Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation H-13-009
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 41 STATES THAT HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION LAWS AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Incorporate into your administrative license suspension or revocation laws a requirement that drivers arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) use an alcohol ignition interlock on their vehicle for a period of time before obtaining full license reinstatement. (H-13-09)
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 Massachusetts (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 - Unacceptable Response)
State of Maryland (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 Nebraska (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Nevada (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of New Hampshire (Open - Await Response)
State of New Mexico (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of New York (Open - Unacceptable 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 - Await Response)
State of Oregon (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: 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: Prior to January 2013, the DMV could only request an ignition interlock device after two convictions. The new regulation allows for a discretionary one-year reduction of the revocation period of certain drivers who have been convicted of a second or subsequent alcohol related offense. DMV may reinstate the driving privileges of a person convicted of a second or subsequent alcohol related offense if that person satisfies all other conditions for license reinstatement and installs an approved Ignition Interlock Device.

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

From: NTSB
To: State of Alaska
Date: 9/12/2013
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: 9/5/2013
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 Joseph Masters, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety and Patrick J. Kemp, P.E., Commissioner, Department of Transportation: Alaska already has a statute in place that requires the court to order the use of an ignition interlock device upon regaining the privilege to drive. Pursuant to Alaska Statute 28.35.030, the timeframes in which a person is required to use an IID is six months to 60 months, depending on the number of previous alcohol offenses. Alaska also issues limited licenses to drive during periods of revocation for driving under the influence (DUI) that require the use of an IID device. According to your letter, the NTSB has reclassified safety recommendation H-00-26 as closed and superseded by the aforementioned safety recommendation H-13-07. Thank you for taking the time to share these new safety recommendations with the State of Alaska. We look fo1ward to continuing our work with the NTSB on the important issue of impaired driving.

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: Legislation has been passed that will authorize the Director of Public Safety to stay the required 90-day suspension of the driver's license upon a first conviction for driving under the influence if the offender has an ignition interlock device installed on his or her motor vehicle.(Alabama Act 2014-222)

From: NTSB
To: State of Alabama
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Alabama consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Hawaii
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Was the updated SHSP with mandated ignition interlock devices 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: Hawaii's laws for DWI give mandated revocation periods. However, because IIDs are not mandated presently, DWI drivers only get the mandated revocation periods set forth by law.

From: NTSB
To: State of Idaho
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Idaho consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Illinois
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Illinois consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Indiana
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Indiana consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Iowa
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Iowa consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address 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: Penalties do exist for criminal conviction and administrative license suspension that require installation of ignition interlock.

From: NTSB
To: State of Louisiana
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Louisiana consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Maine
Date: 2/26/2015
Response: We are disappointed that you have not mandated the use of ignition interlock devices when reinstating the driving privileges of a person convicted of a DWI-related offense. We urge you to reconsider your position and to mandate the use of this technology for the recommended period. Pending your taking such action, Safety Recommendation H-13-9 is classified OPEN—UNACCEPTABLE 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 does not require alcohol ignition interlock for those whose license is suspended or revoked. In Title 29 chapter 23 section 2508, the Secretary of State has the option to re-instate a license if the offender participates using an approved alcohol ignition interlock device. Not further actions are taking place to mandate the device.

From: NTSB
To: State of Maine
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Maine consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: State of Maryland
To: NTSB
Date: 11/25/2014
Response: -From Kathleen Graham, Safety Program Section Chief, Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration: Drivers that have received a 2nd conviction within 5-years must participate in Maryland's mandatory alcohol ignition interlock program. All other drivers are able to stop suspensions by volunteering for the ignition interlock program.

From: NTSB
To: State of Maryland
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Maryland consider applicable legislation? What further actions have been taken or planned to fully address 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: 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: In 2013 or 2014, did Massachusetts consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation? According to Melanie's Law, any driver with a second of subsequent OUI offense operating with a hardship license must use the device for the life of the license and for two years afterwards. An OUI offender who is eligible for license reinstatement will also be required to use the device for two years. Bills introduced in the 2013-2014 legislative session and described in response to the question H-12-45 sought to make interlock devices required for all OUI offenders.

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Massachusetts consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Arizona
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Arizona consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

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 further information is needed at this time to update this recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: State of Minnesota
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: No further information is needed at this time to update 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 an administrative ignition interlock program that requires first time offenders at 0.16 to use ignition interlock in order to drive legally. Multiple DWI offenders are required to use ignition interlock for three to six years with no use of alcohol before issuance of a full-unrestricted driver's license.

From: NTSB
To: State of Mississippi
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Mississippi consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: State of Missouri
To: NTSB
Date: 11/17/2014
Response: -Leanna Depue, Highway Safety Director, MoDOT Traffic and Highway Safety: Missouri meets this recommendation. All repeat offenders are required to install an ignition interlock on any vehicle they operate while driving on a limited driving privilege and also must complete a minimum of six months of ignition interlock use at reinstatement. Ignition interlock use is extended for an

From: NTSB
To: State of Missouri
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Missouri consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address 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: At this time, the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law authorizes the installation of an IID after conviction only and does not authorize the use of an IID prior to conviction. See, VTL Section 1193(1) and 1198(2). DMV and the Office of Court Administration both take this position relative to IIDs. VTL Section 1198(2) states that the COURT shall require that any person who has been convicted of various alcohol/drugged driving charges, or those convicted of Penal Law crimes where an alcohol-related violation of any subdivision of VTL 1192 is an essential element, shall install and maintain an IID as a condition of probation or conditional discharge. At present, under DMV’s tougher relicensing regulations that went into effect on September 25, 2102 for multiple alcohol/drug offenders (15 NYCRR Part 136.5) the DMV requires that certain repeat alcohol/drug offenders have limited driving privileges and install and maintain an IID for a 5 year period of time after they have been granted re-licensing by DMV. However, the difference between these applicants and defendants who have been suspended pending prosecution is that these applicants have already been convicted (on multiple occasions) of drunk/drugged driving, their licenses are REVOKED, and the DMV is considering their application for re-licensure. The NY Legislature has not yet authorized any entity (courts/ DMV) to impose a suspended pending prosecution IID requirement.

From: NTSB
To: State of New York
Date: 6/12/2015
Response: We note that you allow license suspension pending prosecution; however, we are disappointed that you have not required the use of ignition interlock devices when reinstating the driving privileges of a person who has been arrested and is awaiting prosecution for a DWI related offense. We urge you to reconsider your position and to mandate the use of this technology for the recommended period. Pending your taking such action, Safety Recommendation H-13-9 is classified OPEN—UNACCEPTABLE 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 Nebraska Legislature passed LB158 which enhanced the Nebraska Ignition Interlock law that included a provision the under the administrative license revocation (ALR) law for driving under the influence or refusing the chemical test that after a minimum of 45 days of no driving, an ignition interlock device shall be installed for whatever the period of time remains until they are eligible to obtain their full operator license privilege. This law took effect on July 1, 2013.

From: NTSB
To: State of Nebraska
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Nebraska consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: State of Nevada
To: NTSB
Date: 12/29/2014
Response: -From Traci Pearl, Highway Safety Coordinator: Not at this time, although recommendations from the current TIRF study may prompt action in the future. Current NV law requires a BIID for a second or subsequent DUI, but not for the first. BIID use in Nevada is primarily up to the judge's discretion.

From: NTSB
To: State of Nevada
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Nevada consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of New Hampshire
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did New Hampshire consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

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

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: The State of New Mexico has both a criminal and administrative license revocation system through the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD). This system is utilized by the magistrate, municipal, and district courts. An offender, upon conviction, shall only operate a motor vehicle with an ignition interlock for a period of one year for the first conviction, two years for the second conviction, three years for the third conviction, and for the remainder of an offender's life for a fourth or subsequent offense. An offender may petition the district court for permission to remove an ignition interlock device after a period of five years. The MVD may suspend operating driving privileges for six months until all conditions for license reinstatement are met-if the person was over the age of twenty-one-and may suspend operating driving privileges for one year until all conditions for license reinstatement are met if the person was under the age of twenty-one. Also, the license may be suspended by the MVD if the person had their license revoked previously. New Mexico has had a license revocation system with ignition interlock requirements for several years now and supports NTSB recommendations. Governor Martinez also supported legislation that would have created stricter punishments for a person who operates a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol on a suspended license and for individuals who allow another person to use their car if the owner knows that the other person has had his or her license revoked or suspended due to a DWI. Furthermore, under this law, the MVD would be allowed to cancel the registration of the vehicle of any person whose is convicted of a 3rd degree felony DWI and eliminates the option of issuing a temporary license to offenders requesting a hearing following a refusal to permit a chemical test. In conclusion, the State of New Mexico is already practicing four of the five NTSB recommendations. The NMDOT will continue to partner with stakeholders, law enforcement, and other entities to reduce the fatalities and injuries that are a result of impaired driving.

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 Statewide DWI Task Force is proposing an administrative license revocation for drivers who refuse a chemical analysis or who have a BAC result at the illegal per se level. The driver will only be allowed to drive with an ignition interlock.

From: NTSB
To: State of North Carolina
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did North Carolina consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address 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: As stated above regarding Safety Recommendation H-12-45, we note that the NDCC allows for the use of ignition interlocks; however, your state has not yet required interlock use nor established a time period for that use. We encourage you to further amend the NDCC to require interlock use. Pending your doing so, Safety Recommendation H-13-9 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: See updated language to the left. North Dakota does not identify a period of time for use of the ignition interlock device.

From: NTSB
To: State of North Dakota
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Is a period of time for use of the ignition interlock device specified, as recommended?

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: North Dakota does allow permissive use of interlocks. North Dakota Century Code §39-08-01.3 allows the court to order it and NDCC §39-06.1-11 allows the DOT director to do it. In 2012, at least one ignition interlock vendor has set up operations in North Dakota to serve oil field workers sanctioned in other states. This is the first time the service has been available in the state. As a result, judges may apply ignition interlock as a sanction where there was no option to do so previously.

From: NTSB
To: State of Arkansas
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Arkansas consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Ohio
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Ohio consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: State of Oklahoma
To: NTSB
Date: 11/26/2014
Response:

From: NTSB
To: State of Oklahoma
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Oklahoma consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Oregon
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Oregon consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Texas
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Texas consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort 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 their sanction period, as well as after the sanction period has ended and the driver has reinstated driving privileges.

From: NTSB
To: State of Utah
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Utah consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort 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: Presently a person convicted of a 1st or 2nd offense DUI can request an Ignition Interlock System. If they do this it reduces the suspension period and allows the operator to regain their non - restricted license quicker. There was no bill in the last legislative session to expand the use of an Ignition Interlock Device.

From: NTSB
To: State of Vermont
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Vermont consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Virginia
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Virginia consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: State of Washington
To: NTSB
Date: 12/4/2014
Response: -From Director Darrin T. Grondel, Washington Traffic Safety Commission: Washington’s ignition interlock driver’s license allows offenders with a suspended license (either ALS or penalty on conviction) to drive during their suspension as long as they have interlock installed. All DUI offenders are required to have a period of interlock (1 year, 5 years, 10 years).

From: NTSB
To: State of Washington
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Washington consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort 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, effective June, 6, 2014, provides all offenders the opportunity to opt into the interlock Program without serving a hard time revocation; requires the offender to waive their administrative hearing rights. The option requires a longer participation in the Interlock program. This went into effect 6-6-14. Interlock installations in June of2014 increased by approximately 50 percent totaling 3,435 participants. We do not anticipate the 2015 Legislative session will address all offender mandatory interlock.

From: NTSB
To: State of West Virginia
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did West Virginia consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort 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: Since 2005, all second or greater offense DUI (10-year look back period) requires mandatory, successful completion of the Interlock Program for license reinstatement. Since 2008, all first offense DUI with a BAC of .15 or greater requires mandatory successful completion of the Interlock Program or license reinstatement. The primary DUI offenses that do not require mandatory successful completion of the Interlock Program are first offense DUI "Implied Consent", First Offense "Knowingly Permitting DUI" and first offense DUI with a BAC of .149 or less. The .149 and below DUI is commonly called the "DUI Referral" Program that provides the opportunity for the offender to avoid criminal prosecution if they voluntarily opt into the Interlock Program after serving 15 days of hard time license revocation. While not mandatory, the Interlock Program has seen an increase in participation due to these types of DUI offenses. It would take legislative action to make mandatory and successful completion of the Interlock Program for these types of DUI offenses. Additionally, if that were to happen it would also clear a major hurdle making West Virginia eligible for special Interlock funding under MAP-21 for states having mandatory, successful completion of the Interlock Program for all (non-drug) DUI offenses. The current administrative license revocation periods and Interlock participation periods are as follows. Mandatory offenses are highlighted in yellow. • Offense Type, Minimum Revocation Period, Device Installation Period, Offense Type 1st Offense w/ BAC .14 or less, 15 days, 4 months, 1st Offense w/ BAC .14 or less 1st Offense with BAC greater than .15, 45 days, 9months MANDATORY participation, 1st Offense w/ BAC greater than .15 (Aggravated DUI) Implied Consent (1st offense), 45 days, 1 Year, Implied Consent (1st offense) Under 21 AMA, 30 days, 6 months, Under21 AMA Knowingly Permitting 1st Offense, 30 days, 5 months, Knowingly Permitting 1st Offense Bodily Injury 1st offense, 2 months, 1 year, Bodily Injury 1st Offense DUI w/ Death 1st Offense, 1 year, 2 year, DUI w/ Death 1st Offense Under 21 (MA) x 2, 60 days, 12 months, Under 21 (MA) x 2 2nd or greater DUI, 1 year, 1 year per each DUI offense, 2nd or greater DUI

From: State of Wisconsin
To: NTSB
Date: 12/3/2014
Response: -From Mark Gottlieb, P.E., Secretary, Department of Transportation: Once convicted of operating while intoxicated and ordered by a court to install an IID, current Wisconsin Jaw requires an offender to have an IID installed for a minimum of one year, including proof of IID installation prior to issuance of an occupational license (license with restricted driving hours and purpose) prior to full license reinstatement. There has been no activity toward requiring offenders to install an IID during our administrative suspension period (time between arrest & conviction), however Wisconsin DOT was supportive of an initiative that would have given incentives for offenders to voluntarily install an IID during the administrative suspension period. The incentives for the voluntarily IID installation being: starting the one year minimum installation time clock sooner and receiving a license during the administrative suspension period without any driving/hours restrictions. The license would have included a restriction for operation with an IID. The legislation allowing the voluntary IID during the administrative suspension prior to conviction failed to move through the legislative process.

From: NTSB
To: State of Wisconsin
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Wisconsin consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of California
Date: 2/11/2015
Response: I understand that Senate Bill (S.B.) 61, legislation that would strengthen California’s impaired driving countermeasures by mandating ignition interlocks for all driving-while-impaired (DWI) offenders, has been referred to the Senate Committee on Public Safety. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) strongly supports this legislation. An alcohol ignition interlock is a device that is connected to the ignition circuit of a vehicle and prevents the engine from starting until a breath sample has been provided, analyzed for ethanol content, and determined to be lower than prescribed limits. Many systems require additional breath samples at intervals during the driving task, commonly referred to as “running retests.” Research evaluation of ignition interlock programs over the last two decades has found that ignition interlock devices are effective in reducing recidivism among DWI offenders, sometimes by as much as 62 to 75 percent. According to one estimate, if all drivers with at least one alcohol-impaired-driving conviction within the 3 years prior to the accident used zero blood alcohol-concentration interlock devices, approximately 1,100 deaths could be prevented per year. This life-saving potential is why the NTSB has recommended since 2012 that all states mandate the use of ignition interlock devices for all DWI offenders. S.B. 61 significantly upgrades California’s ignition interlock law by mandating devices for all offenders on every vehicle owned or operated by the offender, providing your state another excellent step toward reducing crashes, injuries, and deaths involving alcohol-impaired drivers. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this letter of support as the Public Safety Committee considers S.B. 61. The proposed changes to California’s ignition interlock program will improve highway safety in your state.

From: NTSB
To: State of California
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did California consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Wyoming
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Wyoming consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address 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-13-009: Wyoming does require an IID (ignition interlock device), but at this time the law allows an Individual to be reinstated after the IID (ignition interlock device) requirement penod even if they never obtamed IID (ignition interlock device). Wyoming may cons1der your recommendation in the future.

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. Interlocks are highly incentivized not required.

From: NTSB
To: State of Colorado
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Colorado consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address 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: In 2013 or 2014, did Connecticut consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

From: NTSB
To: State of Delaware
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Delaware consider applicable legislation? 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-13-9.

From: NTSB
To: State of Florida
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: No further information is needed at this time to update 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: Sections 316.193, 316.1937, and 322.2715, Florida Statutes, govern when drivers convicted of DUI offenses are to use an IID on their vehicle. An IID is required as a condition of driver license reinstatement for the following time periods: 1. For first conviction with BAL 0.15 or higher or minor in the vehicle, six months. 2. For second conviction, at least one year. 3. For second conviction with BAL 0.15 or higher or minor in the vehicle, two years. 4. For third conviction, at least two years. 5. For four or more convictions, at least five years. Under Section 322.2615, Florida Statutes, a driver of a motor vehicle must submit to a law enforcement officer's request to determine his or hers BAL if the officer has probable cause. If the driver refuses, the person's driver license is suspended for one year to 18 months.

From: NTSB
To: State of Georgia
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: In 2013 or 2014, did Georgia consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?