Revisions to highway safety program guidelines

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-7241.htm

[Federal Register: April 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 14843-14857]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01ap09-91]

———————————————————————–

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0178]

Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Revisions to highway safety program guidelines.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: Section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code requires the
Secretary of Transportation to promulgate uniform guidelines for State
highway safety programs.
This notice revises five of the existing guidelines and adds a new
one to reflect program methodologies and approaches that have proven to
be successful and are based on sound science and program
administration. The revised guidelines are Guideline No. 4 Driver
Education; Guideline No. 5 Non-Commercial Driver Licensing; Guideline
No. 7 Judicial and Court Services; Guideline No. 10 Traffic Records;
and Guideline No. 17 Pupil Transportation. The new guideline is
Guideline No. 12 Prosecutor Training.

DATES: The revised guidelines become effective as of the date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Kirinich, Research and Program
Development, NTI-100, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 202-366-
1755; Fax: 202-366-7721.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code requires the
Secretary of Transportation to promulgate uniform guidelines for State
highway safety programs. As the highway safety environment changes, it
is necessary for NHTSA to update the guidelines to provide current
information on effective program content for States to use in
developing and assessing their traffic safety programs. Each of the
revised guidelines reflects the best available science and the real-
world experience of NHTSA and the States in developing and managing
traffic safety program content. Specifically, NHTSA will update the
guidelines periodically to address new issues and to emphasize program
methodology and approaches that have proven to be effective in these
program areas.
The guidelines offer direction to States in formulating their
highway safety plans for highway safety efforts that are supported with
Section 402 grant funds as well as safety activities funded from other
sources. The guidelines provide a framework for developing a balanced
highway safety program and serve as a tool with which States can assess
the effectiveness of their own programs. NHTSA encourages States to use
these guidelines and build upon them to optimize the effectiveness of
highway safety programs conducted at the State and local levels.

[[Page 14844]]

The revised and new guidelines emphasize areas of nationwide
concern and highlight effective countermeasures. As each guideline is
updated or created, it will include a date representing the date of its
revision or development.
All the highway safety guidelines are available on the NHTSA Web
site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs/.
In a Notice published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2007
(72 FR 5495), the agency requested comments on the proposed revisions
and additions to the guidelines. The guidelines the agency proposed to
revise were Guideline No. 4 Driver Education; Guideline No. 5 Non-
Commercial Driver Licensing; Guideline No. 7 Judicial and Court
Services; Guideline No. 10 Traffic Records; Guideline No. 17 Pupil
Transportation; and Guideline No. 21 Roadway Safety. The new guideline
is Guideline No. 12 Prosecutor Training. This new Guideline was
developed because NHTSA has found educating prosecutors and judges to
be an important part of broader efforts to enforce and prosecute
traffic safety laws at the State and local levels. Guideline No. 21
Roadway Safety is still under review, and will be addressed in a
subsequent publication. Overall, these revisions and additions will
provide up-to-date and current guidance to States.

II. Comments

The agency received comments in response to the notice from several
organizations or associations: the American Automobile Association
(AAA), the Driver Education and Training Administrators (DETA), the
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), the Motorcycle Riders
Foundation (MRF), the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF), the National
Road Safety Foundation (NRSF), the National School Transportation
Association (NSTA), the National Association of Students Against
Violence Everywhere (SAVE), one State agency (the State of Michigan
Department of State Police); and four individuals.
GHSA submitted general comments on the guidelines. The majority of
guideline-specific comments received focused on Guidelines No. 4 Driver
Education and No. 5 Non-Commercial Driver Licensing. The agency also
received two comments related to Guideline No. 17 Pupil Transportation.

A. Comments in General

SAVE generally supported the guidelines, stating that the
guidelines further encourage States to protect students. MRF and MSF
expressed general support for the proposed additions of motorcycle-
specific safety references.
GHSA provided several general comments on the guidelines and
commented on NHTSA’s characterization that the guidelines offer
direction to States in formulating their highway safety plans for
efforts supported with Section 402 and other funds. GHSA also asserted
that the 402 program is a behavioral program rather than a
comprehensive highway safety program. GHSA further commented that a
State’s annual Highway Safety Plan is not comprehensive and does not
replace strategic highway safety plan requirements under the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) of Section 148 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59.
The HSIP directs State transportation departments to establish and
implement a State strategic highway safety plan in their State. To
receive funds for the program, States must have a process in place to
analyze highway safety problems and opportunities and to produce
strategies to mitigate identified safety problems. The development and
implementation of a strategic highway safety plan within each State
requires that the transportation department conduct extensive
consultation with other organizations within the State and adopt
strategic and performance-based goals that are coordinated with other
State highway safety programs. In and of itself this does not require
changes in existing planning processes, plans, or programs of other
State highway safety agencies; and updating and revising the Highway
Safety Guidelines is not considered to be in conflict with the HSIP
requirements.
Consistent with Congressional direction, NHTSA has issued the
guidelines to provide broad guidance to the States on best practices in
each program area. Research has shown that the most effective traffic
safety countermeasures involve a comprehensive approach that utilizes
education, enforcement, engineering and emergency medical services (the
“4 E’s”). This comprehensive approach is cross-cutting by nature and
requires voluntary coordination between various State and local
agencies. A State Highway Safety Office (SHSO) cannot require or
mandate other State or local agencies to participate in this type of
cross-cutting program. That does not mean, however, that the overall
program approach should avoid those areas that are the primary
responsibility of other governmental agencies. A SHSO should seek to
work cooperatively with other State and local agencies to implement the
guidelines and in development and implementation of the strategic
highway safety plan required under Section 148 of SAFETEA-LU. These
guidelines are not meant to supersede that process, but rather to
complement it.
Citing specific examples in three proposed guidelines (Guideline
No. 4 Driver Education; Guideline No. 5 Non-Commercial Driver
Licensing; and Guideline No. 7 Judicial and Court Services), GHSA also
asserted that “the guidelines recommend that SHSOs play a role that is
beyond their authority or control or that may be unacceptable
politically.” NHTSA does not expect a SHSO to go beyond its State
mandate to fulfill the guidelines. It can, however, encourage and
support the efforts by other State agencies by providing leadership,
technical guidance, or training in these areas, where appropriate.
GHSA also voiced concerns regarding the use of the guidelines.
Specifically, GHSA asked whether NHTSA would hold a SHSO responsible
for implementing the specific countermeasures in the guidelines,
connecting them to assessments and management reviews. The purpose of
each highway safety guideline is to provide States a description of a
successful comprehensive highway safety program addressing a given
safety issue. The agency does not intend the guidelines to be limited
to activities required by Section 402, but rather to serve as a
blueprint for States in developing and administering their own highway
safety programs. Given the unique and changing circumstances in each
State, certain guidelines and parts of guidelines may have a greater or
lesser impact on the safety plans of different States. NHTSA Regional
Offices can provide guidance to States to help determine how to use the
guidelines most effectively based on individual State needs.
GHSA asked that NHTSA remove from the guidelines references to
SHSOs. NHTSA believes that SHSOs have an important leadership role in
developing comprehensive traffic safety programs that effectively
reduce traffic fatalities. The highway safety guidelines are intended
to provide direction to help SHSOs achieve that goal. As such, the
guidelines remain unchanged in response to GHSA’s comments outlined
above.

B. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 4: Driver Education

The agency received comments related to Guideline No. 4 from AAA,

[[Page 14845]]

DETA, GHSA, MRF, MSF, NRSF, and three individuals. The comments are
addressed below under the corresponding Guideline section.

I. Program Management

DETA, AAA, and NRSF provided similar comments regarding the Program
Management section of the Driver Education Guideline. In particular,
DETA suggested that the Guideline should apply to public and private
providers of driver education, that there should be collaboration and
coordination with other State agencies in addition to the highway
safety office, and the inclusion of a full-time State employee to
provide leadership for driver education. The agency agrees with these
suggestions and recommends that, to the extent feasible, States devote
a full-time position for coordination and oversight of its driver
education program.
AAA and NRSF stressed the importance of evaluating driver education
programs and suggested the use of their materials to achieve this. The
agency agrees that this kind of evaluation is important. However, the
Guideline allows States to identify their own tools to help them
accomplish this goal. NRSF also suggested periodic assessment of
drivers. NHTSA believes that the expense of encouraging States to set
up such a system would be prohibitive, particularly in light of unknown
benefits. The Guideline remains unchanged in response to this comment.
DETA and NRSF stressed the importance of educating younger children
about traffic safety. The agency agrees with this comment, and has
added language recommending that States consider driver and highway
safety education for younger students.
NRSF recommended that each State provide financial incentives to
schools to teach driver education. The agency believes that this is
solely within the discretion of each State, and, thus, has not included
language to this effect in the Guideline.

II. Legislation, Regulation, and Policy

The MSF suggested that language regarding graduated driver
licensing (GDL) restrictions may be more appropriate for Highway Safety
Guideline No. 5. The agency retained the language in Guideline No. 4,
but also added it to Guideline No. 5.
The MRF asked for a “common sense approach” in adapting GDL
guidelines to motorcycles. NHTSA agrees and has added the language to
this Guideline where GDL pertains to motorcycles. In response to this
Guideline and Guideline No. 5, MRF indicated it would oppose the
Guideline separating motorcycle licenses into categories. The agency
notes that neither Guideline suggests such separation.

III. Enforcement Program

An individual commented that GDL is not enforced by the police. The
agency agrees that challenges exist for GDL enforcement due to the
inherent difficulties of identifying drivers covered by GDL
restrictions. The agency has included in the existing language the need
for visible and well-publicized enforcement of the components of the
GDL and zero tolerance laws. AAA recommended evaluation of enforcement
efforts. The agency agrees and believes this is part of an overall
evaluation program that is currently incorporated within the Guideline.
However, the agency added additional language to this section of the
Guideline to further emphasize evaluation of enforcement efforts.

IV. Driver Education and Training Program

DETA suggested that NHTSA incorporate a section in this Guideline
pertaining to continuing education for driver education instructors.
DETA and AAA commented in support of inclusion of standards for driver
education instructors, and indicated that this Guideline should apply
to both public and commercial schools. DETA and AAA emphasized that
coordination among all State agencies, not just the State Highway
Safety Office, dealing with driver education is necessary. The agency
agrees with these comments and that coordination among State agencies
responsible for driver education is beneficial and has incorporated
these suggestions into the Guideline.
DETA also suggested the inclusion of parent involvement in GDL. The
agency agrees and has incorporated language in the Guideline regarding
parental involvement.
AAA and NRSF recommended including a more comprehensive “post
novice” or “adult retraining” within the Guideline. While NHTSA
agrees that this additional training may be beneficial, States can opt
to promote refresher training for older drivers through private sources
or through a State agency. The Guideline remains unchanged in response
to these comments.
AAA supports coordinating driver education with GDL. The agency
agrees but believes the Guideline already addresses this concern.
One individual suggested alternate language for major parts of the
elements of a training program. Some of these coincided with DETA
recommendations. The Guideline incorporates two specific suggestions
pertaining to requiring training in balanced vehicle movements (through
steering, braking, accelerating, etc.) and training in new vehicle
technology.
DETA recommended that training vehicles include certain safety
equipment and that driver education programs include cognitive skills.
The agency agrees and has incorporated this information into the
Guideline.
DETA proposed the inclusion of “risk prevention” techniques
within the Guideline’s discussion about advanced driving techniques.
Both AAA and an individual suggested that advanced driving techniques
lack research on safety benefits and may be inappropriate for the
novice driver. The agency agrees with these comments and has deleted
the advanced driving techniques section, replacing it with risk
prevention, as suggested by DETA. A recommendation by DETA to
incorporate attitudinal awareness training and peer pressure education
into the Guideline was also accepted.
DETA commented that driver licensing agencies should require and
review parent driving logs detailing supervised driving. Because this
would involve significant resources at DMVs and uncertain benefits, the
Guideline remains unchanged in response to this comment.
The MSF expressed support for this Guideline’s inclusion of
“sharing the roadway” language but recommended that the Guideline
also include scooters. Additionally, the MSF and MRF commented that
driver education courses should include a motorcycle awareness
component. The agency agrees with both comments and has incorporated
these suggestions in the Guideline.

V. Communication Program

An individual commented that drivers from other countries acquire
licenses too easily and need a longer education process addressing
language and cultural needs. The agency notes that within the
Communication Program segment of this Guideline there is existing
language to identify audiences at particular risk and provide
culturally competent materials. However, the agency does not agree that
there should be a requirement for extended driver education for drivers
from other countries.
DETA and the NRSF recommended the inclusion of language regarding
education for children and youth that will engender knowledge of safe
driving

[[Page 14846]]

practices. The agency agrees and has incorporated introductory language
to that effect. NRSF also had specific recommendations, such as the
inclusion of a multi-media campaign and expanded discussion of parental
responsibilities. The agency does not agree with those recommendations
and believes States need flexibility to construct their communication
programs.

VI. Program Evaluation and Data

DETA has suggested that NHTSA include language encouraging States
to share data to determine whether the driver education guidelines
impact traffic safety. The agency agrees with this statement but
believes the Guideline already encourages evaluation in this section.

C. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 5: Non-Commercial Driver Licensing

The agency received comments related to Guideline No. 5 from AAA,
DETA, MRF, MSF, NRSF and one individual. These comments are addressed
below.

I. Program Management

An individual raised issues related to security within driver
license agencies. The agency has added language in the program
management section of the Guideline in response to this comment.

II. Legislation, Regulation and Policy

As noted above, DETA commented (in response to Guideline No. 4
Driver Education) that the driver license skill and knowledge tests are
too brief and inadequate to assess a driver’s readiness to drive. The
agency is working with motor vehicle administrators to develop a model
driver testing program, and anticipates that the model will provide a
better assessment of readiness to drive. No changes will be made to the
Guideline at this time.
AAA suggested that the recommendations for GDL be expanded with
specific passenger age and nighttime driving restrictions. The
Guidelines are intended to provide general guidance concerning GDL to
allow States maximum flexibility. However, NHTSA provides more
extensive GDL recommendations to the States in other publications.
MSF and MRF commented that GDL requirements must recognize
differences between motorcycle operators and drivers to the extent that
the requirements are prohibitive to motorcycling (e.g., seat belt use,
supervised driving). The agency has made changes in Guideline No. 4
(Driver Education) to reflect these comments; however, in the interest
of keeping GDL recommendations general in nature to allow States
flexibility, this Guideline remains unchanged in response to these
comments.
NRSF also provided several comments on this Guideline. It proposed
that license renewals include skills assessments and examinations.
While the agency does not agree that the Guideline should be overly
prescriptive in the renewal process, language has been added that
States should re-test, as appropriate.
This commenter additionally recommended that NHTSA research the
effectiveness of supervised driving. The agency did not include this
recommendation in the Guideline, however research efforts on this issue
are underway. NRSF further recommended that supervising drivers should
demonstrate driving qualifications and that States should implement
procedures to help novice drivers and their guardians to identify and
procure the services of qualified driving mentors. NHTSA will await the
results of current research before offering guidance in this area.
Strong parental involvement in the driver education and licensing of
novice drivers is a critical contributor to a safe transition to
driving. The agency strongly supports active parental involvement in
assisting novice drivers in the transition to driving under a GDL
program.
NRSF suggested that States provide online and print manuals
detailing the requirements for supervised driving. NRSF further
commented that driver education should be “integrated as a phased in
process of GDL.” The Guideline remains unchanged in response to these
comments. NHTSA is developing materials for use by State licensing
agencies and driver education programs on supervised driving. The
commenter also recommended including a ban on cell phones and other
personal electronic devices as part of GDL restrictions. NHTSA has
recently incorporated a restriction on portable electronic
communication and entertainment devices for drivers in the permit and
intermediate phases in its GDL recommendations to the States. This has
been noted in Guidelines 4 and 5. Finally, the agency does not agree
with adding language on improvements to driver education prior to
extensive evaluation of effectiveness.

III. Driver Fitness

AAA commented that experts suggest driver testing should focus on
the functional limitations produced by a medical condition, rather than
on the medical condition itself. Accordingly, AAA suggested the agency
remove the word “medical” from this section of the Guideline and
replace the phrase “mental or physical conditions” with “functional
limitations.” Because there remains evidence of increased risk among
drivers with some medical conditions, NHTSA does not agree with
elimination of the “medical” modifier to “evaluation.” Because of
this, the Guideline retains the language as proposed, but the agency
will keep this recommendation in mind as further research becomes
available.
NRSF commented that medical evaluation systems should include: (1)
Guidelines for mental and physical performance; (2) medical standards
for physician reference; (3) methodologies for determining patient
health risks; and (4) methodologies for communicating health and
fitness standards to patients and to DMVs. Specifically, NRSF suggested
that training for medical professionals who work with the driving
population include these components.
NRSF also commented that State guidelines should include periodic
driver skill retesting to maintain operational and medical fitness for
drivers of all ages. The Guideline remains unchanged in response to
these comments. There is insufficient evidence at this time to suggest
that periodic driver skill retesting, i.e., behind-the-wheel testing,
is an effective strategy for identifying at-risk drivers. Currently,
the best available evidence suggests that in-person renewal is the most
effective approach to identifying at-risk drivers of all ages.
The Physician’s Guide to Assessing and Counseling Older Drivers,
developed by NHTSA and the American Medical Association, identifies red
flags and interventions. Beyond that, assessment strategies are limited
by the predictive value that a given screening tool might have. The
Physician’s Guide includes information on making referrals to the DMV
and on counseling patients. It also includes information on obtaining
Continuing Medical Education credits for use of the guide. The agency
believes that NRSF’s comments are addressed in its ongoing work. While
on its face, periodic retesting seems reasonable, currently there is no
evidence to suggest that such a strategy would have any safety
benefits. The agency is conducting research on the safety benefits of
different State licensing practices. Until that research is completed,
any changes to the Guideline on this issue would be premature.
In response to the proposed Guideline’s provision that each State

[[Page 14847]]

should have “a medical advisory board or equivalent allied health
professional unit composed of qualified personnel to advise the driver
license agency on medical criteria and vision guidelines,” an
individual recommended adding a reference to prescription, over-the-
counter, and illegal alcohol and drug use. While there is value in
considering alcohol and drug use for licensing purposes, the
implementation of this recommendation would not be practical or
feasible given the broad range of medications, the durations that
people use them, and the different reactions individuals have to
medications. Including alcohol use in the medical section’s purview
seems worthwhile, given recognition that addiction to it is a treatable
disease. Language, therefore, on this issue is included.

V. Driver Records, Data, and Evaluation

NRSF advocated for driver improvement action prior to when a driver
demonstrates problematic behavior (i.e., drivers involved with a high
number of traffic crashes or violations). The agency has made no
changes to the Guideline in response to this comment, as the agency
believes that States should have the flexibility to reassess drivers as
States deem appropriate and institute follow-up measures accordingly.
NHTSA is undertaking a project to determine best approaches to
identifying and treating problem drivers.
MSF suggested cross-referencing rider education training data with
operator licensing records, particularly in States conditioning
licensing upon safety training. The agency agrees with this
recommendation, and has recommended that motorcycle rider licensing and
registration records be linked in State licensing records.

D. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 7 Judicial and Court Services &
Guideline No. 12 Prosecutor Training

GHSA expressed concern regarding the development of a resource
management plan that would include specific components concerning the
allocation of funding, personnel, and facilities. GHSA also stated that
this is not a feasible or appropriate role for a SHSO. GHSA said that
it would be more appropriate for a national organization of prosecutors
or judges to develop a model resource management tool for its members.
These Guidelines were developed to help the SHSOs effectively
incorporate the criminal justice system into their traffic safety
programs. The intent of this section is to ensure that the impact of
SHSO-generated traffic safety law enforcement activities on the entire
criminal justice system is taken into account when developing State
plans.
The judicial and prosecutor Guidelines are designed to help the
SHSOs develop a balanced overall approach that fully engages all
elements of the criminal justice system. They are intended to provide a
basic understanding of the criminal justice system, as it relates to
traffic safety, and point out how decisions on funding various law
enforcement activities can impact the overall effectiveness of the
enforcement, prosecutorial and judicial outreach efforts. To help
clarify that, the Resource Management section of these two Guidelines
now indicates that the SHSO should work with the relevant State
enforcement and adjudication offices to ensure that adequate resources
are allocated throughout the criminal justice system for SHSO-generated
law enforcement activities, while acknowledging that this is not meant
to ask the SHSO to develop a resource plan for another State agency.

E. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 10 Traffic Records

The agency addresses below comments received from MRF, MSF, and AAA
regarding Guideline No. 10 Traffic Records.

I. Traffic Records System Information Components

MSF and MRF expressed general support for a Traffic Records System
(TRS). MRF added that motorcycle records should be administered and
collected uniformly with “as little bias as possible with regard to
all safety equipment.” The MSF recommended adding another category to
crash data components to specifically document the use of motorcycle
helmets and whether helmets used are DOT-compliant.
The MSF recommendation to document the use of safety equipment,
specifically motorcycle helmets, is not appropriate because the
Guideline does not address crash data components at the data element
level. Collecting information on safety equipment for motorcycles,
including motorcycle helmet use, is addressed in the revised Model
Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). The MMUCC is jointly developed
by States and Federal agencies and is intended to improve traffic
safety both nationally and locally by providing a recommended set of
uniform data elements for capturing information about motor vehicle
crashes. The Third Edition MMUCC Guideline was published in 2008.
The proposed Guideline identified particular elements crash data
should incorporate, including location characteristics (e.g., roadway
type or specific intersections). Commenting that crash data should be
linked to roadway data, AAA proposed that NHTSA replace location
characteristics with “Location” (linkable to Roadway Data Component).
The agency intended the specific terms proposed in the “Crash Data
Component” section to identify general variables and/or attributes
that one would expect to find in a crash database for the
characteristics of the persons, locations, vehicles, etc. involved in a
crash. Accordingly, the Guideline does not incorporate AAA’s suggested
change. The broader issue that the commenter raised–the State’s
ability to link crash data with roadway inventory data–is a cogent
issue. The benefit for a State to have data that permits the
integration of databases is supported and addressed more fully in
Section IV, Data Integration.
The premise of linking the crash data to a roadway inventory
constitutes a major safety effort for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). The FHWA is currently working to establish the
Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE). Once the MMIRE is
established, it will provide a uniform inventory of roadway data
elements and attributes for locations (e.g., intersections and roadway
segments). This linkage, which will rely upon the precise location of
crashes, will permit an analysis on the contribution of roadway factors
to traffic crashes.
AAA additionally commented that the Guideline should reflect that
project inventory for the Roadway Data Component should include
initiation and completion dates as well as descriptions of projects and
project locations. While NHTSA concurs that the commenter’s suggested
practice for documenting information regarding projects is valuable and
should be followed by all agencies responsible for roadway maintenance/
improvement, the agency believes that this level of detail in the
Guideline extends beyond the intended scope and purpose of the
Guideline.
MRF and MSF commented that VMT numbers are inaccurate with respect
to motorcycles. MSF also commented that States should be required to
report motorcycle VMT. NHTSA collects data on motor vehicle crashes,
including those involving motorcycles; however, NHTSA does not collect
data on VMT. VMT data are collected and published annually by FHWA as
part of the Highway Performance Monitoring

[[Page 14848]]

System (HPMS). The DOT recognizes the need for the best motorcycle
travel data possible to support calculation of a more accurate and
consistent measurement of motorcycle travel. State reporting of
motorcycle VMT to the FHWA was optional prior to this year. Even for
those States that reported motorcycle VMT, it was often only measured
as a standard proportion of total VMT rather than being collected
directly through surveys or roadside counters. FHWA had to then
estimate VMT for States that did not report based on data from States
that did report. Beginning in 2007, FHWA began requiring States to
collect and report motorcycle VMT data. Initial data became available
in 2008. Also, the Department is currently working with the States to
improve and address any technical issues surrounding the collection of
motorcycle exposure data. In October 2007, FHWA and NHTSA held a
symposium on motorcycle travel to exchange State best practices in
motorcycle VMT collection, explore new data sources and data collection
technologies, and develop a long-term research and implementation
roadmap.

II. Uses of a Traffic Records System

AAA expressed support for the proposed Guideline’s language
regarding reasonable public access to data and commented in favor of
making data files available to traffic safety research organizations.
NHTSA believes traffic safety research organizations are covered under
the Guideline’s language providing for data access for “the public or
general non-government user.”

III. Traffic Records System Management

MSF suggested cross-referencing rider education training data with
operator licensing records, particularly in States conditioning
licensing upon safety training. The agency has addressed this
recommendation in Guideline No. 5 Non-Commercial Driver Licensing.

F. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 17 Pupil Transportation

The State of Michigan Department of State Police and NSTA submitted
comments on this Guideline. The State of Michigan’s comments summarized
the State’s current laws relative to this Guideline, noting that the
State currently has no pending legislation to conform to several
provisions in the proposed Guideline. This Guideline remains unchanged
in response to the State of Michigan’s submission. NSTA conveyed
overall support for the Guideline, particularly its language regarding
prohibiting the operation of nonconforming school transportation
vehicles. NSTA’s remaining comments are addressed below.

I. Operations

NSTA commented that with respect to driver physical qualifications,
school bus inspections and maintenance and driver daily vehicle
inspection reports, the Guideline differentiates between operations
subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and
those that are not. NSTA suggested that NHTSA apply the relevant
provisions of the FMCSRs for all school bus operations. NHTSA agrees
with the comment and modified this section accordingly as follows:
Under the Personnel heading, the Guideline removes the phrase “if
the driver or the driver’s employer is subject to those regulations”
from the physical qualification standards statement.
Regarding school bus inspections, under the Vehicle Maintenance
heading, the Guideline removes the references to FMCSR. The language
now reads, “[r]egularly scheduled vehicle inspections should be
conducted as specified in accordance with FMCSA regulations contained
in 49 CFR Part 396.3” and “[s]chool bus drivers should perform daily
inspections of their vehicles, including all safety equipment and
submit a report of their findings daily as specified in 49 CFR 396.”
The guidelines published today also will appear on NHTSA’s Web site
in the Highway Safety Grant Management Manual in the near future.
Guideline Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 17 are set forth below. The
remaining guidelines are not addressed by today’s action and remain
unchanged.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 4

Driver Education
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and
tribal governments, should develop and implement a comprehensive,
culturally competent highway safety program, reflective of State
demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes,
fatalities and injuries on public roads. All programs should be data
driven, and the highway safety program should include a driver
education and training program designed to educate new drivers and
provide remedial training for existing drivers. This guideline
describes the components that the State driver education program should
include and the minimum criteria that the program components should
meet. Resources permitting, schools should also include traffic safety
education for children and youth designed to engender knowledge of safe
driving practices.

I. Program Management

Each State should have centralized program planning,
implementation, and coordination to deliver comprehensive and uniform
driver education that applies to both public and private programs.
Evaluation should be used to revise existing programs, develop new
programs, and determine progress and success. The State Highway Safety
Office (SHSO) in collaboration and in cooperation with other State
agencies involved in driver education, such as Transportation
Departments, Motor Vehicle Departments, Licensing Departments, and
Education Departments, should:
Provide leadership, training, and technical assistance to
public and private providers of driver education to ensure consistency
and quality;
Resources permitting, work with other relevant State
agencies to identify staff resources to provide full-time oversight
over driver education programs delivered within the State; and
Evaluate the effectiveness of the State’s driver education
program.

II. Legislation, Regulation and Policy

Each State should enact and enforce laws and policies intended to
reduce crashes caused by novice drivers. To enhance the effectiveness
of driver education, States should:
Enact Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) laws that include
three stages of licensure, and that place restrictions and sanctions on
high-risk driving situations for novice drivers (i.e., nighttime
driving restrictions, passenger restrictions, zero tolerance, portable
electronic communication and entertainment devices restrictions, and
required seat belt use);
Ensure that the GDL restrictions and sanctions for GDL
licensure are adapted for and applicable to motorcycle operators, and
enforceable for motorcycle operators;
Develop driver education standards and guidelines to which
all driver education programs, whether public or private, must adhere
to satisfy licensing requirements for novice drivers; and
Ensure that completion of driver education programs will
not reduce time required for novice drivers to proceed through a GDL
system.

III. Enforcement Program

Components of a State driver education enforcement program should
include:

[[Page 14849]]

Visible and well-publicized law enforcement of the
components of GDL and zero tolerance laws;
Licensing sanctions for violations of these provisions;
Evaluation of enforcement efforts to determine
effectiveness;
State agency oversight of driver education programs to
ensure delivery of approved State curriculum; and
Administrative or financial penalties for programs in
noncompliance.

IV. Driver Education and Training Program

A driver education program should be available to novice drivers
and all youths of licensing age and include the following criteria:
The program is taught by instructors, public or private,
certified by the State as qualified for these purposes; examples of
such standards might include: minimum levels of education and
continuing education, not being convicted of any felony or certain
misdemeanor crimes, holding a valid driver license, and setting limits
on numbers and types of driving violations.
All vehicles used in public or commercial Behind the Wheel
training have appropriate safety inspections and are equipped with, at
a minimum, a safety brake accessible by the driver side passenger, a
first aid kit, a fire extinguisher, an instructor rear view mirror and
an eye check mirror for the instructor.
It provides each student with practice driving and/or
instruction in at least the following:
[cir] Basic driving techniques, including starting, stopping,
turning, and basic interaction in controlled environments in light and
moderate traffic;
[cir] Additional driving techniques, including balanced vehicle
movement through steering, braking, and accelerating in a precise and
timely manner;
[cir] Cognitive aspects of driving, including gap management,
recognizing blockage and hazards, responding early and appropriately to
hazards and potential hazards, signaling techniques, methods for speed
management and effective visual searching, and decision-making and
habit-development strategies;
[cir] Risk prevention techniques such as skid prevention;
[cir] Rules of the road and other State laws and local motor
vehicle laws and ordinances;
[cir] Attitudinal awareness training that includes how attitudes
can have an impact on driving behavior;
[cir] Peer pressure training including how vehicle operators and
passengers can say no in unsafe peer-pressure situations and how to
utilize leadership skills in managing the driver and the passengers in
a vehicle;
[cir] Vehicle technology and the benefit of braking, traction,
intelligent handling, and stability systems;
[cir] Critical vehicle systems and sub-systems requiring preventive
maintenance;
[cir] Vehicle and highway features (including different vehicle and
roadway conditions) that:
[dec221] Aid the driver in avoiding crashes;
[dec221] Protect the driver and passengers in crashes; and
[dec221] Maximize the care of the injured.
[cir] Signs, signals, and highway markings and highway design
features that require understanding for safe operation of motor
vehicles;
[cir] Differences in characteristics of urban and rural driving
including safe use of modern expressways;
[cir] Safe Driving Practices, including making good driver
decisions; use of occupant restraints; not driving under the influence;
and dealing with fatigue, distractions, and aggressive drivers; and
[cir] Sharing the roadway with other users, especially pedestrians,
bicycles, scooters, and motorcycles, who are more physically vulnerable
to injury or death in the event of a crash. This should include
techniques to increase awareness of motorcycles and other road users.
Each State should also ensure:
That research and development programs include adequate
research, development, and procurement of practice driving facilities,
simulators, online teaching resources, and other similar teaching aids
for both school and other driver training use;
There is a program that engages parents and/or guardians
in the driver education and GDL programs;
There is a program for adult driver training and
retraining; and
Commercial driving schools are licensed and instructors
are certified in accordance with applicable State laws, regulations or
other criteria.

V. Communication Program

States should develop and implement communication strategies
directed at supporting policy and program elements. The SHSO, in
collaboration and cooperation with driver education and training and
highway safety partners, should consider a statewide communications
plan and campaign that:
Informs the public, especially parents, about State GDL
laws;
Identifies audiences at particular risk and develops
appropriate messages;
Provides culturally competent materials;
Informs parents/guardians and young drivers about the role
of supervised driving and the State’s GDL law;
Informs novice drivers about underage drinking and zero
tolerance laws (in effect in all 50 States and the District of
Columbia), such as including information in manuals for new drivers and
including a question about the topic on the written test for a
learner’s permit;
Informs the public on the role of parental monitoring/
involvement; and
Informs the public about State guidelines and regulation
of driver education.

VI. Program Evaluation and Data

The SHSO, in collaboration and cooperation with the State agencies
responsible for driver education and training, should develop a
comprehensive evaluation program to measure progress toward established
project goals and objectives and optimize the allocation of limited
resources. The State should promote effective evaluation by:
Supporting the analysis of police accident reports;
Encouraging, supporting, and training localities in
process, impact, and outcome evaluation of local programs;
Evaluating the use of program resources and the
effectiveness of existing countermeasures for the general public and
high-risk populations; and
Ensuring that evaluation results are used to identify
problems, plan new programs, and improve existing programs.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 5

Non-Commercial Driver Licensing
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and
tribal governments, should develop and implement a comprehensive,
culturally competent highway safety program, reflective of State
demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes,
fatalities, and injuries on public roads. Each State should have a
driver licensing program ensuring that every driver is adequately
trained and tested, evaluated for physical and mental fitness, when
appropriate, and possesses only one driver license and driver record.

I. Program Management

Each State should have a licensing agency that ensures only those
qualified

[[Page 14850]]

to operate motor vehicles obtain a valid State driver license
applicable to vehicles they are authorized to operate. This agency
should:
Ensure that drivers are appropriately licensed for the
vehicles they operate;
Ensure that driver license applicants are appropriately
screened for correct identity;
Ensure that documents used to establish identity are
appropriately analyzed;
Take appropriate measures to ensure that applicants are
not licensed in other States;
Provide driver licenses that are tamper resistant to
prevent fraudulent use of the document;
Provide driver licenses that clearly indicate if the
driver is under 21 years of age; and
Ensure that license issuing offices maintain industry
standards for security to prevent license issuance to ineligible
applicants.

II. Legislation, Regulation, and Policy

A model driver licensing program should provide, at a minimum, that
each driver:
Hold only one license, which identifies the type(s) of
vehicle(s) he or she is authorized to operate;
Submits acceptable proof of identity in applying for an
original, renewal, or re-application of a driver’s license;
Passes an examination demonstrating:
[cir] Ability to operate the class(es) of vehicles(s) for which he
or she is licensed;
[cir] Ability to read and comprehend traffic signs and symbols;
[cir] Knowledge of laws relating to traffic (rules of the road)
safe driving procedures, vehicle and highway safety features, emergency
situations that arise in the operation of a vehicle, and other driver
responsibilities; and
[cir] Visual acuity, which must meet or exceed State guidelines;
and
Renews the license, in-person, periodically with skill
testing and medical examinations, as appropriate.
A model Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) law should require each
driver under age 18 to participate in a GDL System, a three-stage
system that incrementally adds privileges for novice drivers as they
gain experience driving. The three-stage process should include the
following progressive steps:
[cir] First, the young, novice driver receives a learner’s permit
that:
Starts no younger than 16 years of age;
Requires completion of a minimum of 6 months driving
without an at-fault crash or traffic violation;
Requires supervised driving at all times in which the
supervising licensed driver is age 21 or older; and
Prohibits the use of portable electronic communication or
entertainment devices while driving.
[cir] Next, the young driver receives an intermediate, or
provisional, permit that:
Requires completion of a minimum of 6 months driving
without an at-fault crash or traffic violation;
Imposes nighttime driving restrictions;
Imposes teenage passenger restrictions;
Prohibits the use of portable electronic communication or
entertainment devices while driving; and
Mandates adherence to State seat belt use requirements.
[cir] The third and final stage is full licensure with:
Passenger, nighttime and portable electronic devices
restrictions until age 18; and
Maximum blood alcohol limits of .02 until age 21.
[cir] The driver should receive driver education that meets
standards set by the State that are related to the State driving manual
and driving test and, to the greatest degree possible, increases the
safety performance of new drivers. (Under no circumstance should driver
education reduce the time required to pass through the GDL system.)

III. Driver Fitness

Each State should have:
A system that provides medical evaluation of people who
the driver licensing agency has reason to believe have mental or
physical conditions that might impair their driving abilities;
A procedure that will keep the driver license agency
informed of all licensed drivers who are currently applying for or
receiving any type of tax, welfare, or other benefits or exemptions for
the blind or visually impaired beyond established State vision
requirements;
A medical advisory board or equivalent allied health
professional unit composed of qualified personnel to advise the driver
license agency on medical criteria, including alcohol use and vision
guidelines; and
Protection from civil liability for individuals who
report, in good faith, potentially at-risk drivers to the licensing
authority.

IV. Motorcycle Operator Licensing

States should require every person who operates a motorcycle on
public roadways to pass an examination designed especially for
motorcycle operation and to hold a license endorsement specifically
authorizing motorcycle operation. Each State should have a motorcycle
licensing system that requires:
A motorcycle operator’s manual that contains essential
information on reducing the risks associated with riding a motorcycle;
A motorcycle license examination, including knowledge and
skill tests, and State licensing medical criteria;
License examiner training specific to testing of
motorcyclists;
Motorcycle license endorsement;
Cross referencing of motorcycle registrations with
motorcycle licenses to identify motorcycle owners who do not have the
proper endorsement;
Motorcycle license renewal requirements;
Learner’s permits issued for a period of at least 90 days
and the establishment of limits on the number and frequency of
learner’s permits issued per applicant to encourage each motorcyclist
to get full endorsement; and
Penalties for violation of motorcycle licensing
requirements.

V. Driver Records, Data, and Evaluation

Each State should maintain a driver control record on each licensed
driver that includes identification information, principle residence,
and driver history. (See Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 10–
Traffic Records.) In addition to the historical aspect, the traffic
records system should be conducive to:
Timely, accurate, and complete entry of data into the
system;
Ease of accessibility to the system to give timely,
accurate, and complete information on drivers for users of the system.
Functional users may include courts, administrative/legal personnel,
motor vehicle administration, law enforcement, research and
development, and private citizens;
Real-time availability of data to provide DMV personnel
and other system users with a rapid-response system for the information
requested on standard and priority requests for eligibility of an
applicant for issuance of a driver license;
Ad-hoc reporting for statistical and other research
purposes;
Real-time identification of problem drivers for
enforcement or other operational countermeasures; and
Medical restriction or suspension/revocation information.
Each license should be issued for a specific term, and should be
renewed to remain valid. At time of issuance or

[[Page 14851]]

renewal each driver’s record should be checked.
Motorcycle registration and licensing records should be linked to
ensure that riders are properly licensed and trained.
There should be a driver improvement program to identify problem
drivers for record review and other appropriate actions designed to
reduce the frequency of their involvement in traffic crashes or
violations.
The non-commercial driver licensing program should be periodically
evaluated by the State. The evaluation should, among other issues,
attempt to ascertain the extent to which driving without a license
occurs.

VI. Communication Program

States should develop and implement communication strategies
directed at supporting policy and program elements. In collaboration
with motor vehicle and other State agencies, the SHSO should consider a
statewide communications plan and campaign that:
Informs the public about State licensing requirements;
Identifies audiences at particular risk and develops
appropriate messages;
Provides information about driver fitness requirements and
mental or physical conditions that might impair driving abilities;
Informs motorcycle registrants of the need to obtain an
appropriate motorcycle endorsement or license;
Provides culturally competent materials;
Informs parents/guardians about the role of supervised
driving and the State’s GDL law; and
Informs novice drivers about underage drinking and zero
tolerance laws (in effect in all 50 States and the District of
Columbia), such as including information in manuals for new drivers and
including a question about the topic on the written test for a
learner’s permit.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 7

Judicial and Court Services
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and
tribal governments, should develop and implement a comprehensive,
culturally competent highway safety program, reflective of State
demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes,
fatalities, and injuries on public roads. Each State should have a
comprehensive judicial services program as part of its overall highway
safety program. Such judicial services programs should support courts
in the competent and effective adjudication of both administrative and
statutory law cases. Judicial services programs should, consistent with
ethical and professional requirements, promote judicial outreach
activity to reduce traffic crashes and resultant fatalities and
injuries. This document describes the four key components of State
judicial services programs and the specific activities needed to
implement those components. Additional information on judicial outreach
is addressed in Highway Safety Guideline No. 8, Impaired Driving.

I. Program Management

Program planning, implementation, and coordination are essential
for achieving and sustaining State traffic enforcement and adjudication
functions. The State Highway Safety Office (SHSO), in conjunction with
State and local court administrators, chief judges, and judicial
educators should ensure that State traffic safety judicial education
programs are well planned and coordinated. State SHSOs should provide
leadership, training and technical assistance to:
Implement and integrate regular traffic law and safety-
related judicial education in judicial education programs for all
judges;
Generate broad-based support for traffic safety programs
by informing all stakeholders, including court administrators and the
judges they serve, of comprehensive highway safety plans for traffic
enforcement;
Coordinate traffic safety programs to include Commercial
Motor Vehicle (CMV) safety activities such as the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program;
Promote the dissemination of NHTSA-supported judicial
traffic safety and education courses through coordination with State
judicial educators and nationally based institutions such as the
National Center for State Courts, National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges, and the National Judicial College; and
Support the development and ethical implementation of
judicial education programs for State, local, administrative, and
tribal courts that will accomplish the following objectives:
Utilize enabling legislation and regulations to provide
the public with effective and efficient court services;
Provide the impetus for judges to be thoroughly educated
on all facets of motor vehicle law;
Develop cooperative relationships with other government
branches, agencies, and entities, as well as community organizations
and traffic safety stakeholders; and
Establish qualitative and quantitative performance
measures by which the delivery of services can be evaluated.

II. Resource Management

The SHSO should coordinate with the courts to develop plans that
identify the resources necessary to effectively provide efficient
traffic law-related services throughout the criminal justice system.
The plans should include specific components concerning the allocation
of funding, personnel, and facilities and:
Periodic assessment of traffic law-related service demands
and the resources needed to serve the needs of the public;
Development of traffic law-related court service plans
that address budgetary requirements, staff allocation, and facilities
requirements; and
Employment of efficient accounting and data processing
systems to facilitate prompt and accurate generation, retrieval, and
sharing of information and records.

III. Training and Education

Training and education are essential to support and maintain the
delivery of traffic law-related services by the judicial branch of
government. To be effective adjudicators, and serve the needs of the
public, judges must receive regular education and training of the
highest caliber. Judicial education and training should be promoted
and, where appropriate, presented by the SHSO or other training
entities with experienced faculties in the area of traffic safety,
including law and procedure. Judicial education and training should be:
Adequately funded and where possible compulsory as a
requirement to maintaining service in office;
Provided by State or nationally based judicial education
and training entities with experienced faculties in the areas of
traffic-related law and procedure;
Inclusive of education components consistent with models
developed by the American Bar Association, for example the Code of
Judicial Ethics and the Rules of Professional Conduct;
Inclusive of case management components so as to foster
productivity and the prompt and efficient disposition of cases;
Specialized as to curriculum so as to address the needs of
both statutory and administrative judges as well as hearing officers;
and
Assessed regularly so as to insure that education
components address

[[Page 14852]]

specialized traffic enforcement skills, techniques, or programs such as
DWI/Drug Courts.

IV. Data and Evaluation

The SHSO, in conjunction with court administrators, should develop
a comprehensive evaluation program to measure progress toward
established project goals and objectives. Utilizing comprehensive
evaluation programs, the SHSO should effectively plan and implement
statewide, county, local, and tribal traffic safety programs. Such
programs should have as objectives the optimization of limited resource
allocation and should measure the impact of traffic enforcement on
court resources. Data that are collected should include case
disposition summaries and reports, and other relevant workload
information. Court administrators should:
Include evaluation components in initial program planning
so as to ensure that data will be available for evaluation;
Ensure that adequate resources and personnel are allocated
to program planning and data collection;
Regularly report results of program evaluations to project
and program managers, legislative decision-makers, and to the public;
Utilize results to guide future activities and to assess
in justifying resources to governing bodies;
Conduct surveys to assist in determining court and program
effectiveness, including surveys that measure public knowledge and
attitudes about court programs;
Evaluate the effectiveness of services provided in support
of priority safety programs; and
Maintain and report court generated data to appropriate
repositories through the use of effective records programs that:
[ctrcir] Provide records rapidly and accurately;
[ctrcir] Provide routine compilations of data for management use in
the decision-making process;
[ctrcir] Provide data for operational planning and execution;
[ctrcir] Interface with a variety of data systems, including
statewide traffic safety records systems that are accessible by other
State and local governmental entities, agencies, and courts;
[ctrcir] Provide for the evidentiary integrity of information so as
to insure its admissibility in subsequent court and administrative
hearing proceedings; and
[ctrcir] Work with court administrators to use the traffic court
functional standards that are available through the National Center for
State Courts.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 10

Traffic Records
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and
tribal governments, should implement a traffic records system (TRS) to
support highway and traffic safety decision-making and long-range
transportation planning. A complete TRS is necessary for identifying
the locations and causes of crashes, for planning and implementing
countermeasures, for operational management and control, and for
evaluating highway safety programs and improvements. This guideline
describes the components that a State TRS program should include and
the criteria that the program components should meet.

I. Traffic Records System Information Components

A TRS has been defined as a virtual set of independent real systems
(e.g., driver conviction records, crash records, roadway data, etc.),
which collectively form the information base for the management of the
highway and traffic safety activities of a State. An updated concept of
a TRS encourages States to take a global approach and work toward
compiling data into a unified, accessible resource. Sharing and
integrating data makes such a system possible, without necessarily
duplicating costly and time-consuming tasks such as data entry.
Achieving integrated access to data without bringing all the data into
a single database is a goal of the TRS. The traffic records system
should consist of the following major components:
A. The Crash Data Component documents the time, location,
environment, and characteristics (e.g., sequence of events, rollover,
etc.) of a crash. It contains basic information about every reportable
(as defined by State statute) motor vehicle crash on any public roadway
in the State. Through links to other TRS components, the Crash Data
Component identifies the roadways, vehicles, and people (e.g., drivers,
occupants, pedestrians) involved in the crash. These data help to
document the consequences of the crash (e.g., fatalities, injuries,
property damage, and violations charged), support the analysis of
crashes in general, and support the analysis of crashes within specific
categories defined by:
Person characteristics (e.g., age or gender);
Location characteristics (e.g., roadway type or specific
intersections);
Vehicle characteristics (e.g., condition and legal
status); and
The interaction of various components (e.g., time of day,
day of week, weather, driver actions, pedestrian actions, etc.).
B. The Roadway Data Component includes roadway location,
identification, and classification, as well as a description of a
road’s total physical characteristics and usage. These attributes are
tied to a location reference system. Linked safety and roadway
information are valuable components that support a State’s construction
and maintenance program development. This roadway information should be
available for all public roadways, including local roads.
The State Department of Transportation (State DOT) typically has
custodial responsibility for the Roadway Data Component. This component
includes various enterprise-related files such as:
Pavement
Bridges
Intersections
Roadside appurtenances
Traffic control devices
Guard rails
Barriers
Traffic
VMT (vehicle miles traveled)
Travel by vehicle type
Other
GIS (Geographic Information System)
LRS (Location Reference System)
Project inventory
C. The Driver Data Component includes information about the State’s
population of licensed drivers as well as information about convicted
traffic violators who are not licensed in that State. Information about
persons licensed by the State should include: personal identification,
driver license number, type of license, license status, driver
restrictions, convictions for traffic violations in the State and the
history of convictions for critical violations in prior States, crash
history (whether or not cited for a violation), driver improvement or
control actions, and driver education data.
Custodial responsibility for the Driver Data Component usually
resides in a State Department or Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Some
commercial vehicle operator-related functions may be handled separately
from the primary custodial responsibility for driver data. The
structure of driver databases typically is oriented to individual
“customers.”

[[Page 14853]]

D. The Vehicle Data Component includes information on the
identification and ownership of vehicles registered in the State. Data
should be available regarding vehicle make, model, year of manufacture,
body type, and vehicle history (including odometer readings) in order
to produce the information needed to support analysis of vehicle-
related factors that may contribute to a State’s crash experience. Such
analyses would be necessarily restricted to crashes involving in-State
registered vehicles only.
Custodial responsibility for the vehicle data usually resides in a
State Department or Division of Motor Vehicles. Some commercial
vehicle-related functions may be handled separately from the primary
custodial responsibility for all other vehicle data. The structure of
vehicle databases typically is oriented to individual “customers.”
E. The Citation/Adjudication Data Component, which identifies
citation/arrest and adjudication activity of the State, includes
information that tracks a citation from the time of its distribution to
a law enforcement officer, through its issuance to an offender, its
disposition, and the posting of conviction in the driver history
database.
Case management systems, law enforcement records systems, and DMV
driver history systems should share information to support:
Citation tracking;
Case tracking;
Disposition reporting; and
Specialized tracking systems for specific types of
violators (e.g., DUI tracking systems).
Information should be available to identify the type of violation,
location, date and time, the enforcement agency, court of jurisdiction,
and final disposition. Similar information for warnings and other motor
vehicle incidents that would reflect enforcement activity are also
useful for highway safety purposes and should be available at the local
level.
The information should be used for determining the level of
enforcement activity in the State, for accounting and controlling of
citation forms, and for detailed monitoring of court activity regarding
the disposition of traffic cases.
Custodial responsibility for the multiple systems that make up the
Citation/Adjudication Data Component should be shared among local and
State agencies, with law enforcement, courts, and the State Division or
DMV sharing responsibility for some files (e.g., portions of the
citation tracking system). State-level agencies should have
responsibility for managing the law enforcement information network
(e.g., a criminal justice information agency), for coordinating and
promoting court case management technology (e.g., an administrative arm
of the State Supreme Court), and for assuring that convictions are
forwarded to the DMV and actually posted to the drivers’ histories
(e.g., the court records custodian and the DMV).
F. The Statewide Injury Surveillance System (SWISS) Data Component
typically incorporates pre-hospital (EMS), trauma, emergency department
(ED), hospital in-patient/discharge, rehabilitation and morbidity
databases to track injury causes, magnitude, costs, and outcomes.
Often, these systems rely upon other components of the TRS to provide
information on injury mechanisms or events (e.g., traffic crash
reports). The custodial responsibility for various files within the
SWISS typically is distributed among several agencies and/or offices
within a State Department of Health.
This system should allow the documentation of information that
tracks magnitude, severity, and types of injuries sustained by persons
in motor-vehicle-related crashes. Although traffic crashes cause only a
portion of the injuries within any population, they often represent one
of the more significant causes of injuries in terms of frequency and
cost to the community. The SWISS should support integration of the
injury data with police-reported traffic crashes and make this
information available for analysis to support research, public policy,
and decision making.

II. Traffic Records System Information Quality

A State’s traffic records information should be maintained in a
form that is of high quality and readily accessible to users throughout
the State. Performance-based measures should be quantifiable and should
be established for each attribute of each component (e.g., the amount
of elapsed time from initial data collection until entry in the traffic
records system, the level of accuracy and completeness the data must
meet in order to pass edit and validation checks during data entry, the
level of adoption of various standards and guidelines, etc.). The
definition of each performance-based measure and its relative
significance may vary for each of the State’s TRS data components.
The quality of a State’s traffic records information is determined
by the following attributes:
Timeliness–information should be available within a
timeframe to be meaningful for effective analysis of a State’s highway
safety programs, and for efficient conduct of each custodial agency’s
business and mission;
Consistency–the information should be consistent with
nationally accepted and published guidelines and standards (e.g., the
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria, the National EMS Information
System) and data should be collected on uniform forms that are
prescribed by the State for use by all jurisdictions. The ANSI D16.1-
2007 is the standard for statistical classification of motor vehicle
traffic crashes and is the primary reference for classifying motor
vehicle crashes. This standard promotes consistency of motor vehicle
traffic accident statistics. To view the standard, go to: http://
www.atsip.org/index.php?/atsip/d-16.
Completeness–the information should be complete in terms
of all the people, events, things, or places represented by the records
in the various components, and it should be complete in terms of all
the variables required to be collected on those people, events, things,
or places;
Accuracy–the information should be accurate as determined
by quality control methods to ensure accurate information is contained
on individual reports (e.g., validity and consistency checks in the
data capture and data entry processes and feedback to jurisdictions
submitting inaccurate reports);
Accessibility–the information should be readily and
easily accessible to the principal users of the traffic records system
components, including both direct access (automated) and the ability to
obtain periodic (standard) reports as well as reports and data by
special request; and
Data Integration–information in any traffic records
system component should be capable of being linked with any other
component through the use of common data variables where possible and
permitted by law.

III. Uses of a Traffic Records System

The purpose of a State’s traffic records system is to establish a
base of useful information and data. This includes operational
personnel, program managers, program analysts, researchers, policy
makers, and the public. To be of optimal value, the system should
provide for the efficient flow of data to support a broad range of
traffic safety and other activities, in particular the following:
Problem Identification
Problem identification is the process of determining the locations
and causes of crashes and their outcomes and of selecting those sites
and issues that

[[Page 14854]]

represent the best opportunity for highway safety improvements;
Research and Program Development
The traffic records system should provide information to identify
safety problems, trends, and baseline measures essential for data-
driven planning decisions;
Policy Development
The traffic records system should provide information to permit
informed decisions in setting highway safety policy, including State
Highway Safety Plans.
Analytic Resources Access
Data users, and decision makers in particular, should have access
to resources including skilled analytic personnel and easy to use
software tools to support their needs. These tools should be
specifically designed to meet needs such as addressing legislative
issues (barriers as well as new initiatives), program and
countermeasure development, management, and evaluation, as well as
meeting all reporting requirements.
Public Access to Data
The TRS should be designed to give the public or general non-
government user reasonable access to data files, analytic results, and
resources, but still meet State and Federal privacy and security
standards.
Data Use and Improvement
The TRS should be viewed as more than a collection of data
repositories, and as a set of processes, methods, and component
systems. Knowledge of how these data are collected and managed, along
with where the bottlenecks and quality problems arise, is critical to
users understanding proper ways to apply the data.

IV. Traffic Records System Management

The development and management of traffic safety programs is a
systematic process with the goal of reducing the number and severity of
traffic crashes. This data-driven process ensures that all
opportunities to improve highway safety are identified and considered
for implementation. This process can be achieved through the following
initiatives:
Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC)
The State should form a TRCC whose membership includes, among
others, managers, collectors, and users of traffic records and public
health and injury control data systems. The TRCC should have the
authority to approve the State’s Strategic Plan for Traffic Records
Improvements. The TRCC should also:
Represent all stakeholders; each stakeholder must have
support from the top management of the representative agency;
Have the authority to review any of the State’s highway
safety data and traffic records systems and to review any proposed
changes to such systems prior to implementation;
Provide a forum for the discussion of highway safety data
and traffic records issues and report on any such issues to the
agencies and organizations in the State that create, maintain, and use
highway safety data and traffic records;
Represent the interests of the agencies and organizations
within the traffic records system to outside organizations; and
Review and evaluate new technologies to keep the highway
safety data and traffic records system up-to-date.
Strategic Planning
The TRS should support the traffic safety strategic planning
process that helps State and local data owners identify and support
their overall traffic safety program needs and addresses the changing
needs for information over time.
Data Integration
States should integrate data and expand their linkage opportunities
to track traffic safety events among data files. Data integration
should be addressed through the following:
Create and maintain a system inventory;
Support centralized access to linked data;
Meet Federal reporting requirements such as the Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS), Motor Carrier Management Information
System (MCMIS/safetynet), the Highway Performance Monitoring System
(HPMS) and others;
Support electronic data sharing; and
Adhere to State and Federal privacy and security
standards.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 12

Prosecutor Training
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and
tribal governments, should develop and implement a comprehensive,
culturally competent highway safety program, reflective of State
demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes,
fatalities, and injuries on public roads. All programs should include a
comprehensive prosecutorial training program that supports prosecutors
in the prosecution of traffic-related cases. Prosecutorial training
programs should be consistent with ethical and professional
requirements in addition to addressing training and technical
assistance needs. These programs should encourage prosecutors to make
the prosecution of traffic-related cases a high priority. This
guideline describes the key components that a State program should
include and the minimum criteria that the program components should
meet. Additional information on prosecutor outreach is addressed in
Highway Safety Guideline No. 8, Impaired Driving.

I. Program Management

Program planning, implementation, and coordination are essential
for achieving and sustaining high-quality State traffic enforcement and
prosecution functions. The State Highway Safety Office (SHSO), in
conjunction with State prosecutor associations, Prosecutor
Coordinators, and Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutors (TSRP) should
ensure that State traffic safety programs are comprehensive, well
planned, and coordinated. State SHSOs should provide leadership,
training, and technical assistance to their State’s prosecutors. In
doing so, the SHSOs should:
Communicate and coordinate with State prosecutor
coordinators and TSRPs regarding comprehensive highway safety plans for
traffic enforcement so they can generate broad-based prosecutorial
support for traffic safety programs;
Assist State prosecutor coordinators and TSRPs in
implementing regular traffic law and safety-related prosecutor training
programs;
Provide support and assistance to State prosecutor
coordinators and TSRPs for training and technical assistance that
prosecutors need to effectively prosecute impaired driving and other
traffic-related cases; and
Evaluate the delivery of training and technical assistance
through established qualitative and quantitative measures.

II. Resource Management

The SHSO should encourage prosecutors to develop plans that
identify those resources necessary to provide efficient traffic law-
related services that include:
Periodic assessment of traffic law-related service demands
and the resources needed to serve the needs of prosecution and the
public.
Development of traffic law-related prosecutor resource
management plans that address budgetary requirements,

[[Page 14855]]

staff allocation, and facilities requirements.
Employment of efficient accounting and data processing
systems to facilitate prompt and accurate generation, retrieval, and
sharing of information and records.

III. Training and Technical Assistance

Training and technical assistance are essential to support the
delivery of high-quality traffic law-related prosecution. To
effectively serve the needs of law enforcement, victims, and the
public, prosecutors must receive regular, consistent training and have
available to them individuals who can provide technical assistance in a
competent and efficient manner. To this end, the SHSO should:
Encourage the implementation of the TSRP program;
Provide Prosecutor Coordinators and TSRPs with advanced
education and training in the area of traffic-related law and procedure
so as to enhance delivery of training and technical assistance to local
prosecutors, law enforcement officers, advocacy groups, and other
traffic safety professionals;
Assist and support prosecutor coordinators in providing
traffic law and safety-related training programs to the State’s
prosecutors;
Include development and delivery of specialized curriculum
to address the needs of both experienced and inexperienced prosecutors
handling complex impaired-driving and other traffic prosecutions;
Encourage consistent training and technical assistance
through the prosecutor coordinators to address high turnover rates in
prosecutor offices; and
Include case management components to foster prompt and
effective prosecution of traffic cases.

IV. Data and Evaluation

The SHSO, in conjunction with the prosecutor coordinator and the
TSRP, should develop a comprehensive evaluation program to measure
progress toward established project goals and objectives. Using
comprehensive evaluation strategies, the SHSO should effectively plan
and implement statewide, county, and local traffic safety training
programs. Collected data should include training programs attended,
technical assistance requested and received, and other workload
information. The evaluation results should be used to maximize limited
resources and measure the impact of such training and assistance on
prosecutorial resources and the ability to effectively prosecute
traffic cases. The SHSO should make sure that Prosecutor Coordinators
or TSRPs:
Include evaluation components in initial program planning
to ensure that data will be available for analysis;
Ensure that adequate resources and personnel are allocated
to program planning and data collection;
Regularly report results of program evaluations to project
managers, program managers, and legislative decision-makers;
Utilize results to guide future activities and assess
resource allocation; and
Evaluate the effectiveness of services provided in support
of priority traffic safety programs.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17

Pupil Transportation Safety
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and
tribal governments, should establish a State highway safety program for
pupil transportation safety including administration; the
identification, operation, and maintenance of buses used for carrying
students; and the training of passengers, pedestrians, and bicycle
riders. The purpose of this guideline is to provide strategies for
minimizing, to the greatest extent possible, the danger of death or
injury to school children while they are traveling to and from school
and school-related events.

I. Program Management

There should be a single State agency with primary administrative
responsibility for pupil transportation, that employs at least one
full-time professional to carry out these responsibilities. The
responsible State agency should develop an operating system for
collecting and reporting information needed to improve the safety of
operating school buses and school-chartered buses. Each State should
establish procedures to meet the following recommendations for
identification and equipment of school buses. All school buses should:
Be identified with the words “School Bus” printed in
letters not less than eight inches high, located between the warning
signal lamps as high as possible without impairing visibility of the
lettering from both front and rear, and have no other lettering on the
front or rear of the vehicle, except as required by Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR Part 571;
Be painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow, in
accordance with the colorimetric specification of National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Standard No. 595a, Color 13432;
except that the hood should be either that color or lusterless black,
matching NIST Federal Standard No. 595a, Color 37038.
Have bumpers of glossy black, matching NIST Federal
Standard No. 595a, Color 17038, unless, for increased visibility, they
are covered with a reflective material;
Comply with all FMVSS applicable to school buses at the
time of their manufacture;
Be equipped with safety equipment for use in an emergency,
including a charged fire extinguisher that is properly mounted near the
driver’s seat, with signs indicating the location of such equipment;
Be equipped with device(s) demonstrated to enhance the
safe operation of school vehicles, such as a stop signal arm;
Be equipped with a system of signal lamps that conforms to
the school bus requirements of FMVSS No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108; and
Have a system of mirrors that conforms to the school bus
requirements of FMVSS No. 111, 49 CFR 571.111.
School-chartered buses should comply with all applicable
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) and FMVSS.
Any school bus meeting the recommendations above that is
permanently converted for uses other than transporting children to and
from school should be painted a color other than National School Bus
Glossy Yellow, and should have the stop arms and school bus signal
lamps removed.
School buses, while being operated on a public highway and
transporting primarily passengers other than school children, should
have the words “School Bus” covered, removed, or otherwise concealed,
and the stop arm and signal lamps should not be operated.

II. Operations

Each State should establish procedures to meet the following
recommendations for operating school buses and school-chartered buses:
Personnel
[cir] Each State should develop a plan for selecting, training, and
supervising people whose primary duties involve transporting school
children in order to ensure that such persons will attain a high degree
of competence in, and knowledge of, their duties;
[cir] Every person who drives a school bus or school-chartered bus
occupied by school children should, at a minimum:

[[Page 14856]]

Have a valid State driver’s license to operate such a
vehicle. All drivers who operate a vehicle designed to transport 16 or
more persons (including the driver) are required by the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Commercial Driver’s License
Standards (49 CFR Part 383) to have a valid commercial driver’s
license;
Meet all physical, mental, moral, and other requirements
established by the State agency having primary responsibility for pupil
transportation, including requirements related to drug and/or alcohol
misuse or abuse; and
Meet the physical qualification standards for drivers
under the FMCSR of the FMCSA, 49 CFR Part 391.
Vehicles
[cir] Each State should enact legislation that provides for uniform
procedures regarding school buses stopping on public highways for
loading and discharge of children. Public information campaigns should
be conducted on a regular basis to ensure that the driving public fully
understands the implications of school bus warning signals and
requirements to stop for school buses that are loading or discharging
school children. Schools should work with local law enforcement
agencies to enforce laws against passing a stopped school bus that is
loading or unloading students.
[cir] Each State should establish policies to ensure that school
districts are aware of the Federal statutory provision 49 U.S.C.
Section 30112(a), as amended by Section 10309(b) of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L.
109-59), prohibiting the purchase by schools and school systems of new
non-conforming vehicles for school transportation purposes, and
prohibit operation of any school bus or other vehicle used for school
transportation purposes unless it meets the FMVSSs for school buses.
[cir] Each State should minimize highway use hazards to school bus
and school-chartered bus occupants, other highway users, pedestrians,
bicycle riders and property. Efforts to minimize such hazards should
include, but not be limited to:
Planning safe routes and annually reviewing routes for
safety hazards;
Planning routes to ensure the most effective use of school
buses and school-chartered buses to ensure that passengers are not
standing while these vehicles are in operation;
Providing loading and unloading zones off the main
traveled part of highways, whenever it is practical to do so;
Establishing restricted loading and unloading areas for
school buses and school-chartered buses at or near schools;
Ensuring that school bus operators, when stopping on a
highway to take on or discharge children, adhere to State regulations
for loading and discharging including the use of signal lamps;
Replacing school buses manufactured before April 1, 1977,
with buses that meet the current FMVSSs for school buses, and not
chartering any pre-1977 school buses; and
Prohibiting public or private schools from purchasing
school buses built prior to April 1, 1977 for school transportation or
school-related events.
[cir] Use of amber signal lamps to indicate that a school bus is
preparing to stop to load or unload children is at the option of the
State. Use of red warning signal lamps as specified in this guideline
for any purpose or at any time other than when the school bus is
stopped to load or discharge passengers should be prohibited.
[cir] When school buses are equipped with stop arms, such devices
should be operated only in conjunction with red warning signal lamps,
when vehicles are stopped.
Seating
[cir] Children are protected in large school buses by
compartmentalization, a passive occupant protection system. This
provides a protective envelope consisting of strong, closely-spaced
seats that have energy-absorbing padded seat backs that help to
distribute and reduce crash forces. Compartmentalization is most
effective when occupants are fully seated within the bus seat. Seating
should be provided that will allow each occupant to sit on a school bus
seat without any part of his or her body extending into the aisle.
[cir] There should be no auxiliary seating accommodations such as
temporary or folding jump seats in school buses.
[cir] Standing while school buses and school-chartered buses are in
motion should not be permitted. Routing and seating plans should be
coordinated to eliminate passengers standing when a school bus or
school-chartered bus is in motion.
[cir] Drivers of school buses and school-chartered buses should be
required to wear occupant restraints whenever the vehicle is in motion.
[cir] Passengers in school buses and school-chartered buses with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less should be
required to wear occupant restraints (where provided) whenever the
vehicle is in motion. Occupant restraints should comply with the
requirements of FMVSS Nos. 208, 209 and 210, as they apply to
multipurpose vehicles.
[cir] When transporting preschool age children in a school bus;
Each child should be properly secured in a Child Safety
Restraint System, suitable for the child’s weight and age, that meets
applicable FMVSSs; and
The Child Safety Restraint System should be properly
secured to the school bus seat, using anchorages that meet FMVSSs.
Emergency exit access
[cir] Baggage and other items transported in the passenger
compartment should be stored and secured so that the aisles are kept
clear and the door(s) and emergency exit(s) remain unobstructed at all
times.
[cir] When school buses are equipped with interior luggage racks,
the racks should be capable of retaining their contents in a crash or
sudden driving maneuver.
Vehicle maintenance. Each State should establish
procedures to meet the following recommendations for maintaining buses
used to carry school children:
[cir] School buses should be maintained in safe operating condition
through a systematic preventive maintenance program;
[cir] Regularly scheduled vehicle inspections should be conducted
as specified in accordance with FMCSA regulations contained in 49 CFR
Part 396.3; and
[cir] School bus drivers should perform daily inspections of their
vehicles, including all safety equipment and submit a report of their
findings daily as specified in 49 CFR 396.11.

III. Other Elements of Pupil Transportation Safety

At least once during each school semester, each pupil
transported from home to school in a school bus should be instructed in
safe riding practices, proper loading and unloading techniques, proper
street crossing to and from school bus stops and should participate in
supervised and timed emergency evacuation drills. Prior to each
departure, each pupil transported on an activity or field trip in a
school bus or school-chartered bus should be instructed in safe riding
practices and the location and operation of emergency exits.
Parents and school officials should work together to
identify and select safe pedestrian and bicycle routes for the use of
school children. (See Guideline No. 14.)
All school children should be instructed in safe
transportation

[[Page 14857]]

practices for walking to and from school. For those children who
routinely walk to school, training should include pre-selected routes
and the importance of adhering to those routes.
Children riding bicycles to and from school should receive
bicycle safety education, be required to wear bicycle safety helmets,
and not deviate from pre-selected routes.
Local school officials and law enforcement personnel
should work together to establish crossing guard programs.
Local school officials should investigate programs that
incorporate the practice of escorting students across streets and
highways when they leave school buses. These programs may include the
use of school safety patrols or adult monitors.
Local school officials should establish passenger vehicle
loading and unloading points at schools that are separate from the
school bus loading zones.
Before chartering any vehicle or motor coach for school
activity purposes, schools should check the safety record of charter
bus companies through the FMCSA Safety and Fitness Electronic Records
System. Schools should also consider using a multi-function school
activity bus in place of charter buses where feasible. A multi-function
school activity bus is not required to be equipped with traffic control
devices (i.e., flashing lights and stop arm). These buses are not
intended for the roadside picking up and dropping off of children
during service between home and school. They are intended for use by
schools and other institutions that need transportation services for
school activity trips or for other coordinated transportation
activities.

IV. Program Evaluation

The pupil transportation safety program should be evaluated at
least annually by the State agency having primary administrative
responsibility for pupil transportation.

V. Definitions

A “bus” is a motor vehicle designed for carrying more
than 10 persons (including the driver).
A “school bus” is a “bus” that is used for purposes
that include carrying students to and from school or related events on
a regular basis, but does not include a transit bus or a school-
chartered bus.
A “school-chartered bus” is a bus that is operated under
a short-term contract with State or school authorities who have
acquired the exclusive use of the vehicle at a fixed charge to provide
transportation for a group of students to a special school-related
event.
A “multi-function school activity bus” is a school bus
whose purposes do not include transporting student to and from home or
school bus stops.
“Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR)” are
the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) for commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce, including
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or gross vehicle weight
greater than 10,000 pounds; designed or used to transport more than 8
passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or designed or used
to transport more than 15 passengers (including the driver), and not
used to transport passengers for compensation. (The FMCSR are set forth
in 49 CFR Parts 390-399.)
A “child safety restraint system” is any device (except
a passenger system lap seat belt or lap/shoulder seat belt), designed
for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position a child who
weighs less than 65 pounds.

Ronald L. Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-7241 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Advertisement