Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation H-13-007
Details
Synopsis: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has long been concerned about alcohol-impaired driving, which accounts for approximately one-third of all US highway fatalities. In the past several decades, awareness of the dangers of alcohol-impaired driving has increased. Public and private entities focusing on this safety issue have changed social perceptions concerning alcohol-impaired driving; they have also achieved important legislative actions to help reduce it. Due to these efforts, the number of lives lost annually in alcohol-impaired-driver-related crashes declined 53 percent, from 21,113 in 1982 to 9,878 in 2011; and the percentage of highway fatalities resulting from alcohol-involved crashes is down from 48 percent in 1982 to about 31 percent today. In recent years, however, US success in addressing this safety issue has plateaued. Since 1995, although the annual number of fatalities has declined, nearly one in three of all highway deaths still involves an alcohol-impaired driver. The cause of these deaths is well understood and preventable, yet even the most concerted efforts have not kept thousands of lives from being lost each year. If traditional methods are no longer reducing the problem, new—and possibly challenging—initiatives must be considered. In this safety report, the NTSB— • Describes the scope of the impaired driving problem; • Summarizes the efforts of advocacy groups, researchers, law enforcement agencies, traffic safety groups, public health organizations, legislators, and motor vehicle agencies, as well as federal, state, and local governments, to reduce the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities; • Examines the effect of alcohol consumption on an individual’s ability to operate a motor vehicle and on the risk of being involved in a crash; and • Evaluates the effectiveness of current and emerging alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures and identifies new approaches and actions needed to reduce and ultimately eliminate alcohol-impaired driving.
Recommendation: TO THE 50 STATES, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Include in your impaired driving prevention plan or highway safety plan elements to target repeat offenders and reduce driving while intoxicated (DWI) recidivism; such elements should include measures to improve compliance with alcohol ignition interlock requirements; the plan should also provide a mechanism for regularly assessing the success of these efforts. [This recommendation supersedes Safety Recommendation H-00-26.]
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Open - Await Response
Mode: Highway
Location: United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: DCA12SS006
Accident Reports:
Report #: SR-13-01
Accident Date: 6/28/2012
Issue Date: 6/3/2013
Date Closed:
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: Commonwealth of Kentucky (Open - Initial Response Received)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Open - Initial Response Received)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Open - Await Response)
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Open - Initial Response Received)
Commonwealth of Virginia (Open - Await Response)
District of Columbia (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Alabama (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Alaska (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Arizona (Open - Await Response)
State of Arkansas (Open - Await Response)
State of California (Open - Await Response)
State of Colorado (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Connecticut (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Delaware (Open - Await Response)
State of Florida (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Georgia (Open - Await Response)
State of Hawaii (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Idaho (Open - Await Response)
State of Illinois (Open - Await Response)
State of Indiana (Open - Await Response)
State of Iowa (Open - Await Response)
State of Kansas (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Louisiana (Open - Await Response)
State of Maine (Open - Acceptable Response)
State of Maryland (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Michigan (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Minnesota (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Mississippi (Open - Await Response)
State of Missouri (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Montana (Open - Await Response)
State of Nebraska (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Nevada (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of New Hampshire (Open - Await Response)
State of New Jersey (Open - Await Response)
State of New Mexico (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of New York (Open - Acceptable Response)
State of North Carolina (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of North Dakota (Open - Acceptable Response)
State of Ohio (Open - Await Response)
State of Oklahoma (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Oregon (Open - Await Response)
State of Rhode Island (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of South Carolina (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of South Dakota (Open - Await Response)
State of Tennessee (Open - Await Response)
State of Texas (Open - Await Response)
State of Utah (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Vermont (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Washington (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of West Virginia (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Wisconsin (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Wyoming (Open - Initial Response Received)
Keyword(s):

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: State of Alaska
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has any further action been taken to implement the strategic plan?

From: NTSB
To: State of Alaska
Date: 9/18/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-12-46 and H-13-5 through -9, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review.

From: State of Alaska
To: NTSB
Date: 9/12/2013
Response: -From Joseph Masters, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety and Patrick J. Kemp, P.E., Commissioner, Department of Transportation: DPS included this goal as part of the 2012 Alaska Strategic Traffic Safety Plan (STSP). A working group has been established to discuss the implementation of the STSP. Additionally, the Alaska Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) oversees the use of marked licenses for the requirement of an Ignition Interlock Devices (IID), and issues limited licenses that are contingent on the use of an IID. The Department of Corrections is the agency responsible for administering the IID program itself and has worked to enhance the monitoring and compliance enforcement of this program.

From: State of Alaska
To: NTSB
Date: 9/5/2013
Response: -From Jeff Jones, Special Assistant, Office of the Governor of Alaska: Thank you for the notice of the National Transportation Safety Board's wrong-way driving accidents report and the impact of this type of accident on older drivers. I have consulted with safety experts in the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), who both manage all highway crash records, and also prepare the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) in Alaska, a requirement that Congress passed in 2005 legislation known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act- A Legacy for Users. Under Section 148 of Title 23, the law calls for a comprehensive traffic safety plan, based in large part on a review of data pertaining to crash causation factors. The most recent SHSP was completed in 2012 (http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/stsplindex.shtml). By federal law, this plan must be based on evidence of crash records, traffic citations, and other information, and then sets out a series of recommendations to focus our efforts on those strategies and projects that would best allocate scarce safety funding. The most recent plan did not identify wrong-way crashes as a significant factor on Alaska's roadways, nor did it identify seniors as experiencing a disproportionate number of overall crashes. Currently 10.1 percent of Alaska's drivers are over 65 but they account for 9.0 percent of total crashes. The age of our drivers is an emerging concern, due in large part to our population demographics that indicate the state has among the fastest growing number of seniors of all states. In 2010, the United States Census Bureau projected that "The Alaska senior population is projected to grow at a significant rate, from just over 90,000 seniors in 2010 to more than 137,500 in 2020 and over 157,800 in 2030." This trend will continue to require adjustment in a wide variety of transportation policies and other state services going forward.

From: State of Alabama
To: NTSB
Date: 12/11/2014
Response: -From Bill Whatley, Public Safety Unit Chief, Law Enforcement and Traffic Safety Division, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs: Alabama has taken action to implement this recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: State of Alabama
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Alabama taken action to implement this recommendation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Arizona
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Arizona taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Arkansas
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Arkansas taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of California
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has California taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of Colorado
To: NTSB
Date: 12/1/2014
Response: -From Darrell S. Lingk, Director, Office of Transportation Safety, Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado Governor’s Highway Safety Coordinator (designee): No action has been taken and none is anticipated.

From: NTSB
To: State of Colorado
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Colorado taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of Connecticut
To: NTSB
Date: 12/4/2014
Response: -From Joseph T. Cristalli, Jr., Principal Safety Program Coordinator, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation: (Division of Criminal Justice response) CT has a subsequent offender DUI sentencing scheme which expressly authorizes increased penalties for first, second and third offenders. See §14-227a. Additionally, CT has a persistent DUI offender statute-§ 53a-40f- that permits courts to impose increased felony penalties on those convicted of DUI manslaughter DUI assault 2nd with a motor vehicle, who previously (within ten years prior to the current conviction) have been convicted of DUI, DUI manslaughter or assault 2nd with a motor vehicle. CT statute§ 14-227a requires all offenders convicted of DUI to utilize, for varying periods of time, IIDs during their probationary periods and as part of the license restoration process. additionally, pursuant to§ 14-227j, the court has the authority to impose the use of IIDs on persons arrested for DUI as a condition of bond, probation or participation in CT's AEP diversionary program {54-56g}. CT statute §14-111 also authorizes the Commissioner, under certain circumstances, to reverse lifetime DUI suspensions and in doing so, impose IID installation for any period during the lifetime of the offender, except that after 15 years, the offender may seek to have the condition lifted CT statute 18-100h, authorizes the use of an alternative "home confinement" program for subsequent offenders sentenced to mandatory minimum periods of incarceration. The program provides qualifying defendants with early release from prison and provides for intensive supervision and substance abuse treatment.

From: NTSB
To: State of Connecticut
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Connecticut taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Delaware
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: State of Florida
To: NTSB
Date: 1/22/2015
Response: -From Lora Bailey Hollingsworth, P.E., Chief Safety Officer, Highway Safety Coordinator: This action has been taken. No further action is expected. Close H-13-7.

From: NTSB
To: State of Florida
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Does Florida have any further actions planned to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Florida
Date: 11/4/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to the state of Florida and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -9, and H-12-34 through -36 and -45, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: State of Florida
To: NTSB
Date: 9/20/2013
Response: From Ananth Prasad, P.E., Florida Department of Transportation: The ISDP includes elements to target repeat offenders and reduce Driving Under the Influence (DUI) recidivism and establishes performance measures. The DHSMV is responsible for individual case management of repeat offenders through the driver license suspension process. Each DUI offender is required to complete DUI educational classes and may be referred to for substance abuse treatment based on an individual evaluation to identify risk. Ignition interlock devices (IID) are required for repeat offenders. During the 2013 session, Florida's Legislature passed HB 7125 to lower the fail rate BAC for IID's from 0.05 to 0.025, which is consistent with NHTSA recommendations. DHSMV provides performance measurement and monitors effectiveness through the DUI Program Summary Report.

From: NTSB
To: State of Georgia
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Georgia taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Hawaii
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Was the updated SHSP accepted as proposed? In 2013 or 2014, did Hawaii consider applicable legislation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Hawaii
Date: 9/18/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -9, and H-12-34 through -36, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review.

From: State of Hawaii
To: NTSB
Date: 8/22/2013
Response: -From Neil Abercrombie, Governor of Hawaii: Although Hawaii does have an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) law, it is not mandatory. There are plans to introduce a mandatory IID law along with stricter requirements for its use. This is being recommended in our updated SHSP (2013-2017).

From: NTSB
To: State of Idaho
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Idaho taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Illinois
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Illinois taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Indiana
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Indiana taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Iowa
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Iowa taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Kansas
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Kansas taken any further action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Kansas
Date: 9/30/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -9 and H-12-34 through -36, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: State of Kansas
To: NTSB
Date: 9/13/2013
Response: -Chris Bortz, Traffic Safety Manager, Kansas Department of Transportation: Kansas does have ignition interlock provisions in our law for all DUI offenders. Development of procedures to enhance tracking and compliance are on-going and included as a strategy in our Impaired Driving Safety Plan. -Chris Bortz, Traffic Safety Manager, Kansas Department of Transportation: The state of Kansas does have enhanced penalties for those with a BAC of .15 and above.

From: Commonwealth of Massachusetts
To: NTSB
Date: 3/24/2015
Response: -From Krystian Boreyko, Program Coordinator, Highway Safety Division, Office of Grants and Research, Executive Office of Public Safety and Security: Has Massachusetts take action to implement this recommendation? Under Massachusetts' Melanie’s law, Ignition Interlock devices are required after the 2nd and subsequent offense conviction for OUI for a minimum of two years. Once the device is installed, a driver is required to pass a breath test before starting the vehicle. Any blood alcohol reading of greater than .02 will prevent the vehicle from starting. Every 30 days, the driver must return to the vendor that installed the device to upload and transfer data from the device to the RMV. Failure to comply with the Ignition Interlock Device requirements under the law will result in a license revocation from 10 years to life. In addition to the Ignition Interlock Device requirements, law enforcement targets areas based on data from alcohol related crashes and OUI arrests. Subsequently, repeat offenders are arrested. The success of the mobilizations is measured by tracking and analyzing enforcement data from past mobilizations. Additionally, enforcement statistics are compared to the incidence of highway crashes and any resulting injuries/deaths, with a historical analysis of the deployments giving perspective to the statistics. The qualitative assessment of the mobilizations will focus on feedback from the involved stakeholders, to include local law enforcement, media, government agencies and the Massachusetts residents.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Massachusetts take action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Kentucky
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: No further information is needed at this time to update this recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Kentucky
Date: 9/30/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -8 and -10, and H-12-34 through -36 and -45, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: Commonwealth of Kentucky
To: NTSB
Date: 9/17/2013
Response: -Michael W. Hancock, P.E., Secretary: Currently, ignition interlock is an option for judges but not mandated for repeat offenders. An "ignition interlock" bill has been introduced in each of the last three sessions of the Legislature but has not passed both chambers. In 2012, the bill was passed in the House but was not heard in the Senate. KOHS and other highway safety partners have met wid1 industry leaders to gather more information on ignition interlocks to expand our knowledge of the devices and the processes and depth of states' involvement. We will use this information to advise the decision makers in the Legislature as well as interested agencies.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Pennsylvania taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Puerto Rico taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
To: NTSB
Date: 7/31/2013
Response: -From Maritere Padilla Rodreiguez, ESQ, Governor’s Advosir, Office of Infrastructure, Environment, and Planning: We received your letter regarding the safety recommendations to adopt policies to address it. Thanks for this valuable information.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Virginia
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Virginia taken any action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: District of Columbia
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: No further information is needed at this time for this recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: District of Columbia
Date: 11/4/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your city and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -9, and H-12-34 through -36 and -45, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: District of Columbia
To: NTSB
Date: 10/3/2013
Response: -From Cathy Lanier, Chief of Police: Under the new legislation, penalties took into account recidivism as maximum jail times and fines increased. A first-time offender can now be jailed up to 180 days and fined up to $1,000. The previous maximum was 90 days in jail and a $300 fine. The mandatory minimum penalty for repeat offenders or for first-time offenders with a blood alcohol concentration of .20 percent has doubled to 10 days in jail. A driver with a blood alcohol concentration of .30 percent or higher faces at least 20 days in jail. Alcohol Ignition Interlock has been implemented by the District Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in coordination with the D.C. Superior Court. Several agencies, including DMV, MPD, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the D.C. Office of Attorney General (OAG) and members of the defense bar are participating in a working group chaired by the D.C. Superior Court to develop a dedicated DWI Court for repeat offenders.

From: NTSB
To: State of Louisiana
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Louisiana taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Montana
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Montana taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Maine
Date: 2/26/2015
Response: We note that, in 2008, Maine established a voluntary ignition interlock device program and that you monitor participation. We further note that you currently plan to increase public outreach and awareness campaigns, to provide impaired driving high-visibility enforcement programs and specialized law-enforcement training, and to conduct an impaired driving summit. We are also aware that you are considering additional strategies to address impaired driving, such as improving communication and collaboration between your Bureau of Highway Safety and your Office of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services to reduce recidivism through your Driver Education and Evaluation Program. We encourage you to take further steps to implement the recommended assessment mechanism. Pending your taking such action, Safety Recommendation H-13-7 is classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: State of Maine
To: NTSB
Date: 10/9/2014
Response: -From Lauren V. Stewart, Director, Maine Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Highway Safety: Maine’s IID program has been in place since 2008 (first participant in 2009) and we do monitor participation, compliance with the device when in use, violations of the device and recidivism. There can be additional sanctions imposed if violations occur when on the device. The program is voluntary and there is no consideration at this time to do anything different.

From: NTSB
To: State of Maine
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Maine taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of Maryland
To: NTSB
Date: 11/25/2014
Response: -From Kathleen Graham, Safety Program Section Chief, Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration: Maryland has increased the penalties for impaired driving offenses from 1- year to 3-years. This will make treatment courts more attractive for defendants, courts, and treatment professionals.

From: NTSB
To: State of Maryland
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: What further actions have been taken or planned to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Maryland
Date: 9/3/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -9 and H-12-34 through -36 and -45, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: State of Maryland
To: NTSB
Date: 7/10/2013
Response: -From James T. Smith, Jr., Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation: H-13-07 and H-13-09- Repeat offender targeting, reduce recidivism of impaired drivers, increase compliance with ignition interlock use, incorporate administrative license suspension and revocation laws are to be tied to ignition interlock use. • Significant work has been done over the years through Statewide grants and legislative accomplishments to address the components of this recommendation. This includes awarded funds for four DUI Courts in an effort to target repeat offenders and reduce driving while impaired (DUI) recidivism. The DUI Court is designed to address individuals over the age of 18 who have been charged with a DUI/DWI or a violation of probation on those charges and offers them a highly intensive monitoring and rehabilitative treatment program. The program proposes to reduce recidivism for repeat offenders participating in each county court program and increase abstinence from alcohol by 50 percent. • In addition legislation enacted in 2011 (HB 1276/ SB 803- Drunk Driving Reduction Act), Maryland made several changes to the ignition interlock program. The law requires more drivers to participate in the program by requiring participation or suspension for: (1) drivers under 21 who violate their alcohol restriction (.02 or greater), (2) drivers who have a subsequent alcohol conviction within 5 years, and (3) drivers with a high blood alcohol content (BAC) (.15 or greater) who are subsequently convicted of DWI or DUI. The bill prevents high BAC drivers who are convicted from being licensed again until they complete the ignition interlock program. H-13-08- Move toward zero impaired driving deaths. • Maryland has adopted the Toward Zero Deaths mission. Through research, analysis, and planning we have set specific and measurable targets for reducing impaired driving fatalities and injuries while working toward zero deaths via the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. As a compliment to these recommendations, the Maryland Governor's Task Force to Combat Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Alcohol finalized and submitted a comprehensive Findings and Recommendations Report to Governor Martin O'Malley in 2008. The report identified seven major categories and 42 total recommendations. The recommendations were based on an in-depth review of Maryland's efforts to combat impaired driving. Several of the recommendations directly addressed the recommendations presented by the NTSB and serve as a guiding resource in Maryland's continued commitment to strengthening its laws, policies, and practices for its impaired driving program.

From: NTSB
To: State of Michigan
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: No further information is needed at this time to update this recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: State of Michigan
Date: 9/18/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -8, and -10, and H-12-34 through 36, and -45, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review.

From: State of Michigan
To: NTSB
Date: 8/26/2013
Response: -From Col. Kristie Kibbey Etue, Director, State of Michigan, Department of State Police, Lansing, Michigan: Michigan's State HSP currently includes support for sobriety courts and training for judges, magistrates, prosecutors, and probation officers to enhance prosecution and offender treatment and monitoring. In addition, specific data-driven metrics are in place to analyze impaired driving fatalities, sobriety court recidivism, ignition interlock use, and pre-post training evaluations to measure the impact that these strategies have on the target population. The OHSP also conducts periodic assessments of alcohol impaired driving efforts with support and technical assistance from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

From: State of Minnesota
To: NTSB
Date: 11/7/2014
Response: -From Donna Berger, Director, Office of Traffic Safety, Governor’s Highway Safety Representative: No. The evaluation was published as a Request for Proposals, a vendor chosen, and the contract began in September 2014. Estimated completion is March 1, 2016.

From: NTSB
To: State of Minnesota
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has the evaluation been completed? Has Minnesota taken any further action to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Minnesota
Date: 9/30/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -9, and H-12-34 through -36 and -45, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: State of Minnesota
To: NTSB
Date: 8/21/2013
Response: -From Ramona L. Dohman, Commissioner: Minnesota has just completed the second year of ignition interlock for DWI offenders in the state. The ignition interlock program now has over 10,000 offenders who have used or are currently using ignition interlock. OTS will be starting an evaluation of the Minnesota ignition interlock program later this year

From: NTSB
To: State of Mississippi
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Mississippi taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of Missouri
To: NTSB
Date: 11/17/2014
Response: -Leanna Depue, Highway Safety Director, MoDOT Traffic and Highway Safety: Both the Missouri Impaired Driving Strategic Plan and the highway safety plan include elements to target repeat offenders and reduce recidivism. Increasing the use of alcohol ignition interlocks and the number of DWI Courts in the State are among some of the strategies outlined in both plans. Missouri also tracks a number of performance measures and benchmarks.

From: NTSB
To: State of Missouri
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Missouri taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of New York
To: NTSB
Date: 9/9/2015
Response: -From Charles R. DeWeese, Assistant Commissioner, New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee: New regulations took effect on September 25, 2012 that affect drivers with multiple alcohol/drugged-driving related convictions or incidents. The highlights of how these changes affect persons applying for a driver license after their license is revoked are provided below. http://dmv.ny.gov/tickets/penalties-multiple-offenders In addition, the GTSC has provided a grant to the Institute for Traffic Safety Research and Management to study the effectiveness of the state’s IID law. The results of that research will guide future policy. GTSC also is working with partner agencies to determine ways to increase IID compliance. For example, loopholes in the statute were removed in 2013. The state’s Highway Safety Plan has numerous strategies built in to improve effectiveness (ie grants to train law enforcement, judges and prosecutors on the law and also grants to conduct undercover operations of those sentenced to interlock and who have indicated they are no longer driving).

From: NTSB
To: State of New York
Date: 6/12/2015
Response: We note that your impaired driving prevention plan includes elements to reduce DWI recidivism and impaired driving fatalities and injuries. We further note that you included in your plan a call for projects to research, evaluate, and analyze program data. Pending our review of a revised impaired driving prevention plan that includes the recommended assessment mechanisms, Safety Recommendations H-13-7 and -8 are classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: State of New York
To: NTSB
Date: 11/4/2014
Response: -From Chuck DeWeese, Assistant Commissioner, Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee: On behalf of New York State DMV Commissioner Barbara Fiala, I have attached the updates on Open NTSB Highway Safety Recommendations. New York continues to make progress on some of the outstanding issues but, as you are aware, many of the areas of concern require legislative action which often takes years to achieve passage. The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles remains committed to the safety of transportation on our highways and will continue to seek improvements, including those recommended by the NTSB. Please advise if you have any questions. Per the NTSB report, no further information is needed at this time to update this recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: State of New York
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: No further information is needed at this time to update this recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: State of New York
Date: 9/3/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -9 and H-12-34 through -36, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: State of New York
To: NTSB
Date: 7/29/2013
Response: -From Charles R. DeWeese, Assistant Commissioner, State of New York, Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee, Department of Motor Vehicles: In reply to your June 3, 2013 correspondence in reference to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations H-13-05 through H-13-09, H-00-26 and H-12-34 through 36, the State of New York agrees with NTSB' s approach of a comprehensive strategy to address impaired driving. New York has some of the toughest impaired driving laws in the nation, and we are proud of our National Highway Traffic Safety Administration low fatality rate designation. However, we recognize that any impaired driving fatality or injury is too many, and we are always striving to improve our safety record. In regard to recommendations H-13-05 through H-13-09, we applaud the Board for raising the visibility of the impaired driving problem, and we will review the research and the recommendation to lower the BAC for driving while impaired to .05. New York, unlike many other states, already prohibits driving with a BAC as low as .06. This is the lesser "impaired" offense of driving while ability impaired (DWAI). Accordingly, if New York elected to have a per se level BAC of .05 for DWI, this would eliminate the DWAI offense and render statutes relevant to such offense obsolete. It would also conflict with V &T 1195, entitled "Chemical test evidence", which states in part that upon the trial of any action for DWAI or DWI, evidence that there was a chemical test reading of .05 shall be prima facie evidence that the ability of the person to operate a motor vehicle was NOT impaired by the consumption of alcohol. Put simply, New York statutorily recognizes that a chemical test of .05 is not evidence of being impaired by alcohol. On an operational level, reducing the per se level BAC to .05 would also carry with it a large burden upon localities. Eliminating the DW AI offense would also eliminate the ability of district attorneys and local prosecutors to plea bargain contestable DWI cases down to DWAI. This could force local courts and prosecutors to conduct an additional40,000+ DWI trials a year. Regarding recommendation number H-13-06, New York law enforcement officers have used passive alcohol-sensing technologies during sobriety checkpoints in the past. However, false positives and battery life problems resulted in their discontinuance. New York will further explore the possibility of pilot testing some of these newer devices to determine their effectiveness and usability, and the highway safety office will consider funding purchases of the units if the pilot is successful. In reference to recommendation H-13-07 and 08, we have enclosed New York's most recent impaired driving section from the annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP). This plan clearly identifies the scope of the impaired driving problem in the State, lists proven countermeasures to address the problem and sets realistic goals to reduce alcohol and drug related crashes. Regarding recommendation number H-13-09, New York law provides for license suspension pending prosecution but does not require the installation of an interlock prior to a conviction. New York State law does require all persons convicted of driving while intoxicated to install an ignition interlock device for a minimum of 6 months on every automobile that they own or operate. In regard to post accident drug and alcohol data, Section 1194 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law outlines arrest and testing procedures as follows: § 1194. Arrest and testing. 1. Arrest and field testing. (a) Arrest. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 140.10 of the criminal procedure law, a police officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person, in case of a violation of subdivision one of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article, if such violation is coupled with an accident or collision in which such person is involved, which in fact has been committed, though not in the police officer's presence, when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the violation was committed by such person. (b) Field testing. Every person operating a motor vehicle which has been involved in an accident or which is operated in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall, at the request of a police officer, submit to a breath test to be administered by the police officer. If such test indicates that such operator has consumed alcohol, the police officer may request such operator to submit to a chemical test in the manner set forth in subdivision two of this section. 2. Chemical tests. (a) When authorized. Any person who operates a motor vehicle in this state shall be deemed to have given consent to a chemical test of one or more of the following: breath, blood, urine, or saliva, for the purpose of determining the alcoholic and/or drug content of the blood provided that such test is administered by or at the direction of a police officer with respect to a chemical test of breath, urine or saliva or, with respect to a chemical test of blood, at the direction of a police officer: (1) having reasonable grounds to believe such person to have been operating in violation of any subdivision of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this article and within two hours after such person has been placed under arrest for any such violation; or having reasonable grounds to believe such person to have been operating in violation of section eleven hundred ninety-two-a of this article and within two hours after the stop of such person for any such violation, (2) within two hours after a breath test, as provided in paragraph (b) of subdivision one of this section, indicates that alcohol has been consumed by such person and in accordance with the rules and regulations established by the police force of which the officer is a member; (3) for the purposes of this paragraph, "reasonable grounds" to believe that a person has been operating a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol in violation of section eleven hundred ninety-two-a of this article shall be determined by viewing the totality of circumstances surrounding the incident which, when taken together, indicate that the operator was driving in violation of such subdivision. Such circumstances may include any visible or behavioral indication of alcohol consumption by the operator, the existence of an open container containing or having contained an alcoholic beverage in or around the vehicle driven by the operator, or any other evidence surrounding the circumstances of the incident which indicates that the operator has been operating a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol at the time of the incident; or ..... Law enforcement officers may always ask if a driver is willing to give a blood or breath sample whether the officer believes intoxication/impaired or not. However, if the officer asks and the motorist declines, the officer must have "reasonable grounds to believe such person to have been operating in violation of any subdivision of section 1192 of this article" (i.e. impairment) to conduct a chemical test. Once the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) develops and disseminates blood alcohol concentration testing and reporting guidelines as recommended in NTSB H-12-32 and a common standard of practice for drug toxicology testing as recommended in NTSB H-12-33, New York State will pursue adoption of those guidelines. In the meantime, we will continue to work closely with coroners to obtain all drug and alcohol testing data arid encourage officers to record BAC results of all drivers, even if the resulting reading is .000. In regard to place of last drink data, New York State currently records last drink location data when a breath alcohol test is administered and the data retained in the system is queried regularly by New York State STOP-DWI Coordinators. In instances in which a blood sample is taken in lieu of a breath sample, when possible, police record last drink location information in a supporting deposition. New York is committed to work with all parties with an interest in preventing fatalities and serious injuries as a result of impaired driving. Any impaired driving fatality or injury is one too many, and we will continue to strive to improve our safety record.

From: State of Nebraska
To: NTSB
Date: 11/14/2014
Response: -From Fred E. Zwonechek, Administrator, Nebraska Office of Highway Safety: The NOHS currently does include targeting repeat offenders in the impaired driving prevention plan with efforts directed to counties with the higher numbers of convicted repeat offenders and is working with the DMV to improve the requirements for ignition interlock compliance as well as collecting the appropriate data to evaluate these efforts. In addition, NOHS has expanded the promotional efforts encouraging motorists to report suspected impaired drivers which especially targets potential repeat offenders.

From: NTSB
To: State of Nebraska
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Nebraska taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of Nevada
To: NTSB
Date: 12/29/2014
Response: -From Traci Pearl, Highway Safety Coordinator: Nevada has sponsored and participated in multiple impaired driving projects, including both preventative/pro-active messaging as well as post-arrest messaging and funding of DUI Courts at both the misdemeanor and felony levels. The state is currently participating in a TIRF study (Traffic Injury Research Foundation) of its BIID laws, vendors, and processes to possible improvements.

From: NTSB
To: State of Nevada
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Nevada taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of New Hampshire
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has New Hampshire taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of New Jersey
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has New Jersey taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of New Mexico
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Are all these practices documented in New Mexico's impaired driving prevention or highway safety plans?

From: NTSB
To: State of New Mexico
Date: 11/4/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -9, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: State of New Mexico
To: NTSB
Date: 9/19/2013
Response: -From Robert J. Archuleta, Director, Traffic Safety Division: In order to target repeat offenders, Governor Martinez has supported legislation that increases the mandatory minimum prison sentence for repeat offenders. She has also supported measures that would have expanded the list of felonies which count toward classifying individuals as a habitual offender to include felony DWIs. Once classified as a habitual offender, a court can impose an enhanced sentence on the offender. And, for individuals who have been convicted of a prior DWI and who are arrested for a subsequent DWI, the governor has supported legislation that permitted the seizure and forfeiture of the driver's vehicle. The bill required a court to forfeit the vehicle to the state once it determined that the vehicle was a threat to public safety and the driver was convicted of the underlying DWI offense. Last year, the Highway Safety Office in New Mexico prepared a report for Governor Martinez on DWI-related fatal crashes from 2009 to 2011. The report indicated that repeat offenders were responsible for an increasing proportion of fatalities from 2009 to 2011. In 2009, 35% of all DWI-related fatalities involved a repeat offender. By 2011, 58% of DWI-related fatalities involved a repeat offender. DWI repeat offenders were responsible for 38% of traffic-related fatalities (33 innocent victims) from 2009 to 2011. Drivers between the ages of 35 to 44 years old had the highest likelihood of being repeat offenders. New Mexico was one the first states to institute the use of an ignition interlock for ~convicted drunk drivers. The first conviction requires the use of an ignition interlock both upon conviction through the courts and administratively through the Motor Vehicle Division. The amount of time on an ignition interlock increases with each conviction, including lifetime after a fourth offense. In addition, utilizing NHTSA funding, New Mexico continues to support implementation of DWI Drug Courts to address recidivism and oversight of offenders. The State also funds a program at the University of New Mexico, School of law for the training of outgoing potential prosecutors to properly prosecute DWI offenders. Also, the Highway Safety Office is in the process of providing training and regular oversight of ignition interlock providers with regular monitoring and training to ensure that providers properly install the devices, adhere to the law and rules, and report violations accordingly.

From: State of North Carolina
To: NTSB
Date: 12/9/2014
Response: -From Don Nail, Director, GR, Governor’s Highway Safety Program, North Carolina Department of Transportation: The highway safety plan includes high-visibility enforcement including checkpoints, saturation patrols and mandatory crash reporting. The NC drivers license includes written restrictions when an ignition interlock is required or a lower alcohol concentration is required for the prior offender so officers are not required to check data base. GHSP has a points system which rewards agencies with equipment when they routinely participate in high visibility enforcement of the impaired driving laws.

From: NTSB
To: State of North Carolina
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has North Carolina taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of North Dakota
To: NTSB
Date: 4/17/2015
Response: -From Mark Nelson, Governor’s Highway Safety Representative, Deputy Director for Driver and Vehicle Services, North Dakota Department of Transportation: We have reviewed all referenced safety recommendations and there are no changes from the responses previously submitted.

From: NTSB
To: State of North Dakota
Date: 3/6/2015
Response: We note that you plan to include strategies to reduce DWI recidivism in your impaired driving prevention plan, emphasizing your “24/7 Sobriety Program,” which is already mandated for second and subsequent offenses. We further note that you also plan to regularly assess the impact of the included strategies. Pending our review of your revised impaired driving prevention plan, Safety Recommendation H-13-7 is classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: State of North Dakota
To: NTSB
Date: 10/14/2014
Response: -From Karin Mongeon, Safety Division Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation: No change since last submission.

From: NTSB
To: State of North Dakota
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has North Dakota taken any further action to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of North Dakota
Date: 9/4/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -9, and H-12-34 through -36 and -45, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: State of North Dakota
To: NTSB
Date: 7/30/2013
Response: -From Jack Dalrymple, Governor: North Dakota will include strategies to reduce DUI recidivism in the state's impaired driving prevention plan and regularly assess the strategies for impact. Emphasis will be placed on North Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program which is administered by the North Dakota Office of the Attorney General. The 24/7 Program is now mandated for second and subsequent offenses. The program requires enrollees to undergo twice daily breath tests at the county sheriffs office or use of a SCRAM for continuous alcohol monitoring. Test failures result in automatic jail time.

From: NTSB
To: State of Ohio
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Ohio taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of Oklahoma
To: NTSB
Date: 11/26/2014
Response: -From Garry Thomas, Director, Oklahoma Highway Safety Office: The Alcohol/Impaired Driving section of the FY15 Oklahoma Highway Safety Plan contains a strategy to create an inclusive, statewide impaired driver tracking system to identify repeat offenders. Additionally, the FY15 HSP includes a strategy to integrate the current administrative driver license system with the current judicial system for impaired driving offenders while enhancing accountability for DUI offenders by limiting jurisdiction for impaired driving cases to Courts of Record. The State is currently launching a pilot program designed to improve compliance with ignition interlock requirements by adding an active monitoring element to these programs while incorporating compliance based removal.

From: NTSB
To: State of Oklahoma
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Oklahoma taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Oregon
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Oregon taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of Rhode Island
To: NTSB
Date: 11/6/2014
Response: -From Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation: In 2014, Governor Chafee signed into law legislation (2014-S 2231A, 2014-H 8296) (attached) to provide judges and magistrates the authority to prohibit individuals adjudicated of driving under the influence from operating vehicles that are not equipped with ignition interlock systems. The legislation also establishes updated rules regulations, fines and penalties for the continued enforcement of the ignition interlock system.

From: NTSB
To: State of Rhode Island
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Rhode Island taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of South Carolina
To: NTSB
Date: 12/2/2014
Response: -From Leroy Smith, Director, South Carolina Department of Public Safety: Include in your impaired driving prevention plan or highway safety plan elements to target repeat offenders and reduce driving while intoxicated (DWI) recidivism; such elements should include measures to improve compliance with alcohol ignition interlock requirements; the plan should also provide a mechanism for regularly assessing the success of these efforts. (This recommendation supersedes Safety Recommendation H-00-26). NTSB Response/Question: South Carolina will continue to include elements that target repeat offenders in its highway safety plan. South Carolina was in the process of drafting an Impaired Driving Plan for submittal to NHTSA in late 2013. Was the plan submitted? What further action will South Carolina take to address this recommendation? Status: The Department of Public Safety's Office of Highway Safety and Justice Programs did submit an Impaired Driving Countermeasures Plan to NHTSA for both 2014 and 2015. Future efforts planned by the Department of Public Safety are enumerated in South Carolina's Highway Safety and Performance Plan FFY 2015 submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and in the FFY 2015 Impaired Driving Countermeasures Plan. Regarding alcohol ignition interlocks, Act 158 was enacted on April23, 2014 and provided for the use of alcohol ignition interlock devices for first-time DUI offenders under certain circumstances. The Act amended South Carolina Code of Laws Sections 56-1-400 and 56-52-447 that restricts drivers convicted of driving while impaired, under certain circumstances, to operating only a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device. The full text of the Act, in addition to any related bills which were filed in the session but not enacted, appears in Attachment 3 of this document. In addition, two pilot Driving Under the Influence Courts are being funded through the Office of Highway Safety and Justice Programs. Both courts can impose conditions which include that violators adopt ignition interlock devices for their vehicles.

From: NTSB
To: State of South Carolina
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Was the plan submitted? What further action will South Carolina take to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of South Carolina
Date: 9/30/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -8 and -10, and H-12-34 through -36 and -45, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: State of South Carolina
To: NTSB
Date: 8/30/2013
Response: -From Leroy Smith, Director: Thank you for your letter to Governor Nikki R. Haley dated June 3, 2013 concerning the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) safety report, adopted on May 14, 2013. As the Director of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, which includes the Highway Patrol, State Transport Police, and Office of Highway Safety and Justice Programs, the Governor has asked that I respond on her behalf. The report issued five new recommendations to the states and reiterated four earlier recommendations concerning the issue of impaired driving. South Carolina has previously responded to the four recommendations, and I will briefly offer comment on the five new recommendations. However, for a comprehensive description of our state's progress toward improving highway safety and our priorities for the future, I encourage NTSB staff to review our state's FFY 2014 Highway Safety Plan which was recently submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) regional office in Atlanta. This plan offers an exhaustive discussion of the many initiatives this agency and other state agencies are taking in concert to reduce fatal crashes and injuries, including those that are impaired driving-related, on our roadways. The first recommendation cited in your letter, H-13-05, calls for the establishment of a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of .05 or lower for all drivers not already required to adhere to lower BAC limits. As is likely the case in most other states, this matter is beyond the authority of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety and rests solely within the purview of our General Assembly. Regarding H-13-06, we concur with your view that passive alcohol-sensing technology can be a valuable tool in some circumstances. In fact, our Office of Highway Safety and Justice Programs has funded grants in the past to several local law enforcement agencies which provided for the purchase of passive alcohol-sensing equipment. We will continue to give favorable consideration to well-supported requests from our subgrantees for equipment related to high visibility enforcement of impaired driving laws. Similarly, we will continue to include elements in our highway safety plan which target repeat offenders as recommended by H-13-07 and H-13-10. In fact, we are in the process of drafting an Impaired Driving Plan for submittal to NHTSA by September 1, 2013. The plan will address final recommendations that are forthcoming from a team of national experts who conducted an Impaired Driving Assessment for this state during the week of July 22-26, 2013. Those recommendations will likely include strategies to deal with the issue of repeat offenders. The Impaired Driving Plan will also address ignition interlock policies and will include two (2) Driving Under the Influence Court grant projects that will commence on October 1, 2013. It is expected that both courts will utilize ignition interlock technology with an array of other sanctions in deterring recidivism. The recommendation designated H-13-08 encourages states " ... to move toward zero deaths from impaired driving." I am pleased to advise you that the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, with the support of the Office of the Governor, has adopted the theme of "Target Zero" to represent the entirety of our highway safety efforts. "Target Zero" is now our agency goal and encompasses all of our enforcement, prevention and education initiatives. This goal is not limited to the elimination of impaired driving-related deaths, but all roadway deaths, regardless of cause. Please know we will take the recommendations promulgated by the National Transportation Safety Board under careful consideration as we move forward in the process of updating and deploying our state's Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Thank you for what you and the National Transportation Safety Board do to bring down the number of deaths on our nation's highways.

From: NTSB
To: State of South Dakota
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has South Dakota taken action to implement this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Tennessee
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Tennessee taken any action to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Texas
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Texas taken any action to address this recommendation?

From: State of Utah
To: NTSB
Date: 12/16/2014
Response: -From Kristy K. Rigby, Director, Highway Safety Office: A person is who is convicted of specific alcohol-related offenses is restricted to using an ignition interlock device, effective on the date of conviction. This restriction period is in effect during thier sanction period, as well as after the sanction period has ended. The Driver License Division, which oversees this program, regularly assesses the success of the interlock program.

From: NTSB
To: State of Utah
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Utah taken any action to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Utah
Date: 9/23/2013
Response: The correspondence control #201300974 is a response from Utah, it is not a substantive response and does not require a reply.

From: State of Utah
To: NTSB
Date: 7/11/2013
Response: -From Carlos M. Braceras, P.E., Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation: Governor Gary Herbert has asked me to review and respond to your recent letter regarding alcohol-impaired driving recommendations provided to the states by the National Transportation Safety Board. The State of Utah has consistently implemented laws and policies that aggressively address driving under the influence (DUI). Utah's success at addressing alcohol-impaired driving is evidenced by our status as the state with the lowest DUI-related fatality rate in the nation. Utah law requires the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice to prepare and provide an annual report to the Utah State legislature of DUI related data. The annual report includes measures for which data are available to evaluate and profile and impacts of DUI recidivism, and to evaluate DUI related processes, including law enforcement, adjudication, sanctions and driver license control. These annual reports provide an opportunity for the state to continually examine the effectiveness of Utah laws and seek adjustments that will better address alcohol-impaired driving offenses. As part of that annual process, the recommendations provided by the National Transportation Safety Board will be taken under consideration. The State of Utah and the Utah Department of Transportation are committed to continue to effectively address alcohol-impaired driving .

From: State of Vermont
To: NTSB
Date: 12/22/2014
Response: -From Ted Minall, Law Enforcement Liaison, Contractor, NHTSA, Region 1, Vermont Office: Critical Emphasis Area 5 of the Vermont Strategic Highway Plan addresses impaired driving. The action plan sets specific and measurable targets for reducing not only DUI crashes but overall DUI in Vermont. It also identifies the person responsible to assure the specific action is implemented. The Plan identifies performance measures to use and the status of each performance measure.

From: NTSB
To: State of Vermont
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Vermont taken any action to implement this recommendation?

From: State of Washington
To: NTSB
Date: 12/4/2014
Response: -From Director Darrin T. Grondel, Washington Traffic Safety Commission: Yes. Washington requires repeat DUI offenders be booked into custody and held until they see a judge. The judge must then order, as a condition of pre-trial release that the offender install ignition interlock and provide proof of installation to the court within five days. To assess the success of this effort, the state provided funding for new prosecutors. Parts of their responsibilities include documenting whether or not a repeat offender was subject to this provision and whether or not interlock was installed.

From: NTSB
To: State of Washington
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Washington taken any action to address this recommendation?

From: State of West Virginia
To: NTSB
Date: 11/21/2014
Response: -From Steven O. Dale, Governor’s Representative for Highway Safety, West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles: SB 434 gives all offenders the opportunity to opt into the interlock Program without serving a hard time revocation if the offender waives their administrative hearing rights. The option requires a longer participation in the Interlock program.

From: NTSB
To: State of West Virginia
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has West Virginia taken any further action to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of West Virginia
Date: 11/4/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -8 and -10, and H-12-34 through -36 and -45, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review. Thank you for your efforts to promote traffic safety.

From: State of West Virginia
To: NTSB
Date: 9/10/2013
Response: -From Paul A. Mattox, Jr., P.E., Secretary of Transportation/ Commissioner of Highways: West Virginia targets repeat offenders and DUI recidivism through state laws that established the state's Ignition Interlock Program and the West Virginia Safety and Treatment Program. The offender using the program's services fund these programs, no state or federal funds are being spent. The state's Interlock Program was established July 1, 1993. High BAC >.149 and repeat offenders require successful completion of the Interlock Program for license reinstatement. West Virginia does not require mandatory participation of all offenders. The guidelines established by Congress in the MAPS-21 Federal Authorization require mandatory participation of all DUI offenders. It is the intention of the GHSP to work to bring the West Virginia Ignition Interlock Program into compliance with NHTSA's guidelines. The West Virginia Bureau of Behavioral Health and Health Facilities (Bureau) administers the West Virginia Safety and Treatment Program. This program meets the requirements established by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) a Federal Agency under the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and requires every person whose driver's license is revoked for DUI to have an evaluation from a certified drug addiction specialist. After the evaluation, the offender must complete the prescribed course of treatment before they can have their driver's license reinstated. The Bureau maintains all records relating to recidivism and reports them to SAMHSA. SAMHSA also assesses and evaluates the Bureau's programs.

From: State of Wisconsin
To: NTSB
Date: 12/3/2014
Response: -From Mark Gottlieb, P.E., Secretary, Department of Transportation: Wisconsin does include elements that attempt to address repeat offenders in its Highway Safety Plan. In addition, Wisconsin has a state funded Intensive Supervision Program and a statutory requirement to report results to the legislature.

From: NTSB
To: State of Wisconsin
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Wisconsin taken any action to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Wyoming
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: No further information is needed at this time to update this recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: State of Wyoming
Date: 8/13/2013
Response: We will include your update in a comprehensive review of all open safety recommendations that have been issued to your state and will advise you of the classifications of Safety Recommendations H-13-5 through -7 and -9, and H-12-34 through -36 and -45, as well as any other open recommendations, at the conclusion of our review.

From: State of Wyoming
To: NTSB
Date: 7/8/2013
Response: -From Dalene Call, Supervisor, Highway Safety Behavioral Program, Wyoming Department of Transportation: This letter is in reply to your letter addressed to the Honorable Matthew H. Mead, Governor of Wyoming dated June 3, 2013. This letter was received by our agency on June 26, 2013 from Governor Mead's Office with a request that we respond directly to you and copy the Governor's Office on our reply. Your inquiry requested a response within 90 days detailing action taken or intended to implement recommendations contained in your "Safety Recommendation" letter. The State of Wyoming is actively working to reduce the number of impaired driving fatalities on our highways. Governor Mead has created a "Council on Impaired Driving", and given them instructions that, "nothing is off the table", in reference to our states approach to DUI. We appreciate your recommendations and will take them to our Governor's Council on Impaired Driving for further discussion. The focus of your inquiry concerns the problem of impaired driving and measuring the effectiveness of countermeasures. Your five (5) recommendations to the State of Wyoming and our responses are as follows. H-00-026: Within the Highway Safety Plan and the Governor's Council on Impaired Driving there are several "sub committee's" including a DUI Policy Coordinator, which is a state funded position in the Governor's Office who coordinates state efforts with local initiatives to reduce impaired driving in Wyoming. A Media Committee which is to develop a statewide, umfied impaired driving prevention campaign, E-Citations, to encourage the Judicial and Executive branches of government to secure funding to adopt electronic citations statewide and create a uniform electronic arrest report, which would enable an officer to enter the information once and populate the information mto all required documents, instead of havmg to fill out several reports A mandatory, Statewide, DUI Enforcement Training providing frequent, updated enforcement training for all peace officers to attend. The Highway Safety Office will also have a full time Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor (TSRP) to provide and coordinate advanced training for prosecutors, law enforcement and toxicologists in the state. H-13-007: Wyoming's current law requires (mandates) an IID (ignition interlock device) for a second and subsequent convictions. The IID (ignition interlock device) program requirements are assessed along with a Certified Alcohol Abuse Examiner's report before reinstatement