach, public meetings, solicitation of proposals), and
list the information and data sources consulted.
(b) A Highway Safety Plan, approved by the Governor's
Representative for Highway Safety, describing the projects and
activities the State plans to implement to reach the goals identified
in the Performance Plan. The Highway Safety Plan must, at a minimum,
describe one year of activities.
(c) A Certification Statement, signed by the Governor's
Representative for
[[Page 34403]]
Highway Safety, providing assurances that the State will comply with
applicable laws and regulations, financial and programmatic
requirements, and in accordance with Sec. 1200.11 of this part, the
special funding conditions of the Section 402 program.
(d) A Program Cost Summary (HS Form 217), completed to reflect the
State's proposed allocations of funds (including carry-forward funds)
by program area, based on the goals identified in the Performance Plan
and the projects and activities identified in the Highway Safety Plan.
The funding level used shall be an estimate of available funding for
the upcoming fiscal year.
Sec. 1200.11 Special funding conditions.
The State's highway safety program under Section 402 shall be
subject to the following conditions, and approval under Sec. 1200.13 of
this part shall in no event be deemed to waive these conditions:
(a) Responsibility of the Governor--The Governor of the State shall
be responsible for the administration of the Section 402 program
through a State highway safety agency that shall have adequate powers
and be suitably equipped and organized to carry out the program.
(b) Participation by Political Subdivisions--Political subdivisions
shall be authorized to carry out local highway safety programs,
approved by the Governor, as a part of the State highway safety
program, and at least 40 percent of all Federal funds provided under
this part shall be used by or for the benefit of political
subdivisions, in accordance with the provisions of part 1250 of this
chapter.
(c) Access for Persons with Disabilities--Adequate and reasonable
access shall be provided for the safe and convenient movement of
persons with physical disabilities, including those in wheelchairs,
across curbs constructed or replaced on or after July 1, 1976, at all
pedestrian crosswalks throughout the State.
(d) Use of Safety Belts--Programs shall be provided (which may
include financial incentives and disincentives) to encourage the use of
safety belts by drivers and passengers in motor vehicles.
(e) Planning and Administration Costs--Funding and matching
requirements for planning and administration costs shall be in
accordance with the provisions of part 1252 of this chapter.
(f) Purchase and Disposition of Equipment--Major purchases and
dispositions of equipment shall require prior approval by the approving
official, in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 1200.21(d) of this
part.
Sec. 1200.12 Due date.
Three copies of the application documents identified in
Sec. 1200.10 of this part must be received by the NHTSA regional office
no later than September 1 preceding the fiscal year to which the
documents apply. The NHTSA regional office will forward copies to NHTSA
headquarters and the FHWA division office. Failure to meet this
deadline may result in delayed approval and funding.
Sec. 1200.13 Approval.
(a) Upon receipt of application documents complying with the
provisions of Sec. 1200.10 and Sec. 1200.11 of this part, the Approving
Official will issue a letter of approval to the Governor and the
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety.
(b) The approval letter identified in paragraph (a) of this section
will contain the following statement:
We have reviewed (STATE)'s __________ fiscal year 19__
Performance Plan, Highway Safety Plan, Certification Statement, and
Cost Summary (HS Form 217), as received on (DATE) ____________.
Based on these submissions, we find your State's highway safety
program to be in compliance with the requirements of the Section 402
program. This determination does not constitute an obligation of
Federal funds for the fiscal year identified above or an
authorization to incur costs against those funds. The obligation of
Section 402 program funds will be effected in writing by the NHTSA
Administrator at the commencement of the fiscal year identified
above. However, Federal funds reprogrammed from the prior-year
Highway Safety Program (carry-forward funds) will be available for
immediate use by the State on October 1. Reimbursement will be
contingent upon the submission of an updated HS Form 217, consistent
with the requirements of 23 CFR 1200.14(d), within 30 days after
either the beginning of the fiscal year identified above or the date
of this letter, whichever is later.
(c) If approval is withheld, for reasons of non-compliance with
Sec. 1200.10 or Sec. 1200.11 of this part or other applicable law, the
Approving Official shall identify in writing the specific area(s) of
non-compliance which formed the basis for withholding approval.
Sec. 1200.14 Apportionment and obligation of Federal funds.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, on October
1 of each fiscal year the NHTSA Administrator shall, in writing,
distribute funds available for obligation under Section 402 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 and FHWA Administrators shall, in writing, distribute a part of
the funds authorized under Section 402 contract authority to ensure
program continuity and shall specify any conditions or limitations
imposed by law on the use of the funds. Upon appropriation of Section
402 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) The 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 program,
and shall constitute a contractual obligation of the Federal
Government, subject to any conditions or limitations identified in the
distributing document.
(d)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c) of this
section, reimbursement of State expenses shall be contingent upon the
submission of an updated HS Form 217, within 30 days after either the
beginning of the fiscal year or the date of the written approval
required under Sec. 1200.13 of this part, whichever is later.
(2) The updated HS Form 217 required under paragraph (d)(1) of this
section shall reflect the State's allocation of Section 402 funds made
available for expenditure during the fiscal year, including known
carry-forward funds.
Subpart C--Implementation and Management of the Highway Safety
Program
Sec. 1200.20 General.
Except as otherwise provided in this subpart and subject to the
provisions herein, the requirements of 49 CFR part 18 and applicable
cost principles govern the implementation and management of State
highway safety programs carried out under 23 U.S.C. 402. Cost
principles include those referenced in 49 CFR 18.22 and those set forth
in applicable Department of Transportation, NHTSA, or FHWA Orders.
Sec. 1200.21 Equipment.
(a) Title. Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this
section, title to equipment acquired under the Section 402 program will
vest upon acquisition in the State or its subgrantee, as appropriate.
[[Page 34404]]
(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 the Section 402 program in accordance with State laws
and procedures.
(d) Major Purchases and dispositions. All purchases and
dispositions of equipment with a useful life of more than one year and
an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more must receive prior written
approval from the Approving Official.
(e) Right to transfer title. The Approving Official may reserve the
right to transfer title to equipment acquired under the Section 402
program to the Federal Government or to a third party when such third
party is otherwise eligible under existing statutes. 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 in the Section 402 program, 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 in the Section 402 program.
Sec. 1200.22 Changes.
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,
within 30 days of implementing the change.
Sec. 1200.23 Vouchers and project agreements
Each State shall submit official vouchers for total expenses
incurred to the Approving Official. Copies of the project agreement(s)
and supporting documentation for the vouchers, and any amendments
thereto, shall be made available for review by the Approving Official
upon request.
(a) Content of vouchers. At a minimum, each voucher shall provide
the following information for expenses claimed in each program area:
(1) Program Area;
(2) Federal funds obligated;
(3) Amount of Federal funds allocated to local benefit (provided
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(a), determined in accordance
with the applicable NHTSA Order).
(b) 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.
Failure to meet these deadlines may result in delayed reimbursement.
Sec. 1200.24 Program income.
(a) Inclusions. Program income includes income from fees for
services performed, from the use or rental of real 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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. 1200.25 Improvement Plan
If a review of the Annual Report required under Sec. 1200.33 of
this part or of other relevant information indicates little or no
progress toward meeting State goals, the Approving Official and State
officials will jointly develop an improvement plan. This plan will
detail strategies, program activities, and funding targets to meet the
defined goals.
Sec. 1200.26 Non-Compliance.
Where a State is found to be in non-compliance with the
requirements of the Section 402 program or with applicable law, the
special conditions for high-risk grantees and the enforcement
procedures of 49 CFR part 18, or the sanctions procedures of part 1206
of this chapter, may be applied as appropriate.
Sec. 1200.27 Appeals.
Review of any written decision by an Approving Official under this
part 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 for State and Community Services or the
FHWA Regional Administrator with jurisdiction over the specific
division, as appropriate. The decision of the NHTSA Associate
Administrator or FHWA Regional Administrator shall be final and shall
be transmitted to the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety
through the cognizant Approving Official.
Subpart D--Closeout
Sec. 1200.30 Expiration of the right to incur costs.
Unless extended in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 1200.31
of this part, the right to incur costs under Section 402 expires on the
last day of the fiscal year to which it pertains. The State and its
subgrantees and contractors may not incur costs for Federal
reimbursement past the expiration date.
Sec. 1200.31 Extension of the right to incur costs.
Upon written request by the State, specifying the reasons therefor,
the Approving Official may extend the right to incur costs for some
portion of the State highway safety program by a maximum of 90 days.
The approval of
[[Page 34405]]
any such request for extension shall be in writing, shall specify the
new expiration date, and shall be signed by the Approving Official. If
an extension is granted, the State and its subgrantees and contractors
may continue to incur costs in accordance with the Highway Safety Plan
until the new expiration date, and the due dates for other submissions
covered by this subpart shall be based upon the new expiration date.
However, in no case shall any extension be deemed to authorize the
obligation of additional Federal funds beyond those already obligated
to the State, nor shall any extension be deemed to extend the due date
for submission of the Annual Report. Only one extension shall be
allowed during each fiscal year.
Sec. 1200.32 Final voucher.
Each State shall submit a final voucher which satisfies the
requirements of Sec. 1200.23(a) of this part within 90 days after the
expiration of each fiscal year, unless extended in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 1200.31 of this part. The final voucher constitutes
the final financial reconciliation for each fiscal year.
Sec. 1200.33 Annual report.
Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, each State shall
submit an Annual Report. This report shall describe:
(a) The State's progress in meeting its highway safety goals, using
performance measures identified in the Performance Plan. Both baseline
and most current level of performance under the performance measure
will be given for each goal.
(b) The projects and activities funded during the fiscal year,
including an explanation of how each of these projects and activities
contributed to meeting the State's highway safety goals.
Sec. 1200.34 Disposition of unexpended balances.
Any funds which remain unexpended after final reconciliation shall
be carried forward, credited to the State's highway safety account for
the new fiscal year, and made immediately available for use under the
State's new highway safety program, subject to the approval
requirements of Sec. 1200.13 of this part. Carry-forward funds must be
identified by the program area from which they are removed when they
are reprogrammed from the previous fiscal year. Once so identified,
such funds are available for use without regard to the program area
from which they were carried forward, unless specially earmarked by the
Congress.
Sec. 1200.35 Post-grant adjustments.
The closeout of a highway safety program in a fiscal year does not
affect the ability of NHTSA or FHWA 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. 1200.36 Continuing requirements.
The following provisions shall have continuing applicability,
notwithstanding the closeout of a highway safety program in a fiscal
year:
(a) The requirements governing equipment, as provided in
Sec. 1200.21 of this part;
(b) The audit requirements and records retention and access
requirements of 49 CFR part 18.
PART 1205--HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS; DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS
2. The authority citation for part 1205 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.48 and 1.50.
3. Section 1205.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1205.4 Funding requirements.
A State may use funds made available under 23 U.S.C. 402 to support
projects and activities within--
(a) Any National priority program area identified in Sec. 1205.3 of
this part; or
(b) Any other highway safety program area that is identified in the
Highway Safety Plan required under Sec. 1200.10(b) of this chapter as
encompassing a major highway safety problem in the State and for which
effective countermeasures have been identified.
Sec. 1205.5 [Removed]
4. Section 1205.5 is removed.
Issued on: June 23, 1997.
Jane F. Garvey,
Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-16779 Filed 6-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
