[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 146 (Friday, July 28, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46344-46356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18985]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1313

[Docket No. NHTSA-00-7476]
RIN 2127-AH42


Incentive Grants for Alcohol-Impaired Driving Prevention Programs

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces that the amendments to the regulations 
that were published in an interim final rule to reflect changes made to 
the Section 410 program by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21) will remain in effect with minor changes. Under the 
final rule, States have two alternative means for qualifying for a 
Section 410 basic grant.
    States may qualify for a ``programmatic basic grant'' if they 
submit materials demonstrating that they meet five out of seven grant 
criteria. Alternatively, States may qualify for a ``performance basic 
grant'' by submitting data demonstrating that the State has 
successively reduced the percentage of alcohol-impaired fatally injured 
drivers in the State over a three-year period. States that qualify 
under both sets of requirements may receive both programmatic and 
performance basic grants. In addition, States that are eligible for one 
or both of the basic grants may qualify also for a supplemental grant.
    This final rule establishes the criteria States must meet and the 
procedures they must follow to qualify for Section 410 incentive 
grants, beginning in FY 2000. This final rule also modifies some 
features of the interim regulations that relate to the graduated 
driver's licensing system criterion and the young adult drinking and 
driving program criterion.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on July 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Glenn Karr, Office of State and 
Community Services, NSC-10, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, DC 20590 telephone 
(202) 366-2121; or Mr. Christopher A. Cook, Office of Chief Counsel, 
NCC-30, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Administrative Issues
    A. Qualification Requirements
    B. Limitation on Grants
    C. Award Procedures
III. Interim Final Rule
IV. Written Comments
    A. Comments Received
    B. General Comments
    C. Comments regarding the Grant Criteria
    1. Administrative License Suspension or Revocation System
    2. Underage Drinking Prevention Program
    3. Statewide Traffic Enforcement Program
    4. Graduated Driver's Licensing System
    5. Program for Drivers with High BAC
    6. Young Adult Drinking and Driving Programs
    7. Performance Grant Criteria
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 13132 (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

[[Page 46345]]

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 was 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 was 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 
must meet five out of the 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 law 
at 0.02 BAC for persons under age 21 requirement was eliminated as a 
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 (P.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 took 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, a State 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. A State 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 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. A detailed 
discussion of the criteria described above is contained in the interim 
final rule.

II. Administrative Issues

A. Qualification Requirements

    Under the interim final rule, the 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

[[Page 46346]]

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.

B. Limitation on Grants

    Under the 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 were designated in 
the agency's 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 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 provided 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. This is the maximum supplemental grant funding the State 
may receive, subject to the ten percent cap and availability of funds. 
We received no comments in response to the interim rule regarding this 
issue. The agency continues to believe that 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. This final rule 
makes no changes to this aspect of the interim regulation.
    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 Department of Justice 
funds, to satisfy the matching requirements. In addition, a State can 
use each non-Federal expenditure only once for matching purposes.

C. Award Procedures

    As the agency explained in the interim final rule, 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 stated in the 
interim final rule that it 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.
    However, based on the agency's experience administering this grant 
program in fiscal year 1999, as well as the other grant programs that 
were authorized under TEA-21, NHTSA has determined that it is not 
necessary to release funds in two stages. Accordingly, beginning in FY 
2000, all Section 410 funds will be released at the same time. Since 
applications for Section 410 funds are due each fiscal year by August 
1, the funds will be awarded near the end of each fiscal year (no later 
than September 30).
    If there are insufficient funds to award the full grant amounts to 
all eligible States in any fiscal year, NHTSA will award each State its 
proportionate share of available funds. As stated in the interim final 
rule, project approval, and the contractual obligation of the Federal 
government to provide grant funds, shall be limited to the amount of 
funds released.
    As explained in the interim final rule, if any funds remain 
available under 23 U.S.C. Sections 405, 410 and 411 at the end of a 
fiscal year, the Secretary may transfer these funds 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.

III. Interim Final Rule

    These regulations were published in an interim final rule on 
December 29, 1998 (63 FR 71688). The interim regulations became 
effective on January 28, 1999, and grants were awarded under the 
provisions of the interim regulations in FY 1999. Thirty-four States 
submitted grant applications under the interim regulations in FY 1999. 
Thirty-two States received a total of $33,250,000 in both basic and 
supplemental Section 410 grants in FY 1999 under the interim final 
rule. Of the thirty-two States that received grants, a total of thirty 
States qualified for a grant under the programmatic basic criterion 
and, of these thirty States, three States qualified for both a 
programmatic basic grant and a performance basic grant. In addition, 
two States qualified for a performance basic grant only.

IV. Written Comments

    In the interim final rule published on December 29, 1998, the 
agency requested written comments on the changes to the regulations. 
The agency stated that all comments submitted would be considered by 
the agency and that, following the close of the comment period, the 
agency would publish a document in the Federal Register responding to 
the comments and, if appropriate, would make further amendments to the 
provisions of Part 1313.

A. Comments Received

    The agency received submissions from eight commenters in response 
to the interim final rule. The commenters included the National 
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR) and 
seven State representatives. K. Craig Allred, Director of the Utah 
Highway Safety Office, commented in his capacity as the Chair of the 
National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives 
(NAGHSR). The State comments were submitted by Kirk Brown, Secretary of 
the Illinois Department of Transportation (Illinois); Ronald D. Lipps, 
Highway Safety Coordinator, Maryland State Highway

[[Page 46347]]

Administration (Maryland); Betty J. Mercer, Division Director of the 
Office of Highway Safety Planning, Michigan Department of State Police 
(Michigan); Dawn Olson, Program Manager, North Dakota Department of 
Transportation, Drivers License and Traffic Safety (North Dakota); Troy 
E. Costales, Governor's Highway Safety Representative and the 
Transportation Safety Division Manager of the Oregon Department of 
Transportation (Oregon); John M. Moffat, Governor's Highway Safety 
Representative and Director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission 
(Washington); and Charles H. Thompson, Secretary of the Wisconsin 
Department of Transportation (Wisconsin).

B. General Comments

    In general, the comments in response to the interim final rule were 
very positive. Washington recommended that the ``rule be adopted as 
written'' and complimented the agency ``on a clearly written rule.'' 
NAGHSR supported the interim regulations and stated that it ``believes 
that they are consistent with statutory intent.''
    Many sections of the interim rule generated no comments. For 
example, no comments were received regarding Sec. 1313.1 Scope, 
Sec. 1313.2 Purpose, Sec. 1313.3 Definitions, Sec. 1313.4 General 
Requirements and Sec. 1313.8 Award Procedures. We also received no 
comments regarding Sec. 1313.7, which contained the requirements for a 
supplemental grant. These sections of the interim rule have been 
adopted in this final rule without change.
    One commenter (the State of Oregon) noted that ``the level of 
detail for some of the requirements was extensive'' and the interim 
rule included what the commenter considered ``excessive detail'' that 
was ``prescriptive, leaving little flexibility for some States.'' We 
note, however, that Oregon objected to only two particular criteria, 
the graduated driver's licensing system and the program for drivers 
with high BAC. The State indicated that it considered all of the other 
established criteria to be acceptable.
    Most comments related to the requirements that States must meet to 
qualify for a programmatic grant based on the administrative license 
suspension or revocation system, underage drinking prevention program, 
statewide traffic enforcement program, graduated driver licensing 
system, program for drivers with high BAC and young adult drinking and 
driving program criteria. Comments were received also regarding the 
requirements that States must meet to qualify for a performance grant. 
These comments and the agency's responses thereto are discussed in 
greater detail below. Also discussed below are certain changes that the 
agency decided to make in this final rule regarding issues that were 
raised while the agency reviewed State applications for Section 410 
funds during FY 1999, the first year that the Section 410 program 
operated under the interim regulations.

C. Comments Regarding the Grant Criteria

1. Administrative License Suspension or Revocation System
    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, * * * 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.

    With regard to the requirement under this criterion that the 
driver's license of repeat offenders must be suspended or revoked for a 
period of not less than one year, the interim final rule requires that 
States must impose a ``hard'' one-year suspension term (i.e., that all 
driving privileges of repeat offenders must be suspended or revoked for 
at least one year) on any offender who fails or refuses to submit to a 
chemical test more than once within a five-year period.
    Mr. Allred of Utah, commenting for NAGHSR, strongly objected to 
this one-year hard suspension requirement. He asserted that ``a one-
year hard suspension would be very problematic, particularly for rural 
residents who have no other means of transportation'' and he urged 
instead that ``the regulatory language allow for a short (e.g. 60- or 
90-day) hard suspension period followed by a period in which the driver 
is allowed to drive with a restricted license.''
    As the agency explained in the preamble to its Section 410 interim 
final rule, a license suspension system has been a basic grant 
criterion under the Section 410 program since the program's inception 
in 1988, and a one-year hard suspension period has always been an 
element of this criterion.
    Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, this criterion contained a number 
of detailed procedural requirements, and TEA-21 streamlined this 
criterion by eliminating some of these requirements. Only selected 
elements were retained, but the one-year suspension period was one of 
those elements. TEA-21 continued to require that first offenders must 
be subject to a 90-day suspension or revocation, that repeat offenders 
must be subject to a one-year suspension or revocation, and that 
suspensions or revocations must take effect within 30 days after the 
offender refuses to submit to a chemical test or receives notice of 
having failed the test.
    The agency has always interpreted this criterion to require that 
the one-year suspension be served as a ``hard'' suspension of all of 
the offender's driving privileges, and there is nothing in the 
legislative history of TEA-21 that would suggest that Congress intended 
that this interpretation should change. In fact, the provisions of the 
TEA-21 Restoration Act reinforce the agency's interpretation.
    In July 1998, two months after the enactment of TEA-21, Congress 
passed the TEA-21 Restoration Act to restore provisions that were 
agreed to by the conferees to TEA-21, but inadvertently were not 
included in the TEA-21 conference report.
    The TEA-21 Restoration Act created the Section 164 Repeat 
Intoxicated Driver Transfer Program, under which States are required to 
establish certain minimum penalties for repeat offenders. Any State 
that doesn't establish these minimum penalties by October 1, 2000, will 
be subject to a transfer of funds. Section 164 establishes four minimum 
penalties for repeat offenders, one of which is ``the suspension of all 
driving privileges * * * for not less than one year.''
    Since Congress had established a minimum one-year hard suspension 
for repeat offenders as a condition for States to avoid the transfer of 
funds under the TEA-21 Restoration Act, the agency concluded that the 
Section 410 criterion, which would help a State

[[Page 46348]]

qualify for an incentive grant, should not require anything less.
    In addition, the agency provided significant flexibility to the 
States in the interim final rule by allowing them to qualify under this 
criterion as either Law States or Data States. Law States can 
demonstrate compliance with this criterion by submitting copies of 
their conforming laws. If a State's laws do not conform with one or 
more elements of this criterion, the State can qualify instead as a 
Data State. Data States can demonstrate compliance by submitting copies 
of their laws, and data demonstrating compliance with the elements not 
specifically provided for in their laws.
    Regarding Mr. Allred's suggestion that the one-year requirement 
will be problematic, particularly in rural areas, the agency notes 
that, in FY 1999, thirty States qualified for programmatic basic grants 
and that, of these, fifteen States complied with the administrative 
license suspension or revocation system criterion, including such 
States as Iowa, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah and Vermont.
    For the reasons discussed above, this portion of the interim 
regulation has been adopted without change.
2. Underage Drinking Prevention Program
    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.

    As explained in the interim final rule, 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, the interim final rule indicated that 
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.
    Mr. Allred of Utah, commenting on behalf of NAGHSR, submitted the 
only comment regarding this criterion. He objected to the requirement 
that licenses must be made ``tamper resistant.'' He stated that TEA-21 
uses the ``state adoption of a special tamper-resistant underage 
license * * * [only] as an example of an underage program,'' and he 
asserted that TEA-21 ``leaves open the option that a state may satisfy 
this criteria in other ways.''
    The agency agrees that TEA-21 did not require the agency to include 
a requirement in its implementing regulation that States must adopt 
tamper resistant underage licenses. The statute requires only that 
States must have an ``effective [underage drinking prevention] 
system.'' However, Congress clearly authorized the agency to define 
what it considered to be an ``effective system'' and suggested that 
such a system might include the issuance of easily distinguishable and 
tamper-resistant licenses.
    Because the prevention of underage drinking hinges on the ability 
of alcohol providers to properly identify those who are underage, NHTSA 
believes that the issuance of easily distinguishable and tamper 
resistant driver's licenses is a critical element to an effective 
underage drinking prevention system. Easily distinguishable licenses 
help providers determine whether people are representing themselves to 
be over the age of 21, and tamper resistant features help prevent 
people who are under 21 from misrepresenting their age.
    In addition, the interim regulations provided a tremendous amount 
of flexibility to the States regarding the manner in which they may 
meet this requirement. While the agency urged States, in the interim 
final rule, 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 regulations provided that States need only 
adopt one security feature to meet this element of the criterion, from 
a broad list of possible choices. The list was included as Appendix A 
to the interim final rule, and it included, for example, ghost images, 
holograms, security laminate or a State seal or signature which 
overlaps the individual's photograph or information.
    The agency is unaware of any State in this country that does not 
already use at least one of the security features listed in Appendix A 
to the interim final rule, and we are unaware of any State that was 
unable to qualify for a Section 410 grant because of its inability to 
meet this condition.
    All thirty States that received Section 410 programmatic basic 
grants in FY 1999 submitted driver's licenses that met this criterion. 
For all of these reasons, the agency has adopted this portion of the 
interim regulation without change.
3. Statewide Traffic Enforcement Program
    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.

    The interim final rule provides that a State may qualify for a 
grant based on this criterion 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.
    Mr. Allred of Utah, writing for NAGHSR, submitted the only comment 
regarding this criterion. Mr. Allred expressed concern that States 
would be required, under the interim regulations, to conduct 
``statewide programs for stopping vehicles'' to qualify under this 
criterion. He requested that ``NHTSA * * * allow states that are 
constitutionally prohibited from implementing sobriety checkpoints to 
be eligible if they implement saturation patrols or similar enforcement 
programs.'' Mr. Allred stated, ``This was a successful approach in the 
previous 410 program, and we believe that it should be continued.''
    The agency wishes to clarify that States are not required to 
conduct sobriety checkpoint programs in order the qualify under this 
criterion. As we stated in the interim final rule, States may qualify 
by conducting either roadblock or checkpoint programs or STEP programs 
that meet certain conditions.
    As we explained in the interim final rule, initially, under the 
Section 410 program, 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 and the interim regulations continue to provide this 
flexibility and,

[[Page 46349]]

in addition, they provide additional flexibility regarding the elements 
States must meet to comply with this criterion.
    The interim final rule explained that, to qualify for a grant based 
on this criterion, the State's program for stopping motor vehicles or 
its STEP must be conducted on a statewide basis; stops must be made or 
STEPs must be conducted not less than monthly; stops must be made or 
STEPs 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 efforts. Saturation patrol 
programs that contain all of the components of a STEP can qualify as a 
STEP under this criterion.
    Therefore, the agency believes that no changes are needed to 
address Mr. Allred's concerns. Accordingly, this portion of the interim 
regulation has been adopted without change.
4. Graduated Driver's Licensing System
    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.

    The interim final rule described, in further detail, the elements 
that must make up this three-stage system. Specifically, the interim 
final rule provided that, to qualify under this criterion, States must 
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 III).
    The interim regulations also established the qualifications that 
applicants must meet to receive a permit or license at each stage, and 
the conditions that permit and license holders must follow during each 
stage.
    In particular, the interim regulations provided that an applicant 
must pass vision and knowledge tests, including tests about the rules 
of the road, signs and signals to qualify for a Stage I learner's 
permit; an applicant must successfully comply with the conditions of 
the Stage I learner's permit for not less than three months and pass a 
driving skills test to qualify for a Stage II intermediate driver's 
license; and an applicant must successfully comply 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 to qualify for 
a Stage III driver's license.
    The interim regulations provided also that drivers must be subject 
to the following conditions during Stages I and II: drivers under the 
age of 21 must not operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of .02 or 
greater; drivers must not operate a motor vehicle while any occupant in 
the vehicle is not properly restrained in accordance with State or 
local law; drivers must remain crash and conviction free; and drivers 
must abide by certain driving restrictions.
    In particular, Stage I learner's permit holders may not operate a 
motor vehicle at any time unless they are accompanied by a licensed 
driver who is 21 years of age or older and Stage II intermediate 
driver's license holders may not operate a motor vehicle during some 
period of time between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., as specified by 
the State, unless they are accompanied by a licensed driver who is 21 
years of age or older or are covered by a State-approved exception.
    In addition, the interim regulations provided that the State's 
Stage I learner's permit, Stage II intermediate license and Stage III 
full driver's license all must be distinguishable from each other.
    Since the graduated driver's licensing criterion was the most 
detailed criterion under the Section 410 basic programmatic grant, it 
is not surprising that it generated the most comments. Comments were 
received regarding this criterion from Mr. Allred of Utah for NAGHSR 
and from the States of Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and Wisconsin. We 
note that each of these five States qualified in FY 1999 for a Section 
410 programmatic basic grant, and that Maryland qualified, in part, 
based on its GDL law. In fact, a total of eight States qualified for 
Section 410 programmatic basic grants in FY 1999 based, in part, on the 
GDL criterion.
    The specific comments that were submitted and the agency's 
responses to these comments are discussed in detail below.
    a. Successful Compliance with Earlier Stages: As stated above, the 
interim regulations provided that, to qualify for a Stage II license, 
an applicant must have ``successfully complied'' with the conditions of 
the Stage I learner's permit for not less than three months and, to 
qualify for a Stage III license, an applicant must have ``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 one 
year.
    The agency received comments regarding this requirement from 
Illinois and Maryland. Both of these comments suggest that an 
applicant's non-compliance during one stage should not necessarily 
prevent an applicant from moving to the next stage. Illinois 
recommended, for example, that ``Minor convictions can be tolerated 
while penalties [should be] assigned to serious convictions.''
    Similarly, Maryland recommended that applicants should not be 
prevented from moving from one stage to the next based on their non-
compliance with the State's occupant protection laws. Maryland 
recommended instead that ``the final rule should simply and 
unambiguously state that novice drivers in Stages I and II of a 
graduated licensing program * * * must comply with the State's occupant 
protection laws or face the prescribed State sanctions.'' According to 
Maryland, ``Any additional requirement * * * will be counterproductive 
to the extent it prevents States from receiving grants [to support 
impaired driving programs].'' This issue was raised also by other 
States when the agency was reviewing their applications for FY 1999 
Section 410 funds.
    Originally, the agency interpreted the phrase ``successfully 
complied'' to mean that, if an applicant violated any of the conditions 
of the earlier stages (including the conditions regarding zero 
tolerance, proper restraints and driving restrictions), the applicant 
could not proceed to the next stage.
    Following a detailed review of a number of State GDL laws, however, 
the agency came to realize that current State laws, including those 
that have been held out as models by advocates of GDL legislation, do 
not apply such harsh consequences. If the agency were to insist that 
GDL laws must provide that any violation of a condition in Stage I or 
II would prohibit an applicant from proceeding to the next stage, it is 
our belief that few, if any, of the GDL laws currently in effect would 
qualify under this criterion. We do not believe this is the outcome 
that Congress intended.
    Accordingly, we now consider the requirement that applicants must 
have ``successfully complied'' with the conditions of the previous 
stages to mean instead that, if an applicant fails to meet a condition 
of an earlier stage, the applicant must be subject to the consequences 
that are established by the State or local law.
    The consequences may vary. For example, the consequence for a 
violation of the State's zero tolerance law may be a 30-day suspension 
of the driver's permit or license, but it need

[[Page 46350]]

not result in a full revocation. The consequence for a violation of the 
driving restrictions could be a requirement that the driver attend an 
education program. The consequence for a violation of the proper 
restraint requirement may be a fine or points on the driver's permit or 
license.
    Therefore, the regulations have been amended to clarify that 
``successfully complied'' means that the applicant either has not 
violated any of the conditions of the previous stage(s) or, if the 
applicant has violated a condition of the previous stage(s), that the 
applicant has been subject to the consequences that are prescribed by 
State or local law for this violation.
    b. Crash and Conviction Free Requirement: As stated above, the 
interim regulations provided that a driver must remain crash and 
conviction free during Stages I and II. The term ``conviction free'' 
was defined in the interim regulations to mean ``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 operation of a motor vehicle.'' The term ``crash free'' 
was defined to mean ``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.''
    The agency received comments regarding this element of the 
criterion from Illinois, Maryland and Wisconsin.
    Illinois asserted in its comments that, because young drivers in 
Illinois ``are licensed under our graduated licensing system for a time 
period of 60-72 months, we believe requiring them to be crash and 
conviction free for a period of 5-6 years is unreasonable.'' The agency 
notes that the interim regulations provided that drivers must comply 
with the crash and conviction free requirement only during Stages I and 
II. They provided also that eligible drivers could move from Stage I to 
Stage II after a period of only three months, and that eligible drivers 
could move from Stages I and II to Stage III after a combined period of 
only one year. Accordingly, under the interim regulations, a State 
could meet this requirement by providing for a minimum crash and 
conviction free period of only one year.
    However, the agency recognizes that the interim regulations could 
have been interpreted to require that drivers must remain crash and 
conviction free during the entire length of Stages I and II if those 
stages lasted longer than one year. Accordingly, the regulations have 
been amended to clarify that drivers must comply with this condition 
for a period of only three months during Stage I and for a combined 
period of only one year during Stages I and II, even if those stages 
last for a longer period of time.
    Illinois also expressed opposition to the requirement that drivers 
must remain crash free. While the interim regulations limited this 
requirement by defining ``crash free'' to mean ``that the individual * 
* * has not been determined to be the party at fault in any police 
reportable motor vehicle crash,'' Illinois explained that, ``in 
Illinois we do not assign blame in crashes, so we do not have a basis 
for determining that a driver is crash free.'' Similar comments were 
received from other States.
    Maryland explained that ``it is the policy/practice of some law 
enforcement agencies to report all parties in a collision to be at 
fault and to charge all parties with a traffic violation [and] leave it 
up to the courts to determine guilt/fault.'' Because this is the 
practice in the State, Maryland asserted that ``it would be patently 
unfair to prohibit a novice driver from progressing from one stage to 
the next because the driver was involved in [a crash] even if that 
driver is not ultimately determined to be at fault.''
    Wisconsin asserted that there are ``States whose crash data systems 
do not capture the investigating officer's `at fault' determination.'' 
To resolve this issue, Wisconsin suggested that these States ``should 
be allowed to use a surrogate indicator of fault,'' such as the 
issuance of a traffic citation. Maryland recommended instead that the 
crash free requirement be eliminated altogether in the final rule.
    The agency has considered these comments carefully and has come to 
realize that the requirements that drivers must remain both crash and 
conviction free are, to a large extent, redundant. If a motor vehicle 
crash is ``police reportable [or reported]'' and the party is found to 
be ``at fault,'' that party generally will be charged with a violation 
of some offense, which then would be considered to be a ``conviction.'' 
Moreover, the agency now realizes that it would be extremely difficult, 
if not impossible, for States to determine independently whether an 
applicant had been involved in a crash and found to be at fault on any 
basis other than based on moving violations or other convictions.
    For all of these reasons, the agency has decided to simplify this 
element of the GDL criterion. We have removed from the regulations the 
requirement that applicants must remain crash free, and we have removed 
the definition of the term ``crash free'' because it no longer applies. 
Accordingly, to demonstrate compliance with this element, States now 
need only show that their laws require that applicants remain 
conviction free.
    In addition, to provide States with additional flexibility and to 
avoid the imposition of unreasonable restrictions, we have provided 
that it is up to each State to determine which convictions will 
adversely affect a driver's progression in the GDL program. 
Accordingly, the regulations now provide that, to qualify under this 
element of the GDL criterion, States must require that applicants 
remain free of convictions that relate to the use or operation of a 
motor vehicle, to the extent required by State law, for a minimum of 
three months during Stage I, before moving to Stage II, and for a 
combined minimum period of one year during Stages I and II, before 
moving to Stage III.
    c. Driving Restrictions: As stated above, the interim regulations 
provided that Stage I learner's permit holders may not operate a motor 
vehicle at any time unless they are accompanied by a licensed driver 
who is 21 years of age or older and Stage II intermediate driver's 
license holders may not operate a motor vehicle during some period of 
time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., as specified by the 
State, unless they are accompanied by a licensed driver who is 21 years 
of age or older or are covered by a State-approved exception.
    The agency received comments regarding this element of the GDL 
criterion from Maryland and Wisconsin.
    Maryland's GDL system is unusual, because most of its features 
cover novice drivers of all ages, not just novice drivers who are 
underage. However, the nighttime driving restrictions in Maryland's GDL 
system apply only to novice drivers who are under the age of 18. In its 
comments, Maryland asserts that ``it is inappropriate and largely 
impractical to restrict adult novice drivers in Stage II from driving 
alone at any hour of the night.'' Accordingly, Maryland recommends that 
the nighttime driving restrictions should apply only to minors.
    As explained in the agency's interim final rule, ``the interim 
regulation provides that the GDL must cover `young drivers,' but it 
does not define this term.'' In the interim final rule, the agency 
deferred to the States to determine the age of drivers that should be 
covered by their GDL systems. In response to Maryland's comment, the 
agency would like to clarify that a State may elect to apply some 
features of its GDL to adult drivers, and not be

[[Page 46351]]

compelled then to apply all of its GDL features to such drivers.
    Wisconsin objected to the requirement that the driver who must 
accompany Stage I permit or Stage II license holders must be 21 years 
of age or older and also suggested that certain exceptions should be 
permitted to the driving restriction requirement.
    Specifically, Wisconsin recommended ``that the minimum age limit 
for accompanying riders should be 18'' because ``18 is the age of 
majority and the age by which most drivers have completed the first two 
stages of the [State's GDL system] * * *'' Wisconsin urged the agency 
to establish a minimum age of 18 also because ``some teens are married 
and have spouses age 18-20 years old.'' Wisconsin also recommended that 
``there should be exceptions to the GDL accompaniment rule for drivers 
operating on Stage II probationary licenses if they are serving as 
volunteer drivers in community-based `teen safe ride' programs.''
    The requirement that GDL drivers must be accompanied by drivers 
over the age of 21 at all times during Stage I and during certain 
night-time hours during Stage II is designed to ensure that young 
novice drivers receive adult supervision during critical periods of 
time while they are being exposed to increased levels of risk as 
drivers. The agency does not believe most 18-year-olds have the 
experience or the maturity to provide this adult supervision.
    In fact, research indicates that, not only are teenage drivers more 
likely than other drivers to be involved in motor vehicle crashes, but 
their risk of exposure increases significantly when they drive at night 
with other teens in their vehicles. As stated in the NHTSA and National 
Safety Council publication ``Saving Teenage Lives: The Call for 
Graduated Driver Licensing,'' two-thirds of all teenagers who die as 
passengers in motor vehicle crashes are, at the time of the crash, in 
vehicles that are driven by other teenagers.
    For these reasons, NHTSA has decided not to lower the minimum age 
of persons who must accompany GDL drivers during Stages I and II.
    With regard to Wisconsin's request that the agency permit certain 
exceptions to this requirement, we note that NHTSA has allowed some 
limited exceptions under the interim regulations. While the agency does 
not encourage the States to adopt these exceptions, NHTSA has permitted 
them under the interim regulations. These exceptions include permitting 
a parent, a guardian, a custodian or a driver's education instructor to 
accompany a GDL driver during Stage II, even if such person is not 21 
years of age. We have also permitted Wisconsin's teen safe ride 
exception to the Stage II night-time driving restriction.
    For the reasons discussed above, this portion of the interim 
regulation has been adopted without change.
    d. Distinguishable Licenses: The interim final regulations require 
that ``the Stage I learning permit must be distinguishable from [the] 
Stage II and III driver's licenses.''
    The agency received comments regarding this element of the GDL 
criterion from Oregon and NAGHSR.
    Oregon commented that requiring three distinguishable permits/
licenses is overly prohibitive. According to Oregon, ``the fiscal 
impact for many states to establish and maintain such a system is 
considerable. Given the relatively quick turnaround time involved in 
the issuance of three distinct permits/licenses, the regulatory 
function would require additional FTE to ensure issuance and 
compliance, computer software upgrades to support system functions, and 
acquiring and maintaining the permit/ license product supplies and 
equipment.''
    Mr. Allred of Utah echoed these sentiments on NAGHSR's behalf. In 
particular, he urged that States should not be required ``to have 
specially marked licenses'' because it would be ``both onerous and 
costly.'' Mr. Allred noted that ``law enforcement officials may be able 
to electronically access licensing data and determine at what stage a 
driver is in the State's graduated licensing system regardless of 
markings on a driver's license.''
    NHTSA agrees with these comments. Since the central feature of a 
GDL system is the establishment of three separate driver licensing 
stages, with a different set of conditions under which drivers may 
operate a vehicle during each stage, the agency believes it is 
essential that, when law enforcement officers examine a driver's 
license (or permit), that they be able to determine the stage to which 
that the driver is currently assigned. However, the agency recognizes 
that there may be more than one way for States to demonstrate 
compliance with this condition, and the interim regulations did not 
specify the ways in which States could demonstrate their compliance 
with this element of the GDL criterion.
    Accordingly, the regulations have been revised to clarify that 
States can demonstrate compliance with this element in one of three 
ways. If a State's law specifically provides that the State's Stage I 
permit and the State's Stage II and Stage III licenses must be 
distinguishable from each other, the State can demonstrate compliance 
by submitting a copy of the law.
    If a State's law is not explicit in this regard, the State can 
demonstrate compliance instead by submitting sample permits and 
licenses, which contain visual features that would enable a law 
enforcement officer to distinguish between the three documents at a 
traffic stop. Alternatively, if the State's permit and licenses do not 
contain a visual feature that would enable a law enforcement officer to 
determine at a traffic stop whether the driver is in Stage I, II or 
III, but the State has a system in place that would enable an officer 
to make this determination in some other way, the State can demonstrate 
compliance by describing the State's system.
    The agency has decided to revise the interim regulation to clarify 
these alternatives.
5. Program for Drivers with High BAC
    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 vehicle. Such programs may 
include implementation of a system of graduated penalties and 
assessment of individuals convicted of driving under the influence 
of alcohol.

    The interim final rule provides that, to qualify for a grant based 
on this criterion, States 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. The agency explained, in the interim final rule, that the 
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.
    Regarding what constitutes a ``high BAC,'' the interim final rule 
explained 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 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, however, until offenders are determined to be at 0.21 BAC or

[[Page 46352]]

greater, the State system will not comply.
    The agency received comments regarding this criterion from Oregon, 
Maryland and Wisconsin.
    Oregon asserted in its comments that ``research indicates that 
impairment begins at BAC levels below .08 BAC,'' and that ``impairment 
at any level above the per se legal limit should be the focus of'' the 
criteria for receiving a basic grant under Section 410. For these 
reasons, Oregon expressed its view that the high BAC criterion 
``negates what research has determined to be the real issue'' and the 
State urged the agency to make this criterion a supplemental, rather 
than a basic, grant requirement.
    While the agency agrees that impairment begins far below these 
``high BAC'' levels, NHTSA acknowledges also that drivers with highly 
elevated BACs are at far greater risk than other drivers of being 
involved in alcohol-related crashes, which cause fatal and serious 
injuries. As stated in the interim final rule, according to the 
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), 30 percent of persons killed 
in motor vehicle crashes in 1997 were in crashes that involved a driver 
or non-occupant with a BAC of 0.10 or greater. In addition, NHTSA 
estimates that more than half of all drinking drivers involved in fatal 
crashes have a BAC that exceeds 0.15 percent.
    In addition, NHTSA believes that traditional impaired driving 
countermeasures frequently are not effective with high BAC drivers. 
Accordingly, the agency believes there is value to developing remedies 
that target this specific group of drivers.
    Finally, we note that the high BAC program was established as a 
basic grant criterion by Congress. Accordingly, the agency is not at 
liberty to change it to a supplemental grant criterion, in the absence 
of an amendment to the underlying legislation.
    In its comments on the interim regulations, Maryland objected to 
the requirement that the high BAC sanctions must begin to apply at a 
level ``above the standard BAC level.'' According to Maryland, ``a 
number of States have adopted bi-level or multilevel impaired driving 
offenses'' and Maryland asserted that ``there is no rationale for the 
[agency] to consider [the lower offenses in those States] to be 
anything but the `standard' impaired driving offense.'' Maryland urged 
the agency to revise the interim regulations ``to provide that any 
statutory level above the lowest BAC defining an impaired driving 
offense be considered a high BAC * * * deemed to satisfy this 
criterion.''
    With regard to States with bi-level or multilevel impaired driving 
provisions, the agency considers a number of factors to determine which 
level is the State's ``standard BAC level.'' These factors include the 
treatment of the offense, its relation to other offenses in the State 
and the sanctions and other consequences that result when persons 
violate these offenses.
    The agency believes that the ``standard BAC level'' in all States 
is currently either 0.08 or 0.10. NHTSA is aware that some States have 
established offenses for non-commercial drivers at lower BAC levels 
(such as 0.05), but we consider these offenses to be ``less-serious'' 
(and frequently, ``lesser-included'') offenses, not the standard BAC 
offenses in those States. The agency is aware of ten States that have 
high BAC programs. In these States, enhanced or additional penalties 
begin to apply at levels ranging from 0.15 to 0.20 BAC.
    Wisconsin's comments relate to the enhanced penalties that must be 
imposed. Wisconsin explains, ``our statutes do not specify the 
penalties for varying BAC levels,'' but they ``require the chief judge 
of each of the state's ten judicial administrative districts to adopt 
sentencing guidelines for all municipal and circuit court judges to 
follow * * * [which] take the BAC level into account as an aggravating 
factor.'' Wisconsin asserts that this ``linkage'' between sentencing 
and BAC level ``should be accepted as satisfying the graduated 
penalties criterion.''
    The interim regulations provided the States with a tremendous 
amount of flexibility regarding the types of enhanced penalties they 
must establish. According to the interim final rule, the penalties 
could include longer terms of license suspension, increased fines, 
additional or extended sentences of confinement, vehicle sanctions, or 
mandatory assessment and treatment. The States were provided 
flexibility also regarding the manner in which to establish these 
sanctions. For example, the sanctions could be established by statute, 
regulation or other means (such as binding policy directive). However, 
consistent with the application of other criteria under the Section 410 
program, the sanctions must be mandatory. Therefore, to qualify for a 
grant based on this criterion, it is not sufficient for a State to 
establish only guidelines.
    For the reasons discussed above, this portion of the interim 
regulation has been adopted without change.
6. Young Adult Drinking and Driving Program
    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 provided that, to qualify under this 
criterion, States must meet two requirements. First, they must 
demonstrate that they have in place a Statewide public information and 
awareness campaign aimed at persons between the ages of 21 and 34. 
Second, they must demonstrate that they have in place certain 
partnership activities that seek to promote prevention. Specifically, 
the interim regulations provided that States must be engaged in one of 
four different types of partnership activities to qualify in the first 
fiscal year a State receives a grant based on this criterion, and that 
States must be engaged in all four types of partnership activities to 
qualify for a grant based on this criterion in subsequent years.
    The four types of partnership activities include activities 
involving the participation of: employers; colleges or universities; 
the hospitality industry; and appropriate State officials that will 
encourage the assessment and incorporation of treatment as appropriate 
in judicial sentencing for young adult drivers.
    The agency received comments regarding this criterion from North 
Dakota and Mr. Allred of Utah for NAGHSR.
    In its comments, North Dakota stated that it ``agrees with the type 
of partnerships defined.'' However, North Dakota asserted that 
``developing and maintaining all four partnerships'' by the second 
fiscal year, in order to qualify for funding, ``is excessive.'' North 
Dakota suggested instead that States ``be allowed to select and 
maintain two partnerships along with the public awareness campaign and 
report documented proven results.''
    Mr. Allred voiced similar objections to the interim requirement, 
but suggested an alternative solution. He recommended the adoption of a 
``gradual approach,'' under which States would be ``required to have 
programs involving one group the first year and all four groups by the 
fourth year.''
    The agency has decided to accept NAGHSR's recommendation. To 
qualify

[[Page 46353]]

for a grant based on this criterion, a State must have in place a 
Statewide public information and awareness campaign, plus one or more 
of the partnership activities described in the regulations. To qualify 
in the first fiscal year a State receives a grant based on this 
criterion, the State must have at least one of the partnership 
activities in place; to qualify in the second fiscal year, the State 
must have at least two such activities in place; the State must have at 
least three partnership activities in place to qualify in the third 
year; and all four must be in place, to qualify in the fourth or in 
subsequent years. The regulations have been revised accordingly.
7. Testing for BAC
    TEA-21 provides that, 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.

    The interim final rule provided that States could qualify for a 
grant under this criterion in FY 1999 and FY 2000 in one of three ways: 
based on a law; based on data or by agreeing to conduct a symposium or 
workshop designed to increase the percentage of BAC testing for drivers 
involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes. As provided in the interim 
final rule, States could qualify for a grant under this criterion in FY 
2001 and in each fiscal year thereafter, based only on data.
    To qualify in any fiscal year based on data, the interim final rule 
explained that the data must show 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. The agency received no comments 
regarding this criterion.
    During the administration of the Section 410 program in FY 1999, 
however, the agency noted that ``the most recently available FARS 
data'' that were available on ``the first day of [that] fiscal year'' 
were not yet finalized and, by the end of the fiscal year, the data for 
many States had changed.
    The agency believes that it should not use preliminary data to make 
funding decisions if finalized data can be used instead. We note that, 
as stated previously in today's final rule, beginning in FY 2000, NHTSA 
will no longer release Section 410 funds in two stages, and the funds 
will be released near the end of the fiscal year (by September 30). 
Since the FARS data that are available on the first day of a fiscal 
year generally are finalized in the spring of that fiscal year, the 
regulation has been changed to provide that, beginning in FY 2000, 
these final data will be used.
    Since Section 410 applications are due by August 1 of each fiscal 
year, the regulation has been changed to provide that the data to be 
used are the ``most recently available final FARS data as of August 1 
of the fiscal year.'' However, as noted above, these final FARS data 
generally are available prior to August 1. To assist States in their 
preparation of Section 410 applications, the agency will provide States 
with the final data as soon as they are available.
8. Performance Grant Criterion
    Under TEA-21, 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 adopted these two conditions and established 
two methods for calculating the percentages described above.
    The interim rule explained that, 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. These calculations will be made using 
data contained in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), and 
NHTSA's method for estimating alcohol involvement (as developed and 
published by Klein, 1986). The agency then will verify the actual 
percentages.
    The interim rule explained further that, 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 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 interim final rule indicated that a State would demonstrate 
compliance with this criterion 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 indicated that it will verify the actual 
percentages submitted using FARS data.
    The agency received comments regarding this portion of the interim 
final rule from North Dakota, Maryland, NAGHSR and Michigan.
    Both North Dakota and Maryland raised objections regarding the use 
of FARS data and the agency's method for estimating alcohol 
involvement, when there are gaps in the data. Maryland asserts that 
``FARS data has been found to be incomplete and/or inaccurate in a 
number of respects, particularly in past years.'' North Dakota argued 
that it is severely penalized by NHTSA's imputation process.
    As an illustration, North Dakota asserted that its ``fatality rate, 
based on deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, is consistently 
lower than the national rate. In 1995, North Dakota had the lowest 
number of fatalities since 1944 with 74 deaths. Of these 74, [North 
Dakota's] data identified 37 as alcohol-related.'' However, ``the FARS 
imputation process added 6 to the total killed in alcohol-related 
crashes. This imputation increased [North Dakota's] percent of alcohol 
related fatalities from 50 to 57.9% and made [North Dakota] the highest 
in the nation.''
    Both of these comments question the use of the imputation process. 
The agency would like to emphasize, first of all, that the FARS 
imputation process is applied only to those fatal crashes that involve 
a driver or non-occupant who was not tested for alcohol, or whose test 
results are unknown. Since the State has not provided BAC data for 
these crashes, the agency uses a statistical model to estimate whether 
alcohol was involved.
    In other words, if a State reports a crash to FARS, but reports no 
information regarding the BAC level of the driver(s) or non-occupant(s) 
involved in the crash, the agency does not assume that no alcohol was 
involved, but rather the statistical model

[[Page 46354]]

supplies an estimate, based on prior experience. The statistical model 
considers the characteristics of the crash and, based on data from 
prior years, determines the likelihood that alcohol was involved. For 
example, there is a high incidence of alcohol-involvement in single-
vehicle night-time crashes, so additional instances of alcohol use 
would be imputed if a State reports a number of such crashes without 
reporting any BAC information.
    This is what happened to North Dakota in 1995. Although the North 
Dakota data had identified only 37 of its 74 deaths as being alcohol-
related, the State's estimate was based on reported BAC information 
from only 40 (out of 97) drivers involved in fatal crashes. Based on 
the characteristics of the crashes for which BAC information was not 
reported, the agency estimated that an additional 6 deaths were 
alcohol-related.
    Maryland suggested in its comments that ``the final rule should 
provide that a State can submit alternative data to establish 
compliance with the performance grant criteri[on].'' This is already an 
option. As provided in the interim regulations, ``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 * * * may 
calculate * * * 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.''
    Accordingly, States can exercise this option by increasing to 85 
the percentage of drivers in fatal crashes who are tested.
    Mr. Allred of Utah, commenting on behalf of NAGHSR, recognized that 
the ``regulations allow a state with an 85% BAC testing rate for 
fatally injured drivers to make its own eligibility calculations.'' He 
pointed out, however, that ``NHTSA will verify the percentages 
submitted using FARS data,'' and he asserted that ``the FARS estimate 
and state data are very likely to be different, which would affect a 
state's eligibility and would defeat the purpose of allowing a state to 
use acceptable state data.'' Mr. Allred suggested that NHTSA instead 
``conduct a verification of the data using the state's own data.''
    When the agency stated in the interim final rule that NHTSA would 
verify the actual percentages submitted by States using FARS data, we 
wish to clarify that the agency intended this statement to mean that 
NHTSA would verify the percentages submitted by States in their Section 
410 applications, based on the data submitted to the agency by States 
as part of NHTSA's FARS program (prior to the imputation process). This 
language appeared only in the preamble to the interim final rule, and 
not in the regulations themselves. Accordingly, no change is needed to 
the regulations as a result.
    Michigan expressed concern regarding the requirement that States 
must demonstrate that the percentage of fatally injured drivers with 
0.10 percent or greater BAC has decreased and has been lower than the 
average percentage for all States in each of the three most recent 
calendar years. Specifically, Michigan asserted that ``natural 
variation occurs from year to year, and this variation may well be 
compounded by the use of statistical estimates.'' Michigan argues that 
this variation could ``mask a three year trend that would otherwise 
have put the state in compliance with the rule'' and Michigan urges 
that ``a state should not be penalized for achieving a three year trend 
that was in the proper direction, but had an apparent `blip' in [one of 
the three years] that may well be due to expected variation.''
    NHTSA appreciates Michigan's comment. However, the condition that 
States must meet the above-noted requirements ``in each of the three 
most recent calendar years'' was established by statute. Accordingly, 
the agency is not at liberty to change this element of the requirement, 
without an amendment to the underlying statute.
    Moreover, as stated above, the Section 410 statute requires that 
States must demonstrate that the percentage of fatally injured drivers 
with 0.10 percent or greater BAC has decreased and has been lower than 
the average percentage for all States in each of the three most recent 
calendar years. Accordingly, a State will not qualify if this 
percentage has increased or has been higher than the national average. 
Similarly, a State also will not qualify if the percentage has remained 
the same or has equaled the national average. If it appears that a 
State's percentage has remained the same or has equaled the national 
average, based on rounded FARS figures, the agency will determine the 
actual value of these percentages to as many decimal places as are 
needed to determine whether the State percent has decreased and has 
been lower than the national average.
    As discussed previously in today's final rule, during the 
administration of the Section 410 program in FY 1999, the agency noted 
that ``the most recently available FARS data'' that were available on 
``the first day of [that] fiscal year'' were not yet finalized and, by 
the end of the fiscal year, the data for many States had changed.
    As stated above, the agency believes that it should not use 
preliminary data to make funding decisions if finalized data can be 
used instead. Today's final rule provides that, beginning in FY 2000, 
NHTSA will no longer release Section 410 funds in two stages, and the 
funds will be released near the end of the fiscal year (by September 
30). Since the FARS data that are available on the first day of a 
fiscal year generally are finalized in the spring of that fiscal year, 
this portion of the regulation also has been changed to provide that, 
beginning in FY 2000, these final data will be used.
    Since Section 410 applications are due by August 1 of each fiscal 
year, the regulation has been changed to provide that the data to be 
used are the ``most recently available final FARS data as of August 1 
of the fiscal year.'' However, as noted above, these final FARS data 
generally are available prior to August 1. To assist States in their 
preparation of Section 410 applications, the agency will provide States 
with the final data as soon as they are available.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, 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 final rule will not have any preemptive or retroactive effect. 
The enabling legislation does not establish a procedure for judicial 
review of rules promulgated under its provisions. There is no 
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or 
other administrative proceedings before they may file suit.

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,

[[Page 46355]]

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 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 April 30, 2003. This 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 affects 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 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, the interim final rule published 
in the Federal Register of December 29, 1998, 63 FR 71688, is adopted 
as final, with the following changes:

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

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

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


    2. Section 1313.5 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(D), 
(d)(1)(ii)(D), (d)(2), (d)(3), (f)(2)(ii), (g)(1)(i)(B), (g)(1)(ii), 
(g)(3)(i)(B), (g)(3)(ii)(B), and (g)(4),to read as follows:


Sec. 1313.5   Requirements for a programmatic basic grant.

* * * * *
    (d) Graduated driver's licensing system.
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Stage I learner's permit holders must remain conviction free 
for not less than three months; and
    (ii) * * *
    (D) Stage II intermediate driver's license holders must have 
remained conviction free during Stages I and II for a combined period 
of not less than one year; and
* * * * *
    (2) Definitions.
    (i) Conviction free means that, during the term of the permit or 
license, the driver has not been charged with and subsequently 
convicted of any offense under State or local law relating to the use 
or operation of a motor vehicle, to the extent required by State law.
    (ii) Successfully complied means that the driver:
    (A) did not violate any of the conditions of the previous stage(s), 
or
    (B) has been subject to the consequences prescribed by State or 
local law for violating the conditions of the previous stage(s).
    (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. If the State's law, 
regulation or binding policy directive does not provide that Stage I 
permits and Stage II and Stage III licenses must be distinguishable, 
the State shall submit either:
    (A) Sample permits and licenses, which contain visual features that 
would enable a law enforcement officer to distinguish between the 
permit and the licenses; or
    (B) A description of the State's system, which enables law 
enforcement officers in the State during traffic stops to distinguish 
between the permit and the licenses.
    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit a copy of any changes to the State's law, 
regulation, binding policy directive, permit or licenses, or State 
system 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, binding policy directives, permit or licenses, or 
State system.
* * * * *
    (f) Young adult drinking and driving program.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the 
State shall submit:
    (A) An updated description of its 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:
    (1) at least two of the four components contained in paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii) of this section in the second fiscal year the State receives 
Section 410 funds based on this criterion;
    (2) at least three of the four components contained in paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii) of this section in the third fiscal

[[Page 46356]]

year the State receives Section 410 funds based on this criterion; and
    (3) all four components contained in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this 
section in the fourth or subsequent fiscal year the State receives 
Section 410 funds based on this criterion; and
    (C) an updated plan that outlines proposed efforts to involve all 
four components contained in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, 
until the State's activities involve all four components.
    (g) Testing for BAC.
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (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 by the most recently available 
final FARS data as of August 1 of the fiscal year for which grant funds 
are being sought.
* * * * *
    (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 by the 
most recently available final FARS data as of August 1 of the fiscal 
year for which grant funds are being sought.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (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 by the most 
recently available final FARS data as of August 1 of the fiscal year 
for which grant funds are being sought; or
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (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 by the most recently 
available final FARS data as of August 1 of the fiscal year for which 
grant funds are being sought.
* * * * *
    (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 by the most recently available final 
FARS data as of August 1 of the fiscal year for which grant funds are 
being sought.
    3. Section 1313.6 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), 
and (c)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 1313.6  Requirements for a performance basic grant.

    (a)(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 determined by the most recently available 
final FARS data as of August 1 of the fiscal year for which grant funds 
are being sought; and
* * * * *
    (b) Calculating percentages. (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 final FARS data as of August 1 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 final FARS data as of 
August 1 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 most recently available 
final FARS data as of August 1 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) * * *
    (2) Alternatively, a State with a percentage of BAC testing among 
fatally injured drivers of 85 percent or greater, as determined by the 
most recently available final FARS data as of August 1 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 paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this 
section.

    Issued on: July 24, 2000.
Rosalyn G. Millman,
Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-18985 Filed 7-25-00; 10:41 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P