Incentive Grants for Alcohol-Impaired Driving Prevention Programs

SUMMARY: This interim final rule amends the regulations that implement

the Section 410 program, under which States can receive incentive

grants for alcohol-impaired driving prevention programs. The amendments

to the regulations reflect changes that were made to the Section 410

program by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TA-21).

As a result of this interim final rule, the basic grant program now

provides States with two alternative means for qualifying for a basic

grant. Under the first alternative, States may qualify for a

``Programmatic Basic Grant'' if they submit materials demonstrating

that they meet five out of seven grant criteria. Under the second

alternative, States may qualify for a ``Performance Basic Grant'' by

submitting data demonstrating that the State has successfully reduced

the percentage of alcohol-impaired fatally injured drivers in the State

over a three-year period. If States qualify for both a Programmatic and

a Performance Basic Grant, they may receive both grants. This rule also

provides that States that are eligible for one or both of the basic

grants may qualify also for a supplemental grant.

This interim final rule establishes the criteria States must meet

and the procedures they must follow to qualify for Section 410

incentive grants, beginning in FY 1999.

DATES: This interim final rule becomes effective on January 28, 1999.

Comments on this interim rule are due no later than March 1, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should refer to the docket number of this

notice and be submitted (preferably in two copies) to: Docket

Management, PL-401, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are Monday-Friday from 10 a.m. to 5

p.m., excluding holidays.) The docket is also accepting comments

electronically, through the worldwide web, at www.dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marlene Markison, Office of State

and Community Services, NSC-10, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 telephone

(202) 366-2121; or Mr. Otto G. Matheke III, Office of Chief Counsel,

NCC-20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Programmatic Basic Grant Criteria

A. Administrative License Suspension or Revocation System

B. Underage Drinking Prevention Program

C. Statewide Traffic Enforcement Program

D. Graduated Driver's Licensing System

E. Program for Drivers With High BAC

F. Young Adult Drinking and Driving Programs

G. Testing for BAC

III. Performance Basic Grant Criteria

IV. Supplemental Grant Criteria

A. Video Equipment Program

B. Self-Sustaining Drunk Driving Prevention Program

C. Reduction of Driving with a Suspended License

D. Passive Alcohol Sensor Program

E. Effective DWI Tracking System

F. Other Innovative Programs

V. Administrative Issues

A. Qualification Requirements

B. Limitation on Grants

C. Award Procedures

VI. Interim Final Rule

VII. Written Comments

VIII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

B. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

F. National Environmental Policy Act

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Background

The Section 410 program was created by the Drunk Driving Prevention

Act of 1988 and codified in 23 U.S.C. 410. As originally conceived,

States could qualify for basic and supplemental grants under the

Section 410 program if they met certain criteria. To qualify for a

basic grant, States had to provide for an expedited driver's license

suspension or revocation system and a self-sustaining drunk driving

prevention program. To qualify for a supplemental grant, States had to

be eligible for a basic grant and provide for a mandatory blood alcohol

testing program, an underage drinking program, an open container and

consumption program, or a suspension of registration and return of

license plate program.

A number of technical corrections contained in the 1991

Appropriations Act for the Department of Transportation and Related

Agencies, enacted on January 12, 1990, led to changes in the basic

grant requirements, but did not add any new criteria to the program.

A number of modifications were made to the Section 410 program in

1991 by the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). In addition to modifying award amounts

and procedures, ISTEA changed the criteria that States were required to

meet to qualify for basic and supplemental grant funds. To qualify for

a basic grant under the amended program, States were required to

provide for four out of the following five criteria: an expedited

administrative driver's license suspension or revocation system; a per

se law at 0.10 BAC (during the first three fiscal years in which a

basic grant is received based on this criterion and a per se law at

0.08 BAC in each subsequent fiscal year); a statewide program for

stopping motor vehicles; a self-sustaining drunk driving prevention

program; and a minimum drinking age prevention program.

States eligible for basic grants could qualify also for

supplemental grants if they provided for one or more of the following:

a per se law at 0.02 BAC for persons under age 21; an open container

and consumption law; a suspension of registration and return of license

plate program; a mandatory blood alcohol concentration testing program;

a drugged driving prevention program; a per se law at 0.08 BAC (during

the first three fiscal years in which a basic grant is received); and a

video equipment program.

In 1992, the Section 410 program was modified again. The Department

of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1993,

which was signed into law on October 6, 1992, essentially repealed the

modifications to Section 410 relating to award amounts and procedures

that were enacted by ISTEA. The Act also added a sixth basic grant

criterion, and provided that to be eligible for a basic grant, a State

now must meet five out of six basic grant criteria. The new criterion

required States to show that they impose certain mandatory sentences on

repeat offenders.

The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 led to further

amendments to the Section 410 program. The criterion for a statewide

program for stopping motor vehicles was modified to accommodate States

in which roadblocks were unconstitutional. In addition, the per se

[[Page 71689]]

law at 0.02 BAC for persons under age 21 requirement was eliminated as

supplemental grant criterion , and became instead a basic grant

criterion (thereby increasing the total number of basic grant criteria

from six to seven). With this change, States could qualify for a basic

grant by meeting five out of seven criteria.

On June 9, 1998, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

(TEA-21) was enacted into law (Pub. L. 105-178). Section 2004 of TEA-21

contained a new set of amendments to 23 U.S.C. 410. These amendments

modified both the grant amounts to be awarded and the criteria that

States must meet to qualify for both basic and supplemental grant funds

under the Section 410 program.

The TEA-21 amendments, which take effect in FY 1999, establish two

separate basic grants, plus six supplemental grant criteria. The

statute provides that the amount of each basic grant shall equal up to

25 percent of the amount apportioned to the qualifying State for fiscal

year 1997 under 23 U.S.C. 402, and that up to 10 percent of the amounts

available to carry out the Section 410 program shall be available for

making Section 410 supplemental grants.

Under the TEA-21 amendments, States can qualify for one of the

basic grants (named a ``Programmatic Basic Grant'' in the interim

regulation) by demonstrating that the State meets five out of the

following seven criteria: an administrative driver's license suspension

or revocation system; an underage drinking prevention program; a

statewide traffic enforcement program; a graduated driver's licensing

system; a program to target drivers with high BAC; a program to reduce

drinking and driving among young adults (between the ages of 21 and

34); and a BAC testing program. States can qualify for the other basic

grant (named a ``Performance Basic Grant'' in the interim regulation)

by demonstrating that the percentage of fatally injured drivers in the

State with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10 or more has

decreased in each of the three most recent calendar years for which

statistics are available and that the percentage of fatally injured

drivers with a BAC of 0.10 or more in the State has been lower than the

average percentage for all States in each of the same three calendar

years.

To qualify for supplemental grant funds under Section 410, as

amended by TEA-21, a State must be eligible to receive a Programmatic

and/or a Performance Basic Grant, and must provide for one or more of

the following six criteria: a video equipment program; a self-

sustaining drunk driving prevention program; a program to reduce

driving with a suspended driver's license; a passive alcohol sensor

program; an effective DWI tracking system; or other innovative programs

to reduce traffic safety problems that result from individuals who

drive while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances.

II. Programmatic Basic Grant

Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, the Section 410 basic grant

criteria included the following: an expedited administrative driver's

licenses suspension or revocation system; a per se law at 0.10 BAC

(during the first three fiscal years in which a basic grant is received

based on this criterion and a per se law at 0.08 BAC in each subsequent

fiscal year); a statewide program for stopping motor vehicles; a self-

sustaining drunk driving prevention program; a minimum drinking age

prevention program; mandatory sentences for repeat offenders; and a per

se law at 0.02 BAC for persons under age 21.

TEA-21 removed some of these criteria from the section 410 program.

A per se law at 0.08 BAC became the criterion for a separate incentive

grant program, 23 U.S.C. 163, under which States may qualify for a

total of $500 million over a six year period, and a per se law at 0.02

BAC for persons under age 21 became (in 1995) became the criterion for

a sanction program, 23 U.S.C. 161, under which States will be subject

to the withholding of highway construction funds beginning in FU 2000

unless they have enacted and are enforcing such a law. Most of the

criteria (or modifications thereof) continue to be features of the

Section 410 program.

With the enactment of TEA-21, to qualify for a programmatic basic

grant, a State must demonstrate compliance with five out of the

following seven grant criteria: an administrative license suspension or

revocation system; an underage drinking prevention program; a statewide

traffic enforcement program; a graduated driver's licensing system; a

program to target drivers with high BAC; a program to reduce drinking

and driving among young adults; and a BAC testing program.

Of these criteria, the graduated driver's licensing system, the

program that targets drivers with high BAC, and the young adult

drinking and driving programs are new to the Section 410 program. Three

of the criteria (the administrative license suspension or revocation

system, the underage drinking prevention program and the statewide

traffic enforcement program) were basic grant criteria prior to the

enactment of TEA-21. The BAC testing program represents a modification

of a former Section 410 criterion, which encouraged States to provide

for mandatory BAC testing of drivers in certain motor vehicle crashes.

A. Administrative License Suspension or Revocation System

Studies show that when States adopt an administrative license

suspension or revocation law, they experience an average 6-9 percent

reduction in alcohol-related fatalities.

An administrative (or expedited) license suspension or revocation

system has been a basic grant criterion under the Section 410 program

since the program's inception. TEA-21 continues to include this basic

grant criterion in Section 410, but the Act streamlines the elements

that States must meet to demonstrate compliance with this criterion.

TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a

State must demonstrate:

An administrative driver's license suspension or revocation

system for individuals who operate motor vehicles while under the

influence of alcohol that requires that--

(i) In the case of an individual who, in any 5-year period

beginning after the date of enactment of [TEA-21], is determined on

the basis of a chemical test to have been operating a motor vehicle

while under the influence of alcohol or is determined to have

refused to submit to such a test as proposed by a law enforcement

officer, the State agency responsible for administering drivers'

licenses, upon receipt of the report of the law enforcement

officer--

(I) Shall suspend the driver's license of such individual for a

period of not less than 90 days if such individual is a first

offender in such 5-year period; and

(II) Shall suspend the driver's license of such individual for a

period of not less than 1 year, or revoke such license, if such

individual is a repeat offender in such 5-year period; and

(ii) The suspension and revocation referred to * * * shall take

effect not later than 30 days after the day on which the individual

refused to submit to a chemical test or received notice of having

been determined to be driving under the influence of alcohol, in

accordance with the procedures of the State.

Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, this criterion contained a number

of specific procedural requirements, including that the officer serve

the driver with a written notice and take possession of the driver's

license at the time of the stop, that the notice contain certain

information about the administrative procedures under which the State

may suspend or revoke the driver's license, that the State provide for

due process of

[[Page 71690]]

law and that the officer immediately report to the State entity

responsible for administering driver's licenses all information

relevant to the action taken. These specific requirements, which States

in past years argued were overly prescriptive, were removed from this

criterion in TEA-21. Accordingly, they have been removed from the

regulation as well.

To qualify under this criterion, as amended by TEA-21, a State must

provide simply that first offenders will be subject to a 90-day

suspension, that repeat offenders will be subject to a one-year

suspension or revocation, and that suspensions or revocations will take

effect within 30 days after the offender refuses to submit to a

chemical test or receives notice of having failed the test.

The interim final rule continues to provide that these suspension

and revocation terms must be hard (i.e., that during these terms, all

driving privileges are suspended or revoked), except that first

offenders who submitted to and were determined to have failed a

chemical test, may be subject to a 30-day hard suspension, and then may

receive restricted driving privileges or a hardship license for the

remainder of the 90-day term.

The interim final rule continues to provide that States may

demonstrate compliance with this criterion as either ``Law States'' or

``Data States.'' The rule, however, simplifies the information States

must submit to demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years.

As provided in the interim rule, a ``Law State'' is a State that

has a law, regulation or binding policy directive implementing or

interpreting the law or regulation that meets each element of the

criterion. A ``Data State'' is a State that has a law, regulation or

binding policy directive that provides for an administrative license

suspension or revocation system, but it does not meet each element of

the criterion. For example, the law may permit restricted licenses

during the 90-day or one-year period or the law may not specifically

provide that suspensions must take effect within 30 days.

To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State

qualifies for a grant based on this criterion, a Law State need only

submit a copy of its conforming law, regulation or binding policy

directive. A Data State must submit its law, regulation or binding

policy directive, and data demonstrating compliance with any element

not specifically provided for in the State's law.

In the past, to demonstrate compliance with this criterion in

subsequent fiscal years, both Law States and Data States were required

to submit data regarding the number of licenses suspended, the average

lengths of suspension, and the average length of time that elapsed

until suspensions took effect for both first and repeat offenders.

The agency has decided to streamline this requirement, which should

reduce reporting requirements for States considerably. Under the

interim final rule, to demonstrate compliance with this criterion in

subsequent fiscal years, a Law State need only submit a copy of any

changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive. If

there have been no changes in the State's law, regulation or binding

policy directive since the previous year's submission, the State shall

submit instead a certification to that effect.

To demonstrate compliance with this criterion in subsequent fiscal

years, Data States must submit the same information as Law States, plus

they must provide updated data demonstrating compliance with any

element not specifically provided for in the State's law.

Although States are no longer required by the statute and the

interim regulation to show that law enforcement officers take

possession of driver licenses at the time of the stop, the agency

encourages States nonetheless to continue this practice. NHTSA has

found that the practice of immediately seizing a driver's license is a

powerful deterrent and should be used whenever possible.

B. Underage Drinking Prevention Program

Drinking by drivers under 21 years of age continues to be a

significant safety problem, and studies show that when States adopt a

minimum drinking age of 21 years, they experience an average 12 percent

decrease in alcohol-related fatalities in the affected age group. Many

States, however, do not enforce minimum drinking age laws as vigorously

as possible.

An underage drinking (or minimum drinking age) prevention program

has been a grant criterion under Section 410 since the program's

inception, first as a supplemental grant criterion and later as a

criterion for a basic grant. TEA-21 continues to include this basic

grant criterion in Section 410, but the Act modifies it slightly. TEA-

21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a

State must demonstrate:

An effective system * * * for preventing operators of motor

vehicles under age 21 from obtaining alcoholic beverages and for

preventing persons from making alcoholic beverages available to

individuals under age 21. Such system may include the issuance of

drivers' licenses to individuals under age 21 that are easily

distinguishable in appearance from drivers' licenses issued to

individuals age 21 or older and the issuance of drivers' licenses

that are tamper resistant.

This criterion is almost identical to the minimum drinking age

prevention program criterion contained in Section 410 prior to the

enactment of TEA-21, except that TEA-21 added two elements to the

criterion. Under TEA-21, the system must not only prevent drivers under

the age of 21 from obtaining alcoholic beverages, it must also take

steps that prevent persons of any age from making alcoholic beverages

available to those who are under 21. In other words, the system must

target young drinkers and also providers. In addition, States must

demonstrate both that driver's licenses that are issued to individuals

under the age of 21 are distinguishable from those issued to

individuals over 21 years of age, and that they are tamper resistant.

The interim final rule incorporates these new elements into the

implementing regulation, and includes in Appendix A to the regulation a

list of security features that States may include on their driver's

licenses to make them tamper resistant.

While States are required under this interim final rule to adopt

only one of the listed security features, the agency urges States to

consider incorporating as many of the security features as possible

into their driver's licenses to prevent underage drivers from altering

existing licenses or from obtaining or producing counterfeits.

The interim final rule also makes two additional modifications to

this criterion. It specifies that public information programs targeted

to underage drivers publicize drinking age laws, zero tolerance laws

and the penalties associated with a violation of these statutes, and it

provides that the overall enforcement strategy developed under this

program must be capable of being implemented locally throughout the

State. The agency believes these elements are important to ensure the

effectiveness of underage drinking prevention programs.

In the past, to demonstrate compliance with this criterion, a State

was required to submit a plan (or an updated plan) for conducting an

underage drinking prevention program. Under the interim final rule, to

demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives a

grant based on this criterion, the State must submit information

demonstrating that a program that meets each programmatic element of

this criterion is already in place. This change conforms the

[[Page 71691]]

regulation to the practices that States already have been following. As

in past years, States must also submit sample driver's licenses. The

samples must demonstrate that licenses issued to drivers under the age

of 21 are easily distinguishable from licenses issued to older drivers

and that they are tamper resistant.

To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, States need

only submit information documenting any changes to the State's driver's

licenses or underage driving prevention program, or a certification

stating that there have been no changes since the state's previous

year's submission.

The agency notes that the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) awarded

$25 million in grants in FY 1998 to States to encourage the enforcement

of minimum drinking age laws. An additional $25 million in grants will

be available for this purpose in FY 1999. States that do not already

meet each element of the underage drinking prevention program criterion

under Section 410 may consider using DOJ grant funds to develop

programs that will enable these States to qualify for Section 410

funding.

C. Statewide Traffic Enforcement Program

Highly visible, widely publicized and frequently conducted

impaired-driving traffic enforcement programs are very effective at

reducing alcohol-related fatalities. NHTSA research strongly supports

the use of roadside sobriety checkpoints and other checkpoint programs

to reduce impaired driving deaths and injuries. Decreases in alcohol-

related crashes have been reported consistently in States where

checkpoints are employed. A recent study of a highly publicized

Statewide sobriety checkpoint program (``Checkpoint Tennessee'') found

a 20 percent reduction in impaired driving-related fatal crashes, when

compared to five surrounding States with no intervention during the

same period.

In addition, selective traffic enforcement programs, saturation

patrols, and special impaired driving patrols, particularly when

accompanied by aggressive public information programs and applied in a

coordinated Statewide effort, have been found to be very effective

tools for reducing alcohol-related fatalities.

A basic grant criterion for Statewide programs for stopping motor

vehicles has been a feature of the Section 410 program since 1991.

Initially, only roadblock or checkpoint programs were considered

acceptable under this criterion, but the criterion was expanded later

to permit, in certain cases, other intensive and highly publicized

traffic enforcement techniques.

TEA-21 continues to include in Section 410 a basic grant criterion

for a Statewide traffic enforcement program, but the Act provides for

added flexibility regarding the elements States must meet to comply.

TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a

State must demonstrate:

A statewide program for stopping motor vehicles on a

nondiscriminatory, lawful basis for the purpose of determining

whether the operators of such motor vehicles are driving while under

the influence of alcohol; or a statewide special traffic enforcement

program for impaired driving that emphasizes publicity for the

program.

In other words, any State may qualify by having either a Statewide

program for stopping motor vehicles or a Statewide special traffic

enforcement program (STEP) for impaired driving that emphasizes

publicity regarding the program.

The agency has modified this criterion to reflect the changes made

by TEA-21. As provided in the interim final rule, whether the State has

established a Statewide program for stopping motor vehicles or a STEP,

the State program must provide for the following components: motor

vehicles must be stopped or STEP's must be conducted on a Statewide

basis (in major areas covering at least 50 percent of the State's

population); stops must be made or STEP's must be conducted not less

than monthly; stops must be made or STEP's must be conducted by both

State and local law enforcement agencies; and effective public

information efforts must be conducted to inform the public about these

enforcement activities.

To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year the State

receives a grant based on this criterion, the State must submit a plan

for its Statewide traffic enforcement program, which meets each element

of this criterion. The plan must include guidelines, policies or

operation procedures governing the program, and provide approximate

dates and locations of programs planned in the coming year. The plan

must also include the names of law enforcement agencies expected to

participate and describe the public information efforts to be

conducted.

To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the State

must submit an updated plan, and information documenting that the prior

year's plan was implemented effectively including, for example, samples

of public information materials used and information that documents the

enforcement activities that took place.

D. Graduated Driver's Licensing System

There is growing support nationwide for the adoption of graduated

driver's licensing (GDL) systems. A GDL system generally consists of a

multi-staged (usually, a three-stage) process for issuing driver's

licenses to young people. During the first stage, the applicant

generally is issued a learner's permit and may operate a motor vehicle

only while under the supervision of an licensed driver over the age of

21. During the second stage, the applicant is issued an intermediate

(or restricted) license and may operate a motor vehicle without a

supervising adult, but only under certain conditions. Additional

restrictions also generally apply during these first two stages. Once

drivers meet all of the conditions and restrictions of the first two

stages, they can reach the third stage and earn an unrestricted

license.

Some of the significant benefits of this system are that young

drivers are able to gain valuable driving experience under controlled

circumstances, and they must demonstrate responsible driving behavior

and proficiency to move through each stage of the system before

graduating to the next.

Approximately 20 States have established some form of GDL system in

the last five years, and studies indicate that the use of such systems

results in improved highway safety. The adoption of GDL systems

resulted in a five percent reduction in crashes in California and

Maryland, an eight percent reduction in New Zealand, a 16 percent

reduction for young male drivers in Oregon, and a 31 percent reduction

in Ontario, Canada.

TEA-21 adds a new graduated driver's licensing system basic grant

criterion to the Section 410 program. TEA-21 provides that, to qualify

for a grant based on this criterion, a State must demonstrate:

A 3-stage graduated licensing system for young drivers that

includes nighttime driving restrictions during the first 2 stages,

requires all vehicle occupants to be properly restrained, and makes

it unlawful for a person under age 21 to operate a motor vehicle

with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or greater.

To qualify under this criterion, the agency's implementing

regulations require States to have a three-stage program that includes

a learner's permit stage (Stage I), an intermediate (or restricted)

license stage (Stage II), and a final stage, under which the driver

receives an unrestricted license (Stage

[[Page 71692]]

III). Stage I must last for at least three months and the combined

period of Stages I and II must last for at least one year.

The regulations provide that applicants must be tested for

knowledge and vision before they receive a Stage I learner's permit. To

move to a Stage II intermediate license, applicants must have met all

the conditions of the Stage I learner's permit for a period of at least

three months, and they must pass a driving skills test. To receive an

unrestricted license under Stage III, applicants must have met all the

conditions of the Stage I learner's permit and the Stage II

intermediate license for a combined period of at least one year.

The regulations also specify the conditions that must be imposed

during Stages I and II. Drivers with Stage I learner's permits and

Stage II intermediate licenses must abide by the State's seat belt use

laws and zero tolerance laws if they are under the age of 21, and they

must remain crash and conviction free. During Stage I, permit holders

may not operate a motor vehicle at any time (day or night) unless they

are accompanied by a licensed driver who is 21 years of age or older.

During Stage II, drivers may not operate a motor vehicle during certain

nighttime hours unless they are accompanied by a licensed driver who is

at least 21 years of age or covered by a State-approved exception to

this restriction. These hours are to be specified by the State, and

they must cover some period of time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. abd

6:00 a.m.

Permits and licenses issued at all three stages must be

distinguishable from each other. Since drivers, once they reach Stage

III, are eligible to receive an unrestricted license, none of the other

conditions listed above need to apply during that stage of the system.

The interim regulation provides that the GDL must cover ``young

drivers,'' but it does not define this term. Most States that have

already adopted GDL systems cover novice teenage drivers, up to a

specified age, although one State covers all novice drivers. The agency

defers to the States to determine the age of drivers that should be

covered by their GDL systems.

To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives

a grant based on this criterion, a State must submit a copy of the law,

regulation or binding policy directive implementing or interpreting the

law or regulation, which provides for each element of the graduated

driver's licensing system criterion. To demonstrate compliance in

subsequent fiscal years, the State need only submit a copy of any

changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive. If

there have been no changes in the State's law, regulation or bindng

policy directive since the previous year's submission, the State shall

submit instead a certification to that effect.

Although not required under the regulation, NHTSA urges States to

consider including certain features in their graduated driver's

licensing systems, because these features are consistent with the

provisions recommended by NHTSA, the National Safety Council and other

National organizations in ``Saving Teenage Lives: The Call for

Graduated Driver Licensing'' (in press). For example, States should

consider requiring that applicants complete a basic skills or

``driver's education'' course, with both classroom instruction and

supervised driving practice, before they receive a Stage II

intermediate license. In addition, States should consider requiring the

following conditions during Stage II: advanced driver training;

supervised practice; lower thresholds of accumulated points before

sanctions or corrective actions are imposed; limits on the number of

non-family passengers under the age of 21 who may accompany the driver

in the vehicle; advanced driver testing before receiving an

unrestricted license; a requirement that learner's permit holders

remain crash and conviction free for six (rather than three) months

before moving to the next phase; that intermediate license holders

remain crash and conviction free for an additional 12 months before

moving to the next phase; and a nighttime driving restriction during

the intermediate stage that is in effect during the entire 10:00 p.m.

to 6:00 a.m. time period.

E. Drivers With High BAC

NHTSA is keenly aware of the hazards posed by drinking drivers with

a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) that significantly exceeds existing

legal levels. Research indicates that drivers with a highly elevated

BAC not only are at increased risk of causing alcohol-related crashes

and fatalities, but also are placing themselves at increased risk of

incurring more serious injuries.

According to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), 30

percent of persons killed in motor vehicle crashes in 1997 were in

crashes involving a driver or non-occupant with a BAC of 0.10 or

greater. Drivers with a BAC of 0.15 or greater are estimated to have

risks that increase to more than 300 times that of sober drivers. NHTSA

estimates that more than half of all drinking drivers involved in fatal

crashes have a BAC that exceeds 0.15 percent. Moreover, a high BAC is a

strong indicator that the driver is a problem drinker and is at risk of

becoming a repeat offender.

To combat the dangers posed by drivers with a high BAC, TEA-21 adds

a new basic grant criterion for programs that target these drivers.

TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a

State must demonstrate:

Programs to target individuals with high blood alcohol

concentrations who operate a motor vehicles. Such programs may

include implementation of a system of graduated penalties and

assessment of individuals convicted of driving under the influence

of alcohol.

This interim final rule provides that, to qualify for a grant based

on this criterion, a State must have a system for imposing enhanced

penalties on those drivers who have been convicted of operating a motor

vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and determined to have a

high BAC. These enhanced penalties must be either more severe or more

numerous than those applicable to persons who have been convicted of

operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, but

were not determined to have a high BAC.

In order to provide States with a high degree of latitude in

fashioning appropriate enhanced penalties on these drivers, NHTSA has

not specified in the interim rule the particular minimum sanctions that

must apply. The enhanced penalties may include longer terms of license

suspension, increased fines, additional or extended sentences of

confinement, vehicle sanctions, or mandatory assessment and treatment

as appropriate.

For the purposes of this criterion, the interim rule provides that

the threshold level at which high BAC sanctions must begin to apply may

be at any level above the standard BAC level at which sanctions for

non-commercial drivers begin to apply, but it must begin at or below

0.20 BAC. For example, if the standard BAC level in a State is 0.08,

then the State may begin to impose enhanced sanctions on offenders

determined to have a BAC of 0.09 or greater, or the state could choose

interest to begin imposing such sanctions on offenders with a BAC of

0.12 and above. If the State does not begin to impose such sanctions

until offenders are determined to be at 0.21 BAC or greater, however,

the State system will not comply.

The agency is aware of ten States that have such graduated penalty

programs. In these States, the enhanced or

[[Page 71693]]

additional penalties begin to apply at levels ranging from 0.15 to 0.20

BAC.

To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives

a grant based on this criterion, a State must submit a copy of the law,

regulation or binding policy directive implementing or interpreting the

law or regulation, which provides for each element of the program for

drivers with high BAC criterion. The law, regulation or binding policy

must specify the penalties that are to be imposed on drivers determined

to have a high BAC, and these penalties must be greater than those that

apply to other convicted drivers. To demonstrate compliance in

subsequent fiscal years, the State need only submit a copy of any

changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive. If

there have been no changes in the State's law, regulation or binding

policy directive since the previous year's submission, the State shall

submit instead a certification to that effect.

F. Young Adult Drinking and Driving Programs

Alcohol involvement in crashes reaches its highest rate for those

between the ages of 21 and 34. FARS data for 1997 indicates that 45

percent of all drinking drivers in alcohol-related fatal crashes were

in this age group. More than 50 percent of those drivers 21 to 34 years

of age who were killed in fatal crashes had alcohol in their system--

the highest percentage of any age group. Data from a 1996 Roadside

Survey show that although the percentage of all drivers with a BAC of

0.05 or above had decreased since 1986 (from 8.4 percent to 7.7

percent), the percentage of those age 21-34 with a BAC of 0.05 or above

increased (from 9.9 percent to 11.3 percent). The same tread was true

for those with a BAC of 0.10 or above--the percentage of all drivers

with a BAC of 0.10 or above decreased (from 3.2 percent to 2.8 percent)

while the percentage of those age 21-34 with a BAC of 0.10 or above

increased (from 3.3 percent to 3.8 percent). Self-reported survey data

indicate that adults age 21-29 are the most likely to drive after

drinking. Since the drivers in this age group can drink lawfully, the

laws and enforcement strategies that are used to target teenage drivers

are not available for them. Therefore, other prevention and enforcement

strategies must be identified to target drivers in this age group.

TEA-21 adds a new basic grant criterion to the Section 410 program

to encourage the development of young adult drinking and driving

programs. TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this

criterion, a State must demonstrate:

Programs to reduce driving while under the influence of alcohol

by individuals age 21 through 34. Such programs may include

awareness campaigns; traffic safety partnerships with employers,

colleges, and the hospitality industry; assessments of first time

offenders; and incorporation of treatment into judicial sentencing.

The interim final rule provides that, to qualify under this

criterion, States must meet two requirements. First, they must

demonstrate that they have in place a public information and awareness

campaign aimed at persons between the ages of 21 and 34. Such a program

must be conducted on a Statewide basis, and it must be designed to

increase awareness among young adults (age 21-34) regarding alcohol-

impaired driving laws and the penalties, costs and other consequences

of alcohol-impaired driving.

Second, they must demonstrate that they have in place certain

partnership activities that seek to promote prevention. The interim

regulation identifies four such activities: activities involving the

participation of employers; activities involving the participation of

colleges or universities; activities involving the participation of the

hospitality industry; and activities involving the participation of

appropriate State officials that will encourage the assessment and

incorporation of treatment as appropriate in judicial sentencing for

young adult drivers.

The agency does not expect that States will have all such

partnership activities in place during the first year of the Section

410 program. Accordingly, the interim final rule provides States with

an opportunity to put these activities into place over time. To qualify

in the first fiscal year a State receives a grant based on this

criterion, the State must be engaged in one of these four partnership

activities, and it must have a plan for expanding into the other areas.

To qualify in subsequent fiscal years, the State must be engaged in all

four activities.

To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives

a grant based on this criterion, the State must submit a description

and sample materials documenting the Statewide public information and

awareness campaign, a description and sample materials documenting the

ongoing partnership activities involving at least one of the four

components listed above, and a plan that outlines proposed efforts to

conduct activities involving all four of these components. To

demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the State must

submit an updated description of its Statewide public information and

awareness campaign and of all ongoing partnership activities, with

information documenting that all four components are involved.

G. Testing for BAC

Improving the rate of testing for blood alcohol concentration (BAC)

of drivers involved in fatal crashes is a critical component of any

alcohol-impaired driving program. Increased BAC testing helps us to

understand the problem, identify offenders, and take steps to develop

effective solutions to reduce the tragic consequences of impaired

driving. According to FARS data, only 43.7 percent of all drivers

involved in fatal crashes in 1997 were tested for BAC and the results

are known. NHTSA estimates that thousands of drivers each year are

impaired by alcohol when involved in a fatal crash, but are not

detected or charged because a BAC test was not administered or the

results are not available. If more drivers were tested for BAC and the

results are made available, estimates of alcohol involvement in fatal

crashes would be more accurate, more offenders would be prosecuted and

the data collected would facilitate the development of better alcohol-

impaired driving countermeasures.

Mandatory BAC testing has been a supplemental grant criterion under

Section 410 since the inception of the program. TEA-21 modifies this

criterion and makes it, for the first time, a criterion for a basic

grant. Under TEA-21, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a

State must demonstrate:

An effective system for increasing the rate of testing of the

blood alcohol concentrations of motor vehicle drivers involved in

fatal accidents and, in fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year

thereafter, a rate of such testing that is equal to or greater than

the national average.

Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, States could qualify for a

supplemental grant based on this criterion if they demonstrated that

they provided for mandatory testing of drivers involved in fatal or

serious-injury crashes for the presence of alcohol when there was

probable cause to do so. States could demonstrate compliance as either

Law States or Data States. Law States were required to submit a law

that provided that law enforcement officials were required to order and

that offenders were required to submit to a chemical test in all fatal

and serious injury crashes where there was probable cause to order the

test. Data States were required to submit data showing that

substantially all drivers in fatal and

[[Page 71694]]

serious injury crashes were in fact tested.

TEA-21 changed this criterion by focusing solely on fatal (and not

serious injury) crashes and by shifting the emphasis of this criterion

from program design to performance. TEA-21 provides that, to qualify

for a grant based on this criterion in FY 1999 and 2000, a State must

show an effective system for improving the rate of testing (without

specifying the method for doing so). To qualify, beginning in FY 2001,

a State must have a testing rate that is above the national average.

The agency believes Congress intended to encourage States to take a

variety of steps in the first two fiscal years of this program (in FY's

1999 and 2000) to increase their particular testing rates and, thereby,

increase testing rates in the nation as a whole. Then, in FY 2001 and

beyond, only those States that exceed the national average will be

eligible for a grant based on this criterion.

Accordingly, the agency has decided to provide additional

flexibility in the interim final rule by permitting States to qualify

for a grant based on this criterion in FY's 1999 and 2000 through

various methods.

States may continue to qualify based on a law or data. A State can

qualify based on its law, if the law provides that law enforcement

officials are required to order and that offenders are required to

submit to a chemical test in all fatal crashes. A State can qualify

based on data, if the data shows that the State's percentage of BAC

testing among drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes is equal

to or exceeds the national average, as determined under the most

recently available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal year for

which grant funds are being sought.

Alternatively, the interim final rule provides that States may

qualify instead by agreeing to conduct a symposium or workshop designed

to increase the percentage of BAC testing for drivers involved in fatal

motor vehicle crashes. The symposium or workshop must be attended by a

broad range of individuals in the State who play a role and can have an

impact on the State's percentage of BAC testing, including

representatives of law enforcement officials, prosecutors, hospital

officials, medical examiners and/or coroners, physicians and judges.

States have conducted these types of workshops or symposia, with

positive results. The agency believes States that take this step can be

effective at increasing their BAC testing percentages.

The information States must submit to demonstrate compliance with

this criterion differs, depending on the fiscal year in which the State

is applying, whether this is a first or a subsequent-year application,

and the method the State is using to qualify. The interim final rule

provides a detailed account of the information that must be submitted

in each individual case.

For example, to demonstrate compliance in FY 1999 or 2000 based on

a law, the State must submit a copy of the law, regulation or binding

policy directive implementing or interpreting the law or regulation

that provides for each element of this criterion. To demonstrate

compliance in FY 1999 or 2000 based on data, the State must submit a

statement certifying that the percentage of BAC testing among drivers

involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes in the State is equal to or

greater than the national average, as determined under the most

recently available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal year for

which grant funds are being sought. NHTSA will verify the actual

testing percentages.

To demonstrate compliance in FY 1999 or 2000 based on an agreement

to conduct a symposium or workshop, the State must describe the

symposium or workshop that is planned, and submit a copy of the

proposed agenda and a list of the names and affiliations of the

individuals who are expected to attend. If the symposium or workshop

has already taken place, the State must describe the event and submit

the actual agenda and list of attendees.

If a State demonstrated compliance in FY 1999 based on an agreement

to conduct a symposium, then to demonstrate compliance in FY 2000 using

the same method, the State must submit the report or other

documentation that was generated as a result of the symposium or

workshop, with the recommendations that were developed, and a plan that

outlines how the recommendations will be implemented.

Beginning in FY 2001, to demonstrate compliance for a grant based

on this criterion, a State need only submit a statement certifying that

the percentage of BAC testing among drivers involved in fatal motor

vehicle crashes in the State is equal to or exceeds the national

average, as determined under the most recently available FARS data as

of the first day of the fiscal year for which grant funds are being

sought. NHTSA will verify the actual testing percentages.

III. Performance Grant Criteria

In past years, some have challenged the approach taken by the

Section 410 program, under which States qualify for grants if they

adopt programs from a prescribed list established by Congress. They

argue that States should be provided the opportunity to qualify for

grants based on their performance, without regard to the particular

programs that the States chose to use to obtain their results.

The new Section 410 program, as amended by TEA-21, addresses this

concern by providing for not one, but two, basic grants. States may

qualify for funds under a programmatic basic grant if they conduct

programs that are outlined in the programmatic basic grant criteria.

Alternatively, States may qualify for funds under a performance basic

grant simply by demonstrating State performance. (Moreover, States that

meet both sets of requirements can qualify to receive both basic

grants.)

To qualify for a performance basic grant, a State must demonstrate

each of the following:

(A) The percentage of fatally injured drivers with 0.10 percent

or greater blood alcohol concentration in the State has decreased in

each of the 3 most recent calendar years for which statistics for

determining such percentages are available; and

(B) The percentage of fatally injured drivers with 0.10 percent

or greater blood alcohol concentration in the State has been lower

than the average percentage for all States in each of the [3 most

recent] calendar years [for which statistics for determining such

percentages are available].

The interim final rule adopts these two conditions, and establishes

two methods for calculating the percentages described above.

Each calendar year, NHTSA will calculate the percentage of fatally

injured drivers with a BAC of 0.10 percent or greater for each State

and the average percentage for all States for each of the three most

recent calendar years for which the data are available as of the first

day of the fiscal year for which grant funds are being sought, using

data contained in the FARs, and NHTSA's method for estimating alcohol

involvement (as developed and published by Klein, 1986). The agency

then will make the information available through its regional offices.

Any State that meets the two requirements outlined above, based on

the percentages calculated by NHTSA, may demonstrate compliance simply

by submitting a certification statement. NHTSA will verify the actual

percentages.

Alternatively, any State with a percentage of BAC testing among

fatally injured drivers of 85 percent or greater in the three most

recent calendar years for which FARS data are available as of

[[Page 71695]]

the first day of the fiscal year for which grant funds are being

sought, as determined by the FARS data, may perform its own

calculations. The State would calculate the percentage of fatally

injured drivers with a BAC of 0.10 percent or greater in that State for

these three calendar years, using only data for drivers with a known

BAC.

The State would demonstrate compliance by submitting its

calculations and a statement certifying that the State meets the

requirements, based on the State's calculation of the percentage of

fatally injured drivers with such a BAC in the State and NHTSA's

calculation of this percentage in all States. NHTSA will verify the

actual percentages submitted using FARS data.

IV. Supplemental Grant Criteria

Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, the Section 410 supplemental

grant criteria included the following: an open container and

consumption law; a suspension of registration and return of license

plate program; a mandatory blood alcohol concentration testing program;

a drugged driving prevention program; a per se law at 0.08 BAC (during

the first three fiscal years in which a basic grant was received); and

a video equipment program.

TEA-21 removed some of these criteria from the Section 410 program.

A per se law at 0.08 BAC became the criterion for a separate incentive

grant program, 23 U.S.C. 163, under which States may qualify for a

total of $500 million over a six-year period. An open container and

consumption law became the criterion for a new transfer program, 23

U.S.C. 154, under which States will be subject to a transfer of highway

construction funds beginning in FY 2001 unless they have enacted and

are enforcing such a law. Some of the supplemental criteria (or

modifications thereof) continue to be features of the Section 410

program.

With the enactment of TEA-21, to qualify for a supplemental grant,

a State must be eligible for at least one of the two Section 410 basic

grants, and it must demonstrate compliance with one or more of the

following six supplemental grant criteria: a video equipment program; a

self-sustaining drunk driving prevention program; the reduction of

driving with a suspended license; a passive alcohol sensor program; an

effective DWI tracking system; or other innovative programs.

Of these criteria, the passive alcohol sensor program, an effective

DWI tracking system and other innovative programs are new to Section

410. Two of the criteria were features of Section 410 prior to the

enactment of TEA-21 (the video equipment program was a supplemental

grant criterion and the self-sustaining drunk driving prevention

program was a criterion for a basic grant). The reduction of driving

with a suspended license criterion represents a modification of a

former Section 410 criterion, which encouraged States to provide for

the suspension of registration and return of license plates for certain

serious offenses.

A. Video Equipment Program

The use of in-vehicle video equipment to record DWI investigations

has increased in recent years, and officers who have used the equipment

identify many positive results. They indicate, for example, that use of

the equipment provides evidence of what happened at the time of the

arrest, it convinces many defendants to plead guilty, it helps officers

testify in court and it protects officers from false allegations and

liability suits. Use of the equipment also helps the persons who have

been detained. It helps to ensure that officers follow correct

procedures and otherwise protects the suspects' rights.

The majority of law enforcement agencies that use video equipment

have written policies governing its use. These policies address what

types of arrests should be recorded, who is responsible for maintaining

the equipment, evidentiary issues and information about training. A

model policy has been developed by the International Association of

Chiefs of Police.

A video equipment program has been a supplemental grant criterion

under Section 410 since 1991. TEA-21 continues to include this program

as a supplemental grant criterion, without change. To qualify for a

grant based on this criterion, a State must demonstrate that:

The State provides for a program to acquire video equipment to

be used in detecting persons who operate motor vehicles while under

the influence of alcohol and in prosecuting those persons, and to

train personnel in the use of that equipment.

The requirements that States must meet and the information they

must submit to demonstrate compliance with this criterion are

essentially unchanged. Accordingly, there are not substantive changes

to this portion of the agency's implementing regulation.

To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives

a grant based on this criterion, as before, the State must submit a

plan for the acquisition and use of video equipment in law enforcement

vehicles for the enforcement of impaired driving laws, including: a

schedule for the areas where the equipment has been and will be

installed and used; a plan for training law enforcement personnel,

prosecutors and judges in the use of this equipment; and a plan for

public information and education programs to enhance the general

deterrent effect of the equipment.

To demonstrate compliance in subsequent years, the State must

submit information on the use and effectiveness of the equipment and an

updated plan for any acquisition and use of additional equipment.

B. Self-Sustaining Drunk Driving Prevention Program

Self-sustaining drunk driving prevention programs ensure that

resources are generated while a State is enforcing its impaired driving

laws, and then are made available to detect, arrest, prosecute and

sanction other DWI offenders and to educate the public about impaired

driving. A self-sustaining program provides for fines, reinstatement

fees or other charges to be assessed, and for the funds received to be

used directly to sustain a comprehensive Statewide drunk driving

prevention program. States that have institute such programs have been

very effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes and fatalities.

A self-sustaining drunk driving prevention program has been a basic

grant criterion under the Section 410 program since the program's

inception. TEA-21 continues to include this grant criterion in Section

410, but changes it from a basic to a supplemental criterion and makes

some modifications to the elements that States must meet to demonstrate

compliance with this criterion. TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a

grant based on this criterion, a State must demonstrate that:

The State provides for a self-sustaining drunk driving

prevention program under which a significant portion of the fines or

surcharges collected from individuals apprehended and fined for

operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol are

returned to those communities which have comprehensive programs for

the prevention of such operations of motor vehicles.

Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, States could qualify under this

criterion if a significant portion of the fines or surcharges collected

from individuals apprehended and fined for operating a motor vehicle

while under the influence of alcohol was either returned or an

equivalent amount was provided to communities with self-sustaining

comprehensive drunk driving prevention programs. TEA-21 amended

[[Page 71696]]

this criterion to provide that providing an equivalent amount of funds

is no longer sufficient. The actual fines or surcharges collected now

must be returned to those communities in order for a State to comply.

This statutory change has been incorporated into the implementing

regulation.

The agency recognizes that this change may prevent some States,

such as those whose Constitution prohibits such a dedicated non-

discretionary use of fines and penalties obtained from driving

offenders, from qualifying under this criterion. However, NHTSA notes

that Congress changed this criterion from a basic to a supplemental

grant criterion. Accordingly, a State's inability to comply with this

criterion will not inhibit any State's ability to obtain a basic grant.

In previous years, States were required to submit a great deal of

information to demonstrate compliance with this criterion. In an effort

to streamline the administration of this program, and to reduce the

recordkeeping and reporting burdens on the States, the agency has

simplified this portion of the regulation. To demonstrate compliance in

the first year a State receives a grant based on this criterion, the

State now need only submit a copy of the law, regulation or binding

policy directive that provides for a self-sustaining drunk driving

prevention program and certain Statewide data (or a representative

sample).

The law, regulation or binding policy directive must provide for

fines or surcharges to be imposed on individuals apprehended for

operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and for

such fines or surcharges collected to be returned to communities with

comprehensive drunk driving prevention programs. The interim final rule

defines the elements of such a program. The data must show the

aggregate amount of fines or surcharges collected, the aggragate amount

of revenues returned to communities with comprehensive drunk driving

prevention programs under the State's self-sustaining system, and the

aggregate cost of the State's comprehensive drunk driving prevention

programs.

To demonstrate compliance in subsequent years, States need only

submit updated data and either a copy of any changes to the State's

law, regulation or binding policy directive or, if there have been no

changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive,

then a certification statement to that effect.

C. Reduction of Driving With a Suspended License

Driving with a suspended license (DWS) is illegal in all States,

yet many drivers with suspended licenses continue to drive. Studies

estimate that, in some States, as many as 60-80 percent of drivers with

suspended or revoked licenses continue to drive, although it is

believed that these drivers tend to operate their vehicles less

frequently and more carefully, to avoid detection.

A program for the suspension of the registration and the return of

license plates has been a supplemental grant criterion since the

inception of the Section 410 program. TEA-21 adopts as a supplemental

grant criterion a modification of this program, which encourages the

development of a program to reduce driving with a suspended license.

TEA-21 provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a

State must demonstrate that:

The State enacts and enforces a law to reduce driving with a

suspended license. Such law . . . may require a ``zebra'' stripe

that is clearly visible on the license plate of any motor vehicle

owned and operated by a driver with a suspended license.

Some States, such as Oregon, have enacted ``zebra stripe'' laws

(although no such laws are currently in effect). The Oregon ``zebra

stripe'' program, which included strong public information and

enforcement components, showed a marked reduction in driving with a

suspended license. Other laws have been shown to be effective at

reducing this problem, as well; in particular, laws that provide for

vehicle sanctions. Accordingly, the agency has decided that States can

qualify under this criterion if they have in effect any one of a number

of vehicle-related sanctions. The sanctions may provide for either: the

suspension of the registration and the return of license plates; or the

impoundment, immobilization, forfeiture or confiscation of motor

vehicles; as well as the use of ``zebra stripes'' or other distinctive

markings on license plates.

Prior to TEA-21, to qualify under the criterion for the suspension

of the registration and the return of license plates, State laws had to

apply to DWS offenders and repeat DWI offenders. Under TEA-21 and the

revised regulation, this criterion requires that the vehicle sanctions

apply only to the former.

In addition, prior to TEA-21, the vehicle sanction had to be in

place during the entire term during which the individual's driver's

license was under suspension or revocation. Under TEA-21 and the

revised regulation, this criterion does not specify a minimum length of

time during which the vehicle sanction must apply. The regulation

requires only that the sanction must be in place for some time period,

to be specified by the State, during the offender's driver's license

suspension or revocation term. Consistent with past practice, and the

requirements of similar criteria currently being administered by the

agency Under other programs, the sanction must apply to any motor

vehicle owned by the individual.

NHTSA recognizes that the suspension of the registration and the

return of license plates, as well as the impoundment, immobilization,

forfeiture or confiscation of a motor vehicle could have serious

adverse consequences on individuals other than the offender.

Accordingly, although the agency does not encourage States to create

exceptions to their laws, and exceptions certainly are not required to

be included for a State to qualify for a grant under this criterion,

the interim final rule provides that a State may provide limited

exceptions to their vehicle sanctions on an individual basis to avoid

undue hardship to any individual who is completely dependent on the

motor vehicle for the necessities of life. Such individuals may include

any family member of the convicted individual, and any co-owner of the

motor vehicle, but not the convicted individual.

Such exceptions may be issued only in accordance with a State law,

regulation or binding policy directive establishing the conditions

under which motor vehicles or license plates may be released by the

State or under Statewide published guidelines and in exceptional

circumstances specific to the offender's motor vehicle, and may not

result in unrestricted use of the motor vehicle.

To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives

a grant based on this criterion, a State must submit a copy of the law,

regulation or binding policy directive implementing or interpreting the

law or regulation, which provides for each element of the reduction of

driving with a suspended license criterion. To demonstrate compliance

in subsequent fiscal years, the State need only submit a copy of any

changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive. If

there have been no changes in the State's law, regulation or binding

policy directive since the previous year's submission, the State shall

submit instead a certification to that effect.

[[Page 71697]]

D. Passive Alcohol Sensors

Passive alcohol sensors are designed to enhance the ability of law

enforcement officials to detect alcohol use by a driver. These sensors

often are used to enhance the capabilities of officers at sobriety

checkpoints or investigative stops. Research reports indicate that

passive sensor use increased the detection of BACs of 0.10 or more by

15 percent. An officer's ability to detect alcohol at lower BACs (e.g.,

between 0.05 and 0.10), where it is more difficult for the officer to

detect alcohol, was nearly doubled with the use of passive alcohol

sensors, thereby making these procedures more efficient. Passive

alcohol detection serves as an extension of the officers' ability to

detect alcohol with their senses, thereby enhancing the enforcement of

alcohol-related traffic safety laws. The detection of alcohol typically

provides sufficient grounds to further investigate whether an alcohol-

related traffic law (e.g., driving under the influence) has been

violated.

TEA-21 adds a new supplemental grant criterion to the Section 410

program to encourage the use of passive alcohol sensors. TEA-21

provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a State

must demonstrate that:

The State provides for a program to acquire passive alcohol

sensors to be used by police officers in detecting persons who

operate motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol, and to

train police officers in the use of that equipment.

To qualify for an incentive grant based on this new criterion, a

State must have a passive alcohol sensor program that calls for the

acquisition and use of passive alcohol sensors and provides for

training law enforcement personnel in their use.

The information States must submit to demonstrate compliance with

this criterion is similar to the information they must submit to

demonstrate compliance with the video equipment program. To demonstrate

compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives a grant based on

this criterion, the State must submit a plan for the acquisition and

use of passive alcohol sensors. The plan must include: A schedule for

the areas where the equipment has been and will be used; a plan to

train law enforcement personnel and to inform prosecutors and judges

about the purpose and use of these devices; and a plan for a public

information and education program to enhance the general deterrent

effect of the equipment. To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal

years, the State must submit information on the use and effectiveness

of the equipment and an updated plan for any acquisition and use of

additional equipment.

E. Effective DWI Tracking System

Each year, more than 1.4 million drivers are arrested for DWI. The

development of an effective DWI tracking system in a State can enhance

the deterrent effect of sanctions by ensuring that offenders do not

fail to complete conditions of sentences, administrative actions, or

assessment and treatment due to oversight or insufficient access to

records. Effective DWI tracking systems also can assure that offenders

subsequently charged with DWI are sanctioned at the time of posting

bond and sentencing as repeat, not first, offenders. In addition,

effective tracking systems serve to focus resources on those offenders

who pose the greatest risk to themselves and others--repeat offenders

and problem drinkers with a high BAC.

In 1997, NHTSA completed a comprehensive study and published a

three-volume report entitled ``Driving While Intoxicated Tracking

Systems.'' The study concludes that an effective DWI tracking system

should provide the means to accomplish two ends.

First, the DWI ``critical path'' of each offender should be

monitored from arrest through dismissal or sentence completion. Any

weakness in the critical path may be perceived by an offender as an

inability of ``the system'' to provide adequate punishment and may not

deter the offender from repeating the offense. For example, if alcohol

treatment was a condition of a sentence, but the offender successfully

regained driving privilege without completing treatment, program

effectiveness for that individual may be reduced. General deterrence

could be reduced as well, due to the perception that sanctions are not

enforced.

Second, the DWI tracking system should provide aggregate DWI data

on various demographic groups that will allow legislators,

policymakers, treatment professionals, and others to evaluate the

current DWI environment, countermeasure programs, and laws designed to

reduce DWI, or to rehabilitate DWI offenders. At a minimum, annual

statistical reports should be available that provide data on arrests,

convictions, fines assessed and paid, pleas, sanctions, sentences, and

treatment effectiveness by various demographic groups.

TEA-21 adds a new supplemental grant criterion to the Section 410

program for States that develop effective DWI tracking systems. TEA-21

provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a State

must demonstrate:

An effective driving while intoxicated (DWI) tracking system.

Such a system * * * may include data covering arrests, case

prosecutions, court dispositions and sanctions, and provide for the

linkage of such data and traffic records systems to appropriate

jurisdictions and offices within the State.

To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a State must

demonstrate that it has established a tracking system with the ability

to: collect, store, and retrieve data on individual DWI cases, from

arrest through all stages, until dismissal or until all applicable

sanctions have been completed; link the DWI tracking system to

appropriate jurisdictions and offices within the State to provide all

appropriate officials with timely and accurate information concerning

individuals charged with an alcohol-related driving offense; and

provide aggregate data, organized by specific categories, suitable for

allowing appropriate State officials to evaluate the DWI environment in

the State.

To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year a State receives

a grant based on this criterion, the State must submit information

describing the system, including the means used to collect, store and

retrieve data and an explanation of how the system is linked to

appropriate jurisdictions and offices within the State. The State must

submit also an example of available statistical reports and analyses

and a sample data run showing tracking of a DWI arrest, through final

disposition. To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State must submit information demonstrating the use of the system.

F. Other Innovative Programs

NHTSA has long sought ways to encourage the development of

innovative programs to address impaired driving and other highway

safety issues. The agency has sought also to identify innovative

programs that have been demonstrated to be effective, and to publicize

these successful programs, so that others can duplicate them in their

States or communities. This technique, of encouraging the development

and then the duplication of effective, innovative programs,

accomplishes several objectives. It encourages experimentation,

identifies success, promotes the best use of available resources and

helps States and communities avoid having to ``reinvent the wheel.''

Since 1993, NHTSA has published the Traffic Safety Digest, which

highlights innovative programs in 12 different

[[Page 71698]]

areas of traffic safety. The Digest is published quarterly.

TEA-21 adds a new supplemental grant criterion to the Section 410

program to encourage the development of innovative programs. TEA-21

provides that, to qualify for a grant based on this criterion, a State

must demonstrate:

Other innovative programs to reduce traffic safety problems

resulting from individuals driving while under the influence of

alcohol or controlled substances, including programs that seek to

achieve such a reduction through legal, judicial, enforcement,

educational, technological, or other approaches.

To qualify for an incentive grant based on this new criterion, a

State must demonstrate that it has implemented an innovative program

designed to reduce alcohol- or drug-impaired driving. To ensure that

programs are operational and current, the interim regulation provides

that the program must have been implemented within the last two years.

It must also have been shown to be effective.

The agency will consider a program to be innovative if it contains

one or more substantial components that make the program different from

those previously conducted in the State. The program may be an

adaptation or combination of approaches that have been used before, but

it must include one or more features (that are more than incidental)

that make the program unique. For example, innovative programs may

demonstrate new ways to reach target populations (such as teenagers or

Native Americans) more effectively, involve non-traditional partners in

efforts to deter impaired driving (as the CODES project did when it

encouraged data sharing between the law enforcement and medical

communities), or be based on the passage of a unique law or ordinance

that is designed to address alcohol- or drug-impaired driving.

To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, the innovative

component(s) of the program must not have been used by the State in

this or a previous fiscal year to qualify for a Section 410 grant based

on any other criterion. For example, a State that qualifies for a grant

based on its use of video or passive sensor equipment could not qualify

for a grant under the ``other innovative programs'' criterion based on

its use of such equipment, unless the State uses the equipment in a

unique and innovative way, and the State's unique or innovative method

for using the equipment has been determined to be effective.

In addition, the innovative component(s) of the program may be used

only once to qualify for a supplemental Section 410 under the ``other

innovative programs'' criterion.

To demonstrate compliance with this criterion, States must submit a

description of the program. The information that must be included in

the description listed in the interim regulation. The description may

be presented in the same format used by States when submitting

proposals to NHTSA's Traffic Safety Digest. Programs described by a

State in its Section 410 application and determined by NHTSA to qualify

under the ``other innovative programs'' criterion will enable the State

to qualify for supplemental grant funds, and also will be considered

for publication in the Traffic Safety Digest.

V. Administrative Issues

A. Qualification Requirements

To agency's Section 410 implementing regulation continues to

outline, in the qualification requirements section, 23 CFR 1313.4(a),

certain procedural steps that must be followed when States wish to

apply for a grant under this program.

State applications must be received by the agency no later than

August 1 of the fiscal year in which the States are applying for funds.

The application must contain certifications stating that: (1) the State

has an alcohol-impaired driving prevention program that meets the grant

requirements; (2) it will use funds awarded only for the implementation

and enforcement of alcohol-impaired driving prevention programs; (3) it

will administer the funds in accordance with relevant regulations and

OMB Circulars; and (4) the State will maintain its aggregate

expenditures from all other sources for its alcohol-impaired driving

prevention programs at or above the average level of such expenditures

in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The regulation provides that either

State or Federal fiscal year may be used.

Consistent with current procedures being followed in other highway

safety grant programs being administered by NHTSA, once a State has

been informed that it is eligible for a grant, the State must include

documentation in the State's Highway Safety Plan, prepared under

Section 402, that indicates how it intends to use the grant funds. The

documentation must include a Program Cost Summary (HS Form 217)

obligating the Section 410 funds to alcohol-impaired driving prevention

programs.

Upon receipt and subsequent approval of a State's application,

NHTSA will award grant funds to the State and will authorize the State

to incur costs after receipt of an HS Form 217. Vouchers must be

submitted to the appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator and

reimbursement will be made to States for authorized expenditures. The

funding guidelines applicable to the Section 402 Highway Safety Program

will be used to determine reimbursable expenditures under the Section

410 program. As with requests for reimbursement under the Section 402

program, States should indicate on the vouchers what amount of the

funds expended are eligible for reimbursement under Section 410.

B. Limitation on Grants

Prior to the enactment of TEA-21, qualifying States were eligible

to receive each Section 410 grant for up to five fiscal years. Basic

grants were limited to an amount equal to 30 percent of the State's

Section 402 apportionment for fiscal year 1992. Each supplemental grant

was limited to five percent of the State's fiscal year 1992 Section 402

apportionment. In addition, States were required to match the grant

funds they received, so that the Federal share did not exceed 75

percent of the cost of the program adopted under Section 410 in the

first fiscal year the State received funds, 50 percent in the second

fiscal year the State received funds and 25 percent in the third,

fourth and fifth fiscal year.

Under the new Section 410 program, as amended by TEA-21, States are

eligible to receive Section 410 grants for up to six fiscal years,

beginning in FY 1998. A total of $219.5 million is authorized for the

program over a six-year period. Specifically, TEA-21 authorized $34.5

million for FY 1998, $35 million for FY 1999, $36 million for FY 2000,

$36 million for FY 2001, $38 million for FY 2002 and $40 million for FY

2003.

TEA-21 created two separate basic grants, which have been

designated in this interim final rule as programmatic and performance

basic grants. Beginning in FY 1999, a State that qualifies for either a

programmatic or a performance basic grant shall receive grant funds in

an amount equal to 25 percent of the State's Section 402 apportionment

for FY 1997, subject to the availability of funds. However, States are

at liberty to apply for both basic grants. A State that qualifies for

both basic grants shall receive basic grant funds in an amount equal to

50 percent of the State's FY 1997 Section 402 apportionment, subject to

the availability of funds.

Section 410, as amended by TEA-21, limits the funds that will be

available each fiscal year for supplemental grants to 10 percent of the

funding for the

[[Page 71699]]

entire Section 410 program for that fiscal year. TEA-21 does not

specify how each State's supplemental grant is to be calculated.

The interim final rule provides that supplemental grants will be

calculated by multiplying the number of supplemental grant criteria a

State meets by five percent of the State's Section 402 apportionment

for FY 1997. The agency believes such a calculation takes into account,

in an appropriate way, the size of the State in terms of population and

highway mileage (in accordance with the formula used under Section 402)

and the accomplishments the State has demonstrated in its alcohol-

impaired driving prevention program.

States continue to be required to match the grant funds they

receive. Under the matching requirements, the Federal share may not

exceed 75 percent of the cost of the program adopted under Section 410

in the first and second fiscal year the State receives funds, 50

percent in the third and fourth fiscal year the State receives funds

and 25 percent in the fifth and sixth fiscal year. For those States

that received Section 410 grants in FY 1998, that year will be

considered the State's first fiscal year for matching purposes.

The agency will continue to accept a ``soft'' match in Section

410's administration. By this, NHTSA means the State's share may be

satisfied by the use of either allowable costs incurred by the State or

the value of in-kind contributions applicable to the period to which

the matching requirement applies. A State could not, however, use any

Federal funds, such as its Section 402 funds or DOJ funds (mentioned

above), to satisfy the matching requirements. In addition, a State can

use each non-Federal expenditure only once for matching purposes.

C. Award Procedures

The release of the full grant amounts under Section 410 shall be

subject to the availability of funding for that fiscal year. If there

are expected to be insufficient funds to award full grant amounts to

all eligible States in any fiscal year, NHTSA may release less than the

full grant amounts upon initial approval of the State's application and

documentation, and the remainder of the full grant amounts up to the

State's proportionate share of available funds, before the end of that

fiscal year. Project approval, and the contractual obligation of the

Federal government to provide grant funds, shall be limited to the

amount of funds released.

The Secretary may transfer any amounts remaining available under 23

U.S.C. Sections 405, 410 and 411 to the amounts made available under

any other of these programs to ensure, to the maximum extent possible,

that each State receives the maximum incentive funding for which it is

eligible.

VI. Interim final rule

These regulations are being published as an interim final rule.

Accordingly, the revised regulations in Part 1313 are fully in effect

30 days after the date of the document's publication. No further

regulatory action by the agency is necessary to make these regulations

effective.

These regulations have been published as an interim final rule

because insufficient time was available to provide for prior notice and

opportunity for comment. Grants will be available under these revised

regulations, beginning in FY 1999. Many of the grant criteria require

States to enact legislation in order to comply. States are preparing

their legislative agendas now for their 1999 legislative sessions. The

States have a need to know what the criteria for grants under this

program will be as soon as possible so they can enact conforming

legislation.

In the agency's view, the States will not be impeded by the use of

an interim final rule. The procedures that States must follow to apply

for grants under this program are not altered in any significant way

from the procedures they have followed in the past to apply for Section

410 incentive grant funds. Those procedures were established by

rulemaking and were subject to notice and the opportunity for comment.

The criteria States must meet to qualify for funds are derived from

the Federal statute, and many of them are the same or similar to

criteria previously contained in the Section 410 and other grant

programs administered by NHTSA. For these reasons, the agency believes

that there is good cause to find that providing notice and comment in

connection with this rulemaking action is impracticable, unnecessary,

and contrary to the public interest.

The agency requests written comments on these new regulations. All

comments submitted in response to this document will be considered by

the agency. Following the close of the comment period, the agency will

publish a document in the Federal Register responding to the comments

and, if appropriate, will make further amendments to the provisions of

Part 1313.

VII. Written Comments

Interested persons are invited to comment on this interim final

rule. It is requested, but not required, that two copies be submitted.

All comments must be limited to 15 pages in length. Necessary

attachments may be appended to those submissions without regard to the

15-page limit (49 CFR 553.21). This limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.

Written comments to the public docket must be received by March 1,

1999. To expedite the submission of comments, simultaneous with the

publication of this notice, NHTSA will provide copies to all Governors'

Representatives for Highway Safety.

All comments received before the close of business on the comment

closing date will be considered and will be available for examination

in the docket at the above address before and after that date. To the

extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be

considered. However, the rulemaking action may proceed at any time

after that date.

NHTSA will continue to file relevant material in the docket as it

becomes available after the closing date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.

Those persons who wish to be notified upon receipt of their

comments in the docket should enclose, in the envelope with their

comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the

comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

Copies of all comments will be placed in the Docket for this

interim final rule in the Office of Docket Management, Room PL-401,

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

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

that this action will not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Accordingly, a

Federalism Assessment has not been prepared.

B. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

This interim final rule will not have any preemptive or retroactive

effect. The enabling legislation does not establish a procedure for

judicial review of rules

[[Page 71700]]

promulgated under its provisions. There is no requirement that

individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or other

administrative proceedings before they may file suit.

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

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The agency has examined the impact of this action and has

determined that it is not a significant action within the meaning of

Executive Order 12866 or significant within the meaning of the

Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

The action will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a material way a sector of the

economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety,

or State, local or tribal governments or communities. It will not

create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action

taken or planned by another agency, and it will not materially alter

the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. Nor does

it raise novel legal or policy issues.

In addition, the costs associated with this rule are not

significant and are expected to be offset by the grant funds received

and the resulting highway safety benefits. The adoption of alcohol-

impaired driving prevention programs should help to reduce impaired

driving, which is a serious and costly problem in the United States.

Accordingly, further economic assessment is not necessary.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

5 U.S.C. 601-612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this action

on small entities.

Based on the evaluation, we certify that this action will not have

a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. States

are the recipients of any funds awarded under the Section 410 program,

and they are not considered to be small entities, under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The requirements in this interim final rule that provide that

States retain and report information to the Federal government which

demonstrates compliance with the alcohol-impaired driving prevention

incentive grant criteria, are considered to be information collection

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

Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part 1320.

Accordingly, these requirements have been submitted previously to

and approved by OMB, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501, et seq.). These requirements have been approved under OMB No.

2127-0501, through January 31, 2000. This interim final rule reduces

for the States previous information collection requirements associated

with demonstrating compliance with many of the criteria.

F. National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National

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

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

of the human environment.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4)

requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,

benefits and other effects of final rules that include a Federal

mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than

$100 million annually. This interim final rule does not meet the

definition of a Federal mandate, because the resulting annual

expenditures will not exceed the $100 million threshold. In addition,

this incentive grant program is completely voluntary and States that

choose to apply and qualify will receive incentive grant funds.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1313

Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Grant programs-transportation,

Highway safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA revises Part 1313, chapter

III, of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

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

PREVENTION PROGRAMS

Sec.

1313.1 Scope.

1313.2 Purpose.

1313.3 Definitions.

1313.4 General requirements.

1313.5 Requirements for a programmatic basic grant.

1313.6 Requirements for a performance basic grant.

1313.7 Requirements for a supplemental grant.

1313.8 Award procedures.

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

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

1.50.

Sec. 1313.1 Scope.

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

for awarding incentive grants to States that adopt and implement

effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems resulting from

individuals driving motor vehicles while under the influence of

alcohol.

Sec. 1313.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to encourage States to adopt and

implement effective programs to reduce traffic safety problems

resulting from individuals driving motor vehicles while under the

influence of alcohol. The criteria established are intended to ensure

that State alcohol-impaired driving prevention programs for which

incentive grants are awarded meet or exceed minimum levels designed to

improve the effectiveness of such programs.

Sec. 1313.3 Definitions.

(a) ``Alcoholic beverage'' means wine containing one-half of one

percent or more of alcohol by volume, beer and distilled spirits. Beer

includes, but is not limited to, ale, lager, porter, stout, sake, and

other similar fermented beverages brewed or produced from malt, wholly

or in part, or from any substitute therefor. Distilled spirits include

alcohol, ethanol, or spirits or wine in any form, including all

dilutions and mixtures thereof from whatever process produced.

(b) ``Blood alcohol concentration'' or ``BAC'' means grams of

alcohol per deciliter or 100 milliliters blood or grams of alcohol per

210 liters of breath.

(c) ``Controlled substance'' has the meaning given such term under

section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802(6).

(d) ``FARS'' means NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System,

previously called the Fatal Accident Reporting System.

(e) ``Motor vehicle'' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical

power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and

highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

(f) ``Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of

alcohol'' means operating a vehicle while the alcohol concentration in

the blood or breath, as determined by chemical or other tests, equals

or exceeds the level established by the State that would be deemed to

be or equivalent to the standard driving while intoxicated offense in

the State.

[[Page 71701]]

(g) ``Standard driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense'' means the

law in the State that makes it a criminal offense to operate a motor

vehicle while under the influence of or intoxicated by alcohol, but

does not require a measurement of alcoholic content.

Sec. 1313.4 General requirements.

(a) Qualification requirements. To qualify for a grant under 23

U.S.C. 410, a State must, for each fiscal year it seeks to qualify:

(1) Submit an application to the appropriate NHTSA Regional Office

that demonstrates that it meets the requirements of Sec. 1313.5 and/or

Sec. 1313.6 and, if applicable, Sec. 1313.7, and includes

certifications that:

(i) It has an alcohol-impaired driving prevention program that

meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 410 and 23 CFR Part 1313;

(ii) It will use the funds awarded under 23 U.S.C. 410 only for the

implementation and enforcement of alcohol-impaired driving prevention

programs;

(iii) It will administer the funds in accordance with 49 CFR Part

18 and OMB Circulars A-102 and A-87; and

(iv) It will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other

sources for its alcohol-impaired driving prevention programs at or

above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 1996 and

1997 (either State or Federal fiscal year 1996 and 1997 can be used);

and

(2) After being informed by NHTSA that it is eligible for a grant,

submit to the agency, within 30 days, a Program Cost Summary (HS Form

217) obligating the Section 410 funds to alcohol-impaired driving

prevention programs.

(3) Submit a State Highway Safety Plan by September 1 of each year,

pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 402 and 23 CFR Part 1200, that documents how the

State intends to use the Section 410 grant funds.

(4) Submit an application for grant funds, which must be received

by the agency not later than August 1 of the fiscal year for which the

State is applying for funds.

(b) Limitation on grants. A State may receive grants for up to six

fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1997, subject to the

following limitations:

(1) After September 30, 1998, the amount of each basic grant in a

fiscal year, under Sec. 1313.5 or Sec. 1313.6, shall equal 25 percent

of the State's apportionment under 23 U.S.C. 402 for FY 1997, subject

to the availability of funds. If a State qualifies for basic grants in

a fiscal year under both Sec. 1313.5 and Sec. 1313.6, the total amount

of basic grants in the fiscal year shall equal 50 percent of the

State's 23 U.S.C. 402 apportionment for FY 1997, subject to the

availability of funds.

(2) After September 30, 1998, the amount of a State's supplemental

grant in a fiscal year, under Sec. 1313.7, shall be determined by

multiplying the number of supplemental grant criteria the State meets

by five percent of the State's 23 U.S.C. 402 apportionment for FY 1997,

except that the amount shall be subject to the availability of funds.

The amount available for supplemental grants for all States in a fiscal

year, under Sec. 1313.7, shall not exceed ten percent of the total

amount made available under 23 U.S.C. 410 for the fiscal year.

(3) In the first and second fiscal years a State receives a basic

or supplemental grant, it shall be reimbursed for up to 75 percent of

the cost of its alcohol-impaired driving prevention program adopted

pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 410.

(4) In the third and fourth fiscal years a State receives a basic

or supplemental grant, it shall be reimbursed for up to 50 percent of

the cost of its alcohol-impaired driving prevention program adopted

pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 410.

(5) In the fifth and sixth fiscal years a State receives a basic or

supplemental grant, it shall be reimbursed for up to 25 percent of the

cost of its alcohol-impaired driving prevention program adopted

pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 410.

Sec. 1313.5 Requirements for a programmatic basic grant.

To qualify for a programmatic basic incentive grant of 25 percent

of the State's 23 U.S.C. 402 apportionment for FY 1997, a State must

adopt and demonstrate compliance with at least five of the following

criteria:

(a) Administrative license suspension or revocation system.

(1) Criterion. An administrative driver's license suspension or

revocation system for individuals who operate motor vehicles while

under the influence of alcohol that requires that:

(i) In the case of an individual who, in any five-year period

beginning after June 9, 1998, is determined on the basis of a chemical

test to have been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence

of alcohol or is determined to have refused to submit to such a test as

proposed by a law enforcement officer, the State entity responsible for

administering driver's licenses, upon receipt of the report of the law

enforcement officer, shall:

(A) Suspend all driving privileges for a period of not less than 90

days if the individual refused to submit to a chemical test and is a

first offender;

(B) Suspend all driving privileges for a period of not less than 90

days, or not less than 30 days followed immediately by a period of not

less than 60 days of a restricted, provisional or conditional license,

if the individual was determined on the basis of a chemical test to

have been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of

alcohol, and is a first offender. A restricted, provisional or

conditional license may be issued only in accordance with a State law,

regulation or binding policy directive establishing the conditions

under which such a license may be issued, or with statewide published

guidelines, and in exceptional circumstances specific to the offender;

and

(C) Suspend or revoke all driving privileges for a period of not

less than one year if the individual was determined on the basis of a

chemical test to have been operating a motor vehicle while under the

influence of alcohol or refused to submit to such a test, and is a

repeat offender; and

(ii) The suspension or revocation shall take effect not later than

30 days after the day on which the individual refused to submit to a

chemical test or received notice of having been determined to be

operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in

accordance with the procedures of the State.

(2) Definitions. (i) ``First offender'' means an individual who a

law enforcement officer has probable cause under State law to believe

has committed an alcohol-related traffic offense, and who is determined

on the basis of a chemical test to have been operating a motor vehicle

while under the influence of alcohol or who refused to submit to such a

test, once in any five-year period beginning after June 9, 1998.

(ii) ``Repeat offender'' means an individual who a law enforcement

officer has probable cause under State law to believe has committed an

alcohol-related traffic offense, and who is determined on the basis of

a chemical test to have been operating a motor vehicle while under the

influence of alcohol or who refused to submit to such a test, more than

once in any five-year period beginning after June 9, 1998.

(3) Demonstrating compliance for Law States. (i) To demonstrate

compliance in the first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on

this criterion, a Law State shall submit a copy of the law, regulation

or binding policy directive implementing or interpreting the law or

regulation, which provides for each element of this criterion.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, a Law

State

[[Page 71702]]

shall submit a copy of any changes to the State's law, regulation or

binding policy directive or, if there have been no changes, the State

shall submit a statement certifying that there have been no changes in

the State's laws, regulations or binding policy directives.

(iii) For purposes of this paragraph, ``Law State'' means a State

that has a law, regulation or binding policy directive implementing or

interpreting an existing law or regulation that provides for each

element of this criterion.

(4) Demonstrating compliance for Data States. (i) To demonstrate

compliance in the first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on

this criterion, a Data State shall submit a copy of the law, regulation

or binding policy directive implementing or interpreting the law or

regulation, which provides for an administrative license suspension or

revocation system, and data showing that the State substantially

complies with each element of this criterion not specifically provided

for in the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, a Data

State shall submit, in addition to the information identified in

paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, data showing that the State

substantially complies with each element of this criterion not

specifically provided for in the State's law, regulation or binding

policy directive.

(iii) The State can provide the necessary data based on a

representative sample, on the average number of days it took to suspend

or revoke a driver's license and on the average lengths of suspension

or revocation periods, except that data on the average lengths of

suspension or revocation periods must not include license suspension

periods that exceed the terms actually prescribed by the State, and

must reflect terms only to the extent that they are actually completed.

(iv) For the purpose of this paragraph, ``Data State'' means a

State that has a law, regulation or binding policy directive

implementing or interpreting an existing law or regulation that

provides for an administrative license suspension or revocation system,

but the State's laws, regulations or binding policy directives do not

specifically provide for each element of this criterion.

(b) Underage Drinking Prevention Program

(1) Criterion. An effective underage drinking prevention program

designed to prevent persons under the age of 21 from obtaining

alcoholic beverages and to prevent persons of any age from making

alcoholic beverages available to persons under the age of 21, that

provides for:

(i) The issuance of tamper resistant driver's licenses to persons

under age 21 that are easily distinguishable in appearance from

driver's licenses issued to persons 21 years of age and older;

(ii) Public information programs targeted to underage drivers

regarding drinking age laws, zero tolerance laws, and respective

penalties;

(iii) A program to educate alcoholic beverage retailers and servers

about both on- and off-premise consumption, and the civil,

administrative and/or criminal penalties associated with the illegal

sale of alcoholic beverages to underage drinkers;

(iv) An overall enforcement strategy directed at the sale and

purchase of alcoholic beverages involving persons under the age of 21

that can be implemented locally throughout the State; and

(v) A prevention program that enlists the aid of persons under the

age of 21.

(2) Definitions. ``Tamper resistant driver's license'' means a

driver's license that has one or more of the security features listed

in Appendix A.

(3) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the

first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion,

the State shall submit a description and sample materials documenting

an underage drinking prevention program that covers each element of

paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) through (v) of this section. The State shall

also submit sample driver's licenses issued to persons both under and

over 21 years of age that demonstrate the distinctive appearance of

licenses for drivers under age 21 and the tamper resistance of these

licenses.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State shall document any changes to the State's driver's licenses or

underage drinking prevention program or, if there have been no changes,

a statement certifying that there have been no changes in the State's

driver's licenses or its underage drinking prevention program.

(c) Statewide Traffic Enforcement Program

(1) Criterion. A Statewide traffic enforcement program that

emphasizes publicity and is either:

(i) a program for stopping motor vehicles on a non-discriminatory,

lawful basis for the purpose of determining whether or not the

operators of such motor vehicles are driving under the influence of

alcohol; or

(ii) a special traffic enforcement program to detect impaired

drivers operating motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol.

(2) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the

first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion,

the State shall submit a comprehensive plan to conduct a program under

which:

(A) Motor vehicles are stopped or special traffic enforcement is

conducted on a Statewide basis, in major areas covering at least 50

percent of the State's population;

(B) Stops are made or special traffic enforcement is conducted not

less than monthly;

(C) Stops are made or special traffic enforcement is conducted by

both State and local (county and city) law enforcement agencies; and

(D) Effective public information efforts are conducted to inform

the public about these enforcement programs.

(ii) The plan shall include guidelines, policies or operation

procedures governing the Statewide enforcement program and provide

approximate dates and locations of programs planned in the upcoming

year, and the names of the law enforcement agencies expected to

participate. The plan shall describe the public information efforts to

be conducted.

(iii) to demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State shall submit an updated plan for conducting a Statewide

enforcement program in the following year and information documenting

that the prior year's plan was effectively implemented.

(d) Graduated Driver's Licensing System

(1) Criterion. A graduated driver's licensing system for young

drivers that consists of the following three stages:

(i) Stage I. A learner's permit may be issued after an applicant

passes vision and knowledge test, including tests about the rules of

the road, signs and signals. The State I learner's permit must be

subject to the following conditions:

(A) Stage I learner's permit holders under the age of 21 are

prohibited from operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.02 or

greater;

(B) Stage I learner's permit holders are prohibited from operating

a motor vehicle while any occupant in the vehicle is not properly

restrained in accordance with State or local safety belt and child

restraint laws;

(C) A licensed driver who is 21 years of age or older must be in

any motor vehicle operated by the Stage I learner's permit holder at

all times;

[[Page 71703]]

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

conviction free; and

(E) The Stage I learner's permit must be distinguishable from Stage

II and III driver's licenses;

(ii) Stage II. An intermediate driver's license may be issued after

an applicant has successfully complied with the conditions of the Stage

I learner's permit for not less than three months and passed a driving

skills test. The Stage II intermediate driver's license must be subject

to the following conditions:

(A) Stage II intermediate driver's license holders under the age of

21 are prohibited from operating a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.02 or

greater;

(B) Stage II intermediate driver's license holders are prohibited

from operating a motor vehicle while any occupant in the vehicle is not

properly restrained in accordance with state or local safety belt and

child restraint laws;

(C) A licensed driver who is 21 years of age or older must be in

any motor vehicle operated by the Stage II intermediate driver's

license holder, during some period of time between the hours of 10:00

p.m. and 6:00 a.m.. as specified by the State, unless covered by a

State-approved exception;

(D) Stage II intermediate driver's license holders must remain

crash and conviction free; and

(E) The Stage II intermediate driver's license must be

distinguishable from Stage I learner's permits and Stage III driver's

licenses; and

(iii) Stage III. A driver's license may be issued after an

applicant has successfully complied with the conditions of the Stage I

learner's permit and the Stage II intermediate driver's license for a

combined period of not less than one year. The Stage III driver's

license must be distinguishable from Stage I learner's permits and

Stage II intermediate driver's licenses.

(2) Definitions. (i) ``Conviction free'' means that the individual,

during the term of the permit or license, has not been charged with and

subsequently convicted of any offense under State or local law relating

to the use or operating of a motor vehicle.

(ii) ``Crash free'' means that the individual, during the term of

the permit or license, has not been determined to be the party at fault

in any police reportable motor vehicle crash.

(3) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the

fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, the

State shall submit a copy of the law, regulation or binding policy

directive implementing or interpreting the law or regulation, which

provides for each element of this criterion.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State shall submit a copy of any changes to the State's law, regulation

or binding policy directive or, if there have been no changes, the

State shall submit a statement certifying that there have been no

changes in the State's laws, regulations or binding policy directives.

(e) Program for Drivers With High BAC

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

operate a motor vehicle.

(i) The programs shall establish a system of graduated sanctions

for individuals convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the

influence of alcohol, under which enhanced or additional sanctions

apply to such individuals if they were determined to have a high BAC.

(ii) The threshold level at which the high BAC sanctions must begin

to apply may be any BAC level that is higher than the BAC level

established by the State that is deemed to be or equivalent to the

standard driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense, and less than or

equal to 0.20 BAC.

(2) Definitions. ``Enhanced or additional sanctions'' means the

imposition of longer terms of license suspension, increased fines,

additional or extended sentences of confinement, vehicle sanctions,

mandatory assessment and treatment as appropriate, or other

consequences that do not apply to individuals who were not determined

to have a high BAC.

(3) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the

first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion,

the State shall submit a copy of the law, regulation or binding policy

directive implementing or interpreting the law or regulation, which

provides for each element of this criterion. In addition, the State

shall submit the provisions that set forth the sanctions under its

standard DWI offense.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State shall submit a copy of any changes to the State's law, regulation

or binding policy directive or, if there have been no changes, the

State shall submit a statement certifying that there have been no

changes in the State's laws, regulations or binding policy directives.

(f) Young Adult Drinking and Driving Program

(1) Criterion A young adult drinking and driving program designed

to reduce the incidence of operating a motor vehicle while under the

influence of alcohol by individuals between the ages of 21 and 34 that

provides for:

(i) A Statewide public information and awareness campaign for young

adult drivers regarding alcohol-impaired driving laws, and the legal

and economic consequences of alcohol-impaired driving; and

(ii) Activities, implemented at the State and local levels,

designed to reduce the incidence of alcohol-impaired driving by drivers

between the ages of 21 and 34 that involve:

(A) the participation of employers;

(B) the participation of colleges or universities;

(C) the participation of the hospitality industry; or

(D) the participation of appropriate State officials to encourage

the assessments and incorporation of treatment as appropriate into

judicial sentencing for drivers between the ages for 21 and 34 who have

been convicted for the first time of operating a motor vehicle while

under the influence of alcohol.

(2) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the

first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion,

the State shall submit:

(A) a description and sample materials documenting the State's

Statewide public information and awareness campaign;

(B) a description and sample materials documenting activities

designed to reduce the incidence of alcohol-impaired driving by young

drivers, which must involve at least one of the four components

contained in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section; and

(C) a plan that outlines proposed efforts to involve in these

activities all four components contained in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of

this section.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State shall submit an updated description of its Statewide public

information and awareness campaign and of other activities designed to

reduce the incidence of alcohol-impaired driving by young adult

drivers. The State shall submit information documenting that these

activities involve all four components contained in paragraph

(f)(1)(ii) of this section.

[[Page 71704]]

(g) Testing for BAC

(1) Criterion. (i) In FY 1999 and FY 2000, an effective system for

increasing the percentage of BAC testing among drivers involved in

fatal motor vehicle crashes, under which:

(A) BAC testing law. The State's law provides for mandatory BAC

testing for any driver involved in a fatal motor vehicle crash;

(B) BAC testing data. The State's percentage of BAC testing among

drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes is equal to or greater

than the national average, as determined under the most recently

available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal year for which

grant funds are being sought.

(C) BAC testing symposium. The State has plans to conduct, or

conducted no more than two years prior to the date of its application,

a symposium or workshop designed to increase the percentage of BAC

testing for drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes. The

symposium or workshop must be attended by law enforcement officials,

prosecutors, hospital officials, medical examiners, coroners,

physicians, and judges; and must address the medical, ethical, and

legal impediments to increasing the percentage of BAC testing among

drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes.

(ii) In FY 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year, a percentage of

BAC testing among drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes that

is equal to or greater than the national average, as determined under

the most recently available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal

year for which grant funds are being sought.

(2) Definitions. (i) ``Drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle

crashes'' includes both drivers who are fatally injured in motor

vehicle crashes and drivers who survive a motor vehicle crash in which

someone else is killed.

(ii) ``Mandatory BAC testing'' means a law enforcement officer must

request each driver involved in a fatal motor vehicle crash to submit

to BAC testing.

(3) Demonstrating compliance in FY 1999 and FY 2000. (i) To

demonstrate compliance based on this criterion in FY 1999 or FY 2000,

the State shall submit:

(A) a copy of the law, regulation or binding policy directive

implementing or interpreting the law or regulation, which provides for

each element of the mandatory BAC testing requirement, as provided in

paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A) of this section;

(B) a statement certifying that the percentage of BAC testing among

drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes in the State is equal

to or greater than the national average, as determined under the most

recently available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal year for

which grant funds are being sought; or

(C) a description of the planned or completed symposium or

workshop, including a copy of the actual or proposed agenda and a list

of the names and affiliations of the individuals who attended or who

are expected to be invited to attend, except as provided in paragraph

(g)(3)(ii)(C).

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in FY 2000:

(A) If in the first fiscal year the State demonstrated compliance

under paragraph (g)(3)(i)(A), the State may submit instead a copy of

any changes to the State's law, regulation or binding policy directive

or, if there have been no changes, the State shall submit a statement

certifying that there have been no changes in the States laws,

regulations or binding policy directives.

(B) If in the first fiscal year the State demonstrated compliance

under paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B), the State may submit instead a statement

certifying that the percentage of BAC testing among drivers involved in

fatal motor vehicle crashes in the State continues to be equal to or

greater than the national average, as determined under the most

recently available FARS data as of the first day of the fiscal year for

which grant funds are being sought.

(C) If in the first fiscal year the State demonstrated compliance

under paragraph (g)(3)(i)(C), the State shall submit instead a copy of

the report or other documentation that was generated as a result of the

symposium or workshop, with recommendations designed to increase BAC

testing for drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes, and a plan

that outlines how the recommendations will be implemented in the State.

(4) Demonstrating compliance beginning in FY 2001. To demonstrate

compliance for a grant based on this criterion in FY 2001 or any

subsequent fiscal year, the State shall submit a statement certifying

that the percentage of BAC testing among drivers involved in fatal

motor vehicle crashes in the State is equal to or greater than the

national average, as determined under the most recently available FARS

data as of the first day of the fiscal year for which grant funds are

being sought.

Sec. 1313.6

Requirements for a performance basic grant.

(a) Criterion. A State will qualify for a performance basic

incentive grant of 25 percent of the State's 23 U.S.C. 402

apportionment for FY 1997 if:

(1) the percentage of fatally injured drivers in the State with a

BAC of 0.10 percent or greater has decreased in each of the three most

recent calendar years for which statistics for determining such

percentages are available as of the first day of the fiscal year for

which grant funds are being sought; and

(2) the percentage of fatally injured drivers in the State with a

BAC of 0.10 percent or greater has been lower than the average

percentage for all States in each of the same three calendar years.

(b) Calculating percentage. (1) The percentage of fatally injured

drivers with a BAC of 0.10 percent or greater in each State is

calculated by NHTSA for each calendar year, using the most recently

available data contained in the FARS as of the first day of the fiscal

year for which grant funds are being sought and NHTSA's method for

estimating alcohol involvement.

(2) The average percentage of fatally injured drivers with a BAC of

0.10 percent or greater for all States is calculated by NHTSA for each

calendar year, using the most recently available data contained in the

FARS as of the first day of the fiscal year for which grant funds are

being sought and NHTSA's method for estimating alcohol involvement.

(3) Any State with a percentage of BAC testing among fatally

injured drivers of 85 percent or greater in each of the three most

recent calendar years, as determined by the FARS as of the first day of

the fiscal year for which grant funds are being sought, may calculate

for submission to NHTSA the percentage of fatally injured drivers with

a BAC of 0.10 percent or greater in that State for those calendar

years, using State data.

(c) Demonstrating compliance. (1) To demonstrate compliance with

this criterion, a State shall submit a statement certifying that the

State meets each element of this criterion, based on the percentages

calculated in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this

section.

(2) Alternatively, a State with a percentage of BAC testing among

fatally injured drivers of 85 percent or greater, as determined under

the FARS as of the first day of the fiscal year for which grant funds

are being sought, may demonstrate compliance with this criterion by

submitting its calculations developed under paragraph (b)(3) of this

section and a statement certifying that the State meets each element of

this criterion, based on the percentages calculated in accordance with

[[Page 71705]]

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

Sec. 1313.7

Requirements for a supplemental grant.

To qualify for a supplemental grant under this section, a State

must qualify for a programmatic basic grant under Sec. 1313.5, a

performance basic grant under Sec. 1313.6, or both, and meet one or

more of the following criteria:

(a) Video Equipment Program

(1) Criterion. A program:

(i) To acquire video equipment to be installed in law enforcement

vehicles and used in detecting persons who operate motor vehicles while

under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance;

(ii) To effectively prosecute those persons; and

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

(2) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the

first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion,

the State shall submit a plan for the acquisition and use of video

equipment in law enforcement vehicles for the enforcement of impaired

driving laws, including:

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

be installed and used;

(B) A plan for training law enforcement personnel, prosecutors and

judges in the use of this equipment; and

(C) A plan for public information and education programs to enhance

the general deterrent effect of the equipment.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State shall submit information on the use and effectiveness of the

equipment and an updated plan for any acquisition and use of additional

equipment.

(b) Self-Sustaining Drunk Driving Prevention Program

(1) Criterion. A self-sustaining drunk driving prevention program

under which a significant portion of the fines or surcharges collected

from individuals apprehended and fined for operating a motor vehicle

while under the influence of alcohol are returned to communities with

comprehensive programs for the prevention of such operations of motor

vehicles.

(2) Definitions. (i) A ``comprehensive drunk driving prevention

program'' means a program that includes, as a minimum, the following

components:

(A) Regularly conducted, peak-hour traffic enforcement efforts

directed at impaired driving;

(B) Prosecution, adjudication and sanctioning resources are

adequate to handle increased levels of arrests for operating a motor

vehicle while under the influence of alcohol;

(C) Other programs directed at prevention other than enforcement

and adjudication activities, such as school, worksite or community

education; server training; or treatment programs; and

(D) A public information program designed to make the public aware

of the problem of impaired driving and of the efforts in place to

address it.

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

or additional assessments collected.

(3) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the

first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion, a

State shall submit:

(A) A copy of the law, regulation or biding policy directive

implementing or interpreting the law or regulation, which provides:

(1) For fines or surcharges to be imposed on individuals

apprehended for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of

alcohol; and

(2) For such fines or surcharges collected to be returned to

communities with comprehensive drunk driving prevention programs; and

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

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

(2) The aggregate amount of revenues returned to communities with

comprehensive drunk driving prevention programs under the State's self-

sustaining system; and

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

prevention programs.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State shall submit, in addition to the data identified in paragraph

(b)(3)(i)(B) of this section, a copy of any changes to the State's law,

regulation or binding policy directive or, if there have been no

changes, the State shall submit a statement certifying that there have

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

directives.

(c) Reduction of Driving With a Suspended License

(1) Criterion. A law to reduce driving with a suspended driver's

license. The law must impose one of the following sanctions on any

individual who has been convicted of driving with a driver's license

that was suspended or revoked by reason of a conviction for an alcohol-

related traffic offense. Such sanctions must include at least one of

the following for some period of time during the term of the

individual's driver's license suspension or revocation, as specified by

the State:

(i) The suspension of the registration of, and the return to such

State of the license plates for, any motor vehicle owned by the

individual;

(ii) The impoundment, immobilization, forfeiture or confiscation of

any motor vehicle owned by the individual; or

(iii) The placement of a distinctive license plate on any motor

vehicle owned by the individual.

(2) Definitions. ``Suspension and return'' means the temporary

debarring of the privilege to operate or maintain a particular

registered motor vehicle on the public highways and the confiscation or

impoundment of the motor vehicle's license plates.

(3) Exceptions. (i) A State may provide limited exceptions to the

sanctions listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this section

on an individual basis, to avoid undue hardship to any individual who

is completely dependent on the motor vehicle for the necessities of

life, including any family member of the convicted individual, and any

co-owner of the motor vehicle, but not including the offender.

(ii) Such exceptions may be issued only in accordance with a State

law, regulation or binding policy directive establishing the conditions

under which motor vehicles or license plates may be released by the

State or under Statewide published guidelines and in exceptional

circumstances specific to the offender's motor vehicle, and may not

result in the unrestricted use of the motor vehicle by the individual.

(4) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the

first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion,

the State shall submit a copy of the law, regulation or binding policy

directive implementing or interpreting the law or regulation, which

provides for each element of this criterion.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State shall submit a copy of any changes to the State's law, regulation

or binding policy directive or, if there have been no changes, the

State shall submit a statement certifying that there have been

[[Page 71706]]

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

directives.

(d) Passive Alcohol Sensor Program

(1) Criterion. A program:

(i) To acquire passive alcohol sensors to be used during

enforcement activities to enhance the detection of the presence of

alcohol in the breath of drivers; and

(ii) To train law enforcement personnel and inform judges and

prosecutors about the purpose and use of the equipment.

(2) Definitions. ``Passive alcohol sensor'' means a screening

device used to sample the ambient air in the vicinity of the driver's

exhaled breath to determine whether or not it contains alcohol.

(3) Demonstrating compliance. (i) To demonstrate compliance in the

first fiscal year the State receives a grant based on this criterion,

the State shall submit a plan for the acquisition and use of passive

alcohol sensors to enhance the enforcement of impaired driving laws,

including:

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

be used;

(B) A plan for training law enforcement personnel in the

recommended procedures for use of these devices in the field, and for

informing prosecutors and judges about the purpose and use of the

equipment; and

(C) A plan for public information and education programs to enhance

the general deterrent effect of the equipment.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State shall submit information on the use and effectiveness of the

equipment and an updated plan for any acquisition and use of additional

equipment.

(e) Effective DWI Tracking System

(1) Criterion. An effective driving while intoxicated (DWI)

tracking system containing the ability to:

(i) Collect, store, and retrieve data on individual DWI cases from

arrest, through case prosecution and court disposition and sanction

(including fines assessed and paid), until dismissal or until all

applicable sanctions have been completed;

(ii) Link the DWI tracking system to appropriate data and traffic

records systems in jurisdictions and offices within the State to

provide prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers, motor vehicle

administration personnel, and other officials with timely and accurate

information concerning individuals charged with an alcohol-related

driving offense; and

(iii) Provide aggregate data, organized by specific categories

(geographic locations, demographic groups, sanctions, etc.), suitable

for allowing legislators, policymakers, treatment professionals, and

other State officials to evaluate the DWI environment in the State.

(2) Demonstrating compliance.

(i) To demonstrate compliance in the first fiscal year the State

receives a grant based on this criterion, the State shall submit a

description of its DWI tracking system, including:

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

retrieval of data;

(B) An explanation of how the system is linked to data and traffic

records systems in appropriate jurisdictions and offices within the

State;

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

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

final disposition.

(ii) To demonstrate compliance in subsequent fiscal years, the

State shall submit a report or analysis using the DWI tracking system

data, demonstrating that the system is still in operation.

(f) Other Innovative Programs

(1) Criterion. An innovative program to reduce traffic safety

problems resulting from individuals operating motor vehicles while

under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, through legal

judicial, enforcement, educational, technological or other approaches.

The program must:

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

(ii) Contain one or more substantial components that:

(A) Make this program different from programs previously conducted

in the State; and

(B) Have not been used by the State to qualify for a grant in a

previous fiscal year based on this criterion or in any fiscal year

based on any other criterion contained in Secs. 1313.5, 1313.6 or

1313.7 of this part; and

(iii) Be shown to have been effective.

(2) Demonstrating compliance. To demonstrate compliance for a grant

based on this criterion, the State shall submit a description of the

innovative program, which includes:

(i) The name of the program;

(ii) The area or jurisdiction where it has been implemented and the

population(s) targeted;

(iii) The specific condition or problem the program was intended to

address, the goals and objectives of the program and the strategies or

means used to achieve those goals;

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

measure the results;

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

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

Sec. 1313.8

Award procedures.

(a) In each Federal fiscal year, grants will be made to eligible

States upon submission and approval of the application required by

Sec. 1313.4(a) and subject to the limitations in Sec. 1313.4(b). The

release of grant funds under this part shall be subject to the

availability of funding for that fiscal year. If there are expected to

be insufficient funds to award full grant amounts to all eligible

States in any fiscal year, NHTSA may release less than the full grant

amounts upon initial approval of the State's application and

documentation and the remainder of the full grant amounts up to the

State's proportionate share of available funds, before the end of that

fiscal year. Project approval, and the contractual obligation of the

Federal government to provide grant funds, shall be limited to the

amount of funds released.

(b) If any amounts authorized for grants under this part for a

fiscal year are expected to remain unobligated in that fiscal year, the

Administrator may transfer such amounts to the programs authorized

under 23 U.S.C. 405 and 23 U.S.C. 411, to ensure to the extent possible

that each State receives the maximum incentive funding for which it is

eligible.

(c) If any amounts authorized for grants under 23 U.S.C. 405 and 23

U.S.C. 411 are transferred to the grant program under this part in a

fiscal year, the Administrator shall distribute the transferred amounts

so that each eligible State receives a proportionate share of these

amounts, subject to the conditions specified in Sec. 1313.4.

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

A tamper resistant driver's license or permit is a driver's

license or permit that has one or more of the following security

features:

(1) Ghost image.

(2) Ghost graphic.

(3) Hologram.

(4) Optical variable device.

(5) Microline printing.

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

photograph or information.

[[Page 71707]]

(7) Security laminate.

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

(9) Rainbow printing.

(10) Guilloche pattern or design.

(11) Opacity mark.

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

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

(14) Block graphics.

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

(16) Card stock, layer with colors.

(17) Micro-graphics.

(18) Retroflective security logos.

(19) Machine readable technologies such as magnetic strips, a 1D bar

code or a 2D bar code.

Issued on: December 22, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

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

BILLING CODE 4910-59-M