Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use |
|---|
|
David L. Strickland
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
April 1, 2011
[Federal Register: April 1, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 63)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18042-18059]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01ap11-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
23 CFR Part 1340
[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0002]
RIN 2127-AK41
Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Final Rule amends the regulation establishing uniform
criteria for designing and conducting State seat belt use observational
surveys and the procedures for obtaining NHTSA approval of survey
designs, and provides a new form for reporting seat belt use rates to
NHTSA. Since the adoption of the Uniform Criteria in 1998, NHTSA and
the States have accumulated substantial experience in the design and
implementation of seat belt use surveys. This experience has provided
insight into factors that could affect survey accuracy and reliability.
In addition, technological improvements in road inventories have made
it possible to select observation sites that are more representative of
the road segments in the State in a more cost effective manner. For
these reasons, NHTSA is revising the Uniform Criteria so that future
surveys will give States more accurate data to guide their occupant
protection programs.
DATES: This Final Rule becomes effective on May 2, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues: Mr. Jack Oates,
Chief, Program Implementation, Regional Operations and Program
Delivery, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., NTI-200, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone number:
202-366-2730; E-mail: Jack.Oates@dot.gov.
For statistical issues: Dr. Chou-Lin Chen, Chief, Mathematical
Analysis Division, National Center for Statistics and Analysis,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., NVS-421, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone number: 202-366-1048; E-
mail: Chou-Lin.Chen@dot.gov.
For legal issues: Ms. Jin Kim, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the
Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., NCC-113, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone number:
202-366-1834; E-mail: Jin.Kim@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Comments
A. In General
B. General Cost
C. Definitions
D. Selection of Observation Sites
E. Assignment of Observation Times
F. Observation Procedures
G. Quality Control
H. Computation of Estimates
I. Submission and Approval of Seat Belt Survey Design
J. Re-Selection of Observation Sites
K. Annual Reporting Requirements
IV. Statutory Basis for This Action
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. National Environmental Policy Act
H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribes)
I. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
J. Privacy Act
K. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking
I. Background
Section 1403 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178) authorized a seat belt incentive grant
program that awarded grant funds to States based on a State's seat belt
use rate. On September 1, 1998, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) published as an interim final rule the criteria
to ensure accurate and representative measurements of a State's seat
belt use rate, known as the Uniform Criteria for State Observational
Surveys of Seat Belt Use (the Uniform Criteria). See 63 FR 46389. On
March 14, 2000, NHTSA published a Final Rule, adopting the Uniform
Criteria with one clarifying change.\1\ See 65 FR 13679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2000, NHTSA clarified that States are permitted to
``cluster sample,'' i.e., group observation sites according to
geographic areas to minimize travel time and distance required to
conduct the observations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59), enacted on
August 10, 2005, did not reauthorize the seat belt incentive grant
program. However, SAFETEA-LU established new administrative
requirements relating to a State's qualification for a highway safety
grant under 23 U.S.C. 402. One such requirement is that the State must
provide satisfactory assurances that it will conduct an annual
Statewide seat belt use survey in accordance with the criteria for
State seat belt use rate measurement established by the Secretary of
Transportation.\2\ In August 2005, NHTSA notified the States and
Territories that the Statewide surveys conducted in accordance with the
Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, as
published at 23 CFR part 1340, would satisfy the administrative
requirements of Section 402. In addition, the implementing guidelines
for the safety belt performance grant program under 23 U.S.C. 406
provide that seat belt use surveys conducted in accordance with the
Uniform Criteria serve as the basis for an award under the seat belt
[[Page 18043]]
performance provisions of that grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 CFR 1.50 (delegation of authority to Administrator of
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the adoption of the Uniform Criteria in 1998, NHTSA and the
States have accumulated substantial experience in the design and
implementation of seat belt use surveys. This experience has provided
insight into factors that could affect survey accuracy and reliability.
In addition, technological improvements in road inventories have made
it possible to select observation sites that are more representative of
the road segments in the State in a more cost effective manner. For
these reasons, NHTSA proposed to revise the Uniform Criteria so that
future surveys would give States more accurate data to guide their
occupant protection programs.
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On January 28, 2010, NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Uniform Criteria. See 75 FR 4509. NHTSA
proposed several key changes to the 1998 Uniform Criteria. In
particular, the agency proposed to revise the geographic coverage of
the sampling frame from the population-based exclusion criterion to a
fatality-based exclusion criterion and to identify the road types that
are required to be included in a State's sampling frame. The proposal
also changed the precision requirement from a five percent relative
error to a 2.5 percentage point standard error. In addition, the agency
proposed quality control procedures, such as quality control monitors,
training and statistical review, to help ensure accuracy and
consistency across all State surveys. Finally, the agency proposed
submission of additional information from the survey results as part of
a State's annual certification, including the data source of the
sampling frame, exclusions applied to the sampling frame, procedures
for collecting additional data to reduce the nonresponse rates,
explanation of any imputation methods, procedures to adjust the
sampling weight, and procedures to be followed if the standard error is
exceeded.
III. Comments
By the close of the comment period on March 29, 2010, the agency
received submissions from 27 commenters in response to the NPRM.
Commenters included the following State agencies: California Office of
Traffic Safety (CA OTS), Colorado Department of Transportation (CO
DOT), Idaho Transportation Department (ID DOT), Illinois Department of
Transportation (IL DOT), Iowa Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau--
Department of Public Safety (IA TSB), Kansas Department of
Transportation (KS DOT), Louisiana Highway Safety Commission--
Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LA HSC), Maine Bureau of
Highway Safety (ME DPSC), Missouri Highway Safety Division--Department
of Transportation (MO DOT), Nevada Department of Public Safety
(prepared by University of Nevada--Las Vegas) (NV DPS), New Hampshire
Highway Safety Agency (NH HSA), New York Governor's Traffic Safety
Committee--Department of Motor Vehicles (NY TSC), North Dakota
Department of Transportation (ND DOT), Oregon Department of
Transportation (OR DOT), Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PA
DOT), Texas Department of Transportation (TX DOT), Washington Traffic
Safety Commission (WA TSC), West Virginia Governor's Highway Safety
Program (WV HSP), Wisconsin Division of State Patrol, Bureau of
Transportation Safety--Department of Transportation (WI State Patrol),
Wyoming Highway Safety Program--Department of Transportation (WY HSP).
Additional commenters included two associations--Governor's Highway
Safety Association (GHSA) and International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP); three professors and staff--Mississippi State University
(MS State Univ.), New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) and Old
Dominion University (ODU); one consultant to a State--Peters and
Associates Engineers Inc. (Peters & Assoc.); and one interested member
of the public.
A. In General
Several commenters expressed general support for revising the
criteria. These commenters stated that the changes to the protocol are
appropriate and timely and will enhance the accuracy and consistency of
seat belt use surveys. (E.g., GHSA at 1; WI State Patrol at 1; WA TSC
at 1; TX DOT at 1; CA OTS at 1. See also NV DPS at 9; ODU at 1.) In
addition to expressing general support for revising the criteria, these
commenters also had more specific comments regarding different aspects
of the proposal. The agency addresses these comments below under the
appropriate heading.
Some commenters expressed general concern with revising the Uniform
Criteria. One commenter suggested reducing the frequency of State
observational surveys, and one commenter suggested expanding the
National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) to each State instead
of requiring States to conduct independent surveys. (WI State Patrol at
1; CO DOT at 1.) We decline to adopt these commenters' suggestions as
Section 402 requires each State to provide assurances that it will
conduct annual Statewide seat belt use surveys in accordance with the
Uniform Criteria to ensure that the measurements are accurate and
representative.
One commenter believed that changing the survey criteria at the end
of the authorization was not cost effective unless a seat belt
incentive program formed a part of the future authorization. (LA HSC at
1.) In the NPRM, we stated that the purpose of revising the criteria
was to improve the accuracy and reliability of surveys conducted by
States. We believe it is necessary to do so now based on our experience
reviewing State survey results. Regardless of whether a seat belt
incentive program is part of a future authorization, improved data will
enable States to guide their highway safety program evaluation and
program management more effectively now.
The NH HSA stated that the most significant effect of the proposed
change would be damage to trend information. (NH HSA 1.) The commenter
further stated that policy analysis based on previous methodology would
no longer be relevant as a tool to measure seat belt usage. Id. For
some States, seat belt use rate estimates obtained from a survey
meeting the new criteria may depart from the trend of survey outcomes
in recent years. However, any departure from the trend will reflect the
fact that the data will be more accurate and more reliable.
Specifically, observation sites will be drawn from a more up-to-date
and comprehensive road inventory. The seat belt survey will also be
less biased toward urban areas due to the shift from a population-based
exclusion to a fatality-based exclusion. (See discussion in Section
III.D.1 below.) Finally, the survey will have greater precision due to
the shift from a five percent relative error to a 2.5 percentage point
standard error. (See discuss in Section III.D.5 below.) NHTSA believes
that the need for more accurate and reliable data outweighs concerns
about departure from trends reflected under the 1998 Uniform Criteria.
The CO DOT stated that the proposal did not address the large gap
in data through lack of nighttime observations. (CO DOT at 1.) As we
stated in the NPRM, although nighttime observations of seat belt use
may provide States with useful data, the agency believes that several
factors weigh against extending the sampling requirements. First,
extending the sampling requirement to nighttime observations would
reduce
[[Page 18044]]
the value, for comparison purposes, of survey results from previous
years' data. States and other interested parties use this information
to determine the impact of various seat belt use programs and
activities. In addition, seat belt use is difficult to reliably observe
in the dark, even in the most well-lit areas. Nighttime observations
are also less safe for data collectors than daytime observations
because data collectors are less conspicuous and exposed to an
increased presence of impaired drivers. For these reasons, the agency
declines to change the rule in response to this comment.
The LA HSC suggested that traffic cameras positioned in
predetermined locations will provide higher data quality at a fraction
of the costs of manual collection and will reduce exposure of data
collectors to highway hazards. (LA HSC at 1.) The Uniform Criteria do
not prohibit States from using traffic cameras to conduct seat belt use
observations. However, States must still comply with the other
provisions of the Uniform Criteria, such as observation procedures
(Sec. 1340.7) and quality control (Sec. 1340.8). With this
clarification, no change is made to the rule.
The OR DOT suggested that States should be allowed to continue
using their current survey methodology but adjust sampling to re-weight
observation sites using the proposed fatality-based criterion. (OR DOT
at 2.) Much of the survey methodology in the revised criteria is a
clarification of the 1998 Uniform Criteria. The major change for most
States will be in the sampling frame--changing from a population-based
exclusion of counties to a fatality-based exclusion of counties and an
updated road inventory. Because of this change, we expect that the
large majority of States will have to re-select a probability sample of
observation sites. However, some States already may be in close
compliance with the revised criteria and may not need to make
significant changes to their current survey design.
NHTSA received four comments requesting additional guidance. The
IACP and WV HSP requested greater guidance and technical assistance on
conducting surveys, including common data collection procedures and
approaches for calculation of sampling error estimates. (IACP at 1; WV
HSP at 2.) The OR DOT and NV DPS requested a sample of an acceptable
survey design for States. (OR DOT at 2; NV DPS at 7.) The agency
intends to provide technical assistance, such as providing county-by-
county breakdowns of passenger motor vehicle occupant fatalities and an
inventory of roads. In addition, NHTSA is developing a sample of an
acceptable survey design to assist the States' redesign efforts. This
sample design will provide general guidance for designing a seat belt
use survey, including the calculation of survey standard error.
However, the Final Rule still requires States to rely on their own
statistician to design, conduct and analyze the data. As we discuss in
Section III.G below, the purpose of requiring statistician involvement
is to ensure that both the survey design and the annual reporting of
seat belt use rates are carried out in a methodologically-sound manner.
No change to the Final Rule is made in response to these comments.
Two commenters mentioned a ``self-report survey'' and a ``public
opinion survey'' as further increasing costs to the States. (IACP at 2;
CO DOT at 1.) We believe the commenters are referring to the annual
public opinion survey that States voluntarily agreed to conduct and
report on as part of their core highway safety program performance
measures. We note that the public opinion survey is not mandatory and
not related to the seat belt survey criteria. Therefore, we do not
address these comments here.
The OR DOT stated that the revised criteria require new performance
measures. (OR DOT at 2.) The revised criteria do not impose a
performance measure--States are not required to meet a specific seat
belt use rate. Rather States are required to conduct surveys that are
consistent with the revised criteria so that seat belt use rate
estimates are more accurate and reliable.
The agency received more specific comments regarding different
aspects of the proposal, including requests for clarification and
recommendations to change the proposal. The agency addresses these
comments below under the appropriate heading.
B. General Cost
One interested member of the public stated that conducting such
surveys is a waste of taxpayer's money. (Jean Public at 1.) As
discussed in Section III.A. above, States are required by statute to
provide assurances that it will conduct annual Statewide seat belt use
surveys in accordance with the Uniform Criteria to ensure that the
measurements are accurate and representative. See 23 U.S.C. 402.
A number of commenters expressed general concerns regarding
increased costs as a result of the revised Uniform Criteria, especially
related to the number of observation sites, and the requirements for
quality control monitoring and additional observations as a result of
nonresponse rates. (WA TSC at 4; OR DOT at 2; IACP at 2; ID DOT at 1;
WY HSP at 1; LA HSC at 1; NJIT at 3; CO DOT at 1; GHSA at 1; ODU at 1-
2; MO DOT at 1; CA OTS at 1.) Some of these commenters stated that the
additional costs would divert resources away from other programs. (CO
DOT at 1; LA HSC at 1; GHSA at 1; ID DOT at 1.) NHTSA understands that
the new criteria may impose additional costs for some States,
especially States that will need to conduct observations in more
counties and at more observation sites. Based on our review of the
changes required under the new criteria and States' current seat belt
use surveys approved under the 1998 Uniform Criteria, we do not believe
that this will significantly increase costs for most States.\3\
However, the changes to the Uniform Criteria will yield better data,
and this will improve the States' identification of low seat belt use
problem areas and permit more effective targeting of countermeasures to
increase seat belt use. Accordingly, States will be able to target
their life-saving programs more effectively, resulting in fewer
fatalities. For these reasons, we believe that the improved quality and
reliability of the survey outweighs the additional costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The WA TSC stated that the revised criteria will
substantially increase its costs, up to $100,000 the first year. (WA
TSC at 1, 4.) NHTSA does not believe that many, if any, States will
incur costs of $100,000 to redesign the survey. Based on our
estimate, we expect that many States will spend tens of thousands of
dollars to redesign the survey. The CA OTS stated that it expected
increased costs due to a 50 percent increase in the number of survey
sites. (CA OTS at 1. See also MO DOT at 1.) It is not clear how CA
OTS determined that it would need a 50 percent increase in the
number of observation sites under the new criteria. Because we have
revised the survey criteria in order to provide States with design
flexibility, we believe that CA OTS would not need a 50 percent
increase in the number of observation sites and suggest California
and other States consult its statistician for survey design
alternatives. (See discussion in Section III.D.1 below.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters suggested that NHTSA provide additional funding
to assist States or that NHTSA redesign 56 surveys and analyze the data
from those surveys. (ODU at 1-2; MO DOT at 2; WA TSC at 2, 4.) Although
NHTSA intends to provide technical assistance to States, including a
road inventory and a fatality distribution, NHTSA does not have the
resources to provide States with additional funds, and NHTSA does not
have the resources to redesign all 56 surveys and analyze the data.
Currently, all States receive NHTSA grant funds, such as Section 402
program funds (23 U.S.C. 402), which may be used to design and conduct
surveys and analyze data. States may also use other grant funds, such
as Section 406 program funds (23 U.S.C. 406), to redesign and
[[Page 18045]]
conduct surveys. Consequently, NHTSA declines to adopt these
commenters' suggestion.
C. Definitions (Sec. 1340.3)
GHSA asked for an explanation of the source of roadway-related
definitions. (GHSA at 1.) The agency relied on the U.S. Census Bureau's
TIGER/Line files, Second Edition (2006) for the definition of most of
the roadway-related terms. Specifically, the definition for access
ramp, cul-de-sac, vehicular trail, service drive, and traffic circle
comes from the TIGER/Line files. The TIGER/Line files are typically
used in conjunction with geographic information system (GIS), or
similar, software. Because the database of road segments that NHTSA
will provide to States will be the GIS population of roads, we relied
on the definitions used in the TIGER/Line files. The other two terms
(nonpublic road and unnamed road) are not defined in the TIGER/Line
files, but are defined to reflect a common understanding of these
terms.
The TX DOT asked whether the definition of passenger motor vehicle
included limousines and other for-hire vehicles, whether a pickup truck
included a wrecker tow vehicle, a flatbed 3 or 4 ton truck or a utility
service truck, and whether a van included any size or type a van. (TX
DOT at 3.) In the NPRM, passenger motor vehicle was defined as ``a
passenger car, a pickup truck, van, minivan or sport utility vehicle.''
Generally, most passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans, minivans and sport
utility vehicles (SUVs) are motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds (lbs). In the proposal, NHTSA
intended those vehicles with a GVWR of under 10,000 lbs to be included
in the seat belt use survey. To clarify this point and in response to
this comment, we amended the definition of ``passenger motor vehicle''
to read as follows: ``A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight
rating of less than 10,000 pounds, including a passenger car, pickup
truck, van, minivan or sport utility vehicle.'' Accordingly, those
vehicles, including limousines, for-hire vehicles, wrecker tow
vehicles, flatbed 3 or 4 ton trucks, utility service trucks and vans
that are under 10,000 lbs GVWR must be included in the seat belt use
survey.
D. Selection of Observation Sites (Sec. 1340.5)
1. Sampling Frame: Exclusion
The agency received many comments regarding the sampling frame
requirements. It appears that most of these comments reflect a
misunderstanding of the sampling frame requirements. Much of this
misunderstanding appears to stem from the fatality-based exclusion at
the county level, as specified in Sec. 1340.5(a). (E.g., ID DOT at 1;
Peters & Assoc. at 1-2; IA TSB at 1; MS State Univ. at 1; ND Dot at 1;
NV DPS at 5; OR DOT at 1; PA DOT at 1; TX DOT at 1; WA TSC at 4-5; WV
HSP at 1-2; WY HSP at 1; NH HSA at 1.) Many commenters mistakenly
referred to a ``fatality-based survey'' or a ``fatality-based
criterion''. (E.g., Peters & Assoc. at 1-2; GHSA at 2; IA TSB at 1; NV
DPS at 5.) For example, one commenter stated that the switch from a
population-based to a fatality-based seat belt survey is flawed and
will produce far less representative results of actual safety belt use
for a number of reasons: (1) The location of fatalities is not
necessarily representative of where people live, work and drive; (2)
fatal crashes are not representative of where injury crashes occur and
not representative of where property damage crashes occur; and (3) a
fatality-based survey is not representative of exposure or population,
which are two critical components of a measurement of seat belt use.
(IA TSB at 1.) Some commenters asked how site selection can be based on
both a fatality and county-by-county basis. (E.g., OR DOT at 1; Peters
& Assoc. at 1.) We believe that these comments capture the general
misunderstanding among commenters regarding the fatality-based
exclusion.
As a general matter, in a survey that covers a large geographic
area, such as a Statewide seat belt use survey, it may be costly to
send data collectors to a random sample of observation sites across the
large geographic area. To reduce travel costs and time of collection,
the large geographic area is divided into subareas, or primary sampling
units, and a sample of these primary sampling units is selected. Data
are then collected within these primary sampling units. For Statewide
seat belt use surveys, the large geographic area is the State itself,
and the primary sampling units are counties (or county equivalents).
Because States believed that the costs were too great to send data
collectors to a randomly selected sample of observation sites across
the State, in the 1998 Uniform Criteria, NHTSA allowed the State to
select a probability-based sample of its counties and then to select
observation sites within the selected counties in which to count seat
belt use observations. The selection of counties is called the first
stage of the sample. A number of States had many small counties with
little population and road traffic. Thus, the 1998 Uniform Criteria
allowed States to exclude the smallest counties with a cumulative 15
percent of the population from the first stage sampling frame, i.e., a
population-based exclusion.
Over time, NHTSA became aware that some small counties had
measurable road traffic because they contained major roads. The traffic
on these roads resulted in a disproportionate share of the motor
vehicle related fatalities compared to the population of the county.
This circumstance was the basis for NHTSA's proposal to change the
exclusion criteria in the revised criteria from a population-based
exclusion to a fatality-based exclusion in the first stage sampling
frame. With this change, counties that have few fatalities may be
excluded from the seat belt survey. We note, however, States are not
required to exclude counties from the sampling frame, and may include
and sample randomly from all counties. (See KS DOT at 1.) Accordingly,
under the new criteria, the State may identify any set of counties that
collectively account for 15 percent of the State's passenger motor
vehicle occupant fatalities, and that set of counties may be excluded
from the first stage sampling frame.
The main purpose for allowing any exclusion, whether fatality-based
or population-based, is to control operational costs. As explained
above, the purpose of the exclusion is to help States reduce travel
costs and time of collection by excluding areas where little data are
likely to be collected. The fatality-based exclusion does not directly
affect the selection of the actual observation sites within eligible
counties. In other words, neither the number of fatalities in a county
nor the specific locations where those fatalities occurred should serve
as the basis for selecting the observation sites. (See LA HSC at 2.)
Some commenters stated that shifting from a sampling frame of
counties accounting for at least 85 percent of the Statewide population
to one that includes at least 85 percent of the passenger vehicle
occupant fatalities seems to replace a potentially biased sampling
frame with one that is almost certainly biased. (E.g., WA TSC at 1-2;
GHSA at 1-2. See also IACP at 2; NV DPS at 2, 4; ODU at 2; NJIT at 1-
2.) NHTSA believes that, by permitting the systematic exclusion of the
State's most sparsely populated counties from the sampling frame, the
1998 Uniform Criteria created an urban bias. While we are not
eliminating the urban bias, we believe we are reducing it in many
States by replacing the population-based
[[Page 18046]]
exclusion with the fatality-based exclusion. For some States, the
change to a fatality-based exclusion may not have any impact on the
sampling frame. For example, under a population-based exclusion, States
systematically set aside sparsely populated counties from the sampling
frame. Therefore, States end up with more urban areas in the first
stage sampling frame. A fatality-based exclusion is less urban-biased
with respect to seat belt use because States are not systematically
eliminating all low population areas, but are required to include those
low population counties which have enough fatalities to be included in
the sampling frame. It is not uncommon in many States for a sparsely
populated county to have high traffic volume, sometimes resulting in
relatively frequent crashes and deaths. A population-based exclusion
may eliminate that county while a fatality-based exclusion may keep
that county in the sampling frame.
Other variables, such as crash or fatality rates, registered
vehicles, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), could be used as the basis for
excluding counties from the sampling frame. (See MS State Univ. at 1.)
NHTSA decided to use passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in motor
vehicle crashes as the measure because these other measures are similar
to population and would result in a similar urban bias. For example,
vehicle registrations likely are closely correlated with population so
that a registration-based exclusion probably would produce the same
urban bias as the current population-based exclusion. On the other
hand, VMT or VMT-based crash or fatality rates could be used to exclude
counties in a way that would avoid an urban bias. However, many States
do not have accurate counts of VMT for all counties. For this reason,
NHTSA believes that allowing fatality-based exclusion of counties is
the preferred method of balancing survey efficiency and cost
considerations while continuing to ensure a representative sample.
Therefore, no change is made in response to these comments.
One commenter stated that it is likely that oversampling and
overweighting the observations in rural counties with high fatality
rates and low belt use rates will erroneously depress the State's seat
belt use rate in an attempt to focus attention on problem areas. (WA
TSC at 2.) The fatality-based exclusion is not an attempt to focus on
problem areas. Rather, as discussed above, its intent is to help reduce
the current urban bias and ensure that seat belt use rate estimates are
more representative. We note that oversampling need not lead to
overweighting if the weight is calculated properly. In our opinion,
properly weighted observations will not introduce error into the
Statewide seat belt use rate estimate.
Commenters expressed concern that the fatality-based exclusion
would result in additional counties being included in the sampling
frame, especially in more rural areas. (NJIT at 1; WA TSC at 2; WY HSP
at 1; MO DOT at 1; ND DOT at 1; GHSA at 2.) For example, the MO DOT
stated that the ``fatality based sampling frame'' will result in 62
counties and 1,426 observation sites being included in the sampling
frame when the State's current sampling frame includes 20 counties and
460 observation sites. (MO DOT at 1. See also CA OTS at 1.) We note
that when more counties are in a sampling frame, more counties are
eligible for selection, but this does not necessarily mean that more
counties will be selected. Although it is not clear how the MO DOT
estimated the number of counties and observation sites, we believe that
the estimate may be a result of a misunderstanding of the fatality-
based exclusion as discussed above, and we do not expect that Missouri
or any State would be required to more than triple the number of
observation sites at which it collects data. Some States will need to
increase the number of counties included in their county sampling
frame. This may result in an increase in the number of counties
selected in the first stage of their sample, which, in turn, may impose
additional costs for these States. However, we do not believe it would
approach the magnitude described by MO DOT. Based on our review of
current seat belt survey designs, we do not believe that change to a
fatality-based exclusion will significantly increase costs in most
States. Because these new Uniform Criteria were designed to give States
flexibility in designing seat belt use surveys, States should work with
their survey statisticians to develop a design that best meets their
needs and circumstances.
Some commenters stated that the shift to a fatality-based exclusion
may impact low population States, where fewer motor vehicle fatalities
occur, and suggested that five years of fatality data should be
averaged. (ND DOT at 1; ME DPSC at 1; WY HSP at 1; NH HSA at 1.) We
recognize that in small rural States, there can be sharp annual
fluctuations in the numbers and distribution of fatalities.
Accordingly, after careful consideration, we have decided to amend the
rule to allow States the option to average three, four or five years of
FARS data to determine passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. We
believe that allowing States this flexibility will reduce the
potentially disproportionate impact of any single multi-fatality crash
in any given year. Accordingly, we have amended the rule in response to
these comments.
Several States asked for clarification about the kinds of
fatalities that are to be counted for the fatality-based exclusion. Two
commenters asked for clarification about which occupants and which
vehicles counted in the fatality-based exclusion. (OR DOT at 1; WV HSP
at 1.) Two commenters suggested that the sampling frame should be
limited to unrestrained fatalities. (NY TSC at 1-2; PA DOT at 1.) To
clarify, the county-by-county fatality counts that will be used to
identify counties that may be excluded from the sampling frame will be
based on passenger motor vehicle occupant fatalities only (and not on
commercial vehicle occupant, motorcycle, bicycle or pedestrian
fatalities) that occur in each county on roads to which the public has
the right of vehicular access. We recognize that counts of unrestrained
fatalities could be used as the basis for determining which counties
may be excluded from the sampling frame. However, especially in
sparsely populated States with relatively low fatality totals, the
counts of unrestrained fatalities even when using three, four or five
year totals may produce unstable distributions. For consistency, NHTSA
believes that all States should use counts of all passenger motor
vehicle fatalities to determine which counties may be excluded from the
sampling frame. As noted before, the purpose of the fatality exclusion
is not to direct data collection to specific locations of fatalities
but to reduce the bias toward urban areas. The agency declines to adopt
these commenters' suggestions.
The LA HSC commented that if crashes are used in lieu of population
as a factor in determining site location, States should be permitted to
account for serious injury crash data. (LA HSC at 2.) Another commenter
recommended that the rule be changed to measure ``fatal crashes''
instead of ``crash fatalities.'' (IACP at 1.) As stated above, neither
the number of fatalities in a county nor the specific locations where
those fatalities occurred is a factor in selecting the actual
observation sites. The fatality counts are used solely to determine
which counties a State may exclude from its sampling frame in order to
control operational costs. NHTSA believes that fatality counts serve as
an adequate basis for that determination. We do not believe that counts
of serious injuries or of fatal crashes (in lieu of crash fatalities)
would
[[Page 18047]]
provide additional value in the identification of counties that may be
excluded from the sampling frame. We decline to change the rule in
response to these comments.
One commenter asked if day and night differences in fatalities will
be considered in selecting observation sites. (NV DPS at 4.) As noted
above, we believe that the commenter misunderstood the purpose of the
fatality-based exclusion. The actual fatalities do not determine where
the observation sites are located. Rather, the three-, four- or five-
year fatality counts will be used to allow the State to exclude
counties that make up 15 percent of the State's passenger vehicle
occupant fatalities. Both day and night passenger vehicle occupant
fatalities will be counted in determining the fatality counts. With
this clarification, no change to the rule is made.
One State asked if States could have the option to use their own
non-FARS fatality data because the most recent FARS data are often less
current than State's own traffic fatality counts. (WI State Patrol at
1.) In the preamble to the NPRM, NHTSA stated that the agency would
provide States with county-by-county passenger motor vehicle occupant
fatality counts for the relevant time period. We believe that allowing
States to use their own fatality data would have little or no impact on
defining the State's sampling frame. After careful consideration, we
have decided to allow States the option to use the NHTSA-provided
fatality data or their own fatality data for the most recent three,
four or five years, provided that the State fatality data reflect the
FARS definitions and are approved by NHTSA. We have revised the Final
Rule accordingly.
One commenter stated that under the existing rule, the population
and average VMT based sampling criteria took into account an ``infinite
sample size,'' but with the proposed fatality-based sampling, ``the
fatalities become the universe.'' (NV DPS at 4.) The commenter further
stated that the statistical concepts related to the ``central limit
theorem'' and the ``normal distribution'' might lose their ``essence,''
and that we cannot derive statistical results. Id. The commenter asked
if it was necessary to look into the ``finite population theory for
sampling.''
This commenter appears to assume, incorrectly, a change from
population-based exclusion to fatality-based exclusion, in which the
central limit theorem (which states that as the sample size becomes
larger, the sample mean will have an approximately normal distribution)
would cease to have applicability because the sample size would be
finite. As discussed above, the proposal did not change to fatality-
based exclusion. It changed only the way counties are excluded from the
sampling frame. In other words, the proposal did not require
observations to be conducted at locations of fatal crashes. In fact,
locations of fatal crashes should not serve as the basis for selecting
actual observation sites. Under both the 1998 Uniform Criteria and the
proposal, both population and sample sizes are finite, not infinite.
This does not mean that the central limit theorem cannot be applied to
the seat belt use rate estimate. In a seat belt use survey, the sample
mean is the estimated seat belt use rate. As the sample size in a
State's seat belt use survey becomes large enough, the central limit
theorem would still be valid, i.e., the estimated seat belt use rate
will have an approximately normal distribution.
Several commenters stated that the change from a population-based
exclusion to a fatality-based exclusion would make it difficult for
States to compare the seat belt survey results to previous years'
estimates. (NY TSC at 1; PA DOT at 1; GHSA at 2; IA TSB at 1; TX DOT at
2. See discussion in Section III.A above.) While the change in the
sampling frame exclusion may make comparing estimates from previous
years more challenging, we believe that the data still remains
valuable. The new seat belt use rate estimates will be more
representative of the actual seat belt use rate in the State than
previous estimates. We believe that the need for more accurate and
reliable data outweighs the challenges in comparing survey results. (As
noted above, this is not a change from a population-based survey to
fatality-based survey. Rather, the change only affects the exclusion
from the sampling frame that is allowed for controlling operational
costs.)
2. Sampling Frame: Database of Roads
Some commenters supported the requirement that the database of road
inventories includes all roads with a few exceptions, and agreed that
NHTSA should provide the database to the States. (WA TSC at 3; Peters &
Assoc. at 2; NV DPS at 6.) Two commenters requested more specific
information about the database of road inventories. (ND DOT at 1; GHSA
at 2.) The commenters asked whether the NHTSA-provided database would
be a GIS population of roads, what variables would be included in the
database, and whether roads on tribal lands and national parks would be
included. The road database that NHTSA intends to provide will include
road type and location, but is unlikely to include vehicle miles
traveled. Roads on tribal lands and national parks are included in the
database. As discussed in more detail below, NHTSA has amended the rule
to allow the exclusion of rural local roads in counties that are not
included in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and, as a result,
many roads in tribal lands and national parks may be excluded. No
change to the rule is made in response to these comments.
One commenter requested clarification on whether the State could
use its own map, aerial photos or satellite images in site selection.
(WI State Patrol at 2.) As stated in the rule, a State may use its own
map, aerial photos or satellite images if it is approved by NHTSA, as
provided in Sec. 1340.5(a)(2).
One commenter asked whether the State must abandon the practice of
making seat belt use observations only at stop lights or stop signs.
(WI State Patrol at 2.) As specified in the proposal, the sampling
frame may not be limited only to roads having a stop sign or stop
light. Accordingly, States may not confine the data collection to stop
lights and stop signs. Such a practice would exclude observation of a
large universe of road segments, and would produce a biased seat belt
use estimate. Consequently, the agency declines to adopt the suggestion
in response to this comment.
Another commenter agreed with the proposed exclusions except for
the exclusion of access ramps to interstate roadways. (Peters & Assoc.
at 2.) GHSA requested an explanation of the road exclusions. (GHSA at
2.) As stated in the NPRM, the agency excluded these categories of
roads for reasons of safety and practicality. In addition, some of
these road categories are not likely to be in the database of road
inventories, and they are low traffic volume roads that will not affect
the overall estimate of the seat belt use rate. We note that a State
may choose to exclude the roads identified in Sec. 1340.5(a)(2)(iii),
but is not required to do so. Therefore, a State may include access
ramps in its database of road inventories. With this clarification, no
change to the rule is made.
Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed road
coverage requirement would require States, especially those with more
rural areas, to sample on road segments with very little traffic
volume. (ID DOT at 1; IL DOT at 1; NH HSA at 1; IACP at 1; ME DPSC at
1; GHSA at 1-2.) NHTSA researched this issue and found that while local
roads (as defined by the Federal Highway Administration) have
[[Page 18048]]
more than two-thirds of road miles in rural areas, these roads
experience only 13 percent of the VMT in rural areas. Sending data
collectors to observation sites on some of these local roads might
result in few, or even no, observations and would increase costs to the
State. However, NHTSA determined that excluding all local roads in
rural areas would have a measurable impact on the accuracy of the seat
belt use rate estimate.
FHWA has classification standards for roads (``Functional
Classification Guidelines'') that all States use. In FHWA's Functional
Classification Guidelines, ``local roads'' are a category of roads
which are not collectors or arterials, but permit travel between end
points of a trip. FHWA further classifies local, collector and arterial
roads as being in an urban or rural area. Based on our review of
available data, allowing States to exclude all ``rural local roads''
from the sampling frame would significantly impact the seat belt use
rate estimate because a substantial number of rural local roads are in
areas that have high traffic volumes and potentially high fatality
rates. For this reason, NHTSA determined that allowing a more limited
exclusion of rural local roads would be more appropriate.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(3), 31 U.S.C. 1104(d), and Executive
Order No. 10253, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and other statistical areas.
(E.g., OMB Bulletin No. 10-02.) MSAs are statistical areas that include
multiple counties and county-equivalents with at least one urbanized
area that has a population of at least 50,000. See 75 FR 37246, 37252
(June 28, 2010). Rural local roads in counties or county-equivalents
that are not part of an MSA are those roads that are likely to have
very low traffic volume. Consequently, excluding rural local roads in
non-MSA areas from the sampling frame would have a limited impact on
the seat belt use rate estimate, but would significantly reduce data
collection costs. Therefore, NHTSA has amended the Final Rule to allow
an additional exclusion of rural local roads that are not included in
an MSA.
3. Sampling Selection Requirements
A number of commenters requested clarification on the selection of
observation sites, as provided in Sec. 1340.5(b). (E.g., TX at 2;
Peters & Assoc. at 2; ND DOT at 1.) One commenter asked about the
selection of roads and assignment of weights in order to avoid
oversampling one road type. (GHSA at 2. See also NV DPS at 6.) We
believe that this commenter is seeking clarification of two issues--(1)
how should the road inventory be stratified by functional
classifications for purposes of this selection; and (2) how should the
observations at each observation site be weighted to ensure an accurate
estimation of seat belt use rate. (See also WY HSP at 3, 11; MO DOT at
2; NY TSC at 2.) One commenter stated that if all roads in the State
have an equal probability of being selected, streets and other roads
with relatively low traffic volumes are likely to be overrepresented in
the sample. (NY TSC at 2. See also NJIT at 1-2.)
States are not required to stratify their sampling frame, whether
by road type or by another variable. The only requirement is that the
selection of observation sites be probability-based, i.e., each
observation site should have a known probability of selection. A State
may draw a simple random sample without stratification from the entire
road sampling frame, i.e., from the listing of all road segments within
a county selected in the first stage of sampling. A State also may
stratify the sampling frame in a variety of ways, using such variables
as road classification or VMT, and then draw a probability based sample
of observation sites from each stratum. Although NHTSA believes that
stratifying road inventories by functional classification and selecting
road segments with probability proportional to VMT within these strata
is good practice, there are other valid approaches to forming a
probability sample of observation sites.
Regardless of the method used for selecting observation sites, once
observations are made, the data must be weighted in a manner consistent
with the survey design. One commenter stated that because the State
does not have VMT for all local roads, it would be forced to exclude
these roads from the sampling frame. (LA HSC at 1.) States are not
permitted to exclude systematically all local roads from the sampling
frame. If the State does not have VMT for some or all eligible road
segments in the selected counties, the State must use some other method
for designing and selecting its sample. The survey statistician should
be able to help States select an appropriate method for weighting
observation sites. With this clarification, no change to the rule is
made.
Several commenters requested additional information on the number
of observation sites States need to include in their survey. The WY HSP
asked whether States will be given any guidelines as to the recommended
number of observation sites to be selected based on the number of
counties. (WY HSP at 3.) The MO DOT requested that provisions be added
for States to randomly select a representative group of counties from
those representing 85 percent of the State's fatalities, similar to the
table provided in the appendix to the current criteria. (MO DOT at 1.)
The commenter further requested that the rule specify the required
number of road segments to be sampled in each county. (MO DOT at 2.)
The OR DOT requested a formula for determining the total number of
sampling sites that would be needed. (OR DOT at 1.)
NHTSA does not intend to provide a table or formula specifying the
number of observation sites per county based on the number of road
segments available within that county. One table or formula will not
optimally serve to determine the number of observation sites for all
survey designs. We revised the Uniform Criteria to give States the
flexibility to design a survey in a manner that best meets the specific
environment in each State. States should rely on their survey
statistician to develop a survey design that will meet the Uniform
Criteria and meet the State's needs. The survey statistician can help
the State determine the necessary sample sizes for selection of
counties at the first stage and selection of observation sites (road
segments) within the selected counties. NHTSA is developing a sample of
an acceptable survey design to assist the States' redesign efforts, and
will post the sample survey design on NHTSA's Web site. Accordingly, we
decline to adopt these commenters' suggestion.
4. Substitution and Resecheduling of Observation Sites
Generally, commenters stated that the agency's proposal in Sec.
1340.5(c) regarding protocols when observation sites are not available
was reasonable. (WA TSC at 3; Peters & Assoc. at 3.) One commenter
suggested that pre-selecting alternate observation sites before the
start of data collection would be more practical. (Peters & Assoc. at
3.) The pre-selection of alternate observation sites is not precluded
under the Uniform Criteria. The alternate observation sites must be in
the same county and the same road classification as the observation
site the State is replacing. Another commenter asked if it would be
acceptable to combine both options--returning to the observation site
on the same day of the week and at the same time of the day and
selecting an alternate observation site--as part of the State's
protocol when an observation site is temporarily unavailable. (TX DOT
at 2.) States may include one or both
[[Page 18049]]
options as part of their protocol in their survey design. With this
clarification, no change to the rule is made.
The commenter stated that requiring the State to return to an
observation site at the same time and day of the week if an observation
site is missed, especially if the observation site is hundreds of miles
away, would increase commuting time and other costs. (IACP at 2. See
also ODU at 3.) As stated in the NPRM, if conditions preclude data
collection at an observation site at the scheduled time and day, States
may elect to return to the observation site at the same time and day or
collect data from preselected alternate observation sites to replace
the observation site that is unavailable. See Sec. 1340.5(c). If
adverse weather precludes data collection, it is likely to affect data
collection at multiple observation sites, especially if observation
sites are cluster sampled. With adverse weather conditions, States
generally should be able to anticipate whether the conditions would
affect data collection before data collectors travel to the observation
sites, and therefore, should be able to plan accordingly to mitigate
commuting time and costs. States are encouraged to consider these
issues and develop a protocol that best fits the conditions in its
State. The agency makes no change to the rule in response to this
comment.
5. Precision
The agency received a number of comments regarding the standard
error in Sec. Sec. 1340.5(d) and 1340.9(g). Some commenters agreed
with the change. (WY HSP at 2-3; WA TSC at 3; IL DOT at 1.) Others
stated that the change in the precision requirement would require a
larger sample size or longer observation times, and this would result
in higher survey costs. (Peters & Assoc. at 1, 3, 5; TX DOT at 2; GHSA
at 2; NV DPS at 7; WV HSP at 2; ND DOT at 1; NH HSA at 1.) One of these
commenters further stated that reducing the standard error by half
would require a four-fold increase in sampling size, and asked whether
it would be possible to get four times the current sample size with the
same observation time. (NV DPS at 7.) This commenter may have
misunderstood the change in the precision requirement--the 1998 Uniform
Criteria specify that the relative error not exceed 5 percent while the
proposed rule specifies that the standard error not exceed 2.5
percentage points. The standard error is an absolute measurement
whereas the relative error measures the standard error as a fraction of
the actual seat belt use estimate. Unlike the relative error, the
standard error will not change regardless of a State's seat belt use
rate estimate. A standard error holds all States to the same standard.
Our review of States' current surveys indicates that most States
will be able to meet the required standard error of 2.5 percentage
points with sample sizes comparable to their current surveys.
Therefore, we believe that most States will not have to add a
significant number of observation sites, and costs will not be
significant. We also believe that any additional costs are outweighed
by the improved quality and reliability of the survey data.
One commenter also stated that the precision calculation is made
after the data are collected, and that an inadequate precision would
require returning to some number or all of the observation sites to
collect additional data, which could significantly increase the costs.
(Peters & Assoc. at 3.) The commenter is correct that the final
precision estimate cannot be made until after the data are collected.
While a State would have to collect additional data if the precision is
above 2.5 percentage points, the State would not have to return to all
the observation sites to collect additional data. We note that at the
survey design stage, the State may use information from its current
survey or a similar survey from another State to estimate the number of
observation sites that may be needed to provide a reasonable assurance
that the precision requirement will be met. Consistent with standard
practice in survey collection, States should select a sufficient number
of observation sites to account for issues that may affect the standard
error. We believe that a survey statistician should be able to help the
State determine the proper sample size for the required precision. The
agency declines to change the rule in response to these comments.
A commenter stated that the change in precision requirement will be
difficult and expensive to achieve on rural roads. (NJIT at 2.)
According to this commenter, fewer interstate and freeway roadways will
be selected for performing data collection, which will lead to more
roads of lower classifications and lower volumes being selected for
observation. Id. The commenter further stated that this will result in
longer time periods for data collection and in some cases require more
than one visit to a location for data collection. Id. The precision
requirement applies to the entire survey--not to individual observation
sites. As stated above, for most States, we do not believe that the
change will substantially affect the number of observation sites that
will be required. Consequently, the periods of data collection should
not substantially change for most States. We note that NHTSA is
revising the proposal to allow States to exclude rural local roads in
counties that are not included in an MSA from the sampling frame, which
will help mitigate the concerns of this commenter. Accordingly, no
further change to the rule is made in response to this comment.
One commenter stated that consistency in training and observation
would be a much better place to invest resources than in reducing
sampling error. (NH HSA at 1.) NHTSA assumes the commenter is asserting
that improved training would reduce survey sampling error. There are
two kinds of errors--measurement errors and sampling errors.
Consistency in training to improve observation skills can reduce
measurement errors, i.e., the accuracy of the observations. However, it
will not reduce sampling error, which is a result of a subset of the
target population is being observed. Consequently, the agency declines
to adopt this commenter's suggestion.
E. Assignment of Observation Times (Sec. 1340.6)
Two commenters expressed support for the proposed observation
times. (WA TSC at 3; Peters & Assoc. at 3.) One commenter stated that
requiring data collection until 6 p.m. could pose difficulties during
late fall and winter, when it gets dark by 5 p.m. (IACP at 1.) In the
NPRM, the agency proposed that data collection must take place during
daylight hours, not all hours, between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Accordingly,
States would not be required to collect data at an observation site
during non-daylight hours even if they fall between the hours 7 a.m.
and 6 p.m. No change to the rule is made in response to these comments.
Two commenters stated that requiring random assignment of the day
of the week for observations would increase costs, especially if data
collectors were sent to opposite corners of the State in a 24-hour
period. (IACP at 2; ODU at 3.) While the NPRM proposed random
assignment of the day of the week for observations, it also proposed
allowing States to cluster sample or group observation sites in close
geographic proximity in order to reduce the costs of random assignment
of observation sites. (See also OR DOT at 1.) This would reduce the
need for data collectors to be sent to opposite corners of the State in
a 24-hour period.
These commenters also suggested treating weekdays as equal and
[[Page 18050]]
weekends as equal. (IACP at 2; ODU at 3.) NHTSA does not have data to
support the assumption that there is no seat belt use rate difference
between the days of the week and between Saturday and Sunday. We
believe that allowing States to cluster sample observation sites in
close proximity should sufficiently reduce the operational costs of
random assignment of the day of the week. Therefore, NHTSA declines to
adopt this recommendation.
The NV DPS asked how many observation sites can be grouped together
into geographical clusters. (NV DPS at 7.) NHTSA did not propose to
limit the number of observation sites that can form a cluster. As long
as the State can allocate an appropriate time period for data
collection at each observation site, those observation sites may be
cluster sampled. No change to the rule is made in response to this
comment.
F. Observation Procedures (Sec. 1340.7)
1. Data collection dates. The TX DOT commented that the proposal
did not specify that the surveys should be conducted uniformly after
Click It or Ticket or Memorial Day Monday. (TX DOT at 2.) This
commenter recommended a wider window of survey time, such as May 1
through June 30. Id. In the NPRM, the agency did not propose a change
from the requirement in 1998 Uniform Criteria that all observations
take place during the calendar year, i.e., January 1 to December 31.
Although most States choose to conduct seat belt use surveys after
Click It or Ticket or Memorial Day Monday, States may conduct surveys
anytime during the calendar year. No change to the rule is made in
response to this comment.
2. Roads with two-way traffic. Peters & Assoc. commented that on
low volume two-way streets, limiting an observer to observing one
direction of traffic flow would result in unnecessary additional survey
cost. (Peters & Assoc. at 4.) NHTSA believes that consistent methods
for data collection should be applied at all observation sites,
regardless of the volume of traffic. Moreover, requiring the data
collector to observe traffic in one direction will help reduce
measurement error. Accordingly, the agency declines to change the rule
in response to this comment.
3. Vehicle coverage. The agency received a number of comments
regarding the proposal's vehicle coverage requirements. The commenters
were generally supportive of the proposal, but a few questioned the
inclusion of certain vehicles. Several commenters appeared to
misunderstand the requirements, and some commenters requested
clarification.
One commenter stated that the proposal did not address State seat
belt law exemptions for certain vehicles and recommended that all
vehicles operated on a public roadway should be included in the survey
regardless of a State's exemptions. (LA HSC at 2.) In contrast, two
commenters questioned the inclusion of vehicles that are exempt under
the State's seat belt law because it would not provide an accurate
measure of compliance. (NY TSC at 2; GHSA at 2.) In the NPRM, the
agency stated that all passenger motor vehicles must be included in the
survey, including vehicles that are exempt by the State's seat belt
law. The purpose of the seat belt use rate survey is not to determine
compliance with the State's seat belt law, but rather to estimate the
actual seat belt use of drivers and right front passengers.
Consequently, the agency makes no change to the rule in response to
these comments.
One commenter supported the inclusion of ``passenger vehicles for
commercial use'' in the seat belt use survey. (WY HSP at 2.) Three
commenters requested clarification of the term ``commercial passenger
motor vehicle.'' (OR DOT at 1; TX DOT at 3; GHSA at 2.) Earlier in this
notice, we clarified that passenger motor vehicles include a passenger
car, pickup truck, van, minivan or sports utility vehicle with a GWVR
of less than 10,000 lbs. Data from motor vehicles over 10,000 lbs GWVR
need not be included in this survey. As stated in the preamble of the
NPRM, data must be collected for passenger motor vehicles being used
for commercial purposes. In other words, data from such passenger motor
vehicles as taxis, flower delivery vans, and pizza delivery cars that
are under 10,000 lbs GVWR must be included in the seat belt use survey.
To clarify this point, in Sec. 1340.7(c), the agency has amended the
phrase ``commercial passenger motor vehicles'' to read ``passenger
motor vehicles used for commercial purposes.''
Three commenters stated that it would be difficult to collect or
report data separately for various types of vehicles, such as passenger
vehicles, commercial vehicles and out-of-state vehicles. (OR DOT at 1;
WA TSC at 2; NV DPS at 8.) Although some States may want to collect
such data separately in order to better serve their problem
identification and program evaluation needs, the NPRM did not propose,
and the Final Rule does not require, States to collect or report the
data separately for these various vehicles.
4. Occupant coverage. Two commenters supported the agency's
proposal to include right front passengers in booster seats in the seat
belt use survey and exclude right front passengers in child safety
seats. (Peters & Assoc. at 4; WY HSP at 2.) Three commenters disagreed
with the proposal, with one recommending that children in child safety
seats and booster seats be included in the seat belt use survey,
another recommending that children in child safety seats and booster
seats be excluded from the seat belt use survey, and a third
recommending that both be excluded or both be included. (NY TSC at 2-3;
WA TSC at 3; GHSA at 2-3.) As stated in the NPRM, we believe that data
on passengers in child safety seats should be excluded because it is
not possible to observe whether a child safety seat is properly
installed or the child is properly restrained in the child safety seat.
Unlike child safety seats, however, booster seats require the use of
the readily-observable shoulder belt to secure the passenger. To
clarify any misunderstanding, data on children in child safety seats
should not be collected and reported in the seat belt survey conducted.
(See GHSA at 3.) We do not believe that this will have much impact on
the seat belt rate estimate since we expect the number of children in
child safety seats in the front right passenger side of passenger motor
vehicles to be limited. With this clarification, the agency makes no
change to the rule.
Two commenters supported the proposal's requirement to record
belted and unbelted occupants. (GHSA at 3; WY HSP at 2.) Two commenters
disagreed with recording the belt status as unknown if it could not
reasonably be determined whether the driver or the right front
passenger is belted. (WI State Patrol at 2; Peters & Assoc. at 4.)
These commenters suggested recording unknowns as unbelted. Id. We
believe that the practice of recording unknown belt use as unbelted
would underestimate the actual seat belt use rate estimate. For this
reason, the agency declines to change the rule in response to these
comments.
NJIT stated that there are many cases when shoulder belt use is
``unknown,'' and that recording unknowns will gather unusable data,
making it difficult for data collectors to know when they have
collected enough observations. (NJIT at 3.) We believe that the
commenter is concerned that observations must continue at all
observation sites until the percent of unknown seat belt use
observations is below 10 percent. To clarify, the nonresponse rate is
determined based on the entire survey sample, not
[[Page 18051]]
individual observation sites. In addition, we do not agree that
recording unknowns results in collecting unusable data. For quality
control purposes, it is good practice to count and report the number of
unknown belt use observations that occur. If the percent of unknown
observations is high, this may indicate a need to improve observer
training. The agency makes no change to the rule in response to this
comment.
The agency did not receive specific comments regarding survey
variables in Sec. 1340.7(e). However, the agency has decided to change
the term ``survey variable'' to ``survey data'' because this term
describes the information more accurately.
The agency received only supportive comments regarding the data
collection environment in Sec. 1340.7(f). Accordingly, the agency made
no changes to this provision.
G. Quality Control (Sec. 1340.8)
Although some commenters agreed that random unannounced visits
would ensure more accurate data, several commenters stated that
requiring quality control monitors at five percent of the observation
sites would increase the survey costs. (WA TSC 3; Peters & Assoc. at 4;
NV DPS at 8; GHSA at 3.) The LA HSC stated that unannounced visits by
quality control monitors would require increased supervision of
personnel. (LA HSC at 1.) Requiring quality control monitors to conduct
random unannounced visits will increase survey costs to some States,
especially to those States that do not currently conduct such visits.
However, some level of supervision of data collectors is necessary for
quality control. We believe that quality control monitors at five
percent of the observation sites strikes the proper balance to minimize
the costs while still ensuring that good data are being collected. The
agency makes no change to the rule in response to these comments.
One commenter stated that sending quality control monitors would be
difficult, especially in States with limited resources, and suggested
that standards for inter-accuracy ratio testing be required for all
States instead of quality control monitors. (WY HSP at 2.) We assume
that the commenter is referring to ``inter-rater reliability.'' Inter-
rater reliability is a measure of rating or coding consistency among
different raters or coders, i.e., data collectors. While inter-rater
reliability would be helpful for training observers, independent
quality control monitors provide reasonable assurance that observation
protocols are being properly implemented. As stated above, while this
may increase some survey costs, we believe that this requirement would
help ensure that good data are being collected. Consequently, the
agency declines to adopt this recommendation.
The WY HSP asked whether ``random unannounced visits'' means
randomly selected sites within each county or throughout the State,
whether quality control monitors must visit each observer, and whether
there are any criteria for these quality control monitors. (WY HSP at
5.) In the NPRM, the agency did not specify how to conduct random
unannounced visits. Instead of requiring States to conduct these visits
in a specific manner, the only requirements are that States conduct
these visits to five percent of the observation sites and that the same
individual cannot both collect data and monitor the collection of data
at the same time. We believe that States should have flexibility in how
to conduct these visits, taking into account each State's survey design
and specific conditions. For example, a State may elect to conduct an
unannounced visit in each county, for each survey crew or using some
other factor. We note that random unannounced visits serve not only to
check if data are being collected in accordance with the survey
protocol, but also as a deterrent to bad data collection. The ME DPSC
requested clarification regarding whether the quality control must be
conducted by a vendor and not by the observer. (ME DPSC at 1.) As noted
above, the same individual cannot both collect data and monitor data
collection at the same time. Other than that restriction, the only
requirements for a quality control monitor are that the individual be
trained in the observation protocols and the substitution and
rescheduling of observation sites. No change to the rule is made in
response to these comments.
One commenter supported the training requirements for survey
observers. (GHSA at 3.) Another commenter suggested that once observers
have extensive training, the trained observers should be allowed to
have refresher training via telephone conference call, Webinar, etc.
every alternate year in order to keep the costs down. (WY HSP at 2.) We
agree with the commenter that, once trained, observers may have
refresher training via telephone conference calls, Webinars, or other
methods that minimize costs. However, we believe that annual training
is important to ensure accurate data collection, especially since data
collectors are often not regularly engaged in data collection
throughout the year. Accordingly, we decline to adopt the commenter's
suggestion.
Three commenters questioned the requirement for a survey
statistician and sought clarification of the statistician's
qualifications. (ODU at 3; WY HSP at 3; IACP at 2-3.) The proposed
requirement for a statistician is not to provide an additional level of
checks and balances, as one commenter suggested, but to ensure that
both the survey design and the annual reporting of seat belt use rates
are carried out in a methodologically-sound manner. (See WY HSP at 6.)
Over the years, we have encountered numerous instances where data were
analyzed incorrectly, resulting in inaccurate seat belt use rate
estimates. We believe that part of the reason for these errors was the
lack of statistician involvement in the data analysis. For this reason,
the rule requires that adequate statistical expertise be applied to the
analysis of the survey data. As stated in the NPRM, the survey
statistician should have knowledge of designing probability-based
multi-stage samples, statistical estimators from such designs, and
variance estimation of such estimators. To clarify, the statistician
does not have to have a specific degree in statistics, but rather have
sufficient training and experience in designing research surveys and
analyzing the data, as described in the Uniform Criteria. However, the
agency is removing ``seat belt'' from the term ``seat belt survey
statistician'' in this section and throughout the rule to clarify that
the statistician must be a person trained in statistical methodology.
Several commenters stated that requiring a statistician would add
significant costs. (ODU at 3; IACP at 2-3; WA TSC at 3; Peters & Assoc.
at 6; GHSA at 3.) As noted above, we have found errors in some State
seat belt use rate estimates, and we believe that requiring a
statistician to review and confirm the estimate annually will help
reduce the errors we have seen. Although some States may incur
additional costs, especially those that currently do not employ a
statistician, the requirement is necessary in light of the errors noted
above. States may use Federal grant funds, such as Section 402 and
Section 406, to defray the costs of designing and conducting seat belt
use surveys. Conducting an annual Statewide seat belt use survey in
accordance with the uniform criteria ``to ensure that measurements are
accurate and representative'' is an administrative requirement under
Section 402. While NHTSA is ready to provide technical assistance, we
believe that States should rely on their own statistician to ensure
[[Page 18052]]
that the State seat belt use rate estimate is overseen and properly
implemented in accordance with the approved survey design.
Consequently, the rule remains unchanged with regard to this
requirement.
H. Computation of Estimates (Sec. 1340.9)
One commenter generally supported all of the requirements in the
proposal regarding computation of estimates. (WA TSC at 3.)
The agency received no comment regarding Sec. 1340.9(b) (data
editing). Therefore, NHTSA is making no substantive change to the
requirement in this provision. (The agency is making a minor amendment
to remove the phrase ``or statistically edited,'' because it is
redundant.)
NHTSA received three comments regarding the imputation of unknown
values of variables. Peters & Assoc. questioned the need for data
imputation and GHSA stated that no imputation should be allowed.
(Peters & Assoc. at 4; GHSA at 3.) The proposal does not require
imputation, but rather allows States to use imputation if it is pre-
approved by NHTSA. In general, NHTSA does not believe that imputation
of unknown values will be necessary. However, in order to provide
flexibility to States, NHTSA is allowing imputation if it is necessary
to improve the estimates and the methodology is approved by NHTSA prior
to data analysis. As noted by the IACP, there are a number of
imputation methods. (IACP at 1.) NHTSA is not specifying which methods
are acceptable because the acceptability of an imputation method
depends on the survey design. NHTSA will ensure the proper use of
imputation in surveys by requiring approval before imputation methods
are used. No change to the rule is made in response to these comments.
One commenter asked for clarification of data-weighting if the
survey is fatality-based as proposed in the NPRM. (Peters & Assoc. at
4.) As discussed in detail in Section III.D.1 above, we believe this
type of concern arises from a misunderstanding regarding the fatality-
based exclusion from the sampling frame. Fatality counts will be used
to determine which counties may be excluded from the sampling frame.
States will weight the data based on the selection probability of the
sample observation site, which is determined by the way that the
samples are selected. For example, observation sites may be selected by
a simple random sample or by a probability proportional to sample size.
Various measures such as VMT or traffic flow counts could be used for
the measurement of size.
However, to clarify the sampling weight requirements, the agency is
changing the reference to ``inverse of the selection probability of the
observation site at which the data were obtained'' to ``sampling
weights as required by the sample design and any subsequent
adjustments.'' This change is necessary to clarify that the weights
used in the estimation process reflect both the original sampling
process and any subsequent weighting necessary, e.g., selection of
direction of travel or of travel lanes for observation, non-response
adjustments, among others. The Final Rule now reads as follows: ``The
estimation shall weight observed data by the sampling weights as
required by the sample design and any subsequent adjustments.''
NHTSA received two comments regarding the requirement to include a
procedure to adjust the sampling weights for observation sites with no
usable data. One commenter stated that using an alternate observation
site would be the most practical method. (Peters & Assoc. at 5.) In the
proposal, the agency identified several methods to adjust for
observation sites with no usable data, including using alternate
observation sites. However, as stated in the preamble to the NPRM,
allowing the States flexibility for selecting the method based on their
survey design will enable them to determine which method or combination
of methods best meets their needs.
Another commenter stated that States will incur additional costs
for the suggested protocols for handling observation sites where data
are not collected. (WY HSP at 3.) Although States have flexibility to
select among several methods to adjust for observation sites with no
usable data, some States may need to return to observation sites at a
later time or visit an alternate observation site for data collection.
Generally, observation sites at which no data are collected are very
low traffic volume observation sites. As noted in Section III.D.2
above, rural local roads in counties that are not included in an MSA
are roads with very low traffic volume. Because the agency is allowing
States to exclude these roads, we believe that the incidence of
returning to observations sites will be limited. For this reason, the
agency is making no change in response to this comment.
The agency received numerous comments regarding the nonresponse
rates. To summarize, the NPRM proposed that the nonresponse rates for
the entire survey must not exceed 10 percent (for the total number of
recorded unknown values of passenger presence to the number of
passenger motor vehicles observed and for the ratio of the total number
of recorded unknown values of belt use to the drivers and right front
passengers observed). The NPRM further proposed that the State must
include a procedure to collect additional observations if the
nonresponse rates exceed 10 percent.
One commenter thought that a 10 percent nonresponse rate was too
high, especially if imputation methods are used. (ME DPSC at 1.) States
should strive to hold their unknown values well below 10 percent, and
we believe that most States would be able to meet that requirement. As
discussed above, we do not require imputation, and NHTSA will review
any imputation proposals to ensure that imputation methods do not
impair the accuracy of the data. We believe that allowing States a
certain percentage of unknowns is necessary to ensure that any
increased costs are not substantial. The agency declines to change to
rule in response to this comment.
NHTSA received numerous comments expressing concern about increased
survey costs related to the need to oversample observation sites or
collect additional observations when the nonresponse rate exceeds 10
percent. (E.g., ND DOT at 1; GHSA at 3; ODU at 2.) Two commenters
stated that this requirement would result in a longer overall survey
timeline or slow the survey results. (Peters & Assoc. at 5; WY HSP at
3.) Although some States may incur increased survey costs and
additional data collection time, with a properly designed survey and
observation protocols, NHTSA does not anticipate that many States will
need to return to observation sites to conduct additional observations.
As a general principle, a properly designed survey should include a
sufficient number of observation sites, anticipating that a few or some
observation sites may produce no usable data. We believe that the
increased costs that some States may incur are necessary to ensure a
more accurate, representative seat belt use rate estimate. However, to
reduce the reporting burden on States, NHTSA is deleting the proposed
requirement that the nonresponse rate of passenger presence must not
exceed 10 percent. While States must still collect data on passenger
presence to help monitor quality control of data collection, States
would not be required to report the nonresponse rates for passenger
presence to NHTSA. In the Final Rule, the agency makes amendments in
Sec. 1340.9 and the Appendix to reflect this change.
[[Page 18053]]
Two commenters had concerns about nonresponse rates exceeding 10
percent in free-flowing traffic or on interstates with high speed
travel. (IACP at 2; IL DOT at 1.) There are several methods to reduce
the nonresponse rates in high speed travel or in high traffic areas.
For example, observations may follow a protocol that does not attempt
to observe all vehicles passing by, such as observing only a single
lane, observing and recording every other vehicle or every third
vehicle, among others. Vehicles that are not attempted to be observed
would not be counted in the survey, i.e., they would not be counted as
unknown. Only vehicles that are attempted to be observed must be
recorded for the seat belt use status of the driver and right front
seat passenger, if present.
Currently, most States use one of two methods for observations on
interstate highways or other high speed roadways. One method is to
conduct the observations at the base of the first exit ramp within or
beyond the selected road segment. Another method, which may be less
cost effective, is to collect observations while travelling in a
vehicle at such locations--one member of the observation team would
drive along the road segment at a speed below the posted limit while
another member of the observation team would collect the data by
observing the belt use of drivers and passengers in overtaking
vehicles. Either of these methods or a combination of methods should
help to reduce the incidence of unknown belt use observations, and
therefore, help keep the nonresponse rate below 10 percent. With this
explanation, the agency has made no change to the rule in response to
these comments.
One commenter suggested that requiring States to record unknown
variables may require in-field calculations. (Peters & Assocs. at 5.
See also ODU at 2.) The requirement that unknown values must not exceed
10 percent applies to the entire survey, not to data collected at
individual observation sites. There is no need to conduct in-field
calculations to verify that the observations at a given site are below
10 percent. Specifically, the nonresponse rate is computed by dividing
the total number of drivers and right front seat passengers with
unknown belt use status by the total number of drivers and right front
seat passengers observed. At the end of the survey, if the State still
exceeds the nonresponse rate requirement, the State must collect
additional data. No change to the rule is made in response to this
comment.
NHTSA received a number of comments regarding the variance
estimation. For purposes of discussion, these comments are addressed
under the precision requirement of the selection of observation sites
in Section III.D.5 above.
I. Submission and Approval of Seat Belt Survey Design and Post-Approval
Alterations to Survey Design (Sec. Sec. 1340.10 and 1340.11)
One commenter supported the requirements for submission and
approval of seat belt survey designs. (GHSA at 3.) Another commenter
stated that the new survey design requirements will require input from
a survey statistician. (Peters & Assoc. at 5.) The agency anticipated
that States would need a survey statistician to help design and conduct
surveys and analyze the collected data. As discussed in detail in
Section III.G. above, we have encountered instances of problematic
survey results over the years, and we believe that these instances were
the result of insufficient statistical expertise in the design and/or
analysis phase of reporting the seat belt use rate estimate. For this
reason, the agency proposed that survey results be reviewed and
approved by a survey statistician. We believe that this will result in
improved and more accurate survey results. The Final Rule retains the
requirement for a survey statistician.
In Sec. 1340.10(a), NHTSA has corrected cross references, and in
Sec. 1340.10(a)(1)(v), NHTSA changed the language ``Define an
observation site'' to ``Specify the method used to select the road
segments for observation sites as provided by Sec. 1340.5(b)''. This
change clarifies what was being requested of the State and reflects the
sequence generally followed in designing and selecting samples.
Several commenters stated that States needed more time to develop a
new survey design and recommended delaying the implementation of the
revised criteria. (See IACP at 1, WV HSP at 2, ND DOT at 1, GHSA at 4,
and WY DOT at 3.) NHTSA agrees and has decided that the revised
criteria will apply to seat belt use surveys conducted during calendar
year 2012 and thereafter, not during calendar year 2011. In response to
these comments, the agency has made changes to Sec. 1340.2
(Applicability) and has revised the deadline for submission of proposed
survey designs in Sec. 1340.10(b) to January 3, 2012.
One commenter asked whether a State must submit its survey design
every year, even if there are no substantive changes from the previous
survey design approved by NHTSA. (WI DOT at 2.) The commenter agreed
that States should resubmit the survey design when they propose to re-
select observation sites or make other substantive changes to the
survey design or data capture/processing protocol. Id. The agency did
not intend States to submit survey designs every year. For calendar
2012 seat belt use surveys, the first year under the new requirements,
States are required to submit proposed survey designs by January 3,
2012 so that NHTSA will have sufficient time to review the survey
design before the surveys are conducted. Once a State's survey design
has been approved by NHTSA, the State is not required to resubmit the
survey design unless the State proposes alterations to a NHTSA-approved
survey design. (See Sec. 1340.11.) This is consistent with the annual
reporting requirements, under which States certify that the survey was
conducted using a survey design that was approved by NHTSA and that the
survey design has not changed since NHTSA approval. (See Sec.
1340.13(b); Appendix.) If a State chooses to redesign its seat belt
survey, it should follow the procedures identified in Sec. 1340.11. To
clarify this point, the agency has added language in Sec. 1340.10(b).
J. Re-Selection of Observation Sites (Sec. 1340.12)
One commenter disagreed with the requirement to update the survey
design every five years, and two commenters stated that requiring
States to re-select observation sites from updated sampling frame data
would cause States to incur additional costs. (WY HSP at 1; Peters &
Assoc. at 6; WA TSC at 3.) States are not required to redesign their
surveys every five years. Rather, in the NPRM, the agency proposed
requiring States to re-select observation sites every five years. Under
the current seat belt use surveys, many States may be using an
inventory of road segments that is years out-of-date. The inventory of
road segments changes over time as new roads are constructed and
existing roads are closed or changed. An up-to-date inventory of road
segments is necessary to ensure that the seat belt use estimate is
accurate and representative of Statewide seat belt use. We believe that
the additional costs for re-selecting observation sites every five
years will not be significant because States are required only to re-
select observation sites from updated sampling frame data, not to
redesign their surveys. In order to minimize the costs, NHTSA intends
to provide States with the updated three, four or five year fatality
distribution and
[[Page 18054]]
inventory of road segments. The agency makes no change to the rule in
response to these comments.
One of the commenters also expressed concerns that the re-selection
of observation sites would require a new survey design, sampling of
sites, pilot testing and travel to new sites to assess visibility and
safety. (WA TSC 3-4.) The agency does not believe that the re-selection
of observation sites requires a new survey design. While we believe
that it is good practice to travel to new observation sites to assess
visibility and safety, NHTSA is not specifying how States should
determine where observations should be conducted and what other
implementation measures should be adopted. These are decisions that the
State is best positioned to make. We do not believe that these costs
would be significant. The reasonable additional costs associated with
re-selecting observation sites are necessary to ensure that the survey
continues to be representative of the current inventory of road
segments. No change to the rule is made in response to this comment.
One of the commenters stated that the requirement to reexamine
geographic distribution of fatalities from the most recent three years
could result in an inclusion or exclusion of different counties every
five years, causing site selection changes and efficiencies associated
with sample clustering to change every five years. (Peters & Assoc. at
2.) Although the sampling frame of counties could change every five
years, we do not expect significant changes based on our review of
historical FARS data. As discussed in Section III.D.1 above, NHTSA is
amending the Final Rule to allow States the option of using a fatality
distribution of three, four or five years instead of three years, which
will help further reduce changes in the sampling frame. We note that
the actual observation sites would change, because of re-selection
requirements, regardless of whether the sampling frame of counties
changes. States will still be able to cluster sample with the new
observation sites. The agency makes no change to the rule in response
to this comment.
A commenter questioned whether NHTSA would have the capacity to
review all State and territorial seat belt survey designs every five
years. (GHSA at 4.) The commenter suggested that after the initial
review, NHTSA should stagger subsequent State reviews so that one-fifth
of all State and Territory survey protocols are reviewed every year.
Id. NHTSA will review and approve survey designs from all States and
Territories for surveys conducted beginning calendar year 2012. The
NPRM did not propose and the Final Rule does not require States to
redesign surveys for NHTSA approval every five years. Rather, States
are required to re-select observation sites using updated sampling
frame data. It is the updated sampling frame data that requires NHTSA
approval. NHTSA will deploy the necessary resources to review updated
sampling frame data from all States and Territories.
K. Annual Reporting Requirements
NHTSA received two positive comments in support of the annual
reporting requirements.\4\ (TX DOT at 1; GHSA at 3.) However, one
commenter seemed to suggest that the current ``research report''
describing the survey methodology and results produced by States was
sufficient. (WA TSC at 4.) Under the current reporting requirements,
NHTSA does not have sufficient information to evaluate the computation
of the seat belt use rate estimate. Based on our experience, some of
the reported results were not consistent with the computation formula
in the NHTSA-approved survey design. For this reason, NHTSA is
requiring additional information in the annual reports submitted by
States. NHTSA believes that the additional information is necessary in
order to carry out the agency's responsibilities for grant management
and oversight. No change to the rule is made in response to this
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NV DPS stated that the raw data from all States should be
available online to the public. (NV DPS at 1.) We believe that the
idea of making raw data available online deserves further
consideration, but that it is a policy decision that is ancillary to
the rulemaking. Therefore, we do not make changes to the rule in
response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter suggested requiring a certification from the
Governor's Representative for Highway Safety instead of the
certification by the statistician. (GHSA at 3.) After careful
consideration, the agency has decided to amend the rule to require only
a certification from the Governor's Representative and to remove the
requirement for certification by the statistician. However, a qualified
survey statistician is still required to review and approve the survey
results. See Sec. 1340.8(c). Accordingly, NHTSA is amending the
certification by the Governor's Representative to certify that a
qualified statistician has reviewed the reported seat belt use rate
estimate and information reported in Part B, and has determined that
they meet the Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat
Belt Use, 23 CFR Part 1340. The agency has made changes to Sec.
1340.13 and corresponding changes to the certification in the Appendix
in response to this comment.
IV. Statutory Basis for This Action
The Final Rule amends the uniform criteria for the measurement of
State seat belt use rates for surveys that States are required to
conduct annually under a grant program in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
402(b)(1)(E)(iii).
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 13563,
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action
is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and to the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This Final Rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under Executive Order 12866. The Final Rule is not considered to be
significant within the meaning of E.O. 12866 or the Department of
Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034 (Feb.
26, 1979)).
This Final Rule does not affect amounts over the significance
threshold of $100 million each year. This Final Rule sets forth the
criteria for designing and conducting State seat belt use observational
surveys, procedures for obtaining NHTSA approval of survey designs, and
a new form for reporting seat belt use rates to NHTSA. The costs to
design and conduct observation surveys under the criteria are well
below the annual threshold of $100 million. This Final Rule does not
adversely affect in a material way the
[[Page 18055]]
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal
governments or communities. This Final Rule does not create an
inconsistency or interfere with any actions taken or planned by other
agencies. This Final Rule does not materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof. Finally, this Final Rule
does not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Currently, States are required to provide satisfactory assurances
that they will conduct an annual Statewide seat belt use survey in
accordance with the uniform criteria as part of the administrative
requirements for a highway safety grant under 23 U.S.C.
402(b)(1)(E)(iii). This Final Rule does not change the statutory
requirement to provide assurances that the State will conduct an annual
Statewide seat belt use survey, but does change the way States collect
and report survey data and the allowable error rate. Specifically, this
Final Rule requires States to draw observation sites from an updated
sampling frame. This Final Rule also improves quality control of the
data collected by requiring States to train observers before data
collection, to have quality control monitors conduct unannounced
visits, and to have a statistician review the data collected. Finally,
this Final Rule requires States to submit additional information in
their annual certifications.
The agency has determined that this Final Rule is not significant.
If a State does not provide assurances that it will conduct an annual
Statewide seat belt use survey in accordance with the uniform criteria
in a given year, a percentage of Section 402 grant funds could be
withheld. However, States rely on statistically valid observational
surveys of seat belt use to plan and evaluate their highway safety
programs and have committed, through their highway safety offices, to
conduct annual Statewide seat belt use surveys as part of the core
performance measurement process. The agency believes that no State will
decline to provide the required assurances. Because the impacts of this
Final Rule are minimal, the agency is not required to prepare a full
regulatory evaluation.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency publishes a notice of rulemaking
for any proposed or Final Rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small
Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies
that the rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that an action would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this Final Rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This Final Rule applies to States and they
are not considered to be small businesses under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. States may employ contractors to collect survey data
(which may be small businesses), but this Final Rule merely changes the
procedures of collecting survey data and will not have a significant
impact on the costs or profits of small businesses. Therefore, I
certify that this Final Rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with
Federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs and that is not required by statute unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by State and local governments or the agency consults with
State and local governments in the process of developing the proposed
regulation. The agency also may not issue a regulation with Federalism
implications that preempts a State law without consulting with State
and local officials.
The agency has analyzed this Final Rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has
determined that this Final Rule does not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This Final
Rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs. While the
costs to the States may vary depending on such factors as the State's
current survey design and the size of the State, the agency estimates
that the average cost to a State would be at most in the tens of
thousands of dollars. We note that Federal funds from a number of NHTSA
grant programs may be used to defray these costs. This Final Rule also
does not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the ability of
States to discharge traditional State government functions.
While the agency has determined that this Final Rule does not have
sufficient Federalism implications to warrant formal consultation with
State and local officials, the agency is aware that the revised
criteria will impact States. For a number of years, the agency has had
ongoing discussions with State officials about the seat belt use survey
criteria. Several of these State officials expressed concerns about the
accuracy and consistency of the survey results. Before the NPRM was
published in January 2010, the agency discussed the possibility of
revising the seat belt use survey criteria with officials from State
Highway Safety Offices at Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA)
meetings. The agency sought their views on the need to change the
criteria and potential areas of revision. Generally, these State
officials were supportive of revising the seat belt use survey criteria
to make the survey results more accurate and consistent.
In addition, when the NPRM was published, the agency reached out to
the States and encouraged States to review the NPRM and provide
comments. NHTSA received extensive comments from many States and
interested parties, such as associations and universities and
contractors, who assist States in conducting and analyzing the results
of seat belt use surveys. As discussed in the preamble of the Final
Rule, NHTSA revised the criteria to reduce further the
[[Page 18056]]
impact on States in response to the States' comments.
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996), the agency has considered whether this
rulemaking would have any retroactive effect. This rulemaking action
would not have any retroactive effect. This action meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number. There are reporting requirements contained in the Final
Rule that are considered to be information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as that term is defined by OMB in 5
CFR Part 1320. The estimated total annual burden is 19,040 hours. The
total estimated number of respondents is 56 (50 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico and 4 territories).
Pursuant to the Act, the agency solicited public comments on the
proposed collection of information, with a 60-day comment period, in
the notice of proposed rulemaking published on January 28, 2010 (75 FR
4509). The agency will publish a separate Federal Register Notice when
we submit the information collection request to OMB for approval.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or Final Rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with a base year of
1995 (about $118 million in 2004 dollars)). This Final Rule does not
include a Federal mandate resulting in annual State expenditures that
would exceed the $100 million threshold.
G. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has reviewed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that this
Final Rule does not have a significant impact on the quality of the
human environment.
H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribes)
The agency has analyzed this Final Rule under Executive Order
13175, and has determined that the Final Rule does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and
does not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
I. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
J. Privacy Act
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and
read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name
of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
K. Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking
The agency has not submitted the Final Rule to the Congress and the
Government Accountability Office under the Congressional Review of
Agency Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. This Final Rule is not a
``major rule'' within the meaning of the Act.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1340
Grant programs--Transportation, Highway safety, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration revises 23 CFR part 1340 to read as
follows:
PART 1340--UNIFORM CRITERIA FOR STATE OBSERVATIONAL SURVEYS OF SEAT
BELT USE
Subpart A--General
Sec.
1340.1 Purpose.
1340.2 Applicability.
1340.3 Definitions.
Subpart B--Survey Design Requirements
1340.4 In general.
1340.5 Selection of observation sites.
1340.6 Assignment of observation times.
1340.7 Observation procedures.
1340.8 Quality control.
1340.9 Computation of estimates.
Subpart C--Administrative Requirements
1340.10 Submission and approval of seat belt survey design.
1340.11 Post-approval alterations to survey design.
1340.12 Re-selection of observation sites.
1340.13 Annual reporting requirements.
Appendix A to Part 1340--State Seat Belt Use Survey Reporting Form
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 1340.1 Purpose.
This part establishes uniform criteria for State surveys of seat
belt use conducted under 23 U.S.C. 402, procedures for NHTSA approval
of survey designs, and administrative requirements relating to State
seat belt surveys.
Sec. 1340.2 Applicability.
This part applies to State surveys of seat belt use, beginning in
calendar year 2012 and continuing annually thereafter.
Sec. 1340.3 Definitions.
As used in this part--
Access ramp means the segment of a road that forms a cloverleaf or
limited access interchange.
Cul-de-sac means the closed end of a road that forms a loop or
turn-around.
Non-public road means a road on which members of the general public
are not allowed to drive motor vehicles.
Nonresponse rate means, for any survey variable, the percentage of
unknown values recorded for that variable.
Observation site means the physical location where survey data are
collected.
Passenger motor vehicle means a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle
weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds, including a passenger car,
pickup truck, van, minivan or sport utility vehicle.
[[Page 18057]]
Service drive means the segment of a road that provides access to
businesses and rest areas.
Traffic circle means the segment of a road or intersection of roads
forming a roundabout.
Unnamed road means a road, public or private, that has no name or
number designation and is often a farm or logging road.
Vehicular trail means a road designed or intended primarily for use
by motor vehicles with four-wheel drive.
Subpart B--Survey Design Requirements
Sec. 1340.4 In general.
This subpart sets forth the minimum design requirements to be
incorporated in surveys conducted under this part.
Sec. 1340.5 Selection of observation sites.
(a) Sampling frame requirements--
(1) County coverage. The sampling frame from which observation
sites are selected shall include counties or county-equivalents
(including tribal territories), as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau,
that account for at least 85 percent of the State's passenger vehicle
occupant fatalities, provided that the average of the last three, four
or five years, at the State's option, of available Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) data or State fatality data approved by NHTSA
shall be used to determine the State's passenger vehicle occupant
fatalities.
(2) Road coverage.
(i) States shall select observation sites from a database of road
inventories approved by NHTSA or provided by NHTSA.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section,
all roads in the State shall be eligible for sampling. The sampling
frame may not be limited only to roads having a stop sign, stop light
or State-maintained roads.
(iii) The sampling frame need not include: rural local roads, as
classified by the Federal Highway Administration's Functional
Classification Guidelines, in counties that are not within a
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as published by the Office of
Management and Budget; non-public roads; unnamed roads; unpaved roads;
vehicular trails; access ramps; cul-de-sacs; traffic circles; or
service drives.
(b) Sampling selection requirements. The set of road segments
selected for observation sites shall be chosen based on probability
sampling, except that--
(1) The specific observation site locations on the sampled road
segments may be deterministically selected;
(2) An alternate observation site may be used to replace an
observation site selected based on probability sampling if it is
located in the same county or county-equivalent, and has the same
roadway classification (e.g., local road segment, collector road
segment) when using the protocol of substitution and rescheduling of
observation sites pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Requirements for substitution and rescheduling of observation
sites. The survey design shall include at a minimum the following
protocols:
(1) Protocol when observation site is temporarily unavailable for
data collection.
(i) Observers shall return to the observation site at another time
provided that it is on the same day of the week and at same time of the
day or select an alternate observation site, as described in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, provided the data are collected on the same day
and at approximately the same time as the originally-scheduled
observation site.
(ii) The original observation site must be used for future data
collections.
(2) Protocol when observation site is permanently unavailable for
data collection.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii), another observation
site shall be selected in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section.
(ii) If it is not feasible to select another observation site based
on probability sampling for the current data collection, an alternate
observation site, as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, may
be selected, provided the data is collected on the same day and at
approximately the same time as the originally-scheduled observation
site.
(iii) For future data collections, another observation site must be
selected based on probability sampling in accordance with paragraph (b)
of this section.
(d) Precision requirement. The estimated seat belt use rate must
have a standard error of no more than 2.5 percentage points.
Sec. 1340.6 Assignment of observation times.
(a) Daylight hours. All daylight hours between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.
for all days of the week shall be eligible for inclusion in the sample.
(b) Random assignment. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, the day-of the week and time-of-the-day shall be randomly
assigned to observation sites.
(c) Grouping of observation sites in close geographic proximity.
Observations sites in close geographic proximity may be grouped to
reduce data collection burdens if:
(1) The first assignment of an observation site within the group is
randomly selected; and
(2) The assignment of other observations sites within the group is
made in a manner that promotes administrative efficiency and timely
completion of the survey.
Sec. 1340.7 Observation procedures.
(a) Data collection dates. All survey data shall be collected
through direct observation completely within the calendar year for
which the Statewide seat belt use rate will be reported. Except as
provided in Sec. 1340.5(c), the survey shall be conducted in
accordance to the schedule determined in Sec. 1340.6.
(b) Roadway and direction(s) of observation--
(1) Intersections. If an observation site is located at an
intersection of road segments, the data shall be collected from the
sampled road segment, not the intersecting road segment(s).
(2) Roads with two-way traffic. If an observation site is located
on a road with traffic traveling in two directions, one or both
directions of traffic may be observed, provided that--
(i) If only one direction of traffic is observed, that direction
shall be chosen randomly;
(ii) If both directions of traffic are observed at the same time,
States shall assign at least one person to observe each direction of
traffic.
(c) Vehicle coverage. Data shall be collected by direct observation
from all passenger motor vehicles, including but not limited to
passenger motor vehicles used for commercial purposes, passenger motor
vehicles exempt from the State's seat belt use law and passenger motor
vehicles bearing out-of-State license plates.
(d) Occupant coverage. Data shall be collected by direct
observation of all drivers and right front passengers, including right
front passengers in booster seats, but excluding right front passengers
in child safety seats. Observers shall record a person as--
(1) Belted if the shoulder belt is in front of the person's
shoulder;
(2) Unbelted if the shoulder belt is not in front of the person's
shoulder;
(3) Unknown if it cannot reasonably be determined whether the
driver or right front passenger is belted.
(e) Survey data. At a minimum, the seat belt use data to be
collected by direct observation shall include--
(1) Seat belt status of driver;
(2) Presence of right front passenger; and
(3) Seat belt status of right front passenger, if present.
[[Page 18058]]
(f) Data collection environment. When collecting seat belt survey
data--
(1) Observers shall not wear law enforcement uniforms;
(2) Police vehicles and persons in law enforcement uniforms shall
not be positioned at observation sites;
(3) Communications by signage or any other means that a seat belt
survey is being or will be conducted shall not be present in the
vicinity of the observation site.
Sec. 1340.8 Quality control.
(a) Quality control monitors. Monitors shall conduct random,
unannounced visits to no less than five percent of the observation
sites for the purpose of quality control. The same individual shall not
serve as both the observer and quality control monitor at the same
observation site at the same time.
(b) Training. Observers and quality control monitors involved in
seat belt use surveys shall have received training in data collection
procedures within the past twelve months. Observers and quality control
monitors shall be trained in the observation procedures of Sec. 1340.7
and in the substitution and rescheduling requirements of Sec.
1340.5(c).
(c) Statistical review. Survey results shall be reviewed and
approved by a survey statistician, i.e., a person with knowledge of the
design of probability-based multi-stage samples, statistical estimators
from such designs, and variance estimation of such estimators.
Sec. 1340.9 Computation of estimates.
(a) Data used. Except as otherwise provided in this section, all
data collected pursuant to Sec. 1340.7(e) shall be used, without
exclusion, in the computation of the Statewide seat belt use rate,
standard error, and nonresponse rate.
(b) Data editing. Known values of data contributing to the
Statewide seat belt use rate shall not be altered in any manner.
(c) Imputation. Unknown values of variables shall not be imputed
unless NHTSA has approved the State's imputation procedure prior to
data analysis.
(d) Sampling weights. The estimation formula shall weight observed
data by the sampling weights as required by the sample design and any
subsequent adjustments.
(e) Sampling weight adjustments for observation sites with no
usable data. States shall include a procedure to adjust the sampling
weights for observation sites with no usable data, including
observation sites where no data were collected and observation sites
where data were discovered to be falsified.
(f) Nonresponse rate.
(1) Subject to paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the nonresponse
rate for the entire survey shall not exceed 10 percent for the ratio of
the total number of recorded unknown values of belt use to the total
number of drivers and passengers observed.
(2) The State shall include a procedure for collecting additional
observations in the same calendar year of the survey to reduce the
nonresponse rate to no more than 10 percent if the nonresponse rate in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section exceeds 10 percent.
(g) Variance estimation.
(1) Subject to paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the estimated
standard error, using the variance estimation method in the survey
design, shall not exceed 2.5 percentage points.
(2) If the standard error exceeds this threshold, additional
observations shall be conducted in the same calendar year of the survey
until the standard error does not exceed 2.5 percentage points.
Subpart C--Administrative Requirements
Sec. 1340.10 Submission and approval of seat belt survey design.
(a) Contents: The following information shall be included in the
State's seat belt survey design submitted for NHTSA approval:
(1) Sample design--The State shall-
(i) Define all sampling units, with their measures of size, as
provided in Sec. 1340.5(a);
(ii) Specify the data source of the sampling frame of road segments
(observation sites), as provided in Sec. 1340.5(a)(2)(i);
(iii) Specify any exclusions that have been applied to the sampling
frame, as provided in Sec. 1340.5(a)(2)(iii);
(iv) Define what stratification was used at each stage of sampling
and what methods were used for allocation of the sample units to the
strata;
(v) Specify the method used to select the road segments for
observation sites as provided by Sec. 1340.5(b).
(vi) List all observation sites and their probabilities of
selection;
(vii) Explain how the sample sizes were determined, as provided in
Sec. 1340.5(d);
(viii) Describe how observation sites were assigned to observation
time periods, as provided in Sec. 1340.6; and
(ix) Identify the name and describe the qualifications of the State
survey statistician meeting the requirements in Sec. 1340.8(c).
(2) Data collection--The State shall--
(i) Define an observation period;
(ii) Specify the procedures to be implemented to reschedule or
substitute observation sites when data collection is not possible on
the date and time assigned, as provided in Sec. 1340.5(c);
(iii) Specify the procedures for collecting additional data to
reduce the nonresponse rate, as provided in Sec. 1340.9(f)(2);
(iv) Describe the data recording procedures; and
(v) Specify the number of observers and quality control monitors.
(3) Estimation--The State shall--
(i) Describe how seat belt use rate estimates will be calculated;
(ii) Describe how variances will be estimated, as provided in Sec.
1340.9(g);
(iii) Specify imputation methods, if any, that will be used, as
provided in Sec. 1340.9(c);
(iv) Specify the procedures to adjust sampling weight for
observation sites with no usable data, as provided in Sec. 1340.9(e);
and
(v) Specify the procedures to be followed if the standard error
exceeds 2.5 percentage points, as required in Sec. 1340.5(g).
(b) Survey design submission deadline. For calendar year 2012,
States shall submit proposed survey designs to NHTSA for approval no
later than January 3, 2012. Thereafter, States should submit survey
designs for NHTSA approval as specified in Sec. 1340.11.
Sec. 1340.11 Post-approval alterations to survey design.
After NHTSA approval of a survey design, States shall submit for
NHTSA approval any proposed alteration to their survey design,
including, but not limited to, sample design, seat belt use rate
estimation method, variance estimation method and data collection
protocols, at least three months before data collection begins.
Sec. 1340.12 Re-selection of observation sites.
(a) Re-selection of observation sites. States shall re-select
observation sites using updated sampling frame data, as described in
Sec. 1340.5(a), no less than once every five years.
(b) Re-selection submission deadline. States shall submit updated
sampling frame data meeting the requirements of Sec. 1340.5(a) for
NHTSA approval no later than March 1 of the re-selection year.
Sec. 1340.13 Annual reporting requirements.
(a) Survey data. States shall report the following information no
later than March 1 of each year for the preceding calendar year's seat
belt use survey,
[[Page 18059]]
using the reporting form in Appendix A to this part:
(1) Spreadsheet in electronic format containing the raw data for
each observation site and the observation site weight;
(2) Statewide seat belt use rate estimate and standard error;
(3) Nonresponse rate for the variable ``belt use,'' as provided in
Sec. 1340.9(f);
(4) Dates of the reported data collection;
(5) Observation sites, identified by type of observation site
(i.e., observation site selected in the original survey design,
alternate observation site selected subsequent to the original survey
design), and by characteristics of the observation site visit (i.e., at
least one vehicle observed, no vehicles observed); and
(6) Name of the State survey statistician meeting the qualification
requirements, as provided in Sec. 1340.8(c).
(b) Certifications by Governor's Highway Safety Representative. The
Governor's Highway Safety Representative (GR) or if delegated in
writing, the Coordinator of the State Highway Safety Office, shall sign
the reporting form certifying that--
(1) ----------------has been designated by the Governor as the GR,
and if applicable, the GR has delegated the authority to sign the
certification in writing to ----------------, the Coordinator of the
State Highway Safety Office;
(2) The reported Statewide seat belt use rate is based on a survey
design that was approved by NHTSA, in writing, as conforming to the
Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23
CFR Part 1340;
(3) The survey design has remained unchanged since the survey was
approved by NHTSA; and
(4) ----------------, a qualified survey statistician, reviewed the
seat belt use rate reported in Part A (of the certification) and
information reported in Part B and has determined that they meet the
Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23
CFR part 1340.
(d) Audits. NHTSA may audit State survey results and data
collection. The State shall retain the following records for five years
and make them available to NHTSA in electronic format within four weeks
of request:
(1) Computation programs used in the sample selection;
(2) Computation programs used to estimate the Statewide seat belt
use rate and standard errors for the surveys conducted since the last
NHTSA approval of the sample design; and
(3) Sampling frame(s) for design(s) used since the last NHTSA
approval of the sample design.
APPENDIX A TO PART 1340--STATE SEAT BELT USE SURVEY REPORTING FORM
PART A: To be completed by the Governor's Highway Safety
Representative (GR) or if applicable, the Coordinator of the State
Highway Safety Office.
State:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar Year of Survey:-----------------------------------------------
Statewide Seat Belt Use Rate:------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that:
----------------has been designated by the Governor as
the State's Highway Safety Representative (GR), and if applicable,
the GR has delegated the authority to sign the certification in
writing to ------------------, the Coordinator of the State Highway
Safety Office.
The reported Statewide seat belt use rate is based on a
survey design that was approved by NHTSA, in writing, as conforming
to the Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt
Use, 23 CFR Part 1340.
The survey design has remained unchanged since the
survey was approved by NHTSA.
----------------, a qualified survey statistician, has
reviewed the seat belt use rate reported above and information
reported in Part B and has determined that they meet the Uniform
Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR
Part 1340.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed name of signing official
Part B--Data Collected at Observation Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Number of
Site ID Site type \1\ Date observed Sample weight Number of Number of front occupants \2\ occupants occupants with
drivers Passengers belted unbelted unknown belt use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Error of Statewide Belt Use Rate \3\------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Identify if the observation site is an original observation
site or an alternate observation site.
\2\ Occupants refer to both drivers and passengers.
\3\ The standard error may not exceed 2.5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonresponse Rate, as provided in Sec. 1340.9(f)
Nonresponse rate for the survey variable seat belt use: --------
Issued on: March 28, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-7632 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P