Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59111

1Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587–L, 65 FR

41873 (July 7, 2000), III FERC Stats. & Regs.

Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,100 (June 30, 2000).

2 18 CFR 284.12(c)(2)(ii).

3Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas

Transportation Services and Regulation of Interstate

Natural Gas Transportation Services, Order No.

637–A, 65 FR 35706, 35736 (Jun. 5, 2000), III FERC

Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,099, at

31,600–601 (May 19, 2000).

(6) The State agency is required to

provide an updated cost neutrality

assessment for all subsequent EBT

systems developed or implemented,

incorporating the revised costs of the

new system.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(5) * * *

(v) The State agency may impose a

replacement fee by reducing the

monthly allotment of the household

receiving the replacement card;

however, the fee may not exceed the

cost to replace the card. If the State

agency intends to collect the fee by

reducing the monthly allotment, it must

follow FNS reporting procedures for

collecting program income. State

agencies currently operating EBT

systems must inform FNS of their

proposed collection operations. State

agencies in the process of developing an

EBT system must include the procedure

for collection of the fee in their system

design document. All plans must

specify how the State agency intends to

account for card replacement fees and

include identification of the

replacement threshold, frequency, and

circumstances in which the fee shall be

applicable. State agencies may establish

good cause policies that provide

exception rules for cases where

replacement card fees will not be

collected.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(6) * * *

(iv) State agencies may require the use

of a photograph of one or more

household members on the card. If the

State agency does require the EBT cards

to contain a photo, it must establish

procedures to ensure that all

appropriate household members or

authorized representatives are able to

access benefits from the account as

necessary.

* * * * *

Dated: September 21, 2000.

Shirley R. Watkins,

Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and

Consumer Services.

[FR Doc. 00–25364 Filed 10–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM96–1–016]

Standards For Business Practices Of

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines

Issued September 28, 2000.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; Order Granting

Clarification.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission is granting

clarification of Order No. 587–L (65 FR

41873), which established November 1,

2000, as the date by which pipelines are

required to comply with the regulation

requiring them to permit shippers to

offset imbalances on different contracts

held by the shipper and to trade

imbalances. (18 CFR 284.12(c)(2)(ii)).

The order clarifies that pipelines on

which shippers do not incur imbalances

and are not subject to imbalance

penalties need not implement

imbalance trading on their systems.

DATES: Pipelines seeking an exemption

from the imbalance trading requirement

must file within 15 days of the order to

show why they should not be required

to implement imbalance trading.

ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Goldenberg, Office of the

General Counsel, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202) 208–2294.

Marvin Rosenberg, Office of Markets,

Tariffs, and Rates, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202) 208–1283.

Kay Morice, Office of Markets, Tariffs,

and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

0507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: James J. Hoecker,

Chairman; William L. Massey, Linda

Breathitt, and Curt Hebert, Jr.

Order Granting Clarification

Issued September 28, 2000.

Iroquois Gas Transmission System,

L.P. (Iroquois) and Michigan Gas

Storage Company (Michigan) filed

requests for clarification or rehearing of

Order No. 587–L. 1 Order No. 587–L

established November 1, 2000 as the

date by which pipelines are required to

implement section 284.12(c)(2)(ii) of the

Commission’s regulations requiring

pipelines to implement imbalance

netting and trading on their systems.2

Pipelines are required to file tariff sheets

to implement imbalance trading in

sufficient time for the tariff changes to

become effective November 1, 2000.

Iroquois and Michigan request

clarification that pipelines on which

shippers do not incur imbalances and

are not subject to imbalance penalties

are not required to implement

imbalance trading on their systems.

Iroquois and Michigan state that, in

Order No. 637–A,3 the Commission

determined that pipelines without

imbalance penalties would not be

required to offer imbalance management

services, and contend that the same

rationale should apply to imbalance

trading.

The Commission agrees that pipelines

on which shippers do not incur

imbalances and are not subject to

imbalance penalties need not

implement imbalance trading on their

systems. The purpose of requiring

imbalance trading was to establish a

mechanism by which shippers can

avoid imbalance charges. If shippers

cannot incur imbalances, then shippers

do not need to trade imbalances.

However, the Commission cannot

make a determination in a generic

rulemaking proceeding as to whether

the circumstances on an individual

pipeline permit an exemption from the

requirement to provide imbalance

trading. Shippers on the individual

systems should be given the opportunity

to respond to any request for such an

exemption. Accordingly, pipelines that

seek an exemption from the imbalance

trading requirement must file within 15

days of this order showing why they

should not be required to implement

imbalance trading on their systems.

The Commission Orders

(A) The requests for clarification are

granted, in part, as discussed in the

body of the order.

(B) Pipelines seeking an exemption

from the imbalance trading requirement

are required to file within 15 days of the

59112 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

order to show why they should not be

required to implement imbalance

trading.

By the Commission.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–25437 Filed 10–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 1275

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–4537]

RIN 2127–AH47

Repeat Intoxicated Driver Laws

AGENCIES: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) and

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document adopts as a

final rule, with some changes, the

regulations that were published in an

interim final rule to implement a new

program established by the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA 21) Restoration Act. The

final rule provides for a transfer of

Federal-aid highway construction funds

authorized under 23 U.S.C. 104 to the

State and Community Highway Safety

Program under 23 U.S.C. 402 for any

State that fails to enact and enforce a

conforming ‘‘repeat intoxicated driver’’

law.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective

on October 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In

NHTSA: Mr. Glenn Karr, Office of State

and Community Services, NSC–01,

telephone (202) 366–2121; or Ms. Heidi

L. Coleman, Office of Chief Counsel,

NCC–30, telephone (202) 366–1834,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. In FHWA: Mr.

Byron E. Dover, Safety, HSA–1,

telephone (202) 366–2161; or Mr.

Raymond W. Cuprill, Office of the Chief

Counsel, HCC–20, telephone (202) 366–

0834, Federal Highway Administration,

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,

DC 20590–0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. The Problem of Impaired Driving

B. Repeat Intoxicated Driver Laws

C. Section 164 Repeat Intoxicated Driver

Law Program

II. Interim Final Rule

A. Compliance Criteria

B. Demonstrating Compliance

C. Enforcement

D. Notification of Compliance

III. Written Comments

A. Comments Received

B. General Comments

C. Definitions Adopted in the Interim Final

Rule

D. Specific Comments Regarding the

Repeat Intoxicated Driver Criteria

1. A minimum one-year license suspension

2. Impoundment or immobilization of, or

the installation of an ignition interlock

system on, motor vehicles

3. An assessment of their degree of alcohol

abuse, and treatment as appropriate

4. Mandatory minimum sentence

E. Certifications

F. Transfer of Funds

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice

Reform)

B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

E. National Environmental Policy Act

F. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

I. Background

The Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century (TEA 21), H.R. 2400, Pub.

Law 105–178, was signed into law on

June 9, 1998. On July 22, 1998, the TEA

21 Restoration Act (the Act), Pub. Law

105–206, was enacted to restore

provisions that had been agreed to by

the conferees on TEA 21, but were not

included in the TEA 21 conference

report. Section 1406 of the Act amended

chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code

(U.S.C.), by adding section 164, which

established a program to transfer a

percentage of a State’s Federal-aid

highway construction funds to the

State’s apportionment under section 402

of Title 23 of the United States Code, if

the State fails to enact and enforce a

conforming ‘‘repeat intoxicated driver’’

law that provides for certain specified

minimum penalties for persons who

have been convicted of driving while

intoxicated or under the influence upon

their second and subsequent

convictions.

In accordance with section 164, these

funds are to be used for alcoholimpaired driving countermeasures or

the enforcement of driving while

intoxicated (DWI) laws, or States may

elect instead to use all or a portion of

the funds for hazard elimination

activities, under 23 U.S.C. section 152.

A. The Problem of Impaired Driving

Injuries caused by motor vehicle

traffic crashes are the leading cause of

death in America for people aged 5 to

29. Each year, traffic crashes in the

United States claim approximately

41,000 lives and cost Americans an

estimated $150 billion, including $19

billion in medical and emergency

expenses, $42 billion in lost

productivity, $52 billion in property

damage, and $37 billion in other crashrelated costs. In 1999, alcohol was

involved in approximately 38 percent of

fatal traffic crashes. Every 33 minutes,

someone in this country dies in an

alcohol-related crash. Impaired driving

is the most frequently committed

violent crime in America.

B. Repeat Intoxicated Driver Laws

State laws that are directed to

individuals who have been convicted

more than once of driving while

intoxicated or driving under the

influence are critical tools in the fight

against impaired driving. To encourage

States to enact and enforce effective

impaired driving laws, Congress has

created a number of different programs.

Under the section 410 program (23

U.S.C. 410), and its predecessor the

section 408 program (23 U.S.C. 408), for

example, States could qualify for

incentive grant funds if they adopted

and implemented certain specified laws

and programs designed to deter

impaired driving. Some of these laws

and programs were directed specifically

toward repeat impaired driving

offenders.

For example, prior to the enactment of

TEA 21, to qualify for an incentive grant

under the section 410 program, a State

was required to meet five out of seven

basic grant criteria that were specified

in the Act and the implementing

regulation. The criteria included, among

others, an expedited driver license

suspension system, which required a

mandatory minimum one-year license

suspension for repeat offenders, and a

mandatory minimum sentence of

imprisonment or community service for

individuals convicted of driving while

intoxicated more than once in any fiveyear period.

States that were eligible for a basic

section 410 grant could qualify also for

additional grant funds by meeting

supplemental grant criteria, such as the

suspension of registration and return of

license plate program. States could

demonstrate compliance with this

program by showing that they provided

for the impoundment, immobilization or

confiscation of an offender’s motor

vehicles.