Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 4509-4521 [2010-1613]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 18 (Thursday, January 28, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4509-4521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1613]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes amendments to the regulations establishing 
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. NHTSA proposes these amendments so that future surveys will give 
States more accurate data to guide their occupant protection programs.

DATES: Written comments may be submitted to this agency and must be 
received no later than March 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number

[[Page 4510]]

NHTSA-2010-0002 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public 
Participation'' section of this document. Note that all comments 
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy 
Act'' heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the 
complete User Notice and Privacy Notice for Regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/search/footer/privacyanduse.jsp.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

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: Ms. 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. Proposed Amendments to the Uniform Criteria
    A. Purpose; Applicability; Definitions
    B. Selection of Observation Sites
    C. Assignment of Observation Times
    D. Observation Procedures
    E. Quality Control
    F. Computation of Estimates
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Submission and Approval of Seat Belt Survey Design
    B. Post-Approval Alterations to Survey Designs
    C. Re-Selection of Observation Sites
    D. Annual Reporting Requirements
IV. Public Participation
V. Statutory Basis for This Action
VI. 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

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 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 (Uniform Criteria). See 63 FR 46389. On March 14, 
2000, NHTSA published a final rule, adopting the Uniform Criteria with 
one clarifying change.\1\ See 65 FR 13679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2000, NHTSA clarified that States are permitted to group 
observation sites according to geographic areas to minimize travel 
time and distance required to conduct the observations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59) 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. 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 incentive 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 
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 in a more cost effective 
manner. For these reasons, NHTSA proposes to revise the Uniform 
Criteria so that future surveys will give States more accurate data to 
guide their occupant protection programs.
    As articulated in detail below, NHTSA proposes several key changes 
to the existing criteria. In particular, the agency proposes to revise 
the sampling frame from the population-based criterion to a fatality-
based criterion and to identify road types to be included in the road 
inventory. The proposal also changes the precision requirement from a 
five percent relative error to a 2.5 percentage point standard error. 
In addition, the agency proposes quality control procedures to help 
ensure accuracy and consistency across all State surveys. Finally, the 
agency proposes to require States to submit additional information from 
the survey results as part of their annual certifications, including 
data source of the sampling frame, exclusions applied to the sampling 
frame, procedures for collecting additional data to reduce the 
nonresponse rates, explanation of imputation methods, procedures to 
adjust the sampling weight, and procedures to be followed if the 
standard error is exceeded.
    Accordingly, the agency is issuing this NPRM to propose changes to 
the Uniform Criteria, describe approval

[[Page 4511]]

procedures for seat belt survey designs, and specify the reporting 
requirements for seat belt use rates.

II. Proposed Amendments to the Uniform Criteria

A. Purpose; Applicability; Definitions (23 CFR 1340.1; 23 CFR 1340.2; 
23 CFR 1340.3)

    This proposal would amend the purpose and applicability sections to 
update the statutory reference, specify the effective date for the 
revised uniform criteria, and note the addition of proposed survey 
designs approval procedures and administrative requirements. The agency 
proposes that the revised Uniform Criteria would be effective for seat 
belt surveys conducted starting in calendar year 2011.
    The agency also proposes adding a definition section to define 
certain terms used in the proposed rule. For example, the agency 
proposes definitions for road types (access ramp, cul-de-sac, non-
public road, service drive, traffic circle, unnamed road, vehicular 
trail) and ``passenger motor vehicle'' which are commonly used terms. 
Although the agency also adds a definition for ``nonresponse rate,'' 
other statistical terms, such as probability sampling, precision 
requirement, imputation, sampling weights, variance estimation, are not 
added as definitions as they have meanings that are generally 
understood in the field of statistics.

B. Selection of Observation Sites (23 CFR 1340.5)

    In Sec.  1340.5(a)(1), the agency proposes to amend the current 
demographics requirement in the sampling frame. Currently, States must 
include the most populous counties or other areas accounting for at 
least 85 percent of the State's population in the sampling frame. 
Because NHTSA believes that this sampling frame may result in an 
unintended bias in seat belt use rates, we propose to change from a 
population-based criterion to a fatality-based criterion. We believe 
that using a fatality-based sampling frame would enable the States to 
focus on areas with traffic safety concerns. Under the revised 
criterion at Sec.  1340.5(a)(1), a State would be able to exclude any 
counties or county-equivalents accounting for up to 15 percent of the 
State's motor vehicle crash fatalities during the last three years, as 
measured by the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data. NHTSA 
believes that this 15 percent exclusion would allow the States to 
reduce survey costs with minimum impact to the survey result. In other 
words, States must include counties or county-equivalents in which at 
least 85 percent of the motor vehicle crash fatalities occurred during 
the three most recent years for which FARS data are available. Each 
time a State updates its survey design (at least every five years, or 
more frequently if the State so elects), the geographic distribution of 
motor vehicle fatalities from the three most recent years will be re-
examined to identify the counties or county-equivalents to be included 
in the updated survey. To assist States in this effort, FARS data is 
available on NHTSA's Web site at https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov. Also, NHTSA 
would provide a county-by-county breakout of fatalities during the 
three most recent years to any State that requested it. Based on a 
statistical simulation of the impact, the agency believes that the 
proposed fatality-based criterion would improve State seat belt use 
estimates by reducing the statistical bias towards urban areas that 
tend to have higher seat belt use rates. For this reason, we believe 
that the revised criterion would provide a more representative sample 
for the survey.
    In Sec.  1340.5(a)(2), we propose to add a road coverage 
requirement to the sampling frame criterion. Specifically, all roads 
except those explicitly excluded would be required to be eligible for 
sampling. The existing Uniform Criteria do not specify the types of 
roads that must be eligible in the sampling frame. At the time the 
current criteria were adopted, a comprehensive and affordable database 
of roads was not available to many States. Most States relied on State-
provided inventories of roads, which in many cases captured only 
subsets of roads in the State, such as State-maintained roads. As a 
result, road inventories used by the States varied widely. In many 
cases, the resulting observation sites were not representative of all 
roads. Because all States currently do not have a database of all roads 
in the State, NHTSA would make a database of roads available for each 
State. Alternatively, a State could choose to use its own database of 
roads if approved by NHTSA. The agency believes that using a more 
comprehensive database would result in more representative and 
consistent seat belt use estimates.
    Under the proposed rule, the following roads would be permitted to 
be excluded from the sample: Non-public roads, unnamed roads, unpaved 
roads, vehicular trails, access ramps, cul-de-sacs, traffic circles and 
service drives. The agency believes that exclusion of these road types 
from sampling and observation is appropriate for reasons of safety and 
practicality. These road types are excluded from NHTSA's own nationwide 
survey of seat belt use, the National Occupant Protection Use Survey 
(NOPUS).
    In Sec.  1340.5(b), the agency's proposal retains the existing 
requirement that survey designs be probability-based. Specifically, the 
observation sites and observation schedule (day and time) for the data 
collection would be required to be selected based on probability 
sampling, i.e., randomly. The proposal, however, clarifies that 
deterministic, i.e., non-random, selection would be permitted in the 
selection of specific locations on the sampled road segments, i.e., the 
specific location on the road segment where observers are positioned 
could be chosen based on such factors as safety and visibility. The 
proposal also would allow alternate observation sites to be used under 
certain conditions. The proposal identifies ``alternate observation 
site'' as a replacement observation site that must (1) be located in 
the same county or county-equivalent as the observation site; and (2) 
have the same roadway classification as the observation site (e.g., 
local road segment, collector road segment).
    In Sec.  1340.5(c), the agency proposes that States include a 
protocol to follow when they cannot collect data at an observation site 
at the scheduled time. The agency proposes certain minimum conditions 
depending on whether the observation site is temporarily or permanently 
unavailable for data collection. Under the existing uniform criteria, 
there is no requirement for a protocol. However, it is likely that many 
States have protocols for selecting alternate observation sites even 
though the protocol is not included in the State's current survey 
design. The proposed protocol requirement for selecting alternate 
observation sites would promote efficiency and consistency in data 
collection.
    First, the agency anticipates that observations may not be 
conducted at some observation sites for temporary reasons. For example, 
weather conditions, traffic incidents, or road construction may prevent 
an observer from making observations in a safe manner. Under such 
temporary conditions, the agency suggests two options for data 
collection. The State may return to the observation site at another 
time provided it is on the same day of the week and at the same time of 
day. The State may also select an alternate observation site provided 
the data is collected on the same day and approximately at the same 
time as the originally scheduled observation site.

[[Page 4512]]

The agency recommends that the State pre-select alternate observation 
sites before the start of data collection. Notwithstanding the 
availability of the protocol, the agency proposes to require that data 
collection be conducted at the original observation site at all times 
when it is available. The agency believes that giving States these 
options will allow them to determine which method is most efficient and 
convenient for the State while providing greater consistency across 
State survey collections.
    Second, the agency anticipates that some observation sites may 
become permanently unavailable because the road on which the 
observation site is located is permanently closed. Under these 
circumstances, the agency proposes that the State may select a 
permanent replacement observation site based on probability sampling. 
However, if the State cannot select a permanent replacement observation 
site during the current data collection, the agency proposes that it 
may select an alternate observation site, provided that the data is 
collected on the same day and at approximately the same time as the 
originally scheduled observation site. The agency proposes that data 
collection for future years must be conducted at an observation site 
that has been selected based on probability sampling. (See Section II, 
B., above for further discussion.) The agency believes that this 
proposal would provide States flexibility under unexpected 
circumstances.
    In Sec.  1340.5(d), we propose to change the precision requirement 
from the current 5 percent relative error (standard error divided by 
the estimate) to a 2.5 percentage point standard error. In some cases, 
the existing criterion allows margins of error (using 95 percent 
confidence) up to plus or minus 10 percentage points, and it also 
requires States with lower seat belt use rates to meet a smaller margin 
of error than States with higher seat belt use rates. NHTSA believes 
that a uniform margin of error requirement would be equitable for all 
States. The proposed criterion would require a standard error not to 
exceed 2.5 percentage points.
    States should closely monitor their survey results to assure that 
they will be able to meet these more stringent precision requirements. 
If the standard error proves to be too large, States may need to 
conduct additional observations to obtain an adequate sample. These 
additional observations must be conducted in the same calendar year as 
the sample. Therefore, we encourage States to conduct their surveys 
early enough in the year to allow for additional sampling if necessary, 
and to closely monitor the survey results so that they can quickly 
determine whether extra sampling will be required. Surveys which fail 
to meet these requirements will not be accepted by NHTSA. NHTSA 
believes that the likelihood for additional sampling is very small with 
a well-planned and implemented sample design. NHTSA seeks comment on 
this requirement, whether it would impose a significant burden on 
States, and if there are other methods of ensuring the reliability of 
the results that are equitable to all States.

C. Assignment of Observation Times (23 CFR 1340.6)

    The existing Uniform Criteria require all daylight hours and all 
days of the week to be eligible for data collection.\2\ The agency 
proposes to allow States to restrict their data collection to all 
daylight hours between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Daylight hours during the 
summer vary, and can begin as early as 5 a.m. and end as late as 9:15 
p.m. or later. NHTSA believes it would be more equitable to States if 
the times eligible for data collection were specified. This proposal 
does not change the current requirement that all days of the week, 
including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, be eligible for data 
collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 under this 
proposal. First, extending the sampling requirement to nighttime 
observations would reduce the value 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, nighttime observations are 
more difficult than daytime observations because seat belt use is 
not as easy to observe in the dark, even in the most well lit sites. 
Nighttime observations are also less safe for observers than daytime 
observations because observers are less conspicuous and the increase 
of impaired drivers makes nighttime observations inherently more 
dangerous than daytime observations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing Uniform Criteria require the schedule for any given 
data collection to be determined in a random manner. The agency 
proposes to continue this requirement--States must randomly select both 
the day of the week and the time of the day. However, NHTSA allows 
States to group observation sites in close geographic proximity, i.e., 
cluster assignments of observation sites, for efficiency reasons. The 
agency proposes to continue to allow cluster assignments of observation 
sites. For example, after selecting observation sites randomly, the 
State may identify observation sites in close geographic proximity 
where data could be collected on the same day by the same survey crew. 
States must randomly select the day of the week that data will be 
collected for the geographically-grouped cluster of observation sites. 
States must randomly select one observation site from the 
geographically-grouped cluster of observation sites and must randomly 
assign the time of day for the data collection. Data collection at all 
other observation sites in the cluster must take place on the same day 
or adjacent days of the week and at times of the day that ensure 
efficient use of data collection resources. We believe that this 
proposal allows for the efficient use of data collection resources and 
limits the introduction of a judgment bias.

D. Observation Procedures (23 CFR 1340.7)

    The existing Uniform Criteria require all survey data to be 
collected through direct observation and during the calendar year 
reported for the Statewide seat belt use rate. We propose no change to 
this requirement in Sec.  1340.7(a).
    Under the existing Uniform Criteria, the State may choose to 
observe data from one or both directions of traffic. We propose no 
change to this provision in Sec.  1340.7(b), but propose clarifying 
language. Specifically, if data will be collected from traffic 
traveling in one direction, that direction should be chosen randomly. 
If a State chooses to observe traffic from both directions at the same 
time, the State should provide at least one person to observe traffic 
from each direction.
    In Sec.  1340.7(c), the agency proposes to clarify the requirement 
regarding the vehicles that must be covered in the survey. The existing 
Uniform Criteria require that all passenger motor vehicles be included 
in the survey. The agency's proposal clarifies that this requirement 
includes passenger motor vehicles being used for commercial purposes, 
and vehicles that are exempt from the State's seat belt use law or that 
bear out-of-state license plates.
    In Sec.  1340.7(d), the agency proposes to include clarifying 
language regarding the data that must be collected on occupants in 
passenger motor vehicles. The existing criteria state that drivers and 
front seat outboard passengers must be observed. We propose to include 
language specifying that data on all drivers and right front 
passengers, except passengers in child safety seats, must be collected. 
Child safety seats include forward-facing and rear-facing child safety 
seats, but do not include booster seats. NHTSA believes that children 
should not be placed in the front seat. However, the agency believes 
that data on passengers in child safety

[[Page 4513]]

seats should be excluded because it is difficult to observe whether a 
child safety seat is properly installed or the child is properly 
restrained in the child safety seat. However, right front passengers in 
booster seats must be included in the survey because booster seats 
require the use of a readily-observable shoulder belt to secure the 
passenger.
    The existing Uniform Criteria require that shoulder belt use by the 
driver and right front passenger in passenger vehicles be recorded. In 
Sec.  1340.7(e), the agency leaves unchanged the survey variables that 
are existing requirements of the Uniform Criteria--belt status of 
driver, presence of right front passenger, and belt status of right 
front passenger if present. However, we propose to clarify when to 
record an occupant as ``belted.'' We propose that observers record an 
occupant as ``belted'' if they see that a shoulder belt is in front of 
the occupant's shoulder; record an occupant as ``unbelted'' if they see 
that a shoulder belt is not in front of the occupant's shoulder; and 
record the belt use of the occupant as ``unknown'' if it cannot 
reasonably be determined that the shoulder belt is in front of the 
occupant's shoulder. Thus, an occupant using a lap-only belt or using a 
lap/shoulder belt with the shoulder belt behind the shoulder would be 
counted as ``unbelted.'' A motorist with a shoulder belt under the arm 
near the shoulder belt anchor would be counted as ``unbelted.''
    In Sec.  1340.7(f), the agency proposes to specify certain 
prohibited practices that could artificially raise seat belt use rates 
at observation sites. Specifically, we propose to prohibit observers 
from wearing law enforcement uniforms and prohibit the presence of law 
enforcement vehicles visible to motorists at observation sites. We also 
propose to prohibit advance specific warning to motorists approaching 
observation sites that a seat belt use survey is being or will be 
conducted. NHTSA believes that this will help ensure more accurate 
estimates of seat belt use rates.

E. Quality Control (23 CFR 1340.8)

    The existing Uniform Criteria do not specifically address quality 
control procedures. Because it is likely that States vary in their use 
of quality control measures, we propose to add criteria establishing a 
uniform baseline of quality control procedures to ensure reliability 
and consistency in State survey results. First, in Sec.  1340.8(a), we 
propose that States assign quality control monitors to conduct random, 
unannounced site visits to ensure that observers are conducting the 
survey properly. NHTSA proposes that States conduct these observation 
site visits to no less than five percent of the observation sites. The 
same individual may not serve as both the observer and the quality 
control monitor at the same observation site at the same time.
    Second, in Sec.  1340.8(b), we propose that all observers and 
quality control monitors must have been trained in data collection 
protocols, including observation protocols as provided in Sec.  1340.7 
and substitution and rescheduling of observation sites as provided in 
Sec.  1340.5(c), within twelve months prior to data collection. 
Finally, we propose in Sec.  1340.8(c) that survey results be reviewed 
by persons knowledgeable in the design of complex probability samples 
and estimation and variance estimation from such samples. NHTSA 
believes such uniform measures are necessary for accurate and reliable 
survey results.

F. Computation of Estimates (23 CFR 1340.9)

    In Sec. Sec.  1340.9(a) and 1340.9(b), NHTSA's proposal specifies 
that States must use all data collected at observation sites and must 
not use statistical editing procedures that would alter the values of 
observed data. NHTSA believes that these requirements are necessary to 
ensure accurate representation of seat belt use estimates.
    In Sec.  1340.9(c), we propose to allow States to employ imputation 
of unknown values, provided the State's proposed imputation procedure 
is submitted to and approved by NHTSA in advance. Although NHTSA does 
not require or encourage the imputation of unknown values, we would 
allow States to propose methods of imputation for unknown values 
provided the proposed methods are approved by NHTSA prior to data 
analysis.
    In Sec.  1340.9(d), NHTSA makes no changes to the current 
requirement that observation site data be weighted by sampling weights 
(inverses of selection probabilities).
    In Sec.  1340.9(e), NHTSA proposes that States include a procedure 
to adjust 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. If data is discovered to be 
falsified, the data must be discarded and the observation site treated 
as if no data were collected. For observation sites for which no data 
were collected, States should consider the following approaches for 
adjusting for the lack of data: discard the observation site from data 
analysis and adjust the remaining observation sites' sampling weights 
accordingly; return to the observation site on the same day of the week 
and at the same time of day to collect data; or select an alternate 
observation site as described in Section II, B. of this preamble. 
However, the State may propose another procedure to adjust for 
observation sites with no usable data. NHTSA believes that requiring 
States to include a minimum protocol is necessary to provide a more 
accurate seat belt use rate estimate.
    In Sec.  1340.9(f)(1), we propose to add a new requirement that the 
nonresponse rates for (1) the ratio of the total number of recorded 
unknown values of passenger presence to the number of passenger 
vehicles observed, and (2) the ratio of the total number of recorded 
unknown values of belt use to the total number of drivers and right 
front seat passengers observed not exceed 10 percent. In other words, 
the presence or absence of a right front seat passenger must not be 
``unknown'' for more than 10 percent of the vehicles observed in the 
entire survey; and the belt use status must not be ``unknown'' for more 
than 10 percent of the drivers and right front seat passengers in the 
entire survey. NHTSA believes that this new requirement is necessary to 
reduce potential bias in the survey results.
    In Sec.  1340.9(f)(2), we propose to add a new requirement that 
States include a procedure for collecting additional observations to 
reduce the nonresponse rates to no more than 10 percent. One possible 
procedure to adjust for nonresponse rates in excess of 10 percent would 
be to return to observation sites with the highest numbers of unknown 
values on the same day of the week and same time of day as the original 
data collection schedule to observe additional data. States must not 
discard the data from the original data collection. States may take 
additional measures to reduce the number of unknown values, such as 
assigning additional observers to return to those observation sites 
with the highest numbers of unknown values. As proposed in Section II, 
D. above, all data collection must be conducted during the calendar 
year in which the seat belt use rate estimate is reported to NHTSA. 
States should plan their surveys in order to allow the State sufficient 
time to conduct additional observations in the event that the 
nonresponse rate exceeds 10 percent.
    In Sec.  1340.9(g), we propose to change the allowable margin of 
error in the survey from the existing five percent relative error to a 
2.5 percentage point standard error. As discussed in Section II, B. of 
this preamble above, the

[[Page 4514]]

existing criterion allows margins of error up to plus or minus 10 
percentage points. NHTSA also proposes to clarify that in the event 
that the standard error exceeds this threshold, the State must conduct 
additional observations during the same calendar year until the 
standard error does not exceed 2.5 percentage points. As discussed in 
Section II, B. of this preamble, States should conduct surveys early 
enough in the year to allow for additional sampling if necessary, and 
to closely monitor the survey results so that they can quickly 
determine whether extra sampling will be required. NHTSA believes that 
the likelihood for additional sampling is very small with a well-
planned and implemented sample design.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Submission and Approval of Seat Belt Survey Design (23 CFR 1340.10)

    Section 1340.5 of the existing Uniform Criteria details the 
documentation requirements for proposed sample survey designs and 
reporting annual seat belt use estimates. We propose to require 
additional documentation in the proposed sample survey designs 
submitted to NHTSA for approval. Specifically, we propose to require 
States to (1) define all sampling units, with their measures of size, 
(2) identify the data source of the sampling frame; (3) specify any 
exclusions applied to the sampling frame; (4) identify the name and 
describe the qualifications of the State seat belt statistician; (5) 
detail the procedures for collecting additional data to reduce the 
nonresponse rates that exceed 10 percent; (6) include the number of 
observers and quality control monitors; (7) explain any imputation 
methods that will be used; (8) specify any procedures to adjust the 
sampling weight for observation sites with no usable data; and (9) 
describe the procedures to be followed if the standard error exceeds 
2.5 percentage points.
    The agency also proposes to require documentation of data 
collection and estimation of seat belt use rate. For data collection, 
we propose to require States to (1) define an observation period; (2) 
specify the procedures to be implemented to reschedule or substitute 
observation sites when data collection is not possible on the date and 
time assigned; (3) specify the procedures for collecting additional 
data to reduce the nonresponse rate when the nonresponse rates exceeds 
10 percent; (4) describe the data recording procedures; and (5) specify 
the number of observers and quality control monitors. For estimation, 
we propose to require States to (1) describe how seat belt use rate 
estimates will be calculated; (2) describe how variances will be 
estimated; (3) specify imputation methods, if any; (4) specify the 
procedures to adjust sampling weight for observation sites with no 
usable data; and (5) specify the procedures to be followed if the 
standard error exceeds 2.5 percentage points. NHTSA believes that 
additional documentation is necessary for the agency to determine 
accurately if the State's proposed survey design meets the Uniform 
Criteria.
    Under the existing Uniform Criteria, States must submit their 
survey designs to NHTSA in advance of data collection in order for 
NHTSA to determine whether the designs meet the Uniform Criteria. The 
agency retains this requirement, but adds a deadline.
    Currently, no State survey design meets all the requirements of the 
proposed Uniform Criteria. Under this proposal, all States would revise 
their seat belt use survey designs before conducting seat belt use 
surveys in calendar year 2011, and must submit new survey design 
proposals to NHTSA no later than January 3, 2011. The agency believes 
most States conduct seat belt use surveys in the late-spring to early 
summer of the year. Submission of proposed survey designs by this date 
will allow the agency sufficient time to review the State design and 
provide guidance well in advance of States conducting survey data 
collection.

B. Post-Approval Alterations to Survey Designs (23 CFR 1340.11)

    We propose to continue the requirement that States submit proposals 
to alter their survey design to NHTSA at least three months prior to 
data collection if the alteration would impact the Statewide seat belt 
use rate or its standard error. Examples of changes that would impact 
the Statewide seat belt use rate estimate or its standard error 
include, but are not limited to, changes in sample design, seat belt 
use rate estimation method, variance estimation method, and data 
collection protocols.

C. Re-Selection of Observation Sites (23 CFR 1340.12)

    The existing Uniform Criteria do not specify how frequently 
observation site samples should be refreshed, i.e., updated to reflect 
new road construction, changes in traffic volume, and population 
shifts. Accordingly, some States use survey designs that are more than 
20 years old. We believe that this diminishes the accuracy of survey 
results. We propose that the State re-select its sample of observation 
sites from a NHTSA-provided road database or another road database 
approved by NHTSA no less than once every five years. We further 
propose States submit the updated sampling frame data to NHTSA for 
approval no later than March 1 of the re-selection year. NHTSA believes 
that this proposal balances the need for a more accurate estimate of 
seat belt use with the burdens of re-selecting the sample of 
observation sites.

D. Annual Reporting Requirements (23 CFR 1340.13; Appendix A)

    Under the existing Uniform Criteria, States report the annual 
Statewide seat belt use rate and standard error, and certify that their 
Statewide seat belt use rates were obtained in accordance with the 
Uniform Criteria. For oversight purposes, we propose to expand the 
certification to include additional information. Specifically, we 
propose that States would provide the following additional information: 
(1) A spreadsheet in electronic format containing the raw data for each 
observation site and the observation site weight; (2) nonresponse rates 
for survey variables--seat belt use and passenger presence; (3) the 
dates of the data collection; (4) observation sites, identified by type 
of 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 (5) name of the 
State seat belt survey statistician.
    In Sec.  1340.13, NHTSA proposes that the Governor's Highway Safety 
Representative (GR) or if delegated in writing by the GR, the 
Coordinator of the State Highway Safety Office sign the certification 
included in the annual reporting requirement. That individual must 
certify that (1) [name of GR] has been designated by the Governor as 
the GR, and if applicable, the GR has delegated the authority to sign 
the certification in writing to [name of Coordinator], the State 
Highway Safety Coordinator; (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) the 
individual named in the reporting form is a qualified statistician who 
has reviewed and approved the seat belt use rate and standard error 
reported.

[[Page 4515]]

    In addition, NHTSA proposes that the State seat belt survey 
statistician also sign the reporting form certifying that (s)he meets 
the qualification requirements in Sec.  1340.8(c), and the information 
being reported is correct and is in compliance with the Uniform 
Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use, 23 CFR part 
1340.
    NHTSA also proposes that States retain certain records for five 
years and make them available to NHTSA within four weeks of request. We 
believe that retention of these records would not pose an additional 
burden on States because these are records that States would normally 
retain in the course of designing a seat belt use survey and conducting 
annual seat belt use surveys.

IV. Public Participation

A. How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 
553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary 
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under 
ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically on the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments.

B. How can I be sure my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

C. Will the agencies consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

D. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the Docket Management at the 
address given under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated 
above in the same location. To read the comments on the Internet, go to 
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 
accessing the docket.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information on the docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material.

V. Statutory Basis for This Action

    The agency's proposal would implement changes to the uniform 
criteria for the measurement of State seat belt use rates that a State 
is required to conduct annually under a grant program in accordance 
with 23 U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E)(iii).

VI. 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), 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 rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The rulemaking 
action 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)).
    The agency's proposal would not affect amounts over the 
significance threshold of $100 million each year. The agency's proposal 
would not 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. The agency's proposal would not create an inconsistency or 
interfere with any actions taken or planned by other agencies. The 
agency's proposal would not materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof. Finally, the agency's proposal 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 as part 
of the administrative requirements for a highway safety grant under 23 
U.S.C. 402(b)(1)(E)(iii). The outcome of the State's annual Statewide 
seat belt use survey provides one of the core performance measures--
observed seat belt use by drivers and front outboard seat passengers of 
passenger motor vehicles--that were developed as a collaborative effort 
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Governors 
Highway Safety Association (GHSA), with assistance from other partners. 
Through these assurances, every State Highway Safety Office has 
committed to conducting an annual Statewide seat belt use survey.
    The agency's proposal would not change the statutory requirement to 
provide assurances that the State will conduct an annual Statewide seat 
belt use survey, but would change the way States collect and report 
survey data. Specifically, the proposed rule would make two changes to 
the sampling frame--draw observation sites from a sampling frame based 
on traffic fatalities instead of population, and include all roads with 
a few exceptions in the sampling frame. In addition, the proposed rule 
would change the standard error to not to exceed 2.5 percentage points. 
The proposed rule also would improve 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, 
the proposed rule would require States to submit additional

[[Page 4516]]

information in their annual certifications.
    The agency has determined that if it is made final, this rulemaking 
action would not be 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, 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, and that 
the impacts of the rule would be minimal and not require the 
preparation of 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 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 proposal under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This proposal 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 proposal 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 notice of proposed rulemaking 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 rulemaking action in accordance with 
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism 
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or 
the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. Moreover, the 
proposed rule would not preempt any State law or regulation or affect 
the ability of States to discharge traditional State government 
functions.

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. This NPRM, if made final, would result in a new 
collection of information that would require OMB clearance pursuant to 
5 CFR part 1320. Before an agency submits a proposed collection of 
information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in 
the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise 
consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning 
each proposed collection of information. OMB has promulgated 
regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under 
OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public 
comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collections of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collections of information 
on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, the agencies ask for public 
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    Title: Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat 
Belt Use.
    OMB Control Number: N/A.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the 
approval date.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Affected Public: State Governments (the 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico and 4 territories).
    Form Number: N/A.
    Abstract: The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59) provides 
that the Secretary of Transportation may not approve for Section 402 
funding a State highway safety program which does not provide 
satisfactory assurances that the State will implement an annual 
statewide seat belt use survey in accordance with criteria established 
by

[[Page 4517]]

the Secretary to ensure that the measurements of seat belt use are 
accurate and representative. In addition, in 2008, the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Governors Highway Safety 
Association (GHSA) partnered to develop a voluntary minimum set of 
performance measures to be used by States and federal agencies in the 
development and implementation of behavioral highway safety plans and 
programs, including observed seat belt use of front seat outboard 
occupants in passenger vehicles.
    Currently, States use the information collected in their seat belt 
use surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of their occupant protection 
countermeasures programs and to identify relatively low seat belt use 
areas and sub-populations requiring increased program emphasis. In 
addition, NHTSA uses the collected information, pooled across the 
States, to determine the relative impact of various countermeasures and 
program strategies and to provide guidance to assist the States in 
achieving the highest possible seat belt use. NHTSA also uses the 
collected information from individual States to identify those States 
whose occupant protection programs would most benefit from special 
management reviews, countermeasure demonstration projects and other 
forms of technical assistance.
    The information collected for the States' seat belt observational 
surveys is to include a seat belt survey design for approval and any 
subsequent changes to the seat belt survey design. The survey design 
will include a description of the methodology used to select the survey 
observational sites, the selection probability of each site, the survey 
observational procedures and protocols, observer training and quality 
control procedures. In addition, each State is to submit the survey 
results annually, including a certification regarding the survey, name 
of the State statistician, seat belt use rate, standard error, 
nonresponse rate and for each observational site, the number of front 
seat outboard occupants that were observed, the number observed to be 
wearing the seat belt, and the site weighting factor used to combine 
the individual site data into the measure of Statewide seat belt use.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 19,026 hours.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56 (50 States, District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana 
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
    Comments Are Invited on: Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize 
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology. Comments must refer to the docket and notice 
numbers cited at the beginning of this NPRM and be submitted to one of 
the addresses identified at the beginning of this NPRM.

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 proposed rule does not 
meet the definition of a Federal mandate because the resulting annual 
State expenditures would not 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 
proposal would 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 
13175, and has determined that the proposed action would not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments, and would 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

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the 
complete User Notice and Privacy Notice for Regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/search/footer/privacyanduse.jsp.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1340

    Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to revise 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 Belt Use Survey Reporting Form

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 402; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  1340.1  Purpose.

    This part establishes uniform criteria for State surveys of seat 
belt use conducted under 23 U.S.C. 402, procedures for NHTSA approval 
of survey designs, and administrative requirements relating to State 
seat belt surveys.


Sec.  1340.2  Applicability.

    This part applies to State surveys of seat belt use, beginning in 
calendar year 2011 and continuing annually thereafter.

[[Page 4518]]

Sec.  1340.3  Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    Access ramp means the segment of a road that forms a cloverleaf or 
limited access interchange.
    Cul-de-sac means the closed end of a road that forms a loop or 
turn-around.
    Non-public road means a road on which members of the general public 
are not allowed to drive motor vehicles.
    Nonresponse rate means, for any survey variable, the percentage of 
unknown values recorded for that variable.
    Observation site means the physical location where survey data are 
collected.
    Passenger motor vehicle means a passenger car, pickup truck, van, 
minivan or sport utility vehicle.
    Service drive means the segment of a road that provides access to 
businesses and rest areas.
    Traffic circle means the segment of a road or intersection of roads 
forming a roundabout.
    Unnamed road means a road, public or private, that has no name or 
number designation and is often a farm or logging road.
    Vehicular trail means a road designed or intended primarily for use 
by motor vehicles with four-wheel drive.

Subpart B--Survey Design Requirements


Sec.  1340.4  In general.

    This subpart sets forth the minimum design requirements to be 
incorporated in surveys conducted under this part.


Sec.  1340.5  Selection of observation sites.

    (a) Sampling frame requirements--(1) County coverage. The sampling 
frame from which observation sites are selected shall include counties 
or county-equivalents (including tribal territories), as defined by the 
U.S. Census Bureau, that account for at least 85 percent of the State's 
passenger vehicle occupant fatalities, provided that the average of the 
last three years of available Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 
data 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 non-public roads, unnamed 
roads, unpaved roads, vehicular trails, access ramps, cul-de-sacs, 
traffic circles and 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 retu