[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71688-71707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34342]



[[Page 71687]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



23 CFR Part 1313



Incentive Grants for Alcohol-Impaired Driving Prevention Programs; 
Interim Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 1998 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 71688]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1313

[Docket No. NHTSA-98-4942]
RIN 2127-AH42


Incentive Grants for Alcohol-Impaired Driving Prevention Programs

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), (DOT).

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This interim final rule amends the regulations that implement 
the Section 410 program, under which States can receive incentive 
grants for alcohol-impaired driving prevention programs. The amendments 
to the regulations reflect changes that were made to the Section 410 
program by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TA-21).
    As a result of this interim final rule, the basic grant program now 
provides States with two alternative means for qualifying for a basic 
grant. Under the first alternative, States may qualify for a 
``Programmatic Basic Grant'' if they submit materials demonstrating 
that they meet five out of seven grant criteria. Under the second 
alternative, States may qualify for a ``Performance Basic Grant'' by 
submitting data demonstrating that the State has successfully reduced 
the percentage of alcohol-impaired fatally injured drivers in the State 
over a three-year period. If States qualify for both a Programmatic and 
a Performance Basic Grant, they may receive both grants. This rule also 
provides that States that are eligible for one or both of the basic 
grants may qualify also for a supplemental grant.
    This interim final rule establishes the criteria States must meet 
and the procedures they must follow to qualify for Section 410 
incentive grants, beginning in FY 1999.

DATES: This interim final rule becomes effective on January 28, 1999. 
Comments on this interim rule are due no later than March 1, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should refer to the docket number of this 
notice and be submitted (preferably in two copies) to: Docket 
Management, PL-401, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are Monday-Friday from 10 a.m. to 5 
p.m., excluding holidays.) The docket is also accepting comments 
electronically, through the worldwide web, at www.dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marlene Markison, Office of State 
and Community Services, NSC-10, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 telephone 
(202) 366-2121; or Mr. Otto G. Matheke III, Office of Chief Counsel, 
NCC-20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Programmatic Basic Grant Criteria
    A. Administrative License Suspension or Revocation System
    B. Underage Drinking Prevention Program
    C. Statewide Traffic Enforcement Program
    D. Graduated Driver's Licensing System
    E. Program for Drivers With High BAC
    F. Young Adult Drinking and Driving Programs
    G. Testing for BAC
III. Performance Basic Grant Criteria
IV. Supplemental Grant Criteria
    A. Video Equipment Program
    B. Self-Sustaining Drunk Driving Prevention Program
    C. Reduction of Driving with a Suspended License
    D. Passive Alcohol Sensor Program
    E. Effective DWI Tracking System
    F. Other Innovative Programs
V. Administrative Issues
    A. Qualification Requirements
    B. Limitation on Grants
    C. Award Procedures
VI. Interim Final Rule
VII. Written Comments
VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
    B. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
    C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. National Environmental Policy Act
    G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Background

    The Section 410 program was created by the Drunk Driving Prevention 
Act of 1988 and codified in 23 U.S.C. 410. As originally conceived, 
States could qualify for basic and supplemental grants under the 
Section 410 program if they met certain criteria. To qualify for a 
basic grant, States had to provide for an expedited driver's license 
suspension or revocation system and a self-sustaining drunk driving 
prevention program. To qualify for a supplemental grant, States had to 
be eligible for a basic grant and provide for a mandatory blood alcohol 
testing program, an underage drinking program, an open container and 
consumption program, or a suspension of registration and return of 
license plate program.
    A number of technical corrections contained in the 1991 
Appropriations Act for the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies, enacted on January 12, 1990, led to changes in the basic 
grant requirements, but did not add any new criteria to the program.
    A number of modifications were made to the Section 410 program in 
1991 by the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). In addition to modifying award amounts 
and procedures, ISTEA changed the criteria that States were required to 
meet to qualify for basic and supplemental grant funds. To qualify for 
a basic grant under the amended program, States were required to 
provide for four out of the following five criteria: an expedited 
administrative driver's license suspension or revocation system; a per 
se law at 0.10 BAC (during the first three fiscal years in which a 
basic grant is received based on this criterion and a per se law at 
0.08 BAC in each subsequent fiscal year); a statewide program for 
stopping motor vehicles; a self-sustaining drunk driving prevention 
program; and a minimum drinking age prevention program.
    States eligible for basic grants could qualify also for 
supplemental grants if they provided for one or more of the following: 
a per se law at 0.02 BAC for persons under age 21; an open container 
and consumption law; a suspension of registration and return of license 
plate program; a mandatory blood alcohol concentration testing program; 
a drugged driving prevention program; a per se law at 0.08 BAC (during 
the first three fiscal years in which a basic grant is received); and a 
video equipment program.
    In 1992, the Section 410 program was modified again. The Department 
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1993, 
which was signed into law on October 6, 1992, essentially repealed the 
modifications to Section 410 relating to award amounts and procedures 
that were enacted by ISTEA. The Act also added a sixth basic grant 
criterion, and provided that to be eligible for a basic grant, a State 
now must meet five out of six basic grant criteria. The new criterion 
required States to show that they impose certain mandatory sentences on 
repeat offenders.
    The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 led to further 
amendments to the Section 410 program. The criterion for a statewide 
program for stopping motor vehicles was modified to accommodate States 
in which roadblocks were unconstitutional. In addition, the per se

[[Page 71689]]

law at 0.02 BAC for persons under age 21 requirement was eliminated as 
supplemental grant criterion , and became instead a basic grant 
criterion (thereby increasing the total number of basic grant criteria 
from six to seven). With this change, States could qualify for a basic 
grant by meeting five out of seven criteria.
    On June 9, 1998, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA-21) was enacted into law (Pub. L. 105-178). Section 2004 of TEA-21 
contained a new set of amendments to 23 U.S.C. 410. These amendments 
modified both the grant amounts to be awarded and the criteria that 
States must meet to qualify for both basic and supplemental grant funds 
under the Section 410 program.
    The TEA-21 amendments, which take effect in FY 1999, establish two 
separate basic grants, plus six supplemental grant criteria. The 
statute provides that the amount of each basic grant shall equal up to 
25 percent of the amount apportioned to the qualifying State for fiscal 
year 1997 under 23 U.S.C. 402, and that up to 10 percent of the amounts 
available to carry out the Section 410 program shall be available for 
making Section 410 supplemental grants.
    Under the TEA-21 amendments, States can qualify for one of the 
basic grants (named a ``Programmatic Basic Grant'' in the interim 
regulation) by demonstrating that the State meets five out of the 
following seven criteria: an administrative driver's license suspension 
or revocation system; an underage drinking prevention program; a 
statewide traffic enforcement program; a graduated driver's licensing 
system; a program to target drivers with high BAC; a program to reduce 
drinking and driving among young adults (between the ages of 21 and 
34); and a BAC testing program. States can qualify for the other basic 
grant (named a ``Performance Basic Grant'' in the interim regulation) 
by demonstrating that the percentage of fatally injured drivers in the 
State with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10 or more has 
decreased in each of the three most recent calendar years for which 
statistics are available and that the percentage of fatally injured 
drivers with a BAC of 0.10 or more in the State has been lower than the 
average percentage for all States in each of the same three calendar 
years.
    To qualify for supplemental grant funds under Section 410, as 
amended by TEA-21, a State must be eligible to receive a Programmatic 
and/or a Performance Basic Grant, and must provide for one or more of 
the following six criteria: a video equipment program; a self-
sustaining drunk driving prevention program; a program to reduce 
driving with a suspended driver's license; a passive alcohol sensor 
program; an effective DWI tracking system; or other innovative programs 
to reduce traffic safety problems that result from individuals who 
drive while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances.

II. Programmatic Basic Grant

    Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, the Section 410 basic grant 
criteria included the following: an expedited administrative driver's 
licenses suspension or revocation system; a per se law at 0.10 BAC 
(during the first three fiscal years in which a basic grant is received 
based on this criterion and a per se law at 0.08 BAC in each subsequent 
fiscal year); a statewide program for stopping motor vehicles; a self-
sustaining drunk driving prevention program; a minimum drinking age 
prevention program; mandatory sentences for repeat offenders; and a per 
se law at 0.02 BAC for persons under age 21.
    TEA-21 removed some of these criteria from the section 410 program. 
A per se law at 0.08 BAC became the criterion for a separate incentive 
grant program, 23 U.S.C. 163, under which States may qualify for a 
total of $500 million over a six year period, and a per se law at 0.02 
BAC for persons under age 21 became (in 1995) became the criterion for 
a sanction program, 23 U.S.C. 161, under which States will be subject 
to the withholding of highway construction funds beginning in FU 2000 
unless they have enacted and are enforcing such a law. Most of the 
criteria (or modifications thereof) continue to be features of the 
Section 410 program.
    With the enactment of TEA-21, to qualify for a programmatic basic 
grant, a State must demonstrate compliance with five out of the 
following seven grant criteria: an administrative license suspension or 
revocation system; an underage drinking prevention program; a statewide 
traffic enforcement program; a graduated driver's licensing system; a 
program to target drivers with high BAC; a program to reduce drinking 
and driving among young adults; and a BAC testing program.
    Of these criteria, the graduated driver's licensing system, the 
program that targets drivers with high BAC, and the young adult 
drinking and driving programs are new to the Section 410 program. Three 
of the criteria (the administrative license suspension or revocation 
system, the underage drinking prevention program and the statewide 
traffic enforcement program) were basic grant criteria prior to the 
enactment of TEA-21. The BAC testing program represents a modification 
of a former Section 410 criterion, which encouraged States to provide 
for mandatory BAC testing of drivers in certain motor vehicle crashes.

A. Administrative License Suspension or Revocation System

    Studies show that when States adopt an administrative license 
suspension or revocation law, they experience an average 6-9 percent 
reduction in alcohol-related fatalities.
    An administrative (or expedited) license suspension or revocation 
system has been a basic grant criterion under the Section 410 program 
since the program's inception. TEA-21 continues to include this basic 
grant criterion in Section 410, but the Act streamlines the elements 
that States must meet to demonstrate compliance with this criterion. 
TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a 
State must demonstrate:

    An administrative driver's license suspension or revocation 
system for individuals who operate motor vehicles while under the 
influence of alcohol that requires that--
    (i) In the case of an individual who, in any 5-year period 
beginning after the date of enactment of [TEA-21], is determined on 
the basis of a chemical test to have been operating a motor vehicle 
while under the influence of alcohol or is determined to have 
refused to submit to such a test as proposed by a law enforcement 
officer, the State agency responsible for administering drivers' 
licenses, upon receipt of the report of the law enforcement 
officer--
    (I) Shall suspend the driver's license of such individual for a 
period of not less than 90 days if such individual is a first 
offender in such 5-year period; and
    (II) Shall suspend the driver's license of such individual for a 
period of not less than 1 year, or revoke such license, if such 
individual is a repeat offender in such 5-year period; and
    (ii) The suspension and revocation referred to * * * shall take 
effect not later than 30 days after the day on which the individual 
refused to submit to a chemical test or received notice of having 
been determined to be driving under the influence of alcohol, in 
accordance with the procedures of the State.

    Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, this criterion contained a number 
of specific procedural requirements, including that the officer serve 
the driver with a written notice and take possession of the driver's 
license at the time of the stop, that the notice contain certain 
information about the administrative procedures under which the State 
may suspend or revoke the driver's license, that the State provide for 
due process of

[[Page 71690]]

law and that the officer immediately report to the State entity 
responsible for administering driver's licenses all information 
relevant to the action taken. These specific requirements, which States 
in past years argued were overly prescriptive, were removed from this 
criterion in TEA-21. Accordingly, they have been removed from the 
regulation as well.
    To qualify under this criterion, as amended by TEA-21, a State must 
provide simply that first offenders will be subject to a 90-day 
suspension, that repeat offenders will be subject to a one-year 
suspension or revocation, and that suspensions or revocations will take 
effect within 30 days after the offender refuses to submit to a 
chemical test or receives notice of having failed the test.
    The interim final rule continues to provide that these suspension 
and revocation terms must be hard (i.e., that during these terms, all 
driving privileges are suspended or revoked), except that first 
offenders who submitted to and were determined to have failed a 
chemical test, may be subject to a 30-day hard suspension, and then may 
receive restricted driving privileges or a hardship license for the 
remainder of the 90-day term.
    The interim final rule continues to provide that States may 
demonstrate compliance with this criterion as either ``Law States'' or 
``Data States.'' The rule, however, simplifies the information States 
must submit to demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years.
    As provided in the interim rule, a ``Law State'' is a State that 
has a law, regulation or binding policy directive implementing or 
interpreting the law or regulation that meets each element of the 
criterion. A ``Data State'' is a State that has a law, regulation or 
binding policy directive that provides for an administrative license 
suspension or revocation system, but it does not meet each element of 
the criterion. For example, the law may permit restricted licenses 
during the 90-day or one-year period or the law may not specifically 
provide that suspensions must take effect within 30 days.
    To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State 
qualifies for a grant based on this criterion, a Law State need only 
submit a copy of its conforming law, regulation or binding policy 
directive. A Data State must submit its law, regulation or binding 
policy directive, and data demonstrating compliance with any element 
not specifically provided for in the State's law.
    In the past, to demonstrate compliance with this criterion in 
subsequent fiscal years, both Law States and Data States were required 
to submit data regarding the number of licenses suspended, the average 
lengths of suspension, and the average length of time that elapsed 
until suspensions took effect for both first and repeat offenders.
    The agency has decided to streamline this requirement, which should 
reduce reporting requirements for States considerably. Under the 
interim final rule, to demonstrate compliance with this criterion in 
subsequent fiscal years, a Law State need only submit a copy of any 
changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive. If 
there have been no changes in the State's law, regulation or binding 
policy directive since the previous year's submission, the State shall 
submit instead a certification to that effect.
    To demonstrate compliance with this criterion in subsequent fiscal 
years, Data States must submit the same information as Law States, plus 
they must provide updated data demonstrating compliance with any 
element not specifically provided for in the State's law.
    Although States are no longer required by the statute and the 
interim regulation to show that law enforcement officers take 
possession of driver licenses at the time of the stop, the agency 
encourages States nonetheless to continue this practice. NHTSA has 
found that the practice of immediately seizing a driver's license is a 
powerful deterrent and should be used whenever possible.

B. Underage Drinking Prevention Program

    Drinking by drivers under 21 years of age continues to be a 
significant safety problem, and studies show that when States adopt a 
minimum drinking age of 21 years, they experience an average 12 percent 
decrease in alcohol-related fatalities in the affected age group. Many 
States, however, do not enforce minimum drinking age laws as vigorously 
as possible.
    An underage drinking (or minimum drinking age) prevention program 
has been a grant criterion under Section 410 since the program's 
inception, first as a supplemental grant criterion and later as a 
criterion for a basic grant. TEA-21 continues to include this basic 
grant criterion in Section 410, but the Act modifies it slightly. TEA-
21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a 
State must demonstrate:

    An effective system * * * for preventing operators of motor 
vehicles under age 21 from obtaining alcoholic beverages and for 
preventing persons from making alcoholic beverages available to 
individuals under age 21. Such system may include the issuance of 
drivers' licenses to individuals under age 21 that are easily 
distinguishable in appearance from drivers' licenses issued to 
individuals age 21 or older and the issuance of drivers' licenses 
that are tamper resistant.

    This criterion is almost identical to the minimum drinking age 
prevention program criterion contained in Section 410 prior to the 
enactment of TEA-21, except that TEA-21 added two elements to the 
criterion. Under TEA-21, the system must not only prevent drivers under 
the age of 21 from obtaining alcoholic beverages, it must also take 
steps that prevent persons of any age from making alcoholic beverages 
available to those who are under 21. In other words, the system must 
target young drinkers and also providers. In addition, States must 
demonstrate both that driver's licenses that are issued to individuals 
under the age of 21 are distinguishable from those issued to 
individuals over 21 years of age, and that they are tamper resistant.
    The interim final rule incorporates these new elements into the 
implementing regulation, and includes in Appendix A to the regulation a 
list of security features that States may include on their driver's 
licenses to make them tamper resistant.
    While States are required under this interim final rule to adopt 
only one of the listed security features, the agency urges States to 
consider incorporating as many of the security features as possible 
into their driver's licenses to prevent underage drivers from altering 
existing licenses or from obtaining or producing counterfeits.
    The interim final rule also makes two additional modifications to 
this criterion. It specifies that public information programs targeted 
to underage drivers publicize drinking age laws, zero tolerance laws 
and the penalties associated with a violation of these statutes, and it 
provides that the overall enforcement strategy developed under this 
program must be capable of being implemented locally throughout the 
State. The agency believes these elements are important to ensure the 
effectiveness of underage drinking prevention programs.
    In the past, to demonstrate compliance with this criterion, a State 
was required to submit a plan (or an updated plan) for conducting an 
underage drinking prevention program. Under the interim final rule, to 
demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives a 
grant based on this criterion, the State must submit information 
demonstrating that a program that meets each programmatic element of 
this criterion is already in place. This change conforms the

[[Page 71691]]

regulation to the practices that States already have been following. As 
in past years, States must also submit sample driver's licenses. The 
samples must demonstrate that licenses issued to drivers under the age 
of 21 are easily distinguishable from licenses issued to older drivers 
and that they are tamper resistant.
    To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, States need 
only submit information documenting any changes to the State's driver's 
licenses or underage driving prevention program, or a certification 
stating that there have been no changes since the state's previous 
year's submission.
    The agency notes that the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) awarded 
$25 million in grants in FY 1998 to States to encourage the enforcement 
of minimum drinking age laws. An additional $25 million in grants will 
be available for this purpose in FY 1999. States that do not already 
meet each element of the underage drinking prevention program criterion 
under Section 410 may consider using DOJ grant funds to develop 
programs that will enable these States to qualify for Section 410 
funding.

C. Statewide Traffic Enforcement Program

    Highly visible, widely publicized and frequently conducted 
impaired-driving traffic enforcement programs are very effective at 
reducing alcohol-related fatalities. NHTSA research strongly supports 
the use of roadside sobriety checkpoints and other checkpoint programs 
to reduce impaired driving deaths and injuries. Decreases in alcohol-
related crashes have been reported consistently in States where 
checkpoints are employed. A recent study of a highly publicized 
Statewide sobriety checkpoint program (``Checkpoint Tennessee'') found 
a 20 percent reduction in impaired driving-related fatal crashes, when 
compared to five surrounding States with no intervention during the 
same period.
    In addition, selective traffic enforcement programs, saturation 
patrols, and special impaired driving patrols, particularly when 
accompanied by aggressive public information programs and applied in a 
coordinated Statewide effort, have been found to be very effective 
tools for reducing alcohol-related fatalities.
    A basic grant criterion for Statewide programs for stopping motor 
vehicles has been a feature of the Section 410 program since 1991. 
Initially, only roadblock or checkpoint programs were considered 
acceptable under this criterion, but the criterion was expanded later 
to permit, in certain cases, other intensive and highly publicized 
traffic enforcement techniques.
    TEA-21 continues to include in Section 410 a basic grant criterion 
for a Statewide traffic enforcement program, but the Act provides for 
added flexibility regarding the elements States must meet to comply. 
TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a 
State must demonstrate:

    A statewide program for stopping motor vehicles on a 
nondiscriminatory, lawful basis for the purpose of determining 
whether the operators of such motor vehicles are driving while under 
the influence of alcohol; or a statewide special traffic enforcement 
program for impaired driving that emphasizes publicity for the 
program.

    In other words, any State may qualify by having either a Statewide 
program for stopping motor vehicles or a Statewide special traffic 
enforcement program (STEP) for impaired driving that emphasizes 
publicity regarding the program.
    The agency has modified this criterion to reflect the changes made 
by TEA-21. As provided in the interim final rule, whether the State has 
established a Statewide program for stopping motor vehicles or a STEP, 
the State program must provide for the following components: motor 
vehicles must be stopped or STEP's must be conducted on a Statewide 
basis (in major areas covering at least 50 percent of the State's 
population); stops must be made or STEP's must be conducted not less 
than monthly; stops must be made or STEP's must be conducted by both 
State and local law enforcement agencies; and effective public 
information efforts must be conducted to inform the public about these 
enforcement activities.
    To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year the State 
receives a grant based on this criterion, the State must submit a plan 
for its Statewide traffic enforcement program, which meets each element 
of this criterion. The plan must include guidelines, policies or 
operation procedures governing the program, and provide approximate 
dates and locations of programs planned in the coming year. The plan 
must also include the names of law enforcement agencies expected to 
participate and describe the public information efforts to be 
conducted.
    To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the State 
must submit an updated plan, and information documenting that the prior 
year's plan was implemented effectively including, for example, samples 
of public information materials used and information that documents the 
enforcement activities that took place.

D. Graduated Driver's Licensing System

    There is growing support nationwide for the adoption of graduated 
driver's licensing (GDL) systems. A GDL system generally consists of a 
multi-staged (usually, a three-stage) process for issuing driver's 
licenses to young people. During the first stage, the applicant 
generally is issued a learner's permit and may operate a motor vehicle 
only while under the supervision of an licensed driver over the age of 
21. During the second stage, the applicant is issued an intermediate 
(or restricted) license and may operate a motor vehicle without a 
supervising adult, but only under certain conditions. Additional 
restrictions also generally apply during these first two stages. Once 
drivers meet all of the conditions and restrictions of the first two 
stages, they can reach the third stage and earn an unrestricted 
license.
    Some of the significant benefits of this system are that young 
drivers are able to gain valuable driving experience under controlled 
circumstances, and they must demonstrate responsible driving behavior 
and proficiency to move through each stage of the system before 
graduating to the next.
    Approximately 20 States have established some form of GDL system in 
the last five years, and studies indicate that the use of such systems 
results in improved highway safety. The adoption of GDL systems 
resulted in a five percent reduction in crashes in California and 
Maryland, an eight percent reduction in New Zealand, a 16 percent 
reduction for young male drivers in Oregon, and a 31 percent reduction 
in Ontario, Canada.
    TEA-21 adds a new graduated driver's licensing system basic grant 
criterion to the Section 410 program. TEA-21 provides that, to qualify 
for a grant based on this criterion, a State must demonstrate:

    A 3-stage graduated licensing system for young drivers that 
includes nighttime driving restrictions during the first 2 stages, 
requires all vehicle occupants to be properly restrained, and makes 
it unlawful for a person under age 21 to operate a motor vehicle 
with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or greater.

    To qualify under this criterion, the agency's implementing 
regulations require States to have a three-stage program that includes 
a learner's permit stage (Stage I), an intermediate (or restricted) 
license stage (Stage II), and a final stage, under which the driver 
receives an unrestricted license (Stage

[[Page 71692]]

III). Stage I must last for at least three months and the combined 
period of Stages I and II must last for at least one year.
    The regulations provide that applicants must be tested for 
knowledge and vision before they receive a Stage I learner's permit. To 
move to a Stage II intermediate license, applicants must have met all 
the conditions of the Stage I learner's permit for a period of at least 
three months, and they must pass a driving skills test. To receive an 
unrestricted license under Stage III, applicants must have met all the 
conditions of the Stage I learner's permit and the Stage II 
intermediate license for a combined period of at least one year.
    The regulations also specify the conditions that must be imposed 
during Stages I and II. Drivers with Stage I learner's permits and 
Stage II intermediate licenses must abide by the State's seat belt use 
laws and zero tolerance laws if they are under the age of 21, and they 
must remain crash and conviction free. During Stage I, permit holders 
may not operate a motor vehicle at any time (day or night) unless they 
are accompanied by a licensed driver who is 21 years of age or older. 
During Stage II, drivers may not operate a motor vehicle during certain 
nighttime hours unless they are accompanied by a licensed driver who is 
at least 21 years of age or covered by a State-approved exception to 
this restriction. These hours are to be specified by the State, and 
they must cover some period of time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. abd 
6:00 a.m.
    Permits and licenses issued at all three stages must be 
distinguishable from each other. Since drivers, once they reach Stage 
III, are eligible to receive an unrestricted license, none of the other 
conditions listed above need to apply during that stage of the system.
    The interim regulation provides that the GDL must cover ``young 
drivers,'' but it does not define this term. Most States that have 
already adopted GDL systems cover novice teenage drivers, up to a 
specified age, although one State covers all novice drivers. The agency 
defers to the States to determine the age of drivers that should be 
covered by their GDL systems.
    To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives 
a grant based on this criterion, a State must submit a copy of the law, 
regulation or binding policy directive implementing or interpreting the 
law or regulation, which provides for each element of the graduated 
driver's licensing system criterion. To demonstrate compliance in 
subsequent fiscal years, the State need only submit a copy of any 
changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive. If 
there have been no changes in the State's law, regulation or bindng 
policy directive since the previous year's submission, the State shall 
submit instead a certification to that effect.
    Although not required under the regulation, NHTSA urges States to 
consider including certain features in their graduated driver's 
licensing systems, because these features are consistent with the 
provisions recommended by NHTSA, the National Safety Council and other 
National organizations in ``Saving Teenage Lives: The Call for 
Graduated Driver Licensing'' (in press). For example, States should 
consider requiring that applicants complete a basic skills or 
``driver's education'' course, with both classroom instruction and 
supervised driving practice, before they receive a Stage II 
intermediate license. In addition, States should consider requiring the 
following conditions during Stage II: advanced driver training; 
supervised practice; lower thresholds of accumulated points before 
sanctions or corrective actions are imposed; limits on the number of 
non-family passengers under the age of 21 who may accompany the driver 
in the vehicle; advanced driver testing before receiving an 
unrestricted license; a requirement that learner's permit holders 
remain crash and conviction free for six (rather than three) months 
before moving to the next phase; that intermediate license holders 
remain crash and conviction free for an additional 12 months before 
moving to the next phase; and a nighttime driving restriction during 
the intermediate stage that is in effect during the entire 10:00 p.m. 
to 6:00 a.m. time period.

E. Drivers With High BAC

    NHTSA is keenly aware of the hazards posed by drinking drivers with 
a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) that significantly exceeds existing 
legal levels. Research indicates that drivers with a highly elevated 
BAC not only are at increased risk of causing alcohol-related crashes 
and fatalities, but also are placing themselves at increased risk of 
incurring more serious injuries.
    According to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), 30 
percent of persons killed in motor vehicle crashes in 1997 were in 
crashes involving a driver or non-occupant with a BAC of 0.10 or 
greater. Drivers with a BAC of 0.15 or greater are estimated to have 
risks that increase to more than 300 times that of sober drivers. NHTSA 
estimates that more than half of all drinking drivers involved in fatal 
crashes have a BAC that exceeds 0.15 percent. Moreover, a high BAC is a 
strong indicator that the driver is a problem drinker and is at risk of 
becoming a repeat offender.
    To combat the dangers posed by drivers with a high BAC, TEA-21 adds 
a new basic grant criterion for programs that target these drivers. 
TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a 
State must demonstrate:

    Programs to target individuals with high blood alcohol 
concentrations who operate a motor vehicles. Such programs may 
include implementation of a system of graduated penalties and 
assessment of individuals convicted of driving under the influence 
of alcohol.

    This interim final rule provides that, to qualify for a grant based 
on this criterion, a State must have a system for imposing enhanced 
penalties on those drivers who have been convicted of operating a motor 
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and determined to have a 
high BAC. These enhanced penalties must be either more severe or more 
numerous than those applicable to persons who have been convicted of 
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, but 
were not determined to have a high BAC.
    In order to provide States with a high degree of latitude in 
fashioning appropriate enhanced penalties on these drivers, NHTSA has 
not specified in the interim rule the particular minimum sanctions that 
must apply. The enhanced penalties may include longer terms of license 
suspension, increased fines, additional or extended sentences of 
confinement, vehicle sanctions, or mandatory assessment and treatment 
as appropriate.
    For the purposes of this criterion, the interim rule provides that 
the threshold level at which high BAC sanctions must begin to apply may 
be at any level above the standard BAC level at which sanctions for 
non-commercial drivers begin to apply, but it must begin at or below 
0.20 BAC. For example, if the standard BAC level in a State is 0.08, 
then the State may begin to impose enhanced sanctions on offenders 
determined to have a BAC of 0.09 or greater, or the state could choose 
interest to begin imposing such sanctions on offenders with a BAC of 
0.12 and above. If the State does not begin to impose such sanctions 
until offenders are determined to be at 0.21 BAC or greater, however, 
the State system will not comply.
    The agency is aware of ten States that have such graduated penalty 
programs. In these States, the enhanced or

[[Page 71693]]

additional penalties begin to apply at levels ranging from 0.15 to 0.20 
BAC.
    To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives 
a grant based on this criterion, a State must submit a copy of the law, 
regulation or binding policy directive implementing or interpreting the 
law or regulation, which provides for each element of the program for 
drivers with high BAC criterion. The law, regulation or binding policy 
must specify the penalties that are to be imposed on drivers determined 
to have a high BAC, and these penalties must be greater than those that 
apply to other convicted drivers. To demonstrate compliance in 
subsequent fiscal years, the State need only submit a copy of any 
changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive. If 
there have been no changes in the State's law, regulation or binding 
policy directive since the previous year's submission, the State shall 
submit instead a certification to that effect.

F. Young Adult Drinking and Driving Programs

    Alcohol involvement in crashes reaches its highest rate for those 
between the ages of 21 and 34. FARS data for 1997 indicates that 45 
percent of all drinking drivers in alcohol-related fatal crashes were 
in this age group. More than 50 percent of those drivers 21 to 34 years 
of age who were killed in fatal crashes had alcohol in their system--
the highest percentage of any age group. Data from a 1996 Roadside 
Survey show that although the percentage of all drivers with a BAC of 
0.05 or above had decreased since 1986 (from 8.4 percent to 7.7 
percent), the percentage of those age 21-34 with a BAC of 0.05 or above 
increased (from 9.9 percent to 11.3 percent). The same tread was true 
for those with a BAC of 0.10 or above--the percentage of all drivers 
with a BAC of 0.10 or above decreased (from 3.2 percent to 2.8 percent) 
while the percentage of those age 21-34 with a BAC of 0.10 or above 
increased (from 3.3 percent to 3.8 percent). Self-reported survey data 
indicate that adults age 21-29 are the most likely to drive after 
drinking. Since the drivers in this age group can drink lawfully, the 
laws and enforcement strategies that are used to target teenage drivers 
are not available for them. Therefore, other prevention and enforcement 
strategies must be identified to target drivers in this age group.
    TEA-21 adds a new basic grant criterion to the Section 410 program 
to encourage the development of young adult drinking and driving 
programs. TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this 
criterion, a State must demonstrate:

    Programs to reduce driving while under the influence of alcohol 
by individuals age 21 through 34. Such programs may include 
awareness campaigns; traffic safety partnerships with employers, 
colleges, and the hospitality industry; assessments of first time 
offenders; and incorporation of treatment into judicial sentencing.

    The interim final rule provides that, to qualify under this 
criterion, States must meet two requirements. First, they must 
demonstrate that they have in place a public information and awareness 
campaign aimed at persons between the ages of 21 and 34. Such a program 
must be conducted on a Statewide basis, and it must be designed to 
increase awareness among young adults (age 21-34) regarding alcohol-
impaired driving laws and the penalties, costs and other consequences 
of alcohol-impaired driving.
    Second, they must demonstrate that they have in place certain 
partnership activities that seek to promote prevention. The interim 
regulation identifies four such activities: activities involving the 
participation of employers; activities involving the participation of 
colleges or universities; activities involving the participation of the 
hospitality industry; and activities involving the participation of 
appropriate State officials that will encourage the assessment and 
incorporation of treatment as appropriate in judicial sentencing for 
young adult drivers.
    The agency does not expect that States will have all such 
partnership activities in place during the first year of the Section 
410 program. Accordingly, the interim final rule provides States with 
an opportunity to put these activities into place over time. To qualify 
in the first fiscal year a State receives a grant based on this 
criterion, the State must be engaged in one of these four partnership 
activities, and it must have a plan for expanding into the other areas. 
To qualify in subsequent fiscal years, the State must be engaged in all 
four activities.
    To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives 
a grant based on this criterion, the State must submit a description 
and sample materials documenting the Statewide public information and 
awareness campaign, a description and sample materials documenting the 
ongoing partnership activities involving at least one of the four 
components listed above, and a plan that outlines proposed efforts to 
conduct activities involving all four of these components. To 
demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the State must 
submit an updated description of its Statewide public information and 
awareness campaign and of all ongoing partnership activities, with 
information documenting that all four components are involved.

G. Testing for BAC

    Improving the rate of testing for blood alcohol concentration (BAC) 
of drivers involved in fatal crashes is a critical component of any 
alcohol-impaired driving program. Increased BAC testing helps us to 
understand the problem, identify offenders, and take steps to develop 
effective solutions to reduce the tragic consequences of impaired 
driving. According to FARS data, only 43.7 percent of all drivers 
involved in fatal crashes in 1997 were tested for BAC and the results 
are known. NHTSA estimates that thousands of drivers each year are 
impaired by alcohol when involved in a fatal crash, but are not 
detected or charged because a BAC test was not administered or the 
results are not available. If more drivers were tested for BAC and the 
results are made available, estimates of alcohol involvement in fatal 
crashes would be more accurate, more offenders would be prosecuted and 
the data collected would facilitate the development of better alcohol-
impaired driving countermeasures.
    Mandatory BAC testing has been a supplemental grant criterion under 
Section 410 since the inception of the program. TEA-21 modifies this 
criterion and makes it, for the first time, a criterion for a basic 
grant. Under TEA-21, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a 
State must demonstrate:

    An effective system for increasing the rate of testing of the 
blood alcohol concentrations of motor vehicle drivers involved in 
fatal accidents and, in fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year 
thereafter, a rate of such testing that is equal to or greater than 
the national average.

    Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, States could qualify for a 
supplemental grant based on this criterion if they demonstrated that 
they provided for mandatory testing of drivers involved in fatal or 
serious-injury crashes for the presence of alcohol when there was 
probable cause to do so. States could demonstrate compliance as either 
Law States or Data States. Law States were required to submit a law 
that provided that law enforcement officials were required to order and 
that offenders were required to submit to a chemical test in all fatal 
and serious injury crashes where there was probable cause to order the 
test. Data States were required to submit data showing that 
substantially all drivers in fatal and

[[Page 71694]]

serious injury crashes were in fact tested.
    TEA-21 changed this criterion by focusing solely on fatal (and not 
serious injury) crashes and by shifting the emphasis of this criterion 
from program design to performance. TEA-21 provides that, to qualify 
for a grant based on this criterion in FY 1999 and 2000, a State must 
show an effective system for improving the rate of testing (without 
specifying the method for doing so). To qualify, beginning in FY 2001, 
a State must have a testing rate that is above the national average.
    The agency believes Congress intended to encourage States to take a 
variety of steps in the first two fiscal years of this program (in FY's 
1999 and 2000) to increase their particular testing rates and, thereby, 
increase testing rates in the nation as a whole. Then, in FY 2001 and 
beyond, only those States that exceed the national average will be 
eligible for a grant based on this criterion.
    Accordingly, the agency has decided to provide additional 
flexibility in the interim final rule by permitting States to qualify 
for a grant based on this criterion in FY's 1999 and 2000 through 
various methods.
    States may continue to qualify based on a law or data. A State can 
qualify based on its law, if the law provides that law enforcement 
officials are required to order and that offenders are required to 
submit to a chemical test in all fatal crashes. A State can qualify 
based on data, if the data shows that the State's percentage of BAC 
testing among drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes is equal 
to or exceeds the national average, as determined under the most 
recently available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal year for 
which grant funds are being sought.
    Alternatively, the interim final rule provides that States may 
qualify instead by agreeing to conduct a symposium or workshop designed 
to increase the percentage of BAC testing for drivers involved in fatal 
motor vehicle crashes. The symposium or workshop must be attended by a 
broad range of individuals in the State who play a role and can have an 
impact on the State's percentage of BAC testing, including 
representatives of law enforcement officials, prosecutors, hospital 
officials, medical examiners and/or coroners, physicians and judges. 
States have conducted these types of workshops or symposia, with 
positive results. The agency believes States that take this step can be 
effective at increasing their BAC testing percentages.
    The information States must submit to demonstrate compliance with 
this criterion differs, depending on the fiscal year in which the State 
is applying, whether this is a first or a subsequent-year application, 
and the method the State is using to qualify. The interim final rule 
provides a detailed account of the information that must be submitted 
in each individual case.
    For example, to demonstrate compliance in FY 1999 or 2000 based on 
a law, the State must submit a copy of the law, regulation or binding 
policy directive implementing or interpreting the law or regulation 
that provides for each element of this criterion. To demonstrate 
compliance in FY 1999 or 2000 based on data, the State must submit a 
statement certifying that the percentage of BAC testing among drivers 
involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes in the State is equal to or 
greater than the national average, as determined under the most 
recently available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal year for 
which grant funds are being sought. NHTSA will verify the actual 
testing percentages.
    To demonstrate compliance in FY 1999 or 2000 based on an agreement 
to conduct a symposium or workshop, the State must describe the 
symposium or workshop that is planned, and submit a copy of the 
proposed agenda and a list of the names and affiliations of the 
individuals who are expected to attend. If the symposium or workshop 
has already taken place, the State must describe the event and submit 
the actual agenda and list of attendees.
    If a State demonstrated compliance in FY 1999 based on an agreement 
to conduct a symposium, then to demonstrate compliance in FY 2000 using 
the same method, the State must submit the report or other 
documentation that was generated as a result of the symposium or 
workshop, with the recommendations that were developed, and a plan that 
outlines how the recommendations will be implemented.
    Beginning in FY 2001, to demonstrate compliance for a grant based 
on this criterion, a State need only submit a statement certifying that 
the percentage of BAC testing among drivers involved in fatal motor 
vehicle crashes in the State is equal to or exceeds the national 
average, as determined under the most recently available FARS data as 
of the first day of the fiscal year for which grant funds are being 
sought. NHTSA will verify the actual testing percentages.

III. Performance Grant Criteria

    In past years, some have challenged the approach taken by the 
Section 410 program, under which States qualify for grants if they 
adopt programs from a prescribed list established by Congress. They 
argue that States should be provided the opportunity to qualify for 
grants based on their performance, without regard to the particular 
programs that the States chose to use to obtain their results.
    The new Section 410 program, as amended by TEA-21, addresses this 
concern by providing for not one, but two, basic grants. States may 
qualify for funds under a programmatic basic grant if they conduct 
programs that are outlined in the programmatic basic grant criteria. 
Alternatively, States may qualify for funds under a performance basic 
grant simply by demonstrating State performance. (Moreover, States that 
meet both sets of requirements can qualify to receive both basic 
grants.)
    To qualify for a performance basic grant, a State must demonstrate 
each of the following:

    (A) The percentage of fatally injured drivers with 0.10 percent 
or greater blood alcohol concentration in the State has decreased in 
each of the 3 most recent calendar years for which statistics for 
determining such percentages are available; and
    (B) The percentage of fatally injured drivers with 0.10 percent 
or greater blood alcohol concentration in the State has been lower 
than the average percentage for all States in each of the [3 most 
recent] calendar years [for which statistics for determining such 
percentages are available].

    The interim final rule adopts these two conditions, and establishes 
two methods for calculating the percentages described above.
    Each calendar year, NHTSA will calculate the percentage of fatally 
injured drivers with a BAC of 0.10 percent or greater for each State 
and the average percentage for all States for each of the three most 
recent calendar years for which the data are available as of the first 
day of the fiscal year for which grant funds are being sought, using 
data contained in the FARs, and NHTSA's method for estimating alcohol 
involvement (as developed and published by Klein, 1986). The agency 
then will make the information available through its regional offices.
    Any State that meets the two requirements outlined above, based on 
the percentages calculated by NHTSA, may demonstrate compliance simply 
by submitting a certification statement. NHTSA will verify the actual 
percentages.
    Alternatively, any State with a percentage of BAC testing among 
fatally injured drivers of 85 percent or greater in the three most 
recent calendar years for which FARS data are available as of

[[Page 71695]]

the first day of the fiscal year for which grant funds are being 
sought, as determined by the FARS data, may perform its own 
calculations. The State would calculate the percentage of fatally 
injured drivers with a BAC of 0.10 percent or greater in that State for 
these three calendar years, using only data for drivers with a known 
BAC.
    The State would demonstrate compliance by submitting its 
calculations and a statement certifying that the State meets the 
requirements, based on the State's calculation of the percentage of 
fatally injured drivers with such a BAC in the State and NHTSA's 
calculation of this percentage in all States. NHTSA will verify the 
actual percentages submitted using FARS data.

IV. Supplemental Grant Criteria

    Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, the Section 410 supplemental 
grant criteria included the following: an open container and 
consumption law; a suspension of registration and return of license 
plate program; a mandatory blood alcohol concentration testing program; 
a drugged driving prevention program; a per se law at 0.08 BAC (during 
the first three fiscal years in which a basic grant was received); and 
a video equipment program.
    TEA-21 removed some of these criteria from the Section 410 program. 
A per se law at 0.08 BAC became the criterion for a separate incentive 
grant program, 23 U.S.C. 163, under which States may qualify for a 
total of $500 million over a six-year period. An open container and 
consumption law became the criterion for a new transfer program, 23 
U.S.C. 154, under which States will be subject to a transfer of highway 
construction funds beginning in FY 2001 unless they have enacted and 
are enforcing such a law. Some of the supplemental criteria (or 
modifications thereof) continue to be features of the Section 410 
program.
    With the enactment of TEA-21, to qualify for a supplemental grant, 
a State must be eligible for at least one of the two Section 410 basic 
grants, and it must demonstrate compliance with one or more of the 
following six supplemental grant criteria: a video equipment program; a 
self-sustaining drunk driving prevention program; the reduction of 
driving with a suspended license; a passive alcohol sensor program; an 
effective DWI tracking system; or other innovative programs.
    Of these criteria, the passive alcohol sensor program, an effective 
DWI tracking system and other innovative programs are new to Section 
410. Two of the criteria were features of Section 410 prior to the 
enactment of TEA-21 (the video equipment program was a supplemental 
grant criterion and the self-sustaining drunk driving prevention 
program was a criterion for a basic grant). The reduction of driving 
with a suspended license criterion represents a modification of a 
former Section 410 criterion, which encouraged States to provide for 
the suspension of registration and return of license plates for certain 
serious offenses.

A. Video Equipment Program

    The use of in-vehicle video equipment to record DWI investigations 
has increased in recent years, and officers who have used the equipment 
identify many positive results. They indicate, for example, that use of 
the equipment provides evidence of what happened at the time of the 
arrest, it convinces many defendants to plead guilty, it helps officers 
testify in court and it protects officers from false allegations and 
liability suits. Use of the equipment also helps the persons who have 
been detained. It helps to ensure that officers follow correct 
procedures and otherwise protects the suspects' rights.
    The majority of law enforcement agencies that use video equipment 
have written policies governing its use. These policies address what 
types of arrests should be recorded, who is responsible for maintaining 
the equipment, evidentiary issues and information about training. A 
model policy has been developed by the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police.
    A video equipment program has been a supplemental grant criterion 
under Section 410 since 1991. TEA-21 continues to include this program 
as a supplemental grant criterion, without change. To qualify for a 
grant based on this criterion, a State must demonstrate that:

    The State provides for a program to acquire video equipment to 
be used in detecting persons who operate motor vehicles while under 
the influence of alcohol and in prosecuting those persons, and to 
train personnel in the use of that equipment.

    The requirements that States must meet and the information they 
must submit to demonstrate compliance with this criterion are 
essentially unchanged. Accordingly, there are not substantive changes 
to this portion of the agency's implementing regulation.
    To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives 
a grant based on this criterion, as before, the State must submit a 
plan for the acquisition and use of video equipment in law enforcement 
vehicles for the enforcement of impaired driving laws, including: a 
schedule for the areas where the equipment has been and will be 
installed and used; a plan for training law enforcement personnel, 
prosecutors and judges in the use of this equipment; and a plan for 
public information and education programs to enhance the general 
deterrent effect of the equipment.
    To demonstrate compliance in subsequent years, the State must 
submit information on the use and effectiveness of the equipment and an 
updated plan for any acquisition and use of additional equipment.

B. Self-Sustaining Drunk Driving Prevention Program

    Self-sustaining drunk driving prevention programs ensure that 
resources are generated while a State is enforcing its impaired driving 
laws, and then are made available to detect, arrest, prosecute and 
sanction other DWI offenders and to educate the public about impaired 
driving. A self-sustaining program provides for fines, reinstatement 
fees or other charges to be assessed, and for the funds received to be 
used directly to sustain a comprehensive Statewide drunk driving 
prevention program. States that have institute such programs have been 
very effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes and fatalities.
    A self-sustaining drunk driving prevention program has been a basic 
grant criterion under the Section 410 program since the program's 
inception. TEA-21 continues to include this grant criterion in Section 
410, but changes it from a basic to a supplemental criterion and makes 
some modifications to the elements that States must meet to demonstrate 
compliance with this criterion. TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a 
grant based on this criterion, a State must demonstrate that:

    The State provides for a self-sustaining drunk driving 
prevention program under which a significant portion of the fines or 
surcharges collected from individuals apprehended and fined for 
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol are 
returned to those communities which have comprehensive programs for 
the prevention of such operations of motor vehicles.

    Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, States could qualify under this 
criterion if a significant portion of the fines or surcharges collected 
from individuals apprehended and fined for operating a motor vehicle 
while under the influence of alcohol was either returned or an 
equivalent amount was provided to communities with self-sustaining 
comprehensive drunk driving prevention programs. TEA-21 amended

[[Page 71696]]

this criterion to provide that providing an equivalent amount of funds 
is no longer sufficient. The actual fines or surcharges collected now 
must be returned to those communities in order for a State to comply. 
This statutory change has been incorporated into the implementing 
regulation.
    The agency recognizes that this change may prevent some States, 
such as those whose Constitution prohibits such a dedicated non-
discretionary use of fines and penalties obtained from driving 
offenders, from qualifying under this criterion. However, NHTSA notes 
that Congress changed this criterion from a basic to a supplemental 
grant criterion. Accordingly, a State's inability to comply with this 
criterion will not inhibit any State's ability to obtain a basic grant.
    In previous years, States were required to submit a great deal of 
information to demonstrate compliance with this criterion. In an effort 
to streamline the administration of this program, and to reduce the 
recordkeeping and reporting burdens on the States, the agency has 
simplified this portion of the regulation. To demonstrate compliance in 
the first year a State receives a grant based on this criterion, the 
State now need only submit a copy of the law, regulation or binding 
policy directive that provides for a self-sustaining drunk driving 
prevention program and certain Statewide data (or a representative 
sample).
    The law, regulation or binding policy directive must provide for 
fines or surcharges to be imposed on individuals apprehended for 
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and for 
such fines or surcharges collected to be returned to communities with 
comprehensive drunk driving prevention programs. The interim final rule 
defines the elements of such a program. The data must show the 
aggregate amount of fines or surcharges collected, the aggragate amount 
of revenues returned to communities with comprehensive drunk driving 
prevention programs under the State's self-sustaining system, and the 
aggregate cost of the State's comprehensive drunk driving prevention 
programs.
    To demonstrate compliance in subsequent years, States need only 
submit updated data and either a copy of any changes to the State's 
law, regulation or binding policy directive or, if there have been no 
changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive, 
then a certification statement to that effect.

C. Reduction of Driving With a Suspended License

    Driving with a suspended license (DWS) is illegal in all States, 
yet many drivers with suspended licenses continue to drive. Studies 
estimate that, in some States, as many as 60-80 percent of drivers with 
suspended or revoked licenses continue to drive, although it is 
believed that these drivers tend to operate their vehicles less 
frequently and more carefully, to avoid detection.
    A program for the suspension of the registration and the return of 
license plates has been a supplemental grant criterion since the 
inception of the Section 410 program. TEA-21 adopts as a supplemental 
grant criterion a modification of this program, which encourages the 
development of a program to reduce driving with a suspended license. 
TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a 
State must demonstrate that:

    The State enacts and enforces a law to reduce driving with a 
suspended license. Such law . . . may require a ``zebra'' stripe 
that is clearly visible on the license plate of any motor vehicle 
owned and operated by a driver with a suspended license.

    Some States, such as Oregon, have enacted ``zebra stripe'' laws 
(although no such laws are currently in effect). The Oregon ``zebra 
stripe'' program, which included strong public information and 
enforcement components, showed a marked reduction in driving with a 
suspended license. Other laws have been shown to be effective at 
reducing this problem, as well; in particular, laws that provide for 
vehicle sanctions. Accordingly, the agency has decided that States can 
qualify under this criterion if they have in effect any one of a number 
of vehicle-related sanctions. The sanctions may provide for either: the 
suspension of the registration and the return of license plates; or the 
impoundment, immobilization, forfeiture or confiscation of motor 
vehicles; as well as the use of ``zebra stripes'' or other distinctive 
markings on license plates.
    Prior to TEA-21, to qualify under the criterion for the suspension 
of the registration and the return of license plates, State laws had to 
apply to DWS offenders and repeat DWI offenders. Under TEA-21 and the 
revised regulation, this criterion requires that the vehicle sanctions 
apply only to the former.
    In addition, prior to TEA-21, the vehicle sanction had to be in 
place during the entire term during which the individual's driver's 
license was under suspension or revocation. Under TEA-21 and the 
revised regulation, this criterion does not specify a minimum length of 
time during which the vehicle sanction must apply. The regulation 
requires only that the sanction must be in place for some time period, 
to be specified by the State, during the offender's driver's license 
suspension or revocation term. Consistent with past practice, and the 
requirements of similar criteria currently being administered by the 
agency Under other programs, the sanction must apply to any motor 
vehicle owned by the individual.
    NHTSA recognizes that the suspension of the registration and the 
return of license plates, as well as the impoundment, immobilization, 
forfeiture or confiscation of a motor vehicle could have serious 
adverse consequences on individuals other than the offender. 
Accordingly, although the agency does not encourage States to create 
exceptions to their laws, and exceptions certainly are not required to 
be included for a State to qualify for a grant under this criterion, 
the interim final rule provides that a State may provide limited 
exceptions to their vehicle sanctions on an individual basis to avoid 
undue hardship to any individual who is completely dependent on the 
motor vehicle for the necessities of life. Such individuals may include 
any family member of the convicted individual, and any co-owner of the 
motor vehicle, but not the convicted individual.
    Such exceptions may be issued only in accordance with a State law, 
regulation or binding policy directive establishing the conditions 
under which motor vehicles or license plates may be released by the 
State or under Statewide published guidelines and in exceptional 
circumstances specific to the offender's motor vehicle, and may not 
result in unrestricted use of the motor vehicle.
    To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives 
a grant based on this criterion, a State must submit a copy of the law, 
regulation or binding policy directive implementing or interpreting the 
law or regulation, which provides for each element of the reduction of 
driving with a suspended license criterion. To demonstrate compliance 
in subsequent fiscal years, the State need only submit a copy of any 
changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive. If 
there have been no changes in the State's law, regulation or binding 
policy directive since the previous year's submission, the State shall 
submit instead a certification to that effect.

[[Page 71697]]

D. Passive Alcohol Sensors

    Passive alcohol sensors are designed to enhance the ability of law 
enforcement officials to detect alcohol use by a driver. These sensors 
often are used to enhance the capabilities of officers at sobriety 
checkpoints or investigative stops. Research reports indicate that 
passive sensor use increased the detection of BACs of 0.10 or more by 
15 percent. An officer's ability to detect alcohol at lower BACs (e.g., 
between 0.05 and 0.10), where it is more difficult for the officer to 
detect alcohol, was nearly doubled with the use of passive alcohol 
sensors, thereby making these procedures more efficient. Passive 
alcohol detection serves as an extension of the officers' ability to 
detect alcohol with their senses, thereby enhancing the enforcement of 
alcohol-related traffic safety laws. The detection of alcohol typically 
provides sufficient grounds to further investigate whether an alcohol-
related traffic law (e.g., driving under the influence) has been 
violated.
    TEA-21 adds a new supplemental grant criterion to the Section 410 
program to encourage the use of passive alcohol sensors. TEA-21 
provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a State 
must demonstrate that:

    The State provides for a program to acquire passive alcohol 
sensors to be used by police officers in detecting persons who 
operate motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol, and to 
train police officers in the use of that equipment.

    To qualify for an incentive grant based on this new criterion, a 
State must have a passive alcohol sensor program that calls for the 
acquisition and use of passive alcohol sensors and provides for 
training law enforcement personnel in their use.
    The information States must submit to demonstrate compliance with 
this criterion is similar to the information they must submit to 
demonstrate compliance with the video equipment program. To demonstrate 
compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives a grant based on 
this criterion, the State must submit a plan for the acquisition and 
use of passive alcohol sensors. The plan must include: A schedule for 
the areas where the equipment has been and will be used; a plan to 
train law enforcement personnel and to inform prosecutors and judges 
about the purpose and use of these devices; and a plan for a public 
information and education program to enhance the general deterrent 
effect of the equipment. To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal 
years, the State must submit information on the use and effectiveness 
of the equipment and an updated plan for any acquisition and use of 
additional equipment.

E. Effective DWI Tracking System

    Each year, more than 1.4 million drivers are arrested for DWI. The 
development of an effective DWI tracking system in a State can enhance 
the deterrent effect of sanctions by ensuring that offenders do not 
fail to complete conditions of sentences, administrative actions, or 
assessment and treatment due to oversight or insufficient access to 
records. Effective DWI tracking systems also can assure that offenders 
subsequently charged with DWI are sanctioned at the time of posting 
bond and sentencing as repeat, not first, offenders. In addition, 
effective tracking systems serve to focus resources on those offenders 
who pose the greatest risk to themselves and others--repeat offenders 
and problem drinkers with a high BAC.
    In 1997, NHTSA completed a comprehensive study and published a 
three-volume report entitled ``Driving While Intoxicated Tracking 
Systems.'' The study concludes that an effective DWI tracking system 
should provide the means to accomplish two ends.
    First, the DWI ``critical path'' of each offender should be 
monitored from arrest through dismissal or sentence completion. Any 
weakness in the critical path may be perceived by an offender as an 
inability of ``the system'' to provide adequate punishment and may not 
deter the offender from repeating the offense. For example, if alcohol 
treatment was a condition of a sentence, but the offender successfully 
regained driving privilege without completing treatment, program 
effectiveness for that individual may be reduced. General deterrence 
could be reduced as well, due to the perception that sanctions are not 
enforced.
    Second, the DWI tracking system should provide aggregate DWI data 
on various demographic groups that will allow legislators, 
policymakers, treatment professionals, and others to evaluate the 
current DWI environment, countermeasure programs, and laws designed to 
reduce DWI, or to rehabilitate DWI offenders. At a minimum, annual 
statistical reports should be available that provide data on arrests, 
convictions, fines assessed and paid, pleas, sanctions, sentences, and 
treatment effectiveness by various demographic groups.
    TEA-21 adds a new supplemental grant criterion to the Section 410 
program for States that develop effective DWI tracking systems. TEA-21 
provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a State 
must demonstrate:

    An effective driving while intoxicated (DWI) tracking system. 
Such a system * * * may include data covering arrests, case 
prosecutions, court dispositions and sanctions, and provide for the 
linkage of such data and traffic records systems to appropriate 
jurisdictions and offices within the State.

    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a State must 
demonstrate that it has established a tracking system with the ability 
to: collect, store, and retrieve data on individual DWI cases, from 
arrest through all stages, until dismissal or until all applicable 
sanctions have been completed; link the DWI tracking system to 
appropriate jurisdictions and offices within the State to provide all 
appropriate officials with timely and accurate information concerning 
individuals charged with an alcohol-related driving offense; and 
provide aggregate data, organized by specific categories, suitable for 
allowing appropriate State officials to evaluate the DWI environment in 
the State.
    To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives 
a grant based on this criterion, the State must submit information 
describing the system, including the means used to collect, store and 
retrieve data and an explanation of how the system is linked to 
appropriate jurisdictions and offices within the State. The State must 
submit also an example of available statistical reports and analyses 
and a sample data run showing tracking of a DWI arrest, through final 
disposition. To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State must submit information demonstrating the use of the system.

F. Other Innovative Programs

    NHTSA has long sought ways to encourage the development of 
innovative programs to address impaired driving and other highway 
safety issues. The agency has sought also to identify innovative 
programs that have been demonstrated to be effective, and to publicize 
these successful programs, so that others can duplicate them in their 
States or communities. This technique, of encouraging the development 
and then the duplication of effective, innovative programs, 
accomplishes several objectives. It encourages experimentation, 
identifies success, promotes the best use of available resources and 
helps States and communities avoid having to ``reinvent the wheel.''
    Since 1993, NHTSA has published the Traffic Safety Digest, which 
highlights innovative programs in 12 different

[[Page 71698]]

areas of traffic safety. The Digest is published quarterly.
    TEA-21 adds a new supplemental grant criterion to the Section 410 
program to encourage the development of innovative programs. TEA-21 
provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a State 
must demonstrate:

    Other innovative programs to reduce traffic safety problems 
resulting from individuals driving while under the influence of 
alcohol or controlled substances, including programs that seek to 
achieve such a reduction through legal, judicial, enforcement, 
educational, technological, or other approaches.

    To qualify for an incentive grant based on this new criterion, a 
State must demonstrate that it has implemented an innovative program 
designed to reduce alcohol- or drug-impaired driving. To ensure that 
programs are operational and current, the interim regulation provides 
that the program must have been implemented within the last two years. 
It must also have been shown to be effective.
    The agency will consider a program to be innovative if it contains 
one or more substantial components that make the program different from 
those previously conducted in the State. The program may be an 
adaptation or combination of approaches that have been used before, but 
it must include one or more features (that are more than incidental) 
that make the program unique. For example, innovative programs may 
demonstrate new ways to reach target populations (such as teenagers or 
Native Americans) more effectively, involve non-traditional partners in 
efforts to deter impaired driving (as the CODES project did when it 
encouraged data sharing between the law enforcement and medical 
communities), or be based on the passage of a unique law or ordinance 
that is designed to address alcohol- or drug-impaired driving.
    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, the innovative 
component(s) of the program must not have been used by the State in 
this or a previous fiscal year to qualify for a Section 410 grant based 
on any other criterion. For example, a State that qualifies for a grant 
based on its use of video or passive sensor equipment could not qualify 
for a grant under the ``other innovative programs'' criterion based on 
its use of such equipment, unless the State uses the equipment in a 
unique and innovative way, and the State's unique or innovative method 
for using the equipment has been determined to be effective.
    In addition, the innovative component(s) of the program may be used 
only once to qualify for a supplemental Section 410 under the ``other 
innovative programs'' criterion.
    To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, States must submit a 
description of the program. The information that must be included in 
the description listed in the interim regulation. The description may 
be presented in the same format used by States when submitting 
proposals to NHTSA's Traffic Safety Digest. Programs described by a 
State in its Section 410 application and determined by NHTSA to qualify 
under the ``other innovative programs'' criterion will enable the State 
to qualify for supplemental grant funds, and also will be considered 
for publication in the Traffic Safety Digest.

V. Administrative Issues

A. Qualification Requirements

    To agency's Section 410 implementing regulation continues to 
outline, in the qualification requirements section, 23 CFR 1313.4(a), 
certain procedural steps that must be followed when States wish to 
apply for a grant under this program.
    State applications must be received by the agency no later than 
August 1 of the fiscal year in which the States are applying for funds. 
The application must contain certifications stating that: (1) the State 
has an alcohol-impaired driving prevention program that meets the grant 
requirements; (2) it will use funds awarded only for the implementation 
and enforcement of alcohol-impaired driving prevention programs; (3) it 
will administer the funds in accordance with relevant regulations and 
OMB Circulars; and (4) the State will maintain its aggregate 
expenditures from all other sources for its alcohol-impaired driving 
prevention programs at or above the average level of such expenditures 
in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The regulation provides that either 
State or Federal fiscal year may be used.
    Consistent with current procedures being followed in other highway 
safety grant programs being administered by NHTSA, once a State has 
been informed that it is eligible for a grant, the State must include 
documentation in the State's Highway Safety Plan, prepared under 
Section 402, that indicates how it intends to use the grant funds. The 
documentation must include a Program Cost Summary (HS Form 217) 
obligating the Section 410 funds to alcohol-impaired driving prevention 
programs.
    Upon receipt and subsequent approval of a State's application, 
NHTSA will award grant funds to the State and will authorize the State 
to incur costs after receipt of an HS Form 217. Vouchers must be 
submitted to the appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator and 
reimbursement will be made to States for authorized expenditures. The 
funding guidelines applicable to the Section 402 Highway Safety Program 
will be used to determine reimbursable expenditures under the Section 
410 program. As with requests for reimbursement under the Section 402 
program, States should indicate on the vouchers what amount of the 
funds expended are eligible for reimbursement under Section 410.

B. Limitation on Grants

    Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, qualifying States were eligible 
to receive each Section 410 grant for up to five fiscal years. Basic 
grants were limited to an amount equal to 30 percent of the State's 
Section 402 apportionment for fiscal year 1992. Each supplemental grant 
was limited to five percent of the State's fiscal year 1992 Section 402 
apportionment. In addition, States were required to match the grant 
funds they received, so that the Federal share did not exceed 75 
percent of the cost of the program adopted under Section 410 in the 
first fiscal year the State received funds, 50 percent in the second 
fiscal year the State received funds and 25 percent in the third, 
fourth and fifth fiscal year.
    Under the new Section 410 program, as amended by TEA-21, States are 
eligible to receive Section 410 grants for up to six fiscal years, 
beginning in FY 1998. A total of $219.5 million is authorized for the 
program over a six-year period. Specifically, TEA-21 authorized $34.5 
million for FY 1998, $35 million for FY 1999, $36 million for FY 2000, 
$36 million for FY 2001, $38 million for FY 2002 and $40 million for FY 
2003.
    TEA-21 created two separate basic grants, which have been 
designated in this interim final rule as programmatic and performance 
basic grants. Beginning in FY 1999, a State that qualifies for either a 
programmatic or a performance basic grant shall receive grant funds in 
an amount equal to 25 percent of the State's Section 402 apportionment 
for FY 1997, subject to the availability of funds. However, States are 
at liberty to apply for both basic grants. A State that qualifies for 
both basic grants shall receive basic grant funds in an amount equal to 
50 percent of the State's FY 1997 Section 402 apportionment, subject to 
the availability of funds.
    Section 410, as amended by TEA-21, limits the funds that will be 
available each fiscal year for supplemental grants to 10 percent of the 
funding for the

[[Page 71699]]

entire Section 410 program for that fiscal year. TEA-21 does not 
specify how each State's supplemental grant is to be calculated.
    The interim final rule provides that supplemental grants will be 
calculated by multiplying the number of supplemental grant criteria a 
State meets by five percent of the State's Section 402 apportionment 
for FY 1997. The agency believes such a calculation takes into account, 
in an appropriate way, the size of the State in terms of population and 
highway mileage (in accordance with the formula used under Section 402) 
and the accomplishments the State has demonstrated in its alcohol-
impaired driving prevention program.
    States continue to be required to match the grant funds they 
receive. Under the matching requirements, the Federal share may not 
exceed 75 percent of the cost of the program adopted under Section 410 
in the first and second fiscal year the State receives funds, 50 
percent in the third and fourth fiscal year the State receives funds 
and 25 percent in the fifth and sixth fiscal year. For those States 
that received Section 410 grants in FY 1998, that year will be 
considered the State's first fiscal year for matching purposes.
    The agency will continue to accept a ``soft'' match in Section 
410's administration. By this, NHTSA means the State's share may be 
satisfied by the use of either allowable costs incurred by the State or 
the value of in-kind contributions applicable to the period to which 
the matching requirement applies. A State could not, however, use any 
Federal funds, such as its Section 402 funds or DOJ funds (mentioned 
above), to satisfy the matching requirements. In addition, a State can 
use each non-Federal expenditure only once for matching purposes.

C. Award Procedures

    The release of the full grant amounts under Section 410 shall be 
subject to the availability of funding for that fiscal year. If there 
are expected to be insufficient funds to award full grant amounts to 
all eligible States in any fiscal year, NHTSA may release less than the 
full grant amounts upon initial approval of the State's application and 
documentation, and the remainder of the full grant amounts up to the 
State's proportionate share of available funds, before the end of that 
fiscal year. Project approval, and the contractual obligation of the 
Federal government to provide grant funds, shall be limited to the 
amount of funds released.
    The Secretary may transfer any amounts remaining available under 23 
U.S.C. Sections 405, 410 and 411 to the amounts made available under 
any other of these programs to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, 
that each State receives the maximum incentive funding for which it is 
eligible.

VI. Interim final rule

    These regulations are being published as an interim final rule. 
Accordingly, the revised regulations in Part 1313 are fully in effect 
30 days after the date of the document's publication. No further 
regulatory action by the agency is necessary to make these regulations 
effective.
    These regulations have been published as an interim final rule 
because insufficient time was available to provide for prior notice and 
opportunity for comment. Grants will be available under these revised 
regulations, beginning in FY 1999. Many of the grant criteria require 
States to enact legislation in order to comply. States are preparing 
their legislative agendas now for their 1999 legislative sessions. The 
States have a need to know what the criteria for grants under this 
program will be as soon as possible so they can enact conforming 
legislation.
    In the agency's view, the States will not be impeded by the use of 
an interim final rule. The procedures that States must follow to apply 
for grants under this program are not altered in any significant way 
from the procedures they have followed in the past to apply for Section 
410 incentive grant funds. Those procedures were established by 
rulemaking and were subject to notice and the opportunity for comment.
    The criteria States must meet to qualify for funds are derived from 
the Federal statute, and many of them are the same or similar to 
criteria previously contained in the Section 410 and other grant 
programs administered by NHTSA. For these reasons, the agency believes 
that there is good cause to find that providing notice and comment in 
connection with this rulemaking action is impracticable, unnecessary, 
and contrary to the public interest.
    The agency requests written comments on these new regulations. All 
comments submitted in response to this document will be considered by 
the agency. Following the close of the comment period, the agency will 
publish a document in the Federal Register responding to the comments 
and, if appropriate, will make further amendments to the provisions of 
Part 1313.

VII. Written Comments

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this interim final 
rule. It is requested, but not required, that two copies be submitted.
    All comments must be limited to 15 pages in length. Necessary 
attachments may be appended to those submissions without regard to the 
15-page limit (49 CFR 553.21). This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    Written comments to the public docket must be received by March 1, 
1999. To expedite the submission of comments, simultaneous with the 
publication of this notice, NHTSA will provide copies to all Governors' 
Representatives for Highway Safety.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date will be considered and will be available for examination 
in the docket at the above address before and after that date. To the 
extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be 
considered. However, the rulemaking action may proceed at any time 
after that date.
    NHTSA will continue to file relevant material in the docket as it 
becomes available after the closing date, and it is recommended that 
interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons who wish to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the docket should enclose, in the envelope with their 
comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
    Copies of all comments will be placed in the Docket for this 
interim final rule in the Office of Docket Management, Room PL-401, 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined 
that this action will not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Accordingly, a 
Federalism Assessment has not been prepared.

B. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This interim final rule will not have any preemptive or retroactive 
effect. The enabling legislation does not establish a procedure for 
judicial review of rules

[[Page 71700]]

promulgated under its provisions. There is no requirement that 
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or other 
administrative proceedings before they may file suit.

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

    The agency has examined the impact of this action and has 
determined that it is not a significant action within the meaning of 
Executive Order 12866 or significant within the meaning of the 
Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
    The action will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or adversely affect in a material way a sector of the 
economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, 
or State, local or tribal governments or communities. It will not 
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency, and it will not materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. Nor does 
it raise novel legal or policy issues.
    In addition, the costs associated with this rule are not 
significant and are expected to be offset by the grant funds received 
and the resulting highway safety benefits. The adoption of alcohol-
impaired driving prevention programs should help to reduce impaired 
driving, which is a serious and costly problem in the United States. 
Accordingly, further economic assessment is not necessary.

D. 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. States 
are the recipients of any funds awarded under the Section 410 program, 
and they are not considered to be small entities, under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The requirements in this interim final rule that provide that 
States retain and report information to the Federal government which 
demonstrates compliance with the alcohol-impaired 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, through January 31, 2000. This interim final rule reduces 
for the States previous information collection requirements associated 
with demonstrating compliance with many of the criteria.

F. 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.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of final rules that include a Federal 
mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than 
$100 million annually. This interim final rule does not meet the 
definition of a Federal mandate, because the resulting annual 
expenditures will not exceed the $100 million threshold. In addition, 
this incentive grant program is completely voluntary and States that 
choose to apply and qualify will receive incentive grant funds.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1313

    Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Grant programs-transportation, 
Highway safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA revises Part 1313, chapter 
III, of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 1313--INCENTIVE GRANT CRITERIA FOR ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING 
PREVENTION PROGRAMS

Sec.
1313.1  Scope.
1313.2  Purpose.
1313.3  Definitions.
1313.4  General requirements.
1313.5  Requirements for a programmatic basic grant.
1313.6  Requirements for a performance basic grant.
1313.7  Requirements for a supplemental grant.
1313.8  Award procedures.
Appendix A to Part 1313--Tamper Resistant Driver's License

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


Sec. 1313.1  Scope.

    This part establishes criteria, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 410, 
for awarding incentive 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.


Sec. 1313.2  Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to encourage States to adopt and 
implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems 
resulting from individuals driving motor vehicles while under the 
influence of alcohol. The criteria established are intended to ensure 
that State alcohol-impaired driving prevention programs for which 
incentive grants are awarded meet or exceed minimum levels designed to 
improve the effectiveness of such programs.


Sec. 1313.3  Definitions.

    (a) ``Alcoholic beverage'' means wine containing one-half of one 
percent or more of alcohol by volume, beer and distilled spirits. Beer 
includes, but is not limited to, ale, lager, porter, stout, sake, and 
other similar fermented beverages brewed or produced from malt, wholly 
or in part, or from any substitute therefor. Distilled spirits include 
alcohol, ethanol, or spirits or wine in any form, including all 
dilutions and mixtures thereof from whatever process produced.
    (b) ``Blood alcohol concentration'' or ``BAC'' means grams of 
alcohol per deciliter or 100 milliliters blood or grams of alcohol per 
210 liters of breath.
    (c) ``Controlled substance'' has the meaning given such term under 
section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802(6).
    (d) ``FARS'' means NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, 
previously called the Fatal Accident Reporting System.
    (e) ``Motor vehicle'' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical 
power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and 
highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.
    (f) ``Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of 
alcohol'' means operating a vehicle while the alcohol concentration in 
the blood or breath, as determined by chemical or other tests, equals 
or exceeds the level established by the State that would be deemed to 
be or equivalent to the standard driving while intoxicated offense in 
the State.

[[Page 71701]]

    (g) ``Standard driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense'' means the 
law in the State that makes it a criminal offense to operate a motor 
vehicle while under the influence of or intoxicated by alcohol, but 
does not require a measurement of alcoholic content.


Sec. 1313.4  General requirements.

    (a) Qualification requirements. To qualify for a grant under 23 
U.S.C. 410, a State must, for each fiscal year it seeks to qualify:
    (1) Submit an application to the appropriate NHTSA Regional Office 
that demonstrates that it meets the requirements of Sec. 1313.5 and/or 
Sec. 1313.6 and, if applicable, Sec. 1313.7, and includes 
certifications that:
    (i) It has an alcohol-impaired driving prevention program that 
meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 410 and 23 CFR Part 1313;
    (ii) It will use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 410 only for the 
implementation and enforcement of alcohol-impaired driving prevention 
programs;
    (iii) It will administer the funds in accordance with 49 CFR Part 
18 and OMB Circulars A-102 and A-87; and
    (iv) It will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other 
sources for its alcohol-impaired driving prevention programs at or 
above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 1996 and 
1997 (either State or Federal fiscal year 1996 and 1997 can be used); 
and
    (2) After being informed by NHTSA that it is eligible for a grant, 
submit to the agency, within 30 days, a Program Cost Summary (HS Form 
217) obligating the Section 410 funds to alcohol-impaired driving 
prevention programs.
    (3) Submit a State Highway Safety Plan by September 1 of each year, 
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 402 and 23 CFR Part 1200, that documents how the 
State intends to use the Section 410 grant funds.
    (4) Submit an application for grant funds, which must be received 
by the agency not later than August 1 of the fiscal year for which the 
State is applying for funds.
    (b) Limitation on grants. A State may receive grants for up to six 
fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1997, subject to the 
following limitations:
    (1) After September 30, 1998, the amount of each basic grant in a 
fiscal year, under Sec. 1313.5 or Sec. 1313.6, shall equal 25 percent 
of the State's apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 402 for FY 1997, subject 
to the availability of funds. If a State qualifies for basic grants in 
a fiscal year under both Sec. 1313.5 and Sec. 1313.6, the total amount 
of basic grants in the fiscal year shall equal 50 percent of the 
State's 23 U.S.C. 402 apportionment for FY 1997, subject to the 
availability of funds.
    (2) After September 30, 1998, the amount of a State's supplemental 
grant in a fiscal year, under Sec. 1313.7, shall be determined by 
multiplying the number of supplemental grant criteria the State meets 
by five percent of the State's 23 U.S.C. 402 apportionment for FY 1997, 
except that the amount shall be subject to the availability of funds. 
The amount available for supplemental grants for all States in a fiscal 
year, under Sec. 1313.7, shall not exceed ten percent of the total 
amount made available under 23 U.S.C. 410 for the fiscal year.
    (3) In the first and second fiscal years a State receives a basic 
or supplemental grant, it shall be reimbursed for up to 75 percent of 
the cost of its alcohol-impaired driving prevention program adopted 
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 410.
    (4) In the third and fourth fiscal years a State receives a basic 
or supplemental grant, it shall be reimbursed for up to 50 percent of 
the cost of its alcohol-impaired driving prevention program adopted 
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 410.
    (5) In the fifth and sixth fiscal years a State receives a basic or 
supplemental grant, it shall be reimbursed for up to 25 percent of the 
cost of its alcohol-impaired driving prevention program adopted 
pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 410.


Sec. 1313.5  Requirements for a programmatic basic grant.

    To qualify for a programmatic basic incentive grant of 25 percent 
of the State's 23 U.S.C. 402 apportionment for FY 1997, a State must 
adopt and demonstrate compliance with at least five of the following 
criteria:
    (a) Administrative license suspension or revocation system.
    (1) Criterion. An administrative driver's license suspension or 
revocation system for individuals who operate motor vehicles while 
under the influence of alcohol that requires that:
    (i) In the case of an individual who, in any five-year period 
beginning after June 9, 1998, is determined on the basis of a chemical 
test to have been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence 
of alcohol or is determined to have refused to submit to such a test as 
proposed by a law enforcement officer, the State entity responsible for 
administering driver's licenses, upon receipt of the report of the law 
enforcement officer, shall:
    (A) Suspend all driving privileges for a period of not less than 90 
days if the individual refused to submit to a chemical test and is a 
first offender;
    (B) Suspend all driving privileges for a period of not less than 90 
days, or not less than 30 days followed immediately by a period of not 
less than 60 days of a restricted, provisional or conditional license, 
if the individual was determined on the basis of a chemical test to 
have been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of 
alcohol, and is a first offender. A restricted, provisional or 
conditional license may be issued only in accordance with a State law, 
regulation or binding policy directive establishing the conditions 
under which such a license may be issued, or with statewide published 
guidelines, and in exceptional circumstances specific to the offender; 
and
    (C) Suspend or revoke all driving privileges for a period of not 
less than one year if the individual was determined on the basis of a 
chemical test to have been operating a motor vehicle while under the 
influence of alcohol or refused to submit to such a test, and is a 
repeat offender; and
    (ii) The suspension or revocation shall take effect not later than 
30 days after the day on which the individual refused to submit to a 
chemical test or received notice of having been determined to be 
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in 
accordance with the procedures of the State.
    (2) Definitions. (i) ``First offender'' means an individual who a 
law enforcement officer has probable cause under State law to believe 
has committed an alcohol-related traffic offense, and who is determined 
on the basis of a chemical test to have been operating a motor vehicle 
while under the influence of alcohol or who refused to submit to such a 
test, once in any five-year period beginning after June 9, 1998.
    (ii) ``Repeat offender'' means an individual who a law enforcement 
officer has probable cause under State law to believe has committed an 
alcohol-related traffic offense, and who is determined on the basis of 
a chemical test to have been operating a motor vehicle while under the 
influence of alcohol or who refused to submit to such a test, more than 
once in any five-year period beginning after June 9, 1998.
    (3) Demonstrating compliance for Law States. (i) To demonstrate 
compliance in the first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on 
this criterion, a Law State shall submit a copy of the law, regulation 
or binding policy directive implementing or interpreting the law or 
regulation, which provides for each element of this criterion.
    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, a Law 
State

[[Page 71702]]

shall submit a copy of any changes to the State's law, regulation or 
binding policy directive or, if there have been no changes, the State 
shall submit a statement certifying that there have been no changes in 
the State's laws, regulations or binding policy directives.
    (iii) For purposes of this paragraph, ``Law State'' means a State 
that has a law, regulation or binding policy directive implementing or 
interpreting an existing law or regulation that provides for each 
element of this criterion.
    (4) Demonstrating compliance for Data States. (i) To demonstrate 
compliance in the first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on 
this criterion, a Data State shall submit a copy of the law, regulation 
or binding policy directive implementing or interpreting the law or 
regulation, which provides for an administrative license suspension or 
revocation system, and data showing that the State substantially 
complies with each element of this criterion not specifically provided 
for in the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive.
    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, a Data 
State shall submit, in addition to the information identified in 
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, data showing that the State 
substantially complies with each element of this criterion not 
specifically provided for in the State's law, regulation or binding 
policy directive.
    (iii) The State can provide the necessary data based on a 
representative sample, on the average number of days it took to suspend 
or revoke a driver's license and on the average lengths of suspension 
or revocation periods, except that data on the average lengths of 
suspension or revocation periods must not include license suspension 
periods that exceed the terms actually prescribed by the State, and 
must reflect terms only to the extent that they are actually completed.
    (iv) For the purpose of this paragraph, ``Data State'' means a 
State that has a law, regulation or binding policy directive 
implementing or interpreting an existing law or regulation that 
provides for an administrative license suspension or revocation system, 
but the State's laws, regulations or binding policy directives do not 
specifically provide for each element of this criterion.
(b) Underage Drinking Prevention Program
    (1) Criterion. An effective underage drinking prevention program 
designed to prevent persons under the age of 21 from obtaining 
alcoholic beverages and to prevent persons of any age from making 
alcoholic beverages available to persons under the age of 21, that 
provides for:
    (i) The issuance of tamper resistant driver's licenses to persons 
under age 21 that are easily distinguishable in appearance from 
driver's licenses issued to persons 21 years of age and older;
    (ii) Public information programs targeted to underage drivers 
regarding drinking age laws, zero tolerance laws, and respective 
penalties;
    (iii) A program to educate alcoholic beverage retailers and servers 
about both on- and off-premise consumption, and the civil, 
administrative and/or criminal penalties associated with the illegal 
sale of alcoholic beverages to underage drinkers;
    (iv) An overall enforcement strategy directed at the sale and 
purchase of alcoholic beverages involving persons under the age of 21 
that can be implemented locally throughout the State; and
    (v) A prevention program that enlists the aid of persons under the 
age of 21.
    (2) Definitions. ``Tamper resistant driver's license'' means a 
driver's license that has one or more of the security features listed 
in Appendix A.
    (3) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the 
first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, 
the State shall submit a description and sample materials documenting 
an underage drinking prevention program that covers each element of 
paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) through (v) of this section. The State shall 
also submit sample driver's licenses issued to persons both under and 
over 21 years of age that demonstrate the distinctive appearance of 
licenses for drivers under age 21 and the tamper resistance of these 
licenses.
    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall document any changes to the State's driver's licenses or 
underage drinking prevention program or, if there have been no changes, 
a statement certifying that there have been no changes in the State's 
driver's licenses or its underage drinking prevention program.
(c) Statewide Traffic Enforcement Program
    (1) Criterion. A Statewide traffic enforcement program that 
emphasizes publicity and is either:
    (i) a program for stopping motor vehicles on a non-discriminatory, 
lawful basis for the purpose of determining whether or not the 
operators of such motor vehicles are driving under the influence of 
alcohol; or
    (ii) a special traffic enforcement program to detect impaired 
drivers operating motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol.
    (2) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the 
first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, 
the State shall submit a comprehensive plan to conduct a program under 
which:
    (A) Motor vehicles are stopped or special traffic enforcement is 
conducted on a Statewide basis, in major areas covering at least 50 
percent of the State's population;
    (B) Stops are made or special traffic enforcement is conducted not 
less than monthly;
    (C) Stops are made or special traffic enforcement is conducted by 
both State and local (county and city) law enforcement agencies; and
    (D) Effective public information efforts are conducted to inform 
the public about these enforcement programs.
    (ii) The plan shall include guidelines, policies or operation 
procedures governing the Statewide enforcement program and provide 
approximate dates and locations of programs planned in the upcoming 
year, and the names of the law enforcement agencies expected to 
participate. The plan shall describe the public information efforts to 
be conducted.
    (iii) to demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit an updated plan for conducting a Statewide 
enforcement program in the following year and information documenting 
that the prior year's plan was effectively implemented.
(d) Graduated Driver's Licensing System
    (1) Criterion. A graduated driver's licensing system for young 
drivers that consists of the following three stages:
    (i) Stage I. A learner's permit may be issued after an applicant 
passes vision and knowledge test, including tests about the rules of 
the road, signs and signals. The State I learner's permit must be 
subject to the following conditions:
    (A) Stage I learner's permit holders under the age of 21 are 
prohibited from operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.02 or 
greater;
    (B) Stage I learner's permit holders are prohibited from operating 
a motor vehicle while any occupant in the vehicle is not properly 
restrained in accordance with State or local safety belt and child 
restraint laws;
    (C) A licensed driver who is 21 years of age or older must be in 
any motor vehicle operated by the Stage I learner's permit holder at 
all times;


[[Page 71703]]


    (D) Stage I learner's permit holders must remain crash and 
conviction free; and

    (E) The Stage I learner's permit must be distinguishable from Stage 
II and III driver's licenses;

    (ii) Stage II. An intermediate driver's license may be issued after 
an applicant has successfully complied with the conditions of the Stage 
I learner's permit for not less than three months and passed a driving 
skills test. The Stage II intermediate driver's license must be subject 
to the following conditions:

    (A) Stage II intermediate driver's license holders under the age of 
21 are prohibited from operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.02 or 
greater;

    (B) Stage II intermediate driver's license holders are prohibited 
from operating a motor vehicle while any occupant in the vehicle is not 
properly restrained in accordance with state or local safety belt and 
child restraint laws;

    (C) A licensed driver who is 21 years of age or older must be in 
any motor vehicle operated by the Stage II intermediate driver's 
license holder, during some period of time between the hours of 10:00 
p.m. and 6:00 a.m.. as specified by the State, unless covered by a 
State-approved exception;

    (D) Stage II intermediate driver's license holders must remain 
crash and conviction free; and

    (E) The Stage II intermediate driver's license must be 
distinguishable from Stage I learner's permits and Stage III driver's 
licenses; and

    (iii) Stage III. A driver's license may be issued after an 
applicant has successfully complied with the conditions of the Stage I 
learner's permit and the Stage II intermediate driver's license for a 
combined period of not less than one year. The Stage III driver's 
license must be distinguishable from Stage I learner's permits and 
Stage II intermediate driver's licenses.

    (2) Definitions. (i) ``Conviction free'' means that the individual, 
during the term of the permit or license, has not been charged with and 
subsequently convicted of any offense under State or local law relating 
to the use or operating of a motor vehicle.

    (ii) ``Crash free'' means that the individual, during the term of 
the permit or license, has not been determined to be the party at fault 
in any police reportable motor vehicle crash.

    (3) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the 
fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, the 
State shall submit a copy of the law, regulation or binding policy 
directive implementing or interpreting the law or regulation, which 
provides for each element of this criterion.

    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit a copy of any changes to the State's law, regulation 
or binding policy directive or, if there have been no changes, the 
State shall submit a statement certifying that there have been no 
changes in the State's laws, regulations or binding policy directives.

(e) Program for Drivers With High BAC

    (1) Criterion. Programs to target individuals with a high BAC who 
operate a motor vehicle.

    (i) The programs shall establish a system of graduated sanctions 
for individuals convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the 
influence of alcohol, under which enhanced or additional sanctions 
apply to such individuals if they were determined to have a high BAC.

    (ii) The threshold level at which the high BAC sanctions must begin 
to apply may be any BAC level that is higher than the BAC level 
established by the State that is deemed to be or equivalent to the 
standard driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense, and less than or 
equal to 0.20 BAC.

    (2) Definitions. ``Enhanced or additional sanctions'' means the 
imposition of longer terms of license suspension, increased fines, 
additional or extended sentences of confinement, vehicle sanctions, 
mandatory assessment and treatment as appropriate, or other 
consequences that do not apply to individuals who were not determined 
to have a high BAC.

    (3) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the 
first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, 
the State shall submit a copy of the law, regulation or binding policy 
directive implementing or interpreting the law or regulation, which 
provides for each element of this criterion. In addition, the State 
shall submit the provisions that set forth the sanctions under its 
standard DWI offense.

    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit a copy of any changes to the State's law, regulation 
or binding policy directive or, if there have been no changes, the 
State shall submit a statement certifying that there have been no 
changes in the State's laws, regulations or binding policy directives.

(f) Young Adult Drinking and Driving Program

    (1) Criterion A young adult drinking and driving program designed 
to reduce the incidence of operating a motor vehicle while under the 
influence of alcohol by individuals between the ages of 21 and 34 that 
provides for:

    (i) A Statewide public information and awareness campaign for young 
adult drivers regarding alcohol-impaired driving laws, and the legal 
and economic consequences of alcohol-impaired driving; and

    (ii) Activities, implemented at the State and local levels, 
designed to reduce the incidence of alcohol-impaired driving by drivers 
between the ages of 21 and 34 that involve:

    (A) the participation of employers;

    (B) the participation of colleges or universities;

    (C) the participation of the hospitality industry; or

    (D) the participation of appropriate State officials to encourage 
the assessments and incorporation of treatment as appropriate into 
judicial sentencing for drivers between the ages for 21 and 34 who have 
been convicted for the first time of operating a motor vehicle while 
under the influence of alcohol.

    (2) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the 
first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, 
the State shall submit:

    (A) a description and sample materials documenting the State's 
Statewide public information and awareness campaign;

    (B) a description and sample materials documenting activities 
designed to reduce the incidence of alcohol-impaired driving by young 
drivers, which must involve at least one of the four components 
contained in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section; and

    (C) a plan that outlines proposed efforts to involve in these 
activities all four components contained in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of 
this section.

    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit an updated description of its Statewide public 
information and awareness campaign and of other activities designed to 
reduce the incidence of alcohol-impaired driving by young adult 
drivers. The State shall submit information documenting that these 
activities involve all four components contained in paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii) of this section.


[[Page 71704]]


(g) Testing for BAC

    (1) Criterion. (i) In FY 1999 and FY 2000, an effective system for 
increasing the percentage of BAC testing among drivers involved in 
fatal motor vehicle crashes, under which:

    (A) BAC testing law. The State's law provides for mandatory BAC 
testing for any driver involved in a fatal motor vehicle crash;

    (B) BAC testing data. The State's percentage of BAC testing among 
drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes is equal to or greater 
than the national average, as determined under the most recently 
available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal year for which 
grant funds are being sought.

    (C) BAC testing symposium. The State has plans to conduct, or 
conducted no more than two years prior to the date of its application, 
a symposium or workshop designed to increase the percentage of BAC 
testing for drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes. The 
symposium or workshop must be attended by law enforcement officials, 
prosecutors, hospital officials, medical examiners, coroners, 
physicians, and judges; and must address the medical, ethical, and 
legal impediments to increasing the percentage of BAC testing among 
drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes.

    (ii) In FY 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year, a percentage of 
BAC testing among drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes that 
is equal to or greater than the national average, as determined under 
the most recently available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal 
year for which grant funds are being sought.

    (2) Definitions. (i) ``Drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle 
crashes'' includes both drivers who are fatally injured in motor 
vehicle crashes and drivers who survive a motor vehicle crash in which 
someone else is killed.

    (ii) ``Mandatory BAC testing'' means a law enforcement officer must 
request each driver involved in a fatal motor vehicle crash to submit 
to BAC testing.

    (3) Demonstrating compliance in FY 1999 and FY 2000. (i) To 
demonstrate compliance based on this criterion in FY 1999 or FY 2000, 
the State shall submit:

    (A) a copy of the law, regulation or binding policy directive 
implementing or interpreting the law or regulation, which provides for 
each element of the mandatory BAC testing requirement, as provided in 
paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A) of this section;

    (B) a statement certifying that the percentage of BAC testing among 
drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes in the State is equal 
to or greater than the national average, as determined under the most 
recently available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal year for 
which grant funds are being sought; or

    (C) a description of the planned or completed symposium or 
workshop, including a copy of the actual or proposed agenda and a list 
of the names and affiliations of the individuals who attended or who 
are expected to be invited to attend, except as provided in paragraph 
(g)(3)(ii)(C).

    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in FY 2000:

    (A) If in the first fiscal year the State demonstrated compliance 
under paragraph (g)(3)(i)(A), the State may submit instead a copy of 
any changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive 
or, if there have been no changes, the State shall submit a statement 
certifying that there have been no changes in the States laws, 
regulations or binding policy directives.

    (B) If in the first fiscal year the State demonstrated compliance 
under paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B), the State may submit instead a statement 
certifying that the percentage of BAC testing among drivers involved in 
fatal motor vehicle crashes in the State continues to be equal to or 
greater than the national average, as determined under the most 
recently available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal year for 
which grant funds are being sought.

    (C) If in the first fiscal year the State demonstrated compliance 
under paragraph (g)(3)(i)(C), the State shall submit instead a copy of 
the report or other documentation that was generated as a result of the 
symposium or workshop, with recommendations designed to increase BAC 
testing for drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes, and a plan 
that outlines how the recommendations will be implemented in the State.

    (4) Demonstrating compliance beginning in FY 2001. To demonstrate 
compliance for a grant based on this criterion in FY 2001 or any 
subsequent fiscal year, the State shall submit a statement certifying 
that the percentage of BAC testing among drivers involved in fatal 
motor vehicle crashes in the State is equal to or greater than the 
national average, as determined under the most recently available FARS 
data as of the first day of the fiscal year for which grant funds are 
being sought.

Sec. 1313.6

  Requirements for a performance basic grant.

    (a) Criterion. A State will qualify for a performance basic 
incentive grant of 25 percent of the State's 23 U.S.C. 402 
apportionment for FY 1997 if:

    (1) the percentage of fatally injured drivers in the State with a 
BAC of 0.10 percent or greater has decreased in each of the three most 
recent calendar years for which statistics for determining such 
percentages are available as of the first day of the fiscal year for 
which grant funds are being sought; and

    (2) the percentage of fatally injured drivers in the State with a 
BAC of 0.10 percent or greater has been lower than the average 
percentage for all States in each of the same three calendar years.

    (b) Calculating percentage. (1) The percentage of fatally injured 
drivers with a BAC of 0.10 percent or greater in each State is 
calculated by NHTSA for each calendar year, using the most recently 
available data contained in the FARS as of the first day of the fiscal 
year for which grant funds are being sought and NHTSA's method for 
estimating alcohol involvement.

    (2) The average percentage of fatally injured drivers with a BAC of 
0.10 percent or greater for all States is calculated by NHTSA for each 
calendar year, using the most recently available data contained in the 
FARS as of the first day of the fiscal year for which grant funds are 
being sought and NHTSA's method for estimating alcohol involvement.

    (3) Any State with a percentage of BAC testing among fatally 
injured drivers of 85 percent or greater in each of the three most 
recent calendar years, as determined by the FARS as of the first day of 
the fiscal year for which grant funds are being sought, may calculate 
for submission to NHTSA the percentage of fatally injured drivers with 
a BAC of 0.10 percent or greater in that State for those calendar 
years, using State data.

    (c) Demonstrating compliance. (1) To demonstrate compliance with 
this criterion, a State shall submit a statement certifying that the 
State meets each element of this criterion, based on the percentages 
calculated in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 
section.

    (2) Alternatively, a State with a percentage of BAC testing among 
fatally injured drivers of 85 percent or greater, as determined under 
the FARS as of the first day of the fiscal year for which grant funds 
are being sought, may demonstrate compliance with this criterion by 
submitting its calculations developed under paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section and a statement certifying that the State meets each element of 
this criterion, based on the percentages calculated in accordance with

[[Page 71705]]

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.

Sec. 1313.7

   Requirements for a supplemental grant.

    To qualify for a supplemental grant under this section, a State 
must qualify for a programmatic basic grant under Sec. 1313.5, a 
performance basic grant under Sec. 1313.6, or both, and meet one or 
more of the following criteria:

(a) Video Equipment Program

    (1) Criterion. A program:

    (i) To acquire video equipment to be installed in law enforcement 
vehicles and used in detecting persons who operate motor vehicles while 
under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance;

    (ii) To effectively prosecute those persons; and

    (iii) To train personnel in the use of that equipment.

    (2) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the 
first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, 
the State shall submit a plan for the acquisition and use of video 
equipment in law enforcement vehicles for the enforcement of impaired 
driving laws, including:

    (A) A schedule for the areas where the equipment has been and will 
be installed and used;

    (B) A plan for training law enforcement personnel, prosecutors and 
judges in the use of this equipment; and

    (C) A plan for public information and education programs to enhance 
the general deterrent effect of the equipment.

    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit information on the use and effectiveness of the 
equipment and an updated plan for any acquisition and use of additional 
equipment.

(b) Self-Sustaining Drunk Driving Prevention Program

    (1) Criterion. A self-sustaining drunk driving prevention program 
under which a significant portion of the fines or surcharges collected 
from individuals apprehended and fined for operating a motor vehicle 
while under the influence of alcohol are returned to communities with 
comprehensive programs for the prevention of such operations of motor 
vehicles.

    (2) Definitions. (i) A ``comprehensive drunk driving prevention 
program'' means a program that includes, as a minimum, the following 
components:

    (A) Regularly conducted, peak-hour traffic enforcement efforts 
directed at impaired driving;

    (B) Prosecution, adjudication and sanctioning resources are 
adequate to handle increased levels of arrests for operating a motor 
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol;

    (C) Other programs directed at prevention other than enforcement 
and adjudication activities, such as school, worksite or community 
education; server training; or treatment programs; and

    (D) A public information program designed to make the public aware 
of the problem of impaired driving and of the efforts in place to 
address it.

    (ii) ``Fines or surcharges collected'' means fines, penalties, fees 
or additional assessments collected.

    (3) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the 
first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, a 
State shall submit:

    (A) A copy of the law, regulation or biding policy directive 
implementing or interpreting the law or regulation, which provides:

    (1) For fines or surcharges to be imposed on individuals 
apprehended for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of 
alcohol; and

    (2) For such fines or surcharges collected to be returned to 
communities with comprehensive drunk driving prevention programs; and

    (B) Statewide data (or a representative sample) showing:

    (1) The aggregate amount of fines or surcharges collected;

    (2) The aggregate amount of revenues returned to communities with 
comprehensive drunk driving prevention programs under the State's self-
sustaining system; and

    (3) The aggregate cost of the State's comprehensive drunk driving 
prevention programs.

    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit, in addition to the data identified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(i)(B) of this section, a copy of any changes to the State's law, 
regulation or binding policy directive or, if there have been no 
changes, the State shall submit a statement certifying that there have 
been no changes in the State's laws, regulations or binding policy 
directives.

(c) Reduction of Driving With a Suspended License

    (1) Criterion. A law to reduce driving with a suspended driver's 
license. The law must impose one of the following sanctions on any 
individual who has been convicted of driving with a driver's license 
that was suspended or revoked by reason of a conviction for an alcohol-
related traffic offense. Such sanctions must include at least one of 
the following for some period of time during the term of the 
individual's driver's license suspension or revocation, as specified by 
the State:

    (i) The suspension of the registration of, and the return to such 
State of the license plates for, any motor vehicle owned by the 
individual;

    (ii) The impoundment, immobilization, forfeiture or confiscation of 
any motor vehicle owned by the individual; or

    (iii) The placement of a distinctive license plate on any motor 
vehicle owned by the individual.

    (2) Definitions. ``Suspension and return'' means the temporary 
debarring of the privilege to operate or maintain a particular 
registered motor vehicle on the public highways and the confiscation or 
impoundment of the motor vehicle's license plates.

    (3) Exceptions. (i) A State may provide limited exceptions to the 
sanctions listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this section 
on an individual basis, to avoid undue hardship to any individual who 
is completely dependent on the motor vehicle for the necessities of 
life, including any family member of the convicted individual, and any 
co-owner of the motor vehicle, but not including the offender.

    (ii) Such exceptions may be issued only in accordance with a State 
law, regulation or binding policy directive establishing the conditions 
under which motor vehicles or license plates may be released by the 
State or under Statewide published guidelines and in exceptional 
circumstances specific to the offender's motor vehicle, and may not 
result in the unrestricted use of the motor vehicle by the individual.

    (4) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the 
first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, 
the State shall submit a copy of the law, regulation or binding policy 
directive implementing or interpreting the law or regulation, which 
provides for each element of this criterion.

    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit a copy of any changes to the State's law, regulation 
or binding policy directive or, if there have been no changes, the 
State shall submit a statement certifying that there have been

[[Page 71706]]

no changes in the State's laws, regulations or binding policy 
directives.

(d) Passive Alcohol Sensor Program

    (1) Criterion. A program:

    (i) To acquire passive alcohol sensors to be used during 
enforcement activities to enhance the detection of the presence of 
alcohol in the breath of drivers; and

    (ii) To train law enforcement personnel and inform judges and 
prosecutors about the purpose and use of the equipment.

    (2) Definitions. ``Passive alcohol sensor'' means a screening 
device used to sample the ambient air in the vicinity of the driver's 
exhaled breath to determine whether or not it contains alcohol.

    (3) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the 
first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, 
the State shall submit a plan for the acquisition and use of passive 
alcohol sensors to enhance the enforcement of impaired driving laws, 
including:

    (A) A schedule for the areas where the equipment has been and will 
be used;

    (B) A plan for training law enforcement personnel in the 
recommended procedures for use of these devices in the field, and for 
informing prosecutors and judges about the purpose and use of the 
equipment; and

    (C) A plan for public information and education programs to enhance 
the general deterrent effect of the equipment.

    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit information on the use and effectiveness of the 
equipment and an updated plan for any acquisition and use of additional 
equipment.

(e) Effective DWI Tracking System

    (1) Criterion. An effective driving while intoxicated (DWI) 
tracking system containing the ability to:

    (i) Collect, store, and retrieve data on individual DWI cases from 
arrest, through case prosecution and court disposition and sanction 
(including fines assessed and paid), until dismissal or until all 
applicable sanctions have been completed;

    (ii) Link the DWI tracking system to appropriate data and traffic 
records systems in jurisdictions and offices within the State to 
provide prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers, motor vehicle 
administration personnel, and other officials with timely and accurate 
information concerning individuals charged with an alcohol-related 
driving offense; and

    (iii) Provide aggregate data, organized by specific categories 
(geographic locations, demographic groups, sanctions, etc.), suitable 
for allowing legislators, policymakers, treatment professionals, and 
other State officials to evaluate the DWI environment in the State.

    (2) Demonstrating compliance. 

    (i) To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year the State 
receives a grant based on this criterion, the State shall submit a 
description of its DWI tracking system, including:

    (A) A description of the means used for the collection, storage and 
retrieval of data;

    (B) An explanation of how the system is linked to data and traffic 
records systems in appropriate jurisdictions and offices within the 
State;

    (C) An example of available statistical reports and analyses; and

    (D) A sample data run showing tracking of a DWI arrest through 
final disposition.

    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit a report or analysis using the DWI tracking system 
data, demonstrating that the system is still in operation.

(f) Other Innovative Programs

    (1) Criterion. An innovative program to reduce traffic safety 
problems resulting from individuals operating motor vehicles while 
under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, through legal 
judicial, enforcement, educational, technological or other approaches. 
The program must:

    (i) Have been implemented within the last two years;

    (ii) Contain one or more substantial components that:

    (A) Make this program different from programs previously conducted 
in the State; and

    (B) Have not been used by the State to qualify for a grant in a 
previous fiscal year based on this criterion or in any fiscal year 
based on any other criterion contained in Secs. 1313.5, 1313.6 or 
1313.7 of this part; and

    (iii) Be shown to have been effective.

    (2) Demonstrating compliance. To demonstrate compliance for a grant 
based on this criterion, the State shall submit a description of the 
innovative program, which includes:

    (i) The name of the program;

    (ii) The area or jurisdiction where it has been implemented and the 
population(s) targeted;

    (iii) The specific condition or problem the program was intended to 
address, the goals and objectives of the program and the strategies or 
means used to achieve those goals;

    (iv) The actual results of the program and the means used to 
measure the results;

    (v) All sources of funds that were applied to the problem; and

    (vi) The name, address and telephone number of a contact person.

Sec. 1313.8

   Award procedures.

    (a) In each Federal fiscal year, grants will be made to eligible 
States upon submission and approval of the application required by 
Sec. 1313.4(a) and subject to the limitations in Sec. 1313.4(b). The 
release of grant funds under this part shall be subject to the 
availability of funding for that fiscal year. If there are expected to 
be insufficient funds to award full grant amounts to all eligible 
States in any fiscal year, NHTSA may release less than the full grant 
amounts upon initial approval of the State's application and 
documentation and the remainder of the full grant amounts up to the 
State's proportionate share of available funds, before the end of that 
fiscal year. Project approval, and the contractual obligation of the 
Federal government to provide grant funds, shall be limited to the 
amount of funds released.

    (b) If any amounts authorized for grants under this part for a 
fiscal year are expected to remain unobligated in that fiscal year, the 
Administrator may transfer such amounts to the programs authorized 
under 23 U.S.C. 405 and 23 U.S.C. 411, to ensure to the extent possible 
that each State receives the maximum incentive funding for which it is 
eligible.

    (c) If any amounts authorized for grants under 23 U.S.C. 405 and 23 
U.S.C. 411 are transferred to the grant program under this part in a 
fiscal year, the Administrator shall distribute the transferred amounts 
so that each eligible State receives a proportionate share of these 
amounts, subject to the conditions specified in Sec. 1313.4.

Appendix A to Part 1313--Tamper Resistant Driver's License

    A tamper resistant driver's license or permit is a driver's 
license or permit that has one or more of the following security 
features:


(1) Ghost image.

(2) Ghost graphic.

(3) Hologram.

(4) Optical variable device.

(5) Microline printing.

(6) State seal or a signature which overlaps the individual's 
photograph or information.


[[Page 71707]]


(7) Security laminate.

(8) Background containing color, pattern, line or design.

(9) Rainbow printing.

(10) Guilloche pattern or design.

(11) Opacity mark.

(12) Out of gamut colors (i.e., pastel print).

(13) Optical variable ultra-high-resolution lines.

(14) Block graphics.

(15) Security fonts and graphics with known hidden flaws.

(16) Card stock, layer with colors.

(17) Micro-graphics.

(18) Retroflective security logos.

(19) Machine readable technologies such as magnetic strips, a 1D bar 
code or a 2D bar code.


    Issued on: December 22, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-34342 Filed 12-24-98; 12:01 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M