Proposed Guidelines for Impaired Driving Records Information Systems Section 2007(c) Implementing Guidelines, 36877-36884 [06-5844]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 2006 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES its views on the legality of removing the on-off switch. NHTSA notes that the possible remedy a manufacturer may choose to address a particular noncompliance is not a determining factor in NHTSA’s decision on whether that noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. Accordingly, this decision does not address the remedy that Toyota may choose to address this noncompliance. To do so here would be premature. Decision After carefully considering the arguments presented in this matter, NHTSA has decided to deny the appeal. Toyota has presented no new data or information that would cause NHTSA to change its initial decision, and it has not made a persuasive case that the initial denial was incorrect. NHTSA is fully aware (as it was at the time of the initial denial) that the noncompliant vehicles have two LATCH positions in the rear seats. However, that fact does not render the absence of the anchorages in the front seat inconsequential. Regardless of the availability of the LATCH positions in the rear seats, the noncompliance creates a greater risk of improper child restraint installation than would be present if the required anchorages had been installed in the front seat. The fact that anchorages exist in the rear seats does not lessen the risk that one who chooses to install a child restraint, whether rear-facing or forward-facing, in the front seat will do so improperly and may have no bearing on a person’s decision to use the front seat for that purpose. Moreover, the rear seating area dimensions of the subject vehicles dictate that the front seat is the only place available for installation of a rearfacing child restraint system. NHTSA’s regulations permit an air bag on-off switch in these vehicles because the rear seat dimensions cannot accommodate a rear-facing child seat. Accordingly, the rear LATCH positions are irrelevant to the use of rear-facing child restraints since these restraints cannot be installed in the rear seating positions of the subject vehicles. Owners of the subject vehicles wishing to use rear-facing restraints are restricted to the front seat for that purpose. However, given the lack of anchorages in the front seat, the persons installing child restraints and the children occupying those rear-facing restraints are denied the safety advantages that the anchorages would provide in helping to ensure proper installation of the child restraints. FMVSS No. 225 requires that the additional protection afforded by VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Jun 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 anchorages be provided wherever air bag on-off switches are installed, and the absence of those anchorages is consequential to the safety of the small children whose safety depends on proper installation of the child restraint systems in the vehicles in which they ride. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion, either in its initial petition or in its appeal of the denial of that petition, in establishing that the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Toyota’s appeal of NHTSA’s decision on the inconsequential noncompliance petition is hereby denied. This decision constitutes final agency action, and the petitioner has no right to further administrative review of NHTSA’s denial. (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8). Issued on: June 22, 2006. Nicole R. Nason, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6–10179 Filed 6–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA–2006–24872] Proposed Guidelines for Impaired Driving Records Information Systems Section 2007(c) Implementing Guidelines National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed guidelines on impaired driving records information systems. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This notice sets forth proposed guidelines on the types and formats of data that States should collect relating to drivers who are arrested or convicted for violation of laws prohibiting the impaired operation of motor vehicles, as directed by Section 2007(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU). DATES: Written comments may be submitted to this agency and must be received by July 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Proposed Guidelines on Impaired Driving Records Information Systems PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36877 and be submitted to Docket No. NHTSA–2006–24872. For programmatic issues: Ms. De Carlo Ciccel, Highway Safety Specialist, Impaired Driving Division, NTI–111, or Ms. Heidi Coleman, Chief, Impaired Driving Division, NTI–111, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366–1694. For legal issues: Ms. Nygina T. Mills, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC–113, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366–1834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Background Annually, more than a million drivers are arrested for alcohol-impaired driving. While States bear the primary responsibility for enacting and enforcing impaired driving laws and for adjudicating and sanctioning offenses, they sometimes lack the most effective tools to manage their programs. A comprehensive data system containing records of impaired driving arrests and convictions would enable a State to make more effective traffic safety decisions. The ideal system should contain timely, accurate, complete, consistent, integrated, accessible and secure information. The less timely citation data are, the less their utility. Citation data that are not accurate or complete (e.g., misspelled name, incorrect charge) can result in dismissed cases or reduced charges and can complicate linkage to other traffic records system components such as driver license files. Citation data that are not consistent can lead to charges that vary by jurisdiction or by law enforcement agency. Data that are not accessible or that cannot be integrated or linked almost always require more time, effort and resources to process and complete, and can delay or interfere with the adjudication process. Data that are not secure can lead to system-wide failures and data corruption. NHTSA’s experience indicates that a successful Impaired Driving Records Information System requires significant efforts by a State to generate, transmit, store, update, link, manage, analyze, and report information on impaired driving offenders and citations. Such a system should include impaired driving-related information that is collected and managed by the system’s stakeholders. Key system stakeholders include law enforcement agencies, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and the judicial system. A fully E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 36878 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 2006 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES developed electronic Impaired Driving Records Information System is a powerful tool to assist States in developing an effective system of deterrence for impaired driving. In the agency’s latest reauthorization, Congress recognized the need for States to employ more robust impaired driving data systems. Section 2007(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), directs NHTSA to ‘‘issue guidelines to the States specifying the types and formats of data that States should collect relating to drivers who are arrested or convicted for violation of laws prohibiting the impaired operation of motor vehicles.’’ In response to that direction, today’s notice sets forth guidelines in the form of a model system for impaired driving records, based on the results of NHTSA experience in this area. NHTSA’s efforts to date suggest that important statistical and data elements include data covering arrests, case prosecutions, court dispositions and sanctions, and that it is critical to provide for the linkage of such data and traffic records systems to appropriate jurisdictions and offices within the State. NHTSA’s Experience: Impaired Driving Data Systems In 1997, NHTSA published ‘‘Driving While Intoxicated Tracking Systems’’ (DOT HS 808 520). This report laid the foundation for building a comprehensive tracking system for driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenses. An effective DWI Tracking System was defined as one that: (1) Effectively manages DWI information from arrest through sanction completion and/or license reinstatement; (2) adequately gauges DWI trends and the effectiveness of a wide range of education, information, legislation, and other countermeasures and targeted reduction programs; (3) provides key decision makers (law enforcement, DMV, prosecutors, judges, etc.) with adequate and timely information to allow equitable imposition of charges and penalties; and (4) reduces the administrative burden on system stakeholders and improves efficiency while increasing the punitive nature of State laws and processes. Specific DWI Tracking System types in use effectively by States include case management systems, statistical systems and hybrid systems. The 1997 report recognized the importance of various key stakeholders to the success of the system. The judicial system was assumed to encompass the various parties involved in the prosecution and adjudication of VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 Jun 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 impaired driving cases, including judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and, in some States, probation officials. Other identified key stakeholders included treatment agencies, departments of correction, departments of criminal justice, legislatures, advocacy groups, and the State Highway Safety Offices. Since each State is unique in its governmental structure and strategies, the report concluded that a single DWI tracking system design that would meet the needs of all States could not be developed. However, the report provided a framework for an effective core system, described the key system characteristics, discussed the criticality of DWI tracking, and laid the foundation for developing an effective DWI Tracking System. Since 1997, most States have worked to develop specific components of a DWI Tracking System, often with very little exchange or interaction between system components. Consequently, most States still lack a comprehensive system to identify, adjudicate, prosecute, and track incidences involving alcoholimpaired and/or other drug-impaired drivers. In 2001, in collaboration with State and federal agencies, NHTSA expanded the framework of a DWI Tracking System to a more comprehensive impaired driving records information system. This expanded system, known as the Model Impaired Driving Records Information System, enabled a State to perform the following functions: • Appropriately charge and sentence offenders, based on their driving history; • Manage impaired driving cases from arrest through the completion of court and administrative sanctions; • Identify populations and trends, evaluate countermeasures and identify problematic components of the overall impaired driving control system; • Provide stakeholders with adequate and timely information to fulfill their responsibilities; and • Reduce administrative costs for system stakeholders and increase system efficiencies. In 2002, NHTSA solicited participation in a Model Impaired Driving Records Information System that provided immediate electronic access to driver history and vehicle information, electronic collection of data, electronic transmission of data between key stakeholders, and on-line access to complete, accurate, and timely information on impaired driving cases. 67 FR 40381 (June 12, 2002). With this system, States could begin to use the model requirements and data elements PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 as a collective resource and thereby curb the installation of costly and duplicative record systems. The system ideally provides full access to all key stakeholders and addresses each stakeholder’s needs. The system also tracks each impaired driving offense and offender administratively and through the judicial system, from arrest through dismissal or sentence completion, and provides aggregate data (e.g., number of arrests, convictions, blood alcohol concentration (BAC) distribution, and offender demographics) to better manage a State’s impaired driving program. States participating in this ongoing demonstration project include Alabama, Connecticut (added in 2004), Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. These States have implemented the use of real-time data to plan and better manage their impaired driving programs. NHTSA plans to make the results of these States’ experiences available in 2007 to assist other States to improve impaired driving records information systems. These States’ success stories prove that using real-time data systems can not only be successfully accomplished, but that various obstacles to implementation can be overcome. Based on the agency’s experience and efforts described above, NHTSA has developed a framework for an effective data system containing records of impaired driving arrests and convictions. In response to the requirement in SAFETEA–LU to issue guidelines to assist the States in the types and formats of data to collect concerning impaired driving arrests and convictions, the agency proposes the following model system. Comments Interested persons are invited to comment on these proposed guidelines. It is requested, but not required, that two copies be submitted. You may submit your comments by one of the following methods: (1) By mail to: Docket Management Facility, Docket No. NHTSA–2006– 24872, DOT, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590; (2) By hand delivery to: Room PL–401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday; (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at (202) 493–2251; or (4) By electronic submission: Log onto the DMS Web site at http://dms.dot.gov and click on ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions. E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 2006 / Notices All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date will be considered. However, the action may proceed at any time after that date. The agency will continue to file relevant material in the docket as it becomes available after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material. You may review submitted comments in person at the Docket Management Facility located at Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. You may also review submitted comments on the Internet by taking the following steps: (1) Go to the DMS Web page at http:// dms.dot.gov. (2) On that page, click on ‘‘Simple Search.’’ (3) On the next page (http:// dms.dot.gov/search/ searchFormSimple.cfm) type in the digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were ‘‘NHTSA–2001–12345,’’ you would type ‘‘12345.’’ After typing the docket number, click on ‘‘search.’’ (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the ‘‘pdf’’ versions of the document are word searchable. Those persons who wish to be notified upon receipt of their comments in the docket should enclose, in the envelope with their comments, a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Model Impaired Driving Records Information System Introduction The Model Impaired Driving Records Information System supports several important functions. It should: • Track each impaired driving offender from arrest through dismissal or sentence completion; • Provide aggregate impaired driving data; • Conform to national standards and system performance standards; • Provide accurate, complete, timely, and reliable data; and • Contain quality control and security features that prevent core and essential data elements and/or driving records from becoming corrupted or compromised. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 Jun 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 States vary widely in their organizational structure. States vary, for example, in the structure of their court systems and their executive functions related to public safety, driver licensing, public health, substance abuse, and criminal justice. Also, there are substantial differences in State laws concerning impaired driving, access to public records, acceptance of electronic signatures on charging documents, and many other areas. Therefore, some States may need to make adjustments to the model for conformance with their particular structures and systems. Specific Features The Model Impaired Driving Records Information System should have the following specific features: • Statewide coverage (DMV, all courts adjudicating impaired driving cases, all law enforcement agencies); • Electronic access by law enforcement officers and courts to current information on license history and status; vehicle registration status, applicable criminal history, and outstanding warrants; • An electronic citation system that is used by officers at the roadside and/or at the police station and that supports the use of bar codes, magnetic striping, or other technologies to automatically capture driver license and registration information on the citation and other standard legal forms, such as an implied consent form; • A citation tracking system that accepts electronic citation data (and other standard legal forms) from law enforcement agencies, provides realtime tracking and accountability from the distribution of citation forms to issuance by police officers, through the final court adjudication, and the imposition and completion of court and administrative sanctions, provides access by offender and by citation number or other unique identifier, and allows on-line access by stakeholders; • Electronic transmission of data from law enforcement agencies and the courts to the driver license system to permit immediate and automatic imposition of administrative sanctions, if applicable, and recording of convictions on the driver license; • Electronic reporting to courts and DMVs by probation, treatment, or correctional agencies, as applicable, with regard to compliance or noncompliance with court or administrative sanctions; • Linkage of information from the incident/case-based tracking system and the offender-based DMV license, treatment, and probation systems to PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36879 develop a complete record for each offender, including driver history; • Timely access by all stakeholders, including the State Highway Safety Office, to periodic statistical reports needed to support agency operations and to manage the impaired driving control system, identify trends, and support problem identification, policy development, and evaluation of countermeasures; • Flexibility to include additional data and technological innovations; and • Conformity with national standards developed by, for example, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Core Data Definitions The core set of data available in the Model Impaired Driving Records Information System includes data generated as a result of an impaired driving arrest and the movement of the case through the system as well as data obtained from existing databases or created by linking existing data elements. Specific data elements should conform to national standards developed by AAMVA and others. Subject to State and federal laws and policies regarding access to data and privacy restrictions, the core data available to (but not necessarily accessed by) the courts, DMV, and law enforcement agencies are listed below. The following data should be obtained from existing databases: • Driver identifying information, including name, address, driver license number and State, date of birth, physical characteristics (race, gender, height, eye color, weight); • Driver license class and endorsements, status (e.g., suspended, hardship license, cancelled), restrictions; • Vehicle license plate number and State of registration, status (e.g., registered, impounded, stolen), Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), DOT motor carrier identification number for commercial vehicles; • Relevant criminal history; • Outstanding warrants and other administrative actions; • In accordance with the State’s policies for posting and retaining information on the driver record, offender’s history of prior non-impaired driving traffic convictions and associated penalties, impaired driving convictions and/or pre-conviction administrative actions and associated penalties, crashes, current accumulated license penalty points, administrative license actions; and E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 36880 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 2006 / Notices • Outstanding citations or arrests. The following data should be generated at the time of the impaired driving arrest and at subsequent points throughout the adjudication and sanctioning stages: • Arrest/citation information: Æ Citation number(s); Æ Date; Æ Time of day; Æ Roadway location and jurisdiction; Æ Arresting office, Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) identifier; Æ Violation(s) charged; Æ Crash involvement, severity, number of passengers; Æ Alcohol test result: Refusal, Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC), missing; Æ Drug test result: Refusal, drugs detected, missing; Æ Results of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and other field tests, as applicable. • Pre-conviction administrative license and vehicle penalties imposed: Æ Type of sanction; Æ Date imposed; Æ Length of sanction. • Prosecution/adjudication data: Æ Court case identifier; Æ Date of arraignment; Æ Identifiers for court, judge, jurisdiction; Æ Date of disposition; Æ Completion or non-completion of pre-conviction or pre-sentence deferral program (e.g., court defers sentencing or conviction pending offender’s completion of alcohol treatment program and/or other conditions); Æ Final court disposition (e.g., dismissed, acquitted, plea to reduced charge (specified), convicted of original charge after trial, diversion program, adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, pending); Æ Court penalties imposed, including length of jail sentence, house arrest, electronic home monitoring, plate impoundment, ignition interlock device; dollar amount of fines and fees; length and terms of probation; substance abuse assessment/treatment sentence; hours of community service; amount of restitution to victims; vehicle forfeiture; length of license revocation or suspension; other; Æ Probation report and/or presentence assessment information, if available by law. • Subsequent violations, including driving while suspended/revoked, during license suspension period and resulting penalties; • Completion of treatment/ assessment (start and finish dates); • Completion/non-completion of court and/or administrative sanctions, including amounts of fines and fees VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 Jun 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 collected; terms of jail time, license suspension or revocation, vehicle or plate impoundment/forfeiture, community service, ignition interlock; other; • Penalties for failure to complete court and/or administrative sanctions or violations of probation, including license suspensions/revocations; • Whether license was reinstated and if so, date of reinstatement. Data Entry, Storage, and Transmission Although treatment agencies and other stakeholders provide important data to the system, the timely collection and transmission of data by the courts, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), and Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) are of primary importance. Each of these agencies should generate and transmit data electronically. In States where data on alcohol and drug tests are collected and managed by a fourth agency, it is imperative that these data also are generated and transmitted electronically. Other types of data obtained from other agencies, such as treatment agencies, also should be transmitted electronically. The software for generating court records and citations should have extensive edits and menu pull-downs to minimize data entry errors. When used correctly, the software should ensure that data entry is virtually error-free. The electronic citation software should provide for the automatic population of the citation form and any other related arrest forms with information from the driver license and vehicle registration. This may be accomplished through several mechanisms, including the use of bar codes or magnetic striping or by accessing the driver license file online from a mobile computer in the patrol vehicle or station. The court and DMV systems should have built-in audits that periodically check a sample of records for the timeliness of the receipt of the data and the accuracy and completeness of the records. Ideally, each component of the system should provide real-time, on-line access to stakeholders and realtime, immediate transmission of data. Electronic capture, retrieval, and data transmission provides for timeliness and consistency in data. Also, electronic system edits ensure more accurate and reliable data. Law enforcement officers and courts should have immediate (or nearequivalent) access to current driver license and registration records and criminal history records. The immediate access to driver license and registration information may be accomplished in various ways, including the use of palm pilots or on-line access to the driver PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 license file through a mobile computer in the vehicle or at the station. If allowed by State law and policy, officers and courts should be able to correct or update a limited number of specified fields in the driver record. For example, a driver’s address may be incorrect on the driver license record because the driver changed residence but failed to notify DMV. Specific Major Stakeholder Data Requirements While various stakeholders are important to the success of the Model system, NHTSA’s experience has shown that key system stakeholders include LEAs, DMVs and the courts. Law Enforcement Agencies. The electronic issuance of citations and other standardized forms (e.g., alcohol or drug test form) should occur at the point of arrest, either at the roadside or at the station, depending on local and State laws and policies. Immediately, or no later than 48 hours after the issuance of the citation, the citation record should be transmitted electronically to the courts and the DMV (if the State imposes pre-conviction administrative license or vehicle sanctions) and integrated into the court and DMV computer systems. The electronic transmission of data can occur in several ways, for example, by wireless transfer via low-energy waves of cellular/digital networks, by downloading the data to a disk and transmitting via the Internet from a desktop computer connected to a landline, or online from a mobile computer in the vehicle. The data may go directly to the courts or be routed through data centers located throughout a State. The results of drug tests and alcohol tests, when based on a blood sample, will not be available at the time of the arrest and must be provided at a later date. An interface with unique identifiers allows for seamless electronic transfer of test results to the appropriate offender, which ultimately improves system efficiencies and significantly reduces errors. Courts. Many, if not most, courts use case management software to track cases and support administrative functions (e.g., scheduling court appearances and assigning cases). Traffic Court Case Management Systems Functional Requirement Standards are obtainable from the National Center for State Courts Technology Services at http:// www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/ standards/. Electronic citation information transmitted by Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) may interface directly with a court database E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 2006 / Notices or be sent via an interim data warehouse or gateway to which data are sent and then retrieved by courts and other authorized parties (e.g., prosecutors, defense attorneys). After any necessary translation of the record layout, the electronic citation becomes part of the court’s electronic case record and the court’s case management system LEAs, the DMV, prosecutors, and other key stakeholders should have online access to query the court system about the status of a particular case or a set of cases (e.g., citations issued by an LEA in the past month). In States where only one violation is placed on a citation form, the system should allow for accessing all citations issued to an offender in a particular incident. The information needed by the DMV (e.g., notice of conviction or completion of arraignment, prompting administrative license or vehicle sanctions) should be transmitted electronically by the courts immediately, or no later than 48 hours after the action (e.g., conviction or arraignment). This transmission may occur through a variety of mechanisms, for example, via the Internet with the DMV accessing a mailbox on a court Web site and downloading relevant files or via the Internet directly from the court to the DMV. Programming by the courts or the DMVs may be needed to translate court records into a form that can be integrated with DMV records. DMV. Driver license and vehicle records that are easily understood should be available electronically to the courts, LEAs, and other authorized stakeholders. The driver license and vehicle registration systems should be adapted as necessary to receive information electronically from the courts and LEAs, if applicable. Data received from the courts or LEAs should be integrated into the DMV data bases immediately, or no later than 24 hours after receipt of data. The licensing and vehicle registration computer systems should be programmed so that administrative and court-ordered sanctions are triggered automatically when the information is received from the courts or LEAs. Information needed by treatment agencies, probation offices, and other agencies involved in sanctioning offenders should be provided electronically by the DMV to the extent practicable. In turn, these agencies should report electronically to the DMV about the completion of sanction. The DMV also should develop protocols with the courts to ensure that information related to the failure to complete sanctions and corrections to VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 Jun 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 court records identified by the DMV are transmitted back to the courts. Statistical Report Capabilities A Model Impaired Driving Records Information System enables organizational stakeholders, including the State Highway Safety Office, the State legislature, NHTSA, and others, to obtain periodic and special statistical reports on impaired driving activities within the State. Standardized statistical reports should be periodically generated, and the stakeholders and other authorized system users should be able to obtain simple sets of statistical data on an ad hoc basis through a userfriendly protocol, to the extent that State laws permit. In States where some of the relevant records are sealed to protect personal privacy, the system should permit such records to be included in aggregate summaries. States vary widely in their definitions of first and repeat impaired driving offenses, both in terms of the look-back period of years and in terms of the offenses that qualify as a prior offense. In some States, for example, a refusal to submit to the alcohol test would count as a prior offense. In generating statistics related to first and repeat offenses, data should be generated using the State’s definition of a repeat offense. Current and historical aggregated data should be available, and the data should be available on a statewide basis, by jurisdiction, or for specific courts or LEAs, as applicable. Aggregate numbers and rates (e.g., alcohol test refusals per person arrested), as applicable, should be provided for the following first and subsequent offenses, to the extent that State laws permit: • Impaired driving arrest events (including multiple-charge events) by charge; • All types of final court dispositions, for example, conviction on original charge, conviction on reduced charge (specified), acquittal, dismissal, adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, pending, failure to appear in court; • Trials by charge and disposition; • Location of arrests, e.g., roadway segment, jurisdiction; • Alcohol test refusals and BAC results for tests administered; • Drug test refusals and results for tests administered; • Age and gender of persons arrested and convicted; • All types of court penalties imposed; • All types of administrative penalties imposed by the DMV, for example, pre-conviction driver license PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36881 suspension, pre-conviction license plate impoundment; • Sentence or adjudication diversions/deferrals, if applicable; • Referrals to treatment by first and repeat offender; • Completion/non-completion of treatment; • License reinstatements; • Sentence completions/noncompletions, for example, paid and unpaid fines, jail time served/not served, and community service completed/not completed; • Average time from arrest to first court appearance, to conviction, and to sentencing statewide by charge; • Outstanding warrants issued and other administrative actions; and • Subsequent violations, including driving while suspended/revoked, and resulting penalties during license suspension period. The generation of much of these data draws from and links information stored in various stakeholders’ systems. Depending on a State’s laws for charging violations, deriving a particular measure (e.g. second offenders) may necessitate linking data from a case-based records system (e.g., court system) with data from a driver-based records system (e.g., DMV system). The priority for each of the three key stakeholders (LEAs, courts, DMV) is necessarily developing a data system to support its operations and responsibilities. Thus, it is unlikely that any of these stakeholders currently has or will develop a computer system with the capability to generate these kinds of linked data, unless this is a statutory responsibility of the organization. Data Warehouse What will typically be required is a data warehouse, or its equivalent, with a database drawing from the various stakeholder data systems, with the capability to link these data and generate standardized periodic statistical reports, and with userfriendly access to stakeholders. A single agency should have the responsibility for developing and maintaining this data warehouse, based on the mutual agreement of the key stakeholders. It may be one of the key stakeholders— most likely the DMV—or it may be another organization, such as the highway safety office, a university, a legislative research division, or a criminal justice organization. Each stakeholder should have a secure means of access to the information, for example, through a secure ‘‘mailbox.’’ The centralized data repository may be a single database, procedures for assimilating data, or a networked E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 36882 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 2006 / Notices distributed database with access gateways. The data warehouse does not replace the need for each stakeholder to maintain its own data records system. Nor does it eliminate the need for each stakeholder’s system to be accessible online for basic queries by other stakeholders, since only selected data would be extracted from each stakeholder’s system. In addition, for the data warehouse function to operate most effectively, it should be viewed as serving an end in itself (that is, the generation of statistical information cutting across agencies and across the different stages of the impaired driving process), rather than as an adjunct to a stakeholder system designed for a different, albeit related, purpose. Guidelines for Implementation jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES States should assess their own circumstances as they conform their DWI tracking systems to the Model System. These circumstances include the complexity of the State’s impaired driving law, the amount and types of resources needed to purchase hardware and software and to obtain programming support, the telecommunications infrastructure in the State to support roadside access to DMV driver records and to move data electronically among stakeholders, the computer network for the transmission of data among stakeholders, the degree of uniformity with regard to procedures and policies within organizations and jurisdictions, and intra-organizational and interorganizational issues such as territorial concerns, poorly defined roles and responsibilities, and lack of agreement on priorities, problems, or solutions within the State. States may need to address particular obstacles or accommodate certain critical factors in conforming to the model system. For example, depending on geography and size, the impaired driving stakeholders may not have the ability or the resources to upgrade an inadequate telecommunications infrastructure. The selected system must VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 Jun 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 be capable of functioning within this environment. In addition to problematic telecommunications infrastructure, a State’s ability to implement improvements to existing system components is hampered by complicated impaired driving laws (e.g., tiered BAC systems, different levels of offenses adjudicated by different courts, complex mixes of administrative and court sanctions), a non-unified court system, the lack of a uniform traffic citation, paper-based and antiquated mainframe systems within the stakeholder agencies, and budget constraints. In order to attempt full conformity with the Model System, States should undertake the following steps: • Under the auspices of the State’s Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, form a subcommittee or task force charged with overseeing the development and implementation of the system, including the courts (judges, prosecutors, and probation, if applicable), the DMV, the State police and local LEA representatives, treatment, the highway safety office, and other important stakeholders; • Designate a single lead agency for developing and implementing the system; • Establish a mechanism for working with the State’s information and technology offices to plan and implement the system, including writing software and hardware specifications, selecting vendors, etc.; • Develop a shared understanding of stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities; • Develop a detailed impaired driving critical path. This critical path describes the step-by-step procedures related to an impaired driving offense, beginning with the citation, continuing through adjudication (administrative and judicial), and ending when the disposition is posted to the driver file (see diagram below). • Conduct a detailed assessment of current systems to collect, manage, and analyze impaired driving data, in comparison with the model system. (An appropriate assessment of the current PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 systems in comparison with the model system should inventory the current stock of hardware and software to identify the needs of courts, LEAs, the DMV, and other key stakeholders, relate the current systems to the detailed impaired driving critical path, identify deficiencies and steps needed to conform to the specific features noted in the ‘‘Specific Features of the Model System’’ section of these guidelines, examine the compatibility of existing record formats, processes, hardware, software, etc., and evaluate the State’s compliance with national standards, for example, standards for electronicallyreadable driver licenses); • Standardize processes, procedures, forms, terminology, and data elements among stakeholders and jurisdictions; • Develop a detailed, step-by-step, long-range plan (including funding levels) for implementing and maintaining the resulting system, training personnel in affected agencies, system upgrades, and obtaining buy-in from the primary stakeholders; • Develop a formal interagency cooperative agreement to implement the plan, detailing the responsibilities of the agencies and potential sources of shortterm and long-term funding; • Identify statutory, regulatory, or procedural changes needed to implement the system; consider simplification of regulations or laws; • Establish protocols for authorizing system users and procedures to protect personal privacy rights and the security of the system; • Identify sources of funding; consider the use of dedicated fees or fines; • Consider working with other States to take advantage of economies of scale and to minimize duplicative efforts; and • Formulate a plan to ‘‘sell’’ the importance of the system to the public, advocacy groups, and State policymakers and enlist their support for implementation of improved impaired driving records information system components and related systems. E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 Jun 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1 36883 EN28JN06.008</GPH> jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 2006 / Notices 36884 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 28, 2006 / Notices Issued on: June 23, 2006. Brian McLaughlin, Senior Associate Administrator for Traffic Injury Control. [FR Doc. 06–5844 Filed 6–27–06; 8:45 am] 0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Kelvin J. Dowd, Slover & Loftus, 1224 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http:// www.stb.dot.gov. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 34899] NC Railroad, Inc.—Lease and Operation Exemption—Rail Lines of Tennessee Railway Company BILLING CODE 4915–01–P jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES NC Railroad, Inc. (NCR), a Class III rail carrier,1 has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 2 to lease and operate approximately one mile of track from Tennessee Railway Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Norfolk Southern Railway Company. The line runs between milepost TE– 0.144 and milepost TE–0.95 at Oneida, TN. NCR certifies that its projected revenues as a result of the transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier. NCR also certifies that its projected annual operating revenues will not exceed $5 million. The transaction was originally scheduled to be consummated on June 20, 2006, but NCR’s amendment created a new filing date for its notice of exemption. Accordingly, the earliest the parties could consummate the transaction was June 22, 2006, 7 days after the exemption was filed, as NCR has acknowledged. If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34899, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423– 1 NCR became a rail carrier when it acquired 42 miles of rail line between Oneida and Devonia, TN, pursuant to the offer of financial assistance procedures at 49 U.S.C. 10904. See Tennessee Railway Company—Abandonment Exemption—In Scott County, TN, et al., STB Docket No. AB–290 (Sub-No. 260X) et al. (STB served Mar. 3, 2006). 2 On June 13, 2006, NCR mistakenly filed its notice of exemption under the class exemption for noncarriers at 49 CFR 1150.31. On June 15, 2006, NCR filed an amended notice invoking the correct class exemption at 49 CFR 1150.41. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:52 Jun 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 Decided: June 21, 2006. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–10180 Filed 6–27–06; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. (202) 395–7316. Michael A. Robinson, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6–10193 Filed 6–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–35–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Open Meeting of the Small Business/ Self Employed-Taxpayer Burden Reduction Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: June 22, 2006. ACTION: The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 28, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Financial Management Service OMB Number: 1510–0043. Type of Review: Extension. Title: Notice of Reclamation and Debit Request for Recurring Benefit Payments. Form: FMS 133 and 135. Description: A program agency authorizes Treasury to recover payments that have been issued after the death of the beneficiary. FMS Form 133 is used to notify the FI. If the FI does not respond to the 133, a debit request Form 135 is sent to the FRB. Respondents: Business or other forprofit. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 79,335 hours. Clearance Officer: Jiovannah Diggs, Financial Management Service, Room 144, 3700 East West Highway, Hyattsville, MD 20782. (202) 874–7662. OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, Office of Management and Budget, PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Cancellation notice. SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed-Taxpayer Burden Reduction Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel has been cancelled (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. The meeting that was scheduled Tuesday, July 11, 2006 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET has been cancelled. DATES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisa Knispel at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3557. Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed-Taxpayer Burden Reduction Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel was cancelled for Tuesday, July 11, 2006, for 3:30 p.m. ET via a telephone conference call as published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2006. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3557 or write Marisa Knispel, TAP Office, 10 Metro Tech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. You may also post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: June 21, 2006. John Fay, Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. [FR Doc. E6–10130 Filed 6–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36877-36884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5844]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[NHTSA-2006-24872]


Proposed Guidelines for Impaired Driving Records Information 
Systems Section 2007(c) Implementing Guidelines

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed guidelines on impaired driving records 
information systems.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth proposed guidelines on the types and 
formats of data that States should collect relating to drivers who are 
arrested or convicted for violation of laws prohibiting the impaired 
operation of motor vehicles, as directed by Section 2007(c) of the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

DATES: Written comments may be submitted to this agency and must be 
received by July 28, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Proposed Guidelines on Impaired 
Driving Records Information Systems and be submitted to Docket No. 
NHTSA-2006-24872.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For programmatic issues: Ms. De Carlo 
Ciccel, Highway Safety Specialist, Impaired Driving Division, NTI-111, 
or Ms. Heidi Coleman, Chief, Impaired Driving Division, NTI-111, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1694. For legal issues: 
Ms. Nygina T. Mills, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-113, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Telephone (202) 366-1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Annually, more than a million drivers are arrested for alcohol-
impaired driving. While States bear the primary responsibility for 
enacting and enforcing impaired driving laws and for adjudicating and 
sanctioning offenses, they sometimes lack the most effective tools to 
manage their programs. A comprehensive data system containing records 
of impaired driving arrests and convictions would enable a State to 
make more effective traffic safety decisions. The ideal system should 
contain timely, accurate, complete, consistent, integrated, accessible 
and secure information. The less timely citation data are, the less 
their utility. Citation data that are not accurate or complete (e.g., 
misspelled name, incorrect charge) can result in dismissed cases or 
reduced charges and can complicate linkage to other traffic records 
system components such as driver license files. Citation data that are 
not consistent can lead to charges that vary by jurisdiction or by law 
enforcement agency. Data that are not accessible or that cannot be 
integrated or linked almost always require more time, effort and 
resources to process and complete, and can delay or interfere with the 
adjudication process. Data that are not secure can lead to system-wide 
failures and data corruption.
    NHTSA's experience indicates that a successful Impaired Driving 
Records Information System requires significant efforts by a State to 
generate, transmit, store, update, link, manage, analyze, and report 
information on impaired driving offenders and citations. Such a system 
should include impaired driving-related information that is collected 
and managed by the system's stakeholders. Key system stakeholders 
include law enforcement agencies, the Department of Motor Vehicles 
(DMV), and the judicial system. A fully

[[Page 36878]]

developed electronic Impaired Driving Records Information System is a 
powerful tool to assist States in developing an effective system of 
deterrence for impaired driving.
    In the agency's latest reauthorization, Congress recognized the 
need for States to employ more robust impaired driving data systems. 
Section 2007(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), directs 
NHTSA to ``issue guidelines to the States specifying the types and 
formats of data that States should collect relating to drivers who are 
arrested or convicted for violation of laws prohibiting the impaired 
operation of motor vehicles.'' In response to that direction, today's 
notice sets forth guidelines in the form of a model system for impaired 
driving records, based on the results of NHTSA experience in this area. 
NHTSA's efforts to date suggest that important statistical and data 
elements include data covering arrests, case prosecutions, court 
dispositions and sanctions, and that it is critical to provide for the 
linkage of such data and traffic records systems to appropriate 
jurisdictions and offices within the State.

NHTSA's Experience: Impaired Driving Data Systems

    In 1997, NHTSA published ``Driving While Intoxicated Tracking 
Systems'' (DOT HS 808 520). This report laid the foundation for 
building a comprehensive tracking system for driving while intoxicated 
(DWI) offenses. An effective DWI Tracking System was defined as one 
that: (1) Effectively manages DWI information from arrest through 
sanction completion and/or license reinstatement; (2) adequately gauges 
DWI trends and the effectiveness of a wide range of education, 
information, legislation, and other countermeasures and targeted 
reduction programs; (3) provides key decision makers (law enforcement, 
DMV, prosecutors, judges, etc.) with adequate and timely information to 
allow equitable imposition of charges and penalties; and (4) reduces 
the administrative burden on system stakeholders and improves 
efficiency while increasing the punitive nature of State laws and 
processes. Specific DWI Tracking System types in use effectively by 
States include case management systems, statistical systems and hybrid 
systems.
    The 1997 report recognized the importance of various key 
stakeholders to the success of the system. The judicial system was 
assumed to encompass the various parties involved in the prosecution 
and adjudication of impaired driving cases, including judges, 
prosecutors, public defenders, and, in some States, probation 
officials. Other identified key stakeholders included treatment 
agencies, departments of correction, departments of criminal justice, 
legislatures, advocacy groups, and the State Highway Safety Offices.
    Since each State is unique in its governmental structure and 
strategies, the report concluded that a single DWI tracking system 
design that would meet the needs of all States could not be developed. 
However, the report provided a framework for an effective core system, 
described the key system characteristics, discussed the criticality of 
DWI tracking, and laid the foundation for developing an effective DWI 
Tracking System.
    Since 1997, most States have worked to develop specific components 
of a DWI Tracking System, often with very little exchange or 
interaction between system components. Consequently, most States still 
lack a comprehensive system to identify, adjudicate, prosecute, and 
track incidences involving alcohol-impaired and/or other drug-impaired 
drivers.
    In 2001, in collaboration with State and federal agencies, NHTSA 
expanded the framework of a DWI Tracking System to a more comprehensive 
impaired driving records information system. This expanded system, 
known as the Model Impaired Driving Records Information System, enabled 
a State to perform the following functions:
     Appropriately charge and sentence offenders, based on 
their driving history;
     Manage impaired driving cases from arrest through the 
completion of court and administrative sanctions;
     Identify populations and trends, evaluate countermeasures 
and identify problematic components of the overall impaired driving 
control system;
     Provide stakeholders with adequate and timely information 
to fulfill their responsibilities; and
     Reduce administrative costs for system stakeholders and 
increase system efficiencies.
    In 2002, NHTSA solicited participation in a Model Impaired Driving 
Records Information System that provided immediate electronic access to 
driver history and vehicle information, electronic collection of data, 
electronic transmission of data between key stakeholders, and on-line 
access to complete, accurate, and timely information on impaired 
driving cases. 67 FR 40381 (June 12, 2002). With this system, States 
could begin to use the model requirements and data elements as a 
collective resource and thereby curb the installation of costly and 
duplicative record systems. The system ideally provides full access to 
all key stakeholders and addresses each stakeholder's needs. The system 
also tracks each impaired driving offense and offender administratively 
and through the judicial system, from arrest through dismissal or 
sentence completion, and provides aggregate data (e.g., number of 
arrests, convictions, blood alcohol concentration (BAC) distribution, 
and offender demographics) to better manage a State's impaired driving 
program.
    States participating in this ongoing demonstration project include 
Alabama, Connecticut (added in 2004), Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. 
These States have implemented the use of real-time data to plan and 
better manage their impaired driving programs. NHTSA plans to make the 
results of these States' experiences available in 2007 to assist other 
States to improve impaired driving records information systems. These 
States' success stories prove that using real-time data systems can not 
only be successfully accomplished, but that various obstacles to 
implementation can be overcome.
    Based on the agency's experience and efforts described above, NHTSA 
has developed a framework for an effective data system containing 
records of impaired driving arrests and convictions. In response to the 
requirement in SAFETEA-LU to issue guidelines to assist the States in 
the types and formats of data to collect concerning impaired driving 
arrests and convictions, the agency proposes the following model 
system.

Comments

    Interested persons are invited to comment on these proposed 
guidelines. It is requested, but not required, that two copies be 
submitted. You may submit your comments by one of the following 
methods:
    (1) By mail to: Docket Management Facility, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-
24872, DOT, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590;
    (2) By hand delivery to: Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday;
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at (202) 493-2251; or
    (4) By electronic submission: Log onto the DMS Web site at http://
dms.dot.gov and click on ``Help'' to obtain instructions.

[[Page 36879]]

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date will be considered. However, the action may proceed at any 
time after that date. The agency will continue to file relevant 
material in the docket as it becomes available after the closing date, 
and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine the 
docket for new material.
    You may review submitted comments in person at the Docket 
Management Facility located at Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. You may also review submitted 
comments on the Internet by taking the following steps:
    (1) Go to the DMS Web page at http://dms.dot.gov.
    (2) On that page, click on ``Simple Search.''
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/
searchFormSimple.cfm) type in the digit docket number shown at the 
beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-
2001-12345,'' you would type ``12345.'' After typing the docket number, 
click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
document are word searchable.
    Those persons who wish to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the docket should enclose, in the envelope with their 
comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

Model Impaired Driving Records Information System

Introduction

    The Model Impaired Driving Records Information System supports 
several important functions. It should:
     Track each impaired driving offender from arrest through 
dismissal or sentence completion;
     Provide aggregate impaired driving data;
     Conform to national standards and system performance 
standards;
     Provide accurate, complete, timely, and reliable data; and
     Contain quality control and security features that prevent 
core and essential data elements and/or driving records from becoming 
corrupted or compromised.
    States vary widely in their organizational structure. States vary, 
for example, in the structure of their court systems and their 
executive functions related to public safety, driver licensing, public 
health, substance abuse, and criminal justice. Also, there are 
substantial differences in State laws concerning impaired driving, 
access to public records, acceptance of electronic signatures on 
charging documents, and many other areas. Therefore, some States may 
need to make adjustments to the model for conformance with their 
particular structures and systems.

Specific Features

    The Model Impaired Driving Records Information System should have 
the following specific features:
     Statewide coverage (DMV, all courts adjudicating impaired 
driving cases, all law enforcement agencies);
     Electronic access by law enforcement officers and courts 
to current information on license history and status; vehicle 
registration status, applicable criminal history, and outstanding 
warrants;
     An electronic citation system that is used by officers at 
the roadside and/or at the police station and that supports the use of 
bar codes, magnetic striping, or other technologies to automatically 
capture driver license and registration information on the citation and 
other standard legal forms, such as an implied consent form;
     A citation tracking system that accepts electronic 
citation data (and other standard legal forms) from law enforcement 
agencies, provides real-time tracking and accountability from the 
distribution of citation forms to issuance by police officers, through 
the final court adjudication, and the imposition and completion of 
court and administrative sanctions, provides access by offender and by 
citation number or other unique identifier, and allows on-line access 
by stakeholders;
     Electronic transmission of data from law enforcement 
agencies and the courts to the driver license system to permit 
immediate and automatic imposition of administrative sanctions, if 
applicable, and recording of convictions on the driver license;
     Electronic reporting to courts and DMVs by probation, 
treatment, or correctional agencies, as applicable, with regard to 
compliance or non-compliance with court or administrative sanctions;
     Linkage of information from the incident/case-based 
tracking system and the offender-based DMV license, treatment, and 
probation systems to develop a complete record for each offender, 
including driver history;
     Timely access by all stakeholders, including the State 
Highway Safety Office, to periodic statistical reports needed to 
support agency operations and to manage the impaired driving control 
system, identify trends, and support problem identification, policy 
development, and evaluation of countermeasures;
     Flexibility to include additional data and technological 
innovations; and
     Conformity with national standards developed by, for 
example, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 
(AAMVA) and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).

Core Data Definitions

    The core set of data available in the Model Impaired Driving 
Records Information System includes data generated as a result of an 
impaired driving arrest and the movement of the case through the system 
as well as data obtained from existing databases or created by linking 
existing data elements. Specific data elements should conform to 
national standards developed by AAMVA and others. Subject to State and 
federal laws and policies regarding access to data and privacy 
restrictions, the core data available to (but not necessarily accessed 
by) the courts, DMV, and law enforcement agencies are listed below.
    The following data should be obtained from existing databases:
     Driver identifying information, including name, address, 
driver license number and State, date of birth, physical 
characteristics (race, gender, height, eye color, weight);
     Driver license class and endorsements, status (e.g., 
suspended, hardship license, cancelled), restrictions;
     Vehicle license plate number and State of registration, 
status (e.g., registered, impounded, stolen), Vehicle Identification 
Number (VIN), DOT motor carrier identification number for commercial 
vehicles;
     Relevant criminal history;
     Outstanding warrants and other administrative actions;
     In accordance with the State's policies for posting and 
retaining information on the driver record, offender's history of prior 
non-impaired driving traffic convictions and associated penalties, 
impaired driving convictions and/or pre-conviction administrative 
actions and associated penalties, crashes, current accumulated license 
penalty points, administrative license actions; and

[[Page 36880]]

     Outstanding citations or arrests.
    The following data should be generated at the time of the impaired 
driving arrest and at subsequent points throughout the adjudication and 
sanctioning stages:
     Arrest/citation information:
    [cir] Citation number(s);
    [cir] Date;
    [cir] Time of day;
    [cir] Roadway location and jurisdiction;
    [cir] Arresting office, Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) identifier;
    [cir] Violation(s) charged;
    [cir] Crash involvement, severity, number of passengers;
    [cir] Alcohol test result: Refusal, Blood Alcohol Concentration 
(BAC), missing;
    [cir] Drug test result: Refusal, drugs detected, missing;
    [cir] Results of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and other field 
tests, as applicable.
     Pre-conviction administrative license and vehicle 
penalties imposed:
    [cir] Type of sanction;
    [cir] Date imposed;
    [cir] Length of sanction.
     Prosecution/adjudication data:
    [cir] Court case identifier;
    [cir] Date of arraignment;
    [cir] Identifiers for court, judge, jurisdiction;
    [cir] Date of disposition;
    [cir] Completion or non-completion of pre-conviction or pre-
sentence deferral program (e.g., court defers sentencing or conviction 
pending offender's completion of alcohol treatment program and/or other 
conditions);
    [cir] Final court disposition (e.g., dismissed, acquitted, plea to 
reduced charge (specified), convicted of original charge after trial, 
diversion program, adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, pending);
    [cir] Court penalties imposed, including length of jail sentence, 
house arrest, electronic home monitoring, plate impoundment, ignition 
interlock device; dollar amount of fines and fees; length and terms of 
probation; substance abuse assessment/treatment sentence; hours of 
community service; amount of restitution to victims; vehicle 
forfeiture; length of license revocation or suspension; other;
    [cir] Probation report and/or pre-sentence assessment information, 
if available by law.
     Subsequent violations, including driving while suspended/
revoked, during license suspension period and resulting penalties;
     Completion of treatment/assessment (start and finish 
dates);
     Completion/non-completion of court and/or administrative 
sanctions, including amounts of fines and fees collected; terms of jail 
time, license suspension or revocation, vehicle or plate impoundment/
forfeiture, community service, ignition interlock; other;
     Penalties for failure to complete court and/or 
administrative sanctions or violations of probation, including license 
suspensions/revocations;
     Whether license was reinstated and if so, date of 
reinstatement.

Data Entry, Storage, and Transmission

    Although treatment agencies and other stakeholders provide 
important data to the system, the timely collection and transmission of 
data by the courts, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), and Departments of 
Motor Vehicles (DMVs) are of primary importance. Each of these agencies 
should generate and transmit data electronically. In States where data 
on alcohol and drug tests are collected and managed by a fourth agency, 
it is imperative that these data also are generated and transmitted 
electronically. Other types of data obtained from other agencies, such 
as treatment agencies, also should be transmitted electronically.
    The software for generating court records and citations should have 
extensive edits and menu pull-downs to minimize data entry errors. When 
used correctly, the software should ensure that data entry is virtually 
error-free. The electronic citation software should provide for the 
automatic population of the citation form and any other related arrest 
forms with information from the driver license and vehicle 
registration. This may be accomplished through several mechanisms, 
including the use of bar codes or magnetic striping or by accessing the 
driver license file online from a mobile computer in the patrol vehicle 
or station. The court and DMV systems should have built-in audits that 
periodically check a sample of records for the timeliness of the 
receipt of the data and the accuracy and completeness of the records. 
Ideally, each component of the system should provide real-time, on-line 
access to stakeholders and real-time, immediate transmission of data. 
Electronic capture, retrieval, and data transmission provides for 
timeliness and consistency in data. Also, electronic system edits 
ensure more accurate and reliable data.
    Law enforcement officers and courts should have immediate (or near-
equivalent) access to current driver license and registration records 
and criminal history records. The immediate access to driver license 
and registration information may be accomplished in various ways, 
including the use of palm pilots or on-line access to the driver 
license file through a mobile computer in the vehicle or at the 
station. If allowed by State law and policy, officers and courts should 
be able to correct or update a limited number of specified fields in 
the driver record. For example, a driver's address may be incorrect on 
the driver license record because the driver changed residence but 
failed to notify DMV.

Specific Major Stakeholder Data Requirements

    While various stakeholders are important to the success of the 
Model system, NHTSA's experience has shown that key system stakeholders 
include LEAs, DMVs and the courts.
    Law Enforcement Agencies. The electronic issuance of citations and 
other standardized forms (e.g., alcohol or drug test form) should occur 
at the point of arrest, either at the roadside or at the station, 
depending on local and State laws and policies. Immediately, or no 
later than 48 hours after the issuance of the citation, the citation 
record should be transmitted electronically to the courts and the DMV 
(if the State imposes pre-conviction administrative license or vehicle 
sanctions) and integrated into the court and DMV computer systems. The 
electronic transmission of data can occur in several ways, for example, 
by wireless transfer via low-energy waves of cellular/digital networks, 
by downloading the data to a disk and transmitting via the Internet 
from a desktop computer connected to a landline, or online from a 
mobile computer in the vehicle. The data may go directly to the courts 
or be routed through data centers located throughout a State.
    The results of drug tests and alcohol tests, when based on a blood 
sample, will not be available at the time of the arrest and must be 
provided at a later date. An interface with unique identifiers allows 
for seamless electronic transfer of test results to the appropriate 
offender, which ultimately improves system efficiencies and 
significantly reduces errors.
    Courts. Many, if not most, courts use case management software to 
track cases and support administrative functions (e.g., scheduling 
court appearances and assigning cases). Traffic Court Case Management 
Systems Functional Requirement Standards are obtainable from the 
National Center for State Courts Technology Services at http://
www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/ standards/. Electronic citation information 
transmitted by Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) may interface directly 
with a court database

[[Page 36881]]

or be sent via an interim data warehouse or gateway to which data are 
sent and then retrieved by courts and other authorized parties (e.g., 
prosecutors, defense attorneys). After any necessary translation of the 
record layout, the electronic citation becomes part of the court's 
electronic case record and the court's case management system LEAs, the 
DMV, prosecutors, and other key stakeholders should have online access 
to query the court system about the status of a particular case or a 
set of cases (e.g., citations issued by an LEA in the past month). In 
States where only one violation is placed on a citation form, the 
system should allow for accessing all citations issued to an offender 
in a particular incident.
    The information needed by the DMV (e.g., notice of conviction or 
completion of arraignment, prompting administrative license or vehicle 
sanctions) should be transmitted electronically by the courts 
immediately, or no later than 48 hours after the action (e.g., 
conviction or arraignment). This transmission may occur through a 
variety of mechanisms, for example, via the Internet with the DMV 
accessing a mailbox on a court Web site and downloading relevant files 
or via the Internet directly from the court to the DMV. Programming by 
the courts or the DMVs may be needed to translate court records into a 
form that can be integrated with DMV records.
    DMV. Driver license and vehicle records that are easily understood 
should be available electronically to the courts, LEAs, and other 
authorized stakeholders. The driver license and vehicle registration 
systems should be adapted as necessary to receive information 
electronically from the courts and LEAs, if applicable. Data received 
from the courts or LEAs should be integrated into the DMV data bases 
immediately, or no later than 24 hours after receipt of data. The 
licensing and vehicle registration computer systems should be 
programmed so that administrative and court-ordered sanctions are 
triggered automatically when the information is received from the 
courts or LEAs.
    Information needed by treatment agencies, probation offices, and 
other agencies involved in sanctioning offenders should be provided 
electronically by the DMV to the extent practicable. In turn, these 
agencies should report electronically to the DMV about the completion 
of sanction. The DMV also should develop protocols with the courts to 
ensure that information related to the failure to complete sanctions 
and corrections to court records identified by the DMV are transmitted 
back to the courts.

Statistical Report Capabilities

    A Model Impaired Driving Records Information System enables 
organizational stakeholders, including the State Highway Safety Office, 
the State legislature, NHTSA, and others, to obtain periodic and 
special statistical reports on impaired driving activities within the 
State. Standardized statistical reports should be periodically 
generated, and the stakeholders and other authorized system users 
should be able to obtain simple sets of statistical data on an ad hoc 
basis through a user-friendly protocol, to the extent that State laws 
permit. In States where some of the relevant records are sealed to 
protect personal privacy, the system should permit such records to be 
included in aggregate summaries.
    States vary widely in their definitions of first and repeat 
impaired driving offenses, both in terms of the look-back period of 
years and in terms of the offenses that qualify as a prior offense. In 
some States, for example, a refusal to submit to the alcohol test would 
count as a prior offense. In generating statistics related to first and 
repeat offenses, data should be generated using the State's definition 
of a repeat offense.
    Current and historical aggregated data should be available, and the 
data should be available on a statewide basis, by jurisdiction, or for 
specific courts or LEAs, as applicable. Aggregate numbers and rates 
(e.g., alcohol test refusals per person arrested), as applicable, 
should be provided for the following first and subsequent offenses, to 
the extent that State laws permit:
     Impaired driving arrest events (including multiple-charge 
events) by charge;
     All types of final court dispositions, for example, 
conviction on original charge, conviction on reduced charge 
(specified), acquittal, dismissal, adjournment in contemplation of 
dismissal, pending, failure to appear in court;
     Trials by charge and disposition;
     Location of arrests, e.g., roadway segment, jurisdiction;
     Alcohol test refusals and BAC results for tests 
administered;
     Drug test refusals and results for tests administered;
     Age and gender of persons arrested and convicted;
     All types of court penalties imposed;
     All types of administrative penalties imposed by the DMV, 
for example, pre-conviction driver license suspension, pre-conviction 
license plate impoundment;
     Sentence or adjudication diversions/deferrals, if 
applicable;
     Referrals to treatment by first and repeat offender;
     Completion/non-completion of treatment;
     License reinstatements;
     Sentence completions/non-completions, for example, paid 
and unpaid fines, jail time served/not served, and community service 
completed/not completed;
     Average time from arrest to first court appearance, to 
conviction, and to sentencing statewide by charge;
     Outstanding warrants issued and other administrative 
actions; and
     Subsequent violations, including driving while suspended/
revoked, and resulting penalties during license suspension period.
    The generation of much of these data draws from and links 
information stored in various stakeholders' systems. Depending on a 
State's laws for charging violations, deriving a particular measure 
(e.g. second offenders) may necessitate linking data from a case-based 
records system (e.g., court system) with data from a driver-based 
records system (e.g., DMV system). The priority for each of the three 
key stakeholders (LEAs, courts, DMV) is necessarily developing a data 
system to support its operations and responsibilities. Thus, it is 
unlikely that any of these stakeholders currently has or will develop a 
computer system with the capability to generate these kinds of linked 
data, unless this is a statutory responsibility of the organization.

Data Warehouse

    What will typically be required is a data warehouse, or its 
equivalent, with a database drawing from the various stakeholder data 
systems, with the capability to link these data and generate 
standardized periodic statistical reports, and with user-friendly 
access to stakeholders. A single agency should have the responsibility 
for developing and maintaining this data warehouse, based on the mutual 
agreement of the key stakeholders. It may be one of the key 
stakeholders--most likely the DMV--or it may be another organization, 
such as the highway safety office, a university, a legislative research 
division, or a criminal justice organization. Each stakeholder should 
have a secure means of access to the information, for example, through 
a secure ``mailbox.'' The centralized data repository may be a single 
database, procedures for assimilating data, or a networked

[[Page 36882]]

distributed database with access gateways.
    The data warehouse does not replace the need for each stakeholder 
to maintain its own data records system. Nor does it eliminate the need 
for each stakeholder's system to be accessible on-line for basic 
queries by other stakeholders, since only selected data would be 
extracted from each stakeholder's system. In addition, for the data 
warehouse function to operate most effectively, it should be viewed as 
serving an end in itself (that is, the generation of statistical 
information cutting across agencies and across the different stages of 
the impaired driving process), rather than as an adjunct to a 
stakeholder system designed for a different, albeit related, purpose.

Guidelines for Implementation

    States should assess their own circumstances as they conform their 
DWI tracking systems to the Model System. These circumstances include 
the complexity of the State's impaired driving law, the amount and 
types of resources needed to purchase hardware and software and to 
obtain programming support, the telecommunications infrastructure in 
the State to support roadside access to DMV driver records and to move 
data electronically among stakeholders, the computer network for the 
transmission of data among stakeholders, the degree of uniformity with 
regard to procedures and policies within organizations and 
jurisdictions, and intra-organizational and inter-organizational issues 
such as territorial concerns, poorly defined roles and 
responsibilities, and lack of agreement on priorities, problems, or 
solutions within the State.
    States may need to address particular obstacles or accommodate 
certain critical factors in conforming to the model system. For 
example, depending on geography and size, the impaired driving 
stakeholders may not have the ability or the resources to upgrade an 
inadequate telecommunications infrastructure. The selected system must 
be capable of functioning within this environment. In addition to 
problematic telecommunications infrastructure, a State's ability to 
implement improvements to existing system components is hampered by 
complicated impaired driving laws (e.g., tiered BAC systems, different 
levels of offenses adjudicated by different courts, complex mixes of 
administrative and court sanctions), a non-unified court system, the 
lack of a uniform traffic citation, paper-based and antiquated 
mainframe systems within the stakeholder agencies, and budget 
constraints.
    In order to attempt full conformity with the Model System, States 
should undertake the following steps:
     Under the auspices of the State's Traffic Records 
Coordinating Committee, form a subcommittee or task force charged with 
overseeing the development and implementation of the system, including 
the courts (judges, prosecutors, and probation, if applicable), the 
DMV, the State police and local LEA representatives, treatment, the 
highway safety office, and other important stakeholders;
     Designate a single lead agency for developing and 
implementing the system;
     Establish a mechanism for working with the State's 
information and technology offices to plan and implement the system, 
including writing software and hardware specifications, selecting 
vendors, etc.;
     Develop a shared understanding of stakeholders' roles and 
responsibilities;
     Develop a detailed impaired driving critical path. This 
critical path describes the step-by-step procedures related to an 
impaired driving offense, beginning with the citation, continuing 
through adjudication (administrative and judicial), and ending when the 
disposition is posted to the driver file (see diagram below).
     Conduct a detailed assessment of current systems to 
collect, manage, and analyze impaired driving data, in comparison with 
the model system. (An appropriate assessment of the current systems in 
comparison with the model system should inventory the current stock of 
hardware and software to identify the needs of courts, LEAs, the DMV, 
and other key stakeholders, relate the current systems to the detailed 
impaired driving critical path, identify deficiencies and steps needed 
to conform to the specific features noted in the ``Specific Features of 
the Model System'' section of these guidelines, examine the 
compatibility of existing record formats, processes, hardware, 
software, etc., and evaluate the State's compliance with national 
standards, for example, standards for electronically-readable driver 
licenses);
     Standardize processes, procedures, forms, terminology, and 
data elements among stakeholders and jurisdictions;
     Develop a detailed, step-by-step, long-range plan 
(including funding levels) for implementing and maintaining the 
resulting system, training personnel in affected agencies, system 
upgrades, and obtaining buy-in from the primary stakeholders;
     Develop a formal interagency cooperative agreement to 
implement the plan, detailing the responsibilities of the agencies and 
potential sources of short-term and long-term funding;
     Identify statutory, regulatory, or procedural changes 
needed to implement the system; consider simplification of regulations 
or laws;
     Establish protocols for authorizing system users and 
procedures to protect personal privacy rights and the security of the 
system;
     Identify sources of funding; consider the use of dedicated 
fees or fines;
     Consider working with other States to take advantage of 
economies of scale and to minimize duplicative efforts; and
     Formulate a plan to ``sell'' the importance of the system 
to the public, advocacy groups, and State policymakers and enlist their 
support for implementation of improved impaired driving records 
information system components and related systems.

[[Page 36883]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JN06.008



[[Page 36884]]


    Issued on: June 23, 2006.
Brian McLaughlin,
Senior Associate Administrator for Traffic Injury Control.
[FR Doc. 06-5844 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P