Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 14843 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 

2009. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–7250 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Petition for Waiver of Compliance 

In accordance with Part 211 of Title 

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

notice is hereby given that the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) received 

a request for a waiver of compliance 

with certain requirements of its safety 

standards. The individual petition is 

described below, including the party 

seeking relief, the regulatory provisions 

involved, the nature of the relief being 

requested, and the petitioner’s 

arguments in favor of relief. 

Sunflour Railroad Inc./Denver Rock 

Island Railroad 

[Docket Number FRA–2003–15513] 

The Sunflour Railroad Inc./Denver 

Rock Island Railroad (SNR) of 

Commerce City, Colorado, has 

petitioned for a permanent waiver of 

compliance for one locomotive (SNR 61) 

from the requirements of the Railroad 

Safety Glazing Standards, Title 49 CFR 

Part 223, which require certified glazing 

in all windows. The locomotive is 

equipped with automotive type safety 

glass that is in good condition with no 

discoloration. SNR operates over 26.3 

miles of excepted track in primarily 

rural territory at speeds not exceeding 

10 miles per hour. There has been no 

instances of vandalism from the time 

the original waiver was granted in 2003. 

As stated in their original petition for 

waiver in 2003, SNR states that the 

expense of retrofitting the locomotive to 

comply with FRA Safety Glazing 

Standards would impose an undue 

financial burden on the company to 

protect against situations they do not 

encounter. 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in these proceedings by 

submitting written views, data, or 

comments. FRA does not anticipate 

scheduling a public hearing in 

connection with these proceedings since 

the facts do not appear to warrant a 

hearing. If any interested party desires 

an opportunity for oral comment, they 

should notify FRA, in writing, before 

the end of the comment period and 

specify the basis for their request. 

All communications concerning these 

proceedings should identify the 

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver 

Petition Docket Number FRA–2003– 

15513) and may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Operations Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Communications received within 45 

days of the date of this notice will be 

considered by FRA before final action is 

taken. Comments received after that 

date will be considered as far as 

practicable. All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the 

above facility. All documents in the 

public docket are also available for 

inspection and copying on the Internet 

at the docket facility’s Web site at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of any written 

communications and comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

Issued in Washington, DC on March 26, 

2009. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–7248 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

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. 

14844 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

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 upto-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 NonCommercial 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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 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 

14846 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 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-thecounter, 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 DOTcompliant. 

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 

14848 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

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: 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 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: 

Æ Basic driving techniques, including 

starting, stopping, turning, and basic 

interaction in controlled environments 

in light and moderate traffic; 

Æ Additional driving techniques, 

including balanced vehicle movement 

through steering, braking, and 

accelerating in a precise and timely 

manner; 

Æ 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 decisionmaking and habit-development 

strategies; 

Æ Risk prevention techniques such as 

skid prevention; 

Æ Rules of the road and other State 

laws and local motor vehicle laws and 

ordinances; 

Æ Attitudinal awareness training that 

includes how attitudes can have an 

impact on driving behavior; 

Æ 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; 

Æ Vehicle technology and the benefit 

of braking, traction, intelligent handling, 

and stability systems; 

Æ Critical vehicle systems and subsystems requiring preventive 

maintenance; 

Æ Vehicle and highway features 

(including different vehicle and 

roadway conditions) that: 

› Aid the driver in avoiding crashes; 

› Protect the driver and passengers 

in crashes; and 

› Maximize the care of the injured. 

Æ Signs, signals, and highway 

markings and highway design features 

that require understanding for safe 

operation of motor vehicles; 

Æ Differences in characteristics of 

urban and rural driving including safe 

use of modern expressways; 

Æ 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 

Æ 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 

14850 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

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: 

Æ Ability to operate the class(es) of 

vehicles(s) for which he or she is 

licensed; 

Æ Ability to read and comprehend 

traffic signs and symbols; 

Æ 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 

Æ 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: 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 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 lawrelated 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 

14852 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

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: 

» Provide records rapidly and 

accurately; 

» Provide routine compilations of 

data for management use in the 

decision-making process; 

» Provide data for operational 

planning and execution; 

» 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; 

» Provide for the evidentiary 

integrity of information so as to insure 

its admissibility in subsequent court 

and administrative hearing proceedings; 

and 

» 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 decisionmaking 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 timeconsuming 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.’’ 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 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 vehiclerelated 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 motorvehicle-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 

14854 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

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-todate. 

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 broadbased 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 lawrelated 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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 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 highquality 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 schoolrelated 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 

Æ 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; 

Æ Every person who drives a school 

bus or school-chartered bus occupied by 

school children should, at a minimum: 

14856 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 

• 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 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 nonconforming 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. 

Æ 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 schoolchartered 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 

Æ 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. 

Æ There should be no auxiliary 

seating accommodations such as 

temporary or folding jump seats in 

school buses. 

Æ 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. 

Æ Drivers of school buses and schoolchartered buses should be required to 

wear occupant restraints whenever the 

vehicle is in motion. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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: 

Æ School buses should be maintained 

in safe operating condition through a 

systematic preventive maintenance 

program; 

Æ Regularly scheduled vehicle 

inspections should be conducted as 

specified in accordance with FMCSA 

regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 

396.3; and 

Æ 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Notices 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 multifunction school activity bus in place of 

charter buses where feasible. A multifunction 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 schoolchartered 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0059] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

New Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for 

scoping comments. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

NHTSA plans to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

to analyze the potential environmental 

impacts of the agency’s Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy program for 

passenger automobiles (referred to 

herein as ‘‘passenger cars’’) and 

nonpassenger automobiles (referred to 

herein as ‘‘light trucks’’). The EIS will 

consider the potential environmental 

impacts of new fuel economy standards 

for model year 2012–2016 passenger 

cars and light trucks that NHTSA will 

be proposing pursuant to the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

This notice initiates the NEPA 

scoping process by inviting comments 

from Federal, State, and local agencies, 

Indian Tribes, and the public to help 

identify the environmental issues and 

reasonable alternatives to be examined 

in the EIS. This notice also provides 

guidance for participating in the scoping 

process and additional information 

about the alternatives NHTSA expects to 

consider in its NEPA analysis. 

DATES: The scoping process will 

culminate in the preparation and 

issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be 

made available for public comment. To 

ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity 

to fully consider scoping comments and 

to facilitate NHTSA’s prompt 

preparation of the Draft EIS, scoping 

comments should be received on or 

before May 1, 2009. NHTSA will try to 

consider comments received after that 

date to the extent the rulemaking 

schedule allows. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. Eastern time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket at 202–366– 

9324. 

Note that all comments received, 

including any personal information 

provided, will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, contact Carol HammelSmith, Fuel Economy Division, Office of 

International Vehicle, Fuel Economy 

and Consumer Standards, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

202–366–5206. For legal issues, contact 

Jessica Wilson, Legislation & General 

Law Division, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic