The bill amends 23 U.S.C. §402 to make “traffic incidents in school zones” an explicit eligible program under State highway safety programs. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations clarifying a range of allowable interventions and increases a specified allocation percentage in section 402(b)(1)(C) from 40 percent to 50 percent.
This is a focused, programmatic change: it does not create a new grant program but changes what states may use existing Section 402 funds for and directs federal rulemaking to define eligible uses. For practitioners, the consequences are twofold — new, explicit federal support for school‑zone countermeasures (including enforcement and non‑infrastructure programs) and a near‑term reallocation of funds within the 402 program that could shift money away from other priorities unless states or the Department adjust formulas or guidance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts “traffic incidents in school zones” into 23 U.S.C. §402(a)(2)(vi), requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations identifying eligible school‑zone countermeasures, and amends section 402(b)(1)(C) to change a percentage from 40% to 50%.
Who It Affects
State highway safety offices (which administer Section 402 grants), local and municipal transportation departments, school districts and Safe Routes to School programs, and agencies considering automated traffic enforcement will be directly affected. Non‑infrastructure program providers and crossing‑guard programs also become eligible for Section 402 support.
Why It Matters
By naming school‑zone safety in statute and listing permissible measures by regulation, the bill reduces uncertainty about fund uses and creates a clearer federal funding pathway for interventions around schools. The increase from 40% to 50% reallocates an existing share of Section 402 funds and therefore changes the program’s internal budget balance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Protect Our Students Act is a narrow amendment to the Federal Highway Safety Program at 23 U.S.C. §402. Rather than creating a new grant stream, it explicitly adds “traffic incidents in school zones” to the list of eligible program areas under the statute.
That change signals Congress’s intent that states may use Section 402 funds to prevent crashes that injure or kill students traveling to and from school.
The bill goes beyond a one‑line statutory insertion by directing the Department of Transportation to issue implementing regulations that spell out what school‑zone safety work can look like. The text gives the Secretary authority to clarify that Section 402 money may support operational and physical countermeasures — for example, personnel (crossing guards), signage and markings, traffic calming, signals, audits, certain enforcement tools, and non‑infrastructure Safe Routes to School activities.
That regulatory step is the practical hinge: states will look to the Department for definitions, allowable cost categories, and administrative rules before ramping up applications.Finally, the bill adjusts the program’s funding composition by changing a figure in 402(b)(1)(C) from 40 percent to 50 percent. The amendment does not appropriate new money; it shifts the statutory percentage that governs how some Section 402 funds are apportioned or allocated.
That percentage change will matter to state program managers because it alters the pot of money available for each statutory category within the existing Section 402 framework.The statute includes findings that frame the problem — Congress cites roughly 100 student fatalities and 25,000 student injuries per year walking to or from school — and uses that framing to justify the targeted eligibility and regulatory direction. What the bill does not do is set new performance metrics, create a dedicated grant competition, or change other federal safety programs; those implementation details will largely be resolved in DOT’s forthcoming regulations and in state planning documents.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts the phrase “and traffic incidents in school zones” into 23 U.S.C. §402(a)(2)(vi), making school‑zone crash reduction an explicit eligible program area under Section 402.
Section 4 requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations clarifying eligible uses for school‑zone safety under Section 402, listing nine categories (from crossing guards to automated traffic enforcement and Safe Routes to School non‑infrastructure).
Section 5 amends 23 U.S.C. §402(b)(1)(C) by replacing the statutory “40 percent” figure with “50 percent.”, The bill contains findings citing about 100 student fatalities and 25,000 student injuries annually while walking to or from school; those findings establish Congressional intent behind the amendment.
The bill does not create a new appropriation or a distinct grant program; it repurposes eligibility within the existing Section 402 highway safety program and leaves allocations and administrative mechanics to DOT and the states.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Identifies the Act as the "Protect Our Students Act." This is purely a drafting formality but signals the focus of subsequent provisions on school‑zone safety and guides agency rulemaking and public messaging.
Findings on school‑zone injuries and fatalities
Lists Congress’s factual findings, including the statistic that approximately 100 students are killed and 25,000 injured each year walking to or from school. Practically, findings don’t change legal requirements but they inform regulatory interpretation and provide legislative history that DOT and courts will consider when construing the statute.
Statutory eligibility — adds school‑zone incidents
Adds ‘‘and traffic incidents in school zones’’ after an existing statutory reference to buses, thereby making school‑zone crash reduction an explicit item states may target under Section 402. The mechanical change broadens eligible program areas; states that already manage pedestrian or school‑related safety efforts will be able to point to a clearer statutory basis when budgeting Section 402 funds.
Regulatory directive — enumerating eligible countermeasures
Directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations clarifying that Section 402 funds may cover a menu of school‑zone safety measures. The statute names nine categories (crossing guards; flashing lights/beacons; signage and markings; crosswalks; traffic calming including pedestrian islands; traffic lights; school‑zone audits and assessments; automated traffic enforcement; and Safe Routes to School non‑infrastructure). For states and contractors, this section matters most: the Department’s regulations will determine cost‑allowability, procurement rules, and whether certain items (especially automated enforcement) are administratively feasible under federal cost principles and state law constraints.
Funding allocation tweak — changes a statutory percentage
Strikes “40 percent” and inserts “50 percent” in an existing subsection of Section 402. The bill does not attach new dollars to the program; instead it changes the statutory share used in Section 402’s allocation scheme. That change will shift the distribution of the existing Section 402 appropriation among competing categories or apportionments and may require DOT to update guidance or states to revise internal allocation plans.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students and families commuting to school — clearer federal support increases the chances of tangible interventions (crossing guards, crosswalks, signals, enforcement) near schools, reducing exposure to crash risk.
- State highway safety offices and local traffic safety engineers — the statutory change removes ambiguity about allowable uses and gives program managers a stronger rationale to program Section 402 funds for school‑zone measures.
- Safe Routes to School organizations and nonprofits — by listing non‑infrastructure activities as eligible, the bill creates a firmer funding pathway for education, outreach, travel planning, and encouragement programs that complement infrastructure.
- Municipalities and school districts — potential access to federal support for operational costs (e.g., crossing guards) and capital improvements around schools that they might otherwise fund locally.
- Pedestrian safety advocates and public‑health stakeholders — the bill elevates school‑zone safety as a federal priority and opens a statutory lever to fund evidence‑based countermeasures.
Who Bears the Cost
- Other priorities within Section 402 — the 40%→50% change reallocates a share of existing funds, so programs previously funded from that slice may see smaller allocations unless the Department or Congress provides offsets.
- State and local agencies implementing capital improvements — even with federal eligibility, jurisdictions often must provide matching funds, long‑term maintenance budgets, and staff capacity to design and install infrastructure.
- State highway safety offices and DOTs — the Department must produce regulations and states must update plans and grant solicitations; that administrative work consumes staff time and may require technical assistance.
- Local governments in states that restrict automated enforcement — where state law prohibits or limits camera enforcement, jurisdictions may face legal or political costs in using the newly authorized enforcement funding category.
- Schools and districts coordinating operational programs — running crossing guard programs or Safe Routes outreach imposes recurring operational costs and administrative responsibilities even if some upfront funding is available.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between directing limited federal highway‑safety dollars to a narrowly defined, high‑impact problem (making school zones safer) and preserving the flexibility of Section 402 to address a wider range of traffic safety priorities; the bill solves the first by naming school‑zone interventions explicitly but does so by shifting an existing share of funds and by authorizing measures (like automated enforcement and operational programs) that raise legal, administrative, and political hurdles for states and localities.
The bill inserts school‑zone safety into an existing statutory menu and orders DOT to define allowable uses, but it leaves critical implementation choices unresolved. The Secretary’s forthcoming regulations will determine whether items listed in the statute are treated as capital expenditures, operational costs, or programmatic activities subject to different Federal cost principles and match rules.
That matters because some jurisdictions will be able to use Section 402 money for recurring personnel (crossing guards) only if DOT treats those expenses as an allowable program cost rather than requiring capital or matching funds.
A second practical tension concerns automated traffic enforcement. The bill explicitly names automated enforcement as an eligible use, but many states have statutory limits or outright bans on red‑light or speed cameras; in those places the provision may be unusable or politically contentious.
Moreover, automated enforcement raises due‑process, privacy, and procurement questions that DOT’s regulations and state law must address before grant recipients can deploy cameras at scale. Finally, the allocation change (40% to 50%) reallocates existing resources rather than adding funds, which creates trade‑offs: other road‑safety activities funded from the displaced share may be reduced unless Congress or DOT adjusts other parts of the program.
Small and rural jurisdictions with limited grant‑writing capacity may struggle to access the newly eligible funding despite the statutory change.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.