Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines, 14843-14857 [E9-7241]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14843-14857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7241]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0178]


Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines

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

ACTION: Revisions to highway safety program guidelines.

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

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

[[Page 14844]]

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

II. Comments

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

A. Comments in General

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

B. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 4: Driver Education

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

[[Page 14845]]

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

I. Program Management

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

II. Legislation, Regulation, and Policy

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

III. Enforcement Program

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

IV. Driver Education and Training Program

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

V. Communication Program

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

[[Page 14846]]

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

VI. Program Evaluation and Data

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

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

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

I. Program Management

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

II. Legislation, Regulation and Policy

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

III. Driver Fitness

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

[[Page 14847]]

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

V. Driver Records, Data, and Evaluation

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

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

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

E. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 10 Traffic Records

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

I. Traffic Records System Information Components

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

[[Page 14848]]

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

II. Uses of a Traffic Records System

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

III. Traffic Records System Management

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

F. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 17 Pupil Transportation

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

I. Operations

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

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 4

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

I. Program Management

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

II. Legislation, Regulation and Policy

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

III. Enforcement Program

    Components of a State driver education enforcement program should 
include:

[[Page 14849]]

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

IV. Driver Education and Training Program

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

V. Communication Program

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

VI. Program Evaluation and Data

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

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 5

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

I. Program Management

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

[[Page 14850]]

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

II. Legislation, Regulation, and Policy

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

III. Driver Fitness

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

IV. Motorcycle Operator Licensing

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

V. Driver Records, Data, and Evaluation

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

[[Page 14851]]

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

VI. Communication Program

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

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 7

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

I. Program Management

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

II. Resource Management

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

III. Training and Education

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

[[Page 14852]]

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

IV. Data and Evaluation

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

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 10

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

I. Traffic Records System Information Components

    A TRS has been defined as a virtual set of independent real systems 
(e.g., driver conviction records, crash records, roadway data, etc.), 
which collectively form the information base for the management of the 
highway and traffic safety activities of a State. An updated concept of 
a TRS encourages States to take a global approach and work toward 
compiling data into a unified, accessible resource. Sharing and 
integrating data makes such a system possible, without necessarily 
duplicating costly and time-consuming tasks such as data entry. 
Achieving integrated access to data without bringing all the data into 
a single database is a goal of the TRS. The traffic records system 
should consist of the following major components:
    A. The Crash Data Component documents the time, location, 
environment, and characteristics (e.g., sequence of events, rollover, 
etc.) of a crash. It contains basic information about every reportable 
(as defined by State statute) motor vehicle crash on any public roadway 
in the State. Through links to other TRS components, the Crash Data 
Component identifies the roadways, vehicles, and people (e.g.,