[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 208 (Friday, October 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55218-55223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27314]


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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1313

[Docket No. 89-02; Notice 9]
RIN 2127-AD01


Incentive Grant Criteria for Drunk Driving Prevention Programs

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule announces that the changes that were made in 
an interim final rule to the agency's regulations to implement the 
agency's drunk driving prevention incentive grant program, under 23 
U.S.C. 410, will remain in effect. In addition, this final rule amends 
the regulation by simplifying the application process for subsequent 
year Section 410 grants.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective October 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marlene Markison, Chief, Program 
Support Staff, NSC-10, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2121 
or Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, 
Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-30, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, 
telephone (202) 366-1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 410, title 23, United States Code, 
as amended, established an incentive grant program under which States 
may qualify for basic and supplemental grant funds for adopting and 
implementing comprehensive drunk driving prevention programs that meet 
specified statutory criteria.
    On November 28, 1995, the National Highway System Designation Act 
of 1995 (NHS Act) was enacted into law. Section 324 of the NHS Act 
contained amendments to 23 U.S.C. 410.

Interim Final Rule

    On March 7, 1996, NHTSA published in the Federal Register an 
interim final rule to implement these changes and requested comments 
from the public. The changes affected two of the section 410 incentive 
grant criteria: the statewide program for stopping motor vehicles and 
the 0.02 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) per se law for persons under 
age 21.

General Comments on Interim Final Rule

    The agency received eleven comments in response to the interim 
final rule. Comments were received from the National Association of 
Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB), and eight State agencies. The comments, and the agency's 
responses to them, are discussed in detail below. (The agency also 
received some comments to Docket No. 96-007, Notice 1, concerning a 
notice of proposed rulemaking on a new zero tolerance program, which 
related to the interim final rule. These comments have also been 
considered by the agency.)

Statewide Program for Stopping Motor Vehicles

    Before its amendment by the NHS Act, Section 410 contained a basic 
grant criterion requiring that States must provide for ``a statewide 
program for stopping motor vehicles.'' To qualify for a basic grant 
under this criterion, States were required to provide:

    A statewide program for stopping motor vehicles on a 
nondiscriminatory, lawful basis for the purpose of determining 
whether or not the operators of such motor vehicles are driving 
while under the influence of alcohol.

    On June 30, 1992, NHTSA issued an interim final rule to implement 
this provision. The preamble to the interim final rule stated:

    NHTSA is aware * * * that the courts in some States have 
declared the use of checkpoints or roadblocks to be unconstitutional 
under their State constitution [ and has, therefore, * * *] 
attempted in this final rule to provide some flexibility to enable 
these States to describe other Statewide programs for stopping motor 
vehicles, using alternative methods * * *
    The agency[, however,] expects most States will meet this 
criterion by describing their plans for conducting a Statewide 
checkpoint or roadblock program.

    Section 324(b)(1) of the NHS Act amended Section 410 by providing 
an alternative method of demonstrating compliance with this Section 410 
basic grant criterion, for those States in which checkpoints or 
roadblocks have been declared to be unconstitutional. Section 324(b)(1) 
provides:


[[Page 55219]]


    A State shall be treated as having met the requirement of this 
paragraph if--
    (i) the State provides to the Secretary a written certification 
that the highest court of the State has issued a decision indicating 
that implementation of subparagraph (A) would constitute a violation 
of the constitution of the State; and
    (ii) the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
that--
    (I) the alcohol fatal crash involvement rate in the State has 
decreased in each of the 3 most recent calendar years for which 
statistics for determining such rate are available; and
    (II) the alcohol fatal crash involvement rate in the State has 
been lower than the average such rate for all States in each of such 
calendar years.

    As a result of the changes made by the agency's interim final rule, 
dated March 7, 1996, States were permitted to demonstrate compliance 
with this criterion by submitting a certification to the agency. The 
certification must provide that the highest court of the State has 
issued a decision, indicating that a Statewide program for the stopping 
of motor vehicles on a nondiscriminatory, lawful basis for the purpose 
of determining whether or not the operators of such motor vehicles are 
driving while under the influence of alcohol, would constitute a 
violation of the State's Constitution. The State must also provide a 
copy of the court's decision.
    NHTSA explained in the interim final rule that it will then, based 
on data contained in the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) and 
using NHTSA's method for estimating alcohol involvement, determine the 
alcohol involvement rate in fatal crashes in the State in each of the 
three most recent calendar years for which statistics for determining 
this rate are available and the average such rate for all States in 
each of these three years.
    The State will qualify, under this criterion, in the first and in 
subsequent years, if NHTSA determines that the data show that the 
alcohol involvement rate in fatal crashes in the State has decreased in 
each of the three most recent calendar years for which statistics for 
determining such rate are available, and that the alcohol involvement 
rate in fatal crashes in the State has been lower than the average such 
rate for all States in each of such calendar years.
    The agency received four comments regarding the regulatory changes 
concerning this criterion. California and Massachusetts supported the 
changes made to this criterion in the interim final rule. Massachusetts 
said the changes seem ``reasonable and obtainable.'' California urged 
NHTSA to finalize the change.
    NAGHSR urged NHTSA to determine compliance with this criterion by 
comparing ``fatality rates'' rather than ``absolute numbers of 
fatalities.'' The agency would like to clarify that the interim final 
rule did provide that compliance would be determined based on fatality 
rates. The interim final rule states that:

    A State shall be treated as having met the requirement of this 
paragraph if * * * NHTSA determines, based on data contained in the 
Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) and using NHTSA's method for 
estimating alcohol involvement, that the alcohol involvement rate in 
fatal crashes in the State:
    (A) has decreased in each of the 3 most recent calendar years 
for which statistics for determining such rate are available; and
    (B) the alcohol involvement rate in fatal crashes in the State 
has been lower than the average such rate for all States in each of 
such calendar years. [emphasis added]

    The agency would like to clarify how it will calculate the alcohol 
involvement rate. The rate will be derived by calculating the 
percentage of total traffic fatalities in the State in which a driver, 
pedestrian or bicyclist had a positive BAC (or are estimated to have 
had a positive BAC) out of the total traffic fatalities in the State, 
based on Fatal Accident Reporting System data. For example, if a State 
had 200 traffic fatalities in which a driver, pedestrian or bicyclist 
had a positive BAC (.01 or higher) out of a total of 500 fatalities, 
then the alcohol involvement rate for the State is 200/500, or 40 
percent. The agency believes this measure represents the most reliable 
and most consistent indicator of alcohol involvement in fatal crashes. 
In addition, the data used to calculate this rate are easily accessible 
and widely used in the highway safety community.
    North Dakota had no objections to the change made in the interim 
final rule, but noted that NHTSA now permits States to qualify under 
this criterion using saturation patrols, in lieu of sobriety 
checkpoints. The State expressed its support for the agency's 
flexibility, and notified the agency of its intention to apply for 
second year Section 410 grant funding, based on the State's saturation 
patrol program.
    NHTSA will continue to permit States to qualify under this 
criterion based on saturation patrol programs. Four States (including 
North Dakota) have qualified for Section 410 funding on this basis.
    Based on the agency's review of the comments, the regulatory 
changes made in the interim final rule to the Section 410 basic grant 
Statewide Program for Stopping Motor Vehicles criterion will remain in 
effect. No additional changes to that portion of the regulation will be 
made at this time.

0.02 BAC Per Se Law for Persons Under Age 21

    Prior to the enactment of the NHS Act, Section 410 provided that, 
to qualify for basic grant funds, a State was required to meet five out 
of six basic grant criteria.\1\ If a State qualified for a basic grant, 
it could also seek to qualify for funds under one or more of seven 
supplemental grants. To qualify under the first of these seven 
supplemental grants, a State was required to provide that any person 
under age 21 with a BAC of 0.02 percent or greater when driving a motor 
vehicle shall be deemed to be driving while intoxicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To receive a basic grant, States that qualified for section 
410 funding in FY 1992 could demonstrate compliance with only four 
out of the five basic grant criteria that were in effect at that 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 324(b)(2) of the NHS Act amended Section 410 by converting 
this ``0.02 BAC'' requirement from a supplemental to a basic grant 
criterion. Accordingly, as a result of the changes made by the agency's 
interim final rule dated March 7, 1996, the ``0.02 BAC'' requirement 
remained the same. However, it was removed from the list of 
supplemental grants (reducing the number of such grants from seven to 
six), and added to the list of basic grant criteria under Section 410 
(increasing the total of basic grant criteria from six to seven).
    In the interim final rule, NHTSA explained that to qualify for 
basic grant funds, States must now meet five out of seven basic grant 
criteria.\2\ As before, if a State qualifies for a basic grant, it can 
also seek to qualify for funds under one or more of the supplemental 
grants. However, the number of supplemental grants has been reduced 
from seven to six.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To receive a basic grant, States that qualified for section 
410 funding in FY 1992 have two options. They may qualify either by 
demonstrating compliance with four out of the five basic grant 
criteria that were in effect at that time, or by demonstrating 
compliance with five out of the seven current basic grant criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Massachusetts objected to the movement of the 0.02 BAC requirement 
from a supplemental to a basic grant criterion, but recognized that the 
change was Congressionally mandated. NHTSA received no other comments 
regarding this change. It will remain in effect.

New Zero Tolerance Sanction

    In the interim final rule, NHTSA explained that Section 320 of the 
NHS Act added a new Section 161 to title 23, United States Code, which 
created a

[[Page 55220]]

new zero tolerance sanction program. The zero tolerance sanction 
program requires the withholding of certain Federal-aid highway funds 
from States that do not enact and enforce a ``zero tolerance'' law. The 
``zero tolerance'' requirement contained in Section 161 is similar, but 
not identical, to the ``0.02 BAC'' grant criterion contained in Section 
410.
    Section 410 provides that, to qualify for funding under the ``0.02 
BAC'' grant criterion, a State must provide ``that any person under age 
21 with a BAC of 0.02 percent or greater when driving a motor vehicle 
shall be deemed to be driving while intoxicated.'' Section 161 provides 
that, to avoid the withholding of Federal-aid highway funds, a State 
must enact and enforce ``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.''
    In an NPRM dated March 7, 1996, NHTSA and the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), the agencies responsible for jointly 
administering this new sanction program, stated that:

    The agencies believe 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 suited the particular conditions that exist 
in those States. Accordingly, the statute prescribes only a limited 
number of basic elements that State laws must meet to avoid the 
withholding of Federal-aid highway funds.

    NHTSA and the FHWA proposed in the NPRM that, to avoid the 
sanction, States must demonstrate that they have enacted and are 
enforcing a law that: (1) Applies to all individuals under the age of 
21; (2) sets a BAC of not higher than 0.02 percent as the legal limit; 
(3) makes operating a motor vehicle by an individual under the age of 
21 above the legal limit a per se offense; and (4) provides for primary 
enforcement.
    (In today's Federal Register, NHTSA and the Federal Highway 
Administration have published a separate final rule, relating to the 
zero tolerance program established in Section 161 of the NHS.)

Impact of New Zero Tolerance Sanction on 0.02 BAC Criterion

    In the interim final rule, NHTSA explained that the proposed 
requirement under the new zero tolerance sanction differs from the 
current requirement under the Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' grant criterion. 
To qualify for a Section 410 grant under the ``0.02 BAC'' grant 
criterion, a State must satisfy the requirements listed above, and also 
provide for a 30-day driver's license suspension or revocation. The 30-
day suspension or revocation period must be a mandatory hard suspension 
or revocation (i.e., it may not be subject to hardship, conditional or 
provisional driving privileges). To demonstrate compliance with this 
criterion, States must submit a law that provides for each element of 
the criterion, except that States with laws that do not specifically 
provide for a 30-day suspension period may submit data showing that the 
average length of the suspension term for offenders meets or exceeds 30 
days.
    In the interim final rule, NHTSA requested comments regarding 
whether further changes to Part 1313 should be made in light of the new 
zero tolerance program. Specifically, NHTSA requested comments 
regarding whether it should retain different requirements under the 
``zero tolerance'' sanction and the Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' grant 
criterion, or whether it should amend the Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' 
criterion to be the same as the ``zero tolerance'' sanction 
requirement.
    The agency received fourteen comments concerning this issue. 
Comments were received from NAGHSR, eleven States, the NTSB and 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
1. Whether To Adopt a Single or Different Standards for 0.02
    NAGHSR and nine State commenters urged the agency to adopt a single 
standard for both the Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' grant criterion and the 
``zero tolerance'' sanction requirement. These commenters believe the 
Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' grant criterion has been too stringent, and 
they recommend that it be reduced to match the criterion that was 
proposed for the zero tolerance program. NTSB also recommended that the 
agency adopt a single standard for the two programs, but NTSB favored 
the criterion currently contained in Section 410 over the proposed zero 
tolerance requirement.
    In support of its recommendation that NHTSA adopt a single 
standard, NAGHSR argued that a single standard would provide clarity 
and would enable legislatures to pass conforming legislation more 
easily. Its comments stated:

    NAGHSR urges NHTSA to consider the adoption of one zero 
tolerance standard--the standard proposed under the March 7 Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) implementing the NHS sanctions. If 
such an approach were taken, states would have to go to their 
legislature only once to adopt the necessary legislation. The 
likelihood of passage would be greater, encouraging more states to 
adopt zero tolerance laws more quickly. This, in turn, would help 
reduce the number of impaired teenagers and young adults on the road 
and reduce the number of fatalities in this age group. [emphasis 
added]

    Elsewhere in its comments, NAGHSR stated:

    In our view, it is better for a state to adopt any zero 
tolerance measure and then revisit the legislation and strengthen it 
in subsequent legislative sessions. The effect of such a strategy is 
to enable a state to quickly close a significant loophole in its 
minimum drinking age law while allowing it to add desirable 
legislative features later on. [emphasis added]

    Advocates and the States of New York and Illinois supported the use 
of two different standards. Advocates asserted that there is:

    * * * no logical reason for Section 161 and the Section 410 
program 0.02 BAC requirement to have identical penalty criterion. 
Section 161 is a Congressional mandate that sets a nationally 
uniform minimum level for zero tolerance * * *. With respect to the 
Section 410 program, the license suspension requirement should be 
longer.

    Illinois and New York expressed similar views. Illinois stated:

    Although the two provisions are similar, they involve different 
issues. The ``zero tolerance'' sanction involves a highway funding 
penalty, and the Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' criterion involves an 
incentive. It is our opinion that keeping the license suspension or 
revocation provision within the Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' criterion 
is reasonable.

    New York asserted:

    We see nothing inappropriate about having one standard for 
incentives and another standard for penalties. This allows states to 
make choices among different levels of compliance that better 
represent each state's tolerance for safety legislation.

    NHTSA agrees with this view. It has decided to establish a stricter 
standard for the Section 410 criterion than for the zero tolerance 
requirement. All States must meet the zero tolerance requirement, or 
they will be subject to the mandatory withholding of funds. If States 
wish to meet the stricter criterion contained in Section 410, they may 
be eligible for additional incentive grant funds.
2. Whether To Change the Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' Criterion
    As explained above, NAGHSR and nine State commenters expressed 
their belief that the Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' grant criterion has been 
too stringent, and they recommend that it be reduced to match the 
criterion that was proposed

[[Page 55221]]

for the zero tolerance program. In particular, they recommend 
eliminating the 30-day mandatory licensing sanction requirement 
currently contained in Section 410. In support of its position, NAGSHR 
stated:

    While it may be highly desirable for states to enact strong zero 
tolerance laws, it may not always be possible to motivate state 
legislatures to do so. Similarly, while it may be good public policy 
to reward states only if they adopt the best possible legislation, 
such legislation may not be feasible or attainable in a state for 
reasons totally unrelated to the merits of the issue.
* * * * *
    The goal, in NAGHSR's view, is to encourage states to enact zero 
tolerance laws, not just laws that fit a rigid zero tolerance 
definition. States should not be deemed ineligible simply for their 
failure to qualify with laws that meet narrowly defined standards.

    Advocates disagreed with NAGHSR's position. According to Advocates:

    The goal of Section 410 is not to assure that all states have an 
equal opportunity to obtain grants but rather to assure that those 
states that make substantive improvements in their state safety laws 
will receive grant funds to enable them to sustain those efforts.

    Since Advocates supported a 30-day license suspension requirement 
for the zero tolerance program, it recommended that NHTSA consider a 
90-day license suspension requirement under Section 410.
    NTSB and the States of New York and Illinois supported the current 
Section 410 criterion, which requires a mandatory 30-day hard 
suspension, and urged that this criterion not be changed. NTSB 
expressed its belief that the existing Section 410 30-day requirement 
is ``consistent with the Safety Board's recommendations * * * and with 
the intent of Congress.'' New York commented that ``NHTSA has struck an 
appropriate balance that will keep public policy focused in a 
productive direction for saving our youth.'' Illinois stated:

    Retention of the 30-day hard suspension is supported by our 
experience. In the first year of our zero tolerance law enforcement, 
we saw an increase in young driver citations.
    Research shows that the swift and sure loss of driving 
privileges is the most effective penalty for offenders. We strongly 
encourage NHTSA to retain the license suspension or revocation 
provision in the Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' criterion and to make no 
further amendments to Part 1313.

    After considering carefully all of the comments received, NHTSA has 
decided that it will not change the Section 410 ``0.02 BAC'' grant 
criterion.

Subsequent Year Applications

    NAGHSR, Washington State and North Dakota recommend that the 
qualification process for subsequent year Section 410 grants should be 
simplified. NAGHSR suggests that, once a State has qualified for a 
Section 410 grant in one year, the State should only be required to 
certify its continued compliance in subsequent years, by certifying 
that ``there has been no substantive changes in laws or conditions.''
    NAGHSR asserts that States are required, under the current Section 
410 regulation, to invest considerable time and expense to qualify for 
Section 410 grants every year, which places ``a serious burden on very 
limited resources.'' North Dakota explained that a recertification 
process ``would allow staff to concentrate on traffic safety programs 
rather [than on] re-documenting information already presented in the 
original application.''
    NHTSA appreciates these thoughtful comments. Under the current 
Section 410 regulation, States are required to submit different items 
of information to demonstrate compliance under each of the criteria. 
These items of information fall into three categories: laws; plans and 
descriptions of programs; and data and other information showing 
effectiveness.
    We agree that, if a State has qualified under a criterion based on 
its laws and there have been no substantive changes in the laws since 
the time of the original application, there is little reason to require 
the State to resubmit its laws in its application for subsequent year 
funds. Similarly, if a State has qualified under a criterion based on a 
plan for conducting a program or a description of its program and there 
have been no substantive changes in the State's plans or program since 
the time of the original application, there is little reason to require 
the State to submit another detailed plan or description in its 
subsequent year application. The agency will no longer require this 
additional information. The regulation has been amended to reflect this 
change.
    In lieu of resubmitting its laws to demonstrate compliance in 
subsequent years the State receives a grant under Basic Criterion No. 1 
(Expedited Driver's License Suspension or Revocation System), Basic 
Criterion No. 2 (Per Se Law), Basic Criterion No. 4 (Self-Sustaining 
Drunk Driving Prevention Program), Basic Criterion No. 6 (Mandatory 
Sentencing), Basic Criterion No. 7 (Per Se Law for Persons Under Age 
21), Supplemental Criterion No. 1 (Program Making Unlawful Open 
Containers and Consumption of Alcohol in Motor Vehicles), Supplemental 
Criterion No. 2 (Suspension of Registration and Return of License Plate 
Program), Supplemental Criterion No. 3 (Mandatory Alcohol Concentration 
Testing Program), Supplemental Criterion No. 4 (Drugged Driving 
Prevention), or Supplemental Criterion No. 5 (Per Se Level of 0.08), 
the State may submit either a statement certifying that there have been 
no substantive changes in the State's laws that would affect compliance 
with Section 410 or a copy of any amendments to the State's laws.
    In lieu of resubmitting a plan for conducting a program or a 
program description to demonstrate compliance in subsequent years under 
Basic Criterion No. 3 (Statewide Program for Stopping Motor Vehicles), 
Basic Criterion No. 5 (Minimum Drinking Age Prevention Program), 
Supplemental Criterion No. 4 (Drugged Driving Prevention), or 
Supplemental Criterion No. 6 (Video Equipment Program), and in lieu of 
resubmitting two detailed examples of community programs to demonstrate 
compliance in subsequent years under Basic Criterion No. 4, the State 
may submit either a statement certifying that there have been no 
substantive changes in the State's plans or program that would affect 
compliance with Section 410 or a copy of any changes to the State's 
plans or program.
    However, under some of the criteria, the submission of data or 
certain other information showing effectiveness is required. This 
information does change from year to year, and the agency has 
considered these submissions to be critical to ensure and evaluate the 
effectiveness of alcohol countermeasures. Accordingly, portions of the 
regulation that require data or other information showing effectiveness 
in subsequent years will not be changed at this time.
    States will continue to be required to submit data under Basic 
Criterion No. 1 (Expedited Driver's License Suspension or Revocation 
System), information documenting that the prior year's plan was 
effectively implemented under Basic Criterion No. 3 (Statewide Program 
for Stopping Motor Vehicles), data and certifications under Basic 
Criterion No. 4 (Self-Sustaining Drunk Driving Prevention Program), and 
information documenting that the prior year's plan was effectively 
implemented under Basic Criterion No. 5 (Minimum Drinking Age 
Prevention). ``Data States'' will continue to be required to submit 
data under Basic Criterion No. 6 (Mandatory Sentencing) and Basic

[[Page 55222]]

Criterion No. 7 (Per Se Law for Persons Under Age 21).
    To qualify in subsequent years for supplemental grants, States will 
continue to be required to submit information showing that it is 
actively enforcing its open container and anti-consumption statute 
under Supplemental Criterion No. 1 (Program Making Unlawful Open 
Containers and Consumption of Alcohol in Motor Vehicles), data and 
information showing that the State is actively enforcing its law and 
regarding any hardship exceptions contained in its law under 
Supplemental Criterion No. 2 (Suspension of Registration and Return of 
License Plate Program), data under Supplemental Criterion No. 3 
(Mandatory Alcohol Concentration Testing Program), evidence of the 
State's participation in the Drug Evaluation and Classification or an 
equivalent program and information and data on prosecutions under 
Supplemental Criterion No. 4 (Drugged Driving Prevention), and 
information and data on the use and effectiveness of the equipment 
under Supplemental Criterion No. 6 (Video Equipment Program).

Regulatory Analyses and Notice

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 agency has determined that this action is not a significant 
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 
Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 
Section 410 is a voluntary program. 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 agency has evaluated the effects of this action 
on small entities. Based on the evaluation, we 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 relating to the regulation that this rule is 
amending that States retain and report to the Federal government 
information which demonstrates compliance with drunk driving prevention 
incentive grant criteria, are considered to be information collection 
requirements, as that term is defined by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part 1320.
    Accordingly, these requirements have been submitted previously to 
and approved by OMB, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501, et seq.). These requirements have been approved under OMB No. 
2127-0501. This final rule reduces for the States previous information 
collection requirements. A request for an extension of the OMB approval 
through November 1998 is currently pending.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 
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 1313

    Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Grant programs--transportation, Highway 
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the interim rule published in 
the Federal Register of March 7, 1996, 61 FR 9101, amending 23 CFR Part 
1313, is adopted as final, with the following changes:

PART 1313--INCENTIVE GRANT CRITERIA FOR DRUNK DRIVING PREVENTION 
PROGRAMS

    1. The authority citation for Part 1313 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 410; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    2. Section 1313.5 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 1313.5  Requirements for a basic grant.

* * * * *
    (h) Subsequent year submissions. (1) In lieu of resubmitting its 
laws, regulations or binding policy directives to demonstrate 
compliance in subsequent years the State receives a basic grant as 
provided in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(ii), (b)(2), (d)(2)(i), 
(f)(2)(i), (f)(3)(i), (g)(2)(i), or (g)(3)(i) of this section, the 
State may submit either a statement certifying that there have been no 
substantive changes in the State's laws, regulations or binding policy 
directives that would affect compliance with Section 410 or a copy of 
any amendments to the State's laws, regulations or binding policy 
directives.
    (2) In lieu of resubmitting a plan for conducting a program to 
demonstrate compliance in subsequent years the State receives a basic 
grant as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) or (e)(3) of this section, the 
State may submit either a statement certifying that there have been no 
substantive changes in the State's plans that would affect compliance 
with Section 410 or a copy of any changes to the State's plans.
    (3) In lieu of resubmitting two detailed examples of community 
programs to demonstrate compliance in subsequent years the State 
receives a basic grant as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this 
section, the State may submit either a statement certifying that there 
have been no substantive changes in the State's community programs that 
would affect compliance with Section 410 or a copy of any changes to 
the State's programs.
    3. Section 1313.6 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 1313.6  Requirements for supplemental grants.

* * * * *
    (g) Subsequent year submissions. (1) In lieu of resubmitting its 
laws, regulations or binding policy directives to demonstrate 
compliance in subsequent years the State receives a supplemental grant 
as provided in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), 
(c)(3)(i), (d)(2)(i), or (e)(2) of this section, the State may submit 
either a statement certifying that there have been no substantive 
changes in the State's laws, regulations or binding policy directives 
that would affect compliance with Section 410 or a copy of any 
amendments to the State's laws, regulations or binding policy 
directives.
    (2) In lieu of resubmitting a plan or a description of its program 
in subsequent years the State receives a supplemental grant as provided 
in paragraph (d)(2)(iv) or (f)(3) of this section, the State may submit 
either a statement certifying that

[[Page 55223]]

there have been no substantive changes in the State's plan or program 
that would affect compliance with Section 410 or a copy of any changes 
to the State's plan or program.

    Issued on: October 21, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-27314 Filed 10-22-96; 12:30pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P