[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 208 (Friday, October 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55213-55218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27313]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 1210

[NHTSA Docket No. 96-007; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AG20


Operation of Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated Minors

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements a new program enacted by the 
National Highway System Designation (NHS) Act of 1995, which provides 
for the withholding of Federal-aid highway funds from any State that 
does not enact and enforce a ``zero tolerance'' law. This final rule 
clarifies what States must do to avoid the withholding of funds.

DATES: The regulation contained in this final rule becomes effective on 
November 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In NHTSA: Ms. Marlene Markison, Office 
of State and Community Services, NSC-01, telephone (202) 366-2121; or 
Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-30, telephone (202) 
366-1834.
    In FHWA: Ms. Mila Plosky, Office of Highway Safety, HHS-20, 
telephone (202) 366-6902; or Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, HCC-20, telephone 
(202) 366-0834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Highway System Designation 
(NHS) Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-59, was signed into law on November 28, 
1995. Section 320 of the Act established a new Section 161 of Title 23, 
United States Code (Section 161), which requires the withholding of 
certain Federal-aid highway funds from States that do not enact and 
enforce ``zero tolerance'' laws. As provided in Section 161, these 
``zero tolerance'' laws must consider an individual under the age of 21 
who has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or greater while 
operating a motor vehicle in the State, to be driving while intoxicated 
or driving under the influence of alcohol.
    Section 161 specifically provides that the Secretary must withhold 
from apportionment a portion of Federal-aid highway funds from any 
State that does not enact and enforce a conforming ``zero tolerance'' 
law.

[[Page 55214]]

    In accordance with Section 161, if a State does not meet the 
statutory requirements on October 1, 1998, five percent of its FY 1999 
Federal-aid highway apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3) 
and 104(b)(5)(B) shall be withheld on that date. These sections relate 
to the National Highway System (NHS), the Surface Transportation 
Program (STP) and the Interstate System.
    If the State does not meet the statutory requirements on October 1, 
1999, ten percent of its FY 2000 apportionment will be withheld on that 
date. Ten percent will continue to be withheld on October 1 of each 
subsequent fiscal year, if the State does not meet the requirements on 
those dates.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On March 7, 1996, NHTSA and the FHWA issued a joint notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing the criteria States must meet to 
avoid the withholding of apportionment of Federal-aid highway funds. 
The agencies explained in the NPRM that Section 161 provides that, to 
avoid the withholding, a State must enact and enforce:

a law that considers an individual under the age of 21 who has a 
blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or greater while 
operating a motor vehicle in the State to be driving while 
intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol.

    The agencies proposed to require that States must meet the 
following criteria to avoid the withholding of Federal-aid highway 
funds:
    1. Under the Age of 21
    The State law must apply to all persons under the age of 21. It 
will not be sufficient for the State law to apply, for example, only to 
persons under the age of 18.
    2. Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.02 Percent
    The State law must set 0.02 percent as the legal limit for blood 
alcohol concentration. States with laws that set a lower percentage 
(such as 0.00 percent) as the legal limit would also conform to the 
Federal requirement. It will not be sufficient for the State law to 
establish, for example, .04 or .07 percent as the legal limit.
    3. Per Se Law
    The State law must consider individuals under the age of 21 whose 
blood alcohol concentration exceeds the legal limit while operating a 
motor vehicle in the State to be driving while intoxicated or driving 
under the influence of alcohol.
    In other words, the State must establish a ``per se'' law for 
persons under the age of 21, that makes driving with a BAC that exceeds 
the legal limit itself an offense for such persons. It will not be 
sufficient for the State law, for example, to provide that .02 percent 
establishes prima facie evidence.
    4. Primary Enforcement
    The State must enact and enforce a zero tolerance law that provides 
for primary enforcement. It will not be sufficient for the State law to 
provide that enforcement may be accomplished only as a secondary action 
to some other violation or offense.
    Since Section 161 did not explicitly prescribe the penalties that 
must be imposed on offenders who violate zero tolerance laws, the 
agencies did not propose to include a penalties criterion in the 
implementing regulation.
    The agencies concluded in the NPRM that, while Congress intended to 
encourage all States to enact and enforce effective zero tolerance 
laws, it also intended to provide States with sufficient flexibility so 
they could develop laws that suit the particular conditions that exist 
in those States.

General Comments on NPRM

    The agencies received 22 comments in response to the NPRM. The 
commenters included the National Association of Governors' Highway 
Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), 13 State agencies, Mothers Against 
Drunk Drivers (the National Office, three State Chapters and a 
memorandum documenting a meeting held with MADD representatives), 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the National Association of 
Beverage Retailers (NABR) and a concerned individual.
    Several commenters objected to the proposed rule based on 
philosophical, legal or constitutional grounds. Massachusetts objected 
to the use of sanctions against States. It asserted that the 
``Sanctions/withholding of funds [will have an adverse impact on] State 
entities that are not involved in the purview of the intended remedy 
(e.g., zero tolerance impacting Federal-aid construction funds).''
    The National Association of Beverage Retailers (NABR) opposed the 
``arbitrary lowering of the legal BAC, for any age category.'' The NABR 
asserted that the government ``should program its precious resources in 
areas that will achieve the greatest results per dollar spent * * * 
[such as] education, information * * * and consistent and fair law 
enforcement. * * *''
    The State of Oklahoma expressed concern that the Federal 
requirement would pose ``serious legal dilemmas'' for States that 
``already have a per se law applicable to all drivers.''
    A concerned individual from the State of Colorado challenged the 
adoption of zero tolerance laws for persons under the age of 21. The 
commenter asserted that such laws would violate the 14th amendment 
guaranteeing equal protection for persons under the age of 21 because 
they would ``apply two unequal standards to a previously enacted law.'' 
This commenter also expressed the view that the ``double standard'' 
that would be created by such zero tolerance laws will create 
``continuing disrespect * * * among the youth of this country for the 
law in general.''
    The agencies recognize that the enactment by States of zero 
tolerance laws and the imposition by the Federal government of 
sanctions on States that do not enact and enforce such laws may be 
controversial to some. However, Congress has directed the U.S. 
Department of Transportation to implement the Section 161 program, 
under which the Secretary must impose a sanction on any State that does 
not enact and enforce a conforming zero tolerance law. Since the 
Section 161 program has been mandated by Congress, the agencies are 
required to implement this program.
    Moreover, the agencies believe this program has the potential to 
save a significant number of lives and prevent many serious injuries. 
It has been estimated that, since the enactment of the National Minimum 
Drinking Age Act in 1984, 8400 lives have been saved and over $1.8 
billion in economic costs to our society have been prevented because of 
this law. As President Clinton stated, in a letter in support of the 
bill, to Senator Byrd, the bill's sponsor:

[Zero tolerance] laws work--alcohol-related crashes involving 
teenage drivers are down as much as 10-20 percent in those states 
[that have enacted such laws]. If all states had such laws, hundreds 
more lives could be saved and thousands of injuries could be 
prevented.

    In addition, the agencies disagree that zero tolerance laws will be 
vulnerable to legal or constitutional challenge. Nearly two-thirds of 
the States in the nation have already enacted zero tolerance laws, and 
these laws have consistently held up to challenges on constitutional 
and other legal grounds.

Comments Concerning the Compliance Criteria

    The remaining comments addressed the proposed compliance criteria. 
As stated above, the proposed criteria provided that conforming zero 
tolerance laws must: (1) apply to all persons under the age of 21; (2) 
set 0.02 percent

[[Page 55215]]

as the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration; (3) establish .02 
as a ``per se'' offense; and (4) provide for primary enforcement. The 
NPRM did not include a penalties criterion. None of the comments 
received by the agencies opposed criteria #1-3. These criteria will 
continue to be included in the regulation.
    Three respondents commented on criterion #4. MADD supported the 
primary enforcement requirement. Although its zero tolerance law 
currently contains a secondary enforcement provision, the State of 
Nebraska did not take issue with criterion #4. In fact, the State 
predicted that its secondary enforcement provision ``will be corrected 
* * * because it will be recognized by state policy makers as an 
appropriate and effective change.'' The State of Illinois expressed 
concern that its law would be considered nonconforming under criterion 
#4. The agencies have found, however, that Illinois' law qualifies 
under the primary enforcement criterion. This criterion has been 
adopted without change.
    As noted above, since Section 161 did not explicitly prescribe the 
penalties that must be imposed on offenders who violate zero tolerance 
laws, the agencies did not propose to include a penalties criterion in 
the implementing regulation.
    Most of the commenters, including NAGHSR and eleven States, agreed 
with that portion of the agencies' proposal. Advocates and MADD (both 
the National Office and the three State Chapters) recommended instead 
that the agency expand the criteria to include a penalties criterion. 
Advocates recommended that the zero tolerance criteria should require 
that States impose a mandatory 30-day licensing sanction for any 
violation. It asserted that the adoption of this requirement would 
``ensure that [the] new [zero tolerance] program can be implemented 
right from the start in a manner that maximizes its safety benefits to 
the nation.''
    Each of the MADD commenters recommended that the criteria should 
provide for ``licensing sanctions.'' They did not specify, however, a 
minimum length of suspension or provide other details concerning the 
nature of the sanctions. MADD's National Office stated that licensing 
sanctions are ``the most effective means of deterring drinking and 
driving by those under the age of 21.''
    Neither Advocates nor MADD specifically addressed whether sanctions 
should be ``hard,'' i.e. prohibiting the availability of restricted, 
provisional or conditional licenses during the suspension period. Both 
organizations asserted that the legislative history supports the 
inclusion of a penalties criterion.
    The agencies agree that licensing sanctions are effective. NHTSA is 
aware of studies that have shown their effectiveness in deterring 
drinking and driving among the general population. ``Changes in 
Alcohol-Involved Fatal Crashes Associated With Tougher State Alcohol 
Legislation,'' DOT HS 807511, July 1989. Other studies suggest that 
such sanctions would be at least as effective against persons who are 
less than 21 years of age. ``Lower Legal Blood Alcohol Limits for 
Younger Drivers,'' Hingson, et al., Public Health Reports, 1994. The 
agencies also agree that ``zero tolerance'' laws that do not contain 
licensing sanctions would be far less effective than laws that present 
young people with the risk of losing their driver's license.
    Moreover, the agencies strongly favor mandatory licensing 
sanctions. In fact, NHTSA's Section 410 drunk driving incentive grant 
program has required, since its inception, that States include 
mandatory 30-day hard licensing sanctions in their ``0.02 BAC per se'' 
laws to qualify for grant funds. In a final rule, published separately 
in today's Federal Register, NHTSA announces that the Section 410 
program will continue to require these sanctions.
    After a careful and studied review of both the statute and the 
legislative history, the agencies have decided to establish an 
additional criterion requiring appropriate penalties. Specifically, in 
view of Congress' intent that States enact effective laws that contain 
appropriate sanctions, the agencies believe it is appropriate to 
require that States authorize the use of driver licensing suspensions 
or revocations as sanctions for any violation of a State zero tolerance 
law. However, the agencies conclude that the statute does not permit 
the inclusion of a mandatory license sanction requirement for this new 
``zero tolerance'' program.
    Congress has required mandatory licensing sanctions in some of the 
programs it has established in recent years. Section 159 of Title 23, 
United States Code, for example, specifies that States must impose a 
six month license suspension against all persons who are convicted of 
drug offenses (or conform to section 159 through other means) to avoid 
a withholding of Federal-aid construction funds. Section 410 of Title 
23, United States Code specifies that States must impose a 90-day 
license suspension on all first offenders and a one-year license 
suspension on all repeat offenders to qualify for incentive grant funds 
based on one of its criteria (expedited driver's license suspension or 
revocation system).
    Neither the statutory language contained in Section 161 nor any of 
the legislative history concerning the section provide for or otherwise 
make reference to the inclusion of a mandatory licensing sanction. In a 
program such as this one, which provides that States that fail to 
comply are sanctioned (as opposed to a program such as Section 410, 
which provides simply that States that fail to comply do not receive 
incentive grants), the agencies consider the absence of an explicit 
statutory mandate to be an important factor in determining whether 
Congress intended for mandatory licensing sanctions to be required.
    Moreover, the legislative history in both the Senate and the House 
of Representatives contains various statements that lead to the 
conclusion that the legislation was not intended to require a mandatory 
licensing sanction.
    Senator Byrd stated in June 1995 that 24 States and the District of 
Columbia ``have already enacted the zero-tolerance law which is called 
for in [the] amendment.'' Senator Lautenberg, Congresswoman Morella and 
President Clinton cited the same number of States.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A statement from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety was 
included in the record, which indicated that, as of April 1994, 26 
States and the District of Columbia had zero tolerance (.00, .01 or 
.02) laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the agencies were to require a mandatory 30-day hard license 
suspension, six of the 24 States that had already enacted zero 
tolerance laws at the time these statements were being made in Congress 
would fail to comply on the basis of that requirement. If the agencies 
were to require a mandatory 30-day license suspension, but permit 
hardship or restricted licenses, three of those States would fail to 
comply.
    In addition, some of the States specifically mentioned in the 
legislative history as examples that other States should follow, would 
fail to comply. For example, Senator Byrd stated:

In * * * North Carolina * * * which [has] adopted zero tolerance 
laws, lower blood alcohol limits for minors resulted in a 34 percent 
decline in nighttime fatal crashes among younger drivers. * * * A 
1992 Federal study in Maryland found that car accidents involving 
drivers under the age of 21 who had been drinking, declined eleven 
percent after the zero-tolerance law was adopted. Further, there was 
a 50 percent drop in accidents in areas where the penalties were 
promoted with a publicity campaign.


[[Page 55216]]


Senator Lautenberg, Congresswomen Lowey and Morella, and Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety also cited Maryland and/or North Carolina as 
examples to follow in their statements in the record.
    If the agencies were to require a mandatory 30-day hard license 
suspension, neither of these two States would comply. Instead, they 
would be subject to a withholding of funds. Even if States were allowed 
to issue hardship or restricted licenses during the suspension period, 
one of these States would still fail to comply. The agencies do not 
believe this is the result that was intended by Congress.
    Congress did intend, however, that States would be required to 
enact effective laws that contain appropriate sanctions. Senator Byrd 
stated, when he introduced the legislation in the Senate:

This amendment sets the right example, and tells our Nation's youth 
that drinking and driving is wrong; that it is a violation of law; 
and that it will be appropriately punished according to the laws of 
each State. [emphasis added]

    The agencies note that every State that has enacted a ``zero 
tolerance'' law to date has included license suspensions among their 
sanctions for a violation. In most of these States, licensing sanctions 
are mandatory. In other States, they are authorized but are not 
mandatory (i.e., they may be imposed at the discretion of the court). 
There are no States in which fines are the only sanctions available.
    Accordingly, the agencies will add a fifth criterion. This 
criterion will not require mandatory licensing sanctions, but will 
require that the State's law authorizes the use of driver licensing 
suspensions or revocations as sanctions for any violation of the State 
zero tolerance law. The agencies conclude this is consistent with 
Congress' intent to recognize the accomplishments of the States that 
had already enacted zero tolerance laws, and to encourage other States 
to enact effective zero tolerance laws that contain appropriate 
sanctions.
    Based on a review of current zero tolerance laws, the agencies are 
aware of only one State law that will fail to comply with this new 
criterion. That law does not authorize the use of driver licensing 
sanctions on first offenders who are between the ages of 18 and 21.
    While this regulation requires only that States authorize the use 
of driver licensing sanctions and does not establish a minimum length 
of suspension, the agencies strongly encourage the States to enact zero 
tolerance laws that in fact impose mandatory hard licensing sanctions 
for a reasonable minimum period of time. Since the introduction of the 
zero tolerance legislation in Congress, 13 States have enacted zero 
tolerance laws. Even though the agencies' zero tolerance NPRM did not 
propose to include any licensing sanction requirement, each of these 13 
laws included provisions that authorize the use of licensing sanctions 
for all zero tolerance offenders.
    Moreover, 10 of these States enacted laws that provide for a 
mandatory 30-day hard license suspension or revocation. These States 
concluded that a mandatory 30-day hard licensing sanction was the 
appropriate punishment for zero tolerance offenders and would ensure 
that their laws will be most effective. The agencies urge the remaining 
States to consider carefully the seriousness of the drunk driving 
problem among young people and the tragic loss of young lives that 
results, as they develop their legislation. In particular, these States 
are urged to follow the lead set by the ten States mentioned above and 
to enact the most effective law possible.
    In addition, States are reminded that, if they enact zero tolerance 
laws that require a mandatory 30-day hard license suspension, they may 
become eligible for Section 410 incentive grant funds.

Other Proposed Provisions

    The agencies also proposed in the NPRM to include provisions in the 
regulation governing the submission of certifications to demonstrate 
State compliance, notifications from the agencies regarding State 
compliance or noncompliance, and the period of availability of funds 
that are withheld. The NPRM proposed to include these provisions in 
sections 1210.5 through 1210.10 of the regulation. A more detailed 
discussion of these proposed sections can be found in the preamble to 
the NPRM. 61 FR 9122.
    Washington State requested the opportunity to submit its 
certification for review by July 1, 1996, and receive a determination 
prior to November 1, 1996. The agencies would be pleased to review a 
certification from any State in advance of the deadlines established in 
the regulation.
    The agencies received no other comments concerning these sections 
of the proposed rule. They are being adopted without change.

Separate Final Rule in Today's Federal Register

    In today's Federal Register, NHTSA has also published a separate 
final rule, relating to Part 1313, the agency's regulation that 
implements its Section 410 program.
    On March 7, 1996, NHTSA published an interim final rule in the 
Federal Register, amending Part 1313 to reflect changes that were made 
to 23 U.S.C. 410 by the NHS Act, and requesting comments on these 
changes. In the interim final rule, NHTSA recognized that one of the 
grant criteria under the section 410 program, which requires that 
States ``deem persons under age 21 who operate a motor vehicle with a 
BAC of 0.02 or greater to be driving while intoxicated,'' is similar to 
the new ``zero tolerance'' sanction requirement contained in Section 
320 of the NHS Act (23 U.S.C. Section 161). The interim final rule 
requested comments regarding whether additional changes should be made 
to the section 410 ``0.02'' grant criterion, as a result of the new 
``zero tolerance'' sanction program.
    The final rule, published separately in today's Federal Register, 
announces that NHTSA will make no changes to the section 410 ``0.02'' 
grant criterion. This grant criterion will continue to require that 
States provide for a mandatory 30-day hard suspension.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

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 final 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 in court.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agencies have determined that this action is not a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. States can choose to enact and 
enforce a zero tolerance law, in conformance with Public Law 104-59, 
and thereby avoid the withholding of Federal-aid highway funds. While 
specific criteria that State laws must meet have been established in 
this final rule, they are mandated by Public Law 104-59. Accordingly, a 
full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agencies have evaluated the effects of this 
action on small entities. Based on the evaluation, we

[[Page 55217]]

certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the preparation of a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is unnecessary.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The requirements in this final rule that States certify that they 
conform to the statutory requirements to avoid the withholding of 
Federal-aid highway funds 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. The reporting and recordkeeping 
requirement associated with this rule is subject to approval by the 
Office of Management and Budget in accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35. These reporting requirements will occur only once for each State 
and will record only if the State's law changes.
    Accordingly, these requirements have been submitted to and approved 
by OMB, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.). These requirements have been approved until September 30, 1999, 
under OMB No. 2127-0582.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agencies have 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.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

    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 does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Accordingly, the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1210

    Alcohol and abuse, Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Youth.
    In accordance with the foregoing, a new Part 1210 is added to Title 
23 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 1210--OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY INTOXICATED MINORS

Sec.
1210.1  Scope.
1210.2  Purpose.
1210.3  Definitions.
1210.4  Adoption of zero tolerance law.
1210.5  Certification requirements.
1210.6  Period of availability of withheld funds.
1210.7  Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.
1210.8  Period of availability of subsequently apportioned funds.
1210.9  Effect of noncompliance.
1210.10  Procedures affecting states in noncompliance.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 161; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.48 
and 1.50.


Sec. 1210.1   Scope.

    This part prescribes the requirements necessary to implement 23 
U.S.C. 161, which encourages States to enact and enforce zero tolerance 
laws.


Sec. 1210.2   Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to specify the steps that States must 
take to avoid the withholding of Federal-aid highway funds for 
noncompliance with 23 U.S.C. 161.


Sec. 1210.3  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    (a) Alcohol concentration means either grams of alcohol per 100 
milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
    (b) BAC means either blood or breath alcohol concentration.
    (c) Operating a motor vehicle means driving or being in actual 
physical control of a motor vehicle.


Sec. 1210.4  Adoption of zero tolerance law.

    (a) The Secretary shall withhold five percent of the amount 
required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 
104(b)(1), 104(b)(3) and 104(b)(5) of title 23, United States Code, on 
the first day of fiscal year 1999 if the State does not meet the 
requirements of this part on that date.
    (b) The Secretary shall withhold ten percent of the amount required 
to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104(b)(1), 
104(b)(3) and 104(b)(5) of title 23, United States Code, on the first 
day of fiscal year 2000 and any subsequent fiscal year if the State 
does not meet the requirements of this part on that date.
    (c) A State meets the requirements of this section if the State has 
enacted and is enforcing a law that considers an individual under the 
age of 21 who has a BAC of 0.02 percent or greater while operating a 
motor vehicle in the State to be driving while intoxicated or driving 
under the influence of alcohol. The law must:
    (1) Apply to all individuals under the age of 21;
    (2) Set a BAC of not higher than 0.02 percent as the legal limit;
    (3) Make operating a motor vehicle by an individual under age 21 
above the legal limit a per se offense;
    (4) Provide for primary enforcement; and
    (5) Provide that license suspensions or revocations are authorized 
for any violation of the State zero tolerance law.


Sec. 1210.5  Certification requirements.

    (a) Until a State has been determined to be in compliance with the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 161, to avoid the withholding of funds in any 
fiscal year, beginning with FY 1999, the State shall certify to the 
Secretary of Transportation, before the last day of the previous fiscal 
year, that it meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 161, and this part.
    (b) The certification shall contain:
    (1) A copy of the State zero tolerance law, regulation, or binding 
policy directive implementing or interpreting such law or regulation, 
that conforms to 23 U.S.C. 161 and Sec. 1210.4(c); and
    (2) A statement by an appropriate State official, that the State 
has enacted and is enforcing a conforming zero tolerance law. The 
certifying statement shall be worded as follows:

I, (Name of certifying official), (position title), of the (State or 
Commonwealth) of ________, do hereby certify that the (State or 
Commonwealth) of ________, has enacted and is enforcing a zero 
tolerance law that conforms to the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 161 and 
23 CFR 1210.4(c).

    (c) An original and four copies of the certification shall be 
submitted to the appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator. Each 
Regional Administrator will forward the certifications he or she 
receives to appropriate NHTSA and FHWA offices.
    (d) Once a State has been determined to be in compliance with the 
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 161, it is not required to submit additional 
certifications, except that the State shall promptly submit an 
amendment or supplement to its certification provided under paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section if the State's zero tolerance legislation 
changes.


Sec. 1210.6  Period of availability of withheld funds.

    (a) Funds withheld under Sec. 1210.4 from apportionment to any 
State on or before September 30, 2000, will remain available for 
apportionment until the end of the third fiscal year following the 
fiscal year for which the funds are authorized to be appropriated.
    (b) Funds withheld under Sec. 1210.4 from apportionment to any 
State after September 30, 2000 will not be available for apportionment 
to the State.

[[Page 55218]]

Sec. 1210.7  Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.

    Funds withheld from a State from apportionment under Sec. 1210.4, 
which remain available for apportionment under Sec. 1210.6(a), will be 
made available to the State if it conforms to the requirements of 
Secs. 1210.4 and 1210.5 before the last day of the period of 
availability as defined in Sec. 1210.6(a).


Sec. 1210.8  Period of availability of subsequently apportioned funds.

    Funds apportioned pursuant to Sec. 1210.7 will remain available for 
expenditure until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal 
year in which the funds are apportioned.


Sec. 1210.9  Effect of noncompliance.

    If a State has not met the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 161 and this 
part at the end of the period for which funds withheld under 
Sec. 1210.4 are available for apportionment to a State under 
Sec. 1210.6, then such funds shall lapse.


Sec. 1210.10  Procedures affecting states in noncompliance.

    (a) Each fiscal year, each State determined to be in noncompliance 
with 23 U.S.C. 161 and this part, based on NHTSA's and FHWA's 
preliminary review of its law, will be advised of the funds expected to 
be withheld under Sec. 1210.4 from apportionment, as part of the 
advance notice of apportionments required under 23 U.S.C. 104(e), 
normally not later than ninety days prior to final apportionment.
    (b) If NHTSA and FHWA determine that the State is not in compliance 
with 23 U.S.C. 161 and this part, based on the agencies' preliminary 
review, the State may, within 30 days of its receipt of the advance 
notice of apportionments, submit documentation showing why it is in 
compliance. Documentation shall be submitted to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 
20590.
    (c) Each fiscal year, each State determined not to be in compliance 
with 23 U.S.C. 161 and this part, based on NHTSA's and FHWA's final 
determination, will receive notice of the funds being withheld under 
Sec. 1210.4 from apportionment, as part of the certification of 
apportionments required under 23 U.S.C. 104(e), which normally occurs 
on October 1 of each fiscal year.

    Issued on: October 21, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-27313 Filed 10-22-96; 12:30 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P