Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines |
|---|
|
Jeff Michael
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
November 29, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71715-71724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28635]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA--2013-0131]
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. 1 Periodic
Motor Vehicle Inspection, Guideline No. 2 Motor Vehicle Registration,
Guideline No. 6 Codes and Laws, Guideline No. 16 Management of Highway
Incidents (formerly Debris Hazard Control and Cleanup), and Guideline
No. 18 Motor Vehicle Crash Investigation and Incident Reporting
(formerly Accident Investigation and Reporting). The new guideline is
No. 13 Older Driver Safety.
DATES: The revised guidelines become effective as of the date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Michael, Associate Administrator,
Office of Research and Program Development, 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. In a Notice
published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2012 (77 FR 37093), the
agency requested comments on the proposed revisions to the following
guidelines: Guideline No. 1 Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection,
Guideline No. 2 Motor Vehicle Registration, Guideline No. 6 Codes and
Laws, Guideline No. 16 Management of Highway Incidents (formerly Debris
Hazard Control and Cleanup), and Guideline No. 18 Motor Vehicle Crash
Investigation and Incident Reporting (formerly Accident Investigation
and Reporting). A new guideline, No. 13 Older Driver Safety, was also
developed to help States develop plans to address the particular needs
of older drivers and address the emerging challenges from the
increasing population of older drivers in their States. Because of the
unique issues related to older driver safety, this guideline also
includes recommendations related to Medical Providers and Social
Services Providers. Overall, these revisions and additions will provide
up-to-date and current guidance to States. 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.
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. The guidelines offer direction
to States in formulating their highway safety plans for highway safety
efforts supported with Section 402 grant funds as well as safety
activities funded from other sources. The guidelines provide a
[[Page 71716]]
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.
These guidelines emphasize areas of nationwide concern and
highlight effective countermeasures. As each guideline is updated or
created, it will include a date representing the date of its revision
or development. All the highway safety guidelines are available on the
NHTSA Web site at http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs/pages/.
Further, the intended use of these guidelines is identical to the
existing guidelines--to provide broad guidance to the States on best
practices in each highway safety program area. Countermeasures are more
thoroughly discussed in the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) series 500 guidance documents and in the NHTSA
publication Countermeasures that Work; these tools provide detail to
fill in the framework. All of these documents, along with additional
behavioral research conducted by non-Federal sources, add to the
robustness of available highway safety literature. NHTSA recognizes
that individual State needs and programs differ and acknowledges that
the weight placed on certain guidelines or individual recommendations
in the guidelines may vary from State to State.
II. Comments
The agency received comments in response to the notice from
Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety (Advocates), the American
Automobile Association (AAA), American Traffic Safety Services
Association (ATSSA), Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association
(AAIA), Automotive Education & Policy Institute (AEPI), California
Chiefs of Police Traffic Safety Committee (CPCA), California Highway
Patrol (CHP), Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), the Governors
Highway Safety Association (GHSA), Pat Hoag of R&R Trucking, Motor &
Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT), National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA),
Michael Paris of the NY State Office for the Aging (NYSOA), National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Rubber Manufacturers Association/
Tire Industry Association (RMA/TIA), Carl Soderstrom of the Maryland
Motor Vehicle Administration (MD MVA), James Stowe, and the University
of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (UNC).
The majority of guideline-specific comments received focused on
Guidelines No. 1 Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection and No. 13 Older
Driver Safety. The agency also received three comments related to
Guideline No. 2 Motor Vehicle Registration, two comments related to
Guideline No. 6 Codes and Laws, three comments related to Guideline No.
16 Management of Highway Incidents (formerly Debris Hazard Control and
Cleanup), and four comments related to Guideline No. 18 Motor Vehicle
Crash Investigation and Incident Reporting (formerly Accident
Investigation and Reporting).
A. Comments in General
A number of commenters had suggestions for improving the guidelines
while a few expressed concern for some of the revisions that were made.
GHSA commended the agency for its efforts to update several guidelines
and develop the new Older Driver Safety Guideline. However GHSA also
suggested that NHTSA should work with Congressional authorizing
committees to revise the language on the national guidelines in future
authorizations to eliminate guidelines in areas which no longer receive
funds through the Section 402 grant program. That comment goes beyond
the scope of this Federal Register Notice, and did not impact these
guidelines.
The agency also received a number of other comments outside the
scope of the proposed revisions to the highway safety program
guidelines. Some of these comments related to topics that go beyond
NHTSA's jurisdiction, such as regulating vehicle repair and automotive
technicians. Some comments related to other NHTSA safety programs, but
that were not directly addressed in the original Federal Register
Notice. Because these comments do not fall within the subject area of
the revised guidelines, the agency has not addressed them in this
action. Additional comments related to particular highway safety
program guidelines are discussed below in II(B) under the appropriate
heading.
B. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 1--Periodic Motor Vehicle
Inspection (PMVI)
A number of commenters, including Advocates, AAIA, MEMA, and RMA/
TIA believe PMVI should be performed annually and disagree with NHTSA's
recommendation for periodic inspection. They expressed concern that the
revised language could impact the effectiveness of the guideline if
States moved from a required annual inspection to longer intervals
between inspections. NHTSA disagrees and believes each State should
determine the optimal time between inspections based on evidence of the
effectiveness of that State's particular program. Nothing in the
revised guideline would prevent a State from maintaining an annual
inspection process. NHTSA believes the research on the general
effectiveness of PMVI is inconclusive, and does not warrant a more
prescriptive approach. Advocates and MEMA cited a 2009 Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation report and a Missouri State study that
found that PMVI programs can provide a safety benefit. But a major
study from Norway (Fosser 1992) found no benefit. This study involved
204,000 vehicles that were randomly assigned to three different
experimental conditions: 46,000 cars were inspected annually during a
period of three years; 46,000 cars were inspected once during three
years; and 112,000 cars were not inspected at all. The number of
crashes was recorded for all vehicles over a period of four years.
There was no discernible difference in crash outcomes between the
groups, however the report did find that the technical condition of
inspected vehicles (i.e., head lights, tail lights, tires) improved
compared to those not inspected. A recent follow-up study in Norway
(Christensen 2007) confirmed these results: inspections are effective
in improving the technical or physical condition of vehicles, but found
no evidence that periodic inspections had a measurable effect on
reducing crash rates. Given these significant differences between
various studies, there is not enough evidence at this time to make a
more definitive assessment on the effectiveness of PMVI in reducing
crashes.
There is also no consensus on how often PMVI should be performed to
be the most beneficial and cost effective. Many other countries allow
periods longer than one year between required inspections yet do not
seem to suffer any negative safety effects. For example, in the
European Union, many countries follow a ``4-2-2'' standard (96/96/EC
Directive on Roadworthiness and Inspections). According to this
schedule, all passenger vehicles are required to be inspected every
second year, starting the fourth year after the car was first
registered. A few European countries require more frequent inspections
for passenger vehicles, such as every two to three years. Some
countries also add additional
[[Page 71717]]
requirements for older vehicles, such as annual inspections for
vehicles over 8 years old.
It's also important to point out that there can be different
schedules for different types of vehicles. While passenger vehicles may
not be required to have annual inspections, States may require other
vehicles, such as large trucks, buses or other commercial vehicles, to
have one.
In addition to the age of the vehicle as a relevant factor of
vehicle inspection, another issue that comes up frequently in the
research as an issue on PMVI is tire maintenance. In a NHTSA study
published in 2008, tire/wheel failure was found to be the leading
factor where the critical reason for the crash was attributed to the
vehicle (Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Study 2008). Tire/wheel
deficiency was cited in 4.9% of these crashes. The next most common
vehicle-related factor was braking systems at 0.6% of crashes.
Maintaining proper tire pressure and adequate braking capability are
important parts of keeping vehicles safe. As a result of tire-related
safety concerns, NHTSA established two new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards: FMVSS No. 138 requires a tire pressure monitoring system
(TPMS) on all new light vehicles and FMVSS No. 139 updated the
performance requirements for passenger car and light-truck radial
tires. Both of these rules became effective on September 1, 2007. The
effects of these rules are expected to continue to increase with time
as market penetration increases. They also reduce any potential benefit
of a PMVI assessment of tires. Moreover, NHTSA recommends that vehicle
owners should inspect their tires on a monthly basis for wear and tear
as well as underinflation, rather than rely on a PMVI check-up once
every year or two.
Advocates, AEPI, MEMA and NADA expressed concern with a best
practices model for implementing PMVI programs, and about the need for
updating 49 CFR 570, which establish criteria for the inspection of
motor vehicles by State inspection systems. NHTSA agrees with these
comments, and is currently in process of updating 49 CFR 570. The
agency expects to have the update completed in 2013.
AEPI also expressed concern over the influence that auto insurance
companies may have in regard to the selection of parts and methods used
in the repair of motor vehicles. Using ``remanufactured aluminum alloy
wheels,'' as an example, AEIP noted that decisions on the type of
equipment used in repairs as well as the installation process may not
meet the original vehicle specifications, and could lead to additional
safety risks. This comment falls outside the scope of NHTSA's PMVI
guideline. State-level agencies that have oversight over consumer
product safety may be better able to address this issue.
Advocates also noted that the recently enacted Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) highway transportation
authorization included a provision regarding greater oversight for
State annual inspection programs for commercial motor vehicles, and
that NHTSA should make similar efforts to encourage States in the area
of periodic safety inspections for registered vehicles. The MAP-21
provision requires that, ``Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a
rulemaking proceeding to consider requiring States to establish a
program for annual inspections of commercial motor vehicles.'' The
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), an agency of the
U.S. DOT, will issue a rulemaking notice on this topic within the
required time frame. Inspection programs for commercial vehicles play
an important role in keeping these vehicles safe on the road. But not
all safety regulations that apply to commercial motor vehicles have the
same potential safety benefit for passenger vehicles due to differences
in vehicle design and how they are utilized. For example, inspections
for commercial vehicles also include checking commercial driver
licensing and hours of service records. Thus, these differences between
commercial vehicles, such as motorcoaches, and passenger vehicles are
significant enough to merit independent assessments of the costs and
benefits of inspection programs.
CVSA recognized that PMVI programs focus mainly on light duty
passenger vehicles, although the guideline specifically applies to
``all registered vehicles.'' Their recommendation is to include all
medium- and heavy-duty motor vehicles (including commercial and non-
commercial vehicles.) They also acknowledge the value of roadside
inspections but believe those inspections are not on par with annual or
periodic motor vehicle inspections. CVSA recommends NHTSA establish
three separate and distinct types of inspections specifically for
commercial motor vehicles to include annual/periodic and preventative
maintenance requirements; driver trip requirements; and, roadside
inspection programs. FMCSA provides guidance to States on commercial
vehicle inspection programs; therefore this comment falls outside the
scope of this guideline. However, these comments will be forwarded to
FMCSA for consideration in their review of the annual inspection
process of commercial motor vehicles.
RMA/TIA supports stringent tire inspection and suggested that the
federal government should explore whether incentive grants could be
made to States with programs or consider withholding federal highway
funds from States without inspection programs to spur action. The
agency disagrees with this comment. Tires are already addressed in 49
CFR Part 570.9 which provides the criteria for inspections, as noted
earlier, and given the new TPMS requirement of FMVSS No. 138,
additional actions are not recommended at this time.
Finally, the MDT believes the evaluation of this program would add
to the current workload of the State Highway Traffic Safety Office
(SHTSO) and would cause financial hardship. While different parts of
the program are housed in different State agencies, it is not an undue
hardship for those agencies to work together within the State to obtain
the available information necessary to conduct the evaluation using
whatever data sources are available. Overall, no revisions were made to
this guideline in response to the comments.
C. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 2--Motor Vehicle Registration
NHTSA received three specific comments regarding this guideline.
MDT commented that the guideline would require that MDT's State Highway
Safety Traffic Office be provided with an evaluation summary of this
program. NHTSA agrees with this observation. NADA offered a suggestion
that motor vehicle registration programs notify registered owners of
any outstanding and remedied safety recall and/or condition vehicle re-
registration on recall remedy performance. NHTSA appreciates
recommendations on how to expand the reach of recall information, and
likes the general concept of enlisting States' help in flagging
unremedied recalls for consumers. However vehicle registration programs
vary by State and some registrations are valid for multiple years. If a
recall was issued shortly after vehicle registration, multiple years
may elapse before the next required registration and receipt of recall
information under their proposed scenario, making that late received
information less timely. NHTSA also does not favor recommending that
States make the recall remedy a condition of registration and/or
completing respective inspections, because such action would overlap
with
[[Page 71718]]
issues of State law and enforcement. Up-to-date information is
available at NHTSA's www.safercar.gov at no cost to the consumer.
Recall remedy information is also available for consumers on vehicle
history report Web sites for a nominal fee. To retool existing State
vehicle registration systems to provide this information would place an
undue financial burden on the States.
The CHP suggested adding the expiration date, motive power, number
of axles, unladen, gross or combined gross weight, branding (e.g. lemon
law, prior police, prior taxi, warranty return, grey market), vehicle
model, vehicle color and vehicle owner's contact information. Again,
NHTSA is concerned that the additional burden on State DMVs would
outweigh the safety benefit of gathering the requested additional
information. It may be feasible that individual States wanting such
information make that a part of their policy and administrative
guidance.
D. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 6--Codes and Laws
Two comments were received. GHSA remarked that it is unnecessary
for State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs) to maintain a list of codes/
laws and suggested elimination in future reauthorizations. NHTSA
disagrees since it is necessary for SHSOs to be aware of codes and laws
as they develop and evaluate safety programs. It serves the public
benefit by having this information. Since the Governors Highway Safety
Representative is designated by the Governor to maintain the highway
safety program and administer the grant programs, they must be aware of
how the individual State codes and laws comply (or not) with the grant
programs. The MDT commented that they currently have an established
process to address proposed changes. Requiring a SHSO to track
information adds another burden to MDT's State safety staff and is a
duplication of efforts by two different State agencies. NHTSA
recognizes that this may be a potential burden, and allows existing
systems of tracking to remain the same as long as they can continue to
carry out the intent of this guideline.
E. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 13--Older Driver Safety
NHTSA received comments in response to the notice from several
organizations or associations: AAA, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates), American Traffic Safety Services Association
(ATSSA), California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), Governors Highway
Safety Association (GHSA), Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MD
MVA), Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), New York State Office for the Aging
(NYSOA), University of North Carolina (UNC), as well as from one
individual.
General
AAA offered general support for the guidelines and provided two
suggestions on the implementation of the guidelines. NHTSA agrees that
implementation guidance is valuable, but determined that implementation
guidance should not be included within the guideline. ATSSA generally
supported the guideline, with emphasis on those related to roadway
safety. Advocates recommended inserting language into the guideline to
differentiate between the needs of urban and rural seniors. The agency
recognizes that older people in rural and urban areas have different
needs for transportation, and different challenges related to driving
safety. However, because the guidelines are not meant to be
prescriptive, this recommendation was not incorporated into the
guidance. MD MVA was generally supportive, and provided research
citations to support the aims of the guidance. MDT expressed concern
that this guideline represents an unfunded mandate, and that States
would be obligated to use highway safety funds to try to comply with
the guidance. NHTSA disagrees with this comment. In FY 2012, the States
received over $500 million to conduct highway safety programs. Congress
included older driver safety among the topics that are allowed under
the grant programs. If there is a documented and identified need,
States may utilize this funding to develop and implement programs
covered under the Highway Safety Guidelines.
NTSB was generally supportive, and recommended modification of the
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) to include fields related
to medical impairments as part of this guideline. Because this
suggestion is beyond the scope of the highway safety program
guidelines, no changes were made to the guidelines. One commenter
expressed concern that vehicle design and collaboration with vehicle
manufacturers was not included in the guidance. Improving vehicle
design to enhance the safety of frail and fragile occupants is an
important part of NHTSA's mission. However, this does not fall under
the mission or authority of State highway safety offices, the primary
audience for these guidelines, and therefore was not incorporated into
the guideline.
I. Program Management
The agency received several comments concerning the Program
Management section. ATSSA supported the section as written. NYSOA
recommended that proven effectiveness of programs be considered and
included within the program management structure. The agency agrees in
the value of proven programs, but also recognizes that innovation
happens at the State and local levels, and would not want to set limits
on program development within this framework that may hinder
innovation. Consequently, the agency made no changes to the guideline
in response to this comment. However, NHTSA also encourages States to
utilize evidence-based programs whenever possible, and recommends
Countermeasures That Work (DOT HS 811 727) as a resource and guide.
GHSA recommended that State DOT road and transit organizations be
specifically identified as organizations with which highway safety
offices should collaborate. The agency agreed that this was an
important addition, and changed the guideline to reflect this
recommendation.
II. Roadway Design for Older Driver Safety
Both ATSSA and NTSB supported this section as written. NYSOA
suggested that the notion that roadways should be designed to
specifically accommodate older drivers is flawed, and ignores the needs
of all motorists. Because there is a wide body of research that shows
how designs that help older drivers--such as larger traffic signs and
dedicated left-turn lanes--also help other drivers, the guideline
remains unchanged in response to this comment. GHSA expressed concern
about the phrasing of portions of this section, specifically that it
might give the incorrect expectation that highway funds could be used
for program activities. The guideline language was amended to be more
explicit in response to this comment.
III. Driver Licensing
One commenter expressed concern that a focus on older drivers in a
licensing setting can be viewed as discriminatory, and thus may be
reluctant to implement some of the guidance related to driver
licensing. However, in elevating each recommendation to be included in
the guideline, NHTSA assessed supporting
[[Page 71719]]
and dissenting research. The resulting guidance provides flexibility--
and the expectation--for individualized assessment of capabilities. It
also supports the ability of States to exercise their responsibility to
ensure public safety by looking more closely at a subset of the driving
population who are at increased risk of crashing.
The bulk of the comments received were related to this section of
the guideline. For clarity, the comments are grouped first by major
element, then by general suggestions. The first topic that drew
comments was the recommendation for in-person renewal. One individual
and NYSOA disagreed with the recommendation that States require in-
person renewal for drivers over a specified age. The individual was
concerned with the potential for unintended negative consequences if
more barriers to license renewal were enacted, such as injuries
sustained in other modes of transport. NYSOA suggested that in-person
renewal should be based on individual crash records, and that using age
as a basis for actions by the driver licensing authority was
``ageist.''
In recommending in-person renewal as part of the guideline, NHTSA
considered all of these concerns. Research on in-person renewal
requirements and other related policies has shown that these approaches
have safety benefits. Using age as a determinant for requiring in-
person renewal is reasonable because of the high correlation between
age and the functional deficits that are related to increased crashes.
Consequently, the guideline was not changed in response to these
comments. MD MVA suggested the addition of language related to data
analysis to support a State's decision on an in-person renewal policy,
and provided an additional citation on relevant research (Soderstrom
2008). This recommendation was incorporated into the guideline.
The second topic that drew comments was the provision of immunity
to medical providers who provide good-faith referrals to the driver
licensing authority. MD MVA recommended the inclusion of the word
``all'' to the sentence on medical providers who make good-faith
referrals, and NTSB suggested that medical providers in the emergency
room and emergency medical technicians should also be explicitly
included. Further, NTSB suggested the inclusion of criminal and
administrative immunity (in addition to civil liability immunity)
because the model law on the topic included those immunities. NHTSA
agrees with these comments, and changes were made to the guidelines to
reflect these recommendations.
The CPCA, NTSB, UNC and one individual suggested that other people
also should be provided immunity for providing good-faith referrals.
Because there is inadequate research to show a need for such immunity
for audiences other than medical providers, NHTSA cannot support their
explicit inclusion in the guidelines at this time. NYSOA recommended
relocating the guidance on medical provider immunity to the section on
medical providers. The action that necessitates immunity is the
provision of potentially confidential information to the driver
licensing authority. Because of this, the guideline was not changed to
reflect that comment.
The CPCA and UNC recommended a broader discussion of restrictions
to driver licenses, such as graduated licenses for older drivers. These
comments were incorporated into the guideline.
The remaining comments on this section covered a range of topics.
An individual expressed concern over whether the NHTSA and American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) policies were the
best guidance available, and suggested consideration of American
Medical Association (AMA) guidance for physicians. NHTSA sponsored the
development of both sets of guidance. Because of this coordination, and
the fact that AMA was also involved in the development of the AAMVA
guidance, these documents complement each other and this suggestion is
not incorporated into the guideline. The commenter also recommended
that driver licensing data be made generally available to researchers.
Because of the potential burden to State agencies, this was not
included in the guidance; however, that would not preclude a State from
making data available to researchers if they wished to do so. Finally,
the commenter suggested that guidance related to DMVs communicating
with medical providers was misplaced, and would be more appropriately
located in the section of the guideline on medical providers. Because
this would undermine the intent of the guideline in this section--to
identify actions that DMVs should take--this change was not made. The
CPCA suggested that States should set up safety-check locations for
older drivers to determine whether it is still safe for them to drive.
NHTSA is not aware of feasibility, reliability, or effectiveness
research on models like that. The agency will need to conduct research
on such programs before including them in the guideline. This
recommendation was not incorporated into the guideline. MD MVA
suggested that non-driver identification cards should be provided at
low-cost or no charge if possible. Research has suggested that such an
action would eliminate a potential barrier to driving cessation. This
comment was incorporated into this section of the guideline.
IV. Medical Providers
One individual suggested that NHTSA specify the types of medical
providers who should receive education related to safe driving among
medically at-risk patients. Because any medical provider who interacts
with patients has the potential to identify functional deficits and
risk factors related to driving, it would not be beneficial from a
public health perspective to limit the types of medical providers that
are eligible for education on the topic. Consequently, the guideline
was not changed to reflect this recommendation.
V. Law Enforcement
Two comments were related to this section of the guideline. NYSOA
expressed concern over law enforcement officers' ability to identify
medical risk. NHTSA agrees with this concern. Because of this, the
agency has developed training tools related to unsafe driving and
appropriate interactions with potentially-at-risk drivers. However, no
changes were made to the guideline in response to this comment. Also,
MD MVA provided citations for research supporting the value and
effectiveness of law enforcement referrals to driver licensing
authorities (Meuser, Carr & Ulfarsson, 2009; and Soderstrom, Scottino,
Burch et al., 2010).
VI. Social and Aging Services Providers
There were two comments related to this section of the guideline.
One person recommended that State Highway Safety Offices collaborate
with localities on human services transportation. NYSOA recommended the
explicit inclusion of strategies from the document ``Countermeasures
that Work'' in the guidance. Both of these comments were incorporated
into this section of the guideline.
VII. Communication Program
Two comments were submitted related to this section of the
guideline. NYSOA expressed concern that there was not a suggestion that
communities facilitate driver transitioning. NHTSA agrees with this
comment, and believes it is addressed through the changes
[[Page 71720]]
made to the section on Social and Aging Services Providers. NTSB
suggested that families and friends should be explicitly included in
communications and education efforts. NHTSA agrees with this. This
suggestion was incorporated into Section VI of the guideline.
VIII. Program Evaluation and Data
There were two comments submitted on this section of the guideline.
An individual recommended an emphasis on outcome evaluation, crash
reduction in particular, rather than process evaluation and suggested
that the guidelines emphasize additional data collection. NHTSA agrees
that outcome evaluation is very important, but it is also important to
collect a range of data--both outcome and process--to determine the
effectiveness of a program. Further, the agency determined that process
evaluation is a critical element within outcome evaluation in that one
must determine the extent of program activities to determine whether
they could have influenced the outcome. The agency did not change the
guideline in response to this comment. NYSOA recommended that
evaluation of educational programs should be specified. The agency
agreed with this, and adjusted the guideline to reflect that
recommendation.
F. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 16--Management of Highway Incidents
(formerly Debris Hazard Control and Cleanup)
NHTSA received three comments on this guideline. CHP commented that
Section I.B.2 deals with procedures to ``certify'' all rescue and
salvage responders and equipment and the burden that would place on the
State to develop a formal certification program. MDT also questioned
the certification and standards. NHTSA agrees with these concerns.
References to the certification process were removed from the
guideline. GHSA pointed out that a prior Section 402 earmark for this
program was eliminated years ago and this guideline creates
expectations that Section 402 funds should now be used. They suggest
elimination of this guideline. MDT believes the guideline places a
burden on the State and all of the guidelines and requirements are
outside the control and scope of the SHSO, making it difficult to
verify implementation and evaluate and monitor the programs. NHTSA
disagrees with GHSA and MDT on these issues. The guideline provides a
formal structure used by the States to improve highway safety and
serves as a public benefit. States have the flexibility to utilize
Section 402 funds based on their greatest needs and where the funding
would have the greatest impact.
G. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 18--Motor Vehicle Crash
Investigation and Incident Reporting (formerly Accident Investigation
and Reporting)
Four comments were received on this guideline. AAIA states the
proposed guideline does not reflect the detailed depth of reporting
necessary to aggregate data of real value. NHTSA disagrees with this
comment since use of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC)
data set provides the needed information for relevant crash data
collection and analysis. They go on to comment that the MMUCC--Vehicle
Data Elements contains the data set that would enable the aggregation
of information relevant to understanding the value of PMVSI programs
and should be the standard for crash investigation. NHTSA agrees with
this observation and recognizes the need for uniformity and
compatibility of data collected in Section A.4.a of the guideline: Use
of uniform definitions and classifications as denoted in the Model
Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Guideline.
The AEPI urges NHTSA to include professional collision repairers in
the listing of recommended representatives of crash investigation teams
and does not support law enforcement (untrained) to estimate the value
of damage. NHTSA disagrees with this recommendation. While the police
crash report is useful to provide an estimate of the damage, a detailed
analysis of damage is generally conducted at a repair facility by
qualified technicians. There is no apparent value for an onsite
collision repairer at crash scenes and investigations. The AEPI also
commented that NHTSA does not require obtaining information pertaining
to prior motor vehicle collisions and/or repairs to a vehicle in the
data collected by the states during current crash investigations. It is
their opinion that comparison of the crash data and prior claim
information could identify methods of repair and/or parts used in the
repair of most vehicles that are causing or contributing to motor
vehicle crashes, injuries and deaths. NHTSA disagrees with this
suggestion, since it is not within the scope of NHTSA's mission nor
this guideline.
R&R Trucking commented that the lack of a standard accident report
and the requirement to complete the accident report properly has a
negative impact on carriers and drivers. NHTSA disagrees with this
comment since each State has a uniform crash report that is adapted to
their specific needs. Properly filling out a State uniform crash is the
responsibility of the individual States.
References:
Christensen, P., Elvik, R. Effects on accidents of periodic
motor vehicle inspection in Norway. Accid. Anal. Prev., 39 (2007)
pp. 47-52. Accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
Fosser, S. (1992). An Experimental Evaluation of the Effects of
Period Motor Vehicle Inspection on Accident Rates. Accid. Anal.
Prev, Vol. 24, No. 6 pp. 599-612.
Meuser TM, Carr DB, Ulfarsson GF: Motor-vehicle crash history
and licensing outcomes for older drivers reported as medically
impaired in Missouri. Accid. Anal. Prev 2009;41:246-252.
NHTSA (2008) National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey
Report to Congress. DOT HS 811 059. Washington, DC National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
Soderstrom CA & Joyce JJ: Medical review of fitness to drive in
older drivers: the Maryland Experience. Traffic Injury Prevention
2008;9:342-349.
Soderstrom, Scottino, Burch et al. 2010. Pursuit of Licensure by
Senior Drivers Referred by Police to a State Licensing Agency's
Medical Advisory Board. Ann Adv Automot Med. 2010;54:351-8.
Vlahos, N., Lawton S., Komanduri A., Popuri Y., and Gaines, D.
2009. Pennsylvania's Vehicle Safety Inspection Program Effectiveness
Study Final Report. PA Department of Transportation Contract
355101.
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. 1, 2, 6, 13, 16, and 18 are set forth below. The
remaining guidelines are not addressed by today's action and remain
unchanged.
Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 1
Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection
Each State should have a program for periodic inspection of all
registered vehicles to reduce the number of vehicles with existing or
potential conditions that may contribute to crashes or increase the
severity of crashes that do occur, and should require the owner to
correct such conditions.
I. An inspection program would provide, at a minimum, that:
A. Every vehicle registered in the State is inspected at the time
of initial registration and on a periodic basis thereafter as
determined by the State based on evidence of the effectiveness of
inspection programs.
B. The inspection is performed by competent personnel specifically
trained to perform their duties and certified by the State.
C. The inspection covers systems, subsystems, and components having
[[Page 71721]]
substantial relation to safe vehicle performance.
D. Each inspection station maintains records in a form specified by
the State, which includes at least the following information:
Class of vehicle.
Date of inspection.
Make of vehicle.
Model year.
Vehicle identification number.
Defects by category.
Identification of inspector.
Mileage or odometer reading.
E. The State publishes summaries of records of all inspection
stations at least annually, including tabulations by make and model of
vehicle.
II. The program should be periodically evaluated by the State and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should be provided
with an evaluation summary.
Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 2
Motor Vehicle Registration
Each State should have a motor vehicle registration program.
I. A model registration program would require that every vehicle
operated on public highways is registered and that the following
information is readily available for each vehicle:
Make.
Model year.
Vehicle Identification Number.
Type of body.
License plate number.
Name of current owner.
Current address of owner.
Registered gross laden weight of every commercial vehicle.
II. Each program should have a records system that provides at
least the following services:
Rapid entry of new data into the records or data system.
Controls to eliminate unnecessary or unreasonable delay in
obtaining data.
Rapid audio or visual response upon receipt at the records
station of any priority request for status of vehicle possession
authorization.
Data available for statistical compilation as needed by
authorized sources.
Identification and ownership of vehicle sought for
enforcement or other operation needs.
III. This program should be periodically evaluated by the State and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should be provided
with an evaluation summary.
Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 6
Codes and Laws
Each State should strive to achieve uniformity of traffic codes and
laws throughout the State. The State Highway Safety Office should
maintain a list of all relevant traffic codes and laws, and serve as a
resource to State and local jurisdictions on any proposed changes.
Each State should utilize all available sources, such as Federal or
State legislative databases or Web sites, to ensure that its traffic
codes and laws reflect the most current evidence-based and peer-
reviewed research.
Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 13
Older Driver Safety
Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions, tribal
governments and other stakeholders, should develop and implement a
comprehensive highway safety program, reflective of State demographics,
to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes, fatalities, and
injuries on public roads. The highway safety program should include a
comprehensive older driver safety program that aims to reduce older
driver crashes, fatalities, and injuries. To maximize benefits, each
State older driver safety program should address driver licensing and
medical review of at-risk drivers, medical and law enforcement
education, roadway design, and collaboration with social services and
transportation services providers. This guideline recommends the key
components of a State older driver safety program, and criteria that
the program components should meet.
In this guideline, there are recommendations regarding specific
partner groups. However, it is likely that there are other State,
local, and non-government organizations that could help in achieving
goals related to older driver safety because their missions are related
to the safe mobility of older people. When older people can no longer
drive safely, their mobility needs are often met by alternative means
such as ride programs or transit services. Federal highway safety funds
can be used for highway safety purposes--which might include programs
to facilitate older persons' decisions about when to stop driving by
increasing awareness of other transportation options. However, NHTSA
funds cannot be used to provide services--such as transit services--
whose primary purpose is not to improve highway safety. For details on
recommended practices, see Countermeasures that Work at (www.ghsa.org/html/publications/countermeasures.html ).
I. Program Management
Each State should have centralized data analysis and program
planning, implementation, and coordination to identify the nature and
extent of its older driver safety problems, to establish goals and
objectives for the State's older driver safety program and to implement
projects to reach the goals and objectives. State older driver programs
should:
Designate a lead organization for older driver safety;
Develop resources;
Collect and analyze data on older driver crashes,
injuries, and fatalities;
Identify and prioritize the State's older driver safety
problems;
Encourage and facilitate regular collaboration among
agencies and organizations responsible for or impacted by older driver
safety issues (e.g., Department of Transportation road and transit
entities, State Unit on Aging, State Injury Prevention Director, State
Office of EMS, Non-Governmental Organizations related to aging or
aging-related diseases);
Develop programs and specific projects to address
identified problems;
Coordinate older driver safety projects with other highway
safety projects;
Increase awareness of older driver transportation options,
such as ride programs or transit services;
Integrate older driver safety into the State strategic
highway safety plans and other related activities, including impaired
driving, occupant protection, and especially driver licensing programs;
and
Routinely evaluate older driver safety programs and
services and use the results in program planning.
II. Roadway Design for Older Driver Safety
Traffic engineering and roadway design can challenge or ease a
driver's mobility in any community. It is possible and desirable to
accommodate normal aging through the application of design,
operational, and traffic engineering countermeasures. The needs of
older road users must be considered in new construction, as well as in
spot improvements, to keep older drivers safe. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed guidelines (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/older_users/) for accommodating older road users,
and the guidelines need to be implemented on State and local roadways.
Each State also has a process by which it seeks user input for its
[[Page 71722]]
Strategic Highway Safety Plans. It is reasonable for State DOTs to
collaborate and seek partnerships and planning/funding through other
sources, such as the Highway Safety Plans, which come from the Highway
Safety Office, or from the State Units on Aging, though it should be
noted that there are strict limits on how funding from these sources
may be used.
State DOTs should:
Consider Older Driver safety as an emphasis area in the
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) if data analysis identifies this
as an area of concern;
Develop and implement a plan for deploying the guidelines
and recommendations to accommodate older drivers and pedestrians; and
Develop and implement a communications and educational
plan for assisting local entities in the deployment of the guidelines
and recommendations to accommodate older drivers and pedestrians.
III. Driver Licensing
Driver licensing is a critical element in the oversight of public
safety as it relates to older drivers. The driver licensing authority
(DMV) can legally restrict or suspend an individual's license, and for
that reason, it is the primary audience for these recommendations. It
is important that DMVs continue to make individualized determinations
of fitness to drive--that is, determinations based on the review and
assessment of individuals' capabilities to safely operate vehicles.
However, it is reasonable for States to use age as a trigger for
additional screening in execution of public safety roles and
obligations. There are three areas within driver licensing that are
important to driving safety: policies; practices; and, communications.
Recommended driver licensing policies that each State should
implement to address older driver safety are:
In-person renewal should be required of individual drivers
over a specified age if the State determines through analysis of crash
records that there is a problem with older driver crashes;
Medical review policies should align with the Driver
Fitness Medical Guidelines (Driver Fitness Medical Guidelines)
published by NHTSA and the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA); and
All medical and emergency medical service providers who
provide a referral regarding a driver in good faith to the driver
licensing authority should be provided immunity from civil, criminal,
and administrative liability.
Recommended driver licensing practices that each State should
implement to address older driver safety are:
Consider licensing restrictions as a means of limiting the
risks presented by individual drivers while allowing for the greatest
autonomy possible;
Establish a Medical Advisory Board (MAB), consisting of a
range of medical professionals, to provide policy guidance to the
driver licensing agency to implement;
The medical review function of the DMV should include
staff with medical expertise in the review of medically-referred
drivers;
The DMV should regularly conduct analyses and evaluation
of the referrals that come through the medical review system to
determine whether procedures are in place to appropriately detect and
regulate at-risk drivers;
Train DMV staff, including counter-staff, in the
identification of medically at-risk drivers and the referral of those
drivers for medical review; and
Provide a simple, fast, and if possible, very low cost or
free way for individuals to convert their driver licenses to
identification cards.
To be effective in identification of medically at-risk drivers, the
State should implement a communications program, through the DMV to:
Make medical referral information and forms easy to find
on the DMV Web site;
Provide outreach to and training for medical providers
(e.g., physicians, nurses, etc.) in making referrals of medically at-
risk drivers and in finding resources on functional abilities and
driving;
Provide outreach to and training for law enforcement in
successfully identifying medically at-risk drivers and in making
referrals of medically at-risk drivers to the DMV; and
Provide information on transportation options and
community resources to drivers who are required to submit to medical
review of their licenses.
IV. Medical Providers
State older driver safety programs rely on the identification of
medically at-risk drivers by their medical providers, with the aim of
limiting the impact of changes in functional abilities on the safe
operation of a motor vehicle. Medical providers should know how to
counsel the at-risk driver, and when confronted by a driver who refuses
to heed advice to stop driving, to make a referral to the driver
licensing authority. To facilitate this process, States should:
Establish and implement a communications plan for reaching
medical providers;
Disseminate educational materials for medical providers.
Providers should include physicians, nurses, occupational therapists,
and other medical professionals who treat or deal with older people
and/or their families;
Facilitate the provision of Continuing Medical Education
(CME) credits for medical providers in learning about driving safety;
and
Facilitate referrals of medically at-risk drivers to the
driver licensing authority for review.
V. Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement plays an important role in identifying at-risk
drivers on the road. States should ensure that State and local older
driver safety programs include a law enforcement component. Essential
elements of the law enforcement component include:
A communications plan for reaching law enforcement
officers with information on medically at-risk drivers;
Training and education for law enforcement officers that
includes emphasis on ``writing the citation'' for older violators,
identifying the medically at-risk driver, and making referrals of the
medically at-risk driver to the driver licensing authority; and
An easy way for law enforcement officers who are in the
field to make referrals of medically at-risk drivers to the driver
licensing authority.
VI. Social and Aging Services Providers
At the State-level, there are agencies that are responsible for
coordinating aging services. These agencies should be collaborating
with the State DOT-Transit offices in the planning for and provision of
transportation services for older residents. State Highway Safety
Offices should:
Collaborate with State Units on Aging and other social
services providers on providing support related to older drivers who
are transitioning from driving;
Collaborate with State DOT-Transit offices and local
planning organizations to provide information at the local level on how
individuals can access transportation services for older people; and
Develop joint communications strategies and messages
related to driver transitioning.
States are encouraged to review and use strategies
outlined in Countermeasures That Work.
VII. Communication Program
States should develop and implement communication strategies
directed at
[[Page 71723]]
specific high-risk populations as identified by crash and population-
based data. States should consider a range of audiences, including
families and friends of at-risk drivers. Communications should
highlight and support specific policies and programs underway in the
States and communities. The programs and materials should be
culturally-relevant, multi-lingual as necessary, and appropriate to the
target audience. To achieve this, States should:
Establish a working group of State and local agencies and
organizations that have an interest in older driver safety and mobility
with the goal of developing common message themes; and
Focus the communication efforts on the support of the
overall policy and program.
VIII. Program Evaluation and Data
Both problem identification and continual evaluation require
effective record-keeping by State and local governments. The State
should identify the frequency and types of older driver crashes. After
problem identification is complete, the State can identify appropriate
countermeasures. The State can promote effective evaluation by:
Supporting detailed analyses of police accident reports
involving older drivers;
Encouraging, supporting, and training localities in
process, impact, and outcome evaluation of local programs;
Conducting and publicizing statewide surveys of public
knowledge and attitudes about older driver safety;
Evaluating the effectiveness of educational programs by
measuring behavior and attitude changes;
Evaluating the use of program resources and the
effectiveness of existing countermeasures for the general public and
high-risk populations;
Ensuring that evaluation results are used to identify
problems, plan new programs, and improve existing programs; and
Maintaining awareness of trends in older driver crashes at
the national level and how this might influence activities statewide.
Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 16
Management of Highway Incidents
Each State in cooperation with its political subdivisions should
have a program which provides for rapid, orderly, and safe removal from
the roadway of wreckage, spillage, and debris resulting from motor
vehicle accidents, and for otherwise reducing the likelihood of
secondary and chain-reaction collisions, and conditions hazardous to
the public health and safety.
I. The program should provide at a minimum that:
A. Traffic Incident Management programs are effective and
understood by emergency first responders.
B. Operational procedures are established and implemented to:
1. Define responsibilities of all first responders and classify all
rescue and salvage responders and equipment;
2. Enable rescue and salvage equipment personnel to get to the
scene of accidents rapidly and to operate effectively and safely on
arrival--
a. On heavily traveled freeways and other limited access roads;
b. In other types of locations where wreckage or spillage of
hazardous materials on or adjacent to highways endangers the public
health and safety;
3. Extricate trapped persons from wreckage with reasonable care- to
avoid injury or aggravating existing injuries;
4. Warn approaching drivers and detour them with reasonable care
past hazardous wreckage or spillage;
5. Ensure safe handling of spillage or potential spillage of
materials that are--
a. Radioactive
b. Flammable
c. Poisonous
d. Explosive
e. Otherwise hazardous; and
6. Expeditiously remove wreckage or spillage from roadways or
otherwise ensure the resumption of safe, orderly traffic flow.
C. All rescue and salvage personnel are properly trained and
retrained in the latest accident cleanup techniques.
D. An interoperable communications system is provided, adequately
equipped and manned to provide coordinated efforts in incident
detection and the notification, dispatch, and response of appropriate
services.
II. The program should be periodically evaluated by the State to
ensure adherence to the principles and concepts of the National
Incident Management System using the Federal Highway Administration's
Traffic Incident Management State Self-Assessment (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_pse/preparedness/tim/self.htm). The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration should be provided with an
evaluation summary.
Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 18
Motor Vehicle Crash Investigation and Incident Reporting (Formerly
Accident Investigation and Reporting)
Each State should have a highway safety program for the
investigation and reporting of all motor vehicle crashes and incidents,
and the associated deaths, injuries and reportable property damage that
occur within the State.
I. A uniform, comprehensive crash investigation and incident
reporting program would provide for gathering information--who, what,
when, where, why, and how--on all motor vehicle crashes and incidents,
and the associated deaths, injuries, and property damage within the
State and entering the information into the traffic records system for
use in planning, evaluating, and furthering highway safety program
goals.
II. For the purpose of this guideline, the definitions adhere to
D16.1-2007, the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Accidents
III. (http://downloads.nsc.org/pdf/D16.1_Classification_Manual.pdf ).
IV. A model crash investigation and incident reporting program
would be structured as follows:
A. Administration.
1. There should be a State agency having primary responsibility for
the collection, storing, processing, administration and supervision of
crash investigation and incident reporting information and for
providing this information upon request to other user agencies.
2. At all levels of government, there should be adequate staffing
(not necessarily limited to law enforcement officers) with the
knowledge, skills and ability to conduct crash investigations and
incident reporting and to process the collected information.
3. Procedures should be established to assure coordination,
cooperation, and exchange of information among local, State, and
Federal agencies having responsibility for the investigation of motor
vehicle crashes and incidents, and processing of collected data.
4. Each State should establish procedures for entering crash
investigation and incident information into the statewide traffic
records system (established pursuant to Highway Safety Program
Guideline No. 10 Traffic Records) and for assuring uniformity and
compatibility of this data with the requirements of the system,
including at a minimum:
a. Use of uniform definitions and classifications as denoted in the
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
[[Page 71724]]
Guideline (MMUCC) (http://www.mmucc.us); and
b. A guideline format for input of data into a statewide traffic
records system.
B. Crash investigation and incident reporting. Each State should
establish procedures that require the reporting of motor vehicle
crashes and incidents to the responsible State agency within a
reasonable time after the occurrence.
C. Driver reports.
1. In motor vehicle crashes involving only property damage, and
where the motor vehicle can be safely driven away from the scene, the
drivers of the motor vehicles involved should be required to submit a
written report consistent with State reporting requirements, to the
responsible State agency. A motor vehicle should be considered capable
of being normally and safely driven if it does not require towing and
can be operated under its own power, in its customary manner, without
further damage or hazard to itself, other traffic elements, or the
roadway. Each driver report should include, at a minimum, the following
information relating to the crash:
a. Location
b. Date
c. Time
d. Identification of drivers
e. Identification of the owner
f. Identification of any pedestrians, passengers, and pedal-cyclists
g. Identification of the motor vehicles
h. Direction of travel of each motor vehicle involved
i. Other property involved
j. Environmental conditions existing at the time of the accident
k. A narrative description of the events and circumstances leading up
to the time of the crash and immediately after the crash.
2. In all other motor vehicle crashes or incidents, the drivers of
the motor vehicles involved should be required to immediately notify
and report the motor vehicle crash or incident to the nearest law
enforcement agency of the jurisdiction in which the motor vehicle crash
or incident occurred. This includes, but is not limited to, motor
vehicle crashes or incidents involving:
a. Fatal or nonfatal personal injury or
b. Damage to the extent that any motor vehicle involved cannot be
driven under its own power, and therefore requires towing.
D. Motor vehicle crash investigation and incident reporting. Each
State should establish a plan for motor vehicle crash investigation and
incident reporting that meets the following criteria:
1. A law enforcement agency investigation should be conducted of
all motor vehicle crashes and incidents identified in section III.C.2
of this guideline. Information collected should be consistent with the
law enforcement mission of detecting and apprehending violators of any
criminal or traffic statute, regulation or ordinance, and should
include, as a minimum, the following:
a. Violation(s), if any occurred, cited by section and subsection,
numbers and titles of the State code, that contributed to the motor
vehicle crash or incident or for which the driver was arrested or
cited.
b. Information supporting each of the elements of the offenses for
which the driver was arrested or cited.
c. Information (collected in accordance with the program
established under Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 15, Traffic Law
Enforcement Services), relating to human, vehicular, and roadway
factors causing individual motor vehicle crashes and incidents,
injuries, and deaths, including failure to use seat belts.
2. Multidisciplinary motor vehicle crash investigation teams should
be established, with representatives from appropriate interest areas,
such as law enforcement, prosecutorial, traffic, highway and automotive
engineering, medical, behavioral, and social sciences. Data gathered by
each member of the investigation team should be consistent with the
mission of the member's agency, and should be for the purpose of
determining the causes of motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and deaths.
These teams should conduct investigations of an appropriate sampling of
motor vehicle crashes in which there were one or more of the following
conditions:
a. Locations that have a similarity of design, traffic engineering
characteristics, or environmental conditions, or that have a
significantly large or disproportionate number of crashes.
b. Motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts that are involved in a
significantly large or disproportionate number of motor vehicle
crashes, or fatal or injury producing crashes or incidents.
c. Drivers, pedestrians, and motor vehicle occupants of a
particular age, sex, or other grouping, who are involved in a
significantly large or disproportionate number of fatal or injury
producing motor vehicle crashes or incidents.
d. Motor vehicle crashes in which the causation or the resulting
injuries and property damage are not readily explainable in terms of
conditions or circumstances that prevailed.
e. Other factors tha t concern State and national emphasis
programs.
V. Evaluation.
The program should be evaluated at least annually by the State. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should be provided with
a copy of the evaluation.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. Section 402.
Issued in Washington, DC on November 25, 2013.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2013-28635 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P