Operation of Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated Minors

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 1210

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

RIN 2127-AG20

Operation of Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated Minors

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements a new program enacted by the

National Highway System Designation (NHS) Act of 1995, which provides

for the withholding of Federal-aid highway funds from any State that

does not enact and enforce a ``zero tolerance'' law. This final rule

clarifies what States must do to avoid the withholding of funds.

DATES: The regulation contained in this final rule becomes effective on

November 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In NHTSA: Ms. Marlene Markison, Office

of State and Community Services, NSC-01, telephone (202) 366-2121; or

Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-30, telephone (202)

366-1834.

In FHWA: Ms. Mila Plosky, Office of Highway Safety, HHS-20,

telephone (202) 366-6902; or Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, HCC-20, telephone

(202) 366-0834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Highway System Designation

(NHS) Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-59, was signed into law on November 28,

1995. Section 320 of the Act established a new Section 161 of Title 23,

United States Code (Section 161), which requires the withholding of

certain Federal-aid highway funds from States that do not enact and

enforce ``zero tolerance'' laws. As provided in Section 161, these

``zero tolerance'' laws must consider an individual under the age of 21

who has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or greater while

operating a motor vehicle in the State, to be driving while intoxicated

or driving under the influence of alcohol.

Section 161 specifically provides that the Secretary must withhold

from apportionment a portion of Federal-aid highway funds from any

State that does not enact and enforce a conforming ``zero tolerance''

law.

[[Page 55214]]

In accordance with Section 161, if a State does not meet the

statutory requirements on October 1, 1998, five percent of its FY 1999

Federal-aid highway apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3)

and 104(b)(5)(B) shall be withheld on that date. These sections relate

to the National Highway System (NHS), the Surface Transportation

Program (STP) and the Interstate System.

If the State does not meet the statutory requirements on October 1,

1999, ten percent of its FY 2000 apportionment will be withheld on that

date. Ten percent will continue to be withheld on October 1 of each

subsequent fiscal year, if the State does not meet the requirements on

those dates.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On March 7, 1996, NHTSA and the FHWA issued a joint notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing the criteria States must meet to

avoid the withholding of apportionment of Federal-aid highway funds.

The agencies explained in the NPRM that Section 161 provides that, to

avoid the withholding, a State must enact and enforce:

a law that considers an individual under the age of 21 who has a

blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or greater while

operating a motor vehicle in the State to be driving while

intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol.

The agencies proposed to require that States must meet the

following criteria to avoid the withholding of Federal-aid highway

funds:

1. Under the Age of 21

The State law must apply to all persons under the age of 21. It

will not be sufficient for the State law to apply, for example, only to

persons under the age of 18.

2. Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.02 Percent

The State law must set 0.02 percent as the legal limit for blood

alcohol concentration. States with laws that set a lower percentage

(such as 0.00 percent) as the legal limit would also conform to the

Federal requirement. It will not be sufficient for the State law to

establish, for example, .04 or .07 percent as the legal limit.

3. Per Se Law

The State law must consider individuals under the age of 21 whose

blood alcohol concentration exceeds the legal limit while operating a

motor vehicle in the State to be driving while intoxicated or driving

under the influence of alcohol.

In other words, the State must establish a ``per se'' law for

persons under the age of 21, that makes driving with a BAC that exceeds

the legal limit itself an offense for such persons. It will not be

sufficient for the State law, for example, to provide that .02 percent

establishes prima facie evidence.

4. Primary Enforcement

The State must enact and enforce a zero tolerance law that provides

for primary enforcement. It will not be sufficient for the State law to

provide that enforcement may be accomplished only as a secondary action

to some other violation or offense.

Since Section 161 did not explicitly prescribe the penalties that

must be imposed on offenders who violate zero tolerance laws, the

agencies did not propose to include a penalties criterion in the

implementing regulation.

The agencies concluded in the NPRM that, while Congress intended to

encourage all States to enact and enforce effective zero tolerance

laws, it also intended to provide States with sufficient flexibility so

they could develop laws that suit the particular conditions that exist

in those States.

General Comments on NPRM

The agencies received 22 comments in response to the NPRM. The

commenters included the National Association of Governors' Highway

Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), 13 State agencies, Mothers Against

Drunk Drivers (the National Office, three State Chapters and a

memorandum documenting a meeting held with MADD representatives),

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the National Association of

Beverage Retailers (NABR) and a concerned individual.

Several commenters objected to the proposed rule based on

philosophical, legal or constitutional grounds. Massachusetts objected

to the use of sanctions against States. It asserted that the

``Sanctions/withholding of funds [will have an adverse impact on] State

entities that are not involved in the purview of the intended remedy

(e.g., zero tolerance impacting Federal-aid construction funds).''

The National Association of Beverage Retailers (NABR) opposed the

``arbitrary lowering of the legal BAC, for any age category.'' The NABR

asserted that the government ``should program its precious resources in

areas that will achieve the greatest results per dollar spent * * *

[such as] education, information * * * and consistent and fair law

enforcement. * * *''

The State of Oklahoma expressed concern that the Federal

requirement would pose ``serious legal dilemmas'' for States that

``already have a per se law applicable to all drivers.''

A concerned individual from the State of Colorado challenged the

adoption of zero tolerance laws for persons under the age of 21. The

commenter asserted that such laws would violate the 14th amendment

guaranteeing equal protection for persons under the age of 21 because

they would ``apply two unequal standards to a previously enacted law.''

This commenter also expressed the view that the ``double standard''

that would be created by such zero tolerance laws will create

``continuing disrespect * * * among the youth of this country for the

law in general.''

The agencies recognize that the enactment by States of zero

tolerance laws and the imposition by the Federal government of

sanctions on States that do not enact and enforce such laws may be

controversial to some. However, Congress has directed the U.S.

Department of Transportation to implement the Section 161 program,

under which the Secretary must impose a sanction on any State that does

not enact and enforce a conforming zero tolerance law. Since the

Section 161 program has been mandated by Congress, the agencies are

required to implement this program.

Moreover, the agencies believe this program has the potential to

save a significant number of lives and prevent many serious injuries.

It has been estimated that, since the enactment of the National Minimum

Drinking Age Act in 1984, 8400 lives have been saved and over $1.8

billion in economic costs to our society have been prevented because of

this law. As President Clinton stated, in a letter in support of the

bill, to Senator Byrd, the bill's sponsor:

[Zero tolerance] laws work--alcohol-related crashes involving

teenage drivers are down as much as 10-20 percent in those states

[that have enacted such laws]. If all states had such laws, hundreds

more lives could be saved and thousands of injuries could be

prevented.

In addition, the agencies disagree that zero tolerance laws will be

vulnerable to legal or constitutional challenge. Nearly two-thirds of

the States in the nation have already enacted zero tolerance laws, and

these laws have consistently held up to challenges on constitutional

and other legal grounds.

Comments Concerning the Compliance Criteria

The remaining comments addressed the proposed compliance criteria.

As stated above, the proposed criteria provided that conforming zero

tolerance laws must: (1) apply to all persons under the age of 21; (2)

set 0.02 percent

[[Page 55215]]

as the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration; (3) establish .02

as a ``per se'' offense; and (4) provide for primary enforcement. The

NPRM did not include a penalties criterion. None of the comments

received by the agencies opposed criteria #1-3. These criteria will

continue to be included in the regulation.

Three respondents commented on criterion #4. MADD supported the

primary enforcement requirement. Although its zero tolerance law

currently contains a secondary enforcement provision, the State of

Nebraska did not take issue with criterion #4. In fact, the State

predicted that its secondary enforcement provision ``will be corrected

* * * because it will be recognized by state policy makers as an

appropriate and effective change.'' The State of Illinois expressed

concern that its law would be considered nonconforming under criterion

#4. The agencies have found, however, that Illinois' law qualifies

under the primary enforcement criterion. This criterion has been

adopted without change.

As noted above, since Section 161 did not explicitly prescribe the

penalties that must be imposed on offenders who violate zero tolerance

laws, the agencies did not propose to include a penalties criterion in

the implementing regulation.

Most of the commenters, including NAGHSR and eleven States, agreed

with that portion of the agencies' proposal. Advocates and MADD (both

the National Office and the three State Chapters) recommended instead

that the agency expand the criteria to include a penalties criterion.

Advocates recommended that the zero tolerance criteria should require

that States impose a mandatory 30-day licensing sanction for any

violation. It asserted that the adoption of this requirement would

``ensure that [the] new [zero tolerance] program can be implemented

right from the start in a manner that maximizes its safety benefits to

the nation.''

Each of the MADD commenters recommended that the criteria should

provide for ``licensing sanctions.'' They did not specify, however, a

minimum length of suspension or provide other details concerning the

nature of the sanctions. MADD's National Office stated that licensing

sanctions are ``the most effective means of deterring drinking and

driving by those under the age of 21.''

Neither Advocates nor MADD specifically addressed whether sanctions

should be ``hard,'' i.e. prohibiting the availability of restricted,

provisional or conditional licenses during the suspension period. Both

organizations asserted that the legislative history supports the

inclusion of a penalties criterion.

The agencies agree that licensing sanctions are effective. NHTSA is

aware of studies that have shown their effectiveness in deterring

drinking and driving among the general population. ``Changes in

Alcohol-Involved Fatal Crashes Associated With Tougher State Alcohol

Legislation,'' DOT HS 807511, July 1989. Other studies suggest that

such sanctions would be at least as effective against persons who are

less than 21 years of age. ``Lower Legal Blood Alcohol Limits for

Younger Drivers,'' Hingson, et al., Public Health Reports, 1994. The

agencies also agree that ``zero tolerance'' laws that do not contain

licensing sanctions would be far less effective than laws that present

young people with the risk of losing their driver's license.

Moreover, the agencies strongly favor mandatory licensing

sanctions. In fact, NHTSA's Section 410 drunk driving incentive grant

program has required, since its inception, that States include

mandatory 30-day hard licensing sanctions in their ``0.02 BAC per se''

laws to qualify for grant funds. In a final rule, published separately

in today's Federal Register, NHTSA announces that the Section 410

program will continue to require these sanctions.

After a careful and studied review of both the statute and the

legislative history, the agencies have decided to establish an

additional criterion requiring appropriate penalties. Specifically, in

view of Congress' intent that States enact effective laws that contain

appropriate sanctions, the agencies believe it is appropriate to

require that States authorize the use of driver licensing suspensions

or revocations as sanctions for any violation of a State zero tolerance

law. However, the agencies conclude that the statute does not permit

the inclusion of a mandatory license sanction requirement for this new

``zero tolerance'' program.

Congress has required mandatory licensing sanctions in some of the

programs it has established in recent years. Section 159 of Title 23,

United States Code, for example, specifies that States must impose a

six month license suspension against all persons who are convicted of

drug offenses (or conform to section 159 through other means) to avoid

a withholding of Federal-aid construction funds. Section 410 of Title

23, United States Code specifies that States must impose a 90-day

license suspension on all first offenders and a one-year license

suspension on all repeat offenders to qualify for incentive grant funds

based on one of its criteria (expedited driver's license suspension or

revocation system).

Neither the statutory language contained in Section 161 nor any of

the legislative history concerning the section provide for or otherwise

make reference to the inclusion of a mandatory licensing sanction. In a

program such as this one, which provides that States that fail to

comply are sanctioned (as opposed to a program such as Section 410,

which provides simply that States that fail to comply do not receive

incentive grants), the agencies consider the absence of an explicit

statutory mandate to be an important factor in determining whether

Congress intended for mandatory licensing sanctions to be required.

Moreover, the legislative history in both the Senate and the House

of Representatives contains various statements that lead to the

conclusion that the legislation was not intended to require a mandatory

licensing sanction.

Senator Byrd stated in June 1995 that 24 States and the District of

Columbia ``have already enacted the zero-tolerance law which is called

for in [the] amendment.'' Senator Lautenberg, Congresswoman Morella and

President Clinton cited the same number of States.1

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

\1\ A statement from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety was

included in the record, which indicated that, as of April 1994, 26

States and the District of Columbia had zero tolerance (.00, .01 or

.02) laws.

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

If the agencies were to require a mandatory 30-day hard license

suspension, six of the 24 States that had already enacted zero

tolerance laws at the time these statements were being made in Congress

would fail to comply on the basis of that requirement. If the agencies

were to require a mandatory 30-day license suspension, but permit

hardship or restricted licenses, three of those States would fail to

comply.

In addition, some of the States specifically mentioned in the

legislative history as examples that other States should follow, would

fail to comply. For example, Senator Byrd stated:

In * * * North Carolina * * * which [has] adopted zero tolerance

laws, lower blood alcohol limits for minors resulted in a 34 percent

decline in nighttime fatal crashes among younger drivers. * * * A

1992 Federal study in Maryland found that car accidents involving

drivers under the age of 21 who had been drinking, declined eleven

percent after the zero-tolerance law was adopted. Further, there was

a 50 percent drop in accidents in areas where the penalties were

promoted with a publicity campaign.

[[Page 55216]]

Senator Lautenberg, Congresswomen Lowey and Morella, and Advocates for

Highway and Auto Safety also cited Maryland and/or North Carolina as

examples to follow in their statements in the record.

If the agencies were to require a mandatory 30-day hard license

suspension, neither of these two States would comply. Instead, they

would be subject to a withholding of funds. Even if States were allowed

to issue hardship or restricted licenses during the suspension period,

one of these States would still fail to comply. The agencies do not

believe this is the result that was intended by Congress.

Congress did intend, however, that States would be required to

enact effective laws that contain appropriate sanctions. Senator Byrd

stated, when he introduced the legislation in the Senate:

This amendment sets the right example, and tells our Nation's youth

that drinking and driving is wrong; that it is a violation of law;

and that it will be appropriately punished according to the laws of

each State. [emphasis added]

The agencies note that every State that has enacted a ``zero

tolerance'' law to date has included license suspensions among their

sanctions for a violation. In most of these States, licensing sanctions

are mandatory. In other States, they are authorized but are not

mandatory (i.e., they may be imposed at the discretion of the court).

There are no States in which fines are the only sanctions available.

Accordingly, the agencies will add a fifth criterion. This

criterion will not require mandatory licensing sanctions, but will

require that the State's law authorizes the use of driver licensing

suspensions or revocations as sanctions for any violation of the State

zero tolerance law. The agencies conclude this is consistent with

Congress' intent to recognize the accomplishments of the States that

had already enacted zero tolerance laws, and to encourage other States

to enact effective zero tolerance laws that contain appropriate

sanctions.

Based on a review of current zero tolerance laws, the agencies are

aware of only one State law that will fail to comply with this new

criterion. That law does not authorize the use of driver licensing

sanctions on first offenders who are between the ages of 18 and 21.

While this regulation requires only that States authorize the use

of driver licensing sanctions and does not establish a minimum length

of suspension, the agencies strongly encourage the States to enact zero

tolerance laws that in fact impose mandatory hard licensing sanctions

for a reasonable minimum period of time. Since the introduction of the

zero tolerance legislation in Congress, 13 States have enacted zero

tolerance laws. Even though the agencies' zero tolerance NPRM did not

propose to include any licensing sanction requirement, each of these 13

laws included provisions that authorize the use of licensing sanctions

for all zero tolerance offenders.

Moreover, 10 of these States enacted laws that provide for a

mandatory 30-day hard license suspension or revocation. These States

concluded that a mandatory 30-day hard licensing sanction was the

appropriate punishment for zero tolerance offenders and would ensure

that their laws will be most effective. The agencies urge the remaining

States to consider carefully the seriousness of the drunk driving

problem among young people and the tragic loss of young lives that

results, as they develop their legislation. In particular, these States

are urged to follow the lead set by the ten States mentioned above and

to enact the most effective law possible.

In addition, States are reminded that, if they enact zero tolerance

laws that require a mandatory 30-day hard license suspension, they may

become eligible for Section 410 incentive grant funds.

Other Proposed Provisions

The agencies also proposed in the NPRM to include provisions in the

regulation governing the submission of certifications to demonstrate

State compliance, notifications from the agencies regarding State

compliance or noncompliance, and the period of availability of funds

that are withheld. The NPRM proposed to include these provisions in

sections 1210.5 through 1210.10 of the regulation. A more detailed

discussion of these proposed sections can be found in the preamble to

the NPRM. 61 FR 9122.

Washington State requested the opportunity to submit its

certification for review by July 1, 1996, and receive a determination

prior to November 1, 1996. The agencies would be pleased to review a

certification from any State in advance of the deadlines established in

the regulation.

The agencies received no other comments concerning these sections

of the proposed rule. They are being adopted without change.

Separate Final Rule in Today's Federal Register

In today's Federal Register, NHTSA has also published a separate

final rule, relating to Part 1313, the agency's regulation that

implements its Section 410 program.

On March 7, 1996, NHTSA published an interim final rule in the

Federal Register, amending Part 1313 to reflect changes that were made

to 23 U.S.C. 410 by the NHS Act, and requesting comments on these

changes. In the interim final rule, NHTSA recognized that one of the

grant criteria under the section 410 program, which requires that

States ``deem persons under age 21 who operate a motor vehicle with a

BAC of 0.02 or greater to be driving while intoxicated,'' is similar to

the new ``zero tolerance'' sanction requirement contained in Section

320 of the NHS Act (23 U.S.C. Section 161). The interim final rule

requested comments regarding whether additional changes should be made

to the section 410 ``0.02'' grant criterion, as a result of the new

``zero tolerance'' sanction program.

The final rule, published separately in today's Federal Register,

announces that NHTSA will make no changes to the section 410 ``0.02''

grant criterion. This grant criterion will continue to require that

States provide for a mandatory 30-day hard suspension.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

This final rule will not have any preemptive or retroactive effect.

The enabling legislation does not establish a procedure for judicial

review of final rules promulgated under its provisions. There is no

requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or

other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The agencies have determined that this action is not a significant

regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or

significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. States can choose to enact and

enforce a zero tolerance law, in conformance with Public Law 104-59,

and thereby avoid the withholding of Federal-aid highway funds. While

specific criteria that State laws must meet have been established in

this final rule, they are mandated by Public Law 104-59. Accordingly, a

full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,

5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agencies have evaluated the effects of this

action on small entities. Based on the evaluation, we

[[Page 55217]]

certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the preparation of a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is unnecessary.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The requirements in this final rule that States certify that they

conform to the statutory requirements to avoid the withholding of

Federal-aid highway funds are considered to be information collection

requirements as that term is defined by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part 1320. The reporting and recordkeeping

requirement associated with this rule is subject to approval by the

Office of Management and Budget in accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter

35. These reporting requirements will occur only once for each State

and will record only if the State's law changes.

Accordingly, these requirements have been submitted to and approved

by OMB, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et

seq.). These requirements have been approved until September 30, 1999,

under OMB No. 2127-0582.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agencies have analyzed this action for the purpose of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and

have determined that it will not have any significant impact on the

quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined

that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. Accordingly, the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1210

Alcohol and abuse, Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Youth.

In accordance with the foregoing, a new Part 1210 is added to Title

23 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 1210--OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY INTOXICATED MINORS

Sec.

1210.1 Scope.

1210.2 Purpose.

1210.3 Definitions.

1210.4 Adoption of zero tolerance law.

1210.5 Certification requirements.

1210.6 Period of availability of withheld funds.

1210.7 Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.

1210.8 Period of availability of subsequently apportioned funds.

1210.9 Effect of noncompliance.

1210.10 Procedures affecting states in noncompliance.

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

and 1.50.

Sec. 1210.1 Scope.

This part prescribes the requirements necessary to implement 23

U.S.C. 161, which encourages States to enact and enforce zero tolerance

laws.

Sec. 1210.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to specify the steps that States must

take to avoid the withholding of Federal-aid highway funds for

noncompliance with 23 U.S.C. 161.

Sec. 1210.3 Definitions.

As used in this part:

(a) Alcohol concentration means either grams of alcohol per 100

milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

(b) BAC means either blood or breath alcohol concentration.

(c) Operating a motor vehicle means driving or being in actual

physical control of a motor vehicle.

Sec. 1210.4 Adoption of zero tolerance law.

(a) The Secretary shall withhold five percent of the amount

required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections

104(b)(1), 104(b)(3) and 104(b)(5) of title 23, United States Code, on

the first day of fiscal year 1999 if the State does not meet the

requirements of this part on that date.

(b) The Secretary shall withhold ten percent of the amount required

to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104(b)(1),

104(b)(3) and 104(b)(5) of title 23, United States Code, on the first

day of fiscal year 2000 and any subsequent fiscal year if the State

does not meet the requirements of this part on that date.

(c) A State meets the requirements of this section if the State has

enacted and is enforcing a law that considers an individual under the

age of 21 who has a BAC of 0.02 percent or greater while operating a

motor vehicle in the State to be driving while intoxicated or driving

under the influence of alcohol. The law must:

(1) Apply to all individuals under the age of 21;

(2) Set a BAC of not higher than 0.02 percent as the legal limit;

(3) Make operating a motor vehicle by an individual under age 21

above the legal limit a per se offense;

(4) Provide for primary enforcement; and

(5) Provide that license suspensions or revocations are authorized

for any violation of the State zero tolerance law.

Sec. 1210.5 Certification requirements.

(a) Until a State has been determined to be in compliance with the

requirements of 23 U.S.C. 161, to avoid the withholding of funds in any

fiscal year, beginning with FY 1999, the State shall certify to the

Secretary of Transportation, before the last day of the previous fiscal

year, that it meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 161, and this part.

(b) The certification shall contain:

(1) A copy of the State zero tolerance law, regulation, or binding

policy directive implementing or interpreting such law or regulation,

that conforms to 23 U.S.C. 161 and Sec. 1210.4(c); and

(2) A statement by an appropriate State official, that the State

has enacted and is enforcing a conforming zero tolerance law. The

certifying statement shall be worded as follows:

I, (Name of certifying official), (position title), of the (State or

Commonwealth) of ________, do hereby certify that the (State or

Commonwealth) of ________, has enacted and is enforcing a zero

tolerance law that conforms to the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 161 and

23 CFR 1210.4(c).

(c) An original and four copies of the certification shall be

submitted to the appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator. Each

Regional Administrator will forward the certifications he or she

receives to appropriate NHTSA and FHWA offices.

(d) Once a State has been determined to be in compliance with the

requirements of 23 U.S.C. 161, it is not required to submit additional

certifications, except that the State shall promptly submit an

amendment or supplement to its certification provided under paragraphs

(a) and (b) of this section if the State's zero tolerance legislation

changes.

Sec. 1210.6 Period of availability of withheld funds.

(a) Funds withheld under Sec. 1210.4 from apportionment to any

State on or before September 30, 2000, will remain available for

apportionment until the end of the third fiscal year following the

fiscal year for which the funds are authorized to be appropriated.

(b) Funds withheld under Sec. 1210.4 from apportionment to any

State after September 30, 2000 will not be available for apportionment

to the State.

[[Page 55218]]

Sec. 1210.7 Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.

Funds withheld from a State from apportionment under Sec. 1210.4,

which remain available for apportionment under Sec. 1210.6(a), will be

made available to the State if it conforms to the requirements of

Secs. 1210.4 and 1210.5 before the last day of the period of

availability as defined in Sec. 1210.6(a).

Sec. 1210.8 Period of availability of subsequently apportioned funds.

Funds apportioned pursuant to Sec. 1210.7 will remain available for

expenditure until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal

year in which the funds are apportioned.

Sec. 1210.9 Effect of noncompliance.

If a State has not met the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 161 and this

part at the end of the period for which funds withheld under

Sec. 1210.4 are available for apportionment to a State under

Sec. 1210.6, then such funds shall lapse.

Sec. 1210.10 Procedures affecting states in noncompliance.

(a) Each fiscal year, each State determined to be in noncompliance

with 23 U.S.C. 161 and this part, based on NHTSA's and FHWA's

preliminary review of its law, will be advised of the funds expected to

be withheld under Sec. 1210.4 from apportionment, as part of the

advance notice of apportionments required under 23 U.S.C. 104(e),

normally not later than ninety days prior to final apportionment.

(b) If NHTSA and FHWA determine that the State is not in compliance

with 23 U.S.C. 161 and this part, based on the agencies' preliminary

review, the State may, within 30 days of its receipt of the advance

notice of apportionments, submit documentation showing why it is in

compliance. Documentation shall be submitted to the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

20590.

(c) Each fiscal year, each State determined not to be in compliance

with 23 U.S.C. 161 and this part, based on NHTSA's and FHWA's final

determination, will receive notice of the funds being withheld under

Sec. 1210.4 from apportionment, as part of the certification of

apportionments required under 23 U.S.C. 104(e), which normally occurs

on October 1 of each fiscal year.

Issued on: October 21, 1996.

Rodney E. Slater,

Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-27313 Filed 10-22-96; 12:30 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P