Key Facts: Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans aged 2 through 33 and motor vehicle crash injuries are a major health care problem in the United States. Alcohol-related crashes are a substantial part of this problem. Alcohol was involved in 41% of fatal crashes and 6 percent of all police-reported crashes in 2002. Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public more than $50 billion in 2000, and 75 percent of these costs occurred in crashes where a driver or non-occupant had a BAC of .10 or higher. Every 30 minutes, someone is killed in the United States in an alcohol-related crash. Impaired driving is the most frequently committed violent crime in the United States. About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI) have a previous DWI conviction. Drivers with prior DWI convictions are over-represented in fatal crashes and have a greater relative risk of involvement in a fatal crash. In 1998, as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Restoration Act, a Federal program was established to encourage States to address the problem of the repeat intoxicated driver. Laws that Address the Repeat Intoxicated Driver: Many States have enacted laws focus-ing on the repeat intoxicated driver. States generally impose on repeat intoxicated drivers one or more of the following requirements: Licensing Sanctions: Most States suspend or revoke the license of repeat intoxicated drivers for a longer period than they do for first offenders. Vehicle Sanctions: Some States impound or immobilize the vehicles of repeat intoxicated drivers; while other States require an ignition interlock system be installed on the offender"s vehicle (which prevents a vehicle from starting if the driver"s blood alcohol concentration is above a pre-determined threshold). Addressing Alcohol Abuse: Most States require that repeat intoxicated drivers be given an alcohol assessment to determine their degree of alcohol abuse and/or undergo appropriate treatment. Mandatory Sentencing: Most States impose a mandatory minimum imprisonment and/or a community service sentence on repeat intoxicated drivers. Effectiveness of Repeat Intoxicated Driver Laws: Research has shown that driver-licensing sanctions have a significant impact on the problem of impaired driving. Licensing sanctions imposed under State administrative licensing revocation systems (not the criminal justice system) have resulted in reductions in alcohol-related fatalities of between 6% and 9%. According to a NHTSA study, Illinois, New Mexico, Maine, North Carolina, Colorado, and Utah experienced significant reductions in alcohol-related fatal crashes fol-lowing enactment of administrative license revocation procedures. The studies support the notion that license sanctions deter repeat DWI offenders from driving. Although many repeat intoxicated drives continue to drive without a license after their license has been revoked, studies have shown that those who do drive tend to drive less frequently and more carefully. A variety of vehicle sanction programs have been also used successfully to deter repeat DWI offenses. California"s vehicle impoundment program result-ed in substantially fewer subsequent offenses, convictions, and crashes for repeat offenders involved with the program (which included non-DWI offenses) compared with another control group of repeat offenders. A study of interlock devices in Maryland found that participation in an interlock program decreased the risk of DWI recidivism by 65%. These programs are successful because they prevent many repeat DWI offenders from driving by either separating them from their vehicles or requiring them to be alcohol-free when they drive. Programs that focus on individuals" alcohol-related behavior also have been successful. Milwaukee"s Intensive Supervision Probation program, which includes monitoring of behavior, has cut recidivism by nearly 50% (from 11% to 6%). A study of a financially self-sufficient DWI facility in Prince George"s County, Maryland, where residents pay for their stay, showed that its recidivism rate during a 5-year period was 8%, compared with 35% for other programs. A "DUI Court," modeled after the Drug Court model, is being evaluated in Maricopa County (Phoenix) Arizona. The evaluation involved the assignment of repeat offenders, after serving 3 months of hard jail time, to either a special DUI Court, or to a traditional probation services. The DUI Court is a special form of intensive supervision that involves both the judge and the local probation department that provides close supervision of offenders. Completion of this study, jointly funded with the Department of Justice, is expected in 2004. Section 164 of 23 U.S.C.: Section 164 of 23 U.S.C. requires that States have certain repeat intoxicated driver laws in place; if not, a portion of the State"s annual Federal-aid highway construction funds will be redirected into the State"s Section 402 appropriation. Transferred funds may be used for alcohol-impaired driving counter-measures, enforcement of drunk driving laws, or the State"s hazard elimination program, under Section 152. To comply with the Federal program under Section 164, the State"s laws regarding second and subsequent convictions for driving while intoxi-cated or driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI) must: Require a minimum one-year driver"s license suspension for repeat intoxicated drivers Require that all motor vehicles of repeat intoxicated drivers be impounded or immobilized for a specified period during the license suspension period, or require the installation of an ignition interlock system on all motor vehicles of such drivers for a specified period after the suspension is completed Require the mandatory assessment of repeat intoxicated driver"s degree of alcohol abuse and referral to treatment as appropriate Establish a mandatory minimum sentence for repeat intoxicated drivers: Of not less than five days of imprisonment or 30 days of community service for a second offense Of not less than ten days of imprisonment or 60 days of community service for a third or subsequent offense. Under the program, a repeat intoxicated driver is defined as a person convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol more than once during any 5-year period. Thus, States must maintain records on DWI convictions for at least five years. To avoid the transfer of funds, States must certify that their laws comply with each of the criteria specified above. The transferred amount for States not in compliance is 1.5% of certain State Federal-aid highway construction funds for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and 3% for fiscal year 2003 and later. The following 36 States and the District of Columbia have met the requirements of Section 164: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. STATES WITH COMPLYING LAWS: (Section 154 & 164 Transfer Programs) Open Container Laws: Alabama Arizona California District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Minnesota Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Texas Utah Vermont Washington Wisconsin Repeat Intoxicated Driver Laws: Alabama Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Maryland Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina Oklahoma Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas South Carolina Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin