Testimony

• Mr. Peter Guerrero

• The Honorable Jeffrey Runge

  Administrator

  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  Read statement

  Testimony

  The Honorable Jeffrey Runge

  THE HONORABLE JEFFREY W. RUNGE, M.D. Chairman Smith, Senator Dorgan, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Administration’s proposal to reauthorize our highway safety programs in the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003” or “SAFETEA.” Through your leadership, and in conjunction with our State, local and private sector partners, NHTSA has worked to realize the goals of TEA-21. We are grateful to this Subcommittee for its continuing leadership by scheduling this hearing. My staff and I look forward to working with you and the rest of Congress in shaping the proposals that will reauthorize TEA-21. Working together, we will assure the successful reauthorization of this legislation and address the highway safety challenges facing the Nation. Motor vehicle crashes are responsible for 95 percent of all transportation-related deaths and 99 percent of all transportation-related injuries. They are the leading cause of death for Americans ages 1 to 34. NHTSA’s portion of SAFETEA focuses exclusively on highway safety. Although we are seeing improvements in vehicle crash worthiness and crash avoidance technologies, the rate and numbers of fatalities and injuries on our highways are staggering. In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes, up slightly from 42,116 in 2001. Traffic injuries in police-reported crashes decreased by 4 percent in 2002. While this is encouraging, we still are faced with the overwhelming fact that nearly 3 million people were injured in these crashes in 2002. The economic costs associated with these crashes are unacceptable as well. In fact, they constitute a grave public health problem and serious fiscal burden for our Nation. The total annual economic cost to our economy of all motor vehicle crashes is an astonishing $230.6 billion in 2000 dollars, or 2.3 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. This translates into an average of $820 for every person living in the United States. Included in this figure is $81 billion in lost productivity, $32.6 billion in medical expenses, and $59 billion in property damage. The average cost for a critically injured survivor is estimated at $1.1 million over a lifetime. As astounding as this figure is, it does not even begin to reflect the physical and psychological suffering of the victims and their families. The fatality rate for 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) remained unchanged at 1.51, according to these estimates. Secretary Mineta has given us the goal of reducing the fatality rate to no more than 1.0 fatality for every 100 VMT by 2008. This is not just a NHTSA goal; it is a goal of the entire Department of Transportation. For these reasons, President Bush and Secretary Mineta have made reducing highway fatalities the number one priority for the Department and for the reauthorization of TEA-21. Traffic safety constitutes a major public health problem, but unlike a number of the complex issues facing Washington today, we have some highly effective and simple remedies to combat highway death and injury. Wearing safety belts is the number one offensive and defensive step all individuals can take to save their lives. Buckling belts is not a complex vaccine, doesn’t have unwanted side effects and doesn’t cost any money. It is simple, it works and it’s lifesaving. Safety belt use cuts the risk of death in a severe crash in half. Most passenger vehicle occupants killed in motor vehicle crashes continue to be totally unrestrained. If safety belt use were to increase from the national average of 75 percent to 90 percent -- an achievable goal – nearly 4,000 lives would be saved each year. For every 1 percentage point increase in safety belt use -- that is 2.8 million more people "buckling up" -- we would save hundreds of lives, suffer significantly fewer injuries, and reduce economic costs by hundreds of millions of dollars a year. In addition to the economic obligation, more importantly, we have a moral obligation to immediately address the problem of highway safety. The Bush Administration remains committed to reducing highway fatalities, and our bill offers proposals to increase safety belt use and to take those and other actions that can make the achievement of this goal possible. Thanks in large part to the hard work of many of you and your predecessors, SAFETEA builds on the tremendous successes of the previous two pieces of surface transportation legislation. Both the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), a bill with which the Secretary is proud to have played a role, and TEA-21, provided an excellent framework to tackle the surface transportation challenges that lie ahead. ISTEA set forth a new vision for the implementation of the Nation’s surface transportation programs. Among other things, ISTEA gave State and local officials unprecedented flexibility to advance their own goals for transportation capital investment. Instead of directing outcomes from Washington, DC, the Department shifted more of its focus to giving State and local partners the necessary tools to solve their unique problems while still pursuing important national goals. SAFETEA not only maintains this fundamental ISTEA principle, it goes further by giving States and localities even more discretion in key program areas. To meet the significant highway safety challenges the States face, we have designed SAFETEA’s highway safety title to create a safer, simpler and smarter program. President Bush and this Administration are committed to fostering the safest, most secure national transportation system possible, even as we seek to enhance mobility, reduce congestion, and expand our economy. These are not incompatible goals. Indeed, it is essential that the Nation’s transportation system be both safe and secure while making our economy both more efficient and productive. While formulating the Department’s reauthorization proposal, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NHTSA came together on a different approach to addressing the Nation’s substantial highway safety problems. Under that approach, States would receive more resources to address their own, unique transportation safety issues; would be strongly encouraged to increase their overall safety belt usage rates; and would be rewarded for performance with increased funds and greater flexibility to spend those funds on either infrastructure safety or behavioral safety programs. The following are the major programmatic elements of the Administration’s highway safety reauthorization proposal. SAFETEA establishes a new core highway safety infrastructure program, in place of the existing Surface Transportation Program safety set-aside. This new program, called the Highway Safety Improvement Program, will more than double funding over comparable TEA-21 levels. This new program would provide $7.5 billion for safety projects over the 6-year authorization period. In addition to increased funding, States would be encouraged and assisted in their efforts to formulate comprehensive highway safety plans. To streamline NHTSA’s grant programs and make them more performance-based, we have proposed a major consolidation of NHTSA’s Section 402 safety programs. While the basic formula grant program for Section 402 would provide $1.05 billion over the 6-year authorization period, two important elements of this revised Section 402 are a General Performance Grant and a Safety Belt Performance Grant. The Safety Belt Performance Grant provides up to $100 million each year to reward States for passing primary safety belt laws—meaning drivers and passengers can be cited for failure to wear a safety belt—or achieving 90 percent safety belt usage rates in their States. A State that enacts new primary belt laws will receive a grant equal to five times the amount of its current formula grant for highway safety. This significant incentive is intended to prompt State action needed to save lives. In 2002, States with primary safety belt laws averaged 80 percent use, 11 percentage points higher than those with secondary laws—laws preventing police from issuing a citation unless another traffic law was broken. States achieve high levels of belt use through primary safety belt laws, public education using paid and earned media, and high visibility law enforcement programs, such as the Click it or Ticket campaign. Any State that receives a Safety Belt Performance Grant for the enactment of a primary safety belt law is permitted to use up to 100 percent of those funds for infrastructure investments eligible under the Highway Safety Improvement Program in accordance with the State’s comprehensive plan. Also, States can receive additional grants by improving their safety belt use rates. This incentive would provide $182 million over the 6-year authorization period. Any State that receives a grant for improved safety belt usage rates or a General Performance Grant for the achievement of other key safety performance measures is permitted to use up to 50 percent of those funds for activities eligible under the new Highway Safety Improvement Program. Overall, this groundbreaking proposal offers States more flexibility than they have ever had before in how they spend their Federal-aid safety dollars. It reduces State administrative burdens by consolidating multiple categorical grant programs into one. It would reward them for accomplishing easily measurable goals and encourage them to take the most effective steps to save lives. It is exactly the kind of proposal that is needed to more effectively address the tragic problem of highway fatalities. The $340 million, six-year General Performance Grant component of our revised Section 402 program not only eases the administrative burdens of the States but also rewards States with increased Federal funds for measurable improvements in their safety performance for reducing (i) overall motor vehicle fatalities, (ii) alcohol-related fatalities, and (iii) motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian crash fatalities. SAFETEA is designed to help the States deter impaired driving. Encouraging people to wear their safety belts will help reduce the number of deaths and injuries attributed to impaired driving, but reducing the actual number of impaired drivers is a complex issue requiring interconnected strategies and programs. In 2002, an estimated 17,970 people died in alcohol-related crashes (42 percent of the total fatalities for the year), a 25 percent reduction from the 23,833 alcohol-related fatalities in 1988, but an increase of 3 percent over 2001. Intoxication rates have decreased for drivers of all age groups involved in fatal crashes over the past decade, with drivers 25 to 34 years old experiencing the greatest decrease, followed by drivers 16 to 20 years old. Our 2002 estimates indicate that impaired-related fatalities rose for the third straight year. Additionally, the President’s National Drug Control Strategy recognizes drug-impaired driving as both a problem and, in its reduction, an opportunity. As a problem, we believe that drug-impaired driving, either alone or in combination with alcohol, accounts for 10-20 percent of crash-involved drivers. Detecting drug-impaired driving gives police officers, prosecutors and judges the opportunity to appropriately sanction offenders and refer them to treatment as appropriate, which is an important objective of the President. NHTSA contributes to this Presidential objective principally through the drug evaluation and classification (DEC) program, which was recognized in the President’s National Drug Control Strategy for the first time in 2003. By giving traffic officers and prosecutors the tools to better identify drug use in vehicle drivers, the DEC program meets two important objectives of the administration: reducing traffic fatalities and injuries and reducing drug use. This reauthorization bill allows our agency to continue working towards these objectives by supporting this important program and reducing the incidence of both alcohol and drug-impaired driving. Another component of our revised Section 402 program will focus significant resources on a small number of States with particularly severe impaired driving problems by creating a new $50 million a year impaired driving discretionary grant program. The grant program will include support for up to 10 States with especially high alcohol fatality numbers or rates to conduct detailed reviews of their impaired driving systems by a team of outside experts and assist them in developing a strategic plan for improving programs, processes, and reducing impaired driving-related fatalities and injuries. Additional support will also be provided for training, technical assistance in the prosecution and adjudication of DWI cases, and to help licensing and criminal justice authorities close legal loopholes. NHTSA believes that this targeted State grant program and supporting activities, together with continued nationwide use of high-visibility enforcement and paid and earned media campaigns, will lead to a resumption of the downward trend in alcohol-related fatalities that the Nation experienced over the past decade. Also, through the comprehensive safety planning process, all States may elect to use a significant amount of their FHWA Highway Safety Infrastructure funding, in addition to their consolidated Section 402 funds, for impaired driving. In addition to the consolidation of our Section 402 programs, SAFETEA’s highway safety title includes a key provision to provide a comprehensive national motor vehicle crash causation survey that will enable us to determine the factors responsible for the most frequent causes of crashes on the Nation’s roads. This comprehensive survey would be funded at $10 million a year out of the funds authorized for our highway safety research and development program. The last update of crash causation data was generated comprehensively in the 1970s. Vehicle design, traffic patterns, numbers and types of vehicles in use, on-board technologies and lifestyles have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Old assumptions about the causes of crashes may no longer be valid. Since NHTSA depends on causation data to form the basis for its priorities, we must ensure that this data is current and accurate. Updating our crash causation data will allow us to target our efforts for the next decade on the factors that are the most frequent causes of crashes on American roads. NHTSA has in place an infrastructure of investigation teams that will enable us to perform the crash causation study efficiently and accurately. These teams are currently performing a similar study for large, commercial truck crashes and are adept at gathering evidence from the scene, the hospital, and from victim and witness interviews. Their findings will guide the agency’s programs in crash avoidance, including vehicle technologies as well as human factors. SAFETEA also creates a new $300 million incentive grant program that builds upon a TEA-21 program to encourage States to improve their traffic records data. Deficiencies in such data negatively impact national databases including the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, General Estimates System, National Driver Register (NDR), Highway Safety Information System, and Commercial Driver License Information System as well as State data used to identify local safety problems. Improvements are needed for police reports, emergency medical services (EMS), driver licensing, vehicle registration, and citation/court data provide essential information. Accurate State traffic safety data are critical to identifying local safety issues, applying focused safety countermeasures, and evaluating the effectiveness of countermeasures. SAFETEA also establishes a new $60 million State formula grant program to support EMS systems development, 911 systems nationwide, and a Federal Interagency Committee on EMS to strengthen intergovernmental coordination of EMS. The States would administer the grant program through their State EMS offices and coordinate it with their highway safety offices. For the past 20 years, Federal support for EMS has been both scarce and uncoordinated. As a result, the capacity of this critical public service has seen little growth and support for EMS has been spread among a number of agencies throughout the Federal government, including NHTSA. Most of the support offered by these agencies has focused only on specific system functions, rather than on overall system capacity, and has been inconsistent and ineffectively coordinated. In 2001, the General Accounting Office cited in its report, “Emergency Medical Response: Reported Needs Are Wide-Ranging, With Lack of Data A Growing Concern,” the need to increase coordination among Federal agencies as they address the needs of regional, State, or local EMS systems. According to GAO, these needs, including personnel, training, equipment, and more emergency personnel in the field, vary between urban and rural communities. The Administration believes that Federal support for EMS and 9-1-1 systems should be enhanced and coordinated. The enactment of this section would result in comprehensive system support for EMS, 9-1-1 systems, and improved emergency response capacity nationwide. SAFETEA also would provide $559.5 million for NHTSA’s highway safety research and development program. This program supports State highway safety behavioral programs and activities by developing and demonstrating innovative safety countermeasures, and by collecting and disseminating essential data on highway safety. The results of our Section 403 research provide the scientific basis for highway safety programs that States and local communities can tailor to their own needs, ensuring that precious tax dollars are spent only on programs that are effective. The States are encouraged to use the successful programs for their ongoing safety programs and activities. Highway safety behavioral research focuses on human factors that influence driver and pedestrian behavior and on environmental conditions affecting safety. The program addresses a wide range of safety problems through various programs, initiatives, and demonstrations, such as: impaired driving programs, including the drug evaluation and classification program, safety belt and child safety seat programs and related enforcement mobilizations, pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle safety initiatives and related law enforcement strategies, enforcement and justice services, speed management, aggressive driving countermeasures, EMS, fatigue and inattention countermeasures, and data collection and analysis efforts. All of these efforts have produced a variety of scientifically sound data and results. SAFETEA provides specific set-asides out of Section 403 funds for the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, discussed earlier, and for EMS and international highway safety activities. Finally, SAFETEA would provide $23.6 million for the NDR. The NDR facilitates the exchange of driver licensing information on problem drivers among the States and various Federal agencies to aid in making decisions concerning driver licensing, driver improvement, and driver employment and transportation safety. Mr. Chairman, NHTSA’s portion of SAFETEA builds upon the principles, values, and achievements of ISTEA and TEA-21, yet recognizes that there are new challenges to address. We urge Congress to reauthorize the highway safety programs before they expire on September 30, 2003. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Witness Panel 2

• Ms. Jackie Gillan
  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Ms. Jackie Gillan

  Good afternoon. My name is Jacqueline Gillan and I am Vice President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), a coalition of consumer, health, safety, law enforcement and insurance companies and organizations working together to support the adoption of laws and programs to reduce deaths and injuries on our highways. Advocates is unique. We focus our efforts on all areas affecting highway and auto safety – the roadway, the vehicle and the driver. Founded in 1989, Advocates has a long history of working closely with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in the development of federal legislative policies to advance safety. I am pleased to testify this morning on the importance of reauthorizing the motor vehicle safety programs and the traffic safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Every day millions of American families leave their homes to travel by car to work, school, medical appointments, soccer practice, shopping malls and cultural activities. Although our nation’s highway system has created mobility opportunities that are the envy of the world, it has also resulted in a morbidity and mortality toll that is not. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recently released the preliminary traffic fatalities for the year 2002 and the news was grim. Overall, there were 42,850 deaths last year compared to 42,116 in 2001, an increase of 734 deaths. This is the highest number of motor vehicle fatalities in over a decade. The data show that motor vehicle fatalities rose in nearly every category of crashes. Alcohol-related fatalities dramatically increased by 522 deaths to a total of 17,970 fatalities; a record 10,626 deaths occurred in rollover crashes, nearly a 5 percent increase from last year; more teen drivers were killed for a total of 8,996 deaths; deaths for children 8 to 15 years old increased significantly to 1,604 lives lost; for the fifth consecutive year motorcycle deaths climbed to 3,276; and lastly, a majority of those killed in motor vehicle crashes were not wearing a seatbelt. In addition to the emotional toll, these deaths are associated with a large financial toll to society. According to DOT, the cost of motor vehicle crashes exceeds $230 billion annually. Although the number of deaths slightly decreased in certain areas, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, crashes involving large trucks, and children under seven years of age, these marginal improvements barely offset what would have been a significantly larger increase in total traffic fatalities in 2002. The highway safety community takes no solace in these victories when the predominant trend has been a general increase in total highway deaths, reversal of improvements in alcohol-related fatalities, and unabated growth in the number of deaths in rollover crashes. The six-year surface transportation reauthorization legislation submitted by DOT recommends more than $247 billion in spending. Without a major reversal in the growing number of highway fatalities and injuries in the next six years, almost 250,000 people will die and 18 million more will be injured at a societal cost of more than $1.38 trillion. The number of deaths is roughly equivalent to half the population of Portland, Oregon. The number of individuals injured in motor vehicle crashes is equal to the combined population of the states of North Dakota, Kansas, Montana, New Jersey and Washington. A mere 20 percent reduction in fatalities and injuries over the next six years would more than pay for the entire cost of the Administration’s legislation. This afternoon I will discuss the urgent need for the 108th Congress to enact a NHTSA reauthorization bill of the agency’s motor vehicle and traffic safety programs that reverses this deadly trend and seriously addresses the unnecessary and preventable carnage on our highways. The good news is that effective, proven solutions and strategies already are on the shelf and ready to be used. Many states and communities already are employing these ideas and programs and realizing important reductions in highway deaths and injuries. Furthermore, technological solutions to improve the crashworthiness of motor vehicles are available and in use for some makes and models. The map and charts attached to my testimony show a patchwork quilt of state laws. As a result, in 2003 most American families are not protected by laws that will ensure their safety when traveling on our nation’s roads and highways. This is in contrast to aviation safety where every person, flying on every airplane, in every state is subject to the same uniform safety laws and regulations. This uniformity has been the foundation for achieving an exemplary safety record of aviation travel throughout the United States. Unfortunately, this is not the case for motor vehicle travel where nearly every state lacks some basic traffic safety law and thousands of Americans are killed and millions more injured every year. While we are well on our way to having a uniform .08% BAC (blood alcohol concentration) per se law in every state, most states still lack basic highway safety laws. n 32 states do not have a primary enforcement safety belt law. n 11 states need to pass a .08% BAC per se law. n 17 states do not have an adequate repeat offender law for impaired driving. n 14 states do not prohibit open alcohol containers while driving. n 17 states have serious gaps in their child restraint laws. n 33 states do not require children ages 4 to 8 years old to use a booster seat. n 30 states do not require all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. n Most states do not protect new teen drivers with an optimal graduated driver license law. Furthermore, some of the most important regulatory actions undertaken by NHTSA in the past thirteen years have been the result of congressional direction, primarily at the initiation of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. The most recent example was enactment of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (P.L. 106-414, Nov. 1, 2000) which directed the agency to undertake numerous rulemakings on a variety of issues related to tire and child passenger safety and provided the resources to do the job. This is a model Advocates strongly supports for enactment of the NHTSA reauthorization legislation in the 108th Congress. In summary, Advocates urges the Senate Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce and Infrastructure to enact NHTSA reauthorization legislation that: Ø Provides sufficient funding resources for the agency to fulfill its mission, Ø Establishes a safety regulatory agenda with deadlines for agency action, and Ø Results in state adoption and enforcement of uniform lifesaving traffic safety laws. NHTSA’S MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS SUFFER FROM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS AND THIS IS JEOPARDIZING EFFORTS TO BRING DOWN DEATHS AND INJURIES. One of the most critical weapons in the battle to reduce deaths and injuries is adequate financial resources to support programs and initiatives to advance safety. At present, nearly 95 percent of all transportation-related fatalities are the result of motor vehicle crashes but NHTSA’s budget is less than one percent of the entire DOT budget. Motor vehicle safety regulatory actions languish, state enforcement of impaired driving laws is inadequate, and NHTSA data collection is hampered because of insufficient resources to address these problems. Since the last NHTSA motor vehicle program reauthorization legislation was enacted, this Committee has needed to act twice in the past three years to correct severe funding shortfalls. When serious problems resulting in deaths and injuries were identified in some passenger vehicle airbags, NHTSA was compelled to issue an advanced airbag rule to upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 to require new tests and advanced technology. Additional funds were needed by the agency to complete the necessary research and data analysis. Furthermore, during congressional hearings and media attention on the deadly rollover occurrence of Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone tires, it was revealed that neither the federal tire standard nor the roof crush standard had been updated since the early 1970s. Also, warning signs of the potential problem were missed because of inadequate data collection and analysis. Again, legislation was enacted providing additional funds to address the problem. In both cases, insufficient program funding and staff resources contributed to the agency’s missteps in identifying and acting upon the problems. The current authorization funding level for NHTSA’s motor vehicle safety and consumer information programs is only $107.9 million, less than the economic cost of 110 highway deaths, which represents a single day of fatalities on our highways. Since 1980, the agency has been playing a game of catch-up. Today, funding levels for motor vehicle safety and traffic safety programs are not much higher than 1980 funding levels in current dollars. For over twenty years, NHTSA has been underfunded and its mission compromised because of a lack of adequate resources to combat the rising tide of increased highway deaths and injuries. The legislative proposal released last week by DOT will continue to deny NHTSA the resources required to issue overdue motor vehicle safety regulations, upgrade vehicle safety standards that date back to the early 1970s, improve consumer information, attack impaired driving, enforce existing traffic safety laws, compel states to enact primary safety belt laws, and ultimately, lower the toll of highway deaths and injuries. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Increase funding authorization for NHTSA’s motor vehicle safety and consumer information programs. Increase traffic safety grant funding with a stronger emphasis on enforcement of laws to combat drunk driving and encourage seat belt use. NHTSA SHOULD ISSUE ROLLOVER PREVENTION AND CRASHWORTHINESS STANDARDS TO STOP THE GROWING NUMBER OF ANNUAL HIGHWAY FATALTIES AND INJURIES DUE TO VEHICLE ROLLOVERS. Last February, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee held groundbreaking hearings on the safety of sport utility vehicles (SUVs). The purpose of the hearing was to examine issues related to both the safety of SUV occupants as well as the safety of occupants of passenger vehicles involved in a crash with an SUV. Rollover crashes result in a tragedy of massive proportions, with more than 10,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of crippling injuries to Americans each year. Rollover crashes represent only 3 percent of all collisions but account for 32 percent of all occupant fatalities. In the last few years, light truck and van sales have amounted to slightly more than 50 percent of the new passenger vehicle market. This surprising market share for new SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans has been propelled mainly by the explosive growth in the purchase of new SUVs. Although cars still predominate in the passenger vehicle fleet – nearly two-thirds of registered vehicles – this proportion consists of an older car fleet that is increasingly being replaced by new light truck purchases, particularly of SUVs. The soaring popularity of SUVs since the start of the 1990s has resulted in more than doubling their numbers on the road during this period, accompanied by a doubling of fatal rollover crashes. The preliminary results of NHTSA’s annual Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for 2002 show yet another increase in deaths and injuries due to rollover crashes – from 10,130 in 2001 to 10,626 last year – with almost half of them due to an increase in rollover fatal crashes by SUVs and pickup trucks. In fact, our nation suffered an astounding 10 percent increase in SUV rollover deaths alone in just one year. When you add pickup trucks into the equation, seventy-eight (78) percent of the increase in passenger vehicle rollover deaths from 2001 to 2002 was due just to the increased fatal rollover crashes of SUVs and pickup trucks. Six of every 10 deaths in SUVs last year occurred in rollover crashes. No other passenger vehicle has the majority of its deaths take place in rollovers. By contrast, the great majority of deaths in passenger cars – more than 75 percent – occur in other crash modes. It is very clear that we are needlessly taking lives in the U.S. because of the tendency of SUVs to roll over in both single- and multi-vehicle crashes. At a press event in 1994, DOT announced several safety initiatives to address rollover crashes in lieu of issuing a rollover stability standard. Nearly ten years later, DOT has made little any progress in completing any of the major actions. NHTSA knows what needs to be done to protect our citizens from the lethal outcomes of rollover crashes. The agency failed to act when the need became clear years ago to stop the annual rise in deaths and injuries from rollovers. As the proportion of new vehicle sales strongly shifted each year towards light trucks and vans and away from passenger cars, NHTSA had an opportunity to act decisively to establish a vehicle stability standard to reduce the tendency of most SUVs and pickups to roll over, but the agency squandered that opportunity. It also had an opportunity at that time to fulfill its promises of improving occupant safety when, predictably, vehicles roll over. That could have been accomplished by improving the resistance of roofs to being smashed and mangled in rollovers, requiring upper and lower interior air bags instead of just padding to protect occupants, changing the design of door locks and latches to prevent ejection, installing anti-ejection window glazing, and increasing the effectiveness of seat belts in rollovers by properly restraining passengers with such well-known safety features as belt pre-tensioners. Yet, here we are almost 10 years after NHTSA terminated rulemaking to set a vehicle stability standard with the American public placed at increased risk of death and injury every year because of the growing numbers and percentage of SUVs and pickups in the traffic stream. Instead, NHTSA has promised a consumer information regulation to reveal the on-road rollover tendencies of SUVs and pickups. However, that promise is highly qualified. Although the agency issued a rollover rating system based on static stability factor (SSF) and is developing a rating system based on a dynamic test procedure, the agency has warned that it will be years before enough vehicles are tested and enough data from the field are collected to be able to determine if the rollover ratings from dynamic testing are accurate indications of rollover tendencies. So, while NHTSA collects several years of data to determine whether its testing regime is even tenable, the American consumer will continue to buy vehicles that place individuals and families at increased risk of death and debilitating injuries. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Require NHTSA to issue a final rule on a rollover stability standard to prevent deaths and injuries. Require NHTSA to issue a final rule on a rollover crashworthiness standard that includes improvements in roof strength, advanced upper interior head impact protection, ejection prevention measures that includes a combination of side air bags for upper and lower impact protection and window glazing, and integrated seating systems using pretensioners and load limiters in safety belts. IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF 15-PASSENGER VANS Perhaps one of the clearest indications that NHTSA needs to control basic vehicle designs that consistently produce high rates of rollover crashes are the horrific rollover crashes during the past few years among 15-passenger vans. A study released by NHTSA in late 2002 showed how, in 7 states, 15-passenger vans as a class, regardless of the number of passengers on board, are substantially less safe than all vans taken together. The data from FARS for the year 2000 showed that 17.6 percent of van crashes involved rollovers, not significantly greater than passenger cars at 15.3 percent. However, single vehicle rollover crashes of 15-passenger vans happen more frequently than with any other van when there are 5 occupants or more being transported. When these big vans have 5 to 9 passengers aboard, almost 21 percent of their single-vehicle crashes are rollovers. When the passenger load is between 10 and the maximum seating capacity of 15 occupants, single-vehicle rollovers are 29 percent of all van crashes. Even more dramatic, when 15-passenger vans are overloaded, i.e., more than 15 passengers on board, 70 percent of the single-vehicle crashes for these extra-heavy vans were rollovers. These findings are similar to those of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), released in October 2002, that found 15-passenger vans with 10 to 15 passengers onboard had a rollover rate about three times greater than that of vans seating 5 or fewer passengers. In addition, NTSB found that 15-passenger vans carrying 10 to 15 passengers rolled over in 96 of the 113 single-vehicle crashes investigated, or in 85 percent of those crashes. Unfortunately, NHTSA has only issued advisories about more careful operation of these vans and the use of better-trained drivers, and has even stated that there is nothing inherently defective about their design. These disclaimers about the intrinsically poor stability and safety of 15-passenger vans are unsettling when they are viewed in relation to two safety recommendations issued by the NTSB on November 1, 2002 to NHTSA and to two vehicle manufacturers, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation. The NTSB recommendations asked NHTSA to include 15-passenger vans in the agency’s rollover testing program and to cooperate with vehicle manufacturers to explore and test technologies, including electronic stability systems, that will help drivers maintain stable control over these vehicles. S. 717, the Passenger Van Safety Act of 2003, sponsored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) seizes the initiative to improve the safety of 15-passenger vans by putting NTSB’s recommendations into action. Advocates also supports fundamental changes in 15-passenger van design that will make them safer vehicles beyond the addition of stability-enhancing technologies and rollover test results showing their tendency to roll over. Unfortunately, 15-passenger vans, as well as larger passenger vehicles, especially medium and large SUVs and vans, along with small buses, are often exempted from key NHTSA safety regulations for crashworthiness. For example, because of the distance of seating positions in 15-passenger vans from side doors and the fact that the vans weigh more than 6,000 pounds, the lower interior side impact protection standard, FMVSS No. 214, does not apply to these big vans. This major safety standard also does not apply to any vehicles exceeding 6,000 pounds, or even to certain vehicles under this weight limit, such as walk-in vans, motor homes, ambulances, and vehicles with removable doors. Bigger passenger vehicles, then, as well as certain kinds of smaller passenger vehicles, are exempt from the minimal protection required by FMVSS No. 214. Similarly, the current roof crush standard – a standard that is weak and ineffective in preventing both general roof collapse and local intrusion in rollover crashes – exempts all passenger vehicles above 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating. This means that 15- passenger vans, other large vans, small buses, and well-known makes and models of SUVs and pickup trucks, do not have to meet even the inadequate test compliance requirements of FMVSS No. 216. Neither of the exemptions for larger, heavier passenger vehicles weighing more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating is based on any compelling data that these vehicles are somehow safe for their occupants without adherence to even these two weak standards. In fact, some of the vehicles with the worst rollover crash rates and roof failures are among the vehicles exempted from these two major standards. To complicate the issue further, NHTSA requires all passenger vehicles less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating to comply with the head injury protection requirements for upper interior impacts, including side impacts, but does not require similar compliance for vehicles between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating for lower interior torso protection under Standard No. 214. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Congress should enact S. 717 as well as direct NHTSA to conduct rulemaking and issue final regulations to extend the protection of all of the occupant protection standards, even those which need to be strengthened, to all passenger vehicles regardless of weight or size. VEHICLE AGGRESSIVITY AND INCOMPATIBILITY ARE NEEDLESSLY CONTRIBUTING TO MOTOR VEHICLE DEATHS AND INJURIES. The unparalleled growth in the sale and use of SUVs and other light trucks for personal transportation over the last 15 years has produced another major impediment to safety on our roads and highways. Large SUVs, pickup trucks, and full-size vans are disproportionately responsible for increasing the number of deaths and injuries when they collide with smaller passenger vehicles, including impacts even with small SUVs and mini-vans. This is known in vehicle safety engineering as “crash incompatibility”. This means that when there are two unequal collision partners, as the engineers refer to the vehicles that strike each other, the bigger, heavier, taller vehicle almost always inflicts more severe damage on the smaller, lighter, shorter vehicle. According to NHTSA, the number of passenger car occupants dying in two-vehicle crashes with light trucks or vans increased in 2002 compared to 2001, while the number of fatalities in the light trucks or vans actually decreased. These mismatch crashes are especially lethal when two factors are present: first, the heavier, bigger vehicle is the “bullet” or striking vehicle and the lighter, smaller vehicle is the “target” or struck vehicle, and, second, the bigger vehicle hits the smaller vehicle in the side. In these circumstances the consequences are fairly predictable. The bigger, heavier, higher vehicle rides over the lower door sills of the side of the small vehicle in a side impact, or rides above its low crash management features in a frontal collision. As a result, the smaller vehicle’s occupant compartment suffers enormous deformation and intrusion from the impact with the bigger vehicle. Recent studies by both American and Australian researchers have underscored the incredibly high level of harm that large light trucks and vans (LTVs), especially SUVs, inflicted on smaller passenger vehicles, particularly small cars, because of the large differences in weight, size, height, and stiffness. According to NHTSA, for cars struck in the near side by pickup trucks, there are 26 fatalities among passenger car drivers for each fatality among pickup truck drivers. For SUVs the ratio is 16 to 1. To date, NHTSA has done essentially nothing to reduce this tremendous “harm difference” between the biggest, heaviest members of the passenger vehicle fleet and the smaller vehicles. The agency needs to reduce the aggressivity of larger vehicles and simultaneously to improve the protection of occupants in the smaller, struck vehicles by undertaking research and regulatory actions on an accelerated calendar. Although NHTSA indicates this is a safety priority area, the agency’s FY ’04 budget unfortunately does not include any request for increased funding for this initiative. Advocates and others in the highway safety community are concerned that rhetoric does not match reality and the problem will continue to grow as LTVs become a larger percentage of the vehicle fleet. There are several actions the agency should be taking in order to address this growing problem. For example, in the area of research, NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis currently collects detailed crash information for a sample of moderate to high severity crashes. However, the data points collected do not adequately document and illuminate the most critical aspects of passenger vehicle to passenger vehicle crashes, especially those involving mismatched pairs. Similar change should apply to all agency data collection from real world crashes. Data collection would be further enriched if the number of cases investigated were increased to improve the ability of the agency to generalize about the reasons for vehicle responses and occupant injuries in crashes involving incompatible passenger vehicles. NHTSA also can improve the compatibility between larger and smaller makes and models of the passenger fleet by reducing the aggressivity of larger vehicles, especially light trucks and vans. Lowering the front end height difference of larger, heavier vehicles to match the front ends and sides of smaller vehicles will prevent larger vehicles from riding over the front ends and side door sills of smaller passenger vehicles. Furthermore, simultaneously reducing the crash stiffness of larger pickup trucks, SUVs, and big vans would ensure that crash forces are more evenly distributed between larger and smaller vehicles in both front and side in multi-vehicle collisions, which would improve safety. Side impacts in passenger cars alone resulted in about 5,400 deaths in each of the last few years, more than 30 percent of passenger car multiple-vehicle collision fatalities. Currently, the motor vehicle safety standards for upper interior side impact (FMVSS No. 201) and lower side impact (FMVSS No. 214) are too weak and need to be upgraded. When NHTSA adopted FMVSS No. 214 back in the early 1990s, it should be noted that the majority of the passenger vehicle fleet already met its compliance requirements, even without any additional countermeasures. The standard was indexed to meet the existing protective capabilities of the vehicle fleet. Additional protection could be achieved by enhancing the side impact protection of occupants by requiring dynamic impact safety systems, such as air bags, for both upper and lower portions of the vehicle interior. Lastly, consumers lack essential, basic information about how cars perform in side impact crashes. The NHTSA New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) conducts side impact crash tests on new cars but the tests use a barrier similar to a mid-size car to crash into small passenger vehicles. As a result, the test scores are misleading because they fail to inform consumers about how a vehicle performs in the real world. With the changing mix in the vehicle population and growing number of LTVs, especially SUVs, if you drive a car it is growing ever more likely you will be hit in the side by a vehicle larger than your own. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Require NHTSA to improve vehicle compatibility between larger and smaller makes and models of the passenger vehicle fleet by reducing the aggressivity of larger vehicles, especially light trucks and vans. Enhance the front and side impact protection of occupants of small and mid-sized passenger vehicles. Increase and improve data collection on the most critical aspects of passenger vehicle to passenger vehicle crashes, especially those involving mismatched collision partners. Provide consumers with better information about how passenger cars perform in side impact crashes with vehicles that are not similar in size. CONSUMER INFORMATION ON SAFETY IS FRAGMENTED AND INCOMPLETE. Last year, more than 16.8 million new cars were sold in the United States. However, consumers entering dealer showrooms were hampered in making educated purchasing decision because of a lack of comprehensive, comparative information on the safety performance of different makes and models of automobiles. Consumer information on the comparative safety of vehicles and vehicle equipment remains woefully inadequate. Even though buying a car is the second most expensive consumer purchase, next to the purchase of a home, the majority of consumers end up at the mercy of the sales pitch and without recourse to objective information. While energy conservation information is required on home appliances and other household items and even on passenger vehicles, critical safety information is not required on vehicles at the point of sale. The fact is that consumers get more information about the health and safety value of a $3 box of cereal than they do about vehicles that cost $30,000 and more in the dealer showroom. Providing vehicle buyers with important safety information at the point of sale is not a new idea. In 1994, the Secretary of Transportation suggested just such a label but it was never implemented. In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report that called for providing consumers with more and easier to use safety information, including a vehicle safety label with a summary safety rating. (Shopping for Safety, Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 248, National Academy of Sciences (1996).) Throughout the 1990s, in surveys conducted for Advocates by pollster Lou Harris, the public repeatedly expressed a strong desire for objective safety information. In a 2001 public opinion poll, 84 percent of the public supported placing a government safety rating on a window sticker on every new vehicle at the point of sale. There is no doubt that consumers continue to clamor for helpful information about vehicle safety. A safety label on the vehicle will ensure that every purchaser will at least be aware of the same basic, objective safety information for every vehicle they are interested in buying. Additionally, NHTSA should release to the public all types of vehicle safety information including early warning information that Congress requires the agency to collect under the TREAD Act. In this way, consumers will be knowledgeable about the real world performance of vehicles they purchase and drive. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Congress should instruct NHTSA to require that all new vehicles display a safety label at the point of sale that informs prospective purchasers about the safety of the vehicle with respect to major vehicle safety standards as well as specific safety features and equipment, both mandated and optional, that are in the vehicle. LEAVE NO STATE BEHIND: CONGRESS SHOULD ENCOURAGE UNIFORM STATE ADOPTION OF LIFE-SAVING HIGHWAY SAFETY LAWS AND PROVIDE STATES WITH SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO ENFORCE THESE LAWS. Improving highway safety requires a two-pronged strategy involving better vehicle design and changing driver behavior. Successful changes in driver behavior have been accomplished only through the enactment of laws, enforcement of those laws and education about the laws. Unfortunately, too few states have adopted some of the most effective traffic safety laws that contribute to saving lives and preventing injuries on our roads and highways. The recently released 2002 traffic fatality statistics underscore the need to make an investment in safety and ensure the effectiveness of programs if we are to reverse the rising tide of highway fatalities and injuries. Historically, funding for highway and traffic safety needs through the Section 402 program and other incentive grant initiatives has provided needed resources to states to advance safety. The level of funding and how those funds are used will be critical elements in determining the course of highway safety in the next six years. Advocates is disappointed in DOT’s proposal submitted to Congress last week outlining the Administration’s plans for funding state traffic safety activities as well as other measures to address growing highway fatalities. The funding level for DOT’s Section 402 traffic safety program is inadequate to meet the challenges we face. When one adds up all of the various categories the Administration’s proposal provides for traditional highway safety programs, it equals about $539 million. This represents only a marginal funding increase of $20 million for FY 2004 over the FY 2003 total of $519 million. It amounts to less than a 4 percent increase in funding. Furthermore, the Administration’s proposal includes a vigorous new program for data collection and analysis. While we support the need for such a program, if you subtract the proposed $50 million dollars for the state information systems grant program, the remaining authorization for highway safety grants in FY 2004 is actually $30 million less than was authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for FY 2003. These programs, however, are only effective if they promote specific safety goals and improvements. Despite the marginal increase in funding proposed by the Administration over the coming six years, the traffic death toll will not decline until nearly all occupants buckle up and impaired driving is abated. The Administration’s proposal includes a meager $50 million for state impaired driving programs. This amount does not even equal the financial cost of 50 drunk driving deaths – the number that occurs daily on our highways – out of a national total in 2002 of 17,970 alcohol-related deaths. Safety, medical, health, and law enforcement groups and DOT all agree that seat belt use is critical to safety in most crash modes. Last year, statistics show that the majority of fatally injured victims were not wearing their seat belts. It is incumbent on safety advocates, the Administration, and Congress, to ensure that everyone gets the message, “buckle up for safety.” We can do this by requiring all states to adopt and enforce primary enforcement seat belt use laws. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have seat belt laws on the books. Of these, only 18 states and the District have primary enforcement seat belt use laws. Switching from a seat belt use law that permits only secondary enforcement, when another infraction has been committed, to a primary enforcement law entails no additional costs or burdens and is not an unfunded (or unfounded) mandate to the states. We have tried incentive grants for years, and we know that redirection programs usually result in nothing more than a funding shell game. For these reasons, Advocates supports a mandatory sanction of Federal-aid highway funds to promote seat belt use and safety. Such sanctions have been effective when used judiciously and to promote important safety goals, such as state adoption of the minimum drinking age law, the zero alcohol tolerance law, and .08% BAC laws. We realize that the Administration includes a primary enforcement seat belt law funding redirection provision in the proposed new Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). That proposal will not be effective in moving states to adopt primary enforcement laws for a number of reasons. First, the redirection of funds does not occur if a state either adopts a primary enforcement seat belt law or achieves a seat belt use rate of 90 percent or more. By permitting the 90 percent belt use alternative, the proposal gives reluctant states the hope that both redirection of funds and primary enforcement can be avoided. Even though no state has ever achieved 90 percent belt use without primary enforcement, this option may well lead states to delay or never adopt a primary enforcement seat belt law. Second, the redirection affects only 10 percent of the total $1 billion Highway Safety Improvement Program. For many states, their share will probably not be sufficient penalty to entice them to adopt primary enforcement. Third, the redirection would require that the redirected 10 percent of the state’s Highway Safety Improvement Program funds be expended on Section 402 programs. This may pose problems for the appropriate expenditure of safety funds when large amounts of funding are funneled into the program at the last minute, without proper planning and preparation. Moreover, funds redirected from the Highway Safety Improvement Program might be in addition to funds required to be transferred to the state’s Section 402 program if the state has not complied with the requirements of Section 154 (Open container requirements) and Section 164 (Minimum penalties for repeat offenders). The final problem with the proposed redirection is the funding shell game. Under the Administration’s proposal, while 10 percent of the Highway Safety Improvement Program may be redirected to the Section 402 program, half or more of the funds received by a state under the newly proposed Performance Grants could be transferred out of the Section 402 program and back into the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Thus, the proposed redirection ends up as a meaningless paper chase and accounting gimmick that will not serve the goals of improving safety and increasing the number of people who buckle up. In addition, for some years now, the Section 402 program has been flying under the radar of good principles of accountability and responsibility. Although we support increasing funds available to states for safety, we are concerned that the funds already in the Section 402 program are not being spent in the most effective manner. Over the years, the program has devolved into a self-reporting system in which states set their own goals and determine whether those goals have been met. In essence, states make up their own test, grade their own papers, and write their own report cards. According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) report issued in April, 2003 (GAO-03-474) in response to a request by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND), NHTSA has the ability to conduct management reviews to help improve the financial and operational management of state programs. However, GAO found that there are no written guidelines on when to perform management reviews and those reviews are not being performed consistently. For example, the GAO found that in the six NHTSA regions visited, there were goals of conducting management reviews every two years but there was no set schedule and they were conducted only when requested by a state. Furthermore, when a state program is struggling, NHTSA has the ability to work with a state to develop improvement plans. Again, GAO found that NHTSA has made limited use of improvement plans to help states address highway safety program deficiencies. If federal dollars for traffic safety programs are increased but there is no increase in accountability and oversight, the American public will be victimized twice – taxpayer dollars will be wasted and highway safety will be jeopardized. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Enact the DOT proposed incentive grant program encouraging adoption of primary enforcement safety belt laws but include a sanction after a reasonable time frame to ensure every state passes this lifesaving law by the end of the authorization period. Prohibit states that are subject to redirecting funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) into the Section 402 program from shifting Section 402 funds back into the HSIP. Significantly increase funding for impaired driving programs that have a proven track record. Ensure accountability by requiring the expenditure of Section 402 traffic safety funds on programs that are successful and increase NHTSA oversight of state program plans. ENHANCE THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN AND AROUND CARS. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and injury to children. In 2002, 2,584 children under the age of 16 were killed in motor vehicle crashes and nearly 300,000 were injured. This means that every single day in the United States, seven children under the age of 16 are killed and 850 are injured in car crashes. While the recently released preliminary FARS data indicates that last year fatalities for children age 7 and younger declined, it was not good news for older children. Fatalities for motor vehicle occupants ages 8 to 15 increased by almost 9 percent. While some progress has been made in protecting our youth, clearly more needs to be done. The decline in death and injury for children ages 4 through 7 is likely related to efforts throughout the country to enact booster seat laws. The movement started in the State of Washington because a mother, Autumn Skeen, lost her 4 year old son, Anton, in a car crash. Anton’s parents believe his death would have been prevented if he had been riding in a booster seat and not just an adult seat belt. Three years after the Washington State Legislature became the first state to act, 16 states and the District of Columbia have booster seat laws that require children between the ages of 4 and 7 or 8 to use booster seats once they have outgrown toddler child restraints. The need to protect children who have graduated from infant and toddler safety seats has been documented by research conducted by The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in partnership with State Farm Insurance Companies. This research has found that half of children between the ages of 3 and 8 are improperly restrained in adult seat belts. This inappropriate restraint results in a three and one-half-fold increase in the risk of significant injury and a four-fold increase in the risk of a serious head injury for those in this age group who are restrained by adult seat belts. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been a leader in moving forward a legislative agenda to enhance the safety of child passengers. In the 106th Congress, legislation that originated with the Senate Commerce Committee requiring NHTSA to provide consumer information about the performance of child safety seats, was included in the final version of the TREAD Act. In the last Congress, this Committee again took the lead to push for legislation, named “Anton’s Law”, requiring NHTSA to issue a federal safety standard for booster seats and requiring automakers to install, at long last, a shoulder/lap belt in all rear seating positions. The next step that needs to be taken to protect this age group is to encourage state adoption of booster seat laws. Advocates urges the Committee to take up and modify a proposal that was dropped from last year’s congressional enactment of “Anton’s Law.” This provision was a small grant program to foster state adoption of booster seat laws. Advocates supports a simple but direct incentive grant program that provides financial rewards to states that adopt booster seat laws and allows them to use the grants for enforcement of the new law, education about the new law, and provision of age-appropriate child restraints to families in need. Another serious safety risk that we urge the Committee to address in the NHTSA reauthorization legislation involves children who are left unattended in vehicles or standing behind vehicles that are placed in reverse, resulting in unnecessary deaths and injuries each year. Non-profit organizations, such as Kids ‘N Cars, have documented in private research, the deaths of hundreds of children who were left in cars when outside temperatures soared, who were inadvertently killed when a car or truck backed over them, or who were killed or injured by power windows and sunroof systems that were not child-proof. It is time that NHTSA lead the effort to collect data on child fatalities and injuries that occur in or immediately outside the car, but not on public roadways. Also, NHTSA needs to analyze the data and take subsequent action to remedy safety inadequacies as they affect children. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Include in the NHTSA authorization legislation an incentive grant program to encourage states to adopt booster seat laws. Permit funds to be used for enforcement, education and distribution of child restraints to families in need. Direct NHTSA to collect and publish data on child fatalities and injuries in parked or inoperable vehicles that result from strangulation and injuries involving automatic windows, and those from backing up collisions. Require NHTSA to ensure automatic window systems will not kill or injure children. Require NHTSA to enhance driver rear visibility to prevent backing up crashes into children and adults. CONCLUSION The recommendations for action that Advocates supports are common sense, cost effective and will achieve savings in lives and dollars. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been a leader in advancing legislative solutions to improve safety in all modes of transportation. Motor vehicle crashes are equivalent to a major airline crash every other day of the year. This public health epidemic does not have to continue unabated. Enactment of proposals to move the agency forward in addressing the unfinished regulatory agenda and providing states with direction and resources will reverse the deadly trend facing us in the coming years. Advocates' vision for the future is testifying before this subcommittee in 2006 to report that the U.S. experienced the lowest traffic fatalities in a decade, the war on drunk driving was being won, fatal rollover crashes were decreasing and motor vehicle crashes were no longer the leading cause of death and injury for Americans, young and old. We appreciate the invitation to testify today and look forward to working with this committee to craft a bill that will save lives and prevent needless deaths and injuries.

• Mr. Rick Berman
  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Mr. Rick Berman

  Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee on this issue of funding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I am honored to represent the community of adult beverage retailers. Like the speakers before me, I believe the nation should improve the way we fund and enforce traffic safety programs including how we address drunk driving problems. Retailers – as well as the producer industries – are committed to responsible beverage service. We have collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars to educate the public and train our employees on the responsible use of adult beverages. We are much more than commentators, we have been on the front lines in stopping product abuse and underage purchases. We want to offer our perspective on the effective and efficient ways to fund drunk driving countermeasures. Our first issue starts with a question of the relationship between states and the federal government when it comes to funding effective traffic safety programs. The federal government is becoming more aggressive about using “mandates” or “blackmail” to force states, governors, legislators and highway safety officials to accept Washington’s view of what works. In ever more instances, states are being penalized even when they have above-average safety records, because they do not adopt federally approved laws. With few exceptions (e.g., the minimum drinking age, requiring helmet use for motorcycle riders and a mandated national speed limit, which was rescinded), highway safety countermeasures were funded on incentives. State governments should not be subjected to financial blackmail because they do not endorse the federal recommendations on how to combat drunk driving. This is not an industry position, but one that was taken by numerous traffic safety groups during the last two debates over highway funding. It is a position shared by President Bush and Secretary Mineta, who said before another Senate committee this week that their current proposal is designed to “enhance the capacity and flexibility of States to use Federal grants and their own funds to improve highway safety.” In this reauthorization, we should end the pattern of mandating traffic safety programs driven by political agendas and return to a fully incentive-based program. Our industry is further concerned about how we will find effective solutions to the problem of drunk driving in the face of continually shifting semantics. In many ways, how we (the government, the media, special interests and others) talk about this issue prevents us from reaching consensus. Consider that the term “alcohol-related” accidents has been translated by interest groups to mean “drunk driving.” That is not the case, as many alcohol-related incidents are in no way “alcohol-caused.” And, due to NHTSA’s system of imputation, many accidents that don’t even show the presence of alcohol are still labeled alcohol-related. Further all crashes are lumped into one group, implying that we have a much greater problem that we really do. That is not to minimize the drunk driving problems, but it is to get the focus of the solution where it belongs, on repeat offenders and product abusers. This point was driven home in a recent LA Times story that broke down the 17,448 deaths in 2001 to “5,000 sober victims killed by legally drunk drivers.” One year ago, a representative of the National Sleep Foundation testified there are many highway deaths miscounted as alcohol-related that are in fact caused by drowsy drivers. And why has NHTSA failed to promote purchase restrictions on overpowered cars by individuals with long lists of speeding violations. New potential “impairments” abound – from cell-phones to on-board electronics. Traffic safety funding should cover all safety programs to reduce highway deaths, not just those focused on alcohol-related problems. Because we use the broadest definition of the drunk driving problem and treat alcohol as the only significant impairment on our nation’s highways, no one should be surprised that we have a penalty system that is also disproportional. Most states punish a .08% BAC drinker with the same set of penalties as an extreme .28% BAC drinker. The situation is analogous to punishing an individual driving five miles over the speed limit with the same penalty as someone going 50 miles over the posted restrictions. Hard-core drunk drivers are not responsive to public appeals. Programs designed specifically to address their drinking patterns should be where we focus the most time, the most research, resources and political capital instead of developing programs suited to targeting casual social drinkers who are not a part of the problem. We have agreed with MADD in the past that these high BAC drivers and repeat offenders are problems that need to be addressed. Too much attention and time has been spent on fighting for .08% BAC laws that have minimal value, I testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice and proposed the same concept of tailoring the level of punishment to the level of the crime: “…a prosecution strategy with a graduated series of penalties in the form of fines, license revocation and imprisonment. The magnitude of the penalty would reflect the degree of infractions, where 0.20 drivers even on their first offense suffer a more exacting penalty than the marginal offender, with a graduated increase according to BAC levels and multiplicity of offenses.” And developing a high-BAC/repeat offender initiative program would be the best way to achieve improvements in these areas. While we advocate aggressively implementing more effective programs, we want to focus on the word “effective.” Before we launch into another round of legislative initiatives, we should cautiously review how we spend taxpayer dollars. There are ideas proposed, including the increased use of random roadblocks, that should be contemplated after a serious review of their effectiveness, a cost-benefit analysis, and a look at the reported abuses and intrusions on privacy that may be posed by increased use of enforcement measures not preceded by probable cause. If we agree on the problem – high-BAC drivers that MADD says causes most of the alcohol-related traffic fatalities – then the solution must target these product abusers. A system of increased use and funding of random roadblocks surely does not. Roadblocks are the backbone of a “PR”-heavy traffic safety program, one that seeks to convince the public that it is illegal or immoral to drink any adult beverage and then drive. We’ve all heard the slogans: “Don’t drink and drive.” “You drink. You drive. You lose.” “Impairment begins with the first drink.” These slogans do not reflect the law, nor do they reflect reality. Roadblocks take that message one step further by targeting and punishing casual drinkers who are not a part of the problem and who are already behaving responsibly. Unfortunately, roadblocks are neither effective, nor do they have the level of support from law enforcement officials that you would expect from a truly effective safety program. A National Academy of Sciences study, conducted by economists from Harvard University and the University of Chicago, suggested that, “policies focused on stopping erratic drivers might be more successful.” Even research by NHTSA, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the FBI point to saturation patrols to catch more drunk drivers. Because police discretion works, we hear from policemen that, “[roadblocks are] not a valid use of police time. We are involved in enforcement and education, but we do not have to include mass inconvenience and mass fear.” The adult beverage retailing community joins with the safety community in thanking you for your attention to these important issues and the dedication of important new funds to making our roads safer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share our perspectives on safety issues with you today.

• Ms. Katheryn Swanson
  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Ms. Katheryn Swanson

  Good afternoon. My name is Kathryn Swanson, and I am the Director of the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety and the Chair of the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). GHSA is the national, nonprofit association that represents state and territorial highway safety offices (SHSO). Its members are appointed by their governors to design, implement and evaluate programs that affect the behavior of motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists. As part of their responsibilities, GHSA members administer federal highway safety grant programs and penalty transfer programs. I appreciate the opportunity to share the Association’s thoughts with you on the reauthorization of these federal highway safety programs. More than 42,000 people were killed and three million injured in motor vehicle-related crashes in 2002. Forty-two percent of those crashes were ones in which alcohol was involved. Nearly 5,000 pedestrians, more than 3,000 motorcyclists were killed and nearly 8,000 young drivers were killed in motor vehicle-related crashes. GHSA is very concerned, as are others in the highway safety community, that these numbers are beginning to move upward after several years of holding steady. With the present trend, no change in the risk of a fatal crash on a per population basis and no assumptions about future demographic changes, the absolute number of fatalities can conservatively be expected to increase to 63,513 by 2050 – an increase of 48% over current levels or approximately 350 additional fatalities every year. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was designed to reduce these fatalities and injuries by addressing all aspects of highway safety – the roadway, the vehicle and the driver. My remarks will be limited to the areas that are the responsibility of GHSA members -- the SHSOs – and will focus on the programs that address the behavior of the driver and other road users. As enacted in TEA-21, the 402 program -- the basic federal highway safety grant program through which every state receives funding -- and the 410 alcohol incentive grant program were reauthorized. TEA-21 also authorized four new occupant protection incentive grants (the 405, 157 basic, 157 innovative, and 2003(b) programs); a second impaired driving incentive grant program (the 163 program); a data improvement program (the 411 program); and two penalty transfer programs, the 154 open container and the 164 repeat offender programs). The SHSO’s are responsible for administering all of these programs. Funding under the 402, 405, 410, and 2003(b) programs can only be used to address a variety of behavioral highway safety-related problems. The 411 funds can only be used to plan for the improvement of highway safety information systems. A state that is eligible for the 157 basic and 163 grants may use the funds for any purpose under Title 23 of the U.S. Code. 157 innovative funds can only be used for purposes specified by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in its annual announcement of the availability of grant funds. States that are not in compliance with the open container or repeat offender requirements may use the funds for impaired driving-related purposes or for activities under the Hazard Elimination Program. Two years ago, GHSA embarked on an effort to evaluate the federal behavioral highway safety grant programs authorized under TEA-21. The results of that review were published last year in a report entitled Taking the Temperature of TEA-21: An Evaluation and Prescription for Safety which is available on GHSA’s website, www.statehighwaysafety.org. Our recommendations for the next reauthorization are based largely on the findings in our report. I would like to review several of them. Safeguard Funding Prior to TEA-21, highway safety grant programs were authorized at one level and almost always funded at a reduced level. SHSO’s never knew from year to year how much federal money would be appropriated, so it was difficult to plan, particularly for long-term multi-year projects, which are often necessary to see sustained behavioral changes. TEA-21 changed that by creating budget firewalls around highway safety programs so that the funding could only be used for highway safety purposes. This has proved to be of tremendous benefit to the SHSO’s, who are responsible for administering federal grant funds. The firewalls have meant that there is a far greater degree of certainty in the state planning process than ever existed in the past. States know from year to year what to expect in terms of grant funding and they can better estimate the level of funding for which their states may be eligible. GHSA strongly supports the continuation of the budget firewalls for federal highway safety grant programs and believes that it should be the top priority for reauthorization. States also want to retain the lead in determining how the federal grant funds should be spent in their states. Prior to 1994, states submitted annual Highway Safety Plans to NHTSA’s regional offices. The regional offices reviewed and approved every single planned project. The plans were approved but often with a four- or five-page list of conditions and comments that the states had to meet if they wanted federal grant funding. SHSO’s felt suffocated by the degree of federal oversight over, and micro-management of, very small federal highway safety grant programs. In 1994, NHTSA piloted a change in the 402 program -- the federal highway safety grant program that provides behavioral highway safety funding to every state. The new approach changed the program from one based on specific procedures into a more performance-based program. The performance-based approach was formally adopted by NHTSA in 1998. States are required to submit a Performance Plan in which they identify performance goals and objectives based on data-driven problem identification. The states then program their federal grant funding for projects that address the identified major safety problems in their states, typically impaired driving, adult occupant protection and child passenger safety. The projects are organized into an annual Highway Safety Plan that is reviewed but not approved by NHTSA. Most states also submit their plans for incentive grant funds as part of the annual Highway Safety Plan. Although TEA-21 added a number of new grant programs, federal oversight over those programs remained the same as under the 402 program. The flexibility in the 402 program has allowed states to program their funds in the areas where they are most needed and has given the states the ability to control their own programs. States and NHTSA regional offices work more in partnership with each other rather than under the paternalistic relationship that existed prior to 1994. Some of our close partners in the highway safety community have called for a return to the federal-state relationship that existed prior to 1994 in which NHTSA had approval authority over every aspect of state plans. GHSA would vigorously oppose such an approach. One safety group has suggested that under a new 402 program, if states do not meet certain performance standards within a specified time frame, then they would not be eligible for subsequent 402 funding unless they submitted to a NHTSA assessment to determine program weaknesses and identify program changes that will achieve desired results. Two groups also want the states to implement more uniform programs with similar safety messages from state to state. GHSA strongly and completely opposes these approaches. Each state’s needs, resources and priorities are different, and states should have the ability to use federal highway safety grant funds in a manner that best fits those needs, resources and priorities. SHSO’s have had 37 years’ experience implementing the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and have the skills and knowledge to undertake successful highway safety programs without heavy-handed federal oversight and micro-management. Furthermore, NHTSA has sufficient existing oversight authority to compel states to improve their programs. NHTSA can conduct management reviews, require states to develop and implement improvement plans if they don’t show progress after three years, and designate a state a high risk state if the state is not administering its federal highway safety grant funds appropriately. No additional oversight authority is needed. Rather, NHTSA needs to use this oversight authority in a consistent manner, as is recommended by the General Accounting Office. GHSA and NHTSA are actively taking steps to improve the planning and management of state highway safety programs. GHSA, using its own resources, is developing a planning workbook and a template for state annual reports. Next year, we plan to develop a template for the annual state Highway Safety Plan which must accompany application for federal grant funds. We are also working with NHTSA to identify and seek state agreement on 12-15 performance measures which all states would use in setting goals and measuring performance. We have worked with NHTSA to develop the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) which is a guideline on what traffic crash data elements all states should collect. GHSA is also working with NHTSA to develop explicit criteria under which a state program review would be triggered. These program reviews would occur if a state did not perform well or had difficulty reaching its goals. NHTSA and the state would then analyze the data and cooperatively develop a program enhancement plan. GHSA firmly believes that NHTSA has sufficient oversight authority already and that the program review criteria will strengthen that authority. Further, we believe that the initiatives mentioned previously will enhance state planning efforts and move states toward a more data-driven, research- and performance-based approach to solving highway safety problems. Create One Large Highway Safety Program As noted previously, TEA-21 created eight separate incentive grant programs and two penalty programs, all of which are managed by SHSO’s. Each of these programs has distinct eligibility criteria, separate applications and individual deadlines. This has meant that SHSO’s have had to meet almost a deadline a month in order to apply for federal funds. Even keeping track of the different programs, eligibility criteria and deadlines has been a chore for both NHTSA and the states. The net result of this proliferation of grant programs is that SHSO’s are spending a large percentage of time trying to manage all the grant programs and meet varying programmatic deadlines instead of analyzing state data, implementing safety programs, forming new state and local highway safety partnerships, and evaluating program impact. State staff are stretched to the limit, and states are facing a high degree of staff burnout. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the explosion of programs has caused the federal approach to highway safety to be duplicative and very fragmented. There are four occupant protection programs and two impaired driving programs, each with a different purpose, scope and eligibility criteria. This has made it difficult for states to address the behavioral aspects of highway safety in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. Clearly, consolidation of grant programs is needed. GHSA recommends that all of the incentive grant programs [402, 405, 410, 411, 163, 157 basic, 157 innovative, and 2003(b)] should be consolidated into one large highway safety grant program authorization. A portion of the funding should be for 402 grants for which every state is eligible. The remaining funding would be divided into an occupant protection tier and an impaired driving incentive tier – the two current national priority areas in highway safety. Under the occupant protection incentive tier, states would receive funding if they enacted a primary belt law or increased their safety belt use rate. The program would be based, in large part, on the very successful 157 basic grant program. A portion of the funding in this tier would be set aside for states that did not meet either criteria. These funds would be used to help low-performing states implement innovative occupant protection programs that would boost their safety belt use rates. Unlike the current 157 innovative program, funds would be apportioned according to the 402 formula which would obviate the ability of NHTSA to place additional conditions on the innovative program funds. Under the impaired driving incentive tier, states would have to meet a number of specific criteria, including a performance-based criteria, just as they do under the current 410 program. (The 410 program, authorized in 1991, has been one of the main sources of funding for state impaired driving programs and has contributed to low impaired driving rates.) Under the impaired driving tier, the emphasis would be on programs that have been proven to be effective (such as graduated licensing and sobriety checkpoints or saturation patrols), on strengthening the judicial system’s response to impaired driving, and on establishing systems that would allow a state to attack impaired driving in a comprehensive manner supported by good data. The program would be structured in a manner similar The specific elements of both the occupant protection incentive tier and the impaired driving incentive tier are described in the attached GHSA safety grant program details. The benefit of this approach is that there would be only one application deadline and one Highway Safety Plan. The management of the consolidated grant program would be far less burdensome for the states as well as for NHTSA. States would be able to address highway safety problems in a more coordinated, less fragmented manner, and would be able to better address the unique circumstances that exist in each state in reaching the identified goals. Furthermore, the creation of incentive tiers would overcome some of the problems in the current incentive programs. The occupant protection and impaired driving incentive funds would be tied more closely to performance. Resources would be available to help low-performing safety belt use states. High-performing states would be rewarded for maintaining their superior performance. All states would be rewarded for enacting critical highway safety legislation such as primary safety belt laws or graduated licensing laws. Continue Adequate Funding TEA-21 authorized significantly more federal highway safety grant funding than the states received previously. With this funding, states have been able to implement many highway safety programs that have resulted in behavioral changes, contributing to the lowest fatality rate on record – 1.5 fatalities per 100,000 million miles of travel -- as well as the highest national safety belt usage rate of 75 percent. Among other things, the additional funding has enabled states to greatly enhance their enforcement of safety belt laws; train more than 35,000 safety professionals in NHTSA’s standardized child passenger safety curriculum; purchase radio and television time for safety messages; undertake underage drinking initiatives; and support programs addressing the needs of underserved and diverse populations. With increased funding, states could put more resources into enforcement of traffic safety laws, particularly safety belt, speed and impaired driving laws. Better enforcement would help deter violations of traffic laws. Funds could be used to enhance staffing levels and to purchase new enforcement technology. Better enforcement would help convince populations that are resistant to traditional safety messages -- such as the 25 percent of unbuckled drivers -- of the need for compliance. With increased funding, states could also address a series of highway safety problems that are not being adequately addressed to date. The funds could be used to target the hard-to-reach populations (such as minority and rural communities) and at-risk populations (such as young males) that are less influenced by traditional highway safety programs and messages. With expanded funding, states could work to reduce pedestrian and bicycle fatalities that currently comprise one out of seven fatalities and motorcycle fatalities that have increased substantially five years in a row. Additional funds could be used to address the problems of older, aggressive and distracted drivers – all significant and growing highway safety issues. With increased funding, states could improve their emergency medical services (EMS) and incorporate new technologies into those services, thereby helping to reduce mortality and injury severity, particularly in rural areas. States could support more community-level highway safety programs. Additional funding could also be used to help incorporate safety into state and metropolitan planning and ensure that all aspects of safety – roadway, behavioral and motor carrier – are coordinated at the state level through performance-based statewide safety plans. GHSA recommends that, at a minimum, $500 million should be authorized for the consolidated highway safety grant program – about $50 million above FY 2003 levels. Of that amount, $200 million should be authorized for the 402 program, $175 million should be authorized for the occupant protection incentive tier and $125 million should be authorized for the impaired driving incentive tier. Without adequate funding, it is clear that the increases in fatalities seen in 2001 and 2002 will continue. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has recently issued reauthorization policy calling for the increase of federal safety funding – both behavioral and construction – by $1 billion per year. No new safety programs would be funded with the money; rather, the funds would be used to increase funding for existing safety infrastructure programs and for the proposed consolidated behavioral safety program. GHSA endorses this proposal and believes that it would provide the needed funding to conduct the safety activities outlined above. If Congress determines a way to increase funding in the next reauthorization either through elimination of the gasohol subsidies, indexing the gas tax or other approaches, then a portion of that increase should be authorized for safety programs. Support a Safety Data Grant Program TEA-21 authorized a very small data improvement incentive grant program -- the 411 program. The purpose of the grant program is to provide states with funding to improve their highway safety information systems (HSIS). Those systems are comprised of crash, hospital, driver licensing, citation, roadway and EMS databases. The 411 program provided funds for states to perform an assessment of their HSIS, form a traffic records coordinating committee with the state agency owners and managers of databases that comprise the state’s HSIS, and develop a strategic plan for improving the state’s HSIS. In FY 2002, 44 states, Puerto Rico, the Indian Nation and the four territories received 411 funding. No FY 2003 funding was authorized for this program under TEA-21. The objective of the 411 program is a very limited one and, given that, it has accomplished its objectives very well. However, if the states are to implement the improvements identified in their traffic records assessments and strategic plans, then a large infusion of funds is needed. Hence, there is a need to create a new data incentive grant program that would fund hardware and software improvements, training, and implementation of new data collection, management and analysis technology. From GHSA’s perspective, improvements in highway safety-related data are critical. States use crash and other data to identify new and emerging highway safety problems, quantify the seriousness of existing highway safety problems, select appropriate countermeasures to address identified problems, monitor progress and evaluate the success of these countermeasures. If Congress wants to determine how states are performing, and to enact new programs based on performance, then improvements in state data capabilities are absolutely essential. It is estimated that only 10 percent of law enforcement agencies have laptop computers from which crash data can be entered from the field. Until state crash data is entered electronically and there is linkage capability with the other safety-related databases in a state’s HSIS, states will be forced to rely on inaccurate, untimely and inaccessible paper data systems with which to make important safety decisions. Pennsylvania recently upgraded its crash data system at a cost of $6 million. If every state followed suit, it would cost an estimated $300 million. Hence, GHSA recommends that the data grant program should be authorized at $50 million a year over six years. Details of the grant program are discussed in the attached report. Enhance Federal Highway Safety Research Research has been a part of the federal highway safety program since its inception in 1966. Section 403 of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 authorized the use of federal funds to “engage in research on all phases of highway safety and traffic conditions.” Section 403 also authorized cooperative agreements for the purpose of “encouraging innovative solutions to highway safety problems.” TEA-21 authorized $72 million for each of six years for the Section 403 research and development program. Of that amount, only $7 million was earmarked for driver and behavioral research in FY 2002. As a result of this low level of funding, many research needs are completely or partially unmet. States are compelled to implement programs for which there is not a strong research justification. Currently, for example, there is a significant body of research on graduated licensing laws, per se impaired driving laws, repeat offender sanctions, primary safety belt laws, the impact of repealing motorcycle helmet laws, Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEP’s) and enforcement of safety belt laws. NHTSA is just completing a series of studies on distracted driving. However, there is a significant gap in the current state of knowledge about most safety issues and the effectiveness of most safety countermeasures. Among other things, there is no current research on crash causation. The last crash causation study was conducted more than thirty years ago. There is little research on effective pedestrian, drowsy driving, or aggressive driving countermeasures, behavioral programs for older drivers, and community traffic safety programs. There is little research on effective ways to reach the minority community with highway safety programs. There is no research to determine why motorcycle fatalities have increased so dramatically in the last five years and whether motorcycle licensing and education have any impact on safety. There is no research on the effectiveness of countermeasures recommended in the Federal Highway Administration’s Older Driver Design Handbook. There has been little research on the best way to improve the content of driver education programs for young and novice drivers. Very little research has been conducted on programs that reach the young adult drinking driver – those aged 21-34. There is little research on the impact of various safety messages and on the efficacy of enforcement programs other than STEP’s. There is virtually no research on the interactive effects of combined roadway and behavioral improvements. In effect, there is considerably more research to be conducted. The issue of open container legislation is illustrative of the need for further research. TEA-21 mandated that states enact open container legislation by October 1, 2000 (FY 2001) or have a portion of their highway construction funding transferred to the 402 program. However, no research had been conducted to determine whether open container legislation has any impact on impaired driving. In fact, NHTSA has only recently completed such research and has not broadly disseminated the results. Consequently, SHSOs have had to go before their state legislatures without research to support open container laws. Additionally, there is no formal process by which highway safety research priorities are set. NHTSA researches issues that are of interest to the agency or are consistent with their national goals and program needs. State research needs are sometimes secondary, and states do not have a formal mechanism with which to provide input into the research agenda setting process. There is nothing comparable to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program for safety in which states, through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, play a very strong role in determining research priorities. GHSA recommends the federal driver and behavioral research program be expanded to $20 - $25 million a year and that an ongoing safety program should be authorized and modeled after the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. GHSA also recommends that the Future Strategic Highway Research Program (FSHRP) should focus, in part, on safety, including the behavioral aspects of highway safety. The safety funding under FSHRP should be used to undertake a comprehensive research program on crash causation and some of the funding should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of highway safety countermeasures. Alter Lobbying Restrictions In response to concerns raised by the motorcycle user community, Congress enacted new lobbying prohibitions in TEA-21 and in subsequent appropriations legislation. TEA-21 prohibits the use of federal funds for “any activity specifically designed to urge a State or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific pending State or local legislation.” Section 326 of the FY 2000 DOT Appropriations Act prohibits the use of federal funds for any activity “intended to influence in any manner a Member…of a State legislature to favor or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by…a State legislature…after the introduction of any bill or resolution in a State legislature proposing such legislation or appropriation.” NHTSA has interpreted these statutory provisions to mean that recipients of federal funds, including SHSO’s and their grantees, cannot lobby on state legislation once the bill or resolution has been introduced in the legislative body. This means that SHSO’s cannot advocate for safety legislation introduced by their governor or a state legislator. It also means that SHSO’s cannot, after a bill or resolution is introduced, use federal funds to support state coalitions that have been formed to favor specific safety legislation. NHTSA policy also encourages SHSO staff to testify before a state or local legislative body only if there is a written invitation to do so. These provisions have had a chilling effect on the advocacy activities of SHSO’s. States no longer believe they can show support for any safety legislation, even if their own governors introduce it. Further, the provisions appear to be counterproductive. The 163, 405 and 410 incentive programs, the 154 and 164 penalty programs, and the .08 Blood-Alcohol Concentration (BAC) sanctions enacted after TEA-21 are all based on passage of state safety legislation. If states are going to qualify for the incentives and come into compliance with the penalties and sanctions, then they need the ability to affect state legislation. GHSA recommends, at a minimum, that Congress should alter the lobbying restrictions to allow SHSO’s and their grantees to lobby state legislatures on behalf of positions approved by governors and their administrations. Continue Paid Advertising Prior to TEA-21, NHTSA policy prohibited the use of federal highway safety funding for paid advertising. SHSO’s were compelled to use public service announcements (PSA’s) in order to implement their safety messages. While PSA’s are less costly than paid media, they have limited impact because they are generally aired during off-peak times. TEA-21 changed that by allowing the use of 402 funding for paid advertising for FY 1999 and 2000. (157 and 163 funds that were used for 402 purposes could also be spent on paid advertising.) Congress extended the permission to FY 2001, 2002, and 2003 as well. The result has been that larger audiences view safety messages during prime time. Although there are scant evaluative data on paid advertising, there is ample anecdotal information that the state safety paid advertising is paying off. Further, there is supporting evaluation data from the FY 2001 safety belt enforcement effort in NHTSA Region IV (the southeastern region) and the FY 2002 safety belt enforcement demonstration program with thirteen states in which paid advertising was used. The combination of paid advertising and high visibility enforcement in that region resulted in significant increases in safety belt use under both of those efforts. GHSA strongly supports paid advertising and recommends that its use continue to be allowed in the next reauthorization. Avoid New Sanctions and Penalties TEA-21 authorized two new penalty provisions (the 154 open container penalty and the 164 repeat offender penalty) but no new sanctions. Following TEA-21, Congress authorized a new sanction for states that fail to enact .08 BAC legislation. There are currently 18 penalties and sanctions with which states must comply. Of those, seven are safety-related (minimum drinking age, drug offenders, use of safety belts, zero tolerance, open containers, repeat offenders and .08 BAC). Three of the seven have been enacted in the last six years. GHSA and other state associations generally oppose sanctions and penalties for a number of reasons. Sanctions are not universally effective. Impaired driving-related sanctions appear to have strong public support and appear to work reasonably well. Other sanctions and penalties, such as those for the National Maximum Speed Limit and the mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation enjoyed little public support, were abysmal failures and were subsequently repealed. Sanctions are often counterproductive. With fewer highway funds, the conditions of highways deteriorate and become less safe. Withholding funds only exacerbates the safety problem. Sanctions penalize the state broadly without specifically targeting the entity that perpetrated the safety problem. Since there is no clear relationship between the safety problem and the policy solutions (withholding of construction funds), states are not motivated to act. TEA-21 encourages state agencies to work together to solve safety problems, but sanctions and penalties pull those agencies apart. The mandatory motorcycle penalties divided SHSO’s from state Departments of Transportation (DOT’s), causing them to oppose each other instead of working together toward enactment of motorcycle helmet laws. Opposition to the penalties by state DOT’s contributed to their repeal. Similar friction has been felt by many SHSO’s with respect to the open container and repeat offender penalties. SHSO’s have been blamed for the TEA-21 penalties even though they were not responsible for their enactment. New penalties and sanctions make it harder for the SHSO’s to work with state legislatures, even under the limited conditions allowed by TEA-21. Frequent sanctioning by Congress makes states very resentful and less motivated to enact the requisite legislation. Some states will wait until the last minute and then enact legislation that is minimally acceptable in order to avoid the sanction, as has been the case with about a dozen states and the .08 sanction. As former President Dwight Eisenhower said, “You do not lead by hitting people over the head – that’s assault, not leadership.” For the reasons outlined previously, GHSA recommends that no new sanctions or penalties be enacted. Make Technical Changes to Current Penalties TEA-21 requires states to enact, by October 1, 2000, repeat offender legislation or face the transfer of certain federal highway funding into the 402 program. For second or subsequent alcohol-related offenses, state law must require that: 1) the offender’s license be suspended for not less than one year; 2) the offender’s vehicle be subject to impoundment or immobilization or the installation of an ignition interlock; 3) the offender receives an assessment of the degree of alcohol abuse and treatment as appropriate; and 4) in the case of a second offense, the offender must receive not less than five days in jail or 30 days of community service and in the case of a third or subsequent offense, not less than 10 days in jail and 60 days of community service. As of October 1, 2002, 32 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico were in compliance with the repeat offender provisions. A number of states represented on this Committee -- Alaska, California, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and West Virginia -- were among the states in non-compliance at that time. A number of technical problems with the repeat offender provisions contributed to the relatively low level of compliance. One major problem concerns the license suspension provisions. NHTSA has interpreted the Section 164 language to mean that the mandatory minimum one-year license suspension must be a hard suspension with no hardship waiver or restricted license. Law enforcement officials are often reluctant to charge a repeat offender under those circumstances because they view the penalty as too harsh. Judges are also reluctant to give an offender a hard suspension because it would deprive a person of his/her livelihood for an entire year. Rural and indigent offenders would be especially impacted because they may be unable to arrange for alternate transportation, particularly transportation to treatment facilities. Offenders would have fewer resources to pay for interlock devices, impounded vehicles or treatment. State legislatures are often reluctant to enact the one-year hard suspension because it encourages repeat offenders to avoid the sanction by driving without a license. In fact, the driving-while-suspended problem is a growing one and is of increasing concern to both NHTSA and GHSA and its state members. A related problem is that NHTSA regulations do not permit the installation of interlock devices until after the hard suspension period. Current research shows that ignition interlock devices are very successful in reducing recidivism when used in combination with restricted licenses, supervised probation and treatment. By delaying the use of interlocks, the NHTSA regulations do not allow the offender to drive to work or treatment, thereby increasing the risk of recidivism. The regulations are inconsistent with NHTSA’s own research and show a misunderstanding of the purpose of the ignition interlock devices. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the NHTSA regulations do not place a time limitation on vehicle impoundment and immobilization. An offender’s vehicle can be impounded or immobilized only for a few hours and then returned to the offender. As a result, the impoundment/immobilization sanction can be expected to have little impact on repeat offenders. Another problem with the regulations is that the impoundment/immobilization/interlock sanction must apply to every vehicle owned by the offender. Hence, if an offender owns five vehicles, the sanction must apply to every vehicle. State legislatures are often reluctant to enact laws that would penalize car collectors and owners of fleets of vehicles. More importantly, the language encourages offenders to change the title of their vehicles to another family member in order to avoid the sanction. GHSA recommends that the one-year suspension be changed to a limited hard suspension (e.g. 60 or 90 days) with a restricted license and imposition of an ignition interlock device during a subsequent restriction period. Further, there should be a time limit (e.g. 10-30 days) on the impoundment/immobilization sanction. The language requiring the sanctions to be applied to an offender’s vehicles should be changed to the vehicle used by the offender. The transfer provisions for both the open container and repeat offender penalties are also problematic. Non-compliant states have a portion of their Surface Transportation Program, National Highway System and Interstate Maintenance funds transferred into the 402 program. They can then use the transferred funds for impaired driving countermeasures or activities eligible under the Hazard Elimination Program (HEP). Many states have lessened the impact of the penalty by using the transferred funds to supplement current HEP funding. Instead of budgeting for new HEP funding, the transferred funds are used. In effect, some state DOTs have played an elaborate shell game with the transferred funds. As a result, the penalty transfers have not motivated states to enact the requisite legislation. The administration of the transfers has also been very difficult. Since all of the transferred funds must be transferred into the state’s 402 account, the SHSO is responsible for administering them, even if all the funds are ultimately used for HEP purposes. In other words, there is no mechanism to retransfer funds used for HEP purposes into the state’s HEP account. As a result, the small, overworked SHSO is financially responsible for overseeing the expenditure of HEP funds over which they have no programmatic control. GHSA recommends that, if the transfer penalties are continued, the transferred funds only be used for impaired driving countermeasures. This would eliminate the administrative difficulties and would create a stronger “incentive” for states to enact the requisite legislation. Comments on the DOT Reauthorization Proposal Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), the Department of Transportation has proposed a three-part consolidated behavioral highway safety grant program. The proposed program includes basic formula funds, performance incentive funds, and a strategic impaired driving program. The performance incentive funds will be further divided into three types of incentives. In addition, DOT has proposed a separate data grant program and a very small EMS grant program. In FY 2004, total funding would be at the same level as FY 2003 NHTSA grant funding. GHSA is pleased about some aspects of the funding request but very disappointed about several others. The Association is pleased that DOT supported the idea of grant consolidation. A single grant program with one application and one deadline should be much easier to administer. GHSA is also pleased that the Administration is proposing performance incentive grants and increased funding for states that enact primary safety belt laws. The Association also supports performance-based incentives, particularly for states that enact primary belt laws, and has incorporated that concept into its own proposal. Clearly NHTSA heard and positively responded to the states’ concerns in these areas. GHSA strongly supports the proposed DOT data incentive grant program. The program funding level, the eligibility criteria, and the proposed use of grant funds are identical to those recommended by the Association. GHSA supports the Section 151 (Title I) requirement that states coordinate their highway safety construction, behavioral and motor carrier grant programs and develop comprehensive, strategic highway safety goals. Future improvements in highway safety are not as likely unless states coordinate the disparate aspects of their highway safety programs. GHSA supports the proposed funding for the crash causation study. As noted above, it has been about thirty years since such a study was conducted. If states are to improve driver and road user behavior, it is essential to know why crashes were caused. GHSA recommends, however, that the difference between the NHTSA crash causation study and the proposed FSHRP crash causation study need to be clarified and the studies coordinated. GHSA also supports the proposed increased funding for the Section 403 program. However, it appears that most of the increase will be used for the crash causation study. Additional research resources must be directed to the NHTSA 403 program so that evaluation studies can be conducted on the effectiveness of a variety of safety countermeasures. GHSA is extremely disappointed in the overall funding level for the behavioral safety grant programs. If safety is such a high priority for DOT, why wasn’t behavioral safety grant funding increased more? How are the states to have an impact on the increasing number of fatalities and injuries without adequate funding? Why was the funding increase limited to the safety construction program? It appears that, once again, DOT’s commitment to safety does not match its willingness to fund behavioral safety programs adequately. It will be no surprise if future years show further increases in motor vehicle-related fatalities and injuries. GHSA finds the level of funding for the impaired driving program totally unacceptable. $50 million is considerably less than has been spent on impaired driving under TEA-21 and far less than is needed to adequately address this growing problem. Further, we believe that the program is too narrowly focused on a few states where an intervention would have the biggest impact. Impaired driving is a problem in every state, yet the proposal would provide no funds for the remaining, “non-strategic” states. It is apparent that the proposed impaired driving program will be implemented in the same manner as the 157 innovative program. Under that program, NHTSA set very restrictive conditions on the grants and completely micro-managed the way eligible states expend funds. States have found the program very onerous and do not wish to repeat the experience under the proposed impaired driving program. In our view, the proposed strategic impaired driving initiative is more appropriate as a Section 403 demonstration program than as a state incentive grant program. We urge Congress to reject this proposal in the next reauthorization. The Administration is proposing funding for three types of incentives – for enacting primary belt laws, for improving safety belt use rates and for improving performance. Each of these incentives will have their own eligibility criteria and their own earmarked funding. We are concerned that the performance incentive program may be just as complex as the myriad of programs that are currently authorized under TEA-21. As noted previously, GHSA urges that the goal in the next reauthorization should be simplicity and consolidation. In the proposed primary belt law incentive grants, GHSA is very troubled by the distinction between states that enacted their primary belt laws during TEA-21 and those that enact them under SAFETEA. The former states are eligible for ½ of their FY 2003 402 apportionments over a two-year period. The latter are eligible for 5 times their FY 2003 402 apportionments. GHSA believes that it can be very difficult for states to adopt primary belt laws, no matter when they enacted such laws, and that to make such a distinction is patently unfair. States that have primary belt laws should be rewarded for their superior performance and states wishing to enact such laws should be strongly encouraged to do so. There are also some technical difficulties with the proposal. For one, if every eligible state enacted a primary belt law, there wouldn’t be enough funding to give them the amount for which they would be eligible. If two or three large states enacted a primary belt law in one year, there wouldn’t be enough funding in that year for any other states. States would have to wait one or more subsequent years, which may serve as a disincentive to states considering primary belt law passage. SAFETEA also proposes that the performance incentive funds can be flexed into the safety construction program and vice versa. While GHSA members like funding flexibility, we have some major reservations about the proposed flexibility provisions. GHSA believes that the flexibility provisions may result in fewer – potentially far fewer – funds for behavioral safety grant programs. States can flex all $100 million of their primary safety belt law incentive funds into the new Section 150 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The intent of this flexibility is to encourage state Departments of Transportation to become involved in the passage of primary belt laws. While we support the involvement of state DOTs in the legislation, GHSA also believes that the language strongly encourages state DOTs to move funds into the HSIP in a kind of quid pro quo even though funding for safety construction is proposed to increase 54% over FY 2003 levels. According to the recent Government Accounting Office report, sixty-nine percent of the 34 states that were penalized in 2001 and 2002 used the money for HEP safety construction purposes and only thirty-one percent used the money for alcohol-related programs. At the same time, GHSA believes that the flexibility provisions work against the passage of primary belt laws. DOT has proposed that, by FY 2005, states must enact primary belt laws or have 10% of their Section 150 funds transferred into the consolidated 402 program. However, states can flex 50% of their safety belt use rate incentives and 50% of their general performance incentive funds into the Section 150 program. As a result, the $100 million loss of safety construction funds can be partially offset by flexing $37.5 million of safety incentive funds into the HSIP. Hence, a state that fails to enact primary belt law legislation could have the impact mitigated to some extent by the flexibility provisions. State DOTs can also flex 50% of the HSIP funds into the consolidated safety program. However, there is always a need for safety improvements to roadways, particularly for low cost improvements like rumble strips, traffic control devices, lighting and pavement markings. We see little possibility that the behavioral safety grant programs would be the beneficiaries of the flexibility provisions. SHSO experience with the open container and repeat offender penalties have shown that flexibility provisions often pit one state agency against another. The agency with the most political clout usually determines how the penalty funds will be used. Hence, GHSA believes that the flexibility provisions will result in less funding for behavioral safety programs, not more. Consequently, we urge Congress to reject the proposed flexibility language and simply allow each safety program to be used for the purposes authorized. This concludes GHSA’s prepared statement on the reauthorization of safety programs. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views and recommendations on programs of utmost importance to its members. We look forward to working with the members and staff of the Committee as they draft reauthorization language in the coming months. Thank you again. STATEMENT OF KATHRYN SWANSON FOR THE GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION MAY 22, 2003 Introduction Good afternoon. My name is Kathryn Swanson, and I am the Director of the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety and the Chair of the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). GHSA is the national, nonprofit association that represents state and territorial highway safety offices (SHSO). Its members are appointed by their governors to design, implement and evaluate programs that affect the behavior of motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists. As part of their responsibilities, GHSA members administer federal highway safety grant programs and penalty transfer programs. I appreciate the opportunity to share the Association’s thoughts with you on the reauthorization of these federal highway safety programs. More than 42,000 people were killed and three million injured in motor vehicle-related crashes in 2002. Forty-two percent of those crashes were ones in which alcohol was involved. Nearly 5,000 pedestrians, more than 3,000 motorcyclists were killed and nearly 8,000 young drivers were killed in motor vehicle-related crashes. GHSA is very concerned, as are others in the highway safety community, that these numbers are beginning to move upward after several years of holding steady. With the present trend, no change in the risk of a fatal crash on a per population basis and no assumptions about future demographic changes, the absolute number of fatalities can conservatively be expected to increase to 63,513 by 2050 – an increase of 48% over current levels or approximately 350 additional fatalities every year. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was designed to reduce these fatalities and injuries by addressing all aspects of highway safety – the roadway, the vehicle and the driver. My remarks will be limited to the areas that are the responsibility of GHSA members -- the SHSOs – and will focus on the programs that address the behavior of the driver and other road users. As enacted in TEA-21, the 402 program -- the basic federal highway safety grant program through which every state receives funding -- and the 410 alcohol incentive grant program were reauthorized. TEA-21 also authorized four new occupant protection incentive grants (the 405, 157 basic, 157 innovative, and 2003(b) programs); a second impaired driving incentive grant program (the 163 program); a data improvement program (the 411 program); and two penalty transfer programs, the 154 open container and the 164 repeat offender programs). The SHSO’s are responsible for administering all of these programs. Funding under the 402, 405, 410, and 2003(b) programs can only be used to address a variety of behavioral highway safety-related problems. The 411 funds can only be used to plan for the improvement of highway safety information systems. A state that is eligible for the 157 basic and 163 grants may use the funds for any purpose under Title 23 of the U.S. Code. 157 innovative funds can only be used for purposes specified by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in its annual announcement of the availability of grant funds. States that are not in compliance with the open container or repeat offender requirements may use the funds for impaired driving-related purposes or for activities under the Hazard Elimination Program. Two years ago, GHSA embarked on an effort to evaluate the federal behavioral highway safety grant programs authorized under TEA-21. The results of that review were published last year in a report entitled Taking the Temperature of TEA-21: An Evaluation and Prescription for Safety which is available on GHSA’s website, www.statehighwaysafety.org. Our recommendations for the next reauthorization are based largely on the findings in our report. I would like to review several of them. Safeguard Funding Prior to TEA-21, highway safety grant programs were authorized at one level and almost always funded at a reduced level. SHSO’s never knew from year to year how much federal money would be appropriated, so it was difficult to plan, particularly for long-term multi-year projects, which are often necessary to see sustained behavioral changes. TEA-21 changed that by creating budget firewalls around highway safety programs so that the funding could only be used for highway safety purposes. This has proved to be of tremendous benefit to the SHSO’s, who are responsible for administering federal grant funds. The firewalls have meant that there is a far greater degree of certainty in the state planning process than ever existed in the past. States know from year to year what to expect in terms of grant funding and they can better estimate the level of funding for which their states may be eligible. GHSA strongly supports the continuation of the budget firewalls for federal highway safety grant programs and believes that it should be the top priority for reauthorization. States also want to retain the lead in determining how the federal grant funds should be spent in their states. Prior to 1994, states submitted annual Highway Safety Plans to NHTSA’s regional offices. The regional offices reviewed and approved every single planned project. The plans were approved but often with a four- or five-page list of conditions and comments that the states had to meet if they wanted federal grant funding. SHSO’s felt suffocated by the degree of federal oversight over, and micro-management of, very small federal highway safety grant programs. In 1994, NHTSA piloted a change in the 402 program -- the federal highway safety grant program that provides behavioral highway safety funding to every state. The new approach changed the program from one based on specific procedures into a more performance-based program. The performance-based approach was formally adopted by NHTSA in 1998. States are required to submit a Performance Plan in which they identify performance goals and objectives based on data-driven problem identification. The states then program their federal grant funding for projects that address the identified major safety problems in their states, typically impaired driving, adult occupant protection and child passenger safety. The projects are organized into an annual Highway Safety Plan that is reviewed but not approved by NHTSA. Most states also submit their plans for incentive grant funds as part of the annual Highway Safety Plan. Although TEA-21 added a number of new grant programs, federal oversight over those programs remained the same as under the 402 program. The flexibility in the 402 program has allowed states to program their funds in the areas where they are most needed and has given the states the ability to control their own programs. States and NHTSA regional offices work more in partnership with each other rather than under the paternalistic relationship that existed prior to 1994. Some of our close partners in the highway safety community have called for a return to the federal-state relationship that existed prior to 1994 in which NHTSA had approval authority over every aspect of state plans. GHSA would vigorously oppose such an approach. One safety group has suggested that under a new 402 program, if states do not meet certain performance standards within a specified time frame, then they would not be eligible for subsequent 402 funding unless they submitted to a NHTSA assessment to determine program weaknesses and identify program changes that will achieve desired results. Two groups also want the states to implement more uniform programs with similar safety messages from state to state. GHSA strongly and completely opposes these approaches. Each state’s needs, resources and priorities are different, and states should have the ability to use federal highway safety grant funds in a manner that best fits those needs, resources and priorities. SHSO’s have had 37 years’ experience implementing the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and have the skills and knowledge to undertake successful highway safety programs without heavy-handed federal oversight and micro-management. Furthermore, NHTSA has sufficient existing oversight authority to compel states to improve their programs. NHTSA can conduct management reviews, require states to develop and implement improvement plans if they don’t show progress after three years, and designate a state a high risk state if the state is not administering its federal highway safety grant funds appropriately. No additional oversight authority is needed. Rather, NHTSA needs to use this oversight authority in a consistent manner, as is recommended by the General Accounting Office. GHSA and NHTSA are actively taking steps to improve the planning and management of state highway safety programs. GHSA, using its own resources, is developing a planning workbook and a template for state annual reports. Next year, we plan to develop a template for the annual state Highway Safety Plan which must accompany application for federal grant funds. We are also working with NHTSA to identify and seek state agreement on 12-15 performance measures which all states would use in setting goals and measuring performance. We have worked with NHTSA to develop the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) which is a guideline on what traffic crash data elements all states should collect. GHSA is also working with NHTSA to develop explicit criteria under which a state program review would be triggered. These program reviews would occur if a state did not perform well or had difficulty reaching its goals. NHTSA and the state would then analyze the data and cooperatively develop a program enhancement plan. GHSA firmly believes that NHTSA has sufficient oversight authority already and that the program review criteria will strengthen that authority. Further, we believe that the initiatives mentioned previously will enhance state planning efforts and move states toward a more data-driven, research- and performance-based approach to solving highway safety problems. Create One Large Highway Safety Program As noted previously, TEA-21 created eight separate incentive grant programs and two penalty programs, all of which are managed by SHSO’s. Each of these programs has distinct eligibility criteria, separate applications and individual deadlines. This has meant that SHSO’s have had to meet almost a deadline a month in order to apply for federal funds. Even keeping track of the different programs, eligibility criteria and deadlines has been a chore for both NHTSA and the states. The net result of this proliferation of grant programs is that SHSO’s are spending a large percentage of time trying to manage all the grant programs and meet varying programmatic deadlines instead of analyzing state data, implementing safety programs, forming new state and local highway safety partnerships, and evaluating program impact. State staff are stretched to the limit, and states are facing a high degree of staff burnout. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the explosion of programs has caused the federal approach to highway safety to be duplicative and very fragmented. There are four occupant protection programs and two impaired driving programs, each with a different purpose, scope and eligibility criteria. This has made it difficult for states to address the behavioral aspects of highway safety in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. Clearly, consolidation of grant programs is needed. GHSA recommends that all of the incentive grant programs [402, 405, 410, 411, 163, 157 basic, 157 innovative, and 2003(b)] should be consolidated into one large highway safety grant program authorization. A portion of the funding should be for 402 grants for which every state is eligible. The remaining funding would be divided into an occupant protection tier and an impaired driving incentive tier – the two current national priority areas in highway safety. Under the occupant protection incentive tier, states would receive funding if they enacted a primary belt law or increased their safety belt use rate. The program would be based, in large part, on the very successful 157 basic grant program. A portion of the funding in this tier would be set aside for states that did not meet either criteria. These funds would be used to help low-performing states implement innovative occupant protection programs that would boost their safety belt use rates. Unlike the current 157 innovative program, funds would be apportioned according to the 402 formula which would obviate the ability of NHTSA to place additional conditions on the innovative program funds. Under the impaired driving incentive tier, states would have to meet a number of specific criteria, including a performance-based criteria, just as they do under the current 410 program. (The 410 program, authorized in 1991, has been one of the main sources of funding for state impaired driving programs and has contributed to low impaired driving rates.) Under the impaired driving tier, the emphasis would be on programs that have been proven to be effective (such as graduated licensing and sobriety checkpoints or saturation patrols), on strengthening the judicial system’s response to impaired driving, and on establishing systems that would allow a state to attack impaired driving in a comprehensive manner supported by good data. The program would be structured in a manner similar The specific elements of both the occupant protection incentive tier and the impaired driving incentive tier are described in the attached GHSA safety grant program details. The benefit of this approach is that there would be only one application deadline and one Highway Safety Plan. The management of the consolidated grant program would be far less burdensome for the states as well as for NHTSA. States would be able to address highway safety problems in a more coordinated, less fragmented manner, and would be able to better address the unique circumstances that exist in each state in reaching the identified goals. Furthermore, the creation of incentive tiers would overcome some of the problems in the current incentive programs. The occupant protection and impaired driving incentive funds would be tied more closely to performance. Resources would be available to help low-performing safety belt use states. High-performing states would be rewarded for maintaining their superior performance. All states would be rewarded for enacting critical highway safety legislation such as primary safety belt laws or graduated licensing laws. Continue Adequate Funding TEA-21 authorized significantly more federal highway safety grant funding than the states received previously. With this funding, states have been able to implement many highway safety programs that have resulted in behavioral changes, contributing to the lowest fatality rate on record – 1.5 fatalities per 100,000 million miles of travel -- as well as the highest national safety belt usage rate of 75 percent. Among other things, the additional funding has enabled states to greatly enhance their enforcement of safety belt laws; train more than 35,000 safety professionals in NHTSA’s standardized child passenger safety curriculum; purchase radio and television time for safety messages; undertake underage drinking initiatives; and support programs addressing the needs of underserved and diverse populations. With increased funding, states could put more resources into enforcement of traffic safety laws, particularly safety belt, speed and impaired driving laws. Better enforcement would help deter violations of traffic laws. Funds could be used to enhance staffing levels and to purchase new enforcement technology. Better enforcement would help convince populations that are resistant to traditional safety messages -- such as the 25 percent of unbuckled drivers -- of the need for compliance. With increased funding, states could also address a series of highway safety problems that are not being adequately addressed to date. The funds could be used to target the hard-to-reach populations (such as minority and rural communities) and at-risk populations (such as young males) that are less influenced by traditional highway safety programs and messages. With expanded funding, states could work to reduce pedestrian and bicycle fatalities that currently comprise one out of seven fatalities and motorcycle fatalities that have increased substantially five years in a row. Additional funds could be used to address the problems of older, aggressive and distracted drivers – all significant and growing highway safety issues. With increased funding, states could improve their emergency medical services (EMS) and incorporate new technologies into those services, thereby helping to reduce mortality and injury severity, particularly in rural areas. States could support more community-level highway safety programs. Additional funding could also be used to help incorporate safety into state and metropolitan planning and ensure that all aspects of safety – roadway, behavioral and motor carrier – are coordinated at the state level through performance-based statewide safety plans. GHSA recommends that, at a minimum, $500 million should be authorized for the consolidated highway safety grant program – about $50 million above FY 2003 levels. Of that amount, $200 million should be authorized for the 402 program, $175 million should be authorized for the occupant protection incentive tier and $125 million should be authorized for the impaired driving incentive tier. Without adequate funding, it is clear that the increases in fatalities seen in 2001 and 2002 will continue. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has recently issued reauthorization policy calling for the increase of federal safety funding – both behavioral and construction – by $1 billion per year. No new safety programs would be funded with the money; rather, the funds would be used to increase funding for existing safety infrastructure programs and for the proposed consolidated behavioral safety program. GHSA endorses this proposal and believes that it would provide the needed funding to conduct the safety activities outlined above. If Congress determines a way to increase funding in the next reauthorization either through elimination of the gasohol subsidies, indexing the gas tax or other approaches, then a portion of that increase should be authorized for safety programs. Support a Safety Data Grant Program TEA-21 authorized a very small data improvement incentive grant program -- the 411 program. The purpose of the grant program is to provide states with funding to improve their highway safety information systems (HSIS). Those systems are comprised of crash, hospital, driver licensing, citation, roadway and EMS databases. The 411 program provided funds for states to perform an assessment of their HSIS, form a traffic records coordinating committee with the state agency owners and managers of databases that comprise the state’s HSIS, and develop a strategic plan for improving the state’s HSIS. In FY 2002, 44 states, Puerto Rico, the Indian Nation and the four territories received 411 funding. No FY 2003 funding was authorized for this program under TEA-21. The objective of the 411 program is a very limited one and, given that, it has accomplished its objectives very well. However, if the states are to implement the improvements identified in their traffic records assessments and strategic plans, then a large infusion of funds is needed. Hence, there is a need to create a new data incentive grant program that would fund hardware and software improvements, training, and implementation of new data collection, management and analysis technology. From GHSA’s perspective, improvements in highway safety-related data are critical. States use crash and other data to identify new and emerging highway safety problems, quantify the seriousness of existing highway safety problems, select appropriate countermeasures to address identified problems, monitor progress and evaluate the success of these countermeasures. If Congress wants to determine how states are performing, and to enact new programs based on performance, then improvements in state data capabilities are absolutely essential. It is estimated that only 10 percent of law enforcement agencies have laptop computers from which crash data can be entered from the field. Until state crash data is entered electronically and there is linkage capability with the other safety-related databases in a state’s HSIS, states will be forced to rely on inaccurate, untimely and inaccessible paper data systems with which to make important safety decisions. Pennsylvania recently upgraded its crash data system at a cost of $6 million. If every state followed suit, it would cost an estimated $300 million. Hence, GHSA recommends that the data grant program should be authorized at $50 million a year over six years. Details of the grant program are discussed in the attached report. Enhance Federal Highway Safety Research Research has been a part of the federal highway safety program since its inception in 1966. Section 403 of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 authorized the use of federal funds to “engage in research on all phases of highway safety and traffic conditions.” Section 403 also authorized cooperative agreements for the purpose of “encouraging innovative solutions to highway safety problems.” TEA-21 authorized $72 million for each of six years for the Section 403 research and development program. Of that amount, only $7 million was earmarked for driver and behavioral research in FY 2002. As a result of this low level of funding, many research needs are completely or partially unmet. States are compelled to implement programs for which there is not a strong research justification. Currently, for example, there is a significant body of research on graduated licensing laws, per se impaired driving laws, repeat offender sanctions, primary safety belt laws, the impact of repealing motorcycle helmet laws, Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEP’s) and enforcement of safety belt laws. NHTSA is just completing a series of studies on distracted driving. However, there is a significant gap in the current state of knowledge about most safety issues and the effectiveness of most safety countermeasures. Among other things, there is no current research on crash causation. The last crash causation study was conducted more than thirty years ago. There is little research on effective pedestrian, drowsy driving, or aggressive driving countermeasures, behavioral programs for older drivers, and community traffic safety programs. There is little research on effective ways to reach the minority community with highway safety programs. There is no research to determine why motorcycle fatalities have increased so dramatically in the last five years and whether motorcycle licensing and education have any impact on safety. There is no research on the effectiveness of countermeasures recommended in the Federal Highway Administration’s Older Driver Design Handbook. There has been little research on the best way to improve the content of driver education programs for young and novice drivers. Very little research has been conducted on programs that reach the young adult drinking driver – those aged 21-34. There is little research on the impact of various safety messages and on the efficacy of enforcement programs other than STEP’s. There is virtually no research on the interactive effects of combined roadway and behavioral improvements. In effect, there is considerably more research to be conducted. The issue of open container legislation is illustrative of the need for further research. TEA-21 mandated that states enact open container legislation by October 1, 2000 (FY 2001) or have a portion of their highway construction funding transferred to the 402 program. However, no research had been conducted to determine whether open container legislation has any impact on impaired driving. In fact, NHTSA has only recently completed such research and has not broadly disseminated the results. Consequently, SHSOs have had to go before their state legislatures without research to support open container laws. Additionally, there is no formal process by which highway safety research priorities are set. NHTSA researches issues that are of interest to the agency or are consistent with their national goals and program needs. State research needs are sometimes secondary, and states do not have a formal mechanism with which to provide input into the research agenda setting process. There is nothing comparable to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program for safety in which states, through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, play a very strong role in determining research priorities. GHSA recommends the federal driver and behavioral research program be expanded to $20 - $25 million a year and that an ongoing safety program should be authorized and modeled after the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. GHSA also recommends that the Future Strategic Highway Research Program (FSHRP) should focus, in part, on safety, including the behavioral aspects of highway safety. The safety funding under FSHRP should be used to undertake a comprehensive research program on crash causation and some of the funding should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of highway safety countermeasures. Alter Lobbying Restrictions In response to concerns raised by the motorcycle user community, Congress enacted new lobbying prohibitions in TEA-21 and in subsequent appropriations legislation. TEA-21 prohibits the use of federal funds for “any activity specifically designed to urge a State or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific pending State or local legislation.” Section 326 of the FY 2000 DOT Appropriations Act prohibits the use of federal funds for any activity “intended to influence in any manner a Member…of a State legislature to favor or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by…a State legislature…after the introduction of any bill or resolution in a State legislature proposing such legislation or appropriation.” NHTSA has interpreted these statutory provisions to mean that recipients of federal funds, including SHSO’s and their grantees, cannot lobby on state legislation once the bill or resolution has been introduced in the legislative body. This means that SHSO’s cannot advocate for safety legislation introduced by their governor or a state legislator. It also means that SHSO’s cannot, after a bill or resolution is introduced, use federal funds to support state coalitions that have been formed to favor specific safety legislation. NHTSA policy also encourages SHSO staff to testify before a state or local legislative body only if there is a written invitation to do so. These provisions have had a chilling effect on the advocacy activities of SHSO’s. States no longer believe they can show support for any safety legislation, even if their own governors introduce it. Further, the provisions appear to be counterproductive. The 163, 405 and 410 incentive programs, the 154 and 164 penalty programs, and the .08 Blood-Alcohol Concentration (BAC) sanctions enacted after TEA-21 are all based on passage of state safety legislation. If states are going to qualify for the incentives and come into compliance with the penalties and sanctions, then they need the ability to affect state legislation. GHSA recommends, at a minimum, that Congress should alter the lobbying restrictions to allow SHSO’s and their grantees to lobby state legislatures on behalf of positions approved by governors and their administrations. Continue Paid Advertising Prior to TEA-21, NHTSA policy prohibited the use of federal highway safety funding for paid advertising. SHSO’s were compelled to use public service announcements (PSA’s) in order to implement their safety messages. While PSA’s are less costly than paid media, they have limited impact because they are generally aired during off-peak times. TEA-21 changed that by allowing the use of 402 funding for paid advertising for FY 1999 and 2000. (157 and 163 funds that were used for 402 purposes could also be spent on paid advertising.) Congress extended the permission to FY 2001, 2002, and 2003 as well. The result has been that larger audiences view safety messages during prime time. Although there are scant evaluative data on paid advertising, there is ample anecdotal information that the state safety paid advertising is paying off. Further, there is supporting evaluation data from the FY 2001 safety belt enforcement effort in NHTSA Region IV (the southeastern region) and the FY 2002 safety belt enforcement demonstration program with thirteen states in which paid advertising was used. The combination of paid advertising and high visibility enforcement in that region resulted in significant increases in safety belt use under both of those efforts. GHSA strongly supports paid advertising and recommends that its use continue to be allowed in the next reauthorization. Avoid New Sanctions and Penalties TEA-21 authorized two new penalty provisions (the 154 open container penalty and the 164 repeat offender penalty) but no new sanctions. Following TEA-21, Congress authorized a new sanction for states that fail to enact .08 BAC legislation. There are currently 18 penalties and sanctions with which states must comply. Of those, seven are safety-related (minimum drinking age, drug offenders, use of safety belts, zero tolerance, open containers, repeat offenders and .08 BAC). Three of the seven have been enacted in the last six years. GHSA and other state associations generally oppose sanctions and penalties for a number of reasons. Sanctions are not universally effective. Impaired driving-related sanctions appear to have strong public support and appear to work reasonably well. Other sanctions and penalties, such as those for the National Maximum Speed Limit and the mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation enjoyed little public support, were abysmal failures and were subsequently repealed. Sanctions are often counterproductive. With fewer highway funds, the conditions of highways deteriorate and become less safe. Withholding funds only exacerbates the safety problem. Sanctions penalize the state broadly without specifically targeting the entity that perpetrated the safety problem. Since there is no clear relationship between the safety problem and the policy solutions (withholding of construction funds), states are not motivated to act. TEA-21 encourages state agencies to work together to solve safety problems, but sanctions and penalties pull those agencies apart. The mandatory motorcycle penalties divided SHSO’s from state Departments of Transportation (DOT’s), causing them to oppose each other instead of working together toward enactment of motorcycle helmet laws. Opposition to the penalties by state DOT’s contributed to their repeal. Similar friction has been felt by many SHSO’s with respect to the open container and repeat offender penalties. SHSO’s have been blamed for the TEA-21 penalties even though they were not responsible for their enactment. New penalties and sanctions make it harder for the SHSO’s to work with state legislatures, even under the limited conditions allowed by TEA-21. Frequent sanctioning by Congress makes states very resentful and less motivated to enact the requisite legislation. Some states will wait until the last minute and then enact legislation that is minimally acceptable in order to avoid the sanction, as has been the case with about a dozen states and the .08 sanction. As former President Dwight Eisenhower said, “You do not lead by hitting people over the head – that’s assault, not leadership.” For the reasons outlined previously, GHSA recommends that no new sanctions or penalties be enacted. Make Technical Changes to Current Penalties TEA-21 requires states to enact, by October 1, 2000, repeat offender legislation or face the transfer of certain federal highway funding into the 402 program. For second or subsequent alcohol-related offenses, state law must require that: 1) the offender’s license be suspended for not less than one year; 2) the offender’s vehicle be subject to impoundment or immobilization or the installation of an ignition interlock; 3) the offender receives an assessment of the degree of alcohol abuse and treatment as appropriate; and 4) in the case of a second offense, the offender must receive not less than five days in jail or 30 days of community service and in the case of a third or subsequent offense, not less than 10 days in jail and 60 days of community service. As of October 1, 2002, 32 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico were in compliance with the repeat offender provisions. A number of states represented on this Committee -- Alaska, California, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and West Virginia -- were among the states in non-compliance at that time. A number of technical problems with the repeat offender provisions contributed to the relatively low level of compliance. One major problem concerns the license suspension provisions. NHTSA has interpreted the Section 164 language to mean that the mandatory minimum one-year license suspension must be a hard suspension with no hardship waiver or restricted license. Law enforcement officials are often reluctant to charge a repeat offender under those circumstances because they view the penalty as too harsh. Judges are also reluctant to give an offender a hard suspension because it would deprive a person of his/her livelihood for an entire year. Rural and indigent offenders would be especially impacted because they may be unable to arrange for alternate transportation, particularly transportation to treatment facilities. Offenders would have fewer resources to pay for interlock devices, impounded vehicles or treatment. State legislatures are often reluctant to enact the one-year hard suspension because it encourages repeat offenders to avoid the sanction by driving without a license. In fact, the driving-while-suspended problem is a growing one and is of increasing concern to both NHTSA and GHSA and its state members. A related problem is that NHTSA regulations do not permit the installation of interlock devices until after the hard suspension period. Current research shows that ignition interlock devices are very successful in reducing recidivism when used in combination with restricted licenses, supervised probation and treatment. By delaying the use of interlocks, the NHTSA regulations do not allow the offender to drive to work or treatment, thereby increasing the risk of recidivism. The regulations are inconsistent with NHTSA’s own research and show a misunderstanding of the purpose of the ignition interlock devices. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the NHTSA regulations do not place a time limitation on vehicle impoundment and immobilization. An offender’s vehicle can be impounded or immobilized only for a few hours and then returned to the offender. As a result, the impoundment/immobilization sanction can be expected to have little impact on repeat offenders. Another problem with the regulations is that the impoundment/immobilization/interlock sanction must apply to every vehicle owned by the offender. Hence, if an offender owns five vehicles, the sanction must apply to every vehicle. State legislatures are often reluctant to enact laws that would penalize car collectors and owners of fleets of vehicles. More importantly, the language encourages offenders to change the title of their vehicles to another family member in order to avoid the sanction. GHSA recommends that the one-year suspension be changed to a limited hard suspension (e.g. 60 or 90 days) with a restricted license and imposition of an ignition interlock device during a subsequent restriction period. Further, there should be a time limit (e.g. 10-30 days) on the impoundment/immobilization sanction. The language requiring the sanctions to be applied to an offender’s vehicles should be changed to the vehicle used by the offender. The transfer provisions for both the open container and repeat offender penalties are also problematic. Non-compliant states have a portion of their Surface Transportation Program, National Highway System and Interstate Maintenance funds transferred into the 402 program. They can then use the transferred funds for impaired driving countermeasures or activities eligible under the Hazard Elimination Program (HEP). Many states have lessened the impact of the penalty by using the transferred funds to supplement current HEP funding. Instead of budgeting for new HEP funding, the transferred funds are used. In effect, some state DOTs have played an elaborate shell game with the transferred funds. As a result, the penalty transfers have not motivated states to enact the requisite legislation. The administration of the transfers has also been very difficult. Since all of the transferred funds must be transferred into the state’s 402 account, the SHSO is responsible for administering them, even if all the funds are ultimately used for HEP purposes. In other words, there is no mechanism to retransfer funds used for HEP purposes into the state’s HEP account. As a result, the small, overworked SHSO is financially responsible for overseeing the expenditure of HEP funds over which they have no programmatic control. GHSA recommends that, if the transfer penalties are continued, the transferred funds only be used for impaired driving countermeasures. This would eliminate the administrative difficulties and would create a stronger “incentive” for states to enact the requisite legislation. Comments on the DOT Reauthorization Proposal Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), the Department of Transportation has proposed a three-part consolidated behavioral highway safety grant program. The proposed program includes basic formula funds, performance incentive funds, and a strategic impaired driving program. The performance incentive funds will be further divided into three types of incentives. In addition, DOT has proposed a separate data grant program and a very small EMS grant program. In FY 2004, total funding would be at the same level as FY 2003 NHTSA grant funding. GHSA is pleased about some aspects of the funding request but very disappointed about several others. The Association is pleased that DOT supported the idea of grant consolidation. A single grant program with one application and one deadline should be much easier to administer. GHSA is also pleased that the Administration is proposing performance incentive grants and increased funding for states that enact primary safety belt laws. The Association also supports performance-based incentives, particularly for states that enact primary belt laws, and has incorporated that concept into its own proposal. Clearly NHTSA heard and positively responded to the states’ concerns in these areas. GHSA strongly supports the proposed DOT data incentive grant program. The program funding level, the eligibility criteria, and the proposed use of grant funds are identical to those recommended by the Association. GHSA supports the Section 151 (Title I) requirement that states coordinate their highway safety construction, behavioral and motor carrier grant programs and develop comprehensive, strategic highway safety goals. Future improvements in highway safety are not as likely unless states coordinate the disparate aspects of their highway safety programs. GHSA supports the proposed funding for the crash causation study. As noted above, it has been about thirty years since such a study was conducted. If states are to improve driver and road user behavior, it is essential to know why crashes were caused. GHSA recommends, however, that the difference between the NHTSA crash causation study and the proposed FSHRP crash causation study need to be clarified and the studies coordinated. GHSA also supports the proposed increased funding for the Section 403 program. However, it appears that most of the increase will be used for the crash causation study. Additional research resources must be directed to the NHTSA 403 program so that evaluation studies can be conducted on the effectiveness of a variety of safety countermeasures. GHSA is extremely disappointed in the overall funding level for the behavioral safety grant programs. If safety is such a high priority for DOT, why wasn’t behavioral safety grant funding increased more? How are the states to have an impact on the increasing number of fatalities and injuries without adequate funding? Why was the funding increase limited to the safety construction program? It appears that, once again, DOT’s commitment to safety does not match its willingness to fund behavioral safety programs adequately. It will be no surprise if future years show further increases in motor vehicle-related fatalities and injuries. GHSA finds the level of funding for the impaired driving program totally unacceptable. $50 million is considerably less than has been spent on impaired driving under TEA-21 and far less than is needed to adequately address this growing problem. Further, we believe that the program is too narrowly focused on a few states where an intervention would have the biggest impact. Impaired driving is a problem in every state, yet the proposal would provide no funds for the remaining, “non-strategic” states. It is apparent that the proposed impaired driving program will be implemented in the same manner as the 157 innovative program. Under that program, NHTSA set very restrictive conditions on the grants and completely micro-managed the way eligible states expend funds. States have found the program very onerous and do not wish to repeat the experience under the proposed impaired driving program. In our view, the proposed strategic impaired driving initiative is more appropriate as a Section 403 demonstration program than as a state incentive grant program. We urge Congress to reject this proposal in the next reauthorization. The Administration is proposing funding for three types of incentives – for enacting primary belt laws, for improving safety belt use rates and for improving performance. Each of these incentives will have their own eligibility criteria and their own earmarked funding. We are concerned that the performance incentive program may be just as complex as the myriad of programs that are currently authorized under TEA-21. As noted previously, GHSA urges that the goal in the next reauthorization should be simplicity and consolidation. In the proposed primary belt law incentive grants, GHSA is very troubled by the distinction between states that enacted their primary belt laws during TEA-21 and those that enact them under SAFETEA. The former states are eligible for ½ of their FY 2003 402 apportionments over a two-year period. The latter are eligible for 5 times their FY 2003 402 apportionments. GHSA believes that it can be very difficult for states to adopt primary belt laws, no matter when they enacted such laws, and that to make such a distinction is patently unfair. States that have primary belt laws should be rewarded for their superior performance and states wishing to enact such laws should be strongly encouraged to do so. There are also some technical difficulties with the proposal. For one, if every eligible state enacted a primary belt law, there wouldn’t be enough funding to give them the amount for which they would be eligible. If two or three large states enacted a primary belt law in one year, there wouldn’t be enough funding in that year for any other states. States would have to wait one or more subsequent years, which may serve as a disincentive to states considering primary belt law passage. SAFETEA also proposes that the performance incentive funds can be flexed into the safety construction program and vice versa. While GHSA members like funding flexibility, we have some major reservations about the proposed flexibility provisions. GHSA believes that the flexibility provisions may result in fewer – potentially far fewer – funds for behavioral safety grant programs. States can flex all $100 million of their primary safety belt law incentive funds into the new Section 150 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The intent of this flexibility is to encourage state Departments of Transportation to become involved in the passage of primary belt laws. While we support the involvement of state DOTs in the legislation, GHSA also believes that the language strongly encourages state DOTs to move funds into the HSIP in a kind of quid pro quo even though funding for safety construction is proposed to increase 54% over FY 2003 levels. According to the recent Government Accounting Office report, sixty-nine percent of the 34 states that were penalized in 2001 and 2002 used the money for HEP safety construction purposes and only thirty-one percent used the money for alcohol-related programs. At the same time, GHSA believes that the flexibility provisions work against the passage of primary belt laws. DOT has proposed that, by FY 2005, states must enact primary belt laws or have 10% of their Section 150 funds transferred into the consolidated 402 program. However, states can flex 50% of their safety belt use rate incentives and 50% of their general performance incentive funds into the Section 150 program. As a result, the $100 million loss of safety construction funds can be partially offset by flexing $37.5 million of safety incentive funds into the HSIP. Hence, a state that fails to enact primary belt law legislation could have the impact mitigated to some extent by the flexibility provisions. State DOTs can also flex 50% of the HSIP funds into the consolidated safety program. However, there is always a need for safety improvements to roadways, particularly for low cost improvements like rumble strips, traffic control devices, lighting and pavement markings. We see little possibility that the behavioral safety grant programs would be the beneficiaries of the flexibility provisions. SHSO experience with the open container and repeat offender penalties have shown that flexibility provisions often pit one state agency against another. The agency with the most political clout usually determines how the penalty funds will be used. Hence, GHSA believes that the flexibility provisions will result in less funding for behavioral safety programs, not more. Consequently, we urge Congress to reject the proposed flexibility language and simply allow each safety program to be used for the purposes authorized. This concludes GHSA’s prepared statement on the reauthorization of safety programs. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views and recommendations on programs of utmost importance to its members. We look forward to working with the members and staff of the Committee as they draft reauthorization language in the coming months. Thank you again.

• Ms. Wendy Hamilton
  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Ms. Wendy Hamilton

  Good Morning. My name is Wendy Hamilton and I am the National President of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I am honored to be here today to testify on the reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and its safety programs. We look forward to working with the Committee to develop transportation policies that provide appropriate funding and employ effective, aggressive countermeasures to prevent injuries and save lives on our nation’s roads. ADMINISTRATION OUTLINES HIGHWAY SAFETY AS A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS; HOWEVER, FUNDING REQUESTS DO NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS PROBLEM According to DOT, motor vehicle crashes are responsible for 95 percent of transportation sector deaths and 99 percent of all transportation-related injuries within the United States as well as the leading cause of death for people ages 4 through 33. In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people died on the nation’s highways, up from 42,116 in 2001. This alarming amount of injury and death on our nation’s roadways creates a tremendous drain on the nation’s economy. Economic losses due to motor vehicle crashes cost the nation approximately $230.6 billion each year, an average of $820 for every person living in the United States. DOT’s announcement of preliminary 2002 fatality estimates calls for “better state laws that address the causes of the problem and stricter enforcement.” But DOT’s FY04 request and its reauthorization proposal cut funding for behavioral safety initiatives, even while DOT’s own research demonstrates that human behavior is overwhelmingly the leading factor in death and injury on our nation’s roads. ALCOHOL-RELATED TRAFFIC FATALITIES ON THE RISE FOR THIRD CONSECUTIVE YEAR For the third consecutive year, alcohol-related traffic deaths have increased. Preliminary statistics show that nearly 18,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands more were injured in these crashes just last year. That’s 49 deaths and hundreds of injuries day in and day out. Alcohol-involved crashes accounted for 21 percent of nonfatal injury crash costs, and an overwhelming 46 percent of all fatal injury crash costs. In order to reverse this trend, the nation cannot maintain the status quo and expect a different result. Last week at a national news conference, MADD commemorated the 15-year anniversary of the worst drunk driving crash in U.S. history -- the Kentucky Bus Crash. On May 14, 1988, 27 people -- 24 children and 3 adults -- were killed and 30 others were injured coming home from a church outing. They were victims of a repeat drunk driving offender, behind the wheel of his pickup driving on the wrong side of the road. He had a blood alcohol concentration of .24 --- three times the illegal limit today in Kentucky and the majority of all other states and DC. The Kentucky Bus Crash was heard around the world because 27 perished and 30 others were injured in an instant. But tragically, one by one, over the past 15 years, the equivalent to 10,400 Kentucky Bus Crashes have occurred in our country as nearly 281,000 Americans have been killed and millions of others have been injured in alcohol-related traffic crashes since that tragic day. Unfortunately, the data speaks for itself: the nation -- including its political leaders – has become complacent in this effort. Drunk drivers continue to slip through cracks in the system. Weak laws, lack of funding for effective traffic safety programs and minimal resources for law enforcement officers to enforce existing laws are all part of the problem. There is no coordinated effort at the national, state and local level to combat this public health problem. Additionally, drunk driving is still often treated as a minor traffic offense rather than what it really is – the most frequently committed violent crime in our country. MADD’S SAFETY PLAN: PUTTING RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE Last week MADD released its new federal plan for the reauthorization of federal traffic safety programs. In conjunction with MADD’s announcement, we heard from Members of the Senate who expressed firm commitment to move the nation in the right direction. MADD sincerely thanks Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Mike DeWine, Senator Byron Dorgan and Senator Patty Murray for their participation in this event and for their leadership to reduce traffic death and injury. Today, MADD is asking Congress and the Administration to ensure that highway safety is a cornerstone of the reauthorized Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). And they can do so by embracing MADD’s research-based reauthorization plan. MADD’s plan would: · Establish a National Traffic Safety Fund (NTSF) -- $1 billion annually -- to provide a major infusion of dedicated federal funds to support state and national traffic safety programs, enforcement and data improvements; · Under the NTSF: o dedicate increased funding for states and local communities to expand highly visible law enforcement activities to reduce impaired driving and increase seat belt use, including national enforcement mobilizations supported by paid media; o dedicate significantly increased funding for state efforts to improve traffic safety by implementing data-driven programs; · Create stricter accountability controls to ensure that federal funds are being used in a strategic and coordinated effort at both the state and federal level; · Encourage states to enact priority traffic safety laws, such as primary seat belt enforcement, higher-risk driver and open container standards. I want to briefly talk in more detail about MADD’s reauthorization priorities. Funding is key to the success of national, state and local traffic safety programs to reduce drunk driving. But in the year 2001, while traffic crashes cost taxpayers $230 billion, the federal government spent only $522 million on highway safety and only one-quarter of that was used to fight impaired driving. Compared to the financial and human costs of drunk driving, our nation’s spending is woefully inadequate to address the magnitude of this problem. Establishing a National Traffic Safety Fund would give those on the front lines an increased, ongoing and reliable funding stream for national, state and local highway safety programs. MADD recommends an annual $1 billion dedicated fund for traffic safety programs. We know that for every dollar spent on effective highway safety programs about $30 is saved by society in the reduced costs of crashes. This would be a wise investment. States must have additional resources if they are expected to reach their highway safety goals. Section 402, State and Community Highway Safety grants, provides funding to states to support highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes and resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage. TEA-21 authorized $163 million in FY03 for Section 402 grants. MADD recommends a substantial increase in Section 402 funding to help states reach their highway safety goals. Of the $1 billion annually, MADD recommends $425 million for the reauthorized Section 402. Although alcohol is a factor in 42 percent of all traffic deaths, only 26 percent of all highway safety funding available to the states through TEA-21 is spent on alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures. Too often highway safety funding made available to the states is used for other programs that may not save as many lives or prevent as many injuries as priority traffic safety programs. It is critical that these funds are spent on data-driven programs that include comprehensive impaired driving and seat belt initiatives. The National Traffic Safety Fund would also be used to expand states’ well-publicized law enforcement activities to curb drunk driving and increase seat belt use. These law enforcement resources would support training, over-time, technology and paid advertising throughout the year. Additionally, funds would be available for three highly visible national impaired driving and seat belt law enforcement mobilizations. These law enforcement activities should utilize, when possible, frequent and highly visible sobriety checkpoints. These are among the most effective tools used by law enforcement to deter impaired driving. We know through research and real world experience that sobriety checkpoints save lives. The CDC found that sobriety checkpoints can reduce impaired driving crashes by 18 to 24 percent. These checkpoints are especially effective when coupled with media campaigns that raise the visibility and awareness of drunk driving enforcement efforts in the community with the bottom line goal of deterring impaired driving before it happens. Without significant increases in the level of funding for these critical safety programs, the current deadly trend will continue to worsen. But it is just as important to know where the money is going and how it is being spent. That is why MADD is asking Congress to hold states and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration accountable for the expenditure of federal highway safety funds. Our goal is not to make their jobs more difficult. It is to recognize that political pressures and “flavor of the month” traffic safety issues can influence how dollars are spent. If DOT’s primary goal is to reverse the current trend, it is time to create a more consistent process that ensures the efficient and proper use of federal funds to help the nation achieve its highway safety goals. MADD also urges Congress to strongly encourage states to enact proven traffic safety laws, such as a national primary seat belt enforcement standard. According to NHTSA, for every percentage point increase in seat belt usage, 280 lives can be saved. MADD knows that the best defense against a drunk driver is a seat belt. The fact is, of those killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes, 76 percent were not wearing their seat belt. Had they been, a significant portion of them would be alive today. Drunk drivers typically do not buckle up, nor do they make sure their passengers are properly restrained. The sad fact is that two-thirds of children killed in alcohol-related crashes are passengers driven by an impaired driver. We also know that seat belt use for children generally decreases the more impaired a driver becomes. MADD calls for the establishment of a national primary seat belt standard. States would be eligible for “jumbo” financial incentives for three years. States that have not enacted this lifesaving measure after three years would lose federal highway construction funds. MADD also calls for the enactment of a national standard to combat “higher-risk drivers.” “Higher-risk drivers” are defined as repeat offenders, those with BACs of .15 or higher, or persons caught driving on a suspended license when the suspension is a result of a prior DUI offense. This priority is one that has personal meaning for me. On September 19, 1984, a high BAC driver caused the head-on collision that killed my 32-year-old sister Becky and my 22-month old nephew Timmy. Three hours after the crash, the offender tested at a .16 BAC. Police pulled four empty bottles of alcohol from his vehicle. While higher-risk drivers are a small portion of the population, they pose a significant threat to innocent motorists. On a typical weekend night, only one percent of drivers have a BAC of .15 or higher, but high BAC drivers were involved in over one-half of all alcohol-related traffic deaths in 2000. And, about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DUI are repeat offenders. Clearly, we need leadership from Congress and the Administration to encourage states to act now to get this most dangerous segment of the driving public off of our roads. MADD is backing research-based solutions to address the higher-risk driver through what we call: Restrictions, Restitutions and Recovery. Restrictions include mandatory sentencing, strict licensing and vehicle sanctions such as immobilization and ignition interlock devices. Restitution includes payment to victims and to the community by offenders. Recovery focuses on efforts to address the offender’s substance abuse and addiction. States that do not enact comprehensive higher-risk driver legislation would lose federal highway construction funds. Lastly, MADD calls on Congress to enact a national ban on open containers in the passenger compartment of motor vehicles. Open container laws separate the consumption of alcohol from the operation of a vehicle. A common-sense measure, banning open containers in the passenger compartment of a vehicle will decrease the likelihood that drinking and driving will occur. One NHTSA study found that states with open container laws have lower rates of alcohol-related fatalities, while another study conducted by the Stanford University Institute for Economic Policy Research found that, controlling for other variables, open container laws had a significant effect on reducing fatal crash rates (by over five percent). The Kentucky Bus Crash reminds us that for every loss and for every tragic death and injury there is untold suffering and emotion. That said, MADD is committed to advocating research-based and proven-effective countermeasures to prevent others from having to experience what the families of these victims have suffered. It’s not about feel good. It’s about doing what is right, and doing what will most effectively save lives. That is what drives our agenda, and that is what is behind our proposals for the reauthorization of TEA-21. NHTSA’S FY 2004 BUDGET PROVIDES INADEQUATE RESOURCES AND LITTLE GUIDANCE TO REACH HIGHWAY SAFETY GOALS In the FY04 Budget in Brief, NHTSA states that it is “committed to pursuing an aggressive safety agenda” and that “[b]ehavioral safety initiatives will be directed to increasing safety belt use and deterring impaired driving, which are central to achieving the Department’s traffic fatality goal.” While NHTSA’s funding request appears to have increased monies for behavioral funding, this is not the case. In fact, the FY04 request is less than the FY03 request. This is because the FY04 request includes $222 million of TEA-21 resources for the Sections 157 and 163 grant programs formerly appropriated in the Federal Highway Administration budget. NHTSA has always administered these funds and is now requesting receipt of this funding directly. This apparent increase is really no increase at all, just a shifting of grant funds. The current FY04 request for behavioral funding is $516,309,000, but once Sections 157 and 163 monies are subtracted the amount is lowered to $294,309,000. The FY04 request is actually $234,000 less than the FY03 request. Additionally, only a percentage of this funding will be spent on behavioral safety since states are able to use this funding for roadway safety / highway construction projects. One of NHTSA’s primary FY04 goals is to reduce the rate of alcohol-related highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to 0.53. In its Budget in Brief, NHTSA states the following: The 2003 target of .53 per 100 million VMT, if met, will result in a reduction of alcohol-related fatalities to 15,600…It will be a challenge to meet this target by the end of 2003. The agency is implementing new programs in 2003 that should begin to see positive results by the end of the year. Even though NHTSA should begin to see results in 2003, the agency still may not be able to achieve the target without the States and communities enacting and, more importantly, enforcing strong alcohol laws and reforming their individual impaired driving control systems. However, it is not clear from the FY04 budget what these new programs are and where the money is coming from to continue them. NHTSA’s FY04 budget request clearly does not reflect the severity of the impaired driving problem. While NHTSA’s FY04 budget states that “Protecting vehicle occupants and deterring impaired drivers are among the major ways we are able to reduce death and injury,” the level of funding for impaired driving countermeasures is utterly insufficient. For example, the Impaired Driving Division budget request is significantly lower than FY02 enacted levels ($10,926,000 FY04 request compared with $13,497,000 FY02 enacted). NHTSA states that “Aggressive actions are needed to expand focus on several key high-risk populations, including underage drinkers, 21-34 year olds, and repeat offenders,” but seeks fewer resources to reach these goals. Under “Anticipated FY 2003 Accomplishments” NHTSA recognizes that “Two nationwide law enforcement mobilizations (July and December) will be conducted,” bolstered by a national media public service advertising campaign. The “Click It or Ticket” national law enforcement mobilization campaign has been highly successful at increasing seat belt usage. Thanks to the Senate, funds were dedicated in the FY03 budget to conduct similar national mobilizations to reduce alcohol-impaired driving deaths and injuries. However, NHTSA does not request any funding to continue this effort. Additionally, NHTSA’s State & Community Highway Safety Program drastically reduces funds available to states for impaired driving initiatives. NHTSA’s FY04 request provides a $50 million impaired driving grant program to only a subset of states to demonstrate the effectiveness of a comprehensive approach to reducing impaired driving and for identifying causes of weakness in a state’s impaired driving control system. This funding level is $100 million less than funds available to states in FY03 for impaired driving improvements. While NHTSA continuously states that reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities is a top priority, the FY04 budget request does not support these assertions. ADMINISTRATION’S “SAFETEA” PROPOSAL CUTS ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING FUNDING AND INCENTIVES, LACKS BEHAVIORAL SAFETY FUNDING MADD was dismayed to learn that impaired driving control programs merit less than one page out of the 378 page U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) surface transportation proposal. DOT’s proposal, "SAFETEA,” falls woefully short of real “safety” for America’s roadways and includes an inadequate response to this urgent national problem. “SAFETEA” decreases funding for alcohol-impaired programs by 67 percent. The proposal recommends an impaired driving program of only $50 million, far less than current funding levels and clearly not enough to reverse this deadly trend. In FY03, TEA-21 authorized $150 million for alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures and also contained requirements for states to enact repeat offender and open container laws. If states failed to pass these alcohol-impaired driving laws then a percentage of their federal construction funds were transferred. Not only does “SAFETEA” cut impaired driving funding to $50 million, it also does not include any incentives to states to enact alcohol-impaired driving laws. In comparison, “SAFETEA” provides the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) -- $60 million in FY04 -- with 20 percent more funding than the Impaired Driving Grants Program. The RTP program provides funds to develop and maintain recreational trails for motorized and non-motorized recreational trail users. It appears, at least from a budget standpoint, that keeping recreational trails safe for a small population of users is even more important to DOT than keeping all highway users safe from impaired drivers. The overwhelming majority of “safety” funding in the “SAFETEA” proposal is budgeted in the new “Highway Safety Improvement Program” (HSIP), which is really a highway construction project program. In 2004 alone, $1 billion is allocated to the HSIP program. These funds are to be used for “safety improvement projects,” defined below. A safety improvement project corrects or improves a hazardous roadway condition, or proactively addresses highway safety problems that may include: intersection improvements; installation of rumble strips and other warning devices; elimination of roadside obstacles; railway-highway grade crossing safety; pedestrian or bicycle safety; traffic calming; improving highway signage and pavement marking; installing traffic control devices at high crash locations or priority control systems for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections, safety conscious planning and improving crash data collection and analysis, etc. While these are all important activities, DOT itself recognizes that human behavior, not roadway environment, is overwhelmingly seen as the most prevalent factor in contributing to crashes. The General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report in March 2003 that reconfirms this premise after surveying data, experts and studies focusing on factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes. Given that behavioral factors account for the majority of traffic crashes, it is difficult to understand the vastly disproportionate funding levels for behavioral versus roadway construction safety programs and why DOT allows a significant portion of the behavioral funds to be used to augment even more roadway construction spending. While NHTSA continuously states that reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities is a top priority, the Administration’s “SAFETEA” proposal does not support these claims. INCREASED RESOURCES ARE REQUIRED TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE HIGHWAY DEATHS AND INJURIES Research demonstrates that certain programs and initiatives will significantly reduce traffic deaths and injuries. In order to implement these programs and initiatives, increased resources are needed. The reauthorization of federal highway safety programs provides the vehicle to obtain more resources to combat this public health problem. MADD urges Congress to consider the merits of each traffic safety program based upon their ability to reduce or prevent alcohol-related traffic fatalities. MADD’s goal is to ensure that federal traffic safety dollars are spent on effective programs and that states pass basic laws to combat alcohol-impaired driving. NHTSA’s traffic safety budget is wholly inadequate. Faced with the highest number of highway fatalities since 1990, and a cost to America’s economy of over $230.6 billion annually, the agency’s budget request should reflect the growing need for more resources rather than maintain the status quo. Currently, the federal government’s funding for traffic safety programs does not reflect the importance of this public health crisis. The reauthorization of TEA-21 offers Congress the opportunity to review and reallocate funds to traffic safety. GAO REPORT HIGHLIGHTS DEFICIENCIES IN OVERSIGHT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY INITIATIVES Recently the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report detailing the management and use of federal highway safety programs and funding. GAO concluded the following: …NHTSA’s oversight of highway safety programs is less effective than it could be, both in ensuring the efficient and proper use of federal funds and in helping the states achieve their highway safety goals. GAO’s report shows that federal oversight of state spending on highway safety programs has been inadequate in the face of rising traffic deaths and that NHTSA has not been consistently monitoring how funds are being used. GAO also found that NHTSA has no consistent policy for conducting state reviews or improvement plans. As a result, some regional offices conduct reviews as infrequently as every two years, while others conduct them only when a state requests one. This clearly enables some states to slip through the cracks. For example, the report found that the rate of alcohol-related traffic deaths rose in 14 states between 1997 and 2001; in seven of those states, the rate was higher than the national average, but only one of the seven states had a NHTSA improvement plan. The GAO also found that seat belt use was declining in some states that didn't have NHTSA improvement plans. The GAO report also reveals how states use some of their highway “safety” funding. States that did not meet either the open container or the repeat offender requirements in TEA-21 has a percentage of funds transferred from their federal highway construction program to their Section 402 highway safety grants program. However, states were also able to allocate transferred funds to highway construction projects under the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Hazard Elimination Program (HEP). An overwhelming 69 percent of the transferred funds were used by states for construction anyway projects anyway, the GAO reported. The GAO report demonstrates that more federal oversight and guidance is needed for the expenditure of federal highway safety funds to ensure that these funds are spent on effective behavioral programs. Clearly there are legitimate areas of public health and safety in which the federal government should be involved in setting standards. Similar to airline safety, highway safety warrants federal government involvement. In this country we have a national highway system. Families should be protected from the consequences of impaired driving whether they are driving through Alabama, Washington or North Dakota. Impaired drivers do not recognize state boundaries. Drunk driving is a national problem and it demands a national solution. CALL TO ACTION: NATION’S LEADERS MUST PROVIDE A ROADMAP However, our nation lacks a clear, coordinated national and state solution to reduce impaired-driving deaths and injuries. Congress now has the opportunity to dedicate proper funding to address this public health epidemic, and to ensure proper use of these funds. While continued research efforts are critical in order to identify new and improved methods to deter drunk driving, there are many proven, research-based strategies that are not being used to reverse the current deadly trend. These strategies can and must be employed to make progress in the effort. MADD urges Congress to provide adequate funding to NHTSA , and to require NHTSA to develop a roadmap for itself and the states to significantly reduce alcohol-related deaths and injuries. The nation is waiting for short-term, immediate strategies such as high-visibility enforcement efforts and sobriety checkpoints to turn this trend around, as well as long-term strategies that will ensure our safety on America’s roadways for years to come. Our nation can no longer afford the current state of inaction on this issue. Today, we are at a historic crossroads as Congress takes up the multi-billion dollar reauthorization of TEA-21 that will shape transportation policy for the rest of this decade and beyond. Maintaining the status quo, or worse, decreasing resources dedicated to fighting drunk driving will not reverse this deadly trend. This is our best chance to ensure adequate highway safety funding, to ensure that these funds are being used effectively, and to enact laws that will keep drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel. I urge Congress to adopt MADD’s proposal and create safer roads for all Americans. Thank you.

• Ms. Josephine Cooper
  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Ms. Josephine Cooper

  Thank You Mr. Chairman. My name is Josephine Cooper and I am President of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. I am pleased to be afforded the opportunity to offer the views of the Alliance at this important hearing. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) is a trade association of 10 car and light truck manufacturers who account for more than 90 percent of U.S. vehicle sales. Alliance member companies, include BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen, employing more than 620,000 Americans at 250 facilities in 35 states. SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE TO REDUCE FATALITIES AND INJURIES FROM MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES, BUT CHALLENGES REMAIN Over the past 20 years significant progress has been made in reducing the traffic fatality rate. In 1981, the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled stood at 3.17. By 2001, this rate had been driven down by 52 percent to 1.51 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Indeed, when compared to 1991, in 2001 the fatality rate had dropped by 21 percent, indicating that real progress has been made. The level of competitiveness among automakers, which key industry observers have described as “brutal,” has helped to accelerate the introduction of safety features ahead of regulation further aiding in the progress made. See Attachment 1. According to the J. D. Power and Associates 2002 U.S. Automotive Emerging Technologies study, 9 of the top 10 features most desired by consumers in their next new vehicle are designed to enhance vehicle or occupant safety. Despite the progress made, however, preliminary data show that 42,850 people lost their lives on U.S. highways in 2002 and almost 3 million were injured. Tragically, 59 percent of vehicle occupants killed in crashes were not restrained by safety belts or child safety seats. Alcohol-related fatalities increased for the third consecutive year and accounted for 42 percent of all fatalities. The fatality rate may no longer be declining. This is unacceptable. As a nation, we simply must do better. The Alliance and our members are constantly striving to enhance motor vehicle safety. And, we continue to make progress. Each new model year brings safety improvements in vehicles of all sizes and types. But, as the General Accounting Office recently reaffirmed, vehicle factors contribute less often to crashes than do human or roadway environment factors . We will never fully realize the potential benefits of vehicle safety technologies until we get vehicle occupants properly restrained and impaired drivers off the road. That is why reauthorization and adequate funding of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) highway safety programs is so important. INCREASED SAFETY BELT USAGE AND PREVENTING IMPAIRED DRIVING ARE NEEDED TODAY TO PREVENT NEEDLESS FATALITIES AND INJURIES The single most effective way to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries in the short term is to increase the use of occupant restraint systems, safety belts and child safety seats. If the United States could increase its safety belt usage rate from the current 75 percent to 92 percent (the same usage rate as in Canada) it is estimated that another 4,500 lives would be saved and countless injuries would be avoided. Members of the Alliance have a long and proud record in supporting increased safety belt usage beginning in the mid 1980’s with funding for Traffic Safety Now, a safety belt advocacy group lobbying state governments for the passage of mandatory safety belt use laws to participation in and funding of the Airbag & Seat Belt Safety Campaign (Campaign). The Campaign is housed in the National Safety Council and principally funded by the voluntary contributions of motor vehicle manufacturers. The effectiveness of the Campaign is reflected in the increase in belt use from 61 percent, when the Campaign was formed in 1996, to today, with belt use now at 75 percent. This 14-percentage point increase in belt use is largely due to high visibility enforcement Mobilizations coordinated by the Campaign in cooperation with NHTSA, state highway safety offices and law enforcement agencies in all fifty states. We are currently in the midst of the largest Mobilization ever with more than 12,500 law enforcement agencies providing stepped up enforcement and close to $25 million in paid advertising to augment the enforcement effort. Funding for the enforcement ads, both national and state, comes from funds earmarked by Congress for this purpose. High visibility enforcement of safety belt laws has been extensively tested in more than twenty states. It has consistently achieved dramatic increases in safety belt use. Although the Administration has not requested funds for the paid advertising that has proven to be a vital component of this effective program, we believe that it is important for Congress to continue to provide this funding. Primary enforcement safety belt use laws are significantly correlated with higher safety belt usage levels. States with primary enforcement laws have an average of 80 percent belt usage, compared to 69 percent in states having secondary enforcement laws. Currently, only 19 jurisdictions have primary safety belt laws. While the Campaign, through its lobbying efforts, has contributed to getting primary enforcement legislation enacted in several states, progress has been difficult to achieve. The Administration has requested significant funding for incentives to states passing primary enforcement laws. We believe this proposal has merit and should be approved by Congress. Impaired driving is also a significant highway safety problem and one that is getting worse. While substantial progress in reducing impaired driving was made in the last two decades, impaired driving is once again on the rise. Repeat offenders are disproportionately involved in fatal crashes. Congress should provide funding beyond the level proposed by the Administration to enable states to address this deadly problem. The Administration recommendation of $50 million is far less than current funding levels and is inadequate. In addition to the priority areas of increasing safety belt use and reducing impaired driving, Congress needs to provide adequate funding for the Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Program. The Administration’s proposal wisely consolidates several smaller programs into Section 402, but Congress should consider providing additional resources. COMPREHENSIVE AND CURRENT DATA IS NECESSARY TO MAKE INSIGHTFUL AND SOUND PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS NHTSA’s two key traffic crash database programs, the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) provide crucial information to safety planners and vehicle design engineers. The NASS program, in particular, has been chronically under-funded. On October 17, 2002, the Alliance and various other safety groups sent a letter to NHTSA Administrator Dr. Jeffrey Runge outlining the importance of sound crash and injury data. The Alliance emphasized the need for additional funds for NASS in order to effectively evaluate the effectiveness of both behavioral and vehicular safety measures. See Attachment 2. The Administration has proposed substantial funding to upgrade state traffic records systems. Improved state record systems can help improve the quality of FARS data and assist states in establishing safety program priorities. The Alliance strongly supports upgrading state and federal crash data systems and urges Congress to provide appropriate levels of funding for them. The Alliance believes this funding is critical because future NHTSA rulemakings should be data-driven, supported by scientifically sound evidence, and demonstrate the potential for effective safety benefits without undesired side effects. The Alliance also sponsors a significant amount of safety research that is shared with the safety community. The Alliance is sponsoring a program to collect-real world crash data on the performance of depowered and advanced air bags at three sites around the U.S. (Dade County, Florida, Dallas County, Texas, and Chilton, Coosa, St. Clair, Talledega, and Shelby Counties in Alabama). This program adds valuable information about air bag performance to the extensive crash data already being collected by NHTSA through NASS. The Alliance is committed to funding this program that will run through 2005. The current Alliance commitment for the advanced air bag research is $4.5 million over 4 years. The Alliance project will observe all the NASS data collection protocols so that the Alliance funded cases can be compared with, and evaluated consistently with, other cases in the NASS dataset. In addition to adequate funding for NASS, the Alliance believes it important for NHTSA to have the resources necessary to conduct a comprehensive study of crash causation similar to the multi year “Indiana Tri-Level Study” that was completed 25 years ago. Researchers at Indiana University Bloomington’s Institute for Research in Public Safety conducted the Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents from 1972 through 1977. According to NHTSA officials, the Indiana Tri-Level study has been the only study in the last 30 years to collect in-depth, on-scene crash causation data. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relies on it today because other NHTSA data is collected from police crash reports or collected days or weeks after the crash, making it difficult to obtain causation data. Significant advancements in vehicle safety technology and design have occurred since then, making this study rather obsolete as a baseline on which to base substantial regulatory decisions. For example, the Tri-Level study, studied crashes in which nearly all tires were bias-ply, rather than the radial tires that are prevalent today. Yet NHTSA cited data from this study in support of a portion of its decision on tire pressure monitoring system that will be used in conjunction with radial tires. See Attachment 3. In addition, traffic patterns, numbers and types of vehicles in use, on-board technologies and lifestyles have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Therefore, the Alliance strongly supports the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s FY 2004 budget request for $10 million so that NHTSA can effectively update their crash causation data. An updated study would help guide and enlighten public policy aimed at reducing the frequency of traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities. This is a crucial step toward improving the quality of data available to inform sound regulatory decision-making at NHTSA. ALLIANCE MEMBERS ARE AGGRESSIVELY PURSUING SAFETY ADVANCEMENTS, COLLECTIVELY AND INDIVIDUALLY Advancing motor vehicle safety remains a significant public health challenge – one that automakers are addressing daily, both individually and collectively. The Alliance is pursuing a number of initiatives to enhance safety. We have redoubled and unified our activities to collectively address light truck-to-car collision compatibility and vehicle rollover. On February 11-12, 2003, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety sponsored an international meeting on enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility. On February 13, 2003, the Alliance and IIHS sent NHTSA Administrator Runge a letter summarizing the results of this meeting, and indicating the industry planned to develop recommendations that auto companies could take to enhance crash compatibility. These steps will enhance crash compatibility in both front-to-front and front-to-side crashes in which a light truck is the striking vehicle. The industry promptly formed two technical working groups of experts: one on front-to-side crashes and one on front-to-front crashes. These groups have been working continuously since their establishment to develop recommendations for appropriate short and longer term actions. On March 10, 2003, the Alliance and IIHS sent Administrator Runge a letter indicating that we anticipate delivering to NHTSA final short-term recommendations by late Summer or early Fall. While our work is still in progress, we remain on track to meet this commitment. For the North American market, front-to-side crashes where the striking vehicle is a light truck or SUV, represent a significant compatibility challenge. We are placing a high priority on enhancing the protection of occupants inside vehicles struck in the side. Our immediate efforts are focused on developing recommendations that will lead to enhanced head protection of occupants in struck vehicles. We expect our efforts to lead to measures that auto manufacturers can incorporate in their vehicles. Concurrently, evaluation criteria will be established to drive improvements in car side structures to reduce side impact intrusion and provide for additional absorption of crash energy. With regard to front-to-front crashes, we anticipate reaching agreement on specific recommendations to enhance alignment of front-end energy absorbing structures of vehicles. Manufacturers have been working to improve this architectural feature by modifying truck frames. The voluntary standard will govern structural alignment for the entire light-duty vehicle fleet and provide for an industry wide solution. In addition, through research to be undertaken, we expect to develop sophisticated test procedures for assessing the forces, and the distribution of these forces, which light trucks may impose on cars in frontal crashes. These procedures should lead to more comprehensive approaches to measuring and controlling these forces. We also expect to develop state-of-the-art test procedures for measuring and controlling the frontal stiffness characteristics of passenger cars and light trucks. These efforts to develop voluntary standards for crash compatibility and rollover, when combined with an industry commitment to design vehicles in accordance with them, is following a model for responsible industry action that has proven to be a very effective way to bring significant safety improvements into the fleet faster than has been historically possible through regulation. The voluntary standards process also has the flexibility to produce rapid modifications should the need arise. The best way to illustrate the benefits for such an approach is to examine the recent development of the Recommended Procedures for Evaluating Occupant Injury Risk From Deploying Side Airbags finalized in August 2000. In response to concerns about potential injury risk to out-of-position (OOP) women and children from deploying side airbags, the Alliance, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC), and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) used a joint working group to develop test procedures with injury criteria and limits to ensure that the risk of injury to OOP occupants from deploying side airbags would be very limited. After a little over a year of intensive effort, the working group developed a draft set of procedures. This draft was presented in a public meeting on June 22, 2000. Comments were collected and the finalized procedures were presented to NHTSA on August 8, 2000. Now, just 2 model years later, 60 percent of Alliance member company side airbags have been designed in accordance with the August 8, 2000 Recommended Procedures. More importantly, the field performance of side air bags remains positive. These Procedures and public commitment were also used by Transport Canada as the basis for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between automobile manufacturers and the Canadian government. Another Alliance initiative is assessing opportunities which may further reduce the frequency and consequences of rollover. The Alliance agrees that rollovers represent a significant safety challenge that warrants attention and action. In releasing the preliminary statistics for 2002, NHTSA stated that, “Fatalities in rollover crashes involving sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks accounted for 53 percent of the increase in traffic deaths.” NHTSA did not state, however, that an increase in passenger car rollover fatalities accounted for 25 percent of the increase in traffic fatalities. Indeed, rollover fatalities occurring with passenger cars, SUVs, and pickups all contributed roughly equally to the increase observed. In fact, the increase in number of passenger car rollover fatalities was nearly 8 times higher than might otherwise had been forecasted from the growth in the number of registered passenger cars in 2002, over 2001. Consequently, Alliance efforts to reduce the frequency and consequences of rollover involves passenger cars as well as SUVs, vans, and pickup trucks. Our efforts include developing a handling test procedure or recommended practice that will focus on an assessment of the performance of electronic stability control systems and other advanced handling enhancement devices. A typical rollover is one in which the driver becomes inattentive or distracted, loses control of the vehicle, and then strikes something that trips the vehicle causing it to roll. Electronic stability control systems are designed to help drivers to keep out of trouble in the first place. However, should a rollover occur, the Alliance is assessing opportunities to enhance rollover occupant protection. We are assessing the current state of knowledge on roof/pillar deformation during rollover crashes, and will make recommendations as to whether new performance criteria and/or test procedures would further reduce the risk of injury in vehicle rollover crashes. We are also working to determine the feasibility of developing test procedures to assess the performance of countermeasures designed to further reduce the risk of occupant ejection in rollover crashes. THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES CAN NOT BE FULLY REALIZED UNTIL VEHICLE OCCUPANTS ARE PROPERLY RESTRAINED AND IMPAIRED DRIVERS ARE OFF THE ROAD Motor vehicle safety is a shared responsibility among government, consumers and vehicle manufacturers. Auto manufacturers are more committed than ever to developing advanced safety technologies to reduce fatalities and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes. But as a nation, we will never fully realize the potential benefits of vehicle safety technologies until we get vehicle occupants properly restrained and impaired drivers off the road. In this regard, Congress has a unique role to play by: · Enacting incentives for states that pass primary enforcement safety belt laws and ensuring high visibility enforcement of these laws by providing adequate funding for paid advertising and Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Programs; · Providing funding beyond the level proposed to address the deadly problem of impaired driving; and · Authorizing adequate funding for a modern, comprehensive study of crash causation and to update state and federal crash data systems. ### ATTACHMENT 1 "VOLUNTARILY INSTALLED SAFETY DEVICES" A partial list of voluntarily installed advanced safety devices (w/o or prior to regulation) Crash Avoidance Advances Tire/suspension optimization Automatic brake assist Electronic stability controls to help drivers maintain vehicle control in emergency maneuvers Anti-lock brakes Traction control Obstacle warning indicators Active body control Intelligent cruise control Convenience controls on steering wheel to minimize driver distraction Automatic obstacle detection for sliding doors on minivans Head-up displays Child-proof door locks Automatic speed-sensitive door locks Vision Automatic dimming inside mirrors to reduce headlamp glare Heated exterior mirrors for quick deicing Rear defrost systems Headlamp wiper/washers Automatic-on headlamps Automatic-on headlamps when wipers are used Infinitely variable wiper (only 2 req’d by regulation) Night vision enhancements Advance lighting systems Right side mirrors Crashworthiness Advances Side air bags for chest protection Side air bags for head protection that reduce ejection Rollover triggered side/curtain air bags Advanced air bags (e.g. dual stage inflators) several years in advance of regulatory requirements Safety belt pre-tensioners Rear center seat lap/shoulder belts Load-limiting safety belts to reduce chest injuries Safety belt pre-tensioners Improved belt warning indicators Rear seat head restraints Integrated child seats Anti-whiplash seats Breakaway mirrors for pedestrian protection Post Crash Automatic notification to emergency providers during air bag deployment ATTACHMENT 2 October 17, 2002 The Honorable Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D. Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 RE: National Automotive Sampling System: Increased Funding Dear Dr. Runge: Sound crash and injury data are critical components needed for advanced vehicle safety design and for both initiating and evaluating countermeasures for improving highway safety. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System provides comprehensive data on people dying in motor vehicle crashes throughout the United States. These data have enjoyed widespread use in the evaluation of many motor vehicle safety countermeasures and their effectiveness in reducing motor vehicle death. NHTSA’s National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS/CDS) is an essential resource that provides the agency, researchers, vehicle manufacturers -- indeed the entire safety community -- with a detailed crash and injury causation database suitable for identifying traffic safety issues, establishing priorities, assisting in the design of future countermeasures and for evaluating existing countermeasures. The NASS/CDS provides in-depth crash investigations of a representative sample of police-reported tow-away crashes throughout the United States, so data can be weighted to provide a nationwide estimate of crashes of all severities according to the severity of injuries. Furthermore, researchers can examine the detailed crash investigations in depth to learn about crash characteristics and injury causation focusing on subsets of the data. For example, such investigations have proven to be of critical importance in the understanding of airbag performance – the conditions under which airbags save lives, but also when they contribute to occupant injury. The application of sound science to improve traffic safety requires that real world data or field data be used wherever possible. The continuation of vehicle and highway safety improvements requires a solid factual basis. However, the essence of such investigations is timeliness. As the recent experience with frontal airbags has taught us, we need to understand as soon as possible how new vehicle technologies, such as airbags, are performing in the real world. And with new technologies being introduced at such a fast pace, it is now more important than ever to understand how these technologies are performing in the real world. The agency’s NASS/CDS database is one of the most comprehensive databases in the world to look in depth at the causes of motor vehicle injury. However, we are concerned that the budget for NASS has not kept pace with either the agency’s informational needs or inflation. The NASS program has been constrained by either flat or reduced funding at a time when technological developments (e.g., advanced frontal and side air bags, telematics) and occupant behavior (from increased seat belt use to booster seat installations) are changing. We believe it is important to ensure that NHTSA continues to have the ability to evaluate actual field performance on a national basis. Therefore, NASS must have the resources necessary to collect high-quality, real-world data by conducting investigations at the full complement of sites that will provide statistically valid, nationally representative data on a timely basis. The NASS reorganization of the mid 1980’s called for 36 Primary Sampling Units. Currently, NASS has the resources to conduct investigations at only 24 sites. The effectiveness of NASS has also been subject to inflationary increases in operating costs of about 3-5 percent per year, which have been offset by reducing field staff. This has resulted in fewer cases reported from the 24 sites. From the original projections of 7000 cases annually, NASS has been reduced to providing only about 4500 cases annually across the spectrum of crash types and severities. The result is that there are often too few cases of serious injury to make an informed decision about the sources and mechanisms of injury in motor vehicle crashes (for example, in side impacts, or in crashes involving children) without having to include data from many years of data collection. This blunts our ability to look at current issues in real time. We believe NASS should be funded at a level that will restore NASS to its design scope to ensure critical “real-world” data can be collected at a sufficient number of sites to produce the statistically valid, nationally representative sample originally intended. Initially, the NASS design called for 50 active sites. Thus, we believe it is critical that the proposed NHTSA fiscal year 2004 budget include a request to fully fund NASS, so that our ability to evaluate the effectiveness of both behavioral and vehicular safety measures is enhanced. We stand ready to support you in this most important endeavor. Sincerely, Josephine S. CooperPresident and CEOAlliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. Phil HaseltinePresidentAutomotive Coalition for Traffic Safety Timothy C. MacCarthyPresident and CEOAssociation of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. Yvonne McBridePresident Governors Highway Safety Association Heather Paul Executive Director National Safe Kids Susan G. Pikrallidas Vice President of Public Affairs AAA Charles A. Hurley Transportation Safety Group National Safety Council Susan FergusonSenior Vice President, ResearchInsurance Institute for Highway Safety ATTACHMENT 3