Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15479

compliance with the Buy America

requirements. This action permits the

use of pig iron and processed,

pelletized, and reduced iron ore

manufactured outside of the United

States to be used in the domestic

manufacturing process for steel and/or

iron materials used in Federal-aid

highway construction projects.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Gerald L. Eller, Office of Engineering,

(202) 366–0392 or Mr. Wilbert Baccus,

Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–

0780, Federal Highway Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45

a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with 23 CFR 635.410(c)(6),

the FHWA hereby provides notice that

it is granting a nationwide waiver of the

requirements of 23 CFR 635.410, Buy

America requirements, for pig iron and

processed, pelletized, and reduced iron

ore. Pig iron is made from molten iron

which has been cast in the shape of

‘‘pigs’’ as it comes from a blast furnace.

Processing, pelletizing, and reducing

iron ore are methods by which raw iron

ore is improved to produce enriched

ore.

Section 635.410 provides, with

exceptions, that no Federal-aid highway

construction project using steel or iron

materials is authorized to proceed

unless all manufacturing processes for

these materials, including the

application of coatings for such

materials, occur in the United States.

Because the domestic supply of pig iron

and processed, pelletized, and reduced

iron ore is not adequate, a nationwide

waiver of these requirements is being

granted for these specific iron

components. Items not specifically

included in the waiver remain subject to

the Buy America requirements.

The basis for the nationwide waiver is

that pig iron and processed, pelletized,

and reduced iron ore are not produced

in the United States in sufficient and

reasonably available quantities which

are of a satisfactory quality. Therefore,

imposing Buy America requirements on

these materials is not in the public

interest.

On August 23, 1994, the FHWA

published a notice (59 FR 43376) and

requested comments on the proposed

nationwide waiver and the availability

of a domestic supply of the components

included in the waiver. Ten comments

were received to FHWA Docket No. 94–

18. All 10 commentors were supportive

of the waiver, although some questioned

the need for waiver.

Several commentors concluded that

domestic supplies of pig iron and

processed, pelletized, and reduced iron

ore are either inadequate or nonexistent

in their region of the United States.

Supplies were believed to be inadequate

now and in the future. One commentor

offered analysis of the current domestic

pig iron supply, performed by an

outside consultant. Its analysis showed

that the volume of available domestic

pig iron is insufficient to supply the

electric furnace steel producers in the

United States. Of the 23 blast furnace

sites in the United States the analysis

showed that only four currently sell pig

iron. No commentor stated that the

domestic supply of pig iron and

processed, pelletized, and reduced iron

ore is adequate. The FHWA concludes

that the waiver is substantiated due to

the unavailability of pig iron.

Although supportive of the waiver

several commentors questioned the

need for a waiver, since they believed

that pig iron and processed, pelletized,

and reduced iron ore were already

exempt from the Buy America

requirements. Their belief was based on

the idea that the Buy America

requirements apply only to products

further along in the manufacturing

process of steel and iron. The FHWA

has previously stated that products of a

manufacturing process are not exempt

from the Buy America requirements. On

November 25, 1983, the FHWA

published a final rule (48 FR 53099) of

the Buy America requirements to

implement procedures required by § 165

of the Surface Transportation Assistance

Act (STAA) of 1982 (Pub. L. 97–424).

The final rule’s discussion of

manufactured materials stated that

‘‘Raw materials used in the steel * * *

product may be imported. All

manufacturing processes to produce

steel * * * products must occur

domestically. Raw materials are

materials such as iron ore * * * [and]

waste products * * * which are used in

the manufacturing process to produce

the steel * * * products’’ (48 FR 53099,

53103). Consistent with this

interpretation, pig iron and processed,

pelletized, and reduced iron ore are

products of a manufacturing process

and thus subject to the Buy America

requirements.

At least one commentor questioned

whether the FHWA’s Buy America

regulation applies to certain alloys

required in the production of steel and/

or iron materials. Even though most of

these alloys are unavailable from

domestic sources, alloys were not

addressed in the 1983 final rule. Similar

to the treatment of raw iron ore, alloys

in their raw state may be imported for

use in the domestic manufacturing

process of steel and/or iron materials.

Furthermore, processed alloys, alone,

are not considered to be steel or iron

materials under the Buy America

regulation. Thus, unless alloys have

been processed or refined to include

substantial amounts of steel and/or iron

materials, they are not subject to the

Buy America requirements.

(Pub. L. 97–424, § 165, 96 Stat. 2097, 2136,

as amended by Pub. L. 98–229, § 10, 98 Stat.

55, 57, and Pub. L. 102–240, §§ 1041, 1048,

105 Stat. 1914, 1993, 1999; 23 U.S.C. 315; 49

CFR 1.48; 23 CFR 635.410)

Issued on: March 20, 1995.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7362 Filed 3–21–95; 3:49 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

23 CFR Part 1313

[Docket No. 89–02; Notice 7]

RIN 2127–AD01

Incentive Grant Criteria for Drunk

Driving Prevention Programs

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Interim final rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: On August 9, 1994, (59 FR

40471) NHTSA published an interim

final rule, amending the criterion in part

1313 for a supplemental grant for States

that deem persons under age 21 who

operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of

0.02 or greater to be driving while

intoxicated. The interim final rule

requested comments on the amendment.

Today’s notice reopens the comment

period to provide States, national

organizations and other interested

persons an additional opportunity to

comment on the amendment.

DATES: The comment period for NHTSA

Docket No. 89–02; Notice 6 is reopened

so that it closes May 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

refer to the docket number and the

number of this notice and be submitted

(preferably in ten copies) to: Docket

Section, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Room 5109,

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket

hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Marlene Markison, Chief, Program

Support Staff, NSC–10, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
15480 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1To receive a basic grant, States that qualified for

section 410 funding in FY 1992 need only

demonstrate compliance with four out of the five

criteria in effect at that time, namely all the basic

criteria listed above except for mandatory

sentencing.

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,

DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–2121 or

Dr. James Hedlund, Director, Office of

Alcohol and State Programs, NTS–20,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone

(202) 366–2753.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

section 410 program, established in title

23, United States Code, section 410, as

amended, is an incentive grant program

under which States may qualify for

basic and supplemental grant funds for

adopting and implementing

comprehensive drunk driving

prevention programs that meet specified

statutory criteria.

To qualify for basic grant funds under

section 410, a State must meet five out

of six basic criteria. The criteria include

an expedited driver’s license suspension

or revocation system, a per se law (at

0.10 BAC in the first three fiscal years

in which the State receives a grant and

0.08 BAC in subsequent years), a

statewide program for stopping motor

vehicles, a self-sustaining drunk driving

prevention program, a minimum

drinking age prevention program, and

mandatory sentencing requirements.1

If a State qualifies for a basic grant, it

may also seek to qualify for funds under

one or more of seven supplemental

grants. The supplemental grants include

a per se law for persons under age 21,

a program making unlawful open

containers and consumption of alcohol

in motor vehicles, a suspension of

registration and return of license plate

program, a mandatory alcohol

concentration testing program, a

drugged driving prevention, a per se

level of 0.08 (in the first three fiscal

years in which the State receives a

grant), and a video equipment program.

Per se Law for Persons Under Age 21

Supplemental Grant

To qualify for the ‘‘per se law for

persons under age 21’’ supplemental

grant, Section 410 requires that the State

must be ‘‘eligible for a basic grant in the

fiscal year and (provide) that any person

under age 21 with a blood alcohol

concentration of 0.02 percent or greater

when driving a motor vehicle shall be

deemed to be driving while

intoxicated.’’

In an interim final rule, dated June 30,

1992, NHTSA explained:

In other words, States must establish a 0.02

per se law for persons under the age of 21,

that makes driving with a BAC of 0.02

percent or above itself an offense for such

persons. (57 FR 29007)

The interim final rule amended the

regulation to provide that, to qualify for

this supplemental grant, a State must

‘‘provide that any person under age 21

with an alcohol concentration of 0.02

percent or greater when driving a motor

vehicle shall be deemed to be driving

while intoxicated for the purpose of

administrative sanctions.’’

The agency interpreted this criterion

to require that a State’s law must

provide that 0.02 BAC underage

offenders must be treated the same as

other (0.10) DUI offenders would be

treated under the State’s administrative

license revocation (ALR) law, for the

State to qualify for a ‘‘per se law for

persons under age 21’’ supplemental

grant.

Further, the agency determined that

States that did not have an ALR law at

all or did not have an ALR law that

qualifies under section 410 need not

provide for identical sanctions, but their

laws must require a minimum 30-day

license suspension as an administrative

sanction for 0.02 underage offenders,

and the suspension must be mandatory.

Changes to the regulation

Some States objected to the

application of this portion of part 1313.

In response to these objections, NHTSA

published an interim final rule on

August 9, 1994 (59 FR 40470), amending

part 1313 to provide that any State

(whether it has an ALR law that

conforms to section 410 or not) need

only provide for a 30-day suspension or

revocation for persons under the age of

21 who operate a motor vehicle with a

BAC of 0.02 or greater. The 30-day

suspension or revocation period must be

a mandatory hard suspension or

revocation (i.e., it may not be subject to

hardship, conditional or provisional

driving privileges).

The interim final rule also amended

the regulation to permit States to

demonstrate compliance with this

criterion as either ‘‘Law’’ or ‘‘Data’’

States. The amended regulation defined

a ‘‘Law State’’ as a State that has laws,

regulations, or binding policy directives

which, on their face, meet each element

of the criterion. It defined a ‘‘Data State’’

as a State that has laws, regulations, or

binding policy directives which, on

their face, meet each element, except

that they need not specifically provide

for a 30-day hard suspension.

Under the interim final rule, the

regulation was amended to provide that,

to demonstrate compliance, a ‘‘Law

State’’ must submit only the law,

regulation or binding policy directive

itself governing its 0.02 per se law for

persons under age 21. It need not submit

data. To demonstrate compliance, a

‘‘Data State’’ must submit its law,

regulation, or binding policy directive

governing its 0.02 per se law for persons

under age 21. It must also submit data

demonstrating that the average length of

hard suspensions for offenders under

the State’s per se law for persons under

age 21 meets or exceeds 30 days.

Comments Received

NHTSA received four comments in

response to the interim final rule. The

commenters included the Michigan

State Police Department, the Michigan

Department of State, the National

Association of Governors’ Highway

Safety Representatives (NAGHSR) and

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

(Advocates).

Both comments from the State of

Michigan objected to the imposition of

legislative mandates in the section 410

program. The Michigan commenters

favored the use of performance-based

criteria instead. Michigan has raised this

comment previously regarding other

aspects of the section 410 program.

However, section 410 does not permit

the agency to disregard the statutory

criteria and qualify a State based solely

on performance.

The Michigan Department of State

Police and NAGHSR objected to the 30-

day hard suspension requirement. These

commenters were concerned that, by

defining this requirement, NHTSA was

making the criterion stricter, thereby

making it more difficult for States to

qualify for section 410 funds. NAGHSR

also objected to the interim final rule’s

provision that States ‘‘must be a Law or

Data State in order to show

compliance.’’

NHTSA wishes to clarify that the

changes that were made to the

regulation in the interim final rule made

it easier, not more difficult, for States to

qualify for the 0.02 supplemental grant.

Prior to the issuance of the interim rule,

to qualify for this grant, States with ALR

laws that qualified under section 410

were required to impose the same

sanctions on 0.02 BAC underage

offenders as were imposed on other

(0.10 or, in some States, 0.08) DUI

offenders. These sanctions include a 90-

day suspension for first offenders (30

days of which must be hard for those

who fail the test and all of which must

be hard for those who refuse to submit

to the test) and a one-year hard

suspension for repeat offenders.

Further, prior to the issuance of the

interim rule, to demonstrate compliance

for this grant, States could only qualify

by submitting a conforming law (i.e., as
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15481

Law States). The interim rule provided

additional flexibility by permitting

States with laws that contain

exemptions or some other provision that

did not fully comply with the criterion,

to demonstrate compliance through the

use of data.

As a result of the changes made in the

interim final rule, three States qualified

for funding under the 0.02 supplemental

criterion that were not able to qualify

previously. These States included

California, Ohio and Virginia.

Advocates did not oppose the

amendment contained in the interim

rule, but expressed some reservations.

Advocates stated, ‘‘We are not

convinced * * * that a 30-day period of

suspension is sufficient to make an

effective impression on under age 21

drivers. * * * We believe that there is

a strong argument for requiring a 90-day

suspension for under age 21

supplemental grants even for states that

meet the basic grant criteria without an

ALR law.’’

NHTSA adopted the 30-day hard

suspension criterion for both

administrative license suspension laws

(for first offenders who submit to and

fail a chemical test) and for 0.02 laws for

youth because that is the sanction that

is recommended in the Uniform Vehicle

Code concerning license suspension

laws (see § 6–215, Limited License) and

because most States with demonstrated

effective license suspension laws

provide for a 30-day hard suspension

period. NHTSA is not aware of any

evidence that State zero tolerance laws

which provide for a 90-day hard

suspension are any more effective than

State zero tolerance laws which provide

for a 30-day hard suspension. Of course,

States that provide for a hard

suspension period of longer than 30

days could qualify for grant funding

under this criterion.

Both NAGHSR and Advocates also

objected to NHTSA’s use of an interim

final rule without providing for prior

notice and an opportunity for public

comment. As explained in that

document, the changes were published

as an interim final rule, because the

regulation relates to a grant program, to

which the requirements of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5

U.S.C. 553, are not applicable.

Moreover, the agency explained that,

even if the notice and comment

provisions of the APA did apply, there

is good cause for finding that providing

notice and comment in connection with

the rulemaking action was

impracticable, unnecessary and contrary

to the public interest, since it would

have prevented States from qualifying

for grant funds in fiscal year 1994.

The agency’s finding was based also

on its view that the amendments made

in the interim final rule rectified an

inequity in the regulation, provided

additional flexibility for the States and

were consistent with other provisions in

the section 410 implementing

regulation, which was promulgated

subject to notice and a full opportunity

for the public to comment.

The agency stated there would be

little benefit gained by following the

notice and comment procedures with

regard to the revisions made by the

interim final rule.

NHTSA believes its assessment was

correct, as demonstrated by the small

number of comments received in

response to the interim final rule.

However, NHTSA wishes to ensure that

the public has a full opportunity to be

heard. Therefore, the agency has

decided to reopen the comment period

to provide the public with an additional

opportunity to comment on the agency’s

action.

The regulation, as amended by the

interim final rule, remains in effect and

binding. Following the close of the

reopened comment period, NHTSA will

publish a notice responding to any

additional comments it receives and, if

appropriate, will amend the provisions

of this rule.

Issued on: March 20, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–7264 Filed 3–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Secretary

24 CFR Parts 44 and 45

[Docket No. R–95–1777; FR–3767–F–01]

RIN 2501–AB85

Non-Federal Audit Report Submission

Requirements

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: HUD is amending the single

audit requirements for the submission of

audit reports. HUD’s current regulations

require recipients of Federal financial

assistance from HUD to submit a copy

of their audit report to HUD. This rule

describes the circumstances under

which a ‘‘no finding’’ report need not be

submitted.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Bell, Office of the Inspector

General, Room 8180, Department of

Housing and Urban Development, 451

Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C.

20410, telephone (202) 708–0383.

Hearing or speech-impaired individuals

may call HUD’s TDD number (202) 708–

9300 (These telephone numbers are not

toll free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

HUD is amending the single audit

requirements for the submission of audit

reports found at 24 CFR 44.10(f) and 24

CFR 45.4.

A. 24 CFR Part 44

Part 44 implements the general audit

requirements for recipient organizations

in OMB Circular A–128 ‘‘Audits of State

and local governments.’’ The OMB

Circular was issued under the Single

Audit Act of 1984 (31 U.S.C. 7501–

7507) (the Act). The Act requires State

or local governments that receive

$100,000 or more a year in Federal

financial assistance to have an audit

conducted according to the Act’s

standards.

State or local governments that

receive between $25,000 and $100,000 a

year have the option of having an audit

conducted according to the Act’s

standards or having a grant specific

financial audit performed. The

requirements for conducting these grant

specific audits are described in 24 CFR

44.1(c)(2). State or local governments

that receive less than $25,000 a year are

exempt from the audit requirements.

Section 7505 of the Act requires the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) to establish procedures and

guidelines to implement the Act. It

specifies that OMB shall assign an

overseeing, or cognizant, Federal agency

to each recipient in order to facilitate

the auditing process and ensure that the

audit requirements are met. The

responsibilities of cognizant agencies

are set forth in 24 CFR 44.8.

B. 24 CFR Part 45

Part 45 implements the audit

requirements for recipient organizations

in OMB Circular A–133 ‘‘Audits of

Institutions of Higher Education and

Other Nonprofit Institutions.’’ Section

45.1 requires that nonprofit institutions

whose receipts of Federal financial

assistance and outstanding Federal

direct, guaranteed, or insured loan

balances total $100,000 or more a year

have an audit conducted in accordance

with the requirements of OMB Circular

A–133.