18042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In 2000, NHTSA clarified that States are 

permitted to ‘‘cluster sample,’’ i.e., group 

observation sites according to geographic areas to 

minimize travel time and distance required to 

conduct the observations. 

2 49 CFR 1.50 (delegation of authority to 

Administrator of National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration). 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

Part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9U, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 18, 2010, and 

effective September 15, 2010 is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated 

as surface areas. 

* * * * * 

AWP HI E2 Kahului, HI [New] 

Kahului Airport, HI 

(Lat. 20°53′55′′ N., long. 156°25′50′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface within a 5-mile radius of the Kahului 

Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective 

during the specific dates and times 

established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Airport/Facility Directory, Pacific Chart 

Supplement. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 

21, 2011. 

Christine Mellon, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7601 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

23 CFR Part 1340 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0002] 

RIN 2127–AK41 

Uniform Criteria for State 

Observational Surveys of Seat Belt 

Use 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This Final Rule amends the 

regulation establishing uniform criteria 

for designing and conducting State seat 

belt use observational surveys and the 

procedures for obtaining NHTSA 

approval of survey designs, and 

provides a new form for reporting seat 

belt use rates to NHTSA. Since the 

adoption of the Uniform Criteria in 

1998, NHTSA and the States have 

accumulated substantial experience in 

the design and implementation of seat 

belt use surveys. This experience has 

provided insight into factors that could 

affect survey accuracy and reliability. In 

addition, technological improvements 

in road inventories have made it 

possible to select observation sites that 

are more representative of the road 

segments in the State in a more cost 

effective manner. For these reasons, 

NHTSA is revising the Uniform Criteria 

so that future surveys will give States 

more accurate data to guide their 

occupant protection programs. 

DATES: This Final Rule becomes 

effective on May 2, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

program issues: Mr. Jack Oates, Chief, 

Program Implementation, Regional 

Operations and Program Delivery, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., NTI–200, Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone number: 202–366– 

2730; E-mail: Jack.Oates@dot.gov. 

For statistical issues: Dr. Chou-Lin 

Chen, Chief, Mathematical Analysis 

Division, National Center for Statistics 

and Analysis, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., NVS–421, Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone number: 202–366– 

1048; E-mail: Chou-Lin.Chen@dot.gov. 

For legal issues: Ms. Jin Kim, 

Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., NCC–113, Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone number: 202–366– 

1834; E-mail: Jin.Kim@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

III. Comments 

A. In General 

B. General Cost 

C. Definitions 

D. Selection of Observation Sites 

E. Assignment of Observation Times 

F. Observation Procedures 

G. Quality Control 

H. Computation of Estimates 

I. Submission and Approval of Seat Belt 

Survey Design 

J. Re-Selection of Observation Sites 

K. Annual Reporting Requirements 

IV. Statutory Basis for This Action 

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. National Environmental Policy Act 

H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribes) 

I. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

J. Privacy Act 

K. Congressional Review of Agency 

Rulemaking 

I. Background 

Section 1403 of the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA– 

21) (Pub. L. 105–178) authorized a seat 

belt incentive grant program that 

awarded grant funds to States based on 

a State’s seat belt use rate. On 

September 1, 1998, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) published as an interim final 

rule the criteria to ensure accurate and 

representative measurements of a State’s 

seat belt use rate, known as the Uniform 

Criteria for State Observational Surveys 

of Seat Belt Use (the Uniform Criteria). 

See 63 FR 46389. On March 14, 2000, 

NHTSA published a Final Rule, 

adopting the Uniform Criteria with one 

clarifying change.1 See 65 FR 13679. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. 

L. 109–59), enacted on August 10, 2005, 

did not reauthorize the seat belt 

incentive grant program. However, 

SAFETEA–LU established new 

administrative requirements relating to 

a State’s qualification for a highway 

safety grant under 23 U.S.C. 402. One 

such requirement is that the State must 

provide satisfactory assurances that it 

will conduct an annual Statewide seat 

belt use survey in accordance with the 

criteria for State seat belt use rate 

measurement established by the 

Secretary of Transportation.2 In August 

2005, NHTSA notified the States and 

Territories that the Statewide surveys 

conducted in accordance with the 

Uniform Criteria for State Observational 

Surveys of Seat Belt Use, as published 

at 23 CFR part 1340, would satisfy the 

administrative requirements of Section 

402. In addition, the implementing 

guidelines for the safety belt 

performance grant program under 

23 U.S.C. 406 provide that seat belt use 

surveys conducted in accordance with 

the Uniform Criteria serve as the basis 

for an award under the seat belt 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18043 

performance provisions of that grant 

program. 

Since the adoption of the Uniform 

Criteria in 1998, NHTSA and the States 

have accumulated substantial 

experience in the design and 

implementation of seat belt use surveys. 

This experience has provided insight 

into factors that could affect survey 

accuracy and reliability. In addition, 

technological improvements in road 

inventories have made it possible to 

select observation sites that are more 

representative of the road segments in 

the State in a more cost effective 

manner. For these reasons, NHTSA 

proposed to revise the Uniform Criteria 

so that future surveys would give States 

more accurate data to guide their 

occupant protection programs. 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On January 28, 2010, NHTSA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the 

Uniform Criteria. See 75 FR 4509. 

NHTSA proposed several key changes to 

the 1998 Uniform Criteria. In particular, 

the agency proposed to revise the 

geographic coverage of the sampling 

frame from the population-based 

exclusion criterion to a fatality-based 

exclusion criterion and to identify the 

road types that are required to be 

included in a State’s sampling frame. 

The proposal also changed the precision 

requirement from a five percent relative 

error to a 2.5 percentage point standard 

error. In addition, the agency proposed 

quality control procedures, such as 

quality control monitors, training and 

statistical review, to help ensure 

accuracy and consistency across all 

State surveys. Finally, the agency 

proposed submission of additional 

information from the survey results as 

part of a State’s annual certification, 

including the data source of the 

sampling frame, exclusions applied to 

the sampling frame, procedures for 

collecting additional data to reduce the 

nonresponse rates, explanation of any 

imputation methods, procedures to 

adjust the sampling weight, and 

procedures to be followed if the 

standard error is exceeded. 

III. Comments 

By the close of the comment period 

on March 29, 2010, the agency received 

submissions from 27 commenters in 

response to the NPRM. Commenters 

included the following State agencies: 

California Office of Traffic Safety 

(CA OTS), Colorado Department of 

Transportation (CO DOT), Idaho 

Transportation Department (ID DOT), 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

(IL DOT), Iowa Governor’s Traffic Safety 

Bureau—Department of Public Safety 

(IA TSB), Kansas Department of 

Transportation (KS DOT), Louisiana 

Highway Safety Commission— 

Department of Public Safety and 

Corrections (LA HSC), Maine Bureau of 

Highway Safety (ME DPSC), Missouri 

Highway Safety Division—Department 

of Transportation (MO DOT), Nevada 

Department of Public Safety (prepared 

by University of Nevada—Las Vegas) 

(NV DPS), New Hampshire Highway 

Safety Agency (NH HSA), New York 

Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee— 

Department of Motor Vehicles (NY 

TSC), North Dakota Department of 

Transportation (ND DOT), Oregon 

Department of Transportation (OR 

DOT), Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (PA DOT), Texas 

Department of Transportation (TX 

DOT), Washington Traffic Safety 

Commission (WA TSC), West Virginia 

Governor’s Highway Safety Program 

(WV HSP), Wisconsin Division of State 

Patrol, Bureau of Transportation 

Safety—Department of Transportation 

(WI State Patrol), Wyoming Highway 

Safety Program—Department of 

Transportation (WY HSP). Additional 

commenters included two 

associations—Governor’s Highway 

Safety Association (GHSA) and 

International Association of Chiefs of 

Police (IACP); three professors and 

staff—Mississippi State University (MS 

State Univ.), New Jersey Institute of 

Technology (NJIT) and Old Dominion 

University (ODU); one consultant to a 

State—Peters and Associates Engineers 

Inc. (Peters & Assoc.); and one 

interested member of the public. 

A. In General 

Several commenters expressed 

general support for revising the criteria. 

These commenters stated that the 

changes to the protocol are appropriate 

and timely and will enhance the 

accuracy and consistency of seat belt 

use surveys. (E.g., GHSA at 1; WI State 

Patrol at 1; WA TSC at 1; TX DOT at 1; 

CA OTS at 1. See also NV DPS at 9; 

ODU at 1.) In addition to expressing 

general support for revising the criteria, 

these commenters also had more 

specific comments regarding different 

aspects of the proposal. The agency 

addresses these comments below under 

the appropriate heading. 

Some commenters expressed general 

concern with revising the Uniform 

Criteria. One commenter suggested 

reducing the frequency of State 

observational surveys, and one 

commenter suggested expanding the 

National Occupant Protection Use 

Survey (NOPUS) to each State instead of 

requiring States to conduct independent 

surveys. (WI State Patrol at 1; CO DOT 

at 1.) We decline to adopt these 

commenters’ suggestions as Section 402 

requires each State to provide 

assurances that it will conduct annual 

Statewide seat belt use surveys in 

accordance with the Uniform Criteria to 

ensure that the measurements are 

accurate and representative. 

One commenter believed that 

changing the survey criteria at the end 

of the authorization was not cost 

effective unless a seat belt incentive 

program formed a part of the future 

authorization. (LA HSC at 1.) In the 

NPRM, we stated that the purpose of 

revising the criteria was to improve the 

accuracy and reliability of surveys 

conducted by States. We believe it is 

necessary to do so now based on our 

experience reviewing State survey 

results. Regardless of whether a seat belt 

incentive program is part of a future 

authorization, improved data will 

enable States to guide their highway 

safety program evaluation and program 

management more effectively now. 

The NH HSA stated that the most 

significant effect of the proposed change 

would be damage to trend information. 

(NH HSA 1.) The commenter further 

stated that policy analysis based on 

previous methodology would no longer 

be relevant as a tool to measure seat belt 

usage. Id. For some States, seat belt use 

rate estimates obtained from a survey 

meeting the new criteria may depart 

from the trend of survey outcomes in 

recent years. However, any departure 

from the trend will reflect the fact that 

the data will be more accurate and more 

reliable. Specifically, observation sites 

will be drawn from a more up-to-date 

and comprehensive road inventory. The 

seat belt survey will also be less biased 

toward urban areas due to the shift from 

a population-based exclusion to a 

fatality-based exclusion. (See discussion 

in Section III.D.1 below.) Finally, the 

survey will have greater precision due 

to the shift from a five percent relative 

error to a 2.5 percentage point standard 

error. (See discuss in Section III.D.5 

below.) NHTSA believes that the need 

for more accurate and reliable data 

outweighs concerns about departure 

from trends reflected under the 1998 

Uniform Criteria. 

The CO DOT stated that the proposal 

did not address the large gap in data 

through lack of nighttime observations. 

(CO DOT at 1.) As we stated in the 

NPRM, although nighttime observations 

of seat belt use may provide States with 

useful data, the agency believes that 

several factors weigh against extending 

the sampling requirements. First, 

extending the sampling requirement to 

nighttime observations would reduce 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

3The WA TSC stated that the revised criteria will 

substantially increase its costs, up to $100,000 the 

first year. (WA TSC at 1, 4.) NHTSA does not 

believe that many, if any, States will incur costs of 

$100,000 to redesign the survey. Based on our 

estimate, we expect that many States will spend 

tens of thousands of dollars to redesign the survey. 

The CA OTS stated that it expected increased costs 

due to a 50 percent increase in the number of 

survey sites. (CA OTS at 1. See also MO DOT at 

1.) It is not clear how CA OTS determined that it 

would need a 50 percent increase in the number of 

observation sites under the new criteria. Because 

we have revised the survey criteria in order to 

provide States with design flexibility, we believe 

that CA OTS would not need a 50 percent increase 

in the number of observation sites and suggest 

California and other States consult its statistician 

for survey design alternatives. (See discussion in 

Section III.D.1 below.) 

the value, for comparison purposes, of 

survey results from previous years’ data. 

States and other interested parties use 

this information to determine the 

impact of various seat belt use programs 

and activities. In addition, seat belt use 

is difficult to reliably observe in the 

dark, even in the most well-lit areas. 

Nighttime observations are also less safe 

for data collectors than daytime 

observations because data collectors are 

less conspicuous and exposed to an 

increased presence of impaired drivers. 

For these reasons, the agency declines to 

change the rule in response to this 

comment. 

The LA HSC suggested that traffic 

cameras positioned in predetermined 

locations will provide higher data 

quality at a fraction of the costs of 

manual collection and will reduce 

exposure of data collectors to highway 

hazards. (LA HSC at 1.) The Uniform 

Criteria do not prohibit States from 

using traffic cameras to conduct seat 

belt use observations. However, States 

must still comply with the other 

provisions of the Uniform Criteria, such 

as observation procedures (§ 1340.7) and 

quality control (§ 1340.8). With this 

clarification, no change is made to the 

rule. 

The OR DOT suggested that States 

should be allowed to continue using 

their current survey methodology but 

adjust sampling to re-weight observation 

sites using the proposed fatality-based 

criterion. (OR DOT at 2.) Much of the 

survey methodology in the revised 

criteria is a clarification of the 1998 

Uniform Criteria. The major change for 

most States will be in the sampling 

frame—changing from a populationbased exclusion of counties to a fatalitybased exclusion of counties and an 

updated road inventory. Because of this 

change, we expect that the large 

majority of States will have to re-select 

a probability sample of observation 

sites. However, some States already may 

be in close compliance with the revised 

criteria and may not need to make 

significant changes to their current 

survey design. 

NHTSA received four comments 

requesting additional guidance. The 

IACP and WV HSP requested greater 

guidance and technical assistance on 

conducting surveys, including common 

data collection procedures and 

approaches for calculation of sampling 

error estimates. (IACP at 1; WV HSP at 

2.) The OR DOT and NV DPS requested 

a sample of an acceptable survey design 

for States. (OR DOT at 2; NV DPS at 7.) 

The agency intends to provide technical 

assistance, such as providing county-bycounty breakdowns of passenger motor 

vehicle occupant fatalities and an 

inventory of roads. In addition, NHTSA 

is developing a sample of an acceptable 

survey design to assist the States’ 

redesign efforts. This sample design will 

provide general guidance for designing 

a seat belt use survey, including the 

calculation of survey standard error. 

However, the Final Rule still requires 

States to rely on their own statistician 

to design, conduct and analyze the data. 

As we discuss in Section III.G below, 

the purpose of requiring statistician 

involvement is to ensure that both the 

survey design and the annual reporting 

of seat belt use rates are carried out in 

a methodologically-sound manner. No 

change to the Final Rule is made in 

response to these comments. 

Two commenters mentioned a ‘‘selfreport survey’’ and a ‘‘public opinion 

survey’’ as further increasing costs to the 

States. (IACP at 2; CO DOT at 1.) We 

believe the commenters are referring to 

the annual public opinion survey that 

States voluntarily agreed to conduct and 

report on as part of their core highway 

safety program performance measures. 

We note that the public opinion survey 

is not mandatory and not related to the 

seat belt survey criteria. Therefore, we 

do not address these comments here. 

The OR DOT stated that the revised 

criteria require new performance 

measures. (OR DOT at 2.) The revised 

criteria do not impose a performance 

measure—States are not required to 

meet a specific seat belt use rate. Rather 

States are required to conduct surveys 

that are consistent with the revised 

criteria so that seat belt use rate 

estimates are more accurate and reliable. 

The agency received more specific 

comments regarding different aspects of 

the proposal, including requests for 

clarification and recommendations to 

change the proposal. The agency 

addresses these comments below under 

the appropriate heading. 

B. General Cost 

One interested member of the public 

stated that conducting such surveys is a 

waste of taxpayer’s money. (Jean Public 

at 1.) As discussed in Section III.A. 

above, States are required by statute to 

provide assurances that it will conduct 

annual Statewide seat belt use surveys 

in accordance with the Uniform Criteria 

to ensure that the measurements are 

accurate and representative. See 23 

U.S.C. 402. 

A number of commenters expressed 

general concerns regarding increased 

costs as a result of the revised Uniform 

Criteria, especially related to the 

number of observation sites, and the 

requirements for quality control 

monitoring and additional observations 

as a result of nonresponse rates. (WA 

TSC at 4; OR DOT at 2; IACP at 2; ID 

DOT at 1; WY HSP at 1; LA HSC at 1; 

NJIT at 3; CO DOT at 1; GHSA at 1; ODU 

at 1–2; MO DOT at 1; CA OTS at 1.) 

Some of these commenters stated that 

the additional costs would divert 

resources away from other programs. 

(CO DOT at 1; LA HSC at 1; GHSA at 

1; ID DOT at 1.) NHTSA understands 

that the new criteria may impose 

additional costs for some States, 

especially States that will need to 

conduct observations in more counties 

and at more observation sites. Based on 

our review of the changes required 

under the new criteria and States’ 

current seat belt use surveys approved 

under the 1998 Uniform Criteria, we do 

not believe that this will significantly 

increase costs for most States.3

However, the changes to the Uniform 

Criteria will yield better data, and this 

will improve the States’ identification of 

low seat belt use problem areas and 

permit more effective targeting of 

countermeasures to increase seat belt 

use. Accordingly, States will be able to 

target their life-saving programs more 

effectively, resulting in fewer fatalities. 

For these reasons, we believe that the 

improved quality and reliability of the 

survey outweighs the additional costs. 

Several commenters suggested that 

NHTSA provide additional funding to 

assist States or that NHTSA redesign 56 

surveys and analyze the data from those 

surveys. (ODU at 1–2; MO DOT at 2; 

WA TSC at 2, 4.) Although NHTSA 

intends to provide technical assistance 

to States, including a road inventory 

and a fatality distribution, NHTSA does 

not have the resources to provide States 

with additional funds, and NHTSA does 

not have the resources to redesign all 56 

surveys and analyze the data. Currently, 

all States receive NHTSA grant funds, 

such as Section 402 program funds (23 

U.S.C. 402), which may be used to 

design and conduct surveys and analyze 

data. States may also use other grant 

funds, such as Section 406 program 

funds (23 U.S.C. 406), to redesign and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18045 

conduct surveys. Consequently, NHTSA 

declines to adopt these commenters’ 

suggestion. 

C. Definitions (§ 1340.3) 

GHSA asked for an explanation of the 

source of roadway-related definitions. 

(GHSA at 1.) The agency relied on the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s TIGER/Line files, 

Second Edition (2006) for the definition 

of most of the roadway-related terms. 

Specifically, the definition for access 

ramp, cul-de-sac, vehicular trail, service 

drive, and traffic circle comes from the 

TIGER/Line files. The TIGER/Line files 

are typically used in conjunction with 

geographic information system (GIS), or 

similar, software. Because the database 

of road segments that NHTSA will 

provide to States will be the GIS 

population of roads, we relied on the 

definitions used in the TIGER/Line files. 

The other two terms (nonpublic road 

and unnamed road) are not defined in 

the TIGER/Line files, but are defined to 

reflect a common understanding of 

these terms. 

The TX DOT asked whether the 

definition of passenger motor vehicle 

included limousines and other for-hire 

vehicles, whether a pickup truck 

included a wrecker tow vehicle, a 

flatbed 3 or 4 ton truck or a utility 

service truck, and whether a van 

included any size or type a van. (TX 

DOT at 3.) In the NPRM, passenger 

motor vehicle was defined as ‘‘a 

passenger car, a pickup truck, van, 

minivan or sport utility vehicle.’’ 

Generally, most passenger cars, pickup 

trucks, vans, minivans and sport utility 

vehicles (SUVs) are motor vehicles with 

a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 

less than 10,000 pounds (lbs). In the 

proposal, NHTSA intended those 

vehicles with a GVWR of under 10,000 

lbs to be included in the seat belt use 

survey. To clarify this point and in 

response to this comment, we amended 

the definition of ‘‘passenger motor 

vehicle’’ to read as follows: ‘‘A motor 

vehicle with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of less than 10,000 pounds, 

including a passenger car, pickup truck, 

van, minivan or sport utility vehicle.’’ 

Accordingly, those vehicles, including 

limousines, for-hire vehicles, wrecker 

tow vehicles, flatbed 3 or 4 ton trucks, 

utility service trucks and vans that are 

under 10,000 lbs GVWR must be 

included in the seat belt use survey. 

D. Selection of Observation Sites 

(§ 1340.5) 

1. Sampling Frame: Exclusion 

The agency received many comments 

regarding the sampling frame 

requirements. It appears that most of 

these comments reflect a 

misunderstanding of the sampling frame 

requirements. Much of this 

misunderstanding appears to stem from 

the fatality-based exclusion at the 

county level, as specified in § 1340.5(a). 

(E.g., ID DOT at 1; Peters & Assoc. at 1– 

2; IA TSB at 1; MS State Univ. at 1; ND 

Dot at 1; NV DPS at 5; OR DOT at 1; PA 

DOT at 1; TX DOT at 1; WA TSC at 4– 

5; WV HSP at 1–2; WY HSP at 1; NH 

HSA at 1.) Many commenters 

mistakenly referred to a ‘‘fatality-based 

survey’’ or a ‘‘fatality-based criterion’’. 

(E.g., Peters & Assoc. at 1–2; GHSA at 

2; IA TSB at 1; NV DPS at 5.) For 

example, one commenter stated that the 

switch from a population-based to a 

fatality-based seat belt survey is flawed 

and will produce far less representative 

results of actual safety belt use for a 

number of reasons: (1) The location of 

fatalities is not necessarily 

representative of where people live, 

work and drive; (2) fatal crashes are not 

representative of where injury crashes 

occur and not representative of where 

property damage crashes occur; and (3) 

a fatality-based survey is not 

representative of exposure or 

population, which are two critical 

components of a measurement of seat 

belt use. (IA TSB at 1.) Some 

commenters asked how site selection 

can be based on both a fatality and 

county-by-county basis. (E.g., OR DOT 

at 1; Peters & Assoc. at 1.) We believe 

that these comments capture the general 

misunderstanding among commenters 

regarding the fatality-based exclusion. 

As a general matter, in a survey that 

covers a large geographic area, such as 

a Statewide seat belt use survey, it may 

be costly to send data collectors to a 

random sample of observation sites 

across the large geographic area. To 

reduce travel costs and time of 

collection, the large geographic area is 

divided into subareas, or primary 

sampling units, and a sample of these 

primary sampling units is selected. Data 

are then collected within these primary 

sampling units. For Statewide seat belt 

use surveys, the large geographic area is 

the State itself, and the primary 

sampling units are counties (or county 

equivalents). Because States believed 

that the costs were too great to send data 

collectors to a randomly selected sample 

of observation sites across the State, in 

the 1998 Uniform Criteria, NHTSA 

allowed the State to select a probabilitybased sample of its counties and then to 

select observation sites within the 

selected counties in which to count seat 

belt use observations. The selection of 

counties is called the first stage of the 

sample. A number of States had many 

small counties with little population 

and road traffic. Thus, the 1998 Uniform 

Criteria allowed States to exclude the 

smallest counties with a cumulative 15 

percent of the population from the first 

stage sampling frame, i.e., a populationbased exclusion. 

Over time, NHTSA became aware that 

some small counties had measurable 

road traffic because they contained 

major roads. The traffic on these roads 

resulted in a disproportionate share of 

the motor vehicle related fatalities 

compared to the population of the 

county. This circumstance was the basis 

for NHTSA’s proposal to change the 

exclusion criteria in the revised criteria 

from a population-based exclusion to a 

fatality-based exclusion in the first stage 

sampling frame. With this change, 

counties that have few fatalities may be 

excluded from the seat belt survey. We 

note, however, States are not required to 

exclude counties from the sampling 

frame, and may include and sample 

randomly from all counties. (See KS 

DOT at 1.) Accordingly, under the new 

criteria, the State may identify any set 

of counties that collectively account for 

15 percent of the State’s passenger 

motor vehicle occupant fatalities, and 

that set of counties may be excluded 

from the first stage sampling frame. 

The main purpose for allowing any 

exclusion, whether fatality-based or 

population-based, is to control 

operational costs. As explained above, 

the purpose of the exclusion is to help 

States reduce travel costs and time of 

collection by excluding areas where 

little data are likely to be collected. The 

fatality-based exclusion does not 

directly affect the selection of the actual 

observation sites within eligible 

counties. In other words, neither the 

number of fatalities in a county nor the 

specific locations where those fatalities 

occurred should serve as the basis for 

selecting the observation sites. (See LA 

HSC at 2.) 

Some commenters stated that shifting 

from a sampling frame of counties 

accounting for at least 85 percent of the 

Statewide population to one that 

includes at least 85 percent of the 

passenger vehicle occupant fatalities 

seems to replace a potentially biased 

sampling frame with one that is almost 

certainly biased. (E.g., WA TSC at 1–2; 

GHSA at 1–2. See also IACP at 2; NV 

DPS at 2, 4; ODU at 2; NJIT at 1–2.) 

NHTSA believes that, by permitting the 

systematic exclusion of the State’s most 

sparsely populated counties from the 

sampling frame, the 1998 Uniform 

Criteria created an urban bias. While we 

are not eliminating the urban bias, we 

believe we are reducing it in many 

States by replacing the population-based 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18046 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

exclusion with the fatality-based 

exclusion. For some States, the change 

to a fatality-based exclusion may not 

have any impact on the sampling frame. 

For example, under a population-based 

exclusion, States systematically set 

aside sparsely populated counties from 

the sampling frame. Therefore, States 

end up with more urban areas in the 

first stage sampling frame. A fatalitybased exclusion is less urban-biased 

with respect to seat belt use because 

States are not systematically eliminating 

all low population areas, but are 

required to include those low 

population counties which have enough 

fatalities to be included in the sampling 

frame. It is not uncommon in many 

States for a sparsely populated county to 

have high traffic volume, sometimes 

resulting in relatively frequent crashes 

and deaths. A population-based 

exclusion may eliminate that county 

while a fatality-based exclusion may 

keep that county in the sampling frame. 

Other variables, such as crash or 

fatality rates, registered vehicles, vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT), could be used as 

the basis for excluding counties from 

the sampling frame. (See MS State Univ. 

at 1.) NHTSA decided to use passenger 

vehicle occupant fatalities in motor 

vehicle crashes as the measure because 

these other measures are similar to 

population and would result in a similar 

urban bias. For example, vehicle 

registrations likely are closely correlated 

with population so that a registrationbased exclusion probably would 

produce the same urban bias as the 

current population-based exclusion. On 

the other hand, VMT or VMT-based 

crash or fatality rates could be used to 

exclude counties in a way that would 

avoid an urban bias. However, many 

States do not have accurate counts of 

VMT for all counties. For this reason, 

NHTSA believes that allowing fatalitybased exclusion of counties is the 

preferred method of balancing survey 

efficiency and cost considerations while 

continuing to ensure a representative 

sample. Therefore, no change is made in 

response to these comments. 

One commenter stated that it is likely 

that oversampling and overweighting 

the observations in rural counties with 

high fatality rates and low belt use rates 

will erroneously depress the State’s seat 

belt use rate in an attempt to focus 

attention on problem areas. (WA TSC at 

2.) The fatality-based exclusion is not an 

attempt to focus on problem areas. 

Rather, as discussed above, its intent is 

to help reduce the current urban bias 

and ensure that seat belt use rate 

estimates are more representative. We 

note that oversampling need not lead to 

overweighting if the weight is calculated 

properly. In our opinion, properly 

weighted observations will not 

introduce error into the Statewide seat 

belt use rate estimate. 

Commenters expressed concern that 

the fatality-based exclusion would 

result in additional counties being 

included in the sampling frame, 

especially in more rural areas. (NJIT at 

1; WA TSC at 2; WY HSP at 1; MO DOT 

at 1; ND DOT at 1; GHSA at 2.) For 

example, the MO DOT stated that the 

‘‘fatality based sampling frame’’ will 

result in 62 counties and 1,426 

observation sites being included in the 

sampling frame when the State’s current 

sampling frame includes 20 counties 

and 460 observation sites. (MO DOT at 

1. See also CA OTS at 1.) We note that 

when more counties are in a sampling 

frame, more counties are eligible for 

selection, but this does not necessarily 

mean that more counties will be 

selected. Although it is not clear how 

the MO DOT estimated the number of 

counties and observation sites, we 

believe that the estimate may be a result 

of a misunderstanding of the fatalitybased exclusion as discussed above, and 

we do not expect that Missouri or any 

State would be required to more than 

triple the number of observation sites at 

which it collects data. Some States will 

need to increase the number of counties 

included in their county sampling 

frame. This may result in an increase in 

the number of counties selected in the 

first stage of their sample, which, in 

turn, may impose additional costs for 

these States. However, we do not 

believe it would approach the 

magnitude described by MO DOT. 

Based on our review of current seat belt 

survey designs, we do not believe that 

change to a fatality-based exclusion will 

significantly increase costs in most 

States. Because these new Uniform 

Criteria were designed to give States 

flexibility in designing seat belt use 

surveys, States should work with their 

survey statisticians to develop a design 

that best meets their needs and 

circumstances. 

Some commenters stated that the shift 

to a fatality-based exclusion may impact 

low population States, where fewer 

motor vehicle fatalities occur, and 

suggested that five years of fatality data 

should be averaged. (ND DOT at 1; ME 

DPSC at 1; WY HSP at 1; NH HSA at 1.) 

We recognize that in small rural States, 

there can be sharp annual fluctuations 

in the numbers and distribution of 

fatalities. Accordingly, after careful 

consideration, we have decided to 

amend the rule to allow States the 

option to average three, four or five 

years of FARS data to determine 

passenger vehicle occupant fatalities. 

We believe that allowing States this 

flexibility will reduce the potentially 

disproportionate impact of any single 

multi-fatality crash in any given year. 

Accordingly, we have amended the rule 

in response to these comments. 

Several States asked for clarification 

about the kinds of fatalities that are to 

be counted for the fatality-based 

exclusion. Two commenters asked for 

clarification about which occupants and 

which vehicles counted in the fatalitybased exclusion. (OR DOT at 1; WV HSP 

at 1.) Two commenters suggested that 

the sampling frame should be limited to 

unrestrained fatalities. (NY TSC at 1–2; 

PA DOT at 1.) To clarify, the county-bycounty fatality counts that will be used 

to identify counties that may be 

excluded from the sampling frame will 

be based on passenger motor vehicle 

occupant fatalities only (and not on 

commercial vehicle occupant, 

motorcycle, bicycle or pedestrian 

fatalities) that occur in each county on 

roads to which the public has the right 

of vehicular access. We recognize that 

counts of unrestrained fatalities could 

be used as the basis for determining 

which counties may be excluded from 

the sampling frame. However, especially 

in sparsely populated States with 

relatively low fatality totals, the counts 

of unrestrained fatalities even when 

using three, four or five year totals may 

produce unstable distributions. For 

consistency, NHTSA believes that all 

States should use counts of all 

passenger motor vehicle fatalities to 

determine which counties may be 

excluded from the sampling frame. As 

noted before, the purpose of the fatality 

exclusion is not to direct data collection 

to specific locations of fatalities but to 

reduce the bias toward urban areas. The 

agency declines to adopt these 

commenters’ suggestions. 

The LA HSC commented that if 

crashes are used in lieu of population as 

a factor in determining site location, 

States should be permitted to account 

for serious injury crash data. (LA HSC 

at 2.) Another commenter recommended 

that the rule be changed to measure 

‘‘fatal crashes’’ instead of ‘‘crash 

fatalities.’’ (IACP at 1.) As stated above, 

neither the number of fatalities in a 

county nor the specific locations where 

those fatalities occurred is a factor in 

selecting the actual observation sites. 

The fatality counts are used solely to 

determine which counties a State may 

exclude from its sampling frame in 

order to control operational costs. 

NHTSA believes that fatality counts 

serve as an adequate basis for that 

determination. We do not believe that 

counts of serious injuries or of fatal 

crashes (in lieu of crash fatalities) would 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18047 

provide additional value in the 

identification of counties that may be 

excluded from the sampling frame. We 

decline to change the rule in response 

to these comments. 

One commenter asked if day and 

night differences in fatalities will be 

considered in selecting observation 

sites. (NV DPS at 4.) As noted above, we 

believe that the commenter 

misunderstood the purpose of the 

fatality-based exclusion. The actual 

fatalities do not determine where the 

observation sites are located. Rather, the 

three-, four- or five-year fatality counts 

will be used to allow the State to 

exclude counties that make up 15 

percent of the State’s passenger vehicle 

occupant fatalities. Both day and night 

passenger vehicle occupant fatalities 

will be counted in determining the 

fatality counts. With this clarification, 

no change to the rule is made. 

One State asked if States could have 

the option to use their own non-FARS 

fatality data because the most recent 

FARS data are often less current than 

State’s own traffic fatality counts. (WI 

State Patrol at 1.) In the preamble to the 

NPRM, NHTSA stated that the agency 

would provide States with county-bycounty passenger motor vehicle 

occupant fatality counts for the relevant 

time period. We believe that allowing 

States to use their own fatality data 

would have little or no impact on 

defining the State’s sampling frame. 

After careful consideration, we have 

decided to allow States the option to use 

the NHTSA-provided fatality data or 

their own fatality data for the most 

recent three, four or five years, provided 

that the State fatality data reflect the 

FARS definitions and are approved by 

NHTSA. We have revised the Final Rule 

accordingly. 

One commenter stated that under the 

existing rule, the population and 

average VMT based sampling criteria 

took into account an ‘‘infinite sample 

size,’’ but with the proposed fatalitybased sampling, ‘‘the fatalities become 

the universe.’’ (NV DPS at 4.) The 

commenter further stated that the 

statistical concepts related to the 

‘‘central limit theorem’’ and the ‘‘normal 

distribution’’ might lose their ‘‘essence,’’ 

and that we cannot derive statistical 

results. Id. The commenter asked if it 

was necessary to look into the ‘‘finite 

population theory for sampling.’’ 

This commenter appears to assume, 

incorrectly, a change from populationbased exclusion to fatality-based 

exclusion, in which the central limit 

theorem (which states that as the sample 

size becomes larger, the sample mean 

will have an approximately normal 

distribution) would cease to have 

applicability because the sample size 

would be finite. As discussed above, the 

proposal did not change to fatalitybased exclusion. It changed only the 

way counties are excluded from the 

sampling frame. In other words, the 

proposal did not require observations to 

be conducted at locations of fatal 

crashes. In fact, locations of fatal crashes 

should not serve as the basis for 

selecting actual observation sites. Under 

both the 1998 Uniform Criteria and the 

proposal, both population and sample 

sizes are finite, not infinite. This does 

not mean that the central limit theorem 

cannot be applied to the seat belt use 

rate estimate. In a seat belt use survey, 

the sample mean is the estimated seat 

belt use rate. As the sample size in a 

State’s seat belt use survey becomes 

large enough, the central limit theorem 

would still be valid, i.e., the estimated 

seat belt use rate will have an 

approximately normal distribution. 

Several commenters stated that the 

change from a population-based 

exclusion to a fatality-based exclusion 

would make it difficult for States to 

compare the seat belt survey results to 

previous years’ estimates. (NY TSC at 1; 

PA DOT at 1; GHSA at 2; IA TSB at 1; 

TX DOT at 2. See discussion in Section 

III.A above.) While the change in the 

sampling frame exclusion may make 

comparing estimates from previous 

years more challenging, we believe that 

the data still remains valuable. The new 

seat belt use rate estimates will be more 

representative of the actual seat belt use 

rate in the State than previous estimates. 

We believe that the need for more 

accurate and reliable data outweighs the 

challenges in comparing survey results. 

(As noted above, this is not a change 

from a population-based survey to 

fatality-based survey. Rather, the change 

only affects the exclusion from the 

sampling frame that is allowed for 

controlling operational costs.) 

2. Sampling Frame: Database of Roads 

Some commenters supported the 

requirement that the database of road 

inventories includes all roads with a 

few exceptions, and agreed that NHTSA 

should provide the database to the 

States. (WA TSC at 3; Peters & Assoc. at 

2; NV DPS at 6.) Two commenters 

requested more specific information 

about the database of road inventories. 

(ND DOT at 1; GHSA at 2.) The 

commenters asked whether the NHTSAprovided database would be a GIS 

population of roads, what variables 

would be included in the database, and 

whether roads on tribal lands and 

national parks would be included. The 

road database that NHTSA intends to 

provide will include road type and 

location, but is unlikely to include 

vehicle miles traveled. Roads on tribal 

lands and national parks are included in 

the database. As discussed in more 

detail below, NHTSA has amended the 

rule to allow the exclusion of rural local 

roads in counties that are not included 

in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 

and, as a result, many roads in tribal 

lands and national parks may be 

excluded. No change to the rule is made 

in response to these comments. 

One commenter requested 

clarification on whether the State could 

use its own map, aerial photos or 

satellite images in site selection. (WI 

State Patrol at 2.) As stated in the rule, 

a State may use its own map, aerial 

photos or satellite images if it is 

approved by NHTSA, as provided in 

§ 1340.5(a)(2). 

One commenter asked whether the 

State must abandon the practice of 

making seat belt use observations only 

at stop lights or stop signs. (WI State 

Patrol at 2.) As specified in the 

proposal, the sampling frame may not 

be limited only to roads having a stop 

sign or stop light. Accordingly, States 

may not confine the data collection to 

stop lights and stop signs. Such a 

practice would exclude observation of a 

large universe of road segments, and 

would produce a biased seat belt use 

estimate. Consequently, the agency 

declines to adopt the suggestion in 

response to this comment. 

Another commenter agreed with the 

proposed exclusions except for the 

exclusion of access ramps to interstate 

roadways. (Peters & Assoc. at 2.) GHSA 

requested an explanation of the road 

exclusions. (GHSA at 2.) As stated in the 

NPRM, the agency excluded these 

categories of roads for reasons of safety 

and practicality. In addition, some of 

these road categories are not likely to be 

in the database of road inventories, and 

they are low traffic volume roads that 

will not affect the overall estimate of the 

seat belt use rate. We note that a State 

may choose to exclude the roads 

identified in § 1340.5(a)(2)(iii), but is 

not required to do so. Therefore, a State 

may include access ramps in its 

database of road inventories. With this 

clarification, no change to the rule is 

made. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that the proposed road coverage 

requirement would require States, 

especially those with more rural areas, 

to sample on road segments with very 

little traffic volume. (ID DOT at 1; IL 

DOT at 1; NH HSA at 1; IACP at 1; ME 

DPSC at 1; GHSA at 1–2.) NHTSA 

researched this issue and found that 

while local roads (as defined by the 

Federal Highway Administration) have 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18048 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

more than two-thirds of road miles in 

rural areas, these roads experience only 

13 percent of the VMT in rural areas. 

Sending data collectors to observation 

sites on some of these local roads might 

result in few, or even no, observations 

and would increase costs to the State. 

However, NHTSA determined that 

excluding all local roads in rural areas 

would have a measurable impact on the 

accuracy of the seat belt use rate 

estimate. 

FHWA has classification standards for 

roads (‘‘Functional Classification 

Guidelines’’) that all States use. In 

FHWA’s Functional Classification 

Guidelines, ‘‘local roads’’ are a category 

of roads which are not collectors or 

arterials, but permit travel between end 

points of a trip. FHWA further classifies 

local, collector and arterial roads as 

being in an urban or rural area. Based 

on our review of available data, 

allowing States to exclude all ‘‘rural 

local roads’’ from the sampling frame 

would significantly impact the seat belt 

use rate estimate because a substantial 

number of rural local roads are in areas 

that have high traffic volumes and 

potentially high fatality rates. For this 

reason, NHTSA determined that 

allowing a more limited exclusion of 

rural local roads would be more 

appropriate. 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(3), 31 

U.S.C. 1104(d), and Executive Order No. 

10253, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) defines Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas (MSAs) and other 

statistical areas. (E.g., OMB Bulletin No. 

10–02.) MSAs are statistical areas that 

include multiple counties and countyequivalents with at least one urbanized 

area that has a population of at least 

50,000. See 75 FR 37246, 37252 (June 

28, 2010). Rural local roads in counties 

or county-equivalents that are not part 

of an MSA are those roads that are likely 

to have very low traffic volume. 

Consequently, excluding rural local 

roads in non-MSA areas from the 

sampling frame would have a limited 

impact on the seat belt use rate estimate, 

but would significantly reduce data 

collection costs. Therefore, NHTSA has 

amended the Final Rule to allow an 

additional exclusion of rural local roads 

that are not included in an MSA. 

3. Sampling Selection Requirements 

A number of commenters requested 

clarification on the selection of 

observation sites, as provided in 

§ 1340.5(b). (E.g., TX at 2; Peters & 

Assoc. at 2; ND DOT at 1.) One 

commenter asked about the selection of 

roads and assignment of weights in 

order to avoid oversampling one road 

type. (GHSA at 2. See also NV DPS at 

6.) We believe that this commenter is 

seeking clarification of two issues—(1) 

how should the road inventory be 

stratified by functional classifications 

for purposes of this selection; and (2) 

how should the observations at each 

observation site be weighted to ensure 

an accurate estimation of seat belt use 

rate. (See also WY HSP at 3, 11; MO 

DOT at 2; NY TSC at 2.) One commenter 

stated that if all roads in the State have 

an equal probability of being selected, 

streets and other roads with relatively 

low traffic volumes are likely to be 

overrepresented in the sample. (NY TSC 

at 2. See also NJIT at 1–2.) 

States are not required to stratify their 

sampling frame, whether by road type or 

by another variable. The only 

requirement is that the selection of 

observation sites be probability-based, 

i.e., each observation site should have a 

known probability of selection. A State 

may draw a simple random sample 

without stratification from the entire 

road sampling frame, i.e., from the 

listing of all road segments within a 

county selected in the first stage of 

sampling. A State also may stratify the 

sampling frame in a variety of ways, 

using such variables as road 

classification or VMT, and then draw a 

probability based sample of observation 

sites from each stratum. Although 

NHTSA believes that stratifying road 

inventories by functional classification 

and selecting road segments with 

probability proportional to VMT within 

these strata is good practice, there are 

other valid approaches to forming a 

probability sample of observation sites. 

Regardless of the method used for 

selecting observation sites, once 

observations are made, the data must be 

weighted in a manner consistent with 

the survey design. One commenter 

stated that because the State does not 

have VMT for all local roads, it would 

be forced to exclude these roads from 

the sampling frame. (LA HSC at 1.) 

States are not permitted to exclude 

systematically all local roads from the 

sampling frame. If the State does not 

have VMT for some or all eligible road 

segments in the selected counties, the 

State must use some other method for 

designing and selecting its sample. The 

survey statistician should be able to 

help States select an appropriate 

method for weighting observation sites. 

With this clarification, no change to the 

rule is made. 

Several commenters requested 

additional information on the number of 

observation sites States need to include 

in their survey. The WY HSP asked 

whether States will be given any 

guidelines as to the recommended 

number of observation sites to be 

selected based on the number of 

counties. (WY HSP at 3.) The MO DOT 

requested that provisions be added for 

States to randomly select a 

representative group of counties from 

those representing 85 percent of the 

State’s fatalities, similar to the table 

provided in the appendix to the current 

criteria. (MO DOT at 1.) The commenter 

further requested that the rule specify 

the required number of road segments to 

be sampled in each county. (MO DOT at 

2.) The OR DOT requested a formula for 

determining the total number of 

sampling sites that would be needed. 

(OR DOT at 1.) 

NHTSA does not intend to provide a 

table or formula specifying the number 

of observation sites per county based on 

the number of road segments available 

within that county. One table or formula 

will not optimally serve to determine 

the number of observation sites for all 

survey designs. We revised the Uniform 

Criteria to give States the flexibility to 

design a survey in a manner that best 

meets the specific environment in each 

State. States should rely on their survey 

statistician to develop a survey design 

that will meet the Uniform Criteria and 

meet the State’s needs. The survey 

statistician can help the State determine 

the necessary sample sizes for selection 

of counties at the first stage and 

selection of observation sites (road 

segments) within the selected counties. 

NHTSA is developing a sample of an 

acceptable survey design to assist the 

States’ redesign efforts, and will post the 

sample survey design on NHTSA’s Web 

site. Accordingly, we decline to adopt 

these commenters’ suggestion. 

4. Substitution and Resecheduling of 

Observation Sites 

Generally, commenters stated that the 

agency’s proposal in § 1340.5(c) 

regarding protocols when observation 

sites are not available was reasonable. 

(WA TSC at 3; Peters & Assoc. at 3.) One 

commenter suggested that pre-selecting 

alternate observation sites before the 

start of data collection would be more 

practical. (Peters & Assoc. at 3.) The preselection of alternate observation sites is 

not precluded under the Uniform 

Criteria. The alternate observation sites 

must be in the same county and the 

same road classification as the 

observation site the State is replacing. 

Another commenter asked if it would be 

acceptable to combine both options— 

returning to the observation site on the 

same day of the week and at the same 

time of the day and selecting an 

alternate observation site—as part of the 

State’s protocol when an observation 

site is temporarily unavailable. (TX DOT 

at 2.) States may include one or both 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18049 

options as part of their protocol in their 

survey design. With this clarification, 

no change to the rule is made. 

The commenter stated that requiring 

the State to return to an observation site 

at the same time and day of the week 

if an observation site is missed, 

especially if the observation site is 

hundreds of miles away, would increase 

commuting time and other costs. (IACP 

at 2. See also ODU at 3.) As stated in 

the NPRM, if conditions preclude data 

collection at an observation site at the 

scheduled time and day, States may 

elect to return to the observation site at 

the same time and day or collect data 

from preselected alternate observation 

sites to replace the observation site that 

is unavailable. See § 1340.5(c). If 

adverse weather precludes data 

collection, it is likely to affect data 

collection at multiple observation sites, 

especially if observation sites are cluster 

sampled. With adverse weather 

conditions, States generally should be 

able to anticipate whether the 

conditions would affect data collection 

before data collectors travel to the 

observation sites, and therefore, should 

be able to plan accordingly to mitigate 

commuting time and costs. States are 

encouraged to consider these issues and 

develop a protocol that best fits the 

conditions in its State. The agency 

makes no change to the rule in response 

to this comment. 

5. Precision 

The agency received a number of 

comments regarding the standard error 

in §§ 1340.5(d) and 1340.9(g). Some 

commenters agreed with the change. 

(WY HSP at 2–3; WA TSC at 3; IL DOT 

at 1.) Others stated that the change in 

the precision requirement would require 

a larger sample size or longer 

observation times, and this would result 

in higher survey costs. (Peters & Assoc. 

at 1, 3, 5; TX DOT at 2; GHSA at 2; NV 

DPS at 7; WV HSP at 2; ND DOT at 1; 

NH HSA at 1.) One of these commenters 

further stated that reducing the standard 

error by half would require a four-fold 

increase in sampling size, and asked 

whether it would be possible to get four 

times the current sample size with the 

same observation time. (NV DPS at 7.) 

This commenter may have 

misunderstood the change in the 

precision requirement—the 1998 

Uniform Criteria specify that the relative 

error not exceed 5 percent while the 

proposed rule specifies that the 

standard error not exceed 2.5 percentage 

points. The standard error is an absolute 

measurement whereas the relative error 

measures the standard error as a fraction 

of the actual seat belt use estimate. 

Unlike the relative error, the standard 

error will not change regardless of a 

State’s seat belt use rate estimate. A 

standard error holds all States to the 

same standard. 

Our review of States’ current surveys 

indicates that most States will be able to 

meet the required standard error of 2.5 

percentage points with sample sizes 

comparable to their current surveys. 

Therefore, we believe that most States 

will not have to add a significant 

number of observation sites, and costs 

will not be significant. We also believe 

that any additional costs are outweighed 

by the improved quality and reliability 

of the survey data. 

One commenter also stated that the 

precision calculation is made after the 

data are collected, and that an 

inadequate precision would require 

returning to some number or all of the 

observation sites to collect additional 

data, which could significantly increase 

the costs. (Peters & Assoc. at 3.) The 

commenter is correct that the final 

precision estimate cannot be made until 

after the data are collected. While a 

State would have to collect additional 

data if the precision is above 2.5 

percentage points, the State would not 

have to return to all the observation 

sites to collect additional data. We note 

that at the survey design stage, the State 

may use information from its current 

survey or a similar survey from another 

State to estimate the number of 

observation sites that may be needed to 

provide a reasonable assurance that the 

precision requirement will be met. 

Consistent with standard practice in 

survey collection, States should select a 

sufficient number of observation sites to 

account for issues that may affect the 

standard error. We believe that a survey 

statistician should be able to help the 

State determine the proper sample size 

for the required precision. The agency 

declines to change the rule in response 

to these comments. 

A commenter stated that the change 

in precision requirement will be 

difficult and expensive to achieve on 

rural roads. (NJIT at 2.) According to 

this commenter, fewer interstate and 

freeway roadways will be selected for 

performing data collection, which will 

lead to more roads of lower 

classifications and lower volumes being 

selected for observation. Id. The 

commenter further stated that this will 

result in longer time periods for data 

collection and in some cases require 

more than one visit to a location for data 

collection. Id. The precision 

requirement applies to the entire 

survey—not to individual observation 

sites. As stated above, for most States, 

we do not believe that the change will 

substantially affect the number of 

observation sites that will be required. 

Consequently, the periods of data 

collection should not substantially 

change for most States. We note that 

NHTSA is revising the proposal to allow 

States to exclude rural local roads in 

counties that are not included in an 

MSA from the sampling frame, which 

will help mitigate the concerns of this 

commenter. Accordingly, no further 

change to the rule is made in response 

to this comment. 

One commenter stated that 

consistency in training and observation 

would be a much better place to invest 

resources than in reducing sampling 

error. (NH HSA at 1.) NHTSA assumes 

the commenter is asserting that 

improved training would reduce survey 

sampling error. There are two kinds of 

errors—measurement errors and 

sampling errors. Consistency in training 

to improve observation skills can reduce 

measurement errors, i.e., the accuracy of 

the observations. However, it will not 

reduce sampling error, which is a result 

of a subset of the target population is 

being observed. Consequently, the 

agency declines to adopt this 

commenter’s suggestion. 

E. Assignment of Observation Times 

(§ 1340.6) 

Two commenters expressed support 

for the proposed observation times. (WA 

TSC at 3; Peters & Assoc. at 3.) One 

commenter stated that requiring data 

collection until 6 p.m. could pose 

difficulties during late fall and winter, 

when it gets dark by 5 p.m. (IACP at 1.) 

In the NPRM, the agency proposed that 

data collection must take place during 

daylight hours, not all hours, between 7 

a.m. and 6 p.m. Accordingly, States 

would not be required to collect data at 

an observation site during non-daylight 

hours even if they fall between the 

hours 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. No change to 

the rule is made in response to these 

comments. 

Two commenters stated that requiring 

random assignment of the day of the 

week for observations would increase 

costs, especially if data collectors were 

sent to opposite corners of the State in 

a 24-hour period. (IACP at 2; ODU at 3.) 

While the NPRM proposed random 

assignment of the day of the week for 

observations, it also proposed allowing 

States to cluster sample or group 

observation sites in close geographic 

proximity in order to reduce the costs of 

random assignment of observation sites. 

(See also OR DOT at 1.) This would 

reduce the need for data collectors to be 

sent to opposite corners of the State in 

a 24-hour period. 

These commenters also suggested 

treating weekdays as equal and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18050 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

weekends as equal. (IACP at 2; ODU at 

3.) NHTSA does not have data to 

support the assumption that there is no 

seat belt use rate difference between the 

days of the week and between Saturday 

and Sunday. We believe that allowing 

States to cluster sample observation 

sites in close proximity should 

sufficiently reduce the operational costs 

of random assignment of the day of the 

week. Therefore, NHTSA declines to 

adopt this recommendation. 

The NV DPS asked how many 

observation sites can be grouped 

together into geographical clusters. (NV 

DPS at 7.) NHTSA did not propose to 

limit the number of observation sites 

that can form a cluster. As long as the 

State can allocate an appropriate time 

period for data collection at each 

observation site, those observation sites 

may be cluster sampled. No change to 

the rule is made in response to this 

comment. 

F. Observation Procedures (§ 1340.7) 

1. Data collection dates. The TX DOT 

commented that the proposal did not 

specify that the surveys should be 

conducted uniformly after Click It or 

Ticket or Memorial Day Monday. (TX 

DOT at 2.) This commenter 

recommended a wider window of 

survey time, such as May 1 through June 

30. Id. In the NPRM, the agency did not 

propose a change from the requirement 

in 1998 Uniform Criteria that all 

observations take place during the 

calendar year, i.e., January 1 to 

December 31. Although most States 

choose to conduct seat belt use surveys 

after Click It or Ticket or Memorial Day 

Monday, States may conduct surveys 

anytime during the calendar year. No 

change to the rule is made in response 

to this comment. 

2. Roads with two-way traffic. Peters 

& Assoc. commented that on low 

volume two-way streets, limiting an 

observer to observing one direction of 

traffic flow would result in unnecessary 

additional survey cost. (Peters & Assoc. 

at 4.) NHTSA believes that consistent 

methods for data collection should be 

applied at all observation sites, 

regardless of the volume of traffic. 

Moreover, requiring the data collector to 

observe traffic in one direction will help 

reduce measurement error. Accordingly, 

the agency declines to change the rule 

in response to this comment. 

3. Vehicle coverage. The agency 

received a number of comments 

regarding the proposal’s vehicle 

coverage requirements. The commenters 

were generally supportive of the 

proposal, but a few questioned the 

inclusion of certain vehicles. Several 

commenters appeared to misunderstand 

the requirements, and some commenters 

requested clarification. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposal did not address State seat belt 

law exemptions for certain vehicles and 

recommended that all vehicles operated 

on a public roadway should be included 

in the survey regardless of a State’s 

exemptions. (LA HSC at 2.) In contrast, 

two commenters questioned the 

inclusion of vehicles that are exempt 

under the State’s seat belt law because 

it would not provide an accurate 

measure of compliance. (NY TSC at 2; 

GHSA at 2.) In the NPRM, the agency 

stated that all passenger motor vehicles 

must be included in the survey, 

including vehicles that are exempt by 

the State’s seat belt law. The purpose of 

the seat belt use rate survey is not to 

determine compliance with the State’s 

seat belt law, but rather to estimate the 

actual seat belt use of drivers and right 

front passengers. Consequently, the 

agency makes no change to the rule in 

response to these comments. 

One commenter supported the 

inclusion of ‘‘passenger vehicles for 

commercial use’’ in the seat belt use 

survey. (WY HSP at 2.) Three 

commenters requested clarification of 

the term ‘‘commercial passenger motor 

vehicle.’’ (OR DOT at 1; TX DOT at 3; 

GHSA at 2.) Earlier in this notice, we 

clarified that passenger motor vehicles 

include a passenger car, pickup truck, 

van, minivan or sports utility vehicle 

with a GWVR of less than 10,000 lbs. 

Data from motor vehicles over 10,000 

lbs GWVR need not be included in this 

survey. As stated in the preamble of the 

NPRM, data must be collected for 

passenger motor vehicles being used for 

commercial purposes. In other words, 

data from such passenger motor vehicles 

as taxis, flower delivery vans, and pizza 

delivery cars that are under 10,000 lbs 

GVWR must be included in the seat belt 

use survey. To clarify this point, in 

§ 1340.7(c), the agency has amended the 

phrase ‘‘commercial passenger motor 

vehicles’’ to read ‘‘passenger motor 

vehicles used for commercial purposes.’’ 

Three commenters stated that it 

would be difficult to collect or report 

data separately for various types of 

vehicles, such as passenger vehicles, 

commercial vehicles and out-of-state 

vehicles. (OR DOT at 1; WA TSC at 2; 

NV DPS at 8.) Although some States 

may want to collect such data separately 

in order to better serve their problem 

identification and program evaluation 

needs, the NPRM did not propose, and 

the Final Rule does not require, States 

to collect or report the data separately 

for these various vehicles. 

4. Occupant coverage. Two 

commenters supported the agency’s 

proposal to include right front 

passengers in booster seats in the seat 

belt use survey and exclude right front 

passengers in child safety seats. (Peters 

& Assoc. at 4; WY HSP at 2.) Three 

commenters disagreed with the 

proposal, with one recommending that 

children in child safety seats and 

booster seats be included in the seat belt 

use survey, another recommending that 

children in child safety seats and 

booster seats be excluded from the seat 

belt use survey, and a third 

recommending that both be excluded or 

both be included. (NY TSC at 2–3; WA 

TSC at 3; GHSA at 2–3.) As stated in the 

NPRM, we believe that data on 

passengers in child safety seats should 

be excluded because it is not possible to 

observe whether a child safety seat is 

properly installed or the child is 

properly restrained in the child safety 

seat. Unlike child safety seats, however, 

booster seats require the use of the 

readily-observable shoulder belt to 

secure the passenger. To clarify any 

misunderstanding, data on children in 

child safety seats should not be 

collected and reported in the seat belt 

survey conducted. (See GHSA at 3.) We 

do not believe that this will have much 

impact on the seat belt rate estimate 

since we expect the number of children 

in child safety seats in the front right 

passenger side of passenger motor 

vehicles to be limited. With this 

clarification, the agency makes no 

change to the rule. 

Two commenters supported the 

proposal’s requirement to record belted 

and unbelted occupants. (GHSA at 3; 

WY HSP at 2.) Two commenters 

disagreed with recording the belt status 

as unknown if it could not reasonably 

be determined whether the driver or the 

right front passenger is belted. (WI State 

Patrol at 2; Peters & Assoc. at 4.) These 

commenters suggested recording 

unknowns as unbelted. Id. We believe 

that the practice of recording unknown 

belt use as unbelted would 

underestimate the actual seat belt use 

rate estimate. For this reason, the agency 

declines to change the rule in response 

to these comments. 

NJIT stated that there are many cases 

when shoulder belt use is ‘‘unknown,’’ 

and that recording unknowns will 

gather unusable data, making it difficult 

for data collectors to know when they 

have collected enough observations. 

(NJIT at 3.) We believe that the 

commenter is concerned that 

observations must continue at all 

observation sites until the percent of 

unknown seat belt use observations is 

below 10 percent. To clarify, the 

nonresponse rate is determined based 

on the entire survey sample, not 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18051 

individual observation sites. In 

addition, we do not agree that recording 

unknowns results in collecting unusable 

data. For quality control purposes, it is 

good practice to count and report the 

number of unknown belt use 

observations that occur. If the percent of 

unknown observations is high, this may 

indicate a need to improve observer 

training. The agency makes no change to 

the rule in response to this comment. 

The agency did not receive specific 

comments regarding survey variables in 

§ 1340.7(e). However, the agency has 

decided to change the term ‘‘survey 

variable’’ to ‘‘survey data’’ because this 

term describes the information more 

accurately. 

The agency received only supportive 

comments regarding the data collection 

environment in § 1340.7(f). Accordingly, 

the agency made no changes to this 

provision. 

G. Quality Control (§ 1340.8) 

Although some commenters agreed 

that random unannounced visits would 

ensure more accurate data, several 

commenters stated that requiring quality 

control monitors at five percent of the 

observation sites would increase the 

survey costs. (WA TSC 3; Peters & 

Assoc. at 4; NV DPS at 8; GHSA at 3.) 

The LA HSC stated that unannounced 

visits by quality control monitors would 

require increased supervision of 

personnel. (LA HSC at 1.) Requiring 

quality control monitors to conduct 

random unannounced visits will 

increase survey costs to some States, 

especially to those States that do not 

currently conduct such visits. However, 

some level of supervision of data 

collectors is necessary for quality 

control. We believe that quality control 

monitors at five percent of the 

observation sites strikes the proper 

balance to minimize the costs while still 

ensuring that good data are being 

collected. The agency makes no change 

to the rule in response to these 

comments. 

One commenter stated that sending 

quality control monitors would be 

difficult, especially in States with 

limited resources, and suggested that 

standards for inter-accuracy ratio testing 

be required for all States instead of 

quality control monitors. (WY HSP at 2.) 

We assume that the commenter is 

referring to ‘‘inter-rater reliability.’’ Interrater reliability is a measure of rating or 

coding consistency among different 

raters or coders, i.e., data collectors. 

While inter-rater reliability would be 

helpful for training observers, 

independent quality control monitors 

provide reasonable assurance that 

observation protocols are being properly 

implemented. As stated above, while 

this may increase some survey costs, we 

believe that this requirement would 

help ensure that good data are being 

collected. Consequently, the agency 

declines to adopt this recommendation. 

The WY HSP asked whether ‘‘random 

unannounced visits’’ means randomly 

selected sites within each county or 

throughout the State, whether quality 

control monitors must visit each 

observer, and whether there are any 

criteria for these quality control 

monitors. (WY HSP at 5.) In the NPRM, 

the agency did not specify how to 

conduct random unannounced visits. 

Instead of requiring States to conduct 

these visits in a specific manner, the 

only requirements are that States 

conduct these visits to five percent of 

the observation sites and that the same 

individual cannot both collect data and 

monitor the collection of data at the 

same time. We believe that States 

should have flexibility in how to 

conduct these visits, taking into account 

each State’s survey design and specific 

conditions. For example, a State may 

elect to conduct an unannounced visit 

in each county, for each survey crew or 

using some other factor. We note that 

random unannounced visits serve not 

only to check if data are being collected 

in accordance with the survey protocol, 

but also as a deterrent to bad data 

collection. The ME DPSC requested 

clarification regarding whether the 

quality control must be conducted by a 

vendor and not by the observer. (ME 

DPSC at 1.) As noted above, the same 

individual cannot both collect data and 

monitor data collection at the same 

time. Other than that restriction, the 

only requirements for a quality control 

monitor are that the individual be 

trained in the observation protocols and 

the substitution and rescheduling of 

observation sites. No change to the rule 

is made in response to these comments. 

One commenter supported the 

training requirements for survey 

observers. (GHSA at 3.) Another 

commenter suggested that once 

observers have extensive training, the 

trained observers should be allowed to 

have refresher training via telephone 

conference call, Webinar, etc. every 

alternate year in order to keep the costs 

down. (WY HSP at 2.) We agree with the 

commenter that, once trained, observers 

may have refresher training via 

telephone conference calls, Webinars, or 

other methods that minimize costs. 

However, we believe that annual 

training is important to ensure accurate 

data collection, especially since data 

collectors are often not regularly 

engaged in data collection throughout 

the year. Accordingly, we decline to 

adopt the commenter’s suggestion. 

Three commenters questioned the 

requirement for a survey statistician and 

sought clarification of the statistician’s 

qualifications. (ODU at 3; WY HSP at 3; 

IACP at 2–3.) The proposed requirement 

for a statistician is not to provide an 

additional level of checks and balances, 

as one commenter suggested, but to 

ensure that both the survey design and 

the annual reporting of seat belt use 

rates are carried out in a 

methodologically-sound manner. (See 

WY HSP at 6.) Over the years, we have 

encountered numerous instances where 

data were analyzed incorrectly, 

resulting in inaccurate seat belt use rate 

estimates. We believe that part of the 

reason for these errors was the lack of 

statistician involvement in the data 

analysis. For this reason, the rule 

requires that adequate statistical 

expertise be applied to the analysis of 

the survey data. As stated in the NPRM, 

the survey statistician should have 

knowledge of designing probabilitybased multi-stage samples, statistical 

estimators from such designs, and 

variance estimation of such estimators. 

To clarify, the statistician does not have 

to have a specific degree in statistics, 

but rather have sufficient training and 

experience in designing research 

surveys and analyzing the data, as 

described in the Uniform Criteria. 

However, the agency is removing ‘‘seat 

belt’’ from the term ‘‘seat belt survey 

statistician’’ in this section and 

throughout the rule to clarify that the 

statistician must be a person trained in 

statistical methodology. 

Several commenters stated that 

requiring a statistician would add 

significant costs. (ODU at 3; IACP at 

2–3; WA TSC at 3; Peters & Assoc. at 6; 

GHSA at 3.) As noted above, we have 

found errors in some State seat belt use 

rate estimates, and we believe that 

requiring a statistician to review and 

confirm the estimate annually will help 

reduce the errors we have seen. 

Although some States may incur 

additional costs, especially those that 

currently do not employ a statistician, 

the requirement is necessary in light of 

the errors noted above. States may use 

Federal grant funds, such as Section 402 

and Section 406, to defray the costs of 

designing and conducting seat belt use 

surveys. Conducting an annual 

Statewide seat belt use survey in 

accordance with the uniform criteria ‘‘to 

ensure that measurements are accurate 

and representative’’ is an administrative 

requirement under Section 402. While 

NHTSA is ready to provide technical 

assistance, we believe that States should 

rely on their own statistician to ensure 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18052 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

that the State seat belt use rate estimate 

is overseen and properly implemented 

in accordance with the approved survey 

design. Consequently, the rule remains 

unchanged with regard to this 

requirement. 

H. Computation of Estimates (§ 1340.9) 

One commenter generally supported 

all of the requirements in the proposal 

regarding computation of estimates. 

(WA TSC at 3.) 

The agency received no comment 

regarding § 1340.9(b) (data editing). 

Therefore, NHTSA is making no 

substantive change to the requirement 

in this provision. (The agency is making 

a minor amendment to remove the 

phrase ‘‘or statistically edited,’’ because 

it is redundant.) 

NHTSA received three comments 

regarding the imputation of unknown 

values of variables. Peters & Assoc. 

questioned the need for data imputation 

and GHSA stated that no imputation 

should be allowed. (Peters & Assoc. at 

4; GHSA at 3.) The proposal does not 

require imputation, but rather allows 

States to use imputation if it is preapproved by NHTSA. In general, 

NHTSA does not believe that 

imputation of unknown values will be 

necessary. However, in order to provide 

flexibility to States, NHTSA is allowing 

imputation if it is necessary to improve 

the estimates and the methodology is 

approved by NHTSA prior to data 

analysis. As noted by the IACP, there 

are a number of imputation methods. 

(IACP at 1.) NHTSA is not specifying 

which methods are acceptable because 

the acceptability of an imputation 

method depends on the survey design. 

NHTSA will ensure the proper use of 

imputation in surveys by requiring 

approval before imputation methods are 

used. No change to the rule is made in 

response to these comments. 

One commenter asked for clarification 

of data-weighting if the survey is 

fatality-based as proposed in the NPRM. 

(Peters & Assoc. at 4.) As discussed in 

detail in Section III.D.1 above, we 

believe this type of concern arises from 

a misunderstanding regarding the 

fatality-based exclusion from the 

sampling frame. Fatality counts will be 

used to determine which counties may 

be excluded from the sampling frame. 

States will weight the data based on the 

selection probability of the sample 

observation site, which is determined by 

the way that the samples are selected. 

For example, observation sites may be 

selected by a simple random sample or 

by a probability proportional to sample 

size. Various measures such as VMT or 

traffic flow counts could be used for the 

measurement of size. 

However, to clarify the sampling 

weight requirements, the agency is 

changing the reference to ‘‘inverse of the 

selection probability of the observation 

site at which the data were obtained’’ to 

‘‘sampling weights as required by the 

sample design and any subsequent 

adjustments.’’ This change is necessary 

to clarify that the weights used in the 

estimation process reflect both the 

original sampling process and any 

subsequent weighting necessary, e.g., 

selection of direction of travel or of 

travel lanes for observation, nonresponse adjustments, among others. 

The Final Rule now reads as follows: 

‘‘The estimation shall weight observed 

data by the sampling weights as 

required by the sample design and any 

subsequent adjustments.’’ 

NHTSA received two comments 

regarding the requirement to include a 

procedure to adjust the sampling 

weights for observation sites with no 

usable data. One commenter stated that 

using an alternate observation site 

would be the most practical method. 

(Peters & Assoc. at 5.) In the proposal, 

the agency identified several methods to 

adjust for observation sites with no 

usable data, including using alternate 

observation sites. However, as stated in 

the preamble to the NPRM, allowing the 

States flexibility for selecting the 

method based on their survey design 

will enable them to determine which 

method or combination of methods best 

meets their needs. 

Another commenter stated that States 

will incur additional costs for the 

suggested protocols for handling 

observation sites where data are not 

collected. (WY HSP at 3.) Although 

States have flexibility to select among 

several methods to adjust for 

observation sites with no usable data, 

some States may need to return to 

observation sites at a later time or visit 

an alternate observation site for data 

collection. Generally, observation sites 

at which no data are collected are very 

low traffic volume observation sites. As 

noted in Section III.D.2 above, rural 

local roads in counties that are not 

included in an MSA are roads with very 

low traffic volume. Because the agency 

is allowing States to exclude these 

roads, we believe that the incidence of 

returning to observations sites will be 

limited. For this reason, the agency is 

making no change in response to this 

comment. 

The agency received numerous 

comments regarding the nonresponse 

rates. To summarize, the NPRM 

proposed that the nonresponse rates for 

the entire survey must not exceed 10 

percent (for the total number of 

recorded unknown values of passenger 

presence to the number of passenger 

motor vehicles observed and for the 

ratio of the total number of recorded 

unknown values of belt use to the 

drivers and right front passengers 

observed). The NPRM further proposed 

that the State must include a procedure 

to collect additional observations if the 

nonresponse rates exceed 10 percent. 

One commenter thought that a 10 

percent nonresponse rate was too high, 

especially if imputation methods are 

used. (ME DPSC at 1.) States should 

strive to hold their unknown values 

well below 10 percent, and we believe 

that most States would be able to meet 

that requirement. As discussed above, 

we do not require imputation, and 

NHTSA will review any imputation 

proposals to ensure that imputation 

methods do not impair the accuracy of 

the data. We believe that allowing States 

a certain percentage of unknowns is 

necessary to ensure that any increased 

costs are not substantial. The agency 

declines to change to rule in response to 

this comment. 

NHTSA received numerous comments 

expressing concern about increased 

survey costs related to the need to 

oversample observation sites or collect 

additional observations when the 

nonresponse rate exceeds 10 percent. 

(E.g., ND DOT at 1; GHSA at 3; ODU at 

2.) Two commenters stated that this 

requirement would result in a longer 

overall survey timeline or slow the 

survey results. (Peters & Assoc. at 5; WY 

HSP at 3.) Although some States may 

incur increased survey costs and 

additional data collection time, with a 

properly designed survey and 

observation protocols, NHTSA does not 

anticipate that many States will need to 

return to observation sites to conduct 

additional observations. As a general 

principle, a properly designed survey 

should include a sufficient number of 

observation sites, anticipating that a few 

or some observation sites may produce 

no usable data. We believe that the 

increased costs that some States may 

incur are necessary to ensure a more 

accurate, representative seat belt use 

rate estimate. However, to reduce the 

reporting burden on States, NHTSA is 

deleting the proposed requirement that 

the nonresponse rate of passenger 

presence must not exceed 10 percent. 

While States must still collect data on 

passenger presence to help monitor 

quality control of data collection, States 

would not be required to report the 

nonresponse rates for passenger 

presence to NHTSA. In the Final Rule, 

the agency makes amendments in 

§ 1340.9 and the Appendix to reflect 

this change. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18053 

Two commenters had concerns about 

nonresponse rates exceeding 10 percent 

in free-flowing traffic or on interstates 

with high speed travel. (IACP at 2; IL 

DOT at 1.) There are several methods to 

reduce the nonresponse rates in high 

speed travel or in high traffic areas. For 

example, observations may follow a 

protocol that does not attempt to 

observe all vehicles passing by, such as 

observing only a single lane, observing 

and recording every other vehicle or 

every third vehicle, among others. 

Vehicles that are not attempted to be 

observed would not be counted in the 

survey, i.e., they would not be counted 

as unknown. Only vehicles that are 

attempted to be observed must be 

recorded for the seat belt use status of 

the driver and right front seat passenger, 

if present. 

Currently, most States use one of two 

methods for observations on interstate 

highways or other high speed roadways. 

One method is to conduct the 

observations at the base of the first exit 

ramp within or beyond the selected road 

segment. Another method, which may 

be less cost effective, is to collect 

observations while travelling in a 

vehicle at such locations—one member 

of the observation team would drive 

along the road segment at a speed below 

the posted limit while another member 

of the observation team would collect 

the data by observing the belt use of 

drivers and passengers in overtaking 

vehicles. Either of these methods or a 

combination of methods should help to 

reduce the incidence of unknown belt 

use observations, and therefore, help 

keep the nonresponse rate below 10 

percent. With this explanation, the 

agency has made no change to the rule 

in response to these comments. 

One commenter suggested that 

requiring States to record unknown 

variables may require in-field 

calculations. (Peters & Assocs. at 5. See 

also ODU at 2.) The requirement that 

unknown values must not exceed 10 

percent applies to the entire survey, not 

to data collected at individual 

observation sites. There is no need to 

conduct in-field calculations to verify 

that the observations at a given site are 

below 10 percent. Specifically, the 

nonresponse rate is computed by 

dividing the total number of drivers and 

right front seat passengers with 

unknown belt use status by the total 

number of drivers and right front seat 

passengers observed. At the end of the 

survey, if the State still exceeds the 

nonresponse rate requirement, the State 

must collect additional data. No change 

to the rule is made in response to this 

comment. 

NHTSA received a number of 

comments regarding the variance 

estimation. For purposes of discussion, 

these comments are addressed under the 

precision requirement of the selection of 

observation sites in Section III.D.5 

above. 

I. Submission and Approval of Seat Belt 

Survey Design and Post-Approval 

Alterations to Survey Design (§§ 1340.10 

and 1340.11) 

One commenter supported the 

requirements for submission and 

approval of seat belt survey designs. 

(GHSA at 3.) Another commenter stated 

that the new survey design requirements 

will require input from a survey 

statistician. (Peters & Assoc. at 5.) The 

agency anticipated that States would 

need a survey statistician to help design 

and conduct surveys and analyze the 

collected data. As discussed in detail in 

Section III.G. above, we have 

encountered instances of problematic 

survey results over the years, and we 

believe that these instances were the 

result of insufficient statistical expertise 

in the design and/or analysis phase of 

reporting the seat belt use rate estimate. 

For this reason, the agency proposed 

that survey results be reviewed and 

approved by a survey statistician. We 

believe that this will result in improved 

and more accurate survey results. The 

Final Rule retains the requirement for a 

survey statistician. 

In § 1340.10(a), NHTSA has corrected 

cross references, and in 

§ 1340.10(a)(1)(v), NHTSA changed the 

language ‘‘Define an observation site’’ to 

‘‘Specify the method used to select the 

road segments for observation sites as 

provided by § 1340.5(b)’’. This change 

clarifies what was being requested of the 

State and reflects the sequence generally 

followed in designing and selecting 

samples. 

Several commenters stated that States 

needed more time to develop a new 

survey design and recommended 

delaying the implementation of the 

revised criteria. (See IACP at 1, WV HSP 

at 2, ND DOT at 1, GHSA at 4, and WY 

DOT at 3.) NHTSA agrees and has 

decided that the revised criteria will 

apply to seat belt use surveys conducted 

during calendar year 2012 and 

thereafter, not during calendar year 

2011. In response to these comments, 

the agency has made changes to § 1340.2 

(Applicability) and has revised the 

deadline for submission of proposed 

survey designs in § 1340.10(b) to 

January 3, 2012. 

One commenter asked whether a State 

must submit its survey design every 

year, even if there are no substantive 

changes from the previous survey 

design approved by NHTSA. (WI DOT at 

2.) The commenter agreed that States 

should resubmit the survey design when 

they propose to re-select observation 

sites or make other substantive changes 

to the survey design or data capture/ 

processing protocol. Id. The agency did 

not intend States to submit survey 

designs every year. For calendar 2012 

seat belt use surveys, the first year 

under the new requirements, States are 

required to submit proposed survey 

designs by January 3, 2012 so that 

NHTSA will have sufficient time to 

review the survey design before the 

surveys are conducted. Once a State’s 

survey design has been approved by 

NHTSA, the State is not required to 

resubmit the survey design unless the 

State proposes alterations to a NHTSAapproved survey design. (See § 1340.11.) 

This is consistent with the annual 

reporting requirements, under which 

States certify that the survey was 

conducted using a survey design that 

was approved by NHTSA and that the 

survey design has not changed since 

NHTSA approval. (See § 1340.13(b); 

Appendix.) If a State chooses to 

redesign its seat belt survey, it should 

follow the procedures identified in 

§ 1340.11. To clarify this point, the 

agency has added language in 

§ 1340.10(b). 

J. Re-Selection of Observation Sites 

(§ 1340.12) 

One commenter disagreed with the 

requirement to update the survey design 

every five years, and two commenters 

stated that requiring States to re-select 

observation sites from updated sampling 

frame data would cause States to incur 

additional costs. (WY HSP at 1; Peters 

& Assoc. at 6; WA TSC at 3.) States are 

not required to redesign their surveys 

every five years. Rather, in the NPRM, 

the agency proposed requiring States to 

re-select observation sites every five 

years. Under the current seat belt use 

surveys, many States may be using an 

inventory of road segments that is years 

out-of-date. The inventory of road 

segments changes over time as new 

roads are constructed and existing roads 

are closed or changed. An up-to-date 

inventory of road segments is necessary 

to ensure that the seat belt use estimate 

is accurate and representative of 

Statewide seat belt use. We believe that 

the additional costs for re-selecting 

observation sites every five years will 

not be significant because States are 

required only to re-select observation 

sites from updated sampling frame data, 

not to redesign their surveys. In order to 

minimize the costs, NHTSA intends to 

provide States with the updated three, 

four or five year fatality distribution and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

4NV DPS stated that the raw data from all States 

should be available online to the public. (NV DPS 

at 1.) We believe that the idea of making raw data 

available online deserves further consideration, but 

that it is a policy decision that is ancillary to the 

rulemaking. Therefore, we do not make changes to 

the rule in response to this comment. 

inventory of road segments. The agency 

makes no change to the rule in response 

to these comments. 

One of the commenters also expressed 

concerns that the re-selection of 

observation sites would require a new 

survey design, sampling of sites, pilot 

testing and travel to new sites to assess 

visibility and safety. (WA TSC 3–4.) The 

agency does not believe that the reselection of observation sites requires a 

new survey design. While we believe 

that it is good practice to travel to new 

observation sites to assess visibility and 

safety, NHTSA is not specifying how 

States should determine where 

observations should be conducted and 

what other implementation measures 

should be adopted. These are decisions 

that the State is best positioned to make. 

We do not believe that these costs 

would be significant. The reasonable 

additional costs associated with reselecting observation sites are necessary 

to ensure that the survey continues to be 

representative of the current inventory 

of road segments. No change to the rule 

is made in response to this comment. 

One of the commenters stated that the 

requirement to reexamine geographic 

distribution of fatalities from the most 

recent three years could result in an 

inclusion or exclusion of different 

counties every five years, causing site 

selection changes and efficiencies 

associated with sample clustering to 

change every five years. (Peters & Assoc. 

at 2.) Although the sampling frame of 

counties could change every five years, 

we do not expect significant changes 

based on our review of historical FARS 

data. As discussed in Section III.D.1 

above, NHTSA is amending the Final 

Rule to allow States the option of using 

a fatality distribution of three, four or 

five years instead of three years, which 

will help further reduce changes in the 

sampling frame. We note that the actual 

observation sites would change, because 

of re-selection requirements, regardless 

of whether the sampling frame of 

counties changes. States will still be 

able to cluster sample with the new 

observation sites. The agency makes no 

change to the rule in response to this 

comment. 

A commenter questioned whether 

NHTSA would have the capacity to 

review all State and territorial seat belt 

survey designs every five years. (GHSA 

at 4.) The commenter suggested that 

after the initial review, NHTSA should 

stagger subsequent State reviews so that 

one-fifth of all State and Territory 

survey protocols are reviewed every 

year. Id. NHTSA will review and 

approve survey designs from all States 

and Territories for surveys conducted 

beginning calendar year 2012. The 

NPRM did not propose and the Final 

Rule does not require States to redesign 

surveys for NHTSA approval every five 

years. Rather, States are required to reselect observation sites using updated 

sampling frame data. It is the updated 

sampling frame data that requires 

NHTSA approval. NHTSA will deploy 

the necessary resources to review 

updated sampling frame data from all 

States and Territories. 

K. Annual Reporting Requirements 

NHTSA received two positive 

comments in support of the annual 

reporting requirements.4 (TX DOT at 1; 

GHSA at 3.) However, one commenter 

seemed to suggest that the current 

‘‘research report’’ describing the survey 

methodology and results produced by 

States was sufficient. (WA TSC at 4.) 

Under the current reporting 

requirements, NHTSA does not have 

sufficient information to evaluate the 

computation of the seat belt use rate 

estimate. Based on our experience, some 

of the reported results were not 

consistent with the computation 

formula in the NHTSA-approved survey 

design. For this reason, NHTSA is 

requiring additional information in the 

annual reports submitted by States. 

NHTSA believes that the additional 

information is necessary in order to 

carry out the agency’s responsibilities 

for grant management and oversight. No 

change to the rule is made in response 

to this comment. 

One commenter suggested requiring a 

certification from the Governor’s 

Representative for Highway Safety 

instead of the certification by the 

statistician. (GHSA at 3.) After careful 

consideration, the agency has decided to 

amend the rule to require only a 

certification from the Governor’s 

Representative and to remove the 

requirement for certification by the 

statistician. However, a qualified survey 

statistician is still required to review 

and approve the survey results. See 

§ 1340.8(c). Accordingly, NHTSA is 

amending the certification by the 

Governor’s Representative to certify that 

a qualified statistician has reviewed the 

reported seat belt use rate estimate and 

information reported in Part B, and has 

determined that they meet the Uniform 

Criteria for State Observational Surveys 

of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR Part 1340. The 

agency has made changes to § 1340.13 

and corresponding changes to the 

certification in the Appendix in 

response to this comment. 

IV. Statutory Basis for This Action 

The Final Rule amends the uniform 

criteria for the measurement of State 

seat belt use rates for surveys that States 

are required to conduct annually under 

a grant program in accordance with 23 

U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E)(iii). 

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), as amended by 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011), provides for 

making determinations whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to OMB review and to 

the requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to 

result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This Final Rule was not reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866. The Final Rule 

is not considered to be significant 

within the meaning of E.O. 12866 or the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979)). 

This Final Rule does not affect 

amounts over the significance threshold 

of $100 million each year. This Final 

Rule sets forth the criteria for designing 

and conducting State seat belt use 

observational surveys, procedures for 

obtaining NHTSA approval of survey 

designs, and a new form for reporting 

seat belt use rates to NHTSA. The costs 

to design and conduct observation 

surveys under the criteria are well 

below the annual threshold of $100 

million. This Final Rule does not 

adversely affect in a material way the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18055 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities. This Final Rule does not 

create an inconsistency or interfere with 

any actions taken or planned by other 

agencies. This Final Rule does not 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof. Finally, this Final 

Rule does not raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Currently, States are required to 

provide satisfactory assurances that they 

will conduct an annual Statewide seat 

belt use survey in accordance with the 

uniform criteria as part of the 

administrative requirements for a 

highway safety grant under 23 U.S.C. 

402(b)(1)(E)(iii). This Final Rule does 

not change the statutory requirement to 

provide assurances that the State will 

conduct an annual Statewide seat belt 

use survey, but does change the way 

States collect and report survey data and 

the allowable error rate. Specifically, 

this Final Rule requires States to draw 

observation sites from an updated 

sampling frame. This Final Rule also 

improves quality control of the data 

collected by requiring States to train 

observers before data collection, to have 

quality control monitors conduct 

unannounced visits, and to have a 

statistician review the data collected. 

Finally, this Final Rule requires States 

to submit additional information in 

their annual certifications. 

The agency has determined that this 

Final Rule is not significant. If a State 

does not provide assurances that it will 

conduct an annual Statewide seat belt 

use survey in accordance with the 

uniform criteria in a given year, a 

percentage of Section 402 grant funds 

could be withheld. However, States rely 

on statistically valid observational 

surveys of seat belt use to plan and 

evaluate their highway safety programs 

and have committed, through their 

highway safety offices, to conduct 

annual Statewide seat belt use surveys 

as part of the core performance 

measurement process. The agency 

believes that no State will decline to 

provide the required assurances. 

Because the impacts of this Final Rule 

are minimal, the agency is not required 

to prepare a full regulatory evaluation. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency publishes a 

notice of rulemaking for any proposed 

or Final Rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). The Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

part 121 define a small business, in part, 

as a business entity ‘‘which operates 

primarily within the United States.’’ (13 

CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies that the 

rulemaking action would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that an action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this Final Rule under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. This Final Rule applies 

to States and they are not considered to 

be small businesses under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. States may 

employ contractors to collect survey 

data (which may be small businesses), 

but this Final Rule merely changes the 

procedures of collecting survey data and 

will not have a significant impact on the 

costs or profits of small businesses. 

Therefore, I certify that this Final Rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires 

NHTSA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with Federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments or the agency consults 

with State and local governments in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. The agency also may not 

issue a regulation with Federalism 

implications that preempts a State law 

without consulting with State and local 

officials. 

The agency has analyzed this Final 

Rule in accordance with the principles 

and criteria set forth in Executive Order 

13132 and has determined that this 

Final Rule does not have sufficient 

Federalism implications to warrant 

consultation with State and local 

officials or the preparation of a 

Federalism summary impact statement. 

This Final Rule does not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs. 

While the costs to the States may vary 

depending on such factors as the State’s 

current survey design and the size of the 

State, the agency estimates that the 

average cost to a State would be at most 

in the tens of thousands of dollars. We 

note that Federal funds from a number 

of NHTSA grant programs may be used 

to defray these costs. This Final Rule 

also does not preempt any State law or 

regulation or affect the ability of States 

to discharge traditional State 

government functions. 

While the agency has determined that 

this Final Rule does not have sufficient 

Federalism implications to warrant 

formal consultation with State and local 

officials, the agency is aware that the 

revised criteria will impact States. For a 

number of years, the agency has had 

ongoing discussions with State officials 

about the seat belt use survey criteria. 

Several of these State officials expressed 

concerns about the accuracy and 

consistency of the survey results. Before 

the NPRM was published in January 

2010, the agency discussed the 

possibility of revising the seat belt use 

survey criteria with officials from State 

Highway Safety Offices at Governors 

Highway Safety Association (GHSA) 

meetings. The agency sought their views 

on the need to change the criteria and 

potential areas of revision. Generally, 

these State officials were supportive of 

revising the seat belt use survey criteria 

to make the survey results more 

accurate and consistent. 

In addition, when the NPRM was 

published, the agency reached out to the 

States and encouraged States to review 

the NPRM and provide comments. 

NHTSA received extensive comments 

from many States and interested parties, 

such as associations and universities 

and contractors, who assist States in 

conducting and analyzing the results of 

seat belt use surveys. As discussed in 

the preamble of the Final Rule, NHTSA 

revised the criteria to reduce further the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

impact on States in response to the 

States’ comments. 

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996), the agency has 

considered whether this rulemaking 

would have any retroactive effect. This 

rulemaking action would not have any 

retroactive effect. This action meets 

applicable standards in sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. There are reporting 

requirements contained in the Final 

Rule that are considered to be 

information collection requirements 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as 

that term is defined by OMB in 5 CFR 

Part 1320. The estimated total annual 

burden is 19,040 hours. The total 

estimated number of respondents is 56 

(50 States, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico and 4 territories). 

Pursuant to the Act, the agency 

solicited public comments on the 

proposed collection of information, with 

a 60-day comment period, in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking published on 

January 28, 2010 (75 FR 4509). The 

agency will publish a separate Federal 

Register Notice when we submit the 

information collection request to OMB 

for approval. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or Final 

Rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually 

(adjusted for inflation with a base year 

of 1995 (about $118 million in 2004 

dollars)). This Final Rule does not 

include a Federal mandate resulting in 

annual State expenditures that would 

exceed the $100 million threshold. 

G. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has reviewed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that this Final Rule does 

not have a significant impact on the 

quality of the human environment. 

H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribes) 

The agency has analyzed this Final 

Rule under Executive Order 13175, and 

has determined that the Final Rule does 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

one or more Indian tribes, does not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on Indian tribal governments, and 

does not preempt tribal law. Therefore, 

a tribal summary impact statement is 

not required. 

I. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

J. Privacy Act 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments received into any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

K. Congressional Review of Agency 

Rulemaking 

The agency has not submitted the 

Final Rule to the Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

under the Congressional Review of 

Agency Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et 

seq. This Final Rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

within the meaning of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1340 

Grant programs—Transportation, 

Highway safety, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration revises 23 CFR 

part 1340 to read as follows: 

PART 1340—UNIFORM CRITERIA FOR 

STATE OBSERVATIONAL SURVEYS 

OF SEAT BELT USE 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

1340.1 Purpose. 

1340.2 Applicability. 

1340.3 Definitions. 

Subpart B—Survey Design Requirements 

1340.4 In general. 

1340.5 Selection of observation sites. 

1340.6 Assignment of observation times. 

1340.7 Observation procedures. 

1340.8 Quality control. 

1340.9 Computation of estimates. 

Subpart C—Administrative Requirements 

1340.10 Submission and approval of seat 

belt survey design. 

1340.11 Post-approval alterations to survey 

design. 

1340.12 Re-selection of observation sites. 

1340.13 Annual reporting requirements. 

Appendix A to Part 1340—State Seat Belt 

Use Survey Reporting Form 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 1340.1 Purpose. 

This part establishes uniform criteria 

for State surveys of seat belt use 

conducted under 23 U.S.C. 402, 

procedures for NHTSA approval of 

survey designs, and administrative 

requirements relating to State seat belt 

surveys. 

§ 1340.2 Applicability. 

This part applies to State surveys of 

seat belt use, beginning in calendar year 

2012 and continuing annually 

thereafter. 

§ 1340.3 Definitions. 

As used in this part— 

Access ramp means the segment of a 

road that forms a cloverleaf or limited 

access interchange. 

Cul-de-sac means the closed end of a 

road that forms a loop or turn-around. 

Non-public road means a road on 

which members of the general public 

are not allowed to drive motor vehicles. 

Nonresponse rate means, for any 

survey variable, the percentage of 

unknown values recorded for that 

variable. 

Observation site means the physical 

location where survey data are 

collected. 

Passenger motor vehicle means a 

motor vehicle with a gross vehicle 

weight rating of less than 10,000 

pounds, including a passenger car, 

pickup truck, van, minivan or sport 

utility vehicle. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18057 

Service drive means the segment of a 

road that provides access to businesses 

and rest areas. 

Traffic circle means the segment of a 

road or intersection of roads forming a 

roundabout. 

Unnamed road means a road, public 

or private, that has no name or number 

designation and is often a farm or 

logging road. 

Vehicular trail means a road designed 

or intended primarily for use by motor 

vehicles with four-wheel drive. 

Subpart B—Survey Design 

Requirements 

§ 1340.4 In general. 

This subpart sets forth the minimum 

design requirements to be incorporated 

in surveys conducted under this part. 

§ 1340.5 Selection of observation sites. 

(a) Sampling frame requirements— 

(1) County coverage. The sampling 

frame from which observation sites are 

selected shall include counties or 

county-equivalents (including tribal 

territories), as defined by the U.S. 

Census Bureau, that account for at least 

85 percent of the State’s passenger 

vehicle occupant fatalities, provided 

that the average of the last three, four or 

five years, at the State’s option, of 

available Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS) data or State fatality data 

approved by NHTSA shall be used to 

determine the State’s passenger vehicle 

occupant fatalities. 

(2) Road coverage. 

(i) States shall select observation sites 

from a database of road inventories 

approved by NHTSA or provided by 

NHTSA. 

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii) of this section, all roads in the 

State shall be eligible for sampling. The 

sampling frame may not be limited only 

to roads having a stop sign, stop light or 

State-maintained roads. 

(iii) The sampling frame need not 

include: rural local roads, as classified 

by the Federal Highway 

Administration’s Functional 

Classification Guidelines, in counties 

that are not within a Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA), as published by 

the Office of Management and Budget; 

non-public roads; unnamed roads; 

unpaved roads; vehicular trails; access 

ramps; cul-de-sacs; traffic circles; or 

service drives. 

(b) Sampling selection requirements. 

The set of road segments selected for 

observation sites shall be chosen based 

on probability sampling, except that— 

(1) The specific observation site 

locations on the sampled road segments 

may be deterministically selected; 

(2) An alternate observation site may 

be used to replace an observation site 

selected based on probability sampling 

if it is located in the same county or 

county-equivalent, and has the same 

roadway classification (e.g., local road 

segment, collector road segment) when 

using the protocol of substitution and 

rescheduling of observation sites 

pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Requirements for substitution and 

rescheduling of observation sites. The 

survey design shall include at a 

minimum the following protocols: 

(1) Protocol when observation site is 

temporarily unavailable for data 

collection. 

(i) Observers shall return to the 

observation site at another time 

provided that it is on the same day of 

the week and at same time of the day 

or select an alternate observation site, as 

described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, provided the data are collected 

on the same day and at approximately 

the same time as the originallyscheduled observation site. 

(ii) The original observation site must 

be used for future data collections. 

(2) Protocol when observation site is 

permanently unavailable for data 

collection. 

(i) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii), another observation site shall 

be selected in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(ii) If it is not feasible to select another 

observation site based on probability 

sampling for the current data collection, 

an alternate observation site, as 

described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, may be selected, provided the 

data is collected on the same day and at 

approximately the same time as the 

originally-scheduled observation site. 

(iii) For future data collections, 

another observation site must be 

selected based on probability sampling 

in accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(d) Precision requirement. The 

estimated seat belt use rate must have a 

standard error of no more than 2.5 

percentage points. 

§ 1340.6 Assignment of observation times. 

(a) Daylight hours. All daylight hours 

between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. for all days 

of the week shall be eligible for 

inclusion in the sample. 

(b) Random assignment. Except as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this 

section, the day-of the week and timeof-the-day shall be randomly assigned to 

observation sites. 

(c) Grouping of observation sites in 

close geographic proximity. 

Observations sites in close geographic 

proximity may be grouped to reduce 

data collection burdens if: 

(1) The first assignment of an 

observation site within the group is 

randomly selected; and 

(2) The assignment of other 

observations sites within the group is 

made in a manner that promotes 

administrative efficiency and timely 

completion of the survey. 

§ 1340.7 Observation procedures. 

(a) Data collection dates. All survey 

data shall be collected through direct 

observation completely within the 

calendar year for which the Statewide 

seat belt use rate will be reported. 

Except as provided in § 1340.5(c), the 

survey shall be conducted in accordance 

to the schedule determined in § 1340.6. 

(b) Roadway and direction(s) of 

observation— 

(1) Intersections. If an observation site 

is located at an intersection of road 

segments, the data shall be collected 

from the sampled road segment, not the 

intersecting road segment(s). 

(2) Roads with two-way traffic. If an 

observation site is located on a road 

with traffic traveling in two directions, 

one or both directions of traffic may be 

observed, provided that— 

(i) If only one direction of traffic is 

observed, that direction shall be chosen 

randomly; 

(ii) If both directions of traffic are 

observed at the same time, States shall 

assign at least one person to observe 

each direction of traffic. 

(c) Vehicle coverage. Data shall be 

collected by direct observation from all 

passenger motor vehicles, including but 

not limited to passenger motor vehicles 

used for commercial purposes, 

passenger motor vehicles exempt from 

the State’s seat belt use law and 

passenger motor vehicles bearing out-ofState license plates. 

(d) Occupant coverage. Data shall be 

collected by direct observation of all 

drivers and right front passengers, 

including right front passengers in 

booster seats, but excluding right front 

passengers in child safety seats. 

Observers shall record a person as— 

(1) Belted if the shoulder belt is in 

front of the person’s shoulder; 

(2) Unbelted if the shoulder belt is not 

in front of the person’s shoulder; 

(3) Unknown if it cannot reasonably 

be determined whether the driver or 

right front passenger is belted. 

(e) Survey data. At a minimum, the 

seat belt use data to be collected by 

direct observation shall include— 

(1) Seat belt status of driver; 

(2) Presence of right front passenger; 

and 

(3) Seat belt status of right front 

passenger, if present. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(f) Data collection environment. When 

collecting seat belt survey data— 

(1) Observers shall not wear law 

enforcement uniforms; 

(2) Police vehicles and persons in law 

enforcement uniforms shall not be 

positioned at observation sites; 

(3) Communications by signage or any 

other means that a seat belt survey is 

being or will be conducted shall not be 

present in the vicinity of the observation 

site. 

§ 1340.8 Quality control. 

(a) Quality control monitors. Monitors 

shall conduct random, unannounced 

visits to no less than five percent of the 

observation sites for the purpose of 

quality control. The same individual 

shall not serve as both the observer and 

quality control monitor at the same 

observation site at the same time. 

(b) Training. Observers and quality 

control monitors involved in seat belt 

use surveys shall have received training 

in data collection procedures within the 

past twelve months. Observers and 

quality control monitors shall be trained 

in the observation procedures of 

§ 1340.7 and in the substitution and 

rescheduling requirements of 

§ 1340.5(c). 

(c) Statistical review. Survey results 

shall be reviewed and approved by a 

survey statistician, i.e., a person with 

knowledge of the design of probabilitybased multi-stage samples, statistical 

estimators from such designs, and 

variance estimation of such estimators. 

§ 1340.9 Computation of estimates. 

(a) Data used. Except as otherwise 

provided in this section, all data 

collected pursuant to § 1340.7(e) shall 

be used, without exclusion, in the 

computation of the Statewide seat belt 

use rate, standard error, and 

nonresponse rate. 

(b) Data editing. Known values of data 

contributing to the Statewide seat belt 

use rate shall not be altered in any 

manner. 

(c) Imputation. Unknown values of 

variables shall not be imputed unless 

NHTSA has approved the State’s 

imputation procedure prior to data 

analysis. 

(d) Sampling weights. The estimation 

formula shall weight observed data by 

the sampling weights as required by the 

sample design and any subsequent 

adjustments. 

(e) Sampling weight adjustments for 

observation sites with no usable data. 

States shall include a procedure to 

adjust the sampling weights for 

observation sites with no usable data, 

including observation sites where no 

data were collected and observation 

sites where data were discovered to be 

falsified. 

(f) Nonresponse rate. 

(1) Subject to paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section, the nonresponse rate for the 

entire survey shall not exceed 10 

percent for the ratio of the total number 

of recorded unknown values of belt use 

to the total number of drivers and 

passengers observed. 

(2) The State shall include a 

procedure for collecting additional 

observations in the same calendar year 

of the survey to reduce the nonresponse 

rate to no more than 10 percent if the 

nonresponse rate in paragraph (f)(1) of 

this section exceeds 10 percent. 

(g) Variance estimation. 

(1) Subject to paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section, the estimated standard error, 

using the variance estimation method in 

the survey design, shall not exceed 2.5 

percentage points. 

(2) If the standard error exceeds this 

threshold, additional observations shall 

be conducted in the same calendar year 

of the survey until the standard error 

does not exceed 2.5 percentage points. 

Subpart C—Administrative 

Requirements 

§ 1340.10 Submission and approval of seat 

belt survey design. 

(a) Contents: The following 

information shall be included in the 

State’s seat belt survey design submitted 

for NHTSA approval: 

(1) Sample design—The State shall– 

(i) Define all sampling units, with 

their measures of size, as provided in 

§ 1340.5(a); 

(ii) Specify the data source of the 

sampling frame of road segments 

(observation sites), as provided in 

§ 1340.5(a)(2)(i); 

(iii) Specify any exclusions that have 

been applied to the sampling frame, as 

provided in § 1340.5(a)(2)(iii); 

(iv) Define what stratification was 

used at each stage of sampling and what 

methods were used for allocation of the 

sample units to the strata; 

(v) Specify the method used to select 

the road segments for observation sites 

as provided by § 1340.5(b). 

(vi) List all observation sites and their 

probabilities of selection; 

(vii) Explain how the sample sizes 

were determined, as provided in 

§ 1340.5(d); 

(viii) Describe how observation sites 

were assigned to observation time 

periods, as provided in § 1340.6; and 

(ix) Identify the name and describe 

the qualifications of the State survey 

statistician meeting the requirements in 

§ 1340.8(c). 

(2) Data collection—The State shall— 

(i) Define an observation period; 

(ii) Specify the procedures to be 

implemented to reschedule or substitute 

observation sites when data collection is 

not possible on the date and time 

assigned, as provided in § 1340.5(c); 

(iii) Specify the procedures for 

collecting additional data to reduce the 

nonresponse rate, as provided in 

§ 1340.9(f)(2); 

(iv) Describe the data recording 

procedures; and 

(v) Specify the number of observers 

and quality control monitors. 

(3) Estimation—The State shall— 

(i) Describe how seat belt use rate 

estimates will be calculated; 

(ii) Describe how variances will be 

estimated, as provided in § 1340.9(g); 

(iii) Specify imputation methods, if 

any, that will be used, as provided in 

§ 1340.9(c); 

(iv) Specify the procedures to adjust 

sampling weight for observation sites 

with no usable data, as provided in 

§ 1340.9(e); and 

(v) Specify the procedures to be 

followed if the standard error exceeds 

2.5 percentage points, as required in 

§ 1340.5(g). 

(b) Survey design submission 

deadline. For calendar year 2012, States 

shall submit proposed survey designs to 

NHTSA for approval no later than 

January 3, 2012. Thereafter, States 

should submit survey designs for 

NHTSA approval as specified in 

§ 1340.11. 

§ 1340.11 Post-approval alterations to 

survey design. 

After NHTSA approval of a survey 

design, States shall submit for NHTSA 

approval any proposed alteration to 

their survey design, including, but not 

limited to, sample design, seat belt use 

rate estimation method, variance 

estimation method and data collection 

protocols, at least three months before 

data collection begins. 

§ 1340.12 Re-selection of observation 

sites. 

(a) Re-selection of observation sites. 

States shall re-select observation sites 

using updated sampling frame data, as 

described in § 1340.5(a), no less than 

once every five years. 

(b) Re-selection submission deadline. 

States shall submit updated sampling 

frame data meeting the requirements of 

§ 1340.5(a) for NHTSA approval no later 

than March 1 of the re-selection year. 

§ 1340.13 Annual reporting requirements. 

(a) Survey data. States shall report the 

following information no later than 

March 1 of each year for the preceding 

calendar year’s seat belt use survey, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18059 

1 Identify if the observation site is an original 

observation site or an alternate observation site. 2 Occupants refer to both drivers and passengers. 

3The standard error may not exceed 2.5 percent. 

using the reporting form in Appendix A 

to this part: (1) Spreadsheet in electronic format 

containing the raw data for each 

observation site and the observation site 

weight; (2) Statewide seat belt use rate 

estimate and standard error; 

(3) Nonresponse rate for the variable 

‘‘belt use,’’ as provided in § 1340.9(f); (4) Dates of the reported data 

collection; 

(5) Observation sites, identified by 

type of observation site (i.e., observation 

site selected in the original survey 

design, alternate observation site 

selected subsequent to the original 

survey design), and by characteristics of 

the observation site visit (i.e., at least 

one vehicle observed, no vehicles 

observed); and 

(6) Name of the State survey 

statistician meeting the qualification 

requirements, as provided in 

§ 1340.8(c). 

(b) Certifications by Governor’s 

Highway Safety Representative. The 

Governor’s Highway Safety 

Representative (GR) or if delegated in 

writing, the Coordinator of the State 

Highway Safety Office, shall sign the 

reporting form certifying that— (1) llllllllhas been 

designated by the Governor as the GR, 

and if applicable, the GR has delegated 

the authority to sign the certification in 

writing to llllllll, the 

Coordinator of the State Highway Safety 

Office; 

(2) The reported Statewide seat belt 

use rate is based on a survey design that 

was approved by NHTSA, in writing, as 

conforming to the Uniform Criteria for 

State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt 

Use, 23 CFR Part 1340; 

(3) The survey design has remained 

unchanged since the survey was 

approved by NHTSA; and 

(4) llllllll, a qualified 

survey statistician, reviewed the seat 

belt use rate reported in Part A (of the 

certification) and information reported 

in Part B and has determined that they 

meet the Uniform Criteria for State 

Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 

23 CFR part 1340. 

(d) Audits. NHTSA may audit State 

survey results and data collection. The 

State shall retain the following records 

for five years and make them available 

to NHTSA in electronic format within 

four weeks of request: 

(1) Computation programs used in the 

sample selection; 

(2) Computation programs used to 

estimate the Statewide seat belt use rate 

and standard errors for the surveys 

conducted since the last NHTSA 

approval of the sample design; and 

(3) Sampling frame(s) for design(s) 

used since the last NHTSA approval of 

the sample design. 

APPENDIX A TO PART 1340—STATE 

SEAT BELT USE SURVEY REPORTING 

FORM 

PART A: To be completed by the 

Governor’s Highway Safety Representative 

(GR) or if applicable, the Coordinator of the 

State Highway Safety Office. 

State: llllllllllllllllll

Calendar Year of Survey: lllllllll

Statewide Seat Belt Use Rate: lllllll

I hereby certify that: 

• llllllllhas been designated by 

the Governor as the State’s Highway Safety 

Representative (GR), and if applicable, the 

GR has delegated the authority to sign the 

certification in writing to 

lllllllll, the Coordinator of the 

State Highway Safety Office. 

• The reported Statewide seat belt use rate 

is based on a survey design that was 

approved by NHTSA, in writing, as 

conforming to the Uniform Criteria for State 

Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 

CFR Part 1340. 

• The survey design has remained 

unchanged since the survey was approved by 

NHTSA. 

• llllllll, a qualified survey 

statistician, has reviewed the seat belt use 

rate reported above and information reported 

in Part B and has determined that they meet 

the Uniform Criteria for State Observational 

Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR Part 1340. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Signature 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Date 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Printed name of signing official 

PART B—DATA COLLECTED AT OBSERVATION SITES

Site ID Site type 1 Date 

observed 

Sample 

weight 

Number of 

drivers 

Number of 

front Passengers 

Number of 

occupants 2

belted 

Number of 

occupants 

unbelted 

Number of 

occupants 

with 

unknown 

belt use 

Total 

Standard Error of Statewide Belt Use 

Rate 3lll 

Nonresponse Rate, as provided in 

§ 1340.9(f) 

Nonresponse rate for the survey variable 

seat belt use: llll 

Issued on: March 28, 2011. 

David L. Strickland, 

Administrator, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7632 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 301 

[TD 9519] 

RIN 1545–BF33 

Taxpayer Assistance Orders 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Final regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document contains final 

regulations relating to taxpayer 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES