[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17474-17477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9380]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Driver History Initiative Projects; Fiscal Year 1998 Funding

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice solicits proposals from States for projects to 
evaluate their current citation issuance, conviction process, and 
driver licensing procedures and policies in meeting the goal of timely, 
accurate, and complete reporting and recording of traffic convictions 
within a State and between States. Where deficiencies are identified, a 
State is to develop new or revised systems, procedures, and/or policies 
to improve the reporting and recording of traffic convictions. The FHWA 
will provide grant funds to the selected States to carry out the 
projects from funds set aside in the Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-66, 111 Stat. 
1425) for driver improvements and enhancements.

DATES: Proposals must be submitted on or before July 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit all proposals to: Mr. Phillip Forjan, Federal Highway 
Administration, Department of Transportation, Office of Motor Carrier 
Research and Standards, HCS-20, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phillip Forjan, Office of Motor 
Carrier Research and Standards, (202) 366-4001, or Mr. Paul Claunch, 
Office of Motor Carrier Safety and Technology, (202) 366-2170, Federal 
Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 
4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those 
desiring notification of receipt of their proposal submission must 
include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the Federal Register 
Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may 
reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/nara/
fedreg and Government Printing's Office's database at http://
www.acess.gpo.gov/su__docs.

Background

    Extensive studies and research conducted over a period of years 
have found that driver error is a major cause of motor vehicle crashes. 
Driver error is a complex problem with many components including age, 
experience, time of day, extent of familiarity with the roadway, 
emotional/physical/mental state, traffic patterns, etc. Improving 
driver behavior is essential if highway safety is to be improved. 
Federal, State, and local governments spend millions of dollars 
annually on training, education, public information, and law 
enforcement efforts to protect the motoring public by detecting and

[[Page 17475]]

deterring unsafe driver behavior. The enforcement component of these 
programs produces thousands of citations for driving violations every 
day.
    The backbone of what is known as the ``driver control system'' is 
the driver history, which should include a record of the driver's 
convictions as well as the dates of any license suspensions and 
reinstatements. This record provides licensing agencies, law 
enforcement, prosecutors, judges, insurance organizations, and 
potential employers with the information needed to make sound decisions 
involving an individual's driving and/or license status. The driver 
history system, however, does not always service the needs of the 
public in reporting timely, accurate, and reliable information.

State Citation Tracking Study

    About two years ago, a large State with citation tracking 
capability sampled the disposition of a randomly selected group of 
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driving citations. The State waited one 
year from the date of issuance to investigate the results of the 
citations on the driver history of the drivers cited. The State agency 
analyzed citations issued to 184 commercial drivers licensed by that 
State and 95 commercial drivers holding licenses issued by other 
States. The State's driver history records showed the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Out-of- 
                                                     In-state    state  
                                                     drivers    drivers 
                                                    (percent)  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing on record.................................        27         49 
Convicted of offense charged......................        56          9 
Convicted of lesser offense or non-commercial                           
 violation........................................        17         42 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the citations written to in-State drivers, 75 were for serious 
traffic offenses as defined in the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C. chapter 313). These offenses include 
speeding fifteen or more miles per hour over the limit, improper lane 
change, following too closely, or reckless driving as defined by State 
or local law. Of those citations written to in-State drivers, 63 
percent resulted in convictions for the offense charged and are listed 
in the driver history, 23 percent did not appear on the driver history 
at all, and 14 percent appeared as a conviction of reduced charge or a 
non-commercial violation. Of the citations written to out-of State 
drivers, 56 were for serious traffic offenses. Fourteen percent of the 
citations resulted in convictions for the offense charged and are 
listed as such in the driver record, 54 percent did not appear on the 
driver history at all, and 32 percent appeared as convictions of either 
a reduced charge or a non-commercial violation.
    It is very unlikely that acquittals account for all 23 percent of 
the citations issued to in-State drivers for serious traffic offenses, 
and 54 percent issued to out-of-State drivers, which were not listed in 
the driver history. Discussions with safety practitioners around the 
country bring general agreement that, in many cases, convictions simply 
do not result in entries in the driver history. This raises serious 
questions as to the efficacy of current enforcement efforts. If very 
large numbers of citations regularly do not result in convictions or 
convictions are not entered into the driver history, there is little 
chance of the driver control system working to identify problem drivers 
for corrective action.
    Systemic reporting problems, including inconsistencies in reporting 
driving convictions among and within States, are another concern. An 
example would be where a State, upon receiving a driver history record 
or conviction from another State, either will not post a conviction 
because it is old or will not act on a history or conviction because it 
is from out-of-State. Given current reporting problems between and 
among courts and licensing agencies, a reporting delay in excess of six 
months is common.
    The primary concern is those commercial drivers who continue to 
drive in spite of multiple disqualifying offenses. These multiple 
offenders are either undetected by the driver control system or granted 
hardship or limited licenses that allow them to continue to drive under 
restricted circumstances, which may or may not become part of the 
driver history. The outcome is that ``at-risk'' drivers often go 
undetected, their behavior unchanged, and they put others at risk of 
injury or death.

CDL Effectiveness Study Preliminary Conclusions: Harmonization of 
State Laws and Adjudication

    The Senate Appropriations Committee in the Senate Report to the 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
1995, directed the FHWA to provide information regarding actions taken 
under the CDL program to suspend, revoke, or otherwise disqualify 
commercial motor vehicle operators who commit certain violations and to 
provide information in other areas of program performance. (S.Rep. No. 
103-310, at page 101 (1994)). As a result, the FHWA's Office of Motor 
Carriers initiated the Commercial Driver License Effectiveness Study to 
examine the implementation of the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) 
program and to assess its effectiveness and benefits to highway safety, 
including the best methods of monitoring and restricting ``at-risk'' 
drivers of CMVs.
    The following is a list of some of the CDL implementation study's 
significant findings in the area of harmonization of State laws and 
adjudication:
    1. At least 15 States have programs which provide for masking 
convictions so that they are not visible to an employer if the driver 
attends a prescribed education or treatment program. Such programs 
compromise the intent of harmonization to the degree that they mask 
convictions for disqualifying offenses specified in 49 U.S.C. 31310.
    2. Few judges, prosecutors, or law enforcement officers have 
received training or study materials on the CDL program. Many are not 
aware of the Federal statute addressing commercial motor vehicle 
driving offenses, the CDL program, or the harmonization of State laws 
regarding convictions defined in 49 U.S.C. 31310. Judges and 
prosecutors generally do not understand that CMV violations are 
materially different from other traffic violations.
    3. The level of coordination which exist between a State's driver 
licensing agency and the State's traffic court system is inadequate in 
many instances to assure driver control measures are properly 
administered and occur in a timely fashion..
    4. Data analysis of CDL holder convictions found 19 percent of all 
convictions are posted as ``UNKNOWN'' with respect to vehicle type, 
while an additional 64 percent are marked ``NO,'' i.e., the violation 
did not occur in a CMV. Omitting a check mark on the citation 
indicating that the violation occurred in a CMV, or ``losing'' the 
check mark during the adjudication and conviction posting process, 
eliminates application of the Federal requirements and sanctions.
    5. This data sufficiency problem is further exacerbated for out-of-
State convictions. Six State DMVs out of 41 responding automatically 
``translate'' some CMVSA violations to a lesser offense when the 
conviction does not indicate the violation was in a CMV (e.g., a 
conviction for .04 percent Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) would be 
posted as a conviction for an ``open container''). The survey also 
indicates that statutes prohibit 5 of the 46

[[Page 17476]]

responding States from taking license withdrawal action against a 
driver for an out-of-State conviction, except those listed in 49 U.S.C. 
31310. If an out-of-State conviction is not marked as occurring in a 
CMV, 43 of the 46 responding States automatically post the conviction 
as occurring in a non-CMV. The survey included all 50 States plus the 
District of Columbia. There were several questions on the survey that 
were not addressed by all the States.

Conviction Deferral Programs

    Many States and localities have adopted programs that allow 
convictions for moving traffic offenses to be deferred, diverted, or 
otherwise prevented from becoming a part of a driver's permanent 
record. The assumption underlying many of these programs is that 
drivers should be afforded the opportunity to mend their ways without 
facing a fine plus ongoing, increased insurance costs if the offense 
becomes a part of the permanent driving record.
    These programs often require drivers to attend driver improvement 
programs or other training sessions in order to avoid having the 
driving conviction entered on their permanent records. Some of these 
programs are managed Statewide by driver licensing agencies. The 
programs generally consist of systems to retain deferred convictions in 
State records, but to mask them if requested by certain parties (i.e., 
insurance companies). This enables the State to monitor the driver's 
behavior and, when the system works properly, to avoid allowing a 
driver to simultaneously participate in several diversion or deferral 
programs with multiple convictions. Other programs allow local 
jurisdictions to manage their own diversion or deferral programs. Under 
this system, local courts can collect and retain additional court costs 
to cover the deferral or diversion programs. These funds are retained 
by the local governments to be used for governmental programs. In 
Indiana, the diversion/deferral program does not require participation 
in a remedial driver training or driver improvement course.
    In addition to giving the drivers a second chance and helping them 
to avoid potentially significant increased costs following a traffic 
conviction, diversion and deferral programs are a useful source of 
revenue for local governments. In States like Indiana, local 
jurisdictions can collect extra fines and fees as a part of the program 
and can retain those revenues for local use. Generally, traffic 
citations that are adjudicated locally and reported to the State allow 
for some type of State and local revenue sharing of fines collected by 
local jurisdictions. Clearly, diversion/deferral programs can be 
attractive to local jurisdictions as a means of retaining fine revenues 
collected in local courts. Some policies allow these funds to be given 
to civic organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In 
addition to such not-for-profit organizations, funds are diverted to 
alcohol and drug services, city/county governments, courts, law 
enforcement agencies, and the prosecutor's office.
    Use of deferral programs leads to traffic convictions not being 
reported to State licensing agencies. These omissions can have a 
potentially serious effect on safety, particularly where the programs 
are administered locally. In such cases, local jurisdictions are likely 
to be unaware of the identity of deferral program participants in 
neighboring communities. Consequently, an habitual offender could 
participate in several deferral programs at one time, with no record of 
the traffic convictions existing on the offender's driver history. Even 
where deferral/diversion programs are centrally administered, they are 
dependent on complete reporting by local jurisdictions to ensure that a 
driver is not participating in multiple programs.
    Participation in these programs is particularly problematic for 
holders of a CDL. Commercial drivers generally drive significantly more 
miles annually than do passenger car drivers. Their exposure to crashes 
and to more hazardous driving conditions that can lead to crashes is 
much greater than that of the average driver. Also, commercial drivers 
operate larger, heavier vehicles that can cause significant damage in a 
crash with a passenger car. In addition, the CDL program includes 
specific, required penalties for drivers who commit more than one 
serious traffic offense as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31310. Drivers 
convicted of these offenses (including, among other things, improper or 
erratic lane changing or speeding 15 or more miles an hour over the 
speed limit) are subject to license suspension. Participation in a 
diversion/deferral program could allow these drivers to mask such 
offenses from judges, prosecutors, and licensing agencies and, thus, 
avoid statutorily required sanctions. The potential exists for chronic 
offenders to use the diversion/deferral system to continue to drive 
well beyond a point where they would otherwise be subject to some type 
of license sanction or remedial program under the CDL program.
    The purpose of this discussion is to point out that while deferral/
diversion programs can provide drivers an opportunity to avoid 
potentially large and continuing penalties for conviction of a single 
moving violation, they can also allow chronic offenders to avoid 
detection and CDL holders to avoid statutory penalties. Jurisdictions 
should weigh the safety impact of these programs and consider whether 
they need more controls to ensure that safety is not compromised. There 
is also the question of taxpayer confidence in a traffic enforcement 
program that allows local jurisdictions to collect and retain extra 
revenue for traffic convictions which are not reported to the State. 
Some citizens hold traffic enforcement programs in disdain as revenue 
generating mechanisms for local governments, rather than efforts to 
ensure and support public safety by limiting crashes and injuries. 
Diversion/deferral programs that allow local jurisdictions to raise 
fines and penalties and forego reporting of convictions could 
contribute to this type of criticism. States seeking to participate in 
this grant program will be asked to review and include in their grant 
proposal a summary of diversion/deferral programs in the State.

Driver History Initiative Projects

    The FHWA is trying to improve the timeliness, completeness, 
accuracy, and clarity of State driver history files by promoting an 
integrated driver licensing system. Such a system will improve and 
enhance the driver history file by its ability to facilitate 
identification, prosecution, and adjudication of problem drivers. It 
will benefit drivers who have satisfied the penalties or conditions of 
a driving restriction by promptly updating their driving record. It 
will ensure that all drivers have complete, accurate, and up-to-date 
histories available as needed for employment and insurance purposes.
    The initiative will begin with Federally funded State projects. It 
will involve States that are willing to explore and test new and proven 
methodologies and protocols, allowing for rapid electronic exchange of 
driver history information. A major component of the projects will be 
to test procedures that facilitate citation tracking from issuance to 
resolution. The project should also enhance the accuracy, speed, and 
completeness of driver history information exchange among the various 
components of the system, including law enforcement, prosecutors, the 
courts, and driver licensing agencies, both within the State and across 
State boundaries.

[[Page 17477]]

    The scope of potential projects or plans should not be limited to 
system development, changes, or enhancements. The State may have a 
system that is technically sound but hampered by State procedures, 
policies, laws, or legislation preventing the State from utilizing its 
system in the most efficient and effective manner. The FHWA will 
entertain proposals that may not involve the system but would meet the 
project goals. One example of a procedure problem is out-of-State 
convictions. Some States treat paper notification of out-of-State 
convictions differently than electronic notification of similar 
convictions; several States lack the authority to assess points or 
penalties for convictions received electronically. As mentioned above, 
many States report there are certain out-of-State convictions which 
they cannot enter on drivers' records because of statutory 
inconsistencies, State-to-State.
    The primary objective of this effort is to achieve enhancements in 
the development, exchange, retention, and reporting of driver histories 
of commercial motor vehicle operators. The FHWA believes that any 
enhancements to the commercial segment of the driver licensing system 
are also likely to have a positive effect on the non-commercial side. 
However, the FHWA will accept proposals on all aspects of the States' 
driver licensing recordkeeping and control systems.
    Solutions developed as a result of the various projects will be 
shared with other States that wish to improve and upgrade their driver 
history tracking systems or revise existing licensing procedures.
    The initiative will be a collaborative effort among the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), which jointly will provide the funding, as well 
as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 
the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives 
(NAGHSR), the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), and the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), which will all 
provide technical support during all phases of the projects.

Project Goal

    The goal of the FHWA is to ensure timely, accurate, and complete 
reporting and recording of traffic convictions within States (courts, 
State licensing agencies, prosecutors), and between and among States to 
reliably identify potential problem drivers by enhancing existing 
systems, developing new systems, or revising existing procedural 
practices.

Proposal Submission

Required Content of Proposals

    While providing the maximum possible flexibility to States, grant 
proposals must meet certain criteria. The grant proposal criteria are 
designed to ensure that key State agencies and organizations 
participate in approved grant activities. A thorough evaluation design 
is another key requirement. The proposal must include the following 
nine items:
    1. Identify a lead Agency for the project.
    2. Identify an interdisciplinary working group within the State, 
including but not limited to the motor vehicle licensing agency, court 
system, prosecutors, State law enforcement, Governor's Highway Safety 
Representative, and Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) 
representative.
    3. Provide an analysis of existing systems or procedures, including 
discussion of any driver conviction/deferral programs, and outline 
strengths and define areas requiring attention or improvement. Include 
any statutory limitations that may affect communication and recording 
of convictions on the system.
    4. Define system requirements, including project scope, whether new 
technologies would be tested, and methods of gathering, integrating, 
and facilitating data exchange between various users.
    5. Provide and submit a project evaluation plan and time lines for 
completion. If your project is not system related, describe existing 
procedures, the problems they generate, proposed new procedures, 
anticipated outcome, and the means to measure the success or impact of 
the project or program.
    6. Define, analyze, and document user procedures, including 
projected barriers to project success.
    7. Define the methodology for implementing the system or 
procedures.
    8. Provide plans for preparing a final report, including the 
evaluation findings and recommendations for other States regarding the 
strengths and weaknesses of this project or program.
    9. Provide a budget for the project.

Submission of Proposals

    There will be no formal Request For Proposals (RFP). Proposals 
responding to this notice must be valid for 180 days, and may be funded 
at any time during that validity period. Submit an original and three 
copies of your proposal, following the task requirements listed above 
to Mr. Phillip J. Forjan, Federal Highway Administration, Department of 
Transportation, Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, HCS-20, 
Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Evaluation of Proposals and Award

    A panel comprised of representatives from the NHTSA, the AAMVA, the 
NAGHSR, the CVSA, and the IACP will assist the FHWA in its oversight of 
the project. Members of the panel will be available for technical 
assistance during all phases of the projects and will review the 
evaluations of each final product. The panel will evaluate each 
proposal, based on the following factors: (1) The intrinsic merit of 
the proposal; (2) the technical competency of the proposal; (3) the 
potential for utilization of results; (4) reasonableness of the initial 
cost proposed; and (5) adequacy of proposed resources to complete the 
project requirements satisfactorily and in a timely manner.

Project Funding

    This notice announces the FHWA's intent to provide funding in FY 
1998 for a number of projects relating to driver licensing systems and 
State driver license procedures. States are invited to submit proposals 
outlining their projects to the FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers. The 
FHWA will fund project management and implementation of State systems 
or revision of State procedures. This grant will not require matching 
funds. The FHWA has $500,000 available for this purpose in Fiscal Year 
1998 and contemplates making several awards from the proposals 
submitted. The States are also encouraged to explore other funding 
sources in both the private and public sectors to implement integrated 
driver history tracking systems.

    Authority: Pub. L. 105-66, 111 stat. 1425, 1432, 49 U.S.C. 
31102, and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued on: April 1, 1998.
Gloria J. Jeff,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-9380 Filed 4-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P