(a) Scope. This subpart establishes criteria, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 405, for awarding grants to States that adopt and implement programs and laws to address national priorities for reducing highway deaths and injuries.

(b) Definitions. As used in this subpart—

Blood alcohol concentration or BAC means grams of alcohol per deciliter or 100 milliliters blood, or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

FARS means NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System.

Majority means greater than 50 percent.

Passenger motor vehicle means a passenger car, pickup truck, van, minivan or sport utility vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds.

Personal wireless communications device means a device through which personal wireless services (commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services) are transmitted, but does not include a global navigation satellite system receiver used for positioning, emergency notification, or navigation purposes.

Primary offense means an offense for which a law enforcement officer may stop a vehicle and issue a citation in the absence of evidence of another offense.

(c) Eligibility. Except as provided in § 1200.25(c), the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are each eligible to apply for national priority safety program grants under this subpart.

(d) Qualification based on State statutes. Whenever a State statute is the basis for a grant award under this subpart, such statute shall have been enacted by the application due date and be in effect and enforced, without interruption, by the beginning of and throughout the fiscal year of the grant award.

(e) Award determinations and transfer of funds. (1) Except as in provided § 1200.26(d), the amount of a grant award to a State in a fiscal year under this subpart shall be determined by applying the apportionment formula under 23 U.S.C. 402(c) for fiscal year 2009 to all qualifying States, in proportion to the amount each such State received under 23 U.S.C. 402(c) for fiscal year 2009, so that all available amounts are distributed to qualifying States to the maximum extent practicable.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and except as provided in § 1200.25(k), a grant awarded to a State in a fiscal year under this subpart may not exceed 10 percent of the total amount made available for that section for that fiscal year.

(3) If it is determined after review of applications that funds for a grant program under this subpart will not all be distributed, such funds shall be transferred to other programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402 and 405 to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that each State receives the maximum funding for which it qualifies.

(f) Matching. The Federal share of the costs of activities or programs funded using amounts from grants awarded under this subpart may not exceed 80 percent.

(a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 405(b), for awarding grants to States that adopt and implement effective occupant protection programs to reduce highway deaths and injuries resulting from individuals riding unrestrained or not properly restrained in motor vehicles.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section—

Child restraint means any device (including a child safety seat, booster seat used in conjunction with 3-point belts, or harness, but excluding seat belts) that is designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position a child who weighs 65 pounds (30 kilograms) or less and that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standard prescribed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for child restraints.

High seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed seat belt use rate of 90.0 percent or higher (not rounded) based on validated data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during the previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR Part 1340 (e.g., for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2014, the “previous calendar year” would be 2013).

Lower seat belt use rate State means a State that has an observed seat belt use rate below 90.0 percent (not rounded) based on validated data from the State survey of seat belt use conducted during the previous calendar year, in accordance with the Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR Part 1340 (e.g., for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2014, the “previous calendar year” would be 2013).

Seat belt means, with respect to open-body motor vehicles, including convertibles, an occupant restraint system consisting of a lap belt or a lap belt and a detachable shoulder belt, and with respect to other motor vehicles, an occupant restraint system consisting of integrated lap and shoulder belts.

Problem identification means the data collection and analysis process for identifying areas of the State, types of crashes, or types of populations (e.g., high-risk populations) that present specific safety or usage challenges in efforts to improve occupant protection.

(c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a grant under this section as a high seat belt use rate State or as a lower seat belt use rate State, in accordance with paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, as applicable.

(d) Qualification criteria for a high seat belt use rate State. To qualify for an occupant protection grant in a fiscal year, a high seat belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit an executed Part 1 of Appendix D and the following documentation:

(1) Occupant protection plan. (i) For a first fiscal year award, a copy of the State occupant protection program area plan to be included in the State HSP that describes the programs the State will implement to achieve reductions in traffic crashes, fatalities, and injuries on public roads.

(ii) For subsequent fiscal year awards, an update of the State's occupant protection plan provided in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.

(2) Participation in Click-it-or-Ticket national mobilization. A description of the State's planned participation, and the assurance provided in Part 1 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Highway Safety Representative, that the State will participate in the Click it or Ticket national mobilization during the fiscal year of the grant;

(3) Child restraint inspection stations. Documentation that the State has an active network of child inspection stations and/or inspection events that are—

(i) Located in areas that service the majority of the State's population and show evidence of outreach to underserved areas; and

(ii) Staffed with at least one current nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety Technician during official posted hours.

(4) Child passenger safety technicians. A copy of the State's plan to recruit, train and retain nationally Certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians to staff each child inspection station and inspection events located in the State.

(5) Maintenance of effort. The assurance provided in Part 1 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Highway Safety Representative, that the State shall maintain its aggregate expenditures from all State and local sources for occupant protection programs at or above the average level of such expenditure in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

(e) Qualification criteria for a lower seat belt use rate State. To qualify for an occupant protection grant in a fiscal year, a lower seat belt use rate State (as determined by NHTSA) shall satisfy all the requirements of and submit all the documentation required under paragraph (d) of this section, and submit documentation demonstrating that it meets at least three of the following additional criteria:

(1) Primary enforcement seat belt use law. The assurance provided in Part 1 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Highway Safety Representative, providing legal citations to the State statute or statutes demonstrating that the State has enacted and is enforcing occupant protection laws that make a violation of the requirement to be secured in a seat belt or child restraint a primary offense.

(2) Occupant protection laws. The assurance provided in Part 1 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Highway Safety Representative, providing legal citations to State statute or statutes demonstrating that the State has enacted and is enforcing occupant protection laws that require—

(i) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle who is under eight years of age, weighs less than 65 pounds and is less than four feet, nine inches in height to be secured in an age-appropriate child restraint;

(ii) Each occupant riding in a passenger motor vehicle other than an occupant identified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section to be secured in a seat belt or appropriate child restraint;

(iii) A minimum fine of $25 per unrestrained occupant for a violation of the occupant protection laws described in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(iv) No exemption from coverage, except the following:

(A) Drivers, but not passengers, of postal, utility, and commercial vehicles that make frequent stops in the course of their business;

(B) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint because of a medical condition, provided there is written documentation from a physician;

(C) Persons who are unable to wear a seat belt or child restraint because all other seating positions are occupied by persons properly restrained in seat belts or child restraints;

(D) Emergency vehicle operators and passengers in emergency vehicles during an emergency;

(E) Persons riding in seating positions or vehicles not required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to be equipped with seat belts;

(F) Passengers in public and livery conveyances.

(3) Seat belt enforcement. Documentation of the State's plan to conduct ongoing and periodic seat belt and child restraint enforcement during the fiscal year of the grant involving—

(i) At least 70 percent of the State's population as shown by the latest available Federal census; or

(ii) Law enforcement agencies responsible for seat belt enforcement in geographic areas in which at least 70 percent of the State's unrestrained passenger vehicle occupant fatalities occurred (reported in the HSP).

(4) High risk population countermeasure programs. Documentation that the State has implemented data-driven programs to improve seat belt and child restraint use for at least two of the following at-risk populations:

(i) Drivers on rural roadways;

(ii) Unrestrained nighttime drivers;

(iii) Teenage drivers;

(iv) Other high-risk populations identified in the occupant protection plan required under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(5) Comprehensive occupant protection program. Documentation demonstrating that the State has—

(i) Conducted a NHTSA-facilitated program assessment that evaluates the program for elements designed to increase seat belt usage in the State;

(ii) Developed a multi-year strategic plan based on input from statewide stakeholders (task force) under which the State developed—

(A) A program management strategy that provides leadership, training and technical assistance to other State agencies and local occupant protection programs and projects;

(B) A program evaluation strategy that assesses performance in achieving the State's measurable goals and objectives for increasing seat belt and child restraint usage for adults and children;

(C) A communication and education program strategy that has as its cornerstone the high visibility enforcement model that combines use of media, both paid and earned, and education to support enforcement efforts at the State and community level aimed at increasing seat belt use and correct usage of age appropriate child restraint systems; and

(D) An enforcement strategy that includes activities such as encouraging seat belt use policies for law enforcement agencies, vigorous enforcement of seat belt and child safety seat laws, and accurate reporting of occupant protection system information on police accident report forms.

(iii) designated an occupant protection coordinator; and

(iv) established a statewide occupant protection task force that includes agencies and organizations that can help develop, implement, enforce and evaluate occupant protection programs.

(6) Occupant protection program assessment. (i) A NHTSA-facilitated assessment of all elements of its occupant protection program within the three years prior to October 1 of the grant year; or

(ii) For the first year of the grant, the assurance provided in Part 1 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, that the State will conduct a NHTSA-facilitated assessment by September 1 of the grant year. The agency will require the return of grant funds awarded under this section if the State fails to conduct such an assessment by the deadline and will redistribute any such grant funds in accordance with § 1200.20(e) to other qualifying States under this section.

(f) Use of grant funds—(1) Eligible uses. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, use of grant funds awarded under this section shall be limited to the following programs or purposes:

(i) To support high-visibility enforcement mobilizations, including paid media that emphasizes publicity for the program, and law enforcement;

(ii) To train occupant protection safety professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, educators, and parents concerning all aspects of the use of child restraints and occupant protection;

(iii) To educate the public concerning the proper use and installation of child restraints, including related equipment and information systems;

(iv) To provide community child passenger safety services, including programs about proper seating positions for children and how to reduce the improper use of child restraints;

(v) To establish and maintain information systems containing data concerning occupant protection, including the collection and administration of child passenger safety and occupant protection surveys; and

(vi) To purchase and distribute child restraints to low-income families, provided that not more than five percent of the funds received in a fiscal year are used for such purpose.

(2) Eligible uses for high seat belt use rate States. Notwithstanding paragraph (f)(1) of this section, a State that qualifies for grant funds as a high seat belt use rate State may use up to 75 percent of such funds for any project or activity eligible for funding under 23 U.S.C. 402.

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

(b) Requirement for traffic records coordinating committee (TRCC)—(1) Structure and composition. The State shall have a traffic records coordinating committee that—

(i) Is chartered or legally mandated;

(ii) Meets at least three times annually;

(iii) Has a multidisciplinary membership that includes owners, operators, collectors and users of traffic records and public health and injury control data systems, highway safety, highway infrastructure, law enforcement and adjudication officials, and public health, emergency medical services, injury control, driver licensing, and motor carrier agencies and organizations; and

(iv) Has a designated TRCC coordinator.

(2) Functions. The traffic records coordinating committee shall—

(i) Have authority to review any of the State's highway safety data and traffic records systems and any changes to such systems before the changes are implemented;

(ii) Consider and coordinate the views of organizations in the State that are involved in the collection, administration, and use of highway safety data and traffic records systems, and represent those views to outside organizations;

(iii) Review and evaluate new technologies to keep the highway safety data and traffic records system current; and

(iv) Approve annually the membership of the TRCC, the TRCC coordinator, any change to the State's multi-year Strategic Plan required under paragraph (c) of this section, and performance measures to be used to demonstrate quantitative progress in the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or integration of a core highway safety database.

(c) Requirement for a state traffic records strategic plan. The State shall have a Strategic Plan, approved by the TRCC, that—

(1) Describes specific, quantifiable and measurable improvements anticipated in the State's core safety databases, including crash, citation or adjudication, driver, emergency medical services or injury surveillance system, roadway, and vehicle databases;

(2) For any identified performance measure, uses the formats set forth in the Model Performance Measures for State Traffic Records Systems collaboratively developed by NHTSA and the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA);

(3) Includes a list of all recommendations from its most recent highway safety data and traffic records system assessment;

(4) Identifies which such recommendations the State intends to implement and the performance measures to be used to demonstrate quantifiable and measurable progress; and

(5) For recommendations that the State does not intend to implement, provides an explanation.

(d) Requirement for quantitative improvement. A State shall demonstrate quantitative improvement in the data attributes of accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility and integration in a core database by demonstrating an improved consistency within the State's record system or by achieving a higher level of compliance with a national model inventory of data elements, such as the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC), the Model Impaired Driving Records Information System (MIDRIS), the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) or the National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS).

(e) Requirement for assessment. The State shall have conducted or updated, within the five years prior to the application due date, an in-depth, formal assessment of its highway safety data and traffic records system accurately performed by a group knowledgeable about highway safety data and traffic records systems that complies with the procedures and methodologies outlined in NHTSA's Traffic Records Highway Safety Program Advisory (DOT HS 811 644).

(f) Requirement for maintenance of effort. The State shall maintain its aggregate expenditures from all State and local sources for State traffic safety information system programs at or above the average level of such expenditure in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, as provided in Part 2 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Highway Safety Representative.

(g) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a grant under this section in a fiscal year, a State shall submit an executed Part 2 of Appendix D and the following documentation:

(1) Either the TRCC charter or legal citation(s) to the statute or regulation legally mandating a TRCC with the functions required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section;

(2) Meeting schedule, all reports and data system improvement and policy guidance documents promulgated by the TRCC during the 12 months immediately preceding the grant application due date;

(3) A list of the TRCC membership and the organizations and functions they represent;

(4) The name and title of the State's Traffic Records Coordinator.

(5) A copy of the Strategic Plan required under paragraph (c) of this section, including any updates to the Strategic Plan.

(6) Either a written description of the performance measures, and all supporting data, that the State is relying on to demonstrate quantitative improvement in the preceding 12 months of the grant application due date in one or more of the significant data program attributes or the location where this information is detailed in the Strategic Plan.

(7) The certification provided in Part 2 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, that an assessment of the State's highway safety data and traffic records system was conducted or updated within the five years prior to the application due date as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.

(h) Use of grant funds. Grant funds awarded under this section shall be used to make quantifiable, measureable progress improvements in the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, uniformity, accessibility or integration of data in a core highway safety database.

(a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 405(d), for awarding grants to States that adopt and implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems resulting from individuals driving motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or the combination of alcohol and drugs or that enact alcohol ignition interlock laws.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section—

24-7 sobriety program means a State law or program that authorizes a State court or a State agency, as a condition of sentence, probation, parole, or work permit, to require an individual who pleads guilty to or was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to—

(1) Abstain totally from alcohol or drugs for a period of time; and

(2) Be subject to testing for alcohol or drugs at least twice per day by continuous transdermal alcohol monitoring via an electronic monitoring device, or by an alternative method approved by NHTSA.

Alcohol means wine, beer and distilled spirits.

Average impaired driving fatality rate means the number of fatalities in motor vehicle crashes involving a driver with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 percent for every 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled, based on the most recently reported three calendar years of final data from the FARS.

Assessment means a NHTSA-facilitated process that employs a team of subject matter experts to conduct a comprehensive review of a specific highway safety program in a State.

Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs means operating a vehicle while the alcohol and/or drug concentration in the blood or breath, as determined by chemical or other tests, equals or exceeds the level established by the State or is equivalent to the standard offense for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in the State.

Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Court means a court that specializes in cases involving driving while intoxicated and abides by the Ten Guiding Principles of DWI Courts in effect on the date of the grant, as established by the National Center for DWI Courts.

Drugs means controlled substances as that term is defined under section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802(6).

High visibility enforcement efforts means participation in national impaired driving law enforcement campaigns organized by NHTSA, participation in impaired driving law enforcement campaigns organized by the State, or the use of sobriety checkpoints and/or saturation patrols, conducted in a highly visible manner and supported by publicity through paid or earned media.

High-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving fatality rate of 0.60 or higher.

Low-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving fatality rate of 0.30 or lower.

Mid-range State means a State that has an average impaired driving fatality rate that is higher than 0.30 and lower than 0.60.

Saturation patrol means a law enforcement activity during which enhanced levels of law enforcement are conducted in a concentrated geographic area (or areas) for the purpose of detecting drivers operating motor vehicles while impaired by alcohol and/or other drugs.

Sobriety checkpoint means a law enforcement activity during which law enforcement officials stop motor vehicles on a non-discriminatory, lawful basis for the purpose of determining whether the operators of such motor vehicles are driving while impaired by alcohol and/or other drugs.

Standard offense for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs means the offense described in a State's law that makes it a criminal offense to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but does not require a measurement of alcohol or drug content.

(c) Eligibility determination. A State is eligible to apply for a grant under this section as a low-range State, a mid-range State or a high-range State, in accordance with paragraphs (d), (e) or (f) of this section, as applicable. Independent of this range determination, a State may also qualify for a separate grant under this section as an ignition interlock State, as provided in paragraph (g) of this section.

(d) Qualification criteria for a low-range State. To qualify for an impaired driving countermeasures grant in a fiscal year, a low-range State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit an executed Part 3 of Appendix D providing assurances, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, that the State will—

(1) Use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(1) only for the implementation and enforcement of programs authorized in paragraph (i) of this section; and

(2) Maintain its aggregate expenditures from all State and local sources for impaired driving programs at or above the average level of such expenditure in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, as provided in Part 3 of Appendix D.

(e) Qualification criteria for a mid-range State. To qualify for an impaired driving countermeasures grant in a fiscal year, a mid-range State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit the information required in paragraph (d) of this section and the following additional documentation:

(1) Statewide impaired driving plan. If the State has not received a grant under this section for a previously submitted statewide impaired driving plan, the State shall submit a copy of a statewide impaired driving plan that—

(i) Has been developed within the three years prior to the application due date;

(ii) Has been approved by a statewide impaired driving task force that meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(2) of this section;

(iii) Provides a comprehensive strategy that uses data and problem identification to identify measurable goals and objectives for preventing and reducing impaired driving behavior and impaired driving crashes; and

(iv) Covers general areas that include program management and strategic planning, prevention, the criminal justice system, communication programs, alcohol and other drug misuse, and program evaluation and data.

(2) Statewide impaired driving task force. The State shall submit a copy of information describing its statewide impaired driving task force that—

(i) Provides the basis for the operation of the task force, including any charter or establishing documents;

(ii) Includes a schedule of all meetings held in the 12 months preceding the application due date and any reports or documents produced during that time period; and

(iii) Includes a list of membership and the organizations and functions represented and includes, at a minimum, key stakeholders from the State Highway Safety Office and the areas of law enforcement and criminal justice system (e.g., prosecution, adjudication, probation), and, as appropriate, stakeholders from the areas of driver licensing, treatment and rehabilitation, ignition interlock programs, data and traffic records, public health, and communication.

(3) Assurances. For the first year of the grant as a mid-range State, if the State is not able to meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the State may provide the assurances provided in Part 3 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, that the State will convene a statewide impaired driving task force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan that meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section and submit the statewide impaired driving plan by September 1 of the grant year. The agency will require the return of grant funds awarded under this section if the State fails to submit the plan by the deadline and will redistribute any such grant funds in accordance with § 1200.20(e) to other qualifying States under this section.

(f) Qualification criteria for a high-range State. To qualify for an impaired driving countermeasures grant in a fiscal year, a high-range State (as determined by NHTSA) shall submit the information required in paragraph (d) of this section and the following additional documentation:

(1) Impaired driving program assessment. (i) The assurances provided in Part 3 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, providing the date of the NHTSA-facilitated assessment of the State's impaired driving program conducted within the three years prior to the application due date; or

(ii) For the first year of the grant as a high-range State, the assurances provided in Part 3 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, that the State will conduct a NHTSA-facilitated assessment by September 1 of the grant year.

(2) Statewide impaired driving plan. (i) First year compliance. For the first year of the grant as a high-range State, the assurances provided in Part 3 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, that the State will convene a statewide impaired driving task force to develop a statewide impaired driving plan, which will be submitted to NHTSA for review and approval by September 1 of the grant year that—

(A) Meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section;

(B) Addresses any recommendations from the assessment of the State's impaired driving program required in paragraph (f)(1) of this section;

(C) Includes a detailed plan for spending any grant funds provided for high visibility enforcement efforts; and

(D) Describes how the spending supports the State's impaired driving program and achievement of its performance goals and targets;

(ii) Subsequent year compliance. For subsequent years of the grant as a high-range State, the State shall submit for NHTSA review and comment a statewide impaired driving plan that meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) through (D) of this section or an update to its statewide impaired driving plan, as part of its application for a grant.

(g) Ignition interlock State. To qualify for a separate grant as an ignition interlock State in a fiscal year, a State shall submit the assurances in Part 3 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, providing legal citation(s) to the State statute demonstrating that the State has enacted and is enforcing a law that requires all individuals convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or of driving while intoxicated to drive only vehicles with alcohol ignition interlocks for a period of not less than 30 days.

(h) Award. (1) The amount available for grants under paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this section shall be determined based on the total amount of eligible States for these grants and after deduction of the amount necessary to fund grants under paragraph (g) of this section.

(2) The amount available for grants under paragraph (g) of this section shall not exceed 15 percent of the total amount made available to States under this section for the fiscal year.

(i) Use of grant funds. (1) Low-range States may use grant funds awarded under this section for the following authorized programs:

(i) High visibility enforcement efforts;

(ii) Hiring a full-time or part-time impaired driving coordinator of the State's activities to address the enforcement and adjudication of laws regarding driving while impaired by alcohol;

(iii) Court support of high visibility enforcement efforts, training and education of criminal justice professionals (including law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and probation officers) to assist such professionals in handling impaired driving cases, hiring traffic safety resource prosecutors, hiring judicial outreach liaisons, and establishing driving while intoxicated courts;

(iv) Alcohol ignition interlock programs;

(v) Improving blood-alcohol concentration testing and reporting;

(vi) Paid and earned media in support of high visibility enforcement of impaired driving laws, and conducting standardized field sobriety training, advanced roadside impaired driving evaluation training, and drug recognition expert training for law enforcement, and equipment and related expenditures used in connection with impaired driving enforcement;

(vii) Training on the use of alcohol screening and brief intervention;

(viii) Developing impaired driving information systems; and

(ix) Costs associated with a 24-7 sobriety program.

(x) Programs designed to reduce impaired driving based on problem identification.

(2) Mid-range States may use grant funds awarded under this section for any of the authorized uses described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section, provided that use of grant funds for programs described in paragraph (i)(1)(x) of this section requires advance approval from NHTSA.

(3) High-range States may use grant funds awarded under this section for high visibility enforcement efforts and any of the authorized uses described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section, provided the proposed uses are described in a statewide impaired driving plan submitted to and approved by NHTSA in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this section and subject to the conditions in paragraph (j) of this section.

(4) Ignition interlock States may use grant funds awarded under this section for any of the authorized uses described under paragraph (i)(1) of this section and for eligible activities under 23 U.S.C. 402.

(j) Special conditions for use of funds by high-range States. No expenses incurred or vouchers submitted by a high-range State shall be approved for reimbursement until such State submits for NHTSA review and approval a statewide impaired driving plan as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. If a high-range State fails to timely provide the statewide impaired driving plan required under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the agency will redistribute any grant funds in accordance with § 1200.20(e) to other qualifying States under this section.

(a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 405(e), for awarding grants to States that enact and enforce laws prohibiting distracted driving, beginning with fiscal year 2014 grants.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section—

Driving means operating a motor vehicle on a public road, including operation while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic light or stop sign, or otherwise, but does not include operating a motor vehicle when the vehicle has pulled over to the side of, or off, an active roadway and has stopped in a location where it can safely remain stationary.

Texting means reading from or manually entering data into a personal wireless communications device, including doing so for the purpose of SMS texting, emailing, instant messaging, or engaging in any other form of electronic data retrieval or electronic data communication.

(c) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a distracted driving grant in a fiscal year, a State shall submit the assurances in Part 4 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, providing legal citations to the State statute or statutes demonstrating compliance with the following requirements:

(1) Prohibition on texting while driving. The statute shall—

(i) Prohibit drivers from texting through a personal wireless communications device while driving;

(ii) Make a violation of the law a primary offense; and

(iii) Establish—

(A) A minimum fine of $25 for a first violation of the law; and

(B) Increased fines for repeat violations within five years of the previous violation.

(2) Prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving. The statute shall—

(i) Prohibit a driver who is younger than 18 years of age from using a personal wireless communications device while driving;

(ii) Make a violation of the law a primary offense;

(iii) Require distracted driving issues to be tested as part of the State's driver's license examination; and

(iv) Establish—

(A) A minimum fine of $25 for a first violation of the law; and

(B) Increased fines for repeat violations within five years of the previous violation.

(3) Permitted exceptions. A State statute providing for the following exceptions, and no others, shall not be deemed out of compliance with the requirements of this section:

(i) A driver who uses a personal wireless communications device to contact emergency services;

(ii) Emergency services personnel who use a personal wireless communications device while operating an emergency services vehicle and engaged in the performance of their duties as emergency services personnel; and

(iii) An individual employed as a commercial motor vehicle driver or a school bus driver who uses a personal wireless communications device within the scope of such individual's employment if such use is permitted under the regulations promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31136.

(d) Use of grant funds. (1) At least 50 percent of the grant funds awarded under this section shall be used to educate the public through advertising containing information about the dangers of texting or using a cell phone while driving, for traffic signs that notify drivers about the distracted driving law of the State, or for law enforcement costs related to the enforcement of the distracted driving law;

(2) Not more than 50 percent of the grant funds awarded under this section may be used for any eligible project or activity under 23 U.S.C. 402.

(a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 405(b), for awarding grants to States that adopt and implement effective programs to reduce the number of single-vehicle and multiple-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section—

Impaired means alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired as defined by State law, provided that the State's legal alcohol-impairment level does not exceed .08 BAC.

Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

Motorcyclist awareness means individual or collective awareness of the presence of motorcycles on or near roadways and of safe driving practices that avoid injury to motorcyclists.

Motorcyclist awareness program means an informational or public awareness or education program designed to enhance motorcyclist awareness that is developed by or in coordination with the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues, which may include the State motorcycle safety administrator or a motorcycle advisory council appointed by the Governor of the State.

Motorcyclist safety training or Motorcycle rider training means a formal program of instruction that is approved for use in a State by the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues, which may include the State motorcycle safety administrator or a motorcycle advisory council appointed by the governor of the State.

State means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

(c) Eligibility. The 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are eligible to apply for a motorcyclist safety grant.

(d) Qualification criteria. To qualify for a motorcyclist safety grant in a fiscal year, a State shall submit an executed Part 5 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, and submit documentation demonstrating compliance with at least two of the criteria in paragraphs (e) through (j) of this section.

(e) Motorcycle rider training course. (1) To satisfy this criterion, a State shall have an effective motorcycle rider training course that is offered throughout the State and that provides a formal program of instruction in accident avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills to motorcyclists. The program shall—

(i) Use a training curriculum that—

(A) Is approved by the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;

(B) Includes a formal program of instruction in crash avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills for both in-class and on-the-motorcycle training to motorcyclists; and

(C) May include innovative training opportunities to meet unique regional needs;

(ii) Offer at least one motorcycle rider training course either—

(A) In a majority of the State's counties or political subdivisions; or

(B) In counties or political subdivisions that account for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles;

(iii) Use motorcycle rider training instructors to teach the curriculum who are certified by the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues or by a nationally recognized motorcycle safety organization with certification capability; and

(iv) Use quality control procedures to assess motorcycle rider training courses and instructor training courses conducted in the State.

(2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State shall submit—

(i) A copy of the official State document (e.g., law, regulation, binding policy directive, letter from the Governor) identifying the designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues;

(ii) Document(s) demonstrating that the training curriculum is approved by the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues and includes a formal program of instruction in crash avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills for both in-class and on-the-motorcycle training to motorcyclists;

(iii) Either:

(A) A list of the counties or political subdivisions in the State, noting in which counties or political subdivisions and when motorcycle rider training courses were offered in the 12 months preceding the due date of the grant application, if the State seeks to qualify under this criterion by showing that it offers at least one motorcycle rider training course in a majority of counties or political subdivisions in the State; or

(B) A list of the counties or political subdivisions in the State, noting in which counties or political subdivisions and when motorcycle rider training courses were offered in the 12 months preceding the due date of the grant application and the corresponding number of registered motorcycles in each county or political subdivision according to official State motor vehicle records, if the State seeks to qualify under this criterion by showing that it offers at least one motorcycle rider training course in counties or political subdivisions that account for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles;

(iv) Document(s) demonstrating that the State uses motorcycle rider training instructors to teach the curriculum who are certified by the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues or by a nationally recognized motorcycle safety organization with certification capability; and

(v) A brief description of the quality control procedures to assess motorcycle rider training courses and instructor training courses used in the State (e.g., conducting site visits, gathering student feedback) and the actions taken to improve the courses based on the information collected.

(f) Motorcyclist awareness program. (1) To satisfy this criterion, a State shall have an effective statewide program to enhance motorist awareness of the presence of motorcyclists on or near roadways and safe driving practices that avoid injuries to motorcyclists. The program shall—

(i) Be developed by, or in coordination with, the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;

(ii) Use State data to identify and prioritize the State's motorcyclist awareness problem areas;

(iii) Encourage collaboration among agencies and organizations responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety issues; and

(iv) Incorporate a strategic communications plan that—

(A) Supports the State's overall safety policy and countermeasure program;

(B) Is designed, at a minimum, to educate motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes is highest or in those jurisdictions that account for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles;

(C) Includes marketing and educational efforts to enhance motorcyclist awareness; and

(D) Uses a mix of communication mechanisms to draw attention to the problem.

(2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State shall submit—

(i) A copy of the State document identifying the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;

(ii) A letter from the Governor's Highway Safety Representative stating that the State's motorcyclist awareness program was developed by or in coordination with the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;

(iii) Data used to identify and prioritize the State's motorcycle safety problem areas, including either—

(A) A list of counties or political subdivisions in the State ranked in order of the highest to lowest number of motorcycle crashes per county or political subdivision, if the State seeks to qualify under this criterion by showing that it identifies and prioritizes the State's motorcycle safety problem areas based on motorcycle crashes. Such data shall be from the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data is available, but data no older than two calendar years prior to the application due date (e.g., for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2013, a State shall provide calendar year 2012 data, if available, and may not provide data older than calendar year 2011); or

(B) A list of counties or political subdivisions in the State and the corresponding number of registered motorcycles for each county or political subdivision according to official State motor vehicle records, if the State seeks to qualify under this criterion by showing that it identifies and prioritizes the State's motorcycle safety problem areas based on motorcycle registrations;

(iv) A brief description of how the State has achieved collaboration among agencies and organizations responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety issues; and

(v) A copy of the strategic communications plan showing that it—

(A) Supports the State's overall safety policy and countermeasure program;

(B) Is designed to educate motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes is highest (i.e., the majority of counties or political subdivisions in the State with the highest numbers of motorcycle crashes) or is designed to educate motorists in those jurisdictions that account for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles (i.e., the counties or political subdivisions that account for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles as evidenced by State motor vehicle records);

(C) Includes marketing and educational efforts to enhance motorcyclist awareness; and

(D) Uses a mix of communication mechanisms to draw attention to the problem (e.g., newspapers, billboard advertisements, email, posters, flyers, mini-planners, or instructor-led training sessions).

(g) Reduction of fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles. (1) To satisfy this criterion, a State shall demonstrate a reduction for the preceding calendar year in the number of motorcyclist fatalities and in the rate of motor vehicle crashes involving motorcycles in the State (expressed as a function of 10,000 registered motorcycle registrations), as computed by NHTSA. The State shall—

(i) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of motorcyclist fatalities for the most recent calendar year for which final FARS data is available as compared to the final FARS data for the calendar year immediately prior to that year; and

(ii) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of crashes involving motorcycles for the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data is available, but data no older than two calendar years prior to the application due date, as compared to the calendar year immediately prior to that year.

(2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State shall submit—

(i) State data showing the total number of motor vehicle crashes involving motorcycles in the State for the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data is available, but data no older than two calendar years prior to the application due date and the same type of data for the calendar year immediately prior to that year (e.g., for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2013, the State shall submit calendar year 2012 data and 2011 data, if both data are available, and may not provide data older than calendar year 2011 and 2010, to determine the rate); and

(ii) A description of the State's methods for collecting and analyzing data submitted in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section, including a description of the State's efforts to make reporting of motor vehicle crashes involving motorcycles as complete as possible.

(h) Impaired driving program. (1) To satisfy this criterion, a State shall implement a statewide program to reduce impaired driving, including specific measures to reduce impaired motorcycle operation. The program shall—

(i) Use State data to identify and prioritize the State's impaired driving and impaired motorcycle operation problem areas; and

(ii) Include specific countermeasures to reduce impaired motorcycle operation with strategies designed to reach motorcyclists and motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator is highest.

(2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State shall submit—

(i) State data used to identify and prioritize the State's impaired driving and impaired motorcycle operation problem areas, including a list of counties or political subdivisions in the State ranked in order of the highest to lowest number of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator per county or political subdivision. Such data shall be from the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data is available, but data no older than two calendar years prior to the application due date (e.g., for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2013, a State shall provide calendar year 2012 data, if available, and may not provide data older than calendar year 2011);

(ii) A detailed description of the State's impaired driving program as implemented, including a description of each countermeasure established and proposed by the State to reduce impaired motorcycle operation, the amount of funds allotted or proposed for each countermeasure and a description of its specific strategies that are designed to reach motorcyclists and motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator is highest (i.e., the majority of counties or political subdivisions in the State with the highest numbers of motorcycle crashes involving an impaired operator); and

(iii) The legal citation(s) to the State statute or regulation defining impairment. (A State is not eligible for a grant under this criterion if its legal alcohol-impairment level exceeds .08 BAC.)

(i) Reduction of fatalities and accidents involving impaired motorcyclists. (1) To satisfy this criterion, a State shall demonstrate a reduction for the preceding calendar year in the number of fatalities and in the rate of reported crashes involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle operators (expressed as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations), as computed by NHTSA. The State shall—

(i) Experience a reduction of at least one in the number of fatalities involving alcohol-and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for the most recent calendar year for which final FARS data is available as compared to the final FARS data for the calendar year immediately prior to that year; and

(ii) Based on State crash data expressed as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle registration data), experience at least a whole number reduction in the rate of reported crashes involving alcohol-and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data is available, but data no older than two calendar years prior to the application due date, as compared to the calendar year immediately prior to that year.

(2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, the State shall submit—

(i) State data showing the total number of reported crashes involving alcohol- and drug-impaired motorcycle operators in the State for the most recent calendar year for which final State crash data is available, but data no older than two calendar years prior to the application due date and the same type of data for the calendar year immediately prior to that year (e.g., for a grant application submitted on July 1, 2013, the State shall submit calendar year 2012 and 2011 data, if both data are available, and may not provide data older than calendar year 2011 and 2010, to determine the rate); and

(ii) A description of the State's methods for collecting and analyzing data submitted in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section, including a description of the State's efforts to make reporting of crashes involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle operators as complete as possible; and

(iii) The legal citation(s) to the State statute or regulation defining alcohol-impaired and drug-impairment. (A State is not eligible for a grant under this criterion if its legal alcohol-impairment level exceeds .08 BAC.)

(j) Use of fees collected from motorcyclists for motorcycle programs. (1) To satisfy this criterion, a State shall have a process under which all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are used for motorcycle training and safety programs. A State may qualify under this criterion as either a Law State or a Data State.

(i) A Law State is a State that has a statute or regulation requiring that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to be used for motorcycle training and safety programs.

(ii) A Data State is a State that does not have a statute or regulation requiring that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to be used for motorcycle training and safety programs but can show through data and/or documentation from official records that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs were, in fact, used for motorcycle training and safety programs, without diversion.

(2)(i) To demonstrate compliance as a Law State, the State shall submit the legal citation(s) to the statute or regulation requiring that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs are to be used for motorcycle training and safety programs and the legal citation(s) to the State's current fiscal year appropriation (or preceding fiscal year appropriation, if the State has not enacted a law at the time of the State's application) appropriating all such fees to motorcycle training and safety programs.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance as a Data State, a State shall submit data or documentation from official records from the previous State fiscal year showing that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs were, in fact, used for motorcycle training and safety programs. Such data or documentation shall show that revenues collected for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs were placed into a distinct account and expended only for motorcycle training and safety programs.

(k) Award limitation. A grant awarded under the procedures described in § 1200.20(e)(1) may not exceed the amount of a grant made to State for fiscal year 2003 under 23 U.S.C. 402.

(l) Use of grant funds. (1) Eligible uses. A State may use grant funds awarded under this section for motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs, including—

(i) Improvements to motorcyclist safety training curricula;

(ii) Improvements in program delivery of motorcycle training to both urban and rural areas, including—

(A) Procurement or repair of practice motorcycles;

(B) Instructional materials;

(C) Mobile training units; and

(D) Leasing or purchasing facilities for closed-course motorcycle skill training;

(iii) Measures designed to increase the recruitment or retention of motorcyclist safety training instructors; and

(iv) Public awareness, public service announcements, and other outreach programs to enhance driver awareness of motorcyclists, such as the “share-the-road” safety messages developed using Share-the-Road model language available on NHTSA's Web site at http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov.

(2) Suballocation of funds. A State that receives a grant under this section may suballocate funds from the grant to a nonprofit organization incorporated in that State to carry out grant activities under this section.

(a) Purpose. This section establishes criteria, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 405(g), for awarding grants to States that adopt and implement graduated driver's licensing laws that require novice drivers younger than 21 years of age to comply with a 2-stage licensing process prior to receiving a full driver's license.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section—

Conviction-free means that, during the term of the permit or license covered by the program, the driver has not been convicted of any offense under State or local law relating to the use or operation of a motor vehicle, including but not limited to driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, driving without wearing a seat belt, speeding, prohibited use of a personal wireless communications device, and violation of the driving-related restrictions applicable to the stages of the graduated driver's licensing process set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, as well as misrepresentation of a driver's true age.

Driving, for purposes of paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, means operating a motor vehicle on a public road, including operation while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic light or stop sign, or otherwise, but does not include operating a motor vehicle when the vehicle has pulled over to the side of, or off, an active roadway and has stopped in a location where it can safely remain stationary.

Full driver's license means a license to operate a passenger motor vehicle on public roads at all times.

Licensed driver means a driver who possesses a valid full driver's license.

Novice driver means a driver who has not been issued by a State an intermediate license or full driver's license.

(c) Qualification criteria. (1) General. To qualify for a grant under this section, a State shall submit the assurances in Part 6 of Appendix D, signed by the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, providing legal citations to the State statute or statutes demonstrating compliance with the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and provide legal citation(s) to the statute or regulation or provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

(2) Graduated driver's licensing law. A State's graduated driver's licensing law shall include a learner's permit stage and an intermediate stage meeting the following minimum requirements:

(i) The learner's permit stage shall—

(A) Apply to any novice driver who is younger than 21 years of age prior to the receipt by such driver from the State of any other permit or license to operate a motor vehicle;

(B) Commence only after an applicant for a leaner's permit passes vision and knowledge tests, including tests about the rules of the road, signs, and signals;

(C) Subject to paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B), be in effect for a period of at least six months, but may not expire until the driver reaches at least 16 years of age; and

(D) Require the learner's permit holder to—

(1) Be accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age at all times while the learner's permit holder is operating a motor vehicle;

(2) Receive not less than 40 hours of behind-the-wheel training with a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age;

(3) Complete a driver education or training course that has been certified by the State; and

(4) Pass a driving skills test prior to entering the intermediate stage or being issued another permit, license or endorsement.

(ii) The intermediate stage shall—

(A) Apply to any driver who has completed the learner's permit stage and who is younger than 18 years of age;

(B) Commence immediately after the expiration of the learner's permit stage;

(C) Subject to paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B), be in effect for a period of at least six months, but may not expire until the driver reaches at least 18 years of age;

(D) Require the intermediate license holder to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age during the period of time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., except in case of emergency; and

(E) Prohibit the intermediate license holder from operating a motor vehicle with more than one nonfamilial passenger younger than 21 years of age unless a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age is in the motor vehicle.

(iii) During both the learner's permit and intermediate stages, the State shall—

(A) Impose a prohibition enforced as a primary offense on use of a cellular telephone or any communications device by the driver while driving, except in case of emergency; and

(B) Require that the driver who possesses a learner's permit or intermediate license remain conviction-free for a period of not less than six consecutive months immediately prior to the expiration of that stage.

(3) Requirement for license distinguishability. The State learner's permit, intermediate license, and full driver's license shall be distinguishable from each other. A State may satisfy this requirement by submitting—

(i) Legal citations to the State statute or regulation requiring that the State learner's permit, intermediate license, and full driver's license be visually distinguishable:

(ii) Sample permits and licenses that contain visual features that would enable a law enforcement officer to distinguish between the State learner's permit, intermediate license, and full driver's license; or

(iii) A description of the State's system that enables law enforcement officers in the State during traffic stops to distinguish between the State learner's permit, intermediate license, and full driver's license.

(4) Exceptions. A State that otherwise meets the minimum requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section will not be deemed ineligible for a grant under this section if—

(i) The State enacted a law prior to January 1, 2011, establishing a class of permit or license that allows drivers younger than 18 years of age to operate a motor vehicle—

(A) In connection with work performed on, or for the operation of, a farm owned by family members who are directly related to the applicant or licensee; or

(B) If demonstrable hardship would result from the denial of a license to the licensees or applicants, provided that the State requires the applicant or licensee to affirmatively and adequately demonstrate unique undue hardship to the individual; and

(ii) Drivers who possess only the permit or license permitted under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section are treated as novice drivers subject to the graduated driver's licensing requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section as a pre-condition of receiving any other permit, license or endorsement.

(d) Award. (1) Grant Amount. Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this section, grant funds for a fiscal year under this section shall be allocated among States that meet the qualification criteria on the basis of the apportionment formula under 23 U.S.C. 402 for that fiscal year.

(2) Limitation. Amount of grant award to a State under this section may not exceed 10 percent of the total amount made available for Section 405(g) for that fiscal year.

(e) Use of grant funds. A State may use grant funds awarded under this section as follows:

(1) At least 25 percent of the grant funds shall be used, in connection with the State's graduated driver's licensing law that complies with the minimum requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, to:

(i) Enforce the graduated driver's licensing process;

(ii) Provide training for law enforcement personnel and other relevant State agency personnel relating to the enforcement of the graduated driver's licensing process;

(iii) Publish relevant educational materials that pertain directly or indirectly to the State graduated driver's licensing law;

(iv) Carry out administrative activities to implement the State's graduated driver's licensing process; or

(v) Carry out a teen traffic safety program described in 23 U.S.C. 402(m);

(2) No more than 75 percent may be used for any eligible project or activity under 23 U.S.C. 402.