[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 155 (Thursday, August 10, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48905-48911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20339]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
23 CFR Part 1335
[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4532]
RIN 2127-AH43
State Highway Safety Data and Traffic Records Improvements
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document adopts as a final rule the regulations that were
published in an interim final rule to implement a new program
established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21), with modifications to clarify the program's maintenance of effort
requirement. Under the final rule, States can qualify for incentive
grant funds for improved highway safety data and traffic records
systems if they meet the eligibility requirements.
DATES: This final rule becomes effective on September 11, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Wendi Wilson-John, Office of State
and Community Services, NSC-01, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, telephone
(202) 366-2121; or Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, NCC-30, NHTSA, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-1834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) was signed into law on June 9, 1998, as Public Law
105-178. Section 2005 of TEA-21 established a new Section 411, entitled
State Highway Safety Data Improvements, in Title 23, United States Code
(Section 411). Under this new program, States may qualify for incentive
grant funds by adopting and implementing effective highway safety data
and traffic records improvement programs that meet specified statutory
criteria.
Components Required by Section 411
Section 411 provides that a State's highway safety data and traffic
records system should have three basic components, all of which must be
present if the State is to receive multiple-year grants: a committee to
coordinate the development and use of highway safety data and traffic
records; a systematic assessment of the State's highway safety data and
traffic records;
[[Page 48906]]
and a strategic plan for the continued improvement of highway safety
data and traffic records.
Types of Grant
Section 411 anticipated that some States may not be able to meet
all three prerequisites in the first or even the second year of the
Section 411 program. The statute further anticipated that the strategic
plan would be the most complex, and the most time-consuming,
prerequisite to meet.
Accordingly, the section provided for three types of grants: a
``start-up'' grant, in the amount of $25,000, to each State that is not
eligible for the other grants, provided that the State certifies that
it will use the grant to meet the requisite components in the following
year; an ``initiation'' grant, in the amount of $125,000, to each State
that has established a coordinating committee, has performed or updated
an assessment within the last five years, and has initiated the
development of a strategic plan; and an ``implementation'' grant, in
the amount described below, to each State that has established a
coordinating committee, has performed or updated an assessment within
the last five years, and has developed a strategic plan.
Section 411 provided that the first two types of grants would be
available for one year only, and that the third grant would be
available for multiple years. In accordance with the statute, a State
that initially qualifies for a start-up grant may qualify for an
initiation or an implementation grant in a subsequent fiscal year, if
the State meets the criteria for these types of grants. A State that
qualifies for an initiation or an implementation grant in any fiscal
year may receive only implementation grants in subsequent fiscal years.
Section 411 provides that the amount of funds a State receives for
an implementation grant is determined by a formula. The amount is
determined by multiplying the amount appropriated to carry out 23
U.S.C. 411 by the ratio that the funds apportioned to the State under
23 U.S.C. 402 for fiscal year 1997 bears to the funds apportioned to
all States under 23 U.S.C. 402 for fiscal year 1997, with the following
exceptions. If the State has not received an initiation or an
implementation grant under the Section 411 program in a previous fiscal
year, the State shall receive no less than $250,000. If the State has
received either of these two grants under the Section 411 program in a
previous fiscal year, the State shall receive no less than $225,000.
All grant amounts are subject to the availability of funds.
Limitations on Grant Amounts
Section 411 provided that no State may receive a grant in more than
six fiscal years, and a total of $32 million was authorized for the
Section 411 program over a period of four years. Specifically, TEA-21
authorized $5 million for fiscal year 1999, $8 million for fiscal year
2000, $9 million for fiscal year 2001, and $10 million for fiscal year
2002. Funds may be used by States only to adopt and implement
improvements to their highway safety data and traffic records programs.
Under Section 411, States are required to match the grant funds
they receive as follows: the Federal share cannot exceed 75 percent of
the cost of implementing the highway safety data and traffic records
programs adopted to qualify for these funds in the first and second
fiscal years the State receives funds; 50 percent in the third and
fourth fiscal years it receives funds; and 25 percent in the fifth and
sixth fiscal years.
Interim Final Rule
On October 8, 1998, NHTSA published an interim final rule in the
Federal Register to implement the Section 411 program. 63 FR 54044. The
interim final rule described the criteria States must meet and the
procedures States must follow to qualify for funding under the Section
411 program.
Eligibility Criteria
The interim final rule provided that, to qualify for an
implementation grant, a State must demonstrate that it has established
a coordinating committee, completed or updated an assessment within the
five years preceding the date of its application, and developed a
strategic plan.
To qualify for an initiation grant, a State need not demonstrate
that it has developed a strategic plan, but must demonstrate that it
has established a coordinating committee, completed or updated an
assessment within the five years preceding the date of its application,
and initiated the development of a strategic plan. In addition, a State
may qualify for an initiation grant only if it has not received an
initiation or an implementation grant under this part in a previous
fiscal year.
Any State that is not eligible for an initiation or an
implementation grant, and has not received any grant under the Section
411 program in a previous fiscal year can qualify for a start-up grant,
in accordance with the interim final rule.
A more detailed discussion of these criteria is contained in the
interim final rule.
Application Procedures
The interim final rule stated that, to receive a grant in any
fiscal year, the State must submit an application to NHTSA, through the
appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator, which demonstrates that the
State meets the requirements of the grant being requested. The State
also must submit the documentation listed in the regulation, including
such items as a certification that the State will use the funds awarded
only for the improvement of highway safety data and traffic records
programs and a certification that the State will administer the funds
in accordance with relevant regulations and OMB Circulars.
Further details regarding these procedures were described in the
interim final rule.
Request for Comments
NHTSA requested comments from interested persons regarding the
interim final rule. Comments were due by December 7, 1998. The agency
stated in the interim final rule that all comments submitted to the
docket would be considered and that, following the close of the comment
period, NHTSA would publish a document in the Federal Register
responding to the comments and, if appropriate, would make revisions to
the provisions of Part 1335.
Comments Received
The agency received five comments in response to the interim final
rule. Comments were received from: K. Craig Allred, Director of the
Utah Highway Safety Office and Chair of the National Association of
Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR); Jo Ann Moore,
Manager of the Idaho Office of Highway Safety for the State of Idaho
Transportation Department (Idaho); Betty J. Mercer, Division Director
of the Office of Highway Safety Planning for Michigan's Department of
State Police (Michigan); Charles W. Heald, P.E., Executive Director of
the Texas Department of Transportation (Texas); and Richard L.
Hannerman, President of the Salt Institute (Salt Institute).
General Comments
In general, the comments received in response to the interim final
rule were positive. Some of the commenters indicated that they believe
it is important for States to have accurate and complete highway safety
data and traffic records, and they expressed their appreciation that
Congress has established this incentive grant program.
The State of Michigan, for example, stated, ``Traffic records data
is the
[[Page 48907]]
backbone of an effective and efficient state highway safety program.
Timely and accurate data is essential for both problem identification
and program evaluation. Michigan appreciates the recognition that
Congress has given to this critical highway safety component by making
funding available to implement essential improvements to the state
highway safety data and traffic records program.'' NAGHSR stated, ``The
grant program will provide a small but significant incentive to states
to improve their state data systems through a comprehensive, planned
approach.''
Other commenters provided general support for the contents of the
interim final rule. The Salt Institute, for example, ``wholeheartedly
endorse[d] the NHTSA conclusion that an effective highway safety
program ``must include a process that identifies highway safety
programs, develops measures to address the problems, implements the
measures, and evaluates the results' and that this demands and `depends
on the availability of highway safety data and traffic records.' '' In
addition, the Salt Institute stated that it ``is pleased to endorse the
data elements included in the interim final rule specifying the
requirements on states to receive highway safety incentive grants for
their safety data and traffic records.'' NAGHSR stated that, ``In
general, NAGHSR supports the proposed interim regulations and believes
that they are reasonable.''
Some of the commenters suggested that certain limited modifications
should be made to the interim final rule, and Michigan stated, ``it is
our hope that the implementing regulations will be modified so that
they do not deter the states from being able to take full advantage of
this very needed funding source.''
The specific modifications that these commenters proposed and the
agency's response to those comments are discussed in detail below. The
agency notes, however, that the interim regulations did not deter the
States from taking advantage of the Section 411 program. A total of
$4,806,900 in grants were distributed to 54 jurisdictions (47 States,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 4 U.S. Territories and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs) under this program in FY 1999, and a total of
$7,600,000 in grants were distributed to 46 jurisdictions (42 States,
Puerto Rico and 3 U.S. Territories) under Section 411 in FY 2000.
Specific Comments
1. Establish a Coordinating Committee
In Section 411, Congress outlined the criteria that States must
meet to qualify for incentive grants under this program. Under one of
these criteria, States must have ``established a highway safety data
and traffic records coordinating committee with a multi-disciplinary
membership, including the administrators, collectors, and users of such
data (including the public health, injury control, and motor carrier
communities).'' Section 411 provides also that States must submit their
highway safety data and traffic records strategic plans to the
coordinating committee for approval.
The interim final rule provided that, to qualify for either an
initiation or an implementation grant, States must have established a
coordinating committee that meets certain requirements. Specifically,
the committee must be made up of members drawn from the agencies and
organizations throughout the State that administer, collect and use
highway safety data and traffic records and have certain enumerated
powers, including the authority to review any of the State's highway
safety data and traffic records systems and to review changes to those
systems before the changes are implemented.
The agency received comments from NAGHSR, Michigan and Texas,
objecting to these requirements. Michigan's comments on this subject
are both comprehensive and representative of the others received.
Michigan stated, ``The Committee is a very diverse group, the
actual authority to operate the system most likely lies with one of the
key agencies on the Committee. The law requires only that the Committee
`continue to operate and support the multi-year plan.' It is more
appropriate and realistic to require that the Coordinating Committee
review and makes recommendations on the strategic plan but not
necessarily have direct authority to approve it.''
Michigan continues, ``To require the Committee to have the
authority to review the state highway safety data and traffic records
system and changes to the system prior to implementation is impractical
and unnecessary. Michigan has had a traffic records coordinating
committee for many years. The state long recognized that to have an
effective program the key agencies with an interest in the data must
work collaboratively. * * * Authority for any specific segment of the
traffic records system, however, rests with the state agency
responsible for that particular segment.'' [Emphasis in text.]
Similarly, NAGHSR opposed the ``expanded role'' that the interim
regulation seems to envision for the coordinating committee, and Texas
expressed its belief that ``such a formal committee * * * with such
broad control over state agency operations'' should not be required.
As stated previously, the statutory language in Section 411
requires that States must submit their highway safety data and traffic
records strategic plans to the coordinating committee for approval. The
agency believes that the portion of the interim final rule which
provides that the coordinating committee must have the authority to
review the State's highway safety data and traffic records systems and
to review changes to those systems before the changes are implemented
is necessary to implement this statutory requirement properly.
If a coordinating committee did not have this authority, the agency
believes there would be no assurance that the improvements identified
in the plan that need to be made will in fact be carried out. In
addition, NHTSA expects that these strategic plans will be ``living
documents,'' which may need to be altered on a continuous basis to take
into account the amount of progress that has (or has not) been made and
any other changes in circumstances. The agency believes that, by
including the coordinating committee in the review process in this way,
the committee will remain more fully informed about the State's
progress in implementing the strategic plan and about other
circumstances as they unfold, which will enable the committee to make
adjustments to the plan, if they are needed. Accordingly, this portion
of the final rule has been adopted without change.
NAGHSR also asserted in its comments that, in some regions,
``states are being actively encouraged to require state agency members
of the coordinating committee to sign a joint Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) * * * [which] would give formal approval authority
to the coordinating committee over the state data plan.'' NAGHSR states
that this suggestion would be problematic for some State agencies, and
suggests that it should be discontinued.
The agency acknowledges that, when some States inquired about the
manner in which a State could document that they had the authority
mentioned above, some of the agency's regional staff suggested to these
States that they could document the authority in a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). The agency did not mean to suggest,
[[Page 48908]]
however, that this was a necessary requirement. As provided in the
interim final rule, to demonstrate compliance with the Section 411
criterion that States must establish a coordinating committee, States
need only certify that the State ``has established a coordinating
committee, and include the name, title and organizational affiliation
of each member of'' that committee. State coordinating committees may
enter into MOU's if they wish, but this is not a prerequisite to
Section 411 compliance.
2. Complete or Update an Assessment
One of the other criteria established by Congress in Section 411 is
the requirement that States must have ``completed, within the preceding
5 years, a highway safety data and traffic records assessment or an
audit of the highway safety data and traffic records system of the
State.''
The interim final rule provided that, to qualify for either an
initiation or an implementation grant, States must have completed or
updated an assessment within the five years preceding the date of the
State's application and, further, it provided that the assessment must
meet certain requirements.
Specifically, the interim regulations required that the assessment
must be an in-depth, formal review of the State's highway safety data
and traffic records system; that it generate an impartial report of the
status of the system in the State; and that it be conducted by an
organization or group that is knowledgeable about highway safety data
and traffic records systems, but independent from the organizations
involved in the administration, collection and use of these State
systems.
In its comments, Texas objected to the requirement that the
assessment must be conducted by an ``organization or group that is
knowledgeable about highway safety data and traffic records systems.''
Texas expressed its belief that States ``should be given more latitude
to select a consultant experienced in a wide range of disciplines such
as business process re-engineering or information systems.'' According
to Texas, ``Limiting these efforts to consultants and organizations
experienced in crash records will adversely limit the type and number
of firms that will be able to compete for these assessments.''
The agency would not object to any State's decision to involve in
its assessment a consultant or group with experience in a wide range of
disciplines, such as business process re-engineering or information
systems. However, to qualify under the Section 411 criterion that
States must complete or update an assessment, the organization or group
conducting the assessment must also be knowledgeable about highway
safety data and traffic records systems.
This portion of the final rule has also been adopted without
change.
3. Initiate or Develop a Strategic Plan
Congress also provided, in Section 411, that States either must
have ``initiated the development of a multi-year highway safety data
and traffic records strategic plan'' that meets certain requirements or
that they certify ``that the highway safety data and traffic records
coordinating committee of the State continues to operate and supports
the multi-year plan.''
The interim final rule provided that States must have initiated the
development of a strategic plan to qualify for an initiation grant, and
that States must have developed a strategic plan to qualify for an
implementation grant. The interim regulation further provided that the
strategic plan must be a multi-year plan that identifies and
prioritizes the highway safety data and traffic records needs and goals
based on the State's assessment, identifies performance-based measures
by which progress toward those goals will be determined, and be
submitted to the coordinating committee for approval.
Michigan stated, in its comments, that it would have no difficulty
meeting the requirement that States must have a strategic plan, but
Michigan asserted that this requirement might be difficult for some
other States. No other State raised this objection.
Texas raised two questions concerning this criterion. The State
asked whether the committee's approval of the plan commits State
agencies to implement the plan and it asked how differences between
plans of the coordinating committee and of the State agency would be
resolved.
The interim regulations provide that, to qualify for an initiation
grant, a State must certify that the State ``has established a
coordinating committee'' and that it ``has initiated the development of
a strategic plan, with the supervision and approval of the coordinating
committee.'' A State must also certify that the State ``has established
a coordinating committee'' to qualify for an implementation grant (if
the State has not received an initiation or an implementation grant
under this part in a previous fiscal year). In addition, to qualify for
an implementation grant (whether or not the State has received an
initiation or an implementation grant under this part in a previous
fiscal year), a State must certify that ``the coordinating committee
continues to operate and supports the strategic plan.''
The interim regulations do not require that the State submit any
certifications or other information concerning the actions that State
agencies must take as a result of the plan or the means of resolving
issues that may arise between these agencies and the coordinating
committee. It is up to each individual State to address these issues.
NHTSA does not believe it is appropriate for it to dictate such matters
to the States.
However, the States should note that, to qualify for an
implementation grant (if the State has received an initiation or an
implementation grant under this part in a previous fiscal year), a
State must report on its progress in implementing the strategic plan
since the State's previous application. If progress is not made in a
State, due to a lack of commitment on the part of State, because of the
presence of conflicts between these agencies and the coordinating
committee, or for other reasons, the State's ability to receive Section
411 grant funds in subsequent years could be jeopardized.
No changes have been made to this portion of the final rule as a
result of these comments.
4. Maintenance of Effort and Matching Requirements
In the provisions of Section 411, Congress provided for a
maintenance of effort requirement. Specifically, Section 411 provides
that, ``No grant may be made to a State under this section in any
fiscal year unless the State enters into [an] agreement with the [the
agency] * * * that the State will maintain its aggregate expenditures
from all other sources for its highway safety data and traffic records
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in [fiscal
years 1996 and 1997].''
Section 411 provides also for State matching requirements.
Specifically, the statute provides that ``The Federal share of the cost
of implementing and enforcing, as appropriate, in a fiscal year a
program adopted by a State pursuant to [the Section 411 program] shall
not exceed [75 percent] in the first and second fiscal years in which
the State receives a grant under this section * * *; [50 percent] in
the third and fourth fiscal years in which the State receives a grant
under this section * * *; and [25 percent] in the fifth and sixth
fiscal years * * *
The interim final rule incorporated all of these requirements into
the interim regulations.
[[Page 48909]]
In its comments, Idaho raised two objections to these requirements.
Regarding the maintenance of effort requirement, Idaho explained that
it ``spent an abnormally large amount [of funds] on highway safety data
and traffic records systems in [fiscal years 1996 and 1997] from
special funding sources that are no longer available, thereby making it
impossible to continue expenditures at this inflated level.''
According to Idaho, ``In fiscal year 1995, [it] received a one-time
amount of $1.3 million [under the Section 153 transfer program] because
the state did not have a universal motorcycle helmet law [and the
State] used approximately 23 percent of those funds for highway safety
data and traffic records system projects in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
As a result, expenditures for data-related initiatives in those two
years, due to this ``windfall'' funding source, were among the highest
on record for [the] agency.''
With all of the highway safety problems that the State must
address, Idaho asserts that, ``It would be irresponsible [for Idaho] to
include in [its] highway safety plans a 25 percent yearly expenditure
of 402 funds on highway safety data or traffic records systems.''
Accordingly, Idaho requests that these Section 153 transfer funds not
be considered as part of the baseline for the Section 411 maintenance
of effort requirement.
The agency recognizes that, in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, some
States expended usually large sums of money on their highway safety
data and traffic records systems and that these sums were from special
funding sources that are no longer available. In particular, many
States experienced a transfer of funds in fiscal year 1995, under the
Section 153 program, because they did not have in effect conforming
motorcycle helmet or seat belt use legislation. Some of these States
chose to use these funds to upgrade their highway safety data and
traffic records systems and, in many cases, the funds that had been
transferred in fiscal year 1995 were expended in fiscal years 1996 and
1997.
The agency believes that the maintenance of effort requirement
contained in the Section 411 program was intended to ensure that States
maintain their ordinary spending on their highway safety data and
traffic records systems and that the funds they receive under the
Section 411 program will supplement those expenditures and not replace
them. The agency does not believe the requirement was intended to match
special or unusual funding resources, such as the Section 153 transfer
or other funds made available to States under Chapter 1 of Title 23 of
the United States Code, some or all of which a State may choose to use
also to supplement its ordinary spending in this area. The agency
believes that the inclusion of these special funding sources in the
maintenance of effort requirement would impose a hardship on the States
and would not result in the most effective use of these resources.
Accordingly, the regulation has been modified to clarify that
States must maintain their aggregate expenditures from all other
sources, except those authorized under Chapter 1 of Title 23 of the
United States Code, for their highway safety data and traffic records
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal
years 1996 and 1997.
Regarding the matching requirements, Idaho observes that these
requirements apply each year that a State receives a grant, whether the
State receives an implementation, initiation or start-up grant, and
Idaho asserts that ``it would be difficult for us to meet the higher
match requirements in the third and subsequent years.'' Accordingly,
Idaho recommends that the $25,000 start-up grant be excluded from the
matching requirements and that these requirements apply instead only to
initiation and implementation grants. Idaho asserts that this would
assist Idaho and other small States.
The agency appreciates that, over the life of the program, it might
be easier for some States to meet the matching requirements if those
requirements were to apply only to initiation and implementation, and
not to start-up grants. However, the statutory language in Section 411
states specifically that the various matching levels apply to fiscal
years ``in which the State receives a grant under this section.'' The
statute does not exclude any of the three types of grants that may be
awarded. Accordingly, the agency will continue to apply the matching
requirements to start-up, as well as to initiation and implementation,
grants, and will not make any changes to this portion of the
regulations.
The agency notes that the State of Idaho did not apply for a
Section 411 start-up grant during FY 1999. It appears that the State
decided instead to wait, and applied for and received an initiation
grant in FY 2000. By following this course, Idaho was not subject to a
matching requirement for the start-up funds that it spent on its data
and traffic records system in FY 1999. In addition, the 75 percent
Federal matching percentage was applied to the initiation grant that
Idaho received in FY 2000 and will be applied also to the first
implementation grant for which the State qualifies.
The agency would also like to remind the States that it will accept
a ``soft'' match in Section 411's administration, as it has for the
agency's Section 402 and 410 programs. By this, the agency means the
State's share may be satisfied by the use of either allowable costs
incurred by the State or the value of in-kind contributions applicable
to the period to which the matching requirement applies. A State
cannot, however, use any Federal funds, such as its Section 402 funds,
to satisfy the matching requirements. In addition, a State can use each
non-Federal expenditure only once for matching purposes.
Michigan also had a comment concerning the maintenance of effort
requirement. To implement this requirement, the interim rule requires
each State to certify that it will ``Maintain its aggregate
expenditures from all other sources for highway safety data and traffic
records programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in
[State or] Federal fiscal years 1996 and 1997.'' Michigan explained
that its funding for traffic records is appropriated by its State
Legislature on an annual basis and, therefore, any certification as to
the maintenance of expenditures at or above the average 1996 and 1997
level ``can only be based on current year funding levels.''
The agency understands Michigan's concern. To the extent that any
State's plan covers years for which the State's legislature has not yet
authorized funding, we recognize that the State agency's commitment to
maintain its aggregate expenditures must be subject to the availability
of funds.
5. Application Procedures
The interim regulations provide that, to be considered for a grant
in any fiscal year, a State must submit an application that is
``received by the agency not later than January 15 of that fiscal
year.'' Within 30 days of being informed by NHTSA that it is eligible
for a grant, a State is required to submit a Program Cost Summary (HS
Form 217) obligating the funds. The interim regulations also require
the States to document how they intend to use the funds under this part
in their Highway Safety Plans, which they submit pursuant to 23 CFR
Part 1200.
Mr. Allred of Utah, who submitted comments on behalf of NAGHSR,
raised several concerns regarding this portion of the interim
regulations. In particular,
[[Page 48910]]
Mr. Allred asserted that, ``Unlike other grant programs, a state must
satisfy a two-step approval process that is different than the process
for the Section 402 program. The application deadline is different than
other grant programs. The amount of time for federal review and
approval is not specified which leaves approval rather open-ended. The
deadline for submitting a spending plan is different than the prior
October deadline for the annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP).''
To be consistent with the timetables followed in other NHTSA
programs, Mr. Allred suggests that the application deadline should be
changed instead to August 1. In addition, he suggests that the
applications should include a spending plan, ``just as States must do
under the 402 program,'' that NHTSA should decide which States qualify
for funding under this program by September 1 and then obligate the
Section 411 funds ``on October 1.''
When NHTSA was developing its interim final rules for the various
grant programs authorized in TEA-21, we made a conscious decision to
avoid establishing the same deadline for all of these programs. We
believed that, if the States were required to submit and the agency was
required to review all of these applications at the same time, the
workload for both the agency and the States would be extraordinary. In
addition, we were concerned about the risks of delay should all of
these deadlines fall near the end of each fiscal year.
Under some of the grant programs, such as the Section 405 Occupant
Protection and the Section 410 Impaired Driving Incentive Grant
Programs, States must enact certain types of laws to qualify for
funding. Accordingly, the agency established an August 1 deadline for
these programs, to provide States with additional time to enact
conforming legislation.
However, State compliance with the Section 411 incentive grant
program is not dependent on the enactment of legislation. Moreover, the
agency believed it had established a grant application process that was
relatively simple and straight-forward to follow. Accordingly, we
believed that, with the publication of an interim final rule on October
8, 1998, that States would be able to submit applications for funding
by the following January 15. For all of these reasons, the interim
regulations established a January 15 deadline for the receipt of
applications under this program.
The agency believes that the January 15 deadline has not been a
limiting factor for the States. For example, in the first year of the
program (the year in which the deadline would have been most likely to
have had a negative impact), the agency received and approved
applications from 54 jurisdictions (47 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, 4 U.S. Territories and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs). In addition, this ``early'' application deadline permitted
the agency to make early releases of Section 411 grant funds. In FY
1999, the Section grant funds were awarded in March of 1999 and, in FY
2000, these grant funds were awarded in March of 2000. We expect that
Section 411 grant funds will continue to be released in future fiscal
years on a similar timetable.
Regarding Mr. Allred's comment that the interim regulations require
States to ``satisfy a two-step approval process that is different than
the process for the Section 402 program,'' we believe this reference is
to the provisions of the interim regulations that require that,
``Within 30 days of being informed by NHTSA that it is eligible for a
grant, a State shall submit to the agency a Program Cost Summary (HS
Form 217) obligating the funds under this part to highway safety data
and traffic records programs,'' and that ``The State shall document how
it intends to use the funds under this part in the Highway Safety Plan
it submits pursuant to 23 CFR Part 1200.''
We note that States may meet these requirements in two separate
steps or they may choose to meet both of these requirements at once.
The agency believes this should not be difficult for States to do,
especially when applying for subsequent year grants. Accordingly, no
changes are being made to the regulation as a result of this comment.
6. MMUCC
In subsection (a)(2) of Section 411, Congress stated that, ``The
Secretary, in consultation with States and other appropriate parties,
shall determine the model data elements necessary to observe and
analyze national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and
circumstances.''
In the interim final rule, NHTSA indicates that, it has determined
that the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) serve the
purposes of the law and has defined ``model data elements'' to mean the
elements specified in the MMUCC. While conformity to the MMUCC is not
required for grant eligibility under Section 411, the agency strongly
encouraged States in the interim final rule to employ the criteria in
their highway safety data and traffic records systems, and to consider
these criteria when conducting their assessments and developing their
strategic plans.
In its comments, the Salt Institute recommends a change to the
MMUCC, related to data element C13 ``Road Surface Condition.''
The agency notes that the Salt Institute's recommended change to
the MMUCC is beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. As explained
in the interim final rule, the MMUCC is a minimum set of crash data
elements with standardized definitions that are relevant to injury
control, and highway and traffic safety. Its use is encouraged to help
States reduce the collection and processing burden of motor vehicle
crash data.
The MMUCC was developed collaboratively. The effort to develop the
MMUCC involved private and public safety, engineering, transportation
and research experts from the local, State and Federal levels, and
drafts of the data set were distributed for comment to national, State
and local associations, representing highway traffic safety, injury
control, emergency medical services, State health departments and
others, and to the general public via the World Wide Web. The final
version of the MMUCC was prepared by an expert panel, which considered
the feedback it received at meetings and by mail, fax, telephone and
electronic communication. The effort was supported by the National
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), with
assistance from NHTSA and the FHWA.
Any decisions regarding the contents of the MMUCC would need to be
considered through separate proceedings.
Regulatory Analyses
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This final rule will not have any preemptive or retroactive effect.
The enabling legislation does not establish a procedure for judicial
review of rules promulgated under its provisions. There is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
other administrative proceedings before they may file suit.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The agency has examined the impact of this action and has
determined that it is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and
the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The action will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million
[[Page 48911]]
or more or adversely affect in a material way a sector of the economy,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities. It will not create a
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency, and it will not materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. Nor does it raise
novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this action
on small entities. Based on the evaluation, the agency certifies that
this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities. States are the recipients of any funds awarded under
the Section 411 program, and they are not considered to be small
entities, as that term is defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The requirements relating to the regulations that this rule is
amending that States retain and report to the Federal government
information which demonstrates compliance for incentive grant funds for
improved highway safety data and traffic records systems, are
considered to be information collection requirements, as that term is
defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part
1320.
Accordingly, these requirements have been submitted and approved by
OMB, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
These requirements have been approved through June 30, 2003, under OMB
No. 2127-0606.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and have
determined that it will not have any significant impact on the quality
of the human environment.
The 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 affects of final rules that include a Federal
mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually. This final rule does not meet the definition of
a Federal mandate, because the resulting annual expenditures will not
exceed the $100 million threshold. In addition, this incentive grant
program is completely voluntary and States that choose to apply and
qualify will receive incentive grant funds.
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 this action will not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Accordingly, a
Federalism Assessment has not been prepared.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1335
Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the interim final rule published
in the Federal Register of October 8, 1998, 63 FR 54055, adding a new
Part 1335 to chapter II of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
is adopted as final, with the following changes:
PART 1335--STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY DATA IMPROVEMENTS
1. The authority citation for Part 1335 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 411; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
2. Section 1335.12 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1335.12 Contents of application.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources,
except those authorized under Chapter 1 of Title 23 of the United
States Code, for highway safety data and traffic records programs at or
above the average level of such expenditures in Federal fiscal years
1996 and 1997 (either State or federal fiscal year 1996 and 1997 can be
used).
Issued on: August 7, 2000.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-20339 Filed 8-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P