Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122242782
label
NEXTEA [National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act] - Safety Issues
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122242782
contentType
document
title
NEXTEA [National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act] - Safety Issues
citationUrl
collections
Records of the National Economic Council (Clinton Administration)
Dorothy Robyn's Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122242782
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-4526568-20150463F-007-006-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1881c5aa385b3055
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2015-0463-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
National Economic Council
Series/Staff Member:
Dorothy Robyn
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
17408
FolderID:
Folder Title:
NEXTEA [National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act] - Safety Issues
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
15
5
7
1
Mark J. Schwartz
04/04/97 03:52:19 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Dorothy Robyn/OPD/EOP
cc:
David E. Tornquist/OMB/EOP, Elizabeth Drye/OPD/EOP, David J. Worzala/OMB/EOP, Kenneth L.
Schwartz/OMB/EOP
Subject: NEXTEA Safety Titles
Dorothy, FYI: Following up on some conversations I had last week with FHWA folks, there are
currently several proposals which are bouncing around the Secretary's office at DoT which may be
candidates for addition to the draft safety titles. The most important of these would be a provision
concerning "speed management."
The proposal would require a study of the fatality rates in states which have adopted higher speed
limits. If the evidence showed increased fatality rates states would then be tasked to undertake
speed management steps -- that is, steps to mitigate the impact of raising the speed limit.
I have not seen a draft of the proposal but I understand it is being debated within DoT and that
Secretary Slater has not decided whether to go ahead with it and is weighing the controversial
nature of such a proposal and any flaws in the proposal against the purported merits.
Executive Order
of
, 1997
Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States
Each year, traffic-related injuries in America result in $150.5 billion in economic costs,
including $17 billion in medical costs. Many of these costs are borne by taxpayers. Motor
vehicle crashes are the principal cause of on-the-job fatalities, and the third largest cause of all
deaths in the United States; only heart attacks and cancer kill more people. The estimated
costs of motor vehicle crashes to business are $53 billion annually.
Over the past 15 years, seat belt usage in the United States has increased from a seat belt use
rate of 14 percent to a seat belt use rate of 68 percent. This result has been achieved through
the passage of seat belt laws by State legislatures, effective enforcement and ongoing
coordinated public education. We have established national goals of achieving an 85 percent
seat belt use rate by the Year 2000 and a 90 percent seat belt use rate by the Year 2005.
Reaching these goals will require a significant change in how Americans take responsibility
for their safety, and their children's safety, in motor vehicles. If we achieve these national
goals, we will save an additional 4,200 lives and prevent thousands of injuries annually.
To accomplish this change in behavior, we must work closely with public and private sector
organizations that share our goals, and we must recruit new organizations that will work with
us as partners to make increasing seat belt use in the United States a major health and safety
priority.
To help reduce the deaths, injuries, and costs associated with motor vehicle crashes, steps
should be taken to increase proper seat belt use by all adults and children throughout the
United States. The Federal government can have an impact on achieving this goal by
continuing to require that Federal employees use seat belts while on official business, and [by
requiring that motor vehicle occupants use seat belts while in national park areas and on
Department of Defense (DoD) installations,] and encouraging Federal contractors, sub-
contractors and grantees to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt use policies and programs.
The policies and programs that are adopted can serve as examples for other organizations.
Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the
United States of America, including the Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 23 U.S.C.
§§ 402 and 403, Section 7902 (c) of Title 5 of the United States Code, and Section 19 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (29 U.S.C. 668), it is hereby ordered
as follows:
Section 1. Policies (a) Seat Belt Use by Federal Employees. Each Federal employee
occupying any seating position of a motor vehicle on official business, whose seat is equipped
with a seat belt, shall have the seat belt properly fastened at all times when the vehicle is in
motion.
(b) Seat Belt Use [in National Park Areas and on DoD Installations]. Each operator and
passenger, occupying any seating position of a motor vehicle [in a national park area or on
a DoD installation], whose seat is equipped with a seat belt or child restraint system, shall
have the seat belt or child restraint system properly fastened at all times when the vehicle is in
motion.
WRAFT
The President's Initiative to Increase Seat Belt Use
April 15, 1997
"If there is one thing we can do to save thousands of American lives, it is to increase
seat belt use nationwide."
-- President William J. Clinton, December 28, 1996
Highway Safety: A National Challenge. Each year nearly 42,000 Americans die and over
3.4 million are injured on our roads, and highway crashes are the leading cause of death for
children, teenagers, and young adults. In addition to the tragic toll on our families, crashes
cost our economy $150 billion annually, including $17 billion in medical costs.
Seat Belts and Child Safety Seats Work. Seat belts cut by half the risk of death or serious
injury in crashes, saving 9,500 lives annually. Child safety seats are even more effective in
protecting small children: when used properly, they can reduce fatalities and serious injuries
by 70 percent.
Challenges to Continued Progress. 49 states have laws requiring seat belt use, and 68
percent of Americans currently use them. However, increases in seat belt use have leveled
off. Further progress will be hard because only 11 states have "primary" enforcement laws
which enable police to ticket seat belt law violators even if no other law has been broken. In
addition, half of all children killed in traffic crashes are not in child safety seats, and even
when parents use such seats children often are incorrectly secured.
President Clinton's Directive. President Clinton recognizes the seriousness of this problem,
and in his weekly radio address on December 28, 1996, he asked all Americans to always
wear seat belts and to always keep children buckled in the back seat, where they are safest.
He also directed the Secretary of Transportation to report on how to increase seat belt use
nationwide.
New National Goals. Based on Secretary Rodney Slater's report, the President has set the
following goals to save lives through increased use of seat belts and child safety seats:
Increase seat belt use to 85 percent by 2000 and 90 percent by 2005
Reduce child fatalities 15 percent by 2000 and 25 percent by 2005
per year?
Reaching 85 percent seat belt use would prevent an additional 4,200 deaths and more than
102,000 injuries. Achieving 90 percent seat belt use would prevent more than 5,500
perjurn
additional deaths and more than 132,000 injuries. Reducing child fatalities 15 percent would
save the lives of 102 children annually, and reducing fatalities 25 percent would save 171
children each year.
Draft 3
I
April 14, 1997
The
accepted Seiretary Slater's
The President's National Strategy to Increase Seat Belt Use. The President National
Seat Belt Strategy that emphasizes our personal responsibility to buckle up and to properly secure
all children. The four-point plan supports this by promoting:
for
State laws for "primary" seat belt law enforcement and stronger child passenger safety
Active, high-visibility enforcement of seat belt and child safety seat laws
Effective public education, such as the "Vince and Larry" crash test dummy ads
Public-private partnerships to promote correct use of seat belts and child safety seats
Key Presidential Advinisoration Actions.
The Admistration has
President Clinton will propose that Congress provide states with incentives for
adopting and enforcing strong seat belt laws and programs, including "primary" seat
belt laws that enable police to ticket seat belt law violators even if no other law has
been violated
President Clinton will propose that Congress provide for states to transfer federal
highway construction funds to safety activities if they fail by 2003 to either
(1) achieve 85 percent seat belt use, or (2) enact a "primary" seat belt law
President Clinton is issuing an Executive Order directing all federal employees to use
seat belts while on the job and requiring all travellers on federal lands -- including
national park visitors - to use seat belts. The order also encourages federal
contractors and grantees to use seat belts while on the job
Key Partner Actions. As outlined in the report prepared for the President, the National
Strategy recommends actions that all Americans can take. It urges that:
States support seat belt and child safety outreach programs and active enforcement of
strong seat belt and child safety seat laws
Communities encourage local public officials to emphasize strong traffic law
enforcement
National organizations educate their constituencies on the importance of correct, full-
time seat belt and child safety seat use
Businesses support seat belt and child safety seat legislation, enforcement, and
education, because saving lives is good business employee educ prosiders?
Private citizens buckle up every time and on every trip, and properly secure every
child in a vehicle in a child safety seat or seat belt -- in the back seat, the safest place
for children
These actions can increase proper seat belt and child safety seat use, saving lives and
preventing injuries. The President encourages every American to participate in this effort by
buckling up properly on every trip: the life you save will be your own.
#####
Draft 3
2
April 14, 1997
BE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
4-7-97
met with her several times, and think she's terrific. Your Presidential Advisory Council on
HIV/AIDS will meet in Washington this week and make two major recommendations: 1) that
you should call for increased investment in research to enable the development of an AIDS
vaccine by a date certain (probably within a decade); and 2) that Secretary Shalala should certify
that needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV and do not increase drug use. The first
recommendation is good news, and may help us overcome NIH's steadfast resistance to letting
us earmark more resources for vaccine research or specify a target date. On needle exchange,
we'll have to proceed more carefully.
4. Seat Belts and NEXTEA: The Transportation Department has completed a report on
measures to increase seat belt use toward a new national goal of 85% by the year 2000, but we
need your sign-off on a key proposal. In most states, seat belt laws are enforced only when a
driver is stopped for some other reason. But 11 states and D.C. have adopted primary seat belt
laws, which allow for ticketing solely for failure to use a seat belt. Belt use in these states is 15%
higher than in states with secondary enforcement laws. NHTSA estimates that enactment of
primary belt laws by the remaining 39 states would save 1,800 lives a year.
The NEXTEA bill you announced March 12 includes financial incentives (grants) for
states to adopt primary belt laws. Secretary Slater would like to send Congress a new safety title
for NEXTEA to strengthen states' incentive by adding a "soft sanction": States that do not pass
primary laws or achieve 85% belt use by October 2002 would have to transfer 1.5% of their
federal highway funds into their highway safety programs.
(
The NGA opposes this proposal, as do the National Motorists Association, individual
liberties groups, and some conservative and western members of Congress. A broad coalition of
automakers, insurance companies, safety advocates, and law enforcement will support it. DOT
believes the proposal has a good chance of congressional approval, in the wake of increased
public outcry over airbags and attention to the importance of seat belts. Gene and I both
recommend that you support Secretary Slater's proposal.
5. Tobacco: Federal Judge William Osteen in North Carolina has indicated he will not
issue a decision on FDA's tobacco rule before April 14, but we expect him to issue his decision that
day or shortly thereafter. Three general outcomes are possible: 1) the court upholds the rule; 2) the
court rules that FDA has jurisdiction, but that portions or all of the rule are invalid; or 3) the court
rules against FDA jurisdiction and the rule. We have worked with HHS, Justice, and other White
House offices to prepare statements for each of these scenarios so you and others will be able to
respond quickly to the decision. The Justice Department will review the decision immediately. If
the decision is not completely favorable, we expect to be prepared to announce later that same day
the Administration's intent to appeal. We are also working with the departments to prepare new
policies you could announce within days or weeks after the decision to ensure further progress on
tobacco as the FDA rule moves through the appeals process.
6. California Testing Feud: A few days after Delaine Eastin and 240 business leaders
endorsed our testing initiative, the head of the California Board of Education (a Wilson
appointee) wrote Secretary Riley contending that the state legislature would have to pass a new
ADVOCATES
FOR HIGHWAY
AND AUTO SAFETY
URGENT
FAX TRANSMISSION SHEET
DATE: 4/14/97
TO:
Dorothy Robyn
FAX #: 456-2223
FROM: Jacqueline Gillan
PAGES TO TRANSMIT (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 8
COMMENTS:
Tomorrow the White House is unveiling its highway safety plan. You should read the
attached memo concerning the Administration's Safety Title immediately. In addition to the
objectionable provisions we identified in the 3/21 proposal submitted by DOT to OMB, we have
also learned that the freeze on truck lengths has been stripped out of the bill. Also, the
Administration is going with a weak redirection instead of a sanction.
The zero tolerance sanction included in the NHS bill that President Clinton endorsed has already
resulted in eleven states enacting this law. Six state legislatures are considering zero tolerance
bills this year. Georgia has sent a bill that is awaiting Gov. Miller's signature.
The Administration should not submit this bill as currently drafted. The memo outlines our
serious concerns and will leave the Administration vulnerable to criticism especially in light of
Sec. Slater's statements to Congress that "safety is his top priority" and he "will be judged by
his actions".
We would be pleased to meet with you asap to discuss this legislation. Please call me. Thank
you for your help.
Jacker Jackie Gillan
Vice President
Please phone 202/408-1711 if there is difficulty receiving this material.
750 First Street, NE Suite 901 Washington, DC 20002 Tel: 202/408-1711 Fax: 202/408-1699
World Wide Web: http://www.saferoads.org
ADVOCATES
FOR HIGHWAY
AND AUTO SAFETY
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMO TO:
RODNEY SLATER
CC:
MORT DOWNEY
MEMO FROM:
JUDIE STONE
JACKIE GILLAN
JOAN CLAYBROOK
RE:
"SAFETY TITLE" CONTAINS UNNECESSARY PROVISIONS
GUTTING KEY SAFETY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
REGULATIONS IN CURRENT LAW
DATE:
APRIL 11, 1997
We have just finished a quick review of a 3/21 document outlining the provisions of the Surface
Transportation Safety Act of 1997. This document reveals a serious disconnect between your
public statements and commitment to safety and the anti-safety provisions in the safety title. It
is a fair characterization to describe the legislative proposal as a Trojan Horse. Although it is
called a "safety title" and contains a weak redirection of funds for states that do not have
primary safety belt laws and a freeze on truck lengths, (it does not freeze truck weights), it also
repeals many provisions which weaken safety, especially in the area of truck safety.
If the FAA dared to weaken aviation requirements concerning operations and pilots similar to
what FHWA has recommended on truck operations and drivers, the press would have a field day
in criticizing the Administration. In light of the recent, horrible truck crashes that have occurred
on the Beltway and in other parts of the country and heightened public fear and concern about
big trucks, the bureaucrats who drafted these provisions have made you vulnerable to harsh
criticism by the press and the highway safety community. In fact, some of the motor carrier
provisions in the DOT legislation build on the NHS truck exemptions and other truck safety
rollbacks that prompted the safety groups and insurance companies to ask President Clinton to
veto the bill.
Without some immediate changes, the announcement next week has the potential to embarrass
the Administration and deflect its commitment to safety while focusing instead on the rollbacks
in safety. Since we last met with you on March 10, we have been organizing a "SAFETEA"
coalition of consumer, health, safety, law enforcement, insurance, business and environmental
groups in support of your initiative. These problems, if not corrected, will hamper the
coalition's interest in working to support key features of the bill but instead will direct our
energy to stripping the bill of these objectionable features.
DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
The attached memo outlines our specific concerns.
MARKING INITIALS: to DATE: 2/15/17
750 First Street, NE Suite 901 Washington, DC 20002 Tel: 202/408-1711 Fax: 202/408-1699
World Wide Web: http://www.saferoads.org
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 11, 1997
Subject: Anti-Safety Provisions in NEXTEA "Safety" Titles
Title IX - Truck Size Limitations:
Sec. 9002(a):
This provision (amending 23 U.S.C. § 127(h)(2)(A)) allows continued
reliance by the states on higher, grandfathered tandem axle limits that existed prior to 1974.
Higher weight limits result in heavier truck loads that threaten public safety and increase
damage to highway infrastructure. These higher limits prevail in at least nine (9) states.
Any such rights should be limited to lawful operation on a date earlier than Jan. 1, 1997.
Sec. 9003:
This provision (amending 23 U.S.C. § 127 to add a new subsection (i)) is
unacceptable because it addresses only international intermodal containers, not domestic
intermodal containers.
The proposed text continues current "enforcement tolerances" which some states have
used to allow systematically higher axle and/or gross weights by claiming that scales are
not accurate enough to detect certain overweight percentages. Paradoxically, FHWA
itself has argued against this practice and has taken states to task that use as high as 5%
overweight tolerances. Exploitation of weight tolerances pose a public safety risk and
impose damage costs on highway infrastructure.
The provision as proposed keeps weight limits (in 23 U.S.C. § 127) only for the
Interstate, as in current law. In order to protect public safety and the national
investment in the highway infrastructure, the existing weight limits should be extended to
cover at least the NHS.
Title X - Motor Carrier Safety:
Sec. 10001(d):
This subsection (amending 49 U.S.C. § 31142) is anti-safety and
completely objectionable because it would circumvent specific legislative requirements that
FHWA has either failed to obey or has attempted through rulemaking to circumvent:
The proposed text (§ 31142(a)) would eliminate the requirement that the Secretary
conduct rulemaking to establish the motor carrier safety rating system and would also
supersede the recent Court of Appeals decision finding the agency in violation of law for
maintaining the rating system as a body of secret law.
The proposed text (§ 31142(b) & (c)) would amend existing law that requires FHWA
to tell a motor carrier of hazmat or passengers to cease operations at the end of 45 days
if it has received an Unsatisfactory rating. This proposed amendment not only extends
the time period that unsatisfactory carriers can continue to operate to 60 days, but would
give FHWA discretion to expand the time period beyond 60 days during a rating review.
Nextea Safety Titles Memo
April 11, 1997
Page 2
Operators facing an unsatisfactory rating will always request a rating review and this
review is to be conducted behind closed doors. This process has been objected to in
comments last year. While the amendment proposes to broaden the scope of the cease-
operations authority by extending it to all motor carriers, not just hazmat and passengers
-- a positive safety initiative -- the agency accords itself unlimited discretion.
The proposed text (§ 31142(e)) will undermine safety because only the safety ratings
of carriers that have unsatisfactory ratings will be made available to the public. FHWA
plans to eliminate conditional and satisfactory ratings but even if other ratings are still
provided, the agency under this language would be permitted to conceal them. Under
the FHWA proposed rating process, formal unsatisfactory ratings would only be assigned
after a long process and only to a small number of carriers and then only those would be
publicly available. Also, there is no requirement for publication of the unsatisfactory
rating in the Federal Register.
Sec. 10002(c): This provision eliminates the obligation to transmit vital safety information
by striking (49 U.S.C. § 31303) the specific legislative direction to FHWA to require
commercial drivers to notify employers, prospective employers, and state authorities of CMV
driver traffic violations, license revocations etc., and previous employment history as a
commercial driver. The substitute provision limits notification to drug violations only, and
consigns the notification issue to agency discretion, calling for new regulations but with no date
certain for completion of rulemaking.
Sec.
10002(d):
This provision repeals important Congressionally prescribed criteria for
driver fitness and testing (49 U.S.C. § 31305) and leaves the issue entirely to agency discretion.
The agency has shown a propensity to water down or eliminate non-statutory safety
requirements for driver fitness and testing, such as physical/medical standards, minimum driver
age, and driver testing requirements, among others.
Sec. 10002(e):
This provision would strike the statutory compliance date of December 18,
1994 (in 49 U.S.C. § 31307(b)) for issuing regulations governing LCV driver training
standards. The agency has not met its statutory mandate and seeks an open-ended date by
which to comply.
Sec. 10002(f):
This provision would eliminate mandatory provisions for the commercial
driver license information system (CDLIS) (49 U.S.C. § 31309(b),(c)), which was intended to
provide real-time information on driver status and licensing to federal and state officials.
Development of the system would be consigned to FHWA discretion. The ability to obtain
current information electronically was a key aspect of the single commercial drivers' license
(CDL) legislation. The proposed provision would also delete the original compliance date of
December 31, 1990 (§ 31309(d)(2), for establishing a commercial driver biometric identifier.
The agency has not complied with this requirement in over seven years. Further, 'shall' is
changed to 'may' so that FHWA can choose not to establish a biometric identifier.
Nextea Safety Titles Memo
April 11, 1997
Page 3
Sec. 10002(g):
This provision (amending 49 U.S.C. § 31311) strikes the requirement that
states adopt specific federal regulations on commercial driver out-of-service orders and
sanctions, and instead invests FHWA with discretion to determine the regulations states are
required to adopt.
Sec. 10003:
This provision weakens the current DOT authority by removing reporting
and recordkeeping failures as a basis for violations and penalties, and by deleting the power of
inspectors to set dates for abatement of violations:
Sec. 10003(a),(b): The proposal undermines safety by (amending 49 U.S.C. §§ 521
& 522) eliminating motor carrier recordkeeping violations, such as logbooks and other
operating records, as well as reporting failures, as a basis for imposing civil penalties.
This means that there are no fines for failing to maintain or produce required records
and reports. In fact, the current provision that imposes penalties for recordkeeping and
reporting violations (§ 522(b)) is amended specifically to exclude any penalties for
reporting and recordkeeping violations.
Sec. 10003(c): This proposal (amending 49 U.S.C. § 521(b)(5)) weakens the
definition of 'imminent hazard' which is the basis for ordering an operator to cease part
or all operations that threaten death or serious injury and a basis for vehicle out-of-
service orders.
(1) The current definition permits the agency to abate hazards by ceasing all or
part of a violator's operation if any condition exists that is likely to result in death or
serious injury if not stopped immediately. The new definition requires a substantial
likelihood of death or serious illness, or severe personal injury or a substantial
endangerment to health, property, or the environment. Although expanding the reasons
for taking action
-- a positive step -- the language unnecessarily increases the legal burden on the agency
and will result in fewer cease-operation orders.
(2) The new definition specifically links cease-operation orders based on
imminent hazards to formal proceedings (a hearing) that take place days later and are not
mentioned in the current definition. Although this language may broaden the temporal
scope of agency authority, the downside is that it may also inhibit use of the authority to
cease operations.
(3) The new definition characterizes the proceeding as one undertaken only "to
lessen [not eliminate] the risk of
death, illness, injury, or endangerment." This
approach reduces the burden on FHWA to ensure public safety.
Nextea Safety Titles Memo
April 11, 1997
Page 4
Title XI - Traffic Safety:
Sec.
11001(a): This provision (amending 49 U.S.C. § 30113(d)) would eliminate the
legislated ceiling of 2,500 vehicles annually that can be exempted from compliance with federal
motor vehicle safety standards each year. It consigns noncompliance exemptions entirely to
NHTSA discretion and provides too broad a grant of authority. The stated rationale of vehicle
fleets testing experimental safety/environmental technology is unsubstantiated and begs the
question of public involvement in determining the size of fleet approved for exemption.
Sec. 11001(b): This provision will limit public awareness of potential safety problems by
(amending § 30118(b)) eliminating all public notice and comment on motor vehicle
inconsequential noncompliance evaluations by NHTSA. Many such requests are based on
lighting requirement noncompliance and failure to observe other standards, not just labeling
problems as stated by NHTSA. The agency will still be required to evaluate and determine the
reason for the noncompliance and whether it can be deemed inconsequential, so this is strictly to
avoid the burden of publication in the Federal Register and public knowledge.
Sec. 11001(f): This provision (amending 49 USC to add a new section 30148) opens a
"Pandora's Box" and gives NHTSA, a safety agency, authority to pursue International
Harmonization efforts that are essentially economic in nature. This initiative is based on
reducing costs to the vehicle manufacturing industry and involves economic issues on repair and
replacement of vehicle parts. This provision makes it official statutory policy to pursue
International Harmonization and requires the Secretary to promote adoption of International
Harmonized standards that are functionally equivalent or only "comparable" to US safety
standards. It would also promote international cooperative programs and to cooperate with any
authority, association, institution, corporation, foreign government, multinational institution in
pursuing International Harmonization. This gives Congressional imprimatur to almost any
activity undertaken in the name of International Harmonization. Even with the caveat to
"maintain or improve the level of safety," enabling statute should not contain an international
goal that may be at odds with US standards, and that represents an economic rather than a
safety agenda.
Sec. 11002:
This provision (repealing 49 U.S.C. § 32302(c) and § 32303) undermines
safety information distribution (both current and prospective) by eliminating all consumer
information and insurer reporting of claims information on comparative vehicle damage/repair
costs required under the 1972 Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Information Act. While the only
current information distributed is the IIHS/HLDI brochure, removal of this authority deletes the
statutory obligation for NHTSA to develop safety-oriented consumer information. It also
eliminates any obligation of dealerships to provide any government required information to
prospective vehicle purchasers.
Nextea Safety Titles Memo
April 11, 1997
Page 5
Sec. 11004:
This provision (amending § 33106(b)(2)) provides discretion to permit
unlimited exemptions from the parts marking requirement in advance of the required Dec. 31,
1999, decision by the Attorney General on whether anti-theft devices are an effective substitute.
No distinction is made between vehicle disabling technology and other anti-theft devices.
Sec. 11005:
This provision (amending 49 USC to add a new chapter 307 on Vehicle
Titling) includes a definition of vehicle flood damage ($30701(1) that will unreasonably reduce
the value of vehicles to consumers and place unfair burdens on insurers by setting the threshold
for flood damage at a minimal level of damage. This provision also sets a low threshold for
defining a vehicle as a 'salvage motor vehicle' ($30701(10).
Sec. 11006:
This provision, requiring state enactment of Primary Belt Use Laws, is
relegated to § 402 rather than being added as a stand-alone provision. The only sanction is
limited to a 1.5%, and later a 3%, redirection of certain federal-aid highway funds to the state
402 safery program. Redirection of federal-aid funds have been opposed by state interests, for
example under the Sec. 153 Program and the National Maximum Speed Limit compliance
requirements, because it diverted funding from construction programs to safety, and because the
state 402 programs are unable to absorb, and put to effective use, large increases in funding
levels. Outright sanctions of federal-aid funds are a cleaner, more effective means of obtaining
compliance without actual loss of funding, as exemplified by the sanction provision in the
"zero" tolerance law (23 USC § 161).
Title XII - Hazardous Materials Reauthorization:
Sec. 12006:
This provision undermines the safe transport of hazardous materials by
repealing (49 U.S.C. § 5109) the federal requirement for a uniform permitting system for
hazmat transport and instead substitutes another open-dated pilot program for evaluating "the
use of automated carrier assessment programs." FHWA has not carried out the original
legislative directive for implementing the permitting program which was to be in place by Nov.
16, 1991.
Sec. 12010:
This provision will effectively increase the risk from hazmat transport by
doubling the time period for hazmat special permits (in 49 U.S.C. $ 5117(a)(2)) from two to
four years.
Sec. 12014:
This provision (amending 49 U.S.C. § 5123(a)(1)) encourages hazmat
violations by eliminating the requirement that a minimum penalty must be assessed for any
hazmat violation.
MEMBERS OF THE SAFETEA COALITION AS OF APRIL 13, 1997
SUPPORTING A FREEZE ON TRUCK SIZES & WEIGHTS, AND
A PRIMARY SAFETY BELT SANCTION
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Alliance of American Insurers
American College of Emergency Physicians
American Insurance Association
Arizona Consumers Council
Brain Injury Association
Brain Injury Services
Center for Auto Safety
Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways
Coalition for American Trauma Care
Consumer Federation of America
Emergency Medical Services for Children
Emergency Nurses Association
General Federation of Women's Clubs
Independent Insurance Agents of America
Kemper Insurance Companies
Madison Township Police Department, Ohio
MADD Florida
MCR/LRI, Inc.
National Commission Against Drunk Driving
National Consumers League
National Fire Protection Association
National SAFE KIDS Campaign
National Safety Council
Nationwide Insurance Enterprise
Parents Against Tired Truckers
Police Foundation
Public Citizen
Safety Services, Inc.
State Farm Insurance
Think First/ Heads Up
Trauma Foundation
isday, calling on its 113 member nations to freeze ties with Israet at
'so-called human rights exist only to protect criminals from the law,
existing levels.
when in truth they should exist to protect the honest citizen from the
The effects of such moves are starting to show up. The moderate
actions of crooks."
Persian Gulf state of Oman, which had opened trade ties with Israel in
Violence by military police, patrol units left over from Brazil's long
recent years, recently refused to grant visas to two Israeli diplomats
military dictatorship of 1964-85, has gotten worse since the
and turned down an Israeli request to take part in a book fair in
dictatorship ended, the Human Rights Watch/Americas report shows.
Muscat last month.
During those years, police executed or helped disappear" about
Neighboring Qatar also has frozen its slow normalization with Israel
336 Brazilians, the report says.
since Netanyahu took power last June, reflecting concern over what
In contrast, in 1992, Sao Paulo military police killed 1,470 civilian
are perceived as his hard-line policies. But neither of those Arab states
suspects, or about one out of three people murdered in the state that
has asked Israel yet to close its trade offices in their capitals.
year. Police in New York City that year killed 24 suspects.
When Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy visited Turkey this week,
Brazil also has disturbingly high rates of deaths in police shootouts
the first visit by an Israeli statesman with an Islamic leader since the
compared with other parts of the world. While most shootouts in the
Arab League decision, he received a cold welcome from Prime
United States result in suspects being wounded, people rarely survive
Minister Necmettin Erbakan of the Islam-based Welfare Party.
Brazilian shootouts.
Even so, Erbakan reaffirmed his government's policy of improving
To combat Brazil's problems with human rights abuses among the
ties with Israel, and the Turkish parliament ratified a free-trade
worst in South America alongside Colombia and Peru the report
agreement with Israel last week.
recommends that the country suspend violent police officers and
On a trip to the Far East this week, Israeli Minister of Industry and
prosecute those who abuse civilians.
Trade Natan Sharansky and a team-of-company leaders found some.
It urges that violence-cases, by military police-
new hesitation among the Japanese about doing business with Israel in
themselves, be independently examined and that states and cities set
light of the calls for a reinstated boycott.
up ombudsmen to hear charges of police violence.
However, the Japanese, long sensitive on the boycott issue because
Brazil already has acted on several of the report's major demands.
of their dependence on Arab oil, were eager to make an exception
including that torture be made a federal crime and that military police
when it came to trade with Israel's booming high-tech sector.
murder cases be tried in civilian courts:
`I'm impressed by the response" to the latest televised incidents,
Cavallaro said. This woke Brazilians up. They knew violence
Police brutality soars in Brazil, human rights report
existed but now they seen how ugly it really is."
reveals By Laurie Goering Chicago Tribune (KRT)
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil Amid disturbing images of Rio police
torturing, whipping and shooting civilians, a report this week
States criticize Clinton for favoring bill to deny
documents police brutality as a pervasive problem across Brazil.
control of some federal safety aid by states
The human rights report says officers are rarely prosecuted for
lacking tough seat belt laws By Janet L. Fix
crimes short of murder and, in Rio, military police officers who gun
Knight Ridder Newspapers (KRT)
down suspects are eligible for commendations for "bravery."
WASHINGTON State safety officials are criticizing President
"Police violence is a national phenomenon, and impunity,
Clinton for favoring legislation that would deny control of some
unfortunately, is the rule," said James Cavallaro, the head of Human
federal safety aid by states that don't pass tough seat belt laws.
Rights Watch/Americas in Brazil. The group issued the report
Only 11 states currently have such laws. Fewer than two-thirds of
Tuesday.
Americans regularly buckle up, and Clinton is launching a major
In Rio, police since November 1995 have been eligible for salary
initiative designed to increase seat belt use to more than 90 percent.
bonuses and promotions for acts of `bravery" under a decree signed
Part of that effort would be pushing legislation that would reward
by the state governor.
states with financial incentives for passing tough belt laws and deny
The report found that a total of 72 civilians died in 92 cases where
control of some federal highway aid in states that don't.
police were recommended for bravery awards.
Specifically, legislation drafted by the administration would redirect
``Police are receiving concrete financial incentives to be violent,"
1.5 percent of a state's federal highway construction money to safety
Cavallaro charged. Rio officials have not only failed to act against
education programs if states don't adopt tough belt laws by 2003
police violence, they've created incentives for it."
After that year, 3 percent of those funds would be redirected away
In the 17 months since the policy was instituted, police killings in
from the state, according to sources familiar with the legislation.
Rio have risen sixfold, the report said. At one point so many bodies
In an April 1 letter to Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater, the
were arriving in Rio emergency rooms that the head of a major city
National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives
hospital wrote to Rio's head of public security demanding he stop
criticized the proposed sanctions and the Clinton administration for
delivering corpses.
not first consulting with them since they are the individuals in 50
Fernando Fragoso, vice president of the Rio bar association, said he
states who direct safety enforcement and education efforts.
has filed a lawsuit challenging the bravery awards on constitutional
The Transportation Department "`is making a decision which will
grounds.
significantly impact states without first discussing the issue with
The Human Rights Watch report came out after Globo TV, Brazil's
them," said Laura Ludwig, chairman of the highway safety
largest network, on Monday aired a home video of Rio military police
representatives group.
whipping a group of young shantytown dwellers with belts and
If states can achieve increased seat belt usage without enacting
beating them with a heavy length of wood.
laws which may be controversial," she wrote, the Transportation
'It's horrible to see them act like that It's not what you expect from
Department" should allow them to do so."
the police," said the man who shot the film after his brother had
Sanctions are a bad idea, this group and other safety officials say.
previously been beaten.
States don't like be told what to do by the federal government,"
Public anger over such images of police violence has prompted
said Phil Haseltine, president of the American Coalition for Traffic
quick passage of human rights measures in Brazil this week.
Safety, an safety education group funded by the auto industry.
On Monday, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso appointed the
'Now more than ever, state legislators are prone to get their back
country's first national human rights watchdog, and also signed a bill
up if they feel they're being blackmailed by the feds.
passed by Congress making torture a federal crime.
His group has proposed legislation that would reward states with
We want to show the country that we must make more and more
incentive grants if they pass belt laws that carry big fines and penalty
progress in this area and that we are not happy with what was often a
points on drivers licenses. Seat belt laws in most states have tines
lack of action in the past," Cardoso said.
less than $25 and no penalty points.
He warned that progress on curbing police brutality is likely to be
In the 1980s, President Reagan successfully used the threat of
slow. Many Brazilians condone police murders of those regarded as
sanctions to get legislatures in all 50 states to adopt 21 as the legal
marginal members of society, such as thieves and street children, as an
drinking age.
answer to soaring crime rates and an overburdened judicial system.
But more recently, states and Congress balked at sanctions designed
"Crooks are not civilians," Gen. Nelson Cerqueira, head of Rio state
to force a national 55-mph speed limit. And in recent years, the federal
police, told Human Rights Watch/America researchers when
use of sanctions is viewed suspiciously as nothing more than unfunded
questioned about police murders of suspects. Crooks are crooks,
mandates by the federal government.
dead or alive."
The report also quotes a Brazilian judge as observing that
Senate Republicans broaden inquiry of campaign
3 months after he was fined $300,000, Gingrich
fund-raising by agreeing to subpoena GOP records By
still agonizing over how to pay By David Hess
Steven Thomma Knight Ridder Newspapers (KRT)
Knight Ridder Newspapers (KRT)
WASHINGTON Senate Republican investigators broadened their
WASHINGTON Three months have passed since Speaker Newt
inquiry of campaign fund-raising practices by agreeing Wednesday to
Gingrich was handed a $300,000 fine by the House ethics committee
subpoena records from the Republican National Committee, the Dole
and the Georgia Republican is still agonizing over how to pay it.
for President campaign, and groups tied to the GOP.
In prolonging the suspense over the fine, Gingrich has erected an
Democrats praised the agreement, saying it signals the kind of
impediment to his efforts to rehabilitate his leadership credentials.
bipartisan investigation ordered by the Senate last month in a 99-0
Even Republicans say as long as the shadow of the ethics committee's
vote. And some analysts have said the inquiry will be taken seriously
penalty looms over Gingrich, his charter to lead his partisans will be
by the public only if it is bipartisan.
stained.
Until now, the Senate committee investigating the controversy has
If he would just do it and get this behind him," said Rep. Matt
focused on potential fund-raising abuses by President Clinton and the
Salmon, R-Ariz. "I think he could somewhat calm the turbulence
Democrats.
around his political career. It would clear the air some."
``My optimism that we will be able to conduct a fair and
Over the past two weeks, Gingrich's confidants have floated various
comprehensive investigation is growing," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman,
trial balloons on how he should pay the fine, which was levied by the
D-Conn. He said the agreement to also investigate Republicans was
bipartisan ethics panel to reimburse Congress for the extra time and
a significant break in what was a logjam in this investigation."
expense it took to find that he had misled the panel about using
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said it represents an overdue but
tax-exempt foundations to finance political goals.
significant step.
That could violate federal tax law, and the Justice Department is still
The agreement was announced by Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.,
looking into whether it has a case against Gingrich.
chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and Sen.
Some House members, mostly Democrats, believe the speaker
John Glenn of Ohio, the senior Democrat on the panel, after intense
should pay the entire fine out of his own pocket. And even a few
negotiations.
Republicans, such as GOP Caucus Chairman John Boehner of Ohio
The two also announced that the committee would issue subpoenas
and Rep. Marge Roukema of New Jersey, think it would be politically
for the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton/Gore
advantageous for Gingrich to do so.
campaign and said they had reached agreement with the White House
But congressional sources close to Gingrich said that his wife,
that will allow Senate investigators to obtain White House documents
Marianne, is convinced that the charges against her husband were
and interview staffers without having to issue subpoenas.
politically orchestrated and is `absolutely and totally opposed" to
But it was the decision to extend their inquiry to Republicans and
paying the fine from the family's resources.
private groups expanding the inquiry into a look at the entire
She thinks this was all trumped up against Newt, and that he
campaign system that was most significant. A House investigation is
shouldn't feel any obligation to suffer financially, personally, from it,"
looking only at Clinton and Democrats, and a Justice Department
said a Republican congressman close to Gingrich.
inquiry is focusing mainly on questions of foreign influence in the
The speaker now appears to be leaning toward a hybrid solution,
1996 election.
under which he would pay about $50,000 of the fine from personal
Thompson had to navigate among his fellow Republicans, with
resources and the rest from either his ample election-campaign fund
conservatives urging that the probe be limited to the president and
which exceeds $1 million or from a special legal defense fund that he
Democrats, and moderates pushing for the broader inquiry.
would have to create from scratch.
This has not been easy," said Senate Minority Leader Tom
Another option would be to pay the entire amount from his
Daschle, D-S.D. Sen. Thompson has had a great deal of internal
campaign fund, which would then be reimbursed in the future from
dissension as understand it and some difficulty in bringing about a
assessments" against the campaign funds of House Republican
consensus on his side on this matter."
committee and subcommittee chairmen.
Despite last month's Senate vote ordering a broad investigation, the
As one leadership aide put it, They owe their chairmanships to
subsequent request from committee Democrats for 11 subpoenas set
Newt we wouldn't be in the majority were it not for him so why
off partisan wrangling.
shouldn't they help him out?"
Specifically, the Democrats wanted to subpoena documents from
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, R-La.,
such private interest groups as the Christian Coalition and the
deflected a question about that, but argued that Gingrich should not be
National Right to Life Committee that they suspect of improperly
expected to pay the penalty from his own pocket.
trying to help Republican candidates in violation of their tax-exempt
"Tm dead-set against him paying it out of personal funds,"
status.
Livingston said. "Look, we rise or fall in elections every two years,
Thompson agreed to subpoena six of the 11: the National Policy
and voters have the final say. Simply by bringing charges, the ethics
Forum, Citizens for the Republic Education Fund, Citizens for
committee can ruin our career, causing us to lose. Isn't that sanction
Reform, Americans for Tax Reform, Coalition for Our Children's
enough? To set this precedent in allowing the committee to recapture
Future, and Triad Management Services.
assets you've earned is extremely punitive. After all, this committee is
He did not agree to subpoena the Christian Coalition or other
not a criminal forum."
groups, but a committee source said the language of the subpoena for
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., a staunch Gingrich defender, said the
the RNC will seek party records on any involvement with the
speaker is not particularly popular in his district, but that the issue
Christian Coalition. Moreover, Levin said the Democrats on the
over paying the fine appears to be of little concern there.
committee may try again for a direct subpoena of the other groups.
"It's not an issue at all in my district," he said. Actually, I think he
The subpoena of the Democratic National Committee will include a
should set up a legal defense fund to pay for it. That's what everybody
call for any records mentioning the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters or the
else has done President Clinton, (former House Ways and Means
National Education Association, a committee source said.
Chairman) Dan Rostenkowski, (former Oregon Sen. Bob) Packwood.
Republicans want to examine whether the unions acted properly in
Why shouldn't Newt do it that way?"
their independent campaigns against the GOP.
Several Gingrich supporters believe the Washington law firm
White House spokesman Mike McCurry welcomed the agreement to
Wiley, Rein & Fielding that represented him in the case should pony
make material and staff available to Senate investigators, contrasting it
up part of the fine, perhaps in the form of a partial reimbursement for
to the more adversarial relationship between the White House and
the legal fees he paid.
House investigators.
`IfI were the law firm, Td offer to help out, even pay it all," said
We've indicated that we will be cooperative and we intend to work
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., who said he thinks the firm
with them to produce the people and the materials they seek," he said
dropped the ball in failing to impress on Gingrich the significance of
of the Senate inquiry. The situation in the House is indeed more
inconsistencies in his sworn statements that prompted the ethics
complicated, and the discussions have been more difficult."
committee's findings.
However Gingrich finally decides, there is precedence in the House
for using an installment plan to pay penalties and reimbursements for
misconduct. So even if he decides to pay all or part of it from his own
pocket, he could stretch out the payments over several years.
Clinton Calls for States
U.S. to Hire 10,000 People
White House Moves
To Stiffen Seat-Belt Laws
From Public-Welfare Rolls
By a WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter
By a WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter
To Expand Medicaid
WASHINGTON - President Clinton
WASHINGTON - President Clinton,
wants to require states to toughen seat-
seeking to practice what he preaches on
For People With HIV
belt enforcement or face having some of
welfare reform, committed the federal
their federal highway money shifted into
government to hiring 10,000 workers off
By a WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter
seat-belt enforcement programs.
of public-assistance rolls over the next
WASHINGTON - The Clinton adminis-
According to a plan being finalized by
four years.
tration is taking steps to try to expand
the Transportation Department, the ad-
"We have all got to take responsibility
Medicaid eligibility so that more low-
ministration would require that states
to see that the jobs are there so that
income people with HIV, the virus that
adopt "primary" seat-belt laws, which
people can leave welfare and become
causes AIDS, can get the new drug treat-
allow police officers to stop a car when a
permanent members of the work force,"
ments before they are disabled by the
driver or passenger isn't buckled up.
Mr. Clinton told his cabinet. The cabinet
disease.
Congress would have to approve the
meeting was called to review welfare
Vice President AI Gore directed the
proposal.
hiring plans for agencies throughout the
Health Care Financing Administration,
Administration officials said the
government. The White House will take
which runs Medicaid, to report back to him
White House plan, expected to be an-
on six welfare workers, the president
within 30 days on setting up a pilot project
nounced next week, will likely require
promised.
to provide the drugs. Currently, most peo-
states to adopt primary seat-belt laws by
"The federal government has to do its
ple with AIDS don't become eligible for
Sept. 30, 2002, or have 1.5% of their
part," Mr. Clinton said.
Medicaid, the state-federal program for
highway construction funds shifted to
Mr. Clinton was harshly criticized by
the poor and disabled, until they are
seat-belt enforcement programs. That
many Democrats last year for signing a
officially determined to be disabled, which
amount would increase to 3% in later
welfare-overhaul bill that stripped the
occurs at an advanced stage of the illness.
years. States could be exempt if they
federal guarantee of cash welfare bene-
As a result, people who haven't devel-
show that at least 80% of their drivers
fits for families who qualified. It also
oped full-blown AIDS sometimes can't get
buckle up.
required welfare recipients to go to work
the promising, but expensive, new drug
The administration's goal is to boost
after two straight years on public assis-
therapies.
the percentage of drivers who buckle up
tance, and put a five-year lifetime cap on
AIDS activists say that easing the Med-
from 68% nationwide to 85%.
benefits. Since then, the president has
icaid eligibility rules would improve the
been trying to soften the new law's
health of many people and keep them
impact by urging private employers to
working longer. They say it would also
hire welfare recipients. Earlier this year,
save money by reducing the number of
he signaled the government's intention
related infections and hospitalizations.
to do the same.
AIDS Action, which represents commu-
Mr. Clinton promised that the work
nity organizations that serve people with
the government provides "will not be
AIDS, praised Mr. Gore's move, saying It
make-work jobs" but "jobs that actually
could help thousands of people who other-
need to be filled and work that needs to be
wise wouldn't be able to afford the new
done for the American people." Many
medications. Officials with the group met
posts are expected to be worker-training
about a month ago with top administration
positions under a program that prepares
officials to discuss expanding Medicaid
people for civil-service employment.
eligibility.
A pilot project would likely be limited to
Line-Item Veto Law Is Struck Down
a handful of states, but if the results are
good, it could be implemented nationally
by changes in legislation, administration
By Federal Judge as Unconstitutional
officials say.
By EDWARD FELSENTHAL
expedite the process, could reach the Su-
And GREG HITT
preme Court for argument as early as this
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
spring.
WASHINGTON - A federal district
The controversial law, which took ef-
judge struck down the line-item veto law
fect in January, let the president cut
enacted last year, ruling that it violated
specific - a construction project or a
the Constitution by giving the president
weapons system. for example - from
powers that were intended for Congress.
spending bills. It also let the president
Legislators were aware that the law
cancel some tax breaks passed by Con-
faced significant legal obstacles. But the
gress and new spending for benefits pro-
decision by Judge Thomas Penfield Jack-
grams, such as Medicare. Congress could
son in Washington was nonetheless a blow
try to restore the spending or tax provi-
after many years of wrangling and failed
sions by passing a new measure reviving
efforts to pass such a measure.
each of them, which the president could
In a 37-page opinion, Judge Jackson
still veto.
said the act violates the concept of separa-
The line-item veto was a top priority of
tion of powers by allowing the president to
Republican leaders. While many law-
pick and choose what parts of a spending
makers had their doubts about the meas-
bill he would allow to become law. The law
ure, they supported it in hopes that a presi-
"hands off to the president authority over
dent could make the tough spending deci-
fundamental legislative choices," Judge
sions that lawmakers, swayed by their
Jackson wrote. "That power is possessed
local constitutents, often don't.
by Congress alone, and, according to the
Early this year, the line-item veto was
framers'. careful design, may not be dele-
challenged in court by six lawmakers who
gated at all.'
argued that the law, which took effect Jan.
The action was a setback for Republi-
1, violated the Constitution by shifting
can leaders and President Clinton, who
budgetary power to the executive branch
had hailed the line-item veto as a key
from the legislative branch. The suit was
tool in controlling federal spending and
filed by Reps. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.)
narrowing the deficit. Judge Jackson, who
and David Skaggs (D., Colo.) and Sens.
was appointed by President Reagan, one of
Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), Daniel Patrick
the strongest proponents of a line-item
Moynihan (D., N.Y.), Carl Levin (D.,
veto, acknowledged the problem of "run-
Mich.) and Mark Hatfield (R., Ore.)
away spending.' But he said constitional
"I am very pleased with the court's
values can't be sacrificed in the name of
decision, which I believe to be a great
budgetary efficiency.
victory for the American people and our
The question is certain to be appealed
Constitution," said Sen. Byrd, who led
and, under a special provision in the law to
opposition to the bill.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 1997
POLITICS & POLICY
Clinton Limits Agenda to Avoid Offending Democrats
By HILARY STOUT
With the budget moving slowly and
And DAVID WESSEL
other major initiatives on hold, President
Still Undone
of federal benefits.
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Clinton has little to show for the first few
At an emotional meeting between labor
WASHINGTON - It's not just a bum
months of his second term.
leaders and President Clinton's top budget
Send fast-track
knee that's interfering with Bill Clinton's
Restructuring of the Social Security
negotiators, AFL-CIO President John
hopes for a history-making second term.
trade legislation
and Medicare programs has been put off
Sweeney implored the White House to drop
Mr. Clinton's reluctance to antagonize
to Congress
the idea.
until the end of the budget talks. Mr.
congressional Democrats, whose support
Clinton is unlikely to even appoint a bipar-
Offer a fix for
Mr. Sweeney said it was a mistake to
he needs for both a balanced-budget deal
tisan commission to study the matters, as
long-run Social
characterize this issue as just about the
he said he intended to do upon re-election.
federal budget and benefits, according to
FRIDAY, 11, 1997
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
and his defense in the burgeoning cam-
Security and
pain-finance scandal, has stymied a num-
"Clearly they're holding back on longer
labor officials. He pointed out that the CPI
Medicare problems
ber of key initiatives on the president's
term Medicare and Social Security," says
is the starting point for every labor negoti-
second-term agenda - including promised
John Rother, legislative director of the
Própose bank-
ation in the U.S., and changing It would
overhaul of federal entitlement pregrams
American Association of Retired Persons.
reform bill
change the balance between labor and
and critical trade legislation.
"They don't even want to talk about it
capital.
Fill Federal Reserve
The president has made a balanced-
publicly."
Soon after, Mr. Clinton backed away
vaçancies
President Clinton
budget agreement with Congress the su-
Mr. Clinton's plan to offer "fast-track"
from the CPI commission, infuriating the
preme
priority.
"Getting
a
legislation that would make it easier for
Republican congressional leadership who
balanced-budget deal alone would secure a
him to negotiate trade pacts has also been
had reached a private, tentative under-
retary Rubin has discussed a plan to allow
positive year for the president on economic
hung up because of opposition from liberal
standing with the White House that
banks to buy commercial firms as long
policy," says Gene Sperling. the White
changes to the inflation measure recom-
Democrats. Administration officials say
as the commercial operation's business
House economic-policy coordinator. Oth-
the so-called "fast-track" legislation is still
mended by the bipartisan group would
doesn't exceed 25% of the bank's total
ers in the White House say Mr. Clinton's
form the basis of a balanced-budget agree-
a top goal, but officials continue to fight
business. A number of top Senate Demo-
place in history depends on reaching an
ment. He may yet embrace CPI revisions
over when to begin pushing that legisla-
crats have lined up against the proposal
agreement to balance the federal books.
tion.
when serious dealing begins, however.
before it has even formally been made.
As a result, other priorities are taking a
Aldés insist Mr. Clinton has already
Mr. Clinton may begin a drive to get
The senior Democrat on the Senate
back seat.
made progress in the first few months of
fast-track authority by discussing the issue
Banking Committee, Paul Sarbanes of
White House aides say that while the
his new term. They point to foreign affairs,
in a speech today to the American Society
Maryland, is as vociferous an opponent of
talks continue, they are eager not to antag-
and to his efforts to convince states to
of Newspaper Editors. But the White House
this as Mr. Gephardt is of the fast-track
onize House Democrats, who have a partic-
still hasn't decided when to send the
adopt educational standards and testing
trade legislation. Sen. Sarbanes has been
ularly vocal and nettlesome spokesman in
fast-track legislation to Congress. U.S.
for fourth-grade and eighth-grade stu-
an administration ally, helping to defeat
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. con-
dents. But for the most part the president
Trade Representative Charlene Bar-
the balanced-budget constitutional amend-
sidered Vice President AI Gore's strongest
has been reduced to promoting small ini-
shefsky and other trade officials want to
ment among other things, and some in the
rival for the 2000 Democratic nomination.
tiatives that don't require congressional
press ahead and get the bill to Capitol
administration are reluctant to antagonize
Complaints from Mr. Gephardt and other
Hill.
action, much as he did during his re-elec-
him. Moreover, a number of other senior
House Democrats convinced the president
tion campaign last year. Congressional
But some officials at the White House,
Democrats in the Senate, including Mi-
last month to back away temporarily from
disarray has also given the White House an
including Vice President Gore, a firm
nority Leader Thomas Daschle, side with
an endorsement of an adjustment in the
excuse for its meager legislative achieve-
supporter of the administration's free-
Sen. Sarbanes.
consumer price index, a move that would
ments to date.
trade agenda, are said to be arguing for
Mr. Clinton's sensitivity to liberal back-
lead to lower Social Security benefits and
Moreover a budget deal - even if laden
holding back on the fast-track trade legis-
lash was evident in deliberations on ad-
higher taxes in the future, but also help
with gimmickry - would be an important
lation because it would drop labor and
justing the consumer price index, the
make a budget deal possible.
achievement. Says George Stephano-
environmental conditions and thus anger
government inflation measure that deter-
poulos, a former senior adviser to the
Despite such gestures, White House
liberals.
mines cost-of-living increases for Social
president: "He ran on it. If he gets
relations with the House Democrats re-
A narrower proposal, aimed at modern-
Security recipients and other beneficiaries
it, it's a victory."
main volatile. This week, for instance, the
izing the financial sector by revising New
White House enraged House Democrats by
Deal-era laws that separate banking and
neglecting to apprise them of plans to offer
nonfinancial commercial firms, is also
an additional $18 billion in proposed Medi-
being held hostage to the budget. In con-
care savings.
versations with lawmakers, Treasury Sec-
SCHWARTZ_M @ A1
04/10/97 11:55:00 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Kenneth L. Schwartz, David E. Tornquist
CC:
Dorothy Robyn, Elizabeth Drye
Subject: CLINTON WEIGHING PLAN TO REQUIRE TOUGHER SEAT-BELT
...
Date: 04/10/97 Time: 11:27
CClinton weighing plan to require tougher seat-belt enforcement
WASHINGTON (AP) The White House is considering an initiative
to require states to stiffen seat-belt enforcement or lose control
over millions of dollars in federal highway money, officials said
today.
Aides said Clinton planned next week to announce the plan, which
is still being revised.
The goal is to prod more states to adopt primary'' seat belt
laws, which means police can stop you simply for not buckling up,
or increase seat-belt use from 68 percent to 85 percent.
Every state except New Hampshire requires motorists to wear seat
belts, but only 11 have primary seat-belt laws. Police in the other
states cannot issue seat-belt tickets unless they stop drivers for
another violations.
An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity,
said the measure likely would require states to adopt primary
seat-belt laws by Sept. 30, 2002, or have 1.5 percent of their
highway construction funds shifted to seat-belt enforcement
programs. It would increase to 3 percent in subsequent years.
The administration may allow a state to forgo the primary
seat-belt law if at least 80 percent of its drivers use seat belts.
The administration calls it a soft sanction."
The idea dovetails with an administration plan to make $125
million available to states that adopt primary seat-belt laws or
show that at least 80 percent of its drivers use safety belts.
APNP-04-10-97 1138EDT
Plan links
By Paul Hoversten
A
By Peter Fisler
Zaire
By William Wallis
USA TODAY
AI
USA TODAY
Reuters
Jupiter's moon Europa has a saltwater
KINSHASA, Zaire The 32-
seat belt
year rule of Mobutu Sese Seko
site
WASHINGTON - The So-
cial Security Administration
ocean that may be brimming with organ-
took another blow Wednesday
halted Internet access to wage
ic chemicals and churning with under-
when the United States called
and tax records Wednesday
sea volcanoes all conditions that could
use, road
support life, scientists say.
for his departure as president.
amid charges the program put
New images from NASA's Galileo
funding
war-torn
"We have to move beyond
President Mobutu," said White
Web
taxpayer privacy at risk.
At 3 p.m. ET, Social Security
spacecraft released Wednesday show
House spokesman Mike
suspended the program for at
that parts of Europa resemble Arctic re-
least 60 days to study ways to
gions on Earth, with 2- to-4-mile-long ice-
McCurry, adding there should
ensure It can't be: misused by
bergs floating in a reddish slush. Galileo
be a negotiated end to Zaire's
people taking an illegal peek at
By Jayne O'Donnell'
Al
flew within 363 miles of Europa on Feb.
USA TODAY
Jupiter moon displays ingredients for life
civil war, with a transitional
the finances of others,
20 and the photographs are the most de-
government and elections.
"Many citizens have ex-
tailed yet of the Jovian moon.
"The era of Mobutu-ism is
pressed their concerns regard-
The Clinton administration
"These are really mind-blowing pic-
in
over," "echoed State Depart-
ing the security of the valuable,
is expected to announce a con-
tures," says Richard Terrile, an astrono-
ment spokesman Nick Burns.
but obviously very sensitive,
troversial plan to get states to
mer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laborato-
Mobutu, under increasing
data being available on-line,"
increase seat-belt use or lose
ry in Pasadena, Calif.
pressure, fired his prime minis-
acting Social Security commis-
millions in highway funding.
Europa, he says, has all the ingredi-
ter Wednesday and named the
sioner John Callahan said.
The plan, which could be out
ents necessary for life a liquid ocean,
noes and carbon-based organic chemi-
money if they beef up enforce-
ment of seat-belt laws and get
time and more to develop.
more people to wearbeits.
The photos suggest Europa could sup-
Mobutu-ism'
army chief of staff as head of
The program let Internet us-
as early as next week, seeks to
a long-lasting energy source like volca-
government.
ers get an electronic copy of
push seat-belt use at least
Meanwhile rebels led by
their Personal Earnings and
85% from 68% now.
cals from the moon's interior.
Laurent Kabila entered Zaire's
Benefit Estimate Statement
The administration initially
"On Earth, the same ingredients in
southern copper capital Lu-
(PEBES), which lists year-by-
would reward stateslivith extra
less than a billion years gave rise to life,"
bumbashi, the biggest prize in
year earnings, Social Security
he says. On Europa, it has had that much
their six-month campaign.
But the administration also
Social Security temporarily unplugs
taxes paid, and benefit levels.
Kabila's forces now hold
But USA TODAY reported
about half the nation, including
Monday that an on-line state-
port life in the same way that bacteria
all the mainstay mineral-pro-
ment could be obtained simply
has drafted legislation that
can live underwater and without sunlight
ducing provinces.
by entering a person's name,
would withhold highway funds
on Earth. They thrive in thermal vents
They entered Lubumbashi
Social Security number, moth-
from states that don't enact
created when hot gases escape from
tougher belt laws of achieve
cracks or volcanoes in the ocean floor.
to
after stiff resistance from Mo-
er's maiden name, date and
butu loyalists on the approach-
place of birth.
big gains in belt use by 2003.
"We have no evidence directly bear-
es to the city of 1 million peo-
Use of the month-old Web
Governors strongly oppose
ing on life" on Europa, says JPL's Tor-
ple. But once the city fell,
site soared, but more than
such sanctions. So does Senate
rence Johnson, Galileo project scientist.
Commerce Committee Chair-
end
rebels claimed victory.
10,000 taxpayers protested.
"What we found are the building blocks."
"The fall of Lubumbashi is
"It could be a gateway to
man John McCain, R-Ariz He
Europa, about the size of Earth's
the total collapse of Mobutu,"
economic blackmail," says
wrote to governors Tuesday
moon, is believed to have formed about
said rebel spokesman Louis
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa,
asking them to voluntarily en-
4.6 billion years ago. But the photos show
Nyarubasa.
one of a bipartisan group of
act better belt laws and en-
its surface might be just 1 million years
lawmakers that asked that the
force them more aggressively.
old because of melting and freezing.
Who will reign? 6A
service be suspended
"It seems to me (President
Clinton is) going the way of the
"The discovery of life on another plan-
Grassley and others noted
et will rival any other discovery that has
the system's potential for abuse
55 mile-per-hour speed limit,"
taken place in the history of human cul-
by everyone from nosy neigh-
McCain says. "That was so un-
ture," says oceanographer John Delaney
bors to legal foes to ex-spouses
popular it was repealed."
of the University of Washington. "Tm
U.S.
seeking financial support.
The administration is deter-
sure there's life there Whatever that
Social Security had no re-
mined to get belt use up -
life is, it'll be very intriguing."
ports of illegal accesses.
even if it gets heat from critics.
PEBES requests will be an-
The National Highway Traf-
swered by mail while security
fic Safety Administration
measures, such as issuing PIN
(NHTSA) estimates that seat
numbers or enabling people to
belts saved 9,797 lives in 1995.
block on-line access to their re-
If 85% of the population used
cords, are studied. Proposals
belts, 6,920 more lives would
will be discussed at public fo-
have been saved, NHTSA says.
rums before being adopted.
States can boost belt use any-
way they want, but the admin-
USA TODAY
stration will push for more
stringent seat belt laws.
The plan is also expected to
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1997
encourage states to hit motor-
sts who don't buckle up with
penalty points, which raise mo-
orists' insurance rates.
Every state except New
Hampshire requires notorists
0 wear safety belts.
But in most states, police can
give you a ticket for not wear-
ng your belt only if you are
topped for another piolation,
ike speeding.
Just 11 states have "prima-
y" seat-belt laws: a police offi-
er can stop you simply for not
uckling up. The administra-
ion wants states to pass prima-
y belt laws and enforce them
ggressively.
ww.usatoday.com
THE NATION'S NEWSPAPER
USA'S TOP
MAKING
PREP TO
USA
PRENUPTIAL
THURSOAY
SHOOT
COUNSELING
FOR NBA
A MUST 1D
ALL-USA BOYS
TODAY
MICHIGAN COUNTY
LEADS WAY: NINE
HOOPS TEAM, 6C
STATES CONSIDER IT
PRE-PLAYOFF Q&A:
Bounds.
TODAY
HIT SONGWRITER
Young
CBS
Records
Tracy McGrady: Enters draft
JORDAN TALKS
ABOUT FUTURE 3C
NO. 1 IN THE USA
FIRST IN DAILY READERS
LAURA NYRO DIES 1D
Laura Nyro: Others
from Durham, N.C., school 6C
made her songs hits. 1D
THURSDAY,
APRIL
10,
1997
Jupiter moon displays ingredients for li e
By Paul Hoversten
tures," says Richard Terrile, an astrono-
cracks or voicances in the ocean floor.
NEWSLINE
USA TODAY
mer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laborato-
"We have no evidence directly bear-
in Pasadena, Callf.
ing on life" on Europa. says IPL's Tor-
Jupiter's moon Europa has a saltwater
Europa, be says, has all the ingredi-
rence Johnson, Gallico project
ocean that may be brimming with organ-
ents necessary for life a liquid ocean.
we found are the building
A QUICK READ ON THE NEWS
ic chemicals and churning with under-
long-lasting
energy
source
like
voice-
Europa.
about
the
size
of
Earth's
sea voicances all conditions that could
noes
and
organic
chemi-
moon, is believed to have formed about
WALL
STREET:
Dow
Jones
industrial
average
support life, scientists say.
cals from the moon's
4.5 billion years ago. But the photos show
drops 45.32 points to 6563.84; Nasdaq Index drops 7.94 to
New images from NASAY Galiico
&
Earth,
the
same
ingredients
to
its surface might be just million years
1249.43; 30-year Treasury bond yield holds at 7.10%. 1,3B.
spececraft released Wednesday show
less
than
a
billion
years
gave
rise
to
life
old because of melting and freezing.
that parts of Europa resemble Arctic re-
be
says.
On
Euroga,
#
has
had
that
much
Boiling down letters to shareholders. Street Talk 3B.
The discovery of life on another plan-
gions on Earth, with 2 to-4-mile-long Ice-
time and more to develop.
et will gival any other discovery that has
SPACE STATION ON HOLD: Construction of
bergs floating in a reddish slush Galileo
The photos suggest Europa could sup-
taken place in the history of human cul-
International space station postponed because Russia can't
flew within 363 miles of Europa on Feb.
port life in the same way that bacteria
ture,' says oceanographer John Delaney
meet deadline for vital segment of project. 2A.
20 and the photograph are the most de-
can live and without sunlight
of the University of Washington "Tm
talled yet of the Jovian moon.
on
Earth.
They
thrive
in
thermal
vents
sure
there's
life
there
Whatever
that
NASA
MISSING
PILOT:
Disappearance
of
Air
Force
pilot
"These are really mind-blowing pic-
created when bot gases escape from
life is, it'll be very intriguing"
Europe: Surface ridges may be ice-rich.
and "Warthog" jet in Colorado Rockies continues to baffie
family and authorities, spawps conspiracy theories. 3A.
FUTURE
HONG
KONG:
China-
government
Plan links
unvells plans seen as limiting freedoms in Hong Kong,
including restricting political ties with foreigners. 6A.
MASTERS
Gelf's masterful pair
seat belt
Science job not In the stars
Co-discoverer of the comet
Woods, Faldo are twosome to watch on opening day
Hale-Bopp, Alan Hale, left, is
use, road
unemployed and taking to the
Golf books filling up bookstore
Masters memories, highlights
Internet to express his displea-
shelves: capsules of just a few, 4D
of this year's event, 1,12-13C
sure with what be calls a lack of
funding
opportunity for young scientists
in the USA.
By Jayne Donnell
The sky is the limit for sci-
USA TODAY
ence careers, says one critic.
Hale, a Ph.D., says be in't
The Clinton administration
ing for guarantees, but fight-
is expected to announce a con-
ing chance would be nice.' SD.
Hale
troversial plan to get states to
increase seat-belt use or lose
millions in highway funding
TODAY'S
DEBATE:
The plan, which could be out
Fund-raising
In
USA
TO-
DAY's opinion, "As fund-raising questions ay, White House
as early as next week, seeks to
push
use
to
2
least
officials bob and weave to avoid accountability.' 12A.
85% from 68% now.
"We need campaign, reform. The president and the
The administration initially
Democrate favor it," says Lanny Davis 12A.
would reward states with extra
MONEY: Procter & Gamble to buy Tampax tampon
money if they beef up enforce-
ment of seat-belt laws and get
maker Tambrands for $1.8 billion. 1,3B.
more people to wear belts.
Dow Chemical, General Electric reach settlement on
But the administration also
Dow's lawsuit charging GE tried to steal trade secrets. 1B.
has drafted legislation that
would withhold highway funds
Lawsuits are filed by regulators against alleged deceptive
from
I
that
don't
enact
fund-raisers posing as police officers and firefighters. 2B.
tougher belt laws or achieve
SPORTS: 746 chilly H-tans watch White Sox lose at 34
big gains in belt use by 2003.
degree Comiskey. Baseball. 1,4,7C
Governors strongly oppose
such sanctions. So does Senate
NFL forms alliance with CFL Football 1,16C:
Commerce Committee Chair-
a leaving marks in drag racing. Motor sports. 8C.
man John McCain, R.Artz He
wrote to governors Tuesday
IFE: If an iceberg didn't sink the Titanic, will Hollywood
asking them to voluntarily en-
rewrite its scripts? ID.
act
better
belt
laws
and
8
Winona Ryder's fans want her to kick the habit. 2D.
-
TODAY
force them more aggressively,
Challengen
As
winner
of
last
year's
U.S.
Ameteur
tournament;
Champs Nick Feido 8 seeking his seventh major title and fourth
seems to me (President
Computer mouse inventor wins top-invention prize. 8D.
ger Woods plays first round with the Masters' defending champ.
USA Network offer coverage starting p.m. ET.
Clinton is) going the way of the
COMING TOMORROW
55 speed limit,"
McCain says. "That was so un-
HERE: www usatoday com Gat Involved in the Masters with or Interactive course map and latest coverage. USA TODAY Online
Tax tips: How to file for
popular * was repealed.
an extension. What to do
The administration is deter-
If you can't pay. Where to
Each player has a shot at history
mined to get belt use up
get forms and answers to
even if it gets best from critics.
questions at the last
The National Highway Traf-
minute. Common
fic. Safety dministra tion
mistakes to avoid and
By Doug Smith and Erik Brady
COVER STORY
was paired with 20-year-old Jack Nicklaus
(NHTSA) estimates that seat
more in Managing Your
USA TODAY
Woods is balled as the next Nicklaus.
belts saved 9,797 lives in 1995.
Money. MONEY
And so today golf fans get a rare look at
If 85% of the population used
The Masters is all about tradition: Mag-
The magic of marketing and the poetry
perhaps the best golfer of this generation
belts, 6,920 more lives would
Cartoon's ceronation:
notia Lane. Amen Corner. Green jackets
of potential make Woods a bigger star than
mano a mano with the presumed
have been saved, NHTSA says.
Fox's King of the Hill Is
for the winners.
Faldo in the greater society. But inside
best
of
the
next
States can boost belt use any-
sitting pretty at midseason
But today, at 1:44 p.m. ET, the Masters
golf, Faldo is the greater name. He has
can tell you," says Jack Stephens,
way they want, but the admin-
and is polsed to dethrone
its network companion
presents a small break with tradition. An
was three Masters among his six major
chairman of the Augusts, Ga, National
istration will push for more
Top of heep: Funny-busi-
amateur is traditionally paired with the de-
One more major moves
Golf Chub, with characteristic understate-
stringent seat belt laws.
ness in the Texas suburbs
The Simpsons. LIFE
fending champ on opening day; Nick Fal-
him to the front rank of history.
ment, "they're both looking forward to tt"
The plan is also expected to
do's partner will be pro instead.
There has not been a changing-of-the-
As are the rest of us. Faldo and Woods
encourage states to hit motor-
By John 0. Buckley
You may have heard of him: young fel-
guard pairing as felicitous as this one since
ists who don't buckle up with
low by the name of Tiger Woods.
the 1960 U.S. Open, when Ben Hogan, at 47,
Please see COVER STORY next page
penalty points, which raise mo-
Inside USA TODAY
4 SECTIONS
torists' insurance rates
Every state except New
Crossword
so
U.S. seeks end to Mobutu-ism' in war-torn Zaire
Hampshire requires motorists
to wear safety belts.
Editorial/Opinion
12,14A
But in most states, police can
0
Lotteries
90
Marketplace Today
B-10D
By William Wallis
McCurry, adding there should
government.
after stiff resistance from Mo-
give you a ticket for not wear-
State-by-state
11A
Reuters
be a negotiated end to Zaire's
Meanwhile rebels led by
buto loyalists on the approach-
ing your belt only if you are
Stocks
5-10B
civil war, with a transitional
Laurent Kabila entered Zaire's
es to the city of million peo-
stopped for another violation,
KINSHASA, Zaire The 32-
government and elections.
southern copper capital Lo-
pic. But once the city fell,
like speeding.
© COPYRIGHT 1997 USA TODAY. division of Gannett Co:
year rule of Mobutu Sese Seko
"The era of Mobuto-ism is
bumbashi, the biggest prize in
rebels claimed victory.
Just 11 states have "prima-
took another blow Wednesday
over," echood State Depart
their six-month campaign.
"The fall of Lubumbashi is
Ty seat-belt laws a police offi-
when the United States called
ment spokesman Nick Burns
Kabila's forces now hold
the total collapse of Mobutu,"
cer can stop you simply for not
USA SNAPSHOTS®
for his departure as president.
Mobutu, under increasing
about half the nation, including
said rebel spokesman Louis
buckling up. The administre-
"We have to move beyond
pressure, fired his prime minis-
all the mainstay mineral-pro-
Nyarubesa.
tion wants states to pass prima-
A look at statistics that shape the nation
President Mobutu," said White
ter Wednesday and named the
ducing provinces.
ry belt laws and enforce them
House spokesman Mike
army chief of staff as bead of
They entered Lubumbashi
Who will reign? 6A
aggressively.
Shrinking health coverage
About four in 10 adults agree somewhat or completely that
their health Insurance plan and coverage
Social Security temporarily unplugs Web
site
"keeps getting less." Adults, by age, who agree:
Mortgage insurance
46%
legislation on hold
41%
By Peter Elster
"Many citizens have ex-
Monday that an on-line state-
Grassley and others noted
37%
USA TODAY
pressed their concerns regard
ment could be obtained simply
the system's potential for abuse
Opposition from the
36%
34%
ing the security of the valuable,
by entering a person's name,
by everyone from nosy neigh-
mortgage Industry has
WASHINGTON The So-
but obviously very sensitive,
Social Security number, moth-
bors to legal foes to ex-spouses
stalled a bill to Congress
clal Security Administration
data being available on-line,"
er's maiden name, date and
seeking financial support.
that would have saved
halted Internet access to wage
acting Social Security commis-
place of birth.
Social Security had no TO-
many homeowners hun-
and tax records Wednesday
sioner John Callahan said.
Use of the month-old Web
ports of illegal accesses.
dreds of dollars each year.
amid charges the program put
The program let Internet us-
site scared, but more than
PHBHS requests will be an-
At tssue: payments for
taxpayer privacy at risk,
ers get an electronic copy of
10,000 taxpayers protested.
swered by mail while security
private mortgage insurance
Al p.m. ET. Social Security
their Personal Earnings and
"it could be 8 gateway to
measures, such as Issuing PIN
for home buyers who put
suspended the program for at
Benefit Estimate Statement
economic blackmail," says
numbers or enabling people to
down less than 20% of the
least 60 days to study ways to
(PEBES). which lists year-by-
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Lown,
block on-line access to their re-
purchase price. A consum-
18-34
35-44
45-64
55-64
65 and up
ensure # can't be misused by
year earnings, Social Security
one of a bipartime group of
cords, are studied. Proposals
or advocate calls the delay
Source:
CR
Survey
for
Common
Health
people taking an illegal peek at
taxes paid, and benefit levels.
lawmskers that asked that the
will be discussed at public to
disappointing. Story, IB
Arms Copy and Marey - USA TOOM
the finances of others.
But USA TODAY reported
service be suspended.
rums before being adopted.
FOR USA TODAY SUBSCRIPTION AND CUSTOMER SERVICE ... CALL 1-800-USA-0001
Bill Day THE WHITE 962-5366 HOUSE
Elliott Hall
WASHINGTON
to days ago, ford h
Buckle up w/ Buy And
If POTOS recognize P
air bag sopety canyaigh
-
Each of Big 3 has program
were doing are part
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Bill Day Thinks we have a
problem - cld spill are do hall assu other
groups
Highway Users Alliance -bitterly
approved to any diversion
Can POTUL rhetocically point out
That
-Md - -It tooh then 3 med.
Given 5yr. kad time,
No state w/ a p.p. in mind,
will ERper Over suffer a sauction
-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Janet Dewey
'som spport funded by audo; ins. ad.
what will be spent 10 Mayry state legis's
1. Air bags are good but they can hund your,
2. Budleup.
The will not be overous
Bill is worried abt. Ru critics
in his own Ca -who - will want a
S.T Rin and 4th anger the
gov's
002/004
POTENTIAL IMPACTS of NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER
CATEGORY
UNDER CURRENT
UNDER NEW
EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO)
EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO)
Federal Employees
- Covers only front seat
- Would cover all seating positions
- 2.7 mil. Federal
- DOL submits annual report
- DOT would submit annual report, in cooperation
employees
to the President
with all Federal agencies and after consultation
with Judicial and Legislative branches
- No explicit requirement
- All Federal agencies would be required to
for agencies to contribut to
provide information to DOT for the report
report
- Report covers only "status
- Report would include seat belt use rates;
of on-the-job belt use by
statistics of crashes, injuries and related costs
Federal employees" (contains
involving Federal employees; agency programs that
anecdotal information)
have made significant progress or are notable and
deserving or recognition.
- Program is not very
- DOT would encourage agencies to conduct visible
NOA-01
visible
public information and active enforcement
National Park Service
- Covers only front seat
- Would cover all seating positions
(NPS), DOI
- NPS reg. provides for
- Would provide for primary enforcement
- 379 park areas
secondary enforcement
- over 8000 miles of
- NPS conducts traffic
- With this explicit authority, NPS could increase
roads open to public
enforcement, but little seat
its public information and enforcement efforts
In FY 1996:
belt use enforcement or
(NOTE: NPS is supportive and could provide
- over 300 mil. visits
education
officials for a ceremony)
202 366 2106
- over 3 bil. VMT
- NPS reports anecdotal seat
- NPS would be required to submit data annually to
- 7247 mv crashes
belt info annually on
DOT on seat belt use rates; data on crashes,
- 11537 vehicles
Federal employees to DOL
injuries and related costs for employees and for
- 38 fatalities
- NPS has data on DUI and
travel in park lands; programs
- 2035 people injured
traffic violations, but not
In FY 1995:
on seat belt use violations
- 1447 DUI and 36,917
traffic violations
17:08
04/03/97
003/004
Bureau of Land
- Covers only front seat
- Would cover all seating positions
Management (BLM), DOI
- BLM reg. provides for
- Would provide for primary enforcement
- 264 million acres
secondary enforcement
In FY 1996:
- BLM conducts a little
- With this explicit authority, BLM could increase
- 75,962 miles of
traffic enforcement; but
its public information and enforcement efforts
roads open to public
virtually no seat belt
(NOTE: primary enforcement could be VERY
- 65 mil. recreational
enforcement or public
controversial for BLM with constituents and
visits
education
Congress)
- 64 mil. hours of
- BLM reports anecdotal seat
- BLM would be required to submit data annually to
recreational motorized
belt info annually on
DOT on seat belt use rates; data on crashes,
travel
Federal employees to DOL
injuries and related costs for employees and for
In FY 1995:
- BLM has data on DUI and
travel on public lands; programs
- 82 DUI and 2883
traffic violations, but not
traffic violations
on seat belt violations
(only 602 on highways)
Forest Service, USDA
- Does not have a regulation
- Would require issuance of a regulation that
- 175 National
covers all persons, in all seating positions, in
Forests/Grasslands
all vehicles, with primary enforcement
- 191 million acres
- USDA conducts traffic
- With this explicit authority, USDA could
NOA-01
- 51,250 miles of
enforcement, but no active
establish public information and enforcement
roads open to public
seat belt enforcement or
efforts
(and maintained for
public education
(NOTE: primary enforcement could be controversial
passenger mv)
- USDA reports anecdotal
for USDA as well)
In FY 1996:
seat belt info annually on
- USDA would be required to submit data annually
- 859.2 mil.
Federal employees to DOL
to DOT on seat belt use rates; data on crashes,
recreational visits
injuries and related costs for employees and for
- 37,000 employees
travel in forests; programs
202 366 2106
- 487 crashes
involving employee
vehicles
- 2 fatalities
- 156 mil. miles
driven by employees
17:09
04/03/97
004/004
Department of Defense
- Covers only military and
- Would cover all persons
In FY 1996:
civilian personnel (except
- 228 off-duty mv
for Army, which covers also
fatalities
family, visitors and guests)
- down from 705 in
- DoD conducts some seat
- With this explicit authority, all branches of
1985
belt use education and
DoD could increase their public information,
- 50 off-duty
enforcement
education and enforcement efforts
motorcycle fatalities
- DoD reports anecdotal seat
- DoD would be required to submit data annually to
- down from 200 in
belt info annually on
DOT on seat belt use rates; data on crashes,
1985
Federal employees to DOL
injuries and related costs for DoD personnel and
for travel on DoD-controlled property; programs
NOA-01
202 366 2106
04/03/97 17:09
Daothy-
1
Have you seen
this ?
Jon
[
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 11, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR MARCIA HALE
FROM:
Lynn Cutler
lose
SUBJECT:
Seat Belt Safety Issues
CC:
Sylvia Mathews, John Podesta, Rahm Emanuel, Kitty Higgins, Bruce Reed, Craig
Smith, Doug Sosnik, Gene Sperling, Ann Lewis, Dorothy Robyn, Elizabeth Drye
As we discussed today, there is serious opposition among the bipartisan elected officials' groups
and the Governors' highway administrators to Federal legislation that "mandates" enactments of
primary seat belt laws. While Governor Glendening will be supportive, as will a few other
elected officials, state and local elected officials have expressed their opposition loudly and
clearly. I expect that is no surprise to anyone.
Thursday, stories appeared on the front page of USA Today and in the Detroit Free Press (see
attachments) that essentially discussed the planned announcement of the initiative and the
resulting tension between the Administration and the Governors. There was also an AP story
(attached) that is more descriptive than sensational, and does not talk about the conflicts. The
Detroit article also indicates that there may be softening of support for the Administration's
position from the Big Three automakers. At any rate, Phil Recht at DOT has indicated that Ford
got nervous because they did not want to upset the Governors. By the end of the day on
Thursday, however, Recht had talked to enough people in the auto industry, and reminded them
that they were on record before a Senate committee in support of the initiative, that he believes
the support has solidified.
It would also appear that another potential difficulty is under control. That is the questions raised
by some African American state officials about offering the police another reason to randomly
stop motorists. However, meetings were held with the Urban League, the NAACP, and the
ACLU and it has been reported to me that they are fine with the initiative. Some of these
contacts were from DOT and some were made by the safety groups. As you know, Secretary
Slater is scheduled to testify on this issue on Thursday, April 17.
In addition to the safety groups, I would think that we could get strong support from the medical
community (especially emergency room doctors), from the insurance carriers and others.
Seat Belt Memo
Page Two
Also, the coalition that was established on the air bag issue is putting together a public awareness
and education campaign to increase seat belt usage.
Obviously, the President cares about this issue, and with good reason: the U.S. has a usage rate
of 68%, the lowest among the industrialized nations. Of the people who die in car crashes, 50%
are not wearing seat belts. Every year, 42,000 people die in car accidents, and this is the biggest
killer among people ages 5-27.
On a separate issue -- that of the President issuing an Executive Order about mandatory use of
seat belts on Federal lands, a preliminary check shows minimal opposition from the state and
local groups, presumably because they do not have to enforce it.
Plan links
seat belt
use, road
funding
By Jayne O'Donnell
USA TODAY
Just 11 states have "prima-
ry" seat-belt laws: a police offi-
The Clinton administration
cer can stop you simply for not
is expected to announce a con-
buckling up." The administra-
troversial plan to get states to
tion wants states to pass prima-
increase seat-belt use or lose
Γy belt laws and enforce them
millions in highway funding.
aggressively.
The plan, which could be out
as early as next week, seeks to
push seat-belt use to at least
85% from 68% now.
The administration initially
would reward states with extra
THURSDAY,
APRIL 10, 1997
money if they beef up enforce-
ment of seat-belt laws and get
more people to wear belts.
But the administration also
has drafted legislation that
would withhold highway funds
from states that don't enact
tougher belt laws or achieve
big gains in belt use by 2003.
Governors strongly oppose
such sanctions. So does Senate
Commerce Committee Chair-
man John McCain, R-Ariz. He
wrote to governors Tuesday
asking them to voluntarily en-
act better belt laws and en-
force them more aggressively.
"It seems to me (President
Clinton is) going the way of the
55 mile-per-hour speed limit,"
McCain says. "That was S0 un-
popular it was repealed."
The administration is deter-
mined to get belt use up -
even if it gets heat from critics.
The National Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) estimates that seat
belts saved 9,797 lives in 1995.
If 85% of the population used
belts. 6,920 more lives would
have been saved. NHTSA says.
States can boost belt use any-
way they want, but the admin-
istration will push for more
stringent seat belt laws.
The plan is also expected to
encourage states to hit motor-
ists who don't buckle up with
penalty points, which raise mo-
torists' insurance rates.
Every state except New
Hampshire requires motorists
to wear safety belts.
But in most states, police can
give you a ticket for not wear-
ing your belt only if you are
stopped for another violation.
like speeding
U.S. seat Dell push vexes state advisers
http://www.freep.com/business/qbelts10.htm
freep/business
U.S. seat belt push vexes
PERSONALS
state advisers
HELP
WANTED
CLASSIFIEDS
April 10, 1997
SUBSCRIBE
HOME
DELIVERY
BY JANET L. FIX
NEWS
LIBRARY
Free Press Washington Staff
WASHINGTON -- Even before he unveils his
big push to boost seat belt use, a group of state
safety officials is criticizing President Bill
Clinton for promoting sanctions against states
that don't pass tough belt use laws.
The National Association of Governors'
Search
Highway Safety Representatives, in a letter
obtained by the Free Press, has blasted a
Clinton administration plan to penalize states
that don't pass by 2003 belt laws that would
allow police officers to stop and ticket drivers
who don't buckle up.
Only 11 states have such laws. Michigan is not
among them.
Fewer than two-thirds of Americans regularly
buckle up -- a fact blamed for the deaths of 38
children and 21 adults killed in recent years by
air bags. Most of those killed were not
properly buckled, the government says.
Clinton hopes to change this by announcing
later this month a major initiative designed to
increase U.S. seat belt use to over 90 percent.
A White House official is expected to meet
today with federal safety officials to discuss
that plan.
The president's seat belt plan is not expected to
talk about punishing states that don't comply.
Rather, the administration is separately
pushing legislation that would provide for
penalties against states that don't pass tough
belt laws.
Clinton's pending plan will focus on rewarding
states that do with financial incentives, safety
groups say.
While dangling carrots in his public crusade,
the big stick of possible sanctions is in
proposed legislation that would redirect 1.5
I of 3
U.S. sèat belt push vexes state advisers
http://www.freep.com/busines/qbelts10.htm
percent of a state's federal highway
construction money to safety education
programs. After 2003, 3 percent of the money
would be redirected.
But any talk of sanctions would surely rile
some groups that oppose any federal effort that
forces states to do something politically
unpopular.
In an April 1 letter to Department of
Transportation (DOT) Secretary Rodney
Slater, the highway safety representatives
criticized the use of sanctions. They chided the
Clinton administration for not first consulting
with them, because they are the people in 50
states who direct safety enforcement and
education.
"DOT is making a decision which will
significantly impact states without first
discussing the issue with them," said Laura
Ludwig, chairwoman of the highway safety
group.
Sanctions are a bad idea, this group and other
safety officials say.
"States don't like be told what to do by the
federal government," said Phil Haseltine,
president of the American Coalition for Traffic
Safety, a safety education group funded by the
auto industry.
"Now more than ever, state legislators are
prone to get their back up if they feel they're
being blackmailed by the feds."
Betty Mercer, Michigan's highway safety
representative, agreed. "Incentives work
because in every state there are different needs
and different solutions," she said. "States know
best what needs to be done to protect their
citizens."
Haseltine's group has proposed incentive
grants for states that pass belt laws that carry
big fines and penalty points on drivers'
licenses. Seat belt violations in most states
carry less than $25 fines and no penalty points.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan
successfully used the threat of sanctions to get
legislatures in all 50 states to adopt 21 as the
legal drinking age.
But more recently, states and Congress balked
at sanctions designed to force a national 55
m.p.h. speed limit.
Page 2
LEVEL 1 - 1 OF 1 STORY
Copyright 1997 Associated Press
AP Online
April 10, 1997; Thursday 11:46 Eastern Time
SECTION: Washington - general news
LENGTH: 347 words
HEADLINE: Clinton Weighs Tough Seat-Belt Plan AP-Clinton-Seat-Belt
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
The White House is considering an initiative to require states to stiffen
seat-belt enforcement or lose control over millions of dollars in federal
highway money, officials said today.
Aides said Clinton planned next week to announce the plan, which is still
being revised.
The goal is to prod more states to adopt ''primary'' seat belt laws, which
means police can stop you simply for not buckling up, or increase seat-belt use
from 68 percent to 85 percent.
Every state except New Hampshire requires motorists to wear seat belts, but
only 11 have primary seat-belt laws. Police in the other states cannot issue
seat-belt tickets unless they stop drivers for another violations.
An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the
measure likely would require states to adopt primary seat-belt laws by Sept. 30,
2002, or have 1.5 percent of their highway construction funds shifted to
seat-belt enforcement programs. It would increase to 3 percent in subsequent
years.
The administration may allow a state to forgo the primary seat-belt law if at
least 80 percent of its drivers use seat belts.
The administration calls it a ''soft sanction.
The idea dovetails with an administration plan to make $125 million available
to states that adopt primary seat-belt laws or show that at least 80 percent of
its drivers use safety belts.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: April 10, 1997
TM
TM
TM
LEXIS:NEXIS®
LEXIS:NEXIS
LEXIS:NEXIS
R
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
R
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
R
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
Jake Siewert
04/11/97 01:53:00 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Dorothy Robyn/OPD/EOP
CC:
Subject: Re: CLINTON WEIGHING PLAN TO REQUIRE TOUGHER SEAT-BELT
...
Reed response to my question on how and when we'll do seat-belts.
Forwarded by Jake Siewert/OPD/EOP on 04/11/97 01:57 PM
Bruce N. Reed
04/11/97 01:00:30 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Jake Siewert/OPD/EOP
CC:
Subject: Re: CLINTON WEIGHING PLAN TO REQUIRE TOUGHER SEAT-BELT
...
Rodney is pushing for one, but it didn't make POTUS schedule, unfortunately. Maybe if your Wed
budget mtg gets put off.
Dorothy
Robyn
THE WHITE HOUSE
OEOB
WASHINGTON
226
April 11, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR MARCIA HALE
FROM:
Lynn Cutler
lete
SUBJECT:
Seat Belt Safety Issues
CC:
Sylvia Mathews, John Podesta, Rahm Emanuel, Kitty Higgins, Bruce Reed, Craig
Smith, Doug Sosnik, Gene Sperling, Ann Lewis, Dorothy Robyn, Elizabeth Drye
As we discussed today, there is serious opposition among the bipartisan elected officials' groups
and the Governors' highway administrators to Federal legislation that "mandates" enactments of
primary seat belt laws. While Governor Glendening will be supportive, as will a few other
elected officials, state and local elected officials have expressed their opposition loudly and
clearly. I expect that is no surprise to anyone.
Thursday, stories appeared on the front page of USA Today and in the Detroit Free Press (see
attachments) that essentially discussed the planned announcement of the initiative and the
resulting tension between the Administration and the Governors. There was also an AP story
(attached) that is more descriptive than sensational, and does not talk about the conflicts. The
Detroit article also indicates that there may be softening of support for the Administration's
position from the Big Three automakers. At any rate, Phil Recht at DOT has indicated that Ford
got nervous because they did not want to upset the Governors. By the end of the day on
Thursday, however, Recht had talked to enough people in the auto industry, and reminded them
that they were on record before a Senate committee in support of the initiative, that he believes
the support has solidified.
It would also appear that another potential difficulty is under control. That is the questions raised
by some African American state officials about offering the police another reason to randomly
stop motorists. However, meetings were held with the Urban League, the NAACP, and the
ACLU and it has been reported to me that they are fine with the initiative. Some of these
contacts were from DOT and some were made by the safety groups. As you know, Secretary
Slater is scheduled to testify on this issue on Thursday, April 17.
In addition to the safety groups, I would think that we could get strong support from the medical
community (especially emergency room doctors), from the insurance carriers and others.
Seat Belt Memo
Page Two
Also, the coalition that was established on the air bag issue is putting together a public awareness
and education campaign to increase seat belt usage.
Obviously, the President cares about this issue, and with good reason: the U.S. has a usage rate
of 68%, the lowest among the industrialized nations. Of the people who die in car crashes, 50%
are not wearing seat belts. Every year, 42,000 people die in car accidents, and this is the biggest
killer among people ages 5-27.
On a separate issue -- that of the President issuing an Executive Order about mandatory use of
seat belts on Federal lands, a preliminary check shows minimal opposition from the state and
local groups, presumably because they do not have to enforce it.
Plan links
seat belt
use, road
funding
By Jayne O'Donnell
USA TODAY
Just 11 states have "prima-
ry" seat-belt laws: a police offi-
The Clinton administration
cer can stop you simply for not
buckling up. The administra-
is expected to announce a con-
tion wants states to pass prima-
troversial plan to get states to
Γy belt laws and enforce them
increase seat-belt use or lose
aggressively.
millions in highway funding.
The plan, which could be out
as early as next week, seeks to
push seat-belt use to at least
85% from 68% now.
The administration initially
would reward states with extra
THURSDAY,
APRIL 10, 1997
money if they beef up enforce-
ment of seat-belt laws and get
more people to wear belts.
But the administration also
has drafted legislation that
would withhold highway funds
from states that don't enact
tougher belt laws or achieve
big gains in belt use by 2003.
Governors strongly oppose
such sanctions. So does Senate
Commerce Committee Chair-
man John McCain, R-Ariz. He
wrote to governors Tuesday
asking them to voluntarily en-
act better belt laws and en-
force them more aggressively.
"It seems to me (President
Clinton is) going the way of the
55 mile-per-hour speed limit,"
McCain says. "That was SO un-
popular it was repealed."
The administration is deter-
mined to get belt use up -
even if it gets heat from critics.
The National Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) estimates that seat
belts saved 9,797 lives in 1995.
If 85% of the population used
belts. 6.920 more lives would
have been saved. NHTSA says.
States can boost belt use any-
way they want. but the admin-
istration will push for more
stringent seat belt laws.
The plan is also expected to
encourage states to hit motor-
ists who don't buckle up with
penalty points, which raise mo-
torists' insurance rates.
Every state except New
Hampshire requires motorists
to wear safety belts.
But in most states, police can
give you a ticket for not wear-
ing your belt only if you are
stopped for another violation.
like speeding
U.S. seat belt push vexes state advisers
http://www.freep.com/business/qbelts10.htm
freep/business
U.S. seat belt push vexes
PERSONALS
state advisers
HELP
WANTED
CLASSIFIEDS
April 10, 1997
SUBSCRIBE
HOME
DELIVERY
BY JANET L. FIX
NEWS
LIBRARY
Free Press Washington Staff
WASHINGTON -- Even before he unveils his
big push to boost seat belt use, a group of state
safety officials is criticizing President Bill
Clinton for promoting sanctions against states
that don't pass tough belt use laws.
The National Association of Governors'
Search
Highway Safety Representatives, in a letter
obtained by the Free Press, has blasted a
Clinton administration plan to penalize states
that don't pass by 2003 belt laws that would
allow police officers to stop and ticket drivers
who don't buckle up.
Only 11 states have such laws. Michigan is not
among them.
Fewer than two-thirds of Americans regularly
buckle up -- a fact blamed for the deaths of 38
children and 21 adults killed in recent years by
air bags. Most of those killed were not
properly buckled, the government says.
Clinton hopes to change this by announcing
later this month a major initiative designed to
increase U.S. seat belt use to over 90 percent.
A White House official is expected to meet
today with federal safety officials to discuss
that plan.
The president's seat belt plan is not expected to
talk about punishing states that don't comply.
Rather, the administration is separately
pushing legislation that would provide for
penalties against states that don't pass tough
belt laws.
Clinton's pending plan will focus on rewarding
states that do with financial incentives, safety
groups say.
While dangling carrots in his public crusade,
the big stick of possible sanctions is in
proposed legislation that would redirect 1.5
0.1/11/07 10:28:42
U.S. seat belt push vexes state advisers
http://www.freep.com/business/qbelts1 0.htm
percent of a state's federal highway
construction money to safety education
programs. After 2003, 3 percent of the money
would be redirected.
But any talk of sanctions would surely rile
some groups that oppose any federal effort that
forces states to do something politically
unpopular.
In an April 1 letter to Department of
Transportation (DOT) Secretary Rodney
Slater, the highway safety representatives
criticized the use of sanctions. They chided the
Clinton administration for not first consulting
with them, because they are the people in 50
states who direct safety enforcement and
education.
"DOT is making a decision which will
significantly impact states without first
discussing the issue with them," said Laura
Ludwig, chairwoman of the highway safety
group.
Sanctions are a bad idea, this group and other
safety officials say.
"States don't like be told what to do by the
federal government," said Phil Haseltine,
president of the American Coalition for Traffic
Safety, a safety education group funded by the
auto industry.
"Now more than ever, state legislators are
prone to get their back up if they feel they're
being blackmailed by the feds."
Betty Mercer, Michigan's highway safety
representative, agreed. "Incentives work
because in every state there are different needs
and different solutions," she said. "States know
best what needs to be done to protect their
citizens."
Haseltine's group has proposed incentive
grants for states that pass belt laws that carry
big fines and penalty points on drivers'
licenses. Seat belt violations in most states
carry less than $25 fines and no penalty points.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan
successfully used the threat of sanctions to get
legislatures in all 50 states to adopt 21 as the
legal drinking age.
But more recently, states and Congress balked
at sanctions designed to force a national 55
m.p.h. speed limit.
Page 2
LEVEL 1 - 1 OF 1 STORY
Copyright 1997 Associated Press
AP Online
April 10, 1997; Thursday 11:46 Eastern Time
SECTION: Washington - general news
LENGTH: 347 words
HEADLINE: Clinton Weighs Tough Seat-Belt Plan AP-Clinton-Seat-Belt
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
The White House is considering an initiative to require states to stiffen
seat-belt enforcement or lose control over millions of dollars in federal
highway money, officials said today.
Aides said Clinton planned next week to announce the plan, which is still
being revised.
The goal is to prod more states to adopt ''primary'' seat belt laws, which
means police can stop you simply for not buckling up, or increase seat-belt use
from 68 percent to 85 percent.
Every state except New Hampshire requires motorists to wear seat belts, but
only 11 have primary seat-belt laws. Police in the other states cannot issue
seat-belt tickets unless they stop drivers for another violations.
An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the
measure likely would require states to adopt primary seat-belt laws by Sept. 30,
2002, or have 1.5 percent of their highway construction funds shifted to
seat-belt enforcement programs. It would increase to 3 percent in subsequent
years.
The administration may allow a state to forgo the primary seat-belt law if at
least 80 percent of its drivers use seat belts.
The administration calls it a ''soft sanction.
The idea dovetails with an administration plan to make $125 million available
to states that adopt primary seat-belt laws or show that at least 80 percent of
its drivers use safety belts.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: April 10, 1997
TM
TM
1M
LEXIS:NEXIS
LEXIS:NEXIS
LEXIS:NEXIS
R
A member of the Reed 1 bevier plu group
R
A member of the Reed Elsevier plc group
member
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Phil Recky
- warl. in morning
-E.O. - NAGSR doesn't Care
Mark Schwartz
-folhed Larry Magid
- -Lynn Cutle i Phil Richt were
there
- -his pitch: we all
]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Jan. 23
-
nad
If
85% use - rate
w/d save 4, 4,200 /roes/ge.
I
Apr. 7. 1997 6:19PM DOT/GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
No. 5149 P. 1/3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Room 10408
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
(202) 366-4563
Date 4/7/97
From:
Steven O. Palmer, Assistant Secretary for
Governmental Affairs
To:
Dorothy Robyn
Fax:
456-2223
Pages:
2
following this cover sheet
Comments: Per my voice mail.
This fax originated at (202) 366-7346. Please call Nancy Moore
at (202) 366-4573 if there were any problems in transmission.
Apr.
7.
1997
6:19PM
DOT/GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
No. 5149 P. 2/3
JOHN MCCAIN. ARIZONA. CHAIRMAN
TED STEVENS, ALASKA
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS. SOUTH CAROLINA
CONRAD BURNS. MONTANA
DANIEL K. INDUYE. HAWAII
SLADE GORTON. WASHINGTON
WENDELL H. FORD, KENTUCKY
TRENT LOTT, MISSISSIPPI
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER N, WEST VIRGINIA
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, TEXAS
JOHN F. KERRY, MASSACHUSETTS
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, MAINE
JOHN D. BREAUX, LOUISIANA
JOHN ASHCROFT, MISSOURI
HICHARD H. BRYAN, NEVADA
BILL FRIST. TENNESSEE
BYRON L DORGAN. NORTH DAKOTA
United States Senate
SPENCER ARRAHAM, MICHIGAN
RON WYDEN, OREGON
3AM BROWNDACK KANSAS
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE. SCIENCE,
JOHN RAIDT. STAFF DIRECTOR
IVAN A. SCHLAGER, DEMOCRATIC CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
AND TRANSPORTATION
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6125
April 7, 1997
The Honorable Fob James, Jr.
Governor, State of Alabama
State Capitol, 600 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Dear Governor James:
We're writing to urge your leadership in helping to reduce
the thousands of needless deaths and serious injuries that occur
every year because motor vehicle passengers do not wear a safety
belt. In a January hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee
on airbag safety issues, safety experts emphasized that properly
wearing seatbelts and properly restraining children in a safety
seat are the best ways to minimize the loss of life from traffic
crashes. Many citizens and public officials are unaware that
seatbelt use is also the best way to reduce the risk of death or
serious injury from airbags.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]
has consistently stressed that seatbelts are the primary rider
protection device in motor vehicles, and that automatic
seatbelts. restraints like airbags are mainly of value in supplementing
Nationally, the seatbelt use rate is approximately 68
percent. This is a substantial improvement over usage rates a
decade ago. We can and must do better, however. Other
industrialized countries have seatbelt use rates approaching 95
percent. Six states already have seatbelt use rates of 80
percent or more. A national seatbelt use of 85 percent would
prevent 4,200 traffic fatalities a year and save thousands more
from serious injury. Additionally, preventable injuries from
traffic crashes impose tremendous costs on the public.
Most of the ways recommended by safety experts for boosting
seatbelt usage rates are within the purview of the states. These
experts have stressed three approaches in particular:
*
standard enforcement of safety belt laws;
*
increased penalties; and
*
increased visibility of enforcement.
Instituting standard enforcement of seatbelt use laws is one
of the most important actions. Standard enforcement permits law
enforcement officers to stop and cite a violator for a seatbelt
infraction alone, even without evidence of another traffic
violation. In your state, NHTSA estimates that 87 fatalities and
741 serious injuries could be prevented each year by enacting
standard enforcement safety belt laws.
Apr. 7. 1997 6:20PM DOT/GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
No. 5149 P. 3/3
Increased penalties like higher fines and placing points on
a violator's driver's license have also been shown to improve
effectiveness. And increasing the visibility of safety belt
enforcement programs helps make the public more aware of the need
to use safety belts and child safety seats.
We will continue to work at the Federal level to promote
safe equipment and practices in motor vehicles. We hope that
you, together with your state legislature, will join us in this
effort, with a strong program for the increase of seatbelt usage.
We look forward to working with you to achieve improved traffic
safety for all Americans.
Sincerely
Jhn m'Li
U.S. Senator
U.S Senator
Secretary of Transportation
Mith Chairman, NTSB
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator
Sjum U.S. Senator Alumban
Smigurbuck
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator U.S. Piel Senator Yist
92 U.S. Senator
ROUTING SLIP
DATE: 4/7/97
FROM:
Stephanie Streett and Anne Hawley
Deputy Assistants to the President and Directors of Scheduling
Seaf - Belt Promotion Event w/
SUBJECT:
Constituency groups
Don Baer
X
Mack McLarty
Sandy Berger
John Podesta
Erskine Bowles
Bruce Reed
X
Peg Cusack
Dan Rosenthal
Rahm Emanuel
Charles Ruff
Maria Echaveste
Peter Selfridge
Y
Jack Gibbons
Patti Solis-Doyle
Laura Graham
X
Craig Smith
Marcia Hale
Doug Sosnik
Nancy Hernreich
Gene Sperling
X
John Hilley
Todd Stern
Kitty Higgins
Ann Stock
Ron Klain
Kim Tilley
Ann Lewis
Jodie Torkelson
Bruce Lindsey
Melanne Verveer
Sylvia Mathews
Michael Waldman
X
Mike McCurry
X
Maggie Williams
FILE: Regret
Christa Robinson I
COMMENTS: should be done on Paper
ROUTING SLIP
DATE: 4/3/97
FROM:
Stephanie Streett and Anne Hawley
Deputy Assistants to the President and Directors of Scheduling
SUBJECT: Seat-Belt Promotion Event w/ Constituency
Don Baer groups X
Mack McLarty
Sandy Berger
John Podesta
Erskine Bowles
Bruce Reed
X
Peg Cusack
Dan Rosenthal
Rahm Emanuel
Charles Ruff
Maria Echaveste
Peter Selfridge
X
Jack Gibbons
Patti Solis-Doyle
Laura Graham
X
Craig Smith
Marcia Hale
Doug Sosnik
Nancy Hernreich
Gene Sperling
X
John Hilley
Todd Stern
Kitty Higgins
Ann Stock
Ron Klain
Kim Tilley
Ann Lewis
Jodie Torkelson
Bruce Lindsey
Melanne Verveer
Sylvia Mathews
Michael Waldman
X
Mike McCurry
X
Maggie Williams
Chnsta Robinsion
FILE: Pending
COMMENTS:
APR - 3 1997
SCHEDULING REQUEST
April 2, 1997
ACCEPT
REGRET
PENDING
TO:
Stephanie Street, Co-Director of Scheduling
FROM:
Bruce Reed
Gene Sperling
REQUEST:
Presidential event announcing DOT Seat Belt Report and Legislation.
PURPOSE:
To follow up on the President's December radio address and reinforce the
President's commitment to improving auto safety.
BACKGROUND:
The President directed the Department of Transportation to report back to
him by March 10, 1997 on how to increase seat belt use nationally. The
report is now ready; it sets an ambitious national seat belt use goal (85% by
2000) and announces that the Administration is sending legislation to the
Hill that would require states to implement policies to accomplish the goal.
We must send the legislation to the Hill by 4/17 because of Congressional
action, so the President must announce the report and the legislation
before 4/17.
NOTE: The President could also sign and EO updating a Reagan-era EO
requiring federal employees to wear seatbelts. The EO would also step up
seat belt enforcement on Federal lands. This EO is not an essential
component of the event.
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
In a December radio address the President directed DOT to report back to
him on increasing seat belt use.
DATE & TIME:
Week of April 11.
DURATION:
45 min.
LOCATION:
The White House
PARTICIPANTS:
The Vice President, Secretary Slater; NHTSA Administrator Martinez; a
coalition of auto and insurance industry, safety advocates, health groups,
governors, law enforcement officials, and members of Congress (approx.
100 people).
REMARKS
REQUIRED:
Yes
MEDIA:
Open
CONTACT:
Dorothy Robyn
Elizabeth Drye
6-5573
Christa Robinson
6-5165
April 1, 1997
SCHEDULE REQUEST
_Accept
Regret
Pending
TO:
Anne Hawley
Stephanie Streett
FROM:
Gene Sperling
Bruce Reed
REQUEST:
Seat-Belt Promotion Event with Constituency Groups
BACKGROUND:
DOT is preparing to submit a report, requested by the President
in December, recommending ways to promote seat belt use.
The Administration also is about to transmit to Congress
legislation calling for a "soft sanction" -- a financial incentive
to encourage states to adopt "primary" seat belt laws (ones that
allow for ticketing solely for failure to use a seat belt). These
proposed actions are supported by a broad coalition, including
auto manufacturers, insurance companies, health and safety
organizations and law enforcement officials. The event will
reinforce the President's commitment to highway safety -- a
topic to which he has devoted four of his radio addresses in the
last two years.
DATE/TIME:
Monday, April 7 (or any day that week)
DURATION:
45 minutes
LOCATION:
Room 450
PARTICIPANTS:
The President and Vice President, Secretary Slater, automobile
and insurance industry representatives, governors, mayors,
Members of Congress, law enforcement officials, and consumer
advocates.
REMARKS:
Speech will be provided.
MEDIA:
Open
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 4, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR STEPHANIE STREETT
FROM:
BRUCE REED
SUBJECT:
SEAT BELT SCHEDULING PROPOSAL
The President requested this seat belt report in December. It was due in March. We must send
legislation up to the hill next week, and therefore we must release the DOT Report next week (the
week of April 11). The reason they must move forward next week is because of Congressional
hearings the following week. There is a large coalition in support of this announcement so this
would ideally be an event with an audience of approximately 50 - 100.
Mac Reel - OMB g. C's PRICE
LHadold us do "Stand down" b/c of Anne LewiL Conceras
Q: How w/d the sanctions in an EO be Eurfred?
Ai It's up to Eack to park of decide -E.g., wheRen to
dichet di not
Main issue:
Are we being unficudly to the WEST?
The use c/d be subject a toet claim - it w/d probly
be Krown out as fivolams, but still
Luck size; weight
-not well VEHicl w/ states by DOT
DOT: While we haven't conducted a study, it's only
Sluse that bigger tweks
Coup. call today at 2pm
focus of call:
/ What are their preluary femaly S ?
\
Some DOT intrest an adding a provision an speed mgt.:
- sual. of states neet have raised Ree speed limit
-If Xaralidies have 1, states w/d be required to
implement "speed mgt."
-
Other concerns
EPA:
Concerned abt e the req Reat duel-fuel
ushicles rest be able Dogo r 200mis.
DOJ:
10
uniform titling of Jolvage vehicles
/
mandate
- Cref. call or 2 to discuss brande issues
- death penalty prov. in hagordous mat. section -by-section but O in
birl language
- Mo serious problem on as terrorism
C
Dorothy Robyn
04/07/97 06:56:29 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP
cc:
Kathleen M. Wallman/WHO/EOP, Jake Siewert/OPD/EOP
Subject: Seat Belts
DPC may try to resurrect seat belts as the topic for the President's Saturday radio address.
Whether the announcement occurs there, or as a leaked story on Sunday (or by DOT next week),
there are three possible components:
1. Release of a DOT report: POTUS directed DOT to report back to him by March 10 on how to
increase seat belt use nationally. The report is now ready; it sets an ambitious goal for national
seat belt use (85% by 2000) and announces that the Admin. is sending legislation to the Hill that
would help achieve the goal.
2. Announcement of legislation to impose "soft sanctions": NEXTEA's safety title will require that,
by October 2002, states must either adopt a primary belt law or else reach the goal of 85% belt
use by other means. A state that does neither would have 1.5% of its federal highway funds (3%
thereafter) transferred to its highway safety program. (State primary belt laws must cover only
front seat passengers.)
3. Announcement of an EO. DPC is shepherding a EO that updates a Reagan-era EO requiring
federal employees to wear seatbelts. The EO would also step up seat belt enforcement on federal
lands, and the primary enforcement would apply to front and back seats.
The soft sanctions provision is controversial with governors but not civil rights groups (the Urban
League is on record supporting primary belt laws). NHTSA will meet with NGA this week, but I'm
not optimistic about compromise; NGA has opposed all past use of sanctions, including Reagan's
use of sanctions to raise the drinking age to 21. Within the Administration, no one has raised any
concerns about soft sanctions. (As the draft decision memo I wrote discussed, sanctions have
been used by almost every president over the last 30 years, e.g., to reduce the national speed limit
to 55 and to get states to adopt secondary belt laws.)
The EO has raised some concerns, in part because federal parks are concentrated in the Western
states, where feelings about states' rights run strongest. I don't have strong views on the EO one
way or another; and DPC is willing to drop the EO if it is controversial.
In the meantime, I have persuaded DPC that we need to circulate to Sylvia, Anne Lewis and others
in the West Wing a description of the report, soft sanctions provision, and EO. We will do that
tomorrow (we're waiting for an exec. summary of the report from NHTSA).
-
-
leaking it ou Sunday
radio address
E.O. :
primary Eup. - - Jount back reats
soft sanction: front - stat only
Kenneth L. Schwartz
03/27/97 11:28:12 AM
Record Type: Record
To:
Dorothy Robyn/OPD/EOP
cc:
Subject: Safety Title
See primary seat belt reference.
Forwarded by Kenneth L. Schwartz/OMB/EOP on 03/27/97 11:32 AM
Mark J. Schwartz
03/27/97 09:44:58 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
Subject: Safety Title
Ken: I have talked with Rich Theroux and Victoria Wassmer to get a sense of the OIRA concerns
about the safety titles. Rich has some questions about the backup for the truck size proposals and
has alluded to the concerns expressed by some in the civil liberties community that primary
enforcement of seat belts laws is conducted in a manner which discriminates against certain
people.
When I discuss the truck length and seat belt issues with DOT this morning I will include these
questions. I have promised to keep the OIRA folks informed but, they, as we, think that for the
most part the safety titles are not all that controversial.
Message Sent To:
Kenneth L. Schwartz/OMB/EOP
Sharon A. Barkeloo/OMB/EOP
Jonathan C. Ball/OMB/EOP
David J. Worzala/OMB/EOP
Diane R. Montgomery/OMB/EOP
Message Copied To:
Dorothy Robyn
04/07/97 06:56:29 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP
cc:
Kathleen M. Wallman/WHO/EOP, Jake Siewert/OPD/EOP
Subject: Seat Belts
DPC may try to resurrect seat belts as the topic for the President's Saturday radio address.
Whether the announcement occurs there, or as a leaked story on Sunday (or by DOT next week),
there are three possible components:
1. Release of a DOT report: POTUS directed DOT to report back to him by March 10 on how to
increase seat belt use nationally. The report is now ready; it sets an ambitious goal for national
seat belt use (85% by 2000) and announces that the Admin. is sending legislation to the Hill that
would help achieve the goal.
2. Announcement of legislation to impose "soft sanctions": NEXTEA's safety title will require that,
by October 2002, states must either adopt a primary belt law or else reach the goal of 85% belt
use by other means. A state that does neither would have 1.5% of its federal highway funds (3%
thereafter) transferred to its highway safety program. (State primary belt laws must cover only
front seat passengers.)
3. Announcement of an EO. DPC is shepherding a EO that updates a Reagan-era EO requiring
federal employees to wear seatbelts. The EO would also step up seat belt enforcement on federal
lands, and the primary enforcement would apply to front and back seats.
The soft sanctions provision is controversial with governors but not civil rights groups (the Urban
League is on record supporting primary belt laws). NHTSA will meet with NGA this week, but I'm
not optimistic about compromise; NGA has opposed all past use of sanctions, including Reagan's
use of sanctions to raise the drinking age to 21. Within the Administration, no one has raised any
concerns about soft sanctions. (As the draft decision memo I wrote discussed, sanctions have
been used by almost every president over the last 30 years, e.g., to reduce the national speed limit
to 55 and to get states to adopt secondary belt laws.)
The EO has raised some concerns, in part because federal parks are concentrated in the Western
states, where feelings about states' rights run strongest. I don't have strong views on the EO one
way or another; and DPC is willing to drop the EO if it is controversial.
In the meantime, 1 have persuaded DPC that we need to circulate to Sylvia, Anne Lewis and others
in the West Wing a description of the report, soft sanctions provision, and EO. We will do that
tomorrow (we're waiting for an exec. summary of the report from NHTSA).
SCHEDULING REQUEST
April 2, 1997
ACCEPT
REGRET
PENDING
TO:
Stephanie Street, Co-Director of Scheduling
FROM:
Bruce Reed
Gene Sperling
REQUEST:
Presidential event announcing DOT Seat Belt Report and Legislation.
PURPOSE:
To follow up on the President's December radio address and reinforce the
President's commitment to improving auto safety.
BACKGROUND:
The President directed the Department of Transportation to report back to
him by March 10, 1997 on how to increase seat belt use nationally. The
report is now ready; it sets an ambitious national seat belt use goal (85% by
2000) and announces that the Administration is sending legislation to the
Hill that would require states to implement policies to accomplish the goal.
We must send the legislation to the Hill by 4/17 because of Congressional
action, so the President must announce the report and the legislation
before 4/17.
NOTE: The President could also sign and EO updating a Reagan-era EO
requiring federal employees to wear seatbelts. The EO would also step up
seat belt enforcement on Federal lands. This EO is not an essential
component of the event.
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
In a December radio address the President directed DOT to report back to
him on increasing seat belt use.
DATE & TIME:
Week of April 11.
DURATION:
45 min.
LOCATION:
The White House
PARTICIPANTS:
The Vice President, Secretary Slater; NHTSA Administrator Martinez; a
coalition of auto and insurance industry, safety advocates, health groups,
governors, law enforcement officials, and members of Congress (approx.
100 people).
REMARKS
REQUIRED:
Yes
MEDIA:
Open
CONTACT:
Dorothy Robyn
Elizabeth Drye
Bruce Reed
McCain hearting in sarly Jan (ad Keeup thernes request)
-Markhzz Instified
He said he was Riching of Harding alh R
50 9002, he ashek
Ltd. has Linally Corne around
-9 Commerce Camm.
- Enfrecement
- penaltier
- I'visibility
Floaving around omB, and Srue obviden
LH talked to Dave Lewis
problems She good - it's of DPC to address the
required seat brit Grage on all fed /ends
1 Western STOVES
3-21-1997 12:48PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.2
DRAFT
IDENTICAL LETTER TO:
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable AI Gore
President of the Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. President:
The Department of Transportation is pleased to provide our comprehensive
surface transportation safety proposals for inclusion as an integral part of the
National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997 (NEXTEA).
These proposals are entitled the
"Surface Transportation Safety Act of 1997."
Our safety proposals include commercial motor vehicle size limitations and
provisions covering motor carrier safety, traffic safety, hazardous materials
reauthorization, underground system damage prevention, sanitary food
transportation, railroad and mass transit anti-terrorism, and railroad safety. I urge
Congress to act promptly on the enclosed proposals, which will improve the overall
safety of our Nation's surface transportation systems.
Title IX would amend the laws relating to the problem of oversized commercial
motor vehicles operating on highways. Oversized vehicles pose difficult
questions relating to safety and the preservation of the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. This title proposes a number of steps to address these issues.
First, with few exceptions, this title would end the proliferation of trailers longer
than 53 feet on the National Highway System. Such trailers are too long to
operate safely within the confines of most roadway geometry. Second, this title
would authorize the Secretary to determine, through notice and comment
rulemaking, so-called State "grandfather rights" to operate overweight vehicles
on the Interstate System. Once these existing rights to operate overweight
vehicles are determined, no further claims for exceptions to existing Federal
weight limits would be allowed on the Interstate System. Third, this title would
direct the Secretary to conduct a notice and comment rulemaking proceeding to
determine whether the current definition of a nondivisible load or vehicle should
be applied to intermodal containers. Finally, the Secretary would be authorized
to exempt military vehicles from the Federal weight requirements for the
Interstate System when the Department of Defense certifies that a national
emergency exists that requires the transportation of very heavy military cargoes.
This would allow the States to waive their Interstate System weight limits in times
of emergency without risking the loss of Federal-aid highway funds.
3-21-1997 49PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.3
2
Title X would amend existing Federal motor carrier safety laws to enhance
commercial motor vehicle safety. This title would improve safety by
strengthening Federal and State enforcement. It would update and increase the
civil penalties that the Secretary could impose on carriers for violations of
existing Federal safety standards. The Secretary would be authorized to
examine motor carrier records related to the safety of the commercial motor
vehicle operations of those carriers to a greater extent than is now the case.
This would enhance the Secretary's ability to identify problem carriers. This title
would also authorize the Secretary to order an unsafe interstate motor carrier to
cease any commercial motor vehicle operations, not just the transportation of
passengers or hazardous materials. With these changes, the Secretary would
have greater administrative flexibility to improve motor carrier safety; promote
new approaches and technologies that improve highway safety; and actively
pursue performance-based motor carrier safety programs.
Economic motivations can lead some motor carriers, shippers, and brokers to
look for opportunities to avoid full compliance with important safety standards.
This title would extend the Secretary's enforcement authority over shippers and
brokers when evidence exists that they have caused motor carriers to violate
safety regulations. Enforcement concerns would be addressed by, for example,
defining a commercial motor vehicle subject to the safety rules in terms of the
actual weight of the vehicle, not just the weight rating assigned to it by the
manufacturer.
Our traffic safety proposals in Title XI underscore the Department's strong
support for primary enforcement of safety belt use laws and 0.08 blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) as the per se standard for driving while intoxicated. Our
NEXTEA proposal includes funding to help States reduce drunk driving and
increase safety belt usage. However, aggressive laws must be part of this
strategy. From 1982 through 1995, safety belts saved over 75,000 lives.
Primary enforcement, the most important aspect of a safety belt use law, adds
significantly to the rate of safety belt use and will save even more lives. At a
0.08 BAC, virtually all drivers are substantially impaired with regard to critical
driving tasks. Thirteen States have lowered their per se standard for driving
while intoxicated to 0.08, and a recent study of five of these States shows that
significant decreases in alcohol-related fatalities can be achieved by States
adopting the 0.08 BACstandard. This title would establish a date certain by
which all States would be required to have enacted primary safety belt and 0.08
BAC per selaws Beginning in fiscal year 2003, a State that has failed to enact Such a
these laws would have a percentage of its highway construction funds
transferred to its section 402 highway safety program.
This title would also increase the number of new motor vehicles that may be
exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, on
the basis that they possess innovative safety features; close a loophole in the
3-21-1997 12:50PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.4
3
vehicle statute by prohibiting retailers of motor vehicle equipment from selling
defective items of equipment that they have in stock, such as defective child
safety seats; and add a new chapter to achieve uniformity in State laws regulating
the titling and control of severely damaged passenger motor vehicles. The new
chapter would ensure that these vehicles meet applicable safety and emissions
standards.
Title XI also clarifies the Secretary's authority to engage in harmonization
activities that promote the worldwide improvement of motor vehicle safety without
any diminution of U.S. safety performance standards. Finally, Title XI includes
regulatory reform proposals, submitted to the last Congress, including
amendments to: reduce burdens resulting from reporting requirements under the
vehicle theft law; eliminate unnecessary pneumatic tire labeling standards; and
allow additional exemptions from automobile parts marking requirements for lines
of vehicles equipped with anti-theft devices.
Title XII would reauthorize the hazardous materials transportation safety program.
This program protects people and the environment from the risks inherent in the
transportation of hazardous materials. The proposed bill would improve safety by
clarifying and enhancing the inspection and enforcement authority of Departmental
personnel. It would authorize enforcement personnel to open certain packages in
transportation, take and analyze samples of materials, and prevent transportation
when an imminent hazard may exist. It also would authorize issuance of
emergency orders when there is a situation involving a hazard of death, personal
injury, or significant harm to the environment.
This enhanced authority is necessary to ensure the safe transportation of
hazardous materials. The May 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades and
other aviation incidents, enforcement statistics, and Hazardous Materials
Information System data all indicate that undeclared hazardous materials
shipments constitute a serious safety problem. Although causation in the ValuJet
crash is not yet established, the proposed language addresses the general
problem by providing Departmental personnel with added authority to enable them
more effectively to discover and resolve problems related to undeclared shipments
of hazardous materials.
This title would further enhance the Department's authority by extending
jurisdiction to hazardous materials activities conducted on U.S. aircraft between
two foreign points and to hazardous materials-related packaging activities of
government agencies and Indian tribes. It would authorize the use of grants to
assist small businesses in complying with the regulations; change "exemptions"
from the regulations to "special permits," and extend the maximum period for
those permits from two to four years; and provide for judicial review in U.S.
Courts of Appeal for final compliance, enforcement, and civil penalty orders.
This title also would strengthen the criminal penalties related to tampering with
hazardous materials placards or containers used to transport hazardous
3-21-1997 12:51PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.5
4
materials when that tampering results in the release of hazardous materials,
especially if that release causes death or injury.
Title XIII on underground damage prevention addresses one of the major
infrastructure issues confronting the Nation -- the public safety and environmental
damage caused by excavators striking underground energy, communication,
water, and sewer systems. It is of particular importance to pipeline safety since
excavation damage is a leading cause of pipeline failures. The most effective
means of underground damage prevention would be an enhanced and improved
comprehensive program that includes an effective one-call notification system
operating at the State level. One-call notification systems allow excavators to
determine quickly and accurately whether any buried system exists in a particular
location. The bill would provide incentives to States to improve existing one-call
notification systems or to create systems where none exist. The incentives include
potential grants to plan for and implement improvements; the development of a
model program to assist States; and a Federal presence in fostering public
awareness of the value and use of one-call systems.
President Clinton has made food safety a major priority in his Administration. Title
XIV would reallocate responsibilities for food transportation safety among DOT
and the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture that
were originally established in the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1990. It
would transfer primary responsibility in the area to HHS, which supports this
approach and worked with us to craft this proposal. HHS's Food and Drug
Administration is the Government's expert on purity of drugs and foodstuffs, and is
best qualified to implement the new Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1997.
HHS would establish practices to be followed by shippers, carriers, and others
engaged in food transportation. The title would require the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to assist the Secretary of HHS. It also would require the
Secretary of Transportation to train the Department's railroad and highway
inspectors to identify practices and conditions that could pose a threat to food
safety and notify the Secretaries of HHS and Agriculture of instances of potential
food contamination. We believe this is the appropriate balance of responsibilities
among Federal agencies to accomplish the goals of the 1990 Act.
Title XV is entitled the "Transportation Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997." Consistent
with the Department's mission to advance the safety of our Nation's mass
transportation systems and railroads, including the protection of passengers who
ride them and employees who operate them, the Department proposes to
strengthen criminal laws related to attacks against railroads and mass
transportation systems. The need for strong criminal legislation to deter attacks
against railroads and mass transportation is highlighted by several incidents that
have occurred in recent years, including the intentional derailment, on October 9,
1995, of an Amtrak passenger train near Hyder, Arizona that resulted in one
death and 78 injuries; the December 7, 1993 attack when a gunman with an
3-21-1997 12:53PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.6
5
automatic weapon opened fire on board a rush-hour Long Island Rail Road train,
resulting in six fatalities and 17 injured commuters; and the February 26, 1993
explosion of a massive truck bomb in the parking garage under New York's
World Trade Center, which damaged the subway running beneath the building,
and resulted in six deaths and 1,000 injuries. Vandalism has also resulted in
runaway railroad cars, freight train derailments, which in at least one case
resulted in a hazardous material spill, and the burning of railroad equipment.
Title XVI of the bill proposes improvements in the Department's railroad safety
program. This title would clarify the authority of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) to ensure, when making grants or loans to or for the benefit
of commuter railroads, that safety issues are addressed from the outset. This
can be critical in situations involving transit grants, such as signaling
improvements in the area where the February 1996 MARC crash occurred. FTA
is to exercise this authority in consultation with the Federal Railroad
Administration, which has safety regulatory authority over commuter rail
operations. The increasing complexity of passenger rail operations, which
frequently share trackage and other facilities with private freight rail operations,
makes it more necessary than ever that applicants for federal assistance for rail
projects plan safety into their projects and that the Department ensure that they
do so.
Finally, this legislation includes express statutory authority for the Department
and its agencies to use appropriated funds to provide for the honorary recognition
of individuals and organizations, not affiliated with the Federal Government, who
significantly contribute to the success of Departmental programs, missions, or
operations. While honorary, these awards for transportation safety and other
contributions to the objectives of the Department and its agencies can provide
substantial incentives to improve safety and other programs.
We look forward to working with Congress to enact into law these important
proposals to safeguard our transportation systems and protect the safety of the
traveling public.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no objection, from the
standpoint of the Administration's program, to the submission of this proposed
legislation to Congress.
Sincerely,
Rodney E. Slater
Enclosures
3-21-1997 12:48PM
FROM
DUT
UST
DAS
POLICY
202
DRAFT
IDENTICAL LETTER TO:
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable AI Gore
President of the Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. President:
The Department of Transportation is pleased to provide our comprehensive
surface transportation safety proposals for inclusion as an integral part of the
National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act of 1997 (NEXTEA).
These proposals are entitled the
"Surface Transportation Safety Act of 1997."
Our safety proposals include commercial motor vehicle size limitations and
provisions covering motor carrier safety, traffic safety, hazardous materials
reauthorization, underground system damage prevention, sanitary food
transportation, railroad and mass transit anti-terrorism, and railroad safety. I urge
Congress to act promptly on the enclosed proposals, which will improve the overall
safety of our Nation's surface transportation systems.
Title IX would amend the laws relating to the problem of oversized commercial
motor vehicles operating on highways. Oversized vehicles pose difficult
questions relating to safety and the preservation of the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. This title proposes a number of steps to address these issues.
First, with few exceptions, this title would end the proliferation of trailers longer
than 53 feet on the National Highway System. Such trailers are too long to
operate safely within the confines of most roadway geometry. Second, this title
would authorize the Secretary to determine, through notice and comment
rulemaking, so-called State "grandfather rights" to operate overweight vehicles
on the Interstate System. Once these existing rights to operate overweight
vehicles are determined, no further claims for exceptions to existing Federal
weight limits would be allowed on the Interstate System. Third, this title would
direct the Secretary to conduct a notice and comment rulemaking proceeding to
determine whether the current definition of a nondivisible load or vehicle should
be applied to intermodal containers. Finally, the Secretary would be authorized
to exempt military vehicles from the Federal weight requirements for the
Interstate System when the Department of Defense certifies that a national
emergency exists that requires the transportation of very heavy military cargoes.
This would allow the States to waive their Interstate System weight limits in times
of emergency without risking the loss of Federal-aid highway funds.
3-21-1997 12:49PM
FROM DUI UST UAS 202
2
Title X would amend existing Federal motor carrier safety laws to enhance
commercial motor vehicle safety. This title would improve safety by
strengthening Federal and State enforcement. It would update and increase the
civil penalties that the Secretary could impose on carriers for violations of
existing Federal safety standards. The Secretary would be authorized to
examine motor carrier records related to the safety of the commercial motor
vehicle operations of those carriers to a greater extent than is now the case.
This would enhance the Secretary's ability to identify problem carriers. This title
would also authorize the Secretary to order an unsafe interstate motor carrier to
cease any commercial motor vehicle operations, not just the transportation of
passengers or hazardous materials. With these changes, the Secretary would
have greater administrative flexibility to improve motor carrier safety; promote
new approaches and technologies that improve highway safety; and actively
pursue performance-based motor carrier safety programs.
Economic motivations can lead some motor carriers, shippers, and brokers to
look for opportunities to avoid full compliance with important safety standards.
This title would extend the Secretary's enforcement authority over shippers and
brokers when evidence exists that they have caused motor carriers to violate
safety regulations. Enforcement concerns would be addressed by, for example,
defining a commercial motor vehicle subject to the safety rules in terms of the
actual weight of the vehicle, not just the weight rating assigned to it by the
manufacturer.
Our traffic safety proposals in Title XI underscore the Department's strong
support for primary enforcement of safety belt use laws and 0.08 blood alcohol
cencentration (BAC) as the per se standard for driving while intoxicated. Our
NEXTEA proposal includes funding to help States reduce drunk driving and
increase safety belt usage. However, aggressive laws must be part of this
strategy. From 1982 through 1995, safety belts saved over 75,000 lives.
Primary enforcement, the most important aspect of a safety belt use law, adds
significantly to the rate of safety belt use and will save even more lives. At a
0.08 BAC, virtually all drivers are substantially impaired with regard to critical
driving tasks. Thirteen States have lowered their per se standard for driving
while intoxicated to 0.08, and a recent study of five of these States shows that-
significant decreases in alcohol-related fatalities can be achieved by States
adopting the 0.08 BACstandard. This title would establish a date certain by
which all States would be required to have enacted primary safety belt and 0.08
BAC per se lows Beginning in fiscal year 2003, a State that has failed to enact Such a
these laws would have a percentage of its highway construction funds
transferred to its section 402 highway safety program.
This title would also increase the number of new motor vehicles that may be
exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, on
the basis that they possess innovative safety features; close a loophole in the
3-21-1997 12:50PM
FROM
UST
3
vehicle statute by prohibiting retailers of motor vehicle equipment from selling
defective items of equipment that they have in stock, such as defective child
safety seats; and add a new chapter to achieve uniformity in State laws regulating
the titling and control of severely damaged passenger motor vehicles. The new
chapter would ensure that these vehicles meet applicable safety and emissions
standards.
Title XI also clarifies the Secretary's authority to engage in harmonization
activities that promote the worldwide improvement of motor vehicle safety without
any diminution of U.S. safety performance standards. Finally, Title XI includes
regulatory reform proposals, submitted to the last Congress, including
amendments to: reduce burdens resulting from reporting requirements under the
vehicle theft law; eliminate unnecessary pneumatic tire labeling standards; and
allow additional exemptions from automobile parts marking requirements for lines
of vehicles equipped with anti-theft devices.
Title XII would reauthorize the hazardous materials transportation safety program.
This program protects people and the environment from the risks inherent in the
transportation of hazardous materials. The proposed bill would improve safety by
clarifying and enhancing the inspection and enforcement authority of Departmental
personnel. It would authorize enforcement personnel to open certain packages in
transportation, take and analyze samples of materials, and prevent transportation
when an imminent hazard may exist. It also would authorize issuance of
emergency orders when there is a situation involving a hazard of death, personal
injury, or significant harm to the environment.
This enhanced authority is necessary to ensure the safe transportation of
hazardous materials. The May 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades and
other aviation incidents, enforcement statistics, and Hazardous Materials
Information System data all indicate that undeclared hazardous materials
shipments constitute a serious safety problem. Although causation in the ValuJet
crash is not yet established, the proposed language addresses the general
problem by providing Departmental personnel with added authority to enable them
more effectively to discover and resolve problems related to undeclared shipments
of hazardous materials.
This title would further enhance the Department's authority by extending
jurisdiction to hazardous materials activities conducted on U.S. aircraft between
two foreign points and to hazardous materials-related packaging activities of
government agencies and Indian tribes. It would authorize the use of grants to
assist small businesses in complying with the regulations; change "exemptions"
from the regulations to "special permits," and extend the maximum period for
those permits from two to four years; and provide for judicial review in U.S.
Courts of Appeal for final compliance, enforcement, and civil penalty orders.
This title also would strengthen the criminal penalties related to tampering with
hazardous materials placards or containers used to transport hazardous
3-21-1997 12:51PM
FROM
4
materials when that tampering results in the release of hazardous materials,
especially if that release causes death or injury.
Title XIII on underground damage prevention addresses one of the major
infrastructure issues confronting the Nation - the public safety and environmental
damage caused by excavators striking underground energy, communication,
water, and sewer systems. It is of particular importance to pipeline safety since
excavation damage is a leading cause of pipeline failures. The most effective
means of underground damage prevention would be an enhanced and improved
comprehensive program that includes an effective one-call notification system
operating at the State level. One-call notification systems allow excavators to
determine quickly and accurately whether any buried system exists in a particular
location. The bill would provide incentives to States to improve existing one-call
notification systems or to create systems where none exist. The incentives include
potential grants to plan for and implement improvements; the development of a
model program to assist States; and a Federal presence in fostering public
awareness of the value and use of one-call systems.
President Clinton has made food safety a major priority in his Administration. Title
XIV would reallocate responsibilities for food transportation safety among DOT
and the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture that
were originally established in the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1990. It
would transfer primary responsibility in the area to HHS, which supports this
approach and worked with us to craft this proposal. HHS's Food and Drug
Administration is the Government's expert on purity of drugs and foodstuffs, and is
best qualified to implement the new Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1997.
HHS would establish practices to be followed by shippers, carriers, and others
engaged in food transportation. The title would require the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to assist the Secretary of HHS. It also would require the
Secretary of Transportation to train the Department's railroad and highway
inspectors to identify practices and conditions that could pose a threat to food
safety and notify the Secretaries of HHS and Agriculture of instances of potential
food contamination. We believe this is the appropriate balance of responsibilities
among Federal agencies to accomplish the goals of the 1990 Act.
Title XV is entitled the "Transportation Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997." Consistent
with the Department's mission to advance the safety of our Nation's mass
transportation systems and railroads, including the protection of passengers who
ride them and employees who operate them, the Department proposes to
strengthen criminal laws related to attacks against railroads and mass
transportation systems. The need for strong criminal legislation to deter attacks
against railroads and mass transportation is highlighted by several incidents that
have occurred in recent years, including the intentional derailment, on October 9,
1995, of an Amtrak passenger train near Hyder, Arizona that resulted in one
death and 78 injuries; the December 7, 1993 attack when a gunman with an
3-21-1997 12:53PM
FROM
DUT
USI
202
5
automatic weapon opened fire on board a rush-hour Long Island Rail Road train,
resulting in six fatalities and 17 injured commuters; and the February 26, 1993
explosion of a massive truck bomb in the parking garage under New York's
World Trade Center, which damaged the subway running beneath the building,
and resulted in six deaths and 1,000 injuries. Vandalism has also resulted in
runaway railroad cars, freight train derailments, which in at least one case
resulted in a hazardous material spill, and the burning of railroad equipment.
Title XVI of the bill proposes improvements in the Department's railroad safety
program. This title would clarify the authority of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) to ensure, when making grants or loans to or for the benefit
of commuter railroads, that safety issues are addressed from the outset. This
can be critical in situations involving transit grants, such as signaling
improvements in the area where the February 1996 MARC crash occurred. FTA
is to exercise this authority in consultation with the Federal Railroad
Administration, which has safety regulatory authority over commuter rail
operations. The increasing complexity of passenger rail operations, which
frequently share trackage and other facilities with private freight rail operations,
makes it more necessary than ever that applicants for federal assistance for rail
projects plan safety into their projects and that the Department ensure that they
do so.
Finally, this legislation includes express statutory authority for the Department
and its agencies to use appropriated funds to provide for the honorary recognition
of individuals and organizations, not affiliated with the Federal Government, who
significantly contribute to the success of Departmental programs, missions, or
operations. While honorary, these awards for transportation safety and other
contributions to the objectives of the Department and its agencies can provide
substantial incentives to improve safety and other programs.
We look forward to working with Congress to enact into law these important
proposals to safeguard our transportation systems and protect the safety of the
traveling public.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no objection, from the
standpoint of the Administration's program, to the submission of this proposed
legislation to Congress.
Sincerely,
Rodney E. Slater
Enclosures
DOT SAFETY TITLE: OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Primary Seat Belt Laws
The NEXTEA proposal rolled out on March 12 included a new six-year, $125 million
incentive program to encourage states to adopt and enforce aggressive laws and programs
aimed at increasing seat belt and child restraint use. Primary seat belt laws -- i.e., a law
permitting enforcement authorities to stop motorists and issues summonses solely for seat belt
violations, and not just in the context of a stop for another traffic violation -- figure in one of
the two options to qualify for the "basic grant" under this program. As proposed in
NEXTEA, a state may qualify for funds by either satisfying four out of five specified pro-
seat belt requirements, including having a primary belt law, or it may demonstrate that its belt
use is at least 80 percent, and increasing.
Experience with such primary belt laws -- which have been enacted by 11 states and the
District of Columbia, together covering about one-third of U.S. population -- indicates that
they work to increase belt use significantly. In primary law states, the level of belt use is 15
percent higher, on average, than in secondary law states. Moreover, much of the differential
is due to increases achieved in the first year after enactment. NHTSA estimates that
enactment of a primary seat belt law by all remaining states would save at least 1,800 lives
nationwide in the first year.
As part of the follow-on "safety title" to NEXTEA -- which will include regulatory, rather
than funding elements -- the Department is now inclined to propose a "soft sanction" that
would go beyond the incentive program. The proposal under consideration calls for requiring
states to adopt primary seat belt laws by the end of the fifth year of reauthorization (i.e., by
September 30, 2002) or have one-and-one-half percent of their highway construction funds
(three percent in subsequent years) mandatorily shifted to seat belt education and enforcement
programs. These shifted funds would be in addition to funds made available for safety
enforcement and education through NHTSA grant programs and the flexible infrastructure
safety category proposed in NEXTEA.
.08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws
Also under consideration is a proposal to apply a similar "soft sanction" to states that do not
by the end of FY 2002 adopt a law setting .08 Blood Alcohol Content as the standard for
impairment. Notwithstanding great progress in reducing drunk driving, over 40 percent of
fatal crashes are alcohol-related. Safety activists argue -- and NHTSA agrees -- that at .08
BAC virtually all drivers are substantially impaired in critical tasks such as braking, steering
and judgment. One study found that the risk of a crash is 11 times higher at .08 BAC than
when sober. Notwithstanding some public misunderstanding, .08 BAC does not impact the
responsible social drinker. To reach .08, a 170 lb. male needs to drink 4 drinks in 1 hour on
an empty stomach. A 120 lb. female needs 3 drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach.
Fourteen states currently have a .08 BAC limit. (Idaho, the most recent, passed .08 just last
week.) Recent studies have shown that fatalities have declined anywhere from 7 to 16
percent when states lowered their BAC limits from .10 to .08. However, the studies are too
few in number and not consistent enough to give a precise estimate of the reductions that
have occured, or would occur if additional states adopted .08 laws.
DOT is already on record supporting .08 BAC laws. In fact, adoption of both a .08 BAC law
and an administrative license revocation law is one of the three options to qualify for funds
under the proposed program alcohol incentive program included in NEXTEA. NEXTEA
proposes to authorize that program at about $40 million a year.
While the NEXTEA incentive programs will provide some encouragement to states to enact
primary seat belt and .08 BAC laws, they will not have the effect, albeit coercive, of a
sanction program. Sanction programs -- including programs by which states forfeit a portion
of their construction funds -- have in the past been used successfully to get states to enact 55
mph speed limits, age 21 drinking laws, secondary seat belt laws, and zero tolerance laws.
Strategic Considerations
Sanction strategies are generally disfavored by state governments, highway construction
interests, and states rights activists as an imposition on states rights and a diversion of needed
construction funds. Activists, in turn, often favor such programs because of their strong
motivational effect on states. The 1995 NHS bill repealed a range of sanctions -- including
national speed limits and motorcycle helmets provisions -- long unpopular with states and
various interest groups.
Of the two proposals, the seat belt sanction is likely to be the less controversial and more
likely to succeed. The issue of seat belt use has received enormous recent coverage given its
close nexus with the airbag debate. Somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the motoring
public is already using seat belts. Virtually all those involved in the coalition of groups
working on getting airbag safety messages out to the public -- including the auto
manufacturers, insurance companies, seat belt and air bag suppliers, safety and health care
organizations -- have made increased seat belt use, and primary laws in particular, a top
agenda item. The President has asked DOT to submit a report recommending strategies to
increase seat belt use. And NTSB has recently made seat belt usage a major priority.
A seat belt sanction proposal will galvanize the support of these various groups during a time
when the public is paying particular attention to the issue of seat belt use. Also, Congress is
increasingly aware of the issue, particularly as hearings on the air bag issue take place.
The proposal will draw opposition from the governors' highway safety offices (NAGHSR),
the National Motorists Association (the strongest supporters of repealing the speed limit law),
individual liberties groups, and the same conservative and western members of Congress who
allied to repeal sanctions in the NHS Act. NHTSA does not expect opposition from civil
rights or minority organizations. Overall, given the national focus on the issue and the broad
support it will receive from the manufacturing, insurance, safety and health care industries,
the measure has a significant chance of passing. DOT leadership is currently inclined to
include a "soft sanction" that would only "bite" in the final year of NEXTEA.
The battle over .08 will be more difficult. A .08 sanctions proposal will be broadly supported
by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), other safety organizations, health care and
insurance industries, and probably by the auto industry also. Congresswoman Lowey and
Senator Lautenberg have already introduced legislation requiring states to adopt .08 laws.
However, a sanction approach to .08 BAC will be vigorously opposed by the beverage,
restaurant and hotel industries. These interests are likely to mount an aggressive, well funded
campaign seeking to portray the proposal as scientifically unsupported and a threat to casual
drinkers. While these arguments can all be rebutted, public opinion is difficult to predict.
Given that the BAC standard has received much less recent publicity than the belt issue and
that the effectiveness studies on .08 are less than definitive, a .08 sanction will likely be
tougher to win than a seat belt sanction.
An additional consideration is possible impacts on the Administration's other ISTEA
reauthorization priorities. Led by Senator Chafee, the coalition of pro-ISTEA transportation
progressives that supports the Administration's bill would likely welcome a proposal that
included sanction provisions. At the same time, there is some possibility that sanctions
proposals would undermine the relatively positive reception given the Administration's
NEXTEA proposal by certain Republican transportation leaders (e.g., Chairman Shuster) and
state transportation officials. Possible "spill-over" is not of itself an argument against
sanction proposals, but it may weigh against proposing multiple sanction initiatives, on top of
the truck size restrictions DOT intends to propose.
DOT SAFETY TITLE: OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Primary Seat Belt Laws
The NEXTEA proposal rolled out on March 12 included a new six-year, $125 million
incentive program to encourage states to adopt and enforce aggressive laws and programs
aimed at increasing seat belt and child restraint use. Primary seat belt laws -- i.e., a law
permitting enforcement authorities to stop motorists and issues summonses solely for seat belt
violations, and not just in the context of a stop for another traffic violation -- figure in one of
the two options to qualify for the "basic grant" under this program. As proposed in
NEXTEA, a state may qualify for funds by either satisfying four out of five specified pro-
seat belt requirements, including having a primary belt law, or it may demonstrate that its belt
use is at least 80 percent, and increasing.
Experience with such primary belt laws -- which have been enacted by 11 states and the
District of Columbia, together covering about one-third of U.S. population -- indicates that
they work to increase belt use significantly. In primary law states, the level of belt use is 15
percent higher, on average, than in secondary law states. Moreover, much of the differential
is due to increases achieved in the first year after enactment. NHTSA estimates that
enactment of a primary seat belt law by all remaining states would save at least 1,800 lives
nationwide in the first year.
As part of the follow-on "safety title" to NEXTEA -- which will include regulatory, rather
than funding elements -- the Department is now inclined to propose a "soft sanction" that
would go beyond the incentive program. The proposal under consideration calls for requiring
states to adopt primary seat belt laws by the end of the fifth year of reauthorization (i.e., by
September 30, 2002) or have one-and-one-half percent of their highway construction funds
(three percent in subsequent years) mandatorily shifted to seat belt education and enforcement
programs. These shifted funds would be in addition to funds made available for safety
enforcement and education through NHTSA grant programs and the flexible infrastructure
safety category proposed in NEXTEA.
.08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws
Also under consideration is a proposal to apply a similar "soft sanction" to states that do not
by the end of FY 2002 adopt a law setting .08 Blood Alcohol Content as the standard for
impairment. Notwithstanding great progress in reducing drunk driving, over 40 percent of
fatal crashes are alcohol-related. Safety activists argue -- and NHTSA agrees -- that at .08
BAC virtually all drivers are substantially impaired in critical tasks such as braking, steering
and judgment. One study found that the risk of a crash is 11 times higher at .08 BAC than
when sober. Notwithstanding some public misunderstanding, .08 BAC does not impact the
responsible social drinker. To reach .08, a 170 lb. male needs to drink 4 drinks in 1 hour on
an empty stomach. A 120 lb. female needs 3 drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach.
Fourteen states currently have a .08 BAC limit. (Idaho, the most recent, passed .08 just last
week.) Recent studies have shown that fatalities have declined anywhere from 7 to 16
percent when states lowered their BAC limits from .10 to .08. However, the studies are too
few in number and not consistent enough to give a precise estimate of the reductions that
have occured, or would occur if additional states adopted .08 laws.
DOT is already on record supporting .08 BAC laws. In fact, adoption of both a .08 BAC law
and an administrative license revocation law is one of the three options to qualify for funds
under the proposed program alcohol incentive program included in NEXTEA. NEXTEA
proposes to authorize that program at about $40 million a year.
While the NEXTEA incentive programs will provide some encouragement to states to enact
primary seat belt and .08 BAC laws, they will not have the effect, albeit coercive, of a
sanction program. Sanction programs -- including programs by which states forfeit a portion
of their construction funds -- have in the past been used successfully to get states to enact 55
mph speed limits, age 21 drinking laws, secondary seat belt laws, and zero tolerance laws.
Strategic Considerations
Sanction strategies are generally disfavored by state governments, highway construction
interests, and states rights activists as an imposition on states rights and a diversion of needed
construction funds. Activists, in turn, often favor such programs because of their strong
motivational effect on states. The 1995 NHS bill repealed a range of sanctions -- including
national speed limits and motorcycle helmets provisions -- long unpopular with states and
various interest groups.
Of the two proposals, the seat belt sanction is likely to be the less controversial and more
likely to succeed. The issue of seat belt use has received enormous recent coverage given its
close nexus with the airbag debate. Somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the motoring
public is already using seat belts. Virtually all those involved in the coalition of groups
working on getting airbag safety messages out to the public -- including the auto
manufacturers, insurance companies, seat belt and air bag suppliers, safety and health care
organizations -- have made increased seat belt use, and primary laws in particular, a top
agenda item. The President has asked DOT to submit a report recommending strategies to
increase seat belt use. And NTSB has recently made seat belt usage a major priority.
A seat belt sanction proposal will galvanize the support of these various groups during a time
when the public is paying particular attention to the issue of seat belt use. Also, Congress is
increasingly aware of the issue, particularly as hearings on the air bag issue take place.
The proposal will draw opposition from the governors' highway safety offices (NAGHSR),
the National Motorists Association (the strongest supporters of repealing the speed limit law),
individual liberties groups, and the same conservative and western members of Congress who
allied to repeal sanctions in the NHS Act. NHTSA does not expect opposition from civil
rights or minority organizations. Overall, given the national focus on the issue and the broad
support it will receive from the manufacturing, insurance, safety and health care industries,
the measure has a significant chance of passing. DOT leadership is currently inclined to
include a "soft sanction" that would only "bite" in the final year of NEXTEA.
The battle over .08 will be more difficult. A .08 sanctions proposal will be broadly supported
by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), other safety organizations, health care and
insurance industries, and probably by the auto industry also. Congresswoman Lowey and
Senator Lautenberg have already introduced legislation requiring states to adopt .08 laws.
However, a sanction approach to .08 BAC will be vigorously opposed by the beverage,
restaurant and hotel industries. These interests are likely to mount an aggressive, well funded
campaign seeking to portray the proposal as scientifically unsupported and a threat to casual
drinkers. While these arguments can all be rebutted, public opinion is difficult to predict.
Given that the BAC standard has received much less recent publicity than the belt issue and
that the effectiveness studies on .08 are less than definitive, a .08 sanction will likely be
tougher to win than a seat belt sanction.
An additional consideration is possible impacts on the Administration's other ISTEA
reauthorization priorities. Led by Senator Chafee, the coalition of pro-ISTEA transportation
progressives that supports the Administration's bill would likely welcome a proposal that
included sanction provisions. At the same time, there is some possibility that sanctions
proposals would undermine the relatively positive reception given the Administration's
NEXTEA proposal by certain Republican transportation leaders (e.g., Chairman Shuster) and
state transportation officials. Possible "spill-over" is not of itself an argument against
sanction proposals, but it may weigh against proposing multiple sanction initiatives, on top of
the truck size restrictions DOT intends to propose.
DOT SAFETY TITLE: OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Primary Seat Belt Laws
The NEXTEA proposal rolled out on March 12 included a new six-year, $125 million
incentive program to encourage states to adopt and enforce aggressive laws and programs
aimed at increasing seat belt and child restraint use. Primary seat belt laws -- i.e., a law
permitting enforcement authorities to stop motorists and issues summonses solely for seat belt
violations, and not just in the context of a stop for another traffic violation -- figure in one of
the two options to qualify for the "basic grant" under this program. As proposed in
NEXTEA, a state may qualify for funds by either satisfying four out of five specified pro-
seat belt requirements, including having a primary belt law, or it may demonstrate that its belt
use is at least 80 percent, and increasing.
Experience with such primary belt laws -- which have been enacted by 11 states and the
District of Columbia, together covering about one-third of U.S. population -- indicates that
they work to increase belt use significantly. In primary law states, the level of belt use is 15
percent higher, on average, than in secondary law states. Moreover, much of the differential
is due to increases achieved in the first year after enactment. NHTSA estimates that
enactment of a primary seat belt law by all remaining states would save at least 1,800 lives
nationwide in the first year.
As part of the follow-on "safety title" to NEXTEA -- which will include regulatory, rather
than funding elements -- the Department is now inclined to propose a "soft sanction" that
would go beyond the incentive program. The proposal under consideration calls for requiring
states to adopt primary seat belt laws by the end of the fifth year of reauthorization (i.e., by
September 30, 2002) or have one-and-one-half percent of their highway construction funds
(three percent in subsequent years) mandatorily shifted to seat belt education and enforcement
programs. These shifted funds would be in addition to funds made available for safety
enforcement and education through NHTSA grant programs and the flexible infrastructure
safety category proposed in NEXTEA.
.08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws
Also under consideration is a proposal to apply a similar "soft sanction" to states that do not
by the end of FY 2002 adopt a law setting .08 Blood Alcohol Content as the standard for
impairment. Notwithstanding great progress in reducing drunk driving, over 40 percent of
fatal crashes are alcohol-related. Safety activists argue -- and NHTSA agrees -- that at .08
BAC virtually all drivers are substantially impaired in critical tasks such as braking, steering
and judgment. One study found that the risk of a crash is 11 times higher at .08 BAC than
when sober. Notwithstanding some public misunderstanding, .08 BAC does not impact the
responsible social drinker. To reach .08, a 170 lb. male needs to drink 4 drinks in 1 hour on
an empty stomach. A 120 lb. female needs 3 drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach.
Fourteen states currently have a .08 BAC limit. (Idaho, the most recent, passed .08 just last
week.) Recent studies have shown that fatalities have declined anywhere from 7 to 16
percent when states lowered their BAC limits from .10 to .08. However, the studies are too
few in number and not consistent enough to give a precise estimate of the reductions that
have occured, or would occur if additional states adopted .08 laws.
DOT is already on record supporting .08 BAC laws. In fact, adoption of both a .08 BAC law
and an administrative license revocation law is one of the three options to qualify for funds
under the proposed program alcohol incentive program included in NEXTEA. NEXTEA
proposes to authorize that program at about $40 million a year.
While the NEXTEA incentive programs will provide some encouragement to states to enact
primary seat belt and .08 BAC laws, they will not have the effect, albeit coercive, of a
sanction program. Sanction programs -- including programs by which states forfeit a portion
of their construction funds -- have in the past been used successfully to get states to enact 55
mph speed limits, age 21 drinking laws, secondary seat belt laws, and zero tolerance laws.
Strategic Considerations
Sanction strategies are generally disfavored by state governments, highway construction
interests, and states rights activists as an imposition on states rights and a diversion of needed
construction funds. Activists, in turn, often favor such programs because of their strong
motivational effect on states. The 1995 NHS bill repealed a range of sanctions -- including
national speed limits and motorcycle helmets provisions -- long unpopular with states and
various interest groups.
Of the two proposals, the seat belt sanction is likely to be the less controversial and more
likely to succeed. The issue of seat belt use has received enormous recent coverage given its
close nexus with the airbag debate. Somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the motoring
public is already using seat belts. Virtually all those involved in the coalition of groups
working on getting airbag safety messages out to the public -- including the auto
manufacturers, insurance companies, seat belt and air bag suppliers, safety and health care
organizations -- have made increased seat belt use, and primary laws in particular, a top
agenda item. The President has asked DOT to submit a report recommending strategies to
increase seat belt use. And NTSB has recently made seat belt usage a major priority.
A seat belt sanction proposal will galvanize the support of these various groups during a time
when the public is paying particular attention to the issue of seat belt use. Also, Congress is
increasingly aware of the issue, particularly as hearings on the air bag issue take place.
The proposal will draw opposition from the governors' highway safety offices (NAGHSR),
the National Motorists Association (the strongest supporters of repealing the speed limit law),
individual liberties groups, and the same conservative and western members of Congress who
allied to repeal sanctions in the NHS Act. NHTSA does not expect opposition from civil
rights or minority organizations. Overall, given the national focus on the issue and the broad
support it will receive from the manufacturing, insurance, safety and health care industries,
the measure has a significant chance of passing. DOT leadership is currently inclined to
include a "soft sanction" that would only "bite" in the final year of NEXTEA.
The battle over .08 will be more difficult. A .08 sanctions proposal will be broadly supported
by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), other safety organizations, health care and
insurance industries, and probably by the auto industry also. Congresswoman Lowey and
Senator Lautenberg have already introduced legislation requiring states to adopt .08 laws.
However, a sanction approach to .08 BAC will be vigorously opposed by the beverage,
restaurant and hotel industries. These interests are likely to mount an aggressive, well funded
campaign seeking to portray the proposal as scientifically unsupported and a threat to casual
drinkers. While these arguments can all be rebutted, public opinion is difficult to predict.
Given that the BAC standard has received much less recent publicity than the belt issue and
that the effectiveness studies on .08 are less than definitive, a .08 sanction will likely be
tougher to win than a seat belt sanction.
An additional consideration is possible impacts on the Administration's other ISTEA
reauthorization priorities. Led by Senator Chafee, the coalition of pro-ISTEA transportation
progressives that supports the Administration's bill would likely welcome a proposal that
included sanction provisions. At the same time, there is some possibility that sanctions
proposals would undermine the relatively positive reception given the Administration's
NEXTEA proposal by certain Republican transportation leaders (e.g., Chairman Shuster) and
state transportation officials. Possible "spill-over" is not of itself an argument against
sanction proposals, but it may weigh against proposing multiple sanction initiatives, on top of
the truck size restrictions DOT intends to propose.
What all 13sure we Want to fall an Our swrd
over?
Trach 89wt:
what hind of C-B/Econ. studies are wegoing to
use?
- 08 - hantwaberg/ Lowi
Well
Hove
A. Prelian part of skudy Some
B. Mandyathring prov. it pcs Plens d,C
aunouncement, DOT wants) U.
If salehy & seat belts ;
as
- Safe Xy gip's
WELL as Big 3
- "asurance" "
#
auto ind.
wandate so/vagz diots - states may regard as unfunled
truckers will reot like 872 weight
on
-
resorictions I/State
-
but states have been able to circumdeat there
So - Colled "grand yahering prow's
we take back night to determine what /2
appropriate for grandya Wring
Obsestar
1.
2.
3.
Dorothy Robyn
03/21/97 01:17:18 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP
CC:
Michael Deich/OMB/EOP
Subject: NEXTEA Safety Title
When the President meets with the Big 3 CEOs, it might be feasible and desirable to unveil some or
all of our NEXTEA safety title. This memo provides background and a caution that clearance of the
bill by April 3 (which may not be necessary for such an event) is possible but not certain.
We are within a few weeks of releasing the "Surface Transportation Safety Act of 1997," which
will become the safety title of NEXTEA. The bill deals with a long list of issues, ranging from
deterring terrorism against railroads to aircraft transport of hazardous materials. (See attached draft
letter from Slater to the VP.) The two most visible provisions (assuming we leave them in the bill --
I'm still trying to get political guidance on this) are:
(1) truck size and weight: We would extend the freeze on truck size to all national highways (it
currently applies only on interstates); we would not extend the freeze on truck weight pending
completio;n of a DOT study.
(2) soft sanctions on seat belt use: States must adopt a primary seat belt law (one that allows for
ticketing solely for failure to use a seat belt) by 2003 or else one percent of a state's highway
construction money would be moved into its highway safety program.
[I have asked for guidance on whether to include a similar soft sanction on states that do not adopt
a law by 2003 that treats .08 blood alcohol content as the per se standard for DWI. An analysis
of both soft sanction proposals is attached.]
There are several other auto-related provisions; they would:
--increase the number of new motor vehicles that may be exempted from compliance from safety
standards on the grounds that they have innovative safety features;
--close a legal loophole by prohibiting retailers of motor vehicle equipment from selling defective
items;
--clarify DOT's authority to engage in standard harmonization activities that promote international
improvement of motor vehicle safety. (The Big 3 rep's mentioned this at Wednesday's meeting.)
In short, there's plenty of stuff in the bill to sustain a good event with the Big 3 CEOs; such an
event would mean that the non-auto provisions would be overshadowed, but that may be a price
worth paying. The alternative would be to do an event, separate from the Big 3, that dealt with
the range of safety issues.
Clearance: DOT is sending the bill over today. OMB clearance folks have said they need 2 weeks,
assuming no major problems arise. Since April 3 is just shy of 2 weeks, we SHOULD be able to
have -- if not a fully cleared bill -- a detailed handout along the lines of the one we did for the
NEXTEA rollout. But Michael Deich is very concerned that we not cut short the agencies' time to
react to the bill draft in order to get clearance in time for an event.
Dorothy Robyn
03/21/97 01:17:18 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Gene B. Sperling/OPD/EOP
CC:
Michael Deich/OMB/EOP
Subject: NEXTEA Safety Title
When the President meets with the Big 3 CEOs, it might be feasible and desirable to unveil some or
all of our NEXTEA safety title. This memo provides background and a caution that clearance of the
bill by April 3 (which may not be necessary for such an event) is possible but not certain.
We are within a few weeks of releasing the "Surface Transportation Safety Act of 1997," which
will become the safety title of NEXTEA. The bill deals with a long list of issues, ranging from
deterring terrorism against railroads to aircraft transport of hazardous materials. (See attached draft
letter from Slater to the VP.) The two most visible provisions (assuming we leave them in the bill --
I'm still trying to get political guidance on this) are:
(1) truck size and weight: We would extend the freeze on truck size to all national highways (it
currently applies only on interstates); we would not extend the freeze on truck weight pending
completio;n of a DOT study.
(2) soft sanctions on seat belt use: States must adopt a primary seat belt law (one that allows for
ticketing solely for failure to use a seat belt) by 2003 or else one percent of a state's highway
construction money would be moved into its highway safety program.
[l have asked for guidance on whether to include a similar soft sanction on states that do not adopt
a law by 2003 that treats .08 blood alcohol content as the per se standard for DWI. An analysis
of both soft sanction proposals is attached.]
There are several other auto-related provisions; they would:
--increase the number of new motor vehicles that may be exempted from compliance from safety
standards on the grounds that they have innovative safety features;
--close a legal loophole by prohibiting retailers of motor vehicle equipment from selling defective
items;
--clarify DOT's authority to engage in standard harmonization activities that promote international
improvement of motor vehicle safety. (The Big 3 rep's mentioned this at Wednesday's meeting.)
In short, there's plenty of stuff in the bill to sustain a good event with the Big 3 CEOs; such an
event would mean that the non-auto provisions would be overshadowed, but that may be a price
worth paying. The alternative would be to do an event, separate from the Big 3, that dealt with
the range of safety issues.
Clearance: DOT is sending the bill over today. OMB clearance folks have said they need 2 weeks,
assuming no major problems arise. Since April 3 is just shy of 2 weeks, we SHOULD be able to
have -- if not a fully cleared bill -- a detailed handout along the lines of the one we did for the
NEXTEA rollout. But Michael Deich is very concerned that we not cut short the agencies' time to
react to the bill draft in order to get clearance in time for an event.
3-17-1997 10:26AM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.2
Devolling Kobyn
456 2223
Legislative Options for Truck Size and Weights
Background
Current Federal Requirements
On the Interstate System (44k mi.):
20,000 lbs. single axles
34,000 lbs. tandem axles
Bridge Formula B for axle spacings, with 80,000 lbs cap
On the Interstate System and National Truck Network (200k mi.):
102 inch width
48' minimum semitrailer length
28' minimum trailer length for doubles
Oberstar Proposal (would apply to the National Highway System)
Semi-Trailer Lengths - limit to 53', eventually phase out longer trailers (57', 59', etc)
now grandfathered in 10 States (i.e., longer trailers manufactured after a fixed date not
allowed to operate).
Terminate Grandfather Rights On Interstate - Applies to truck axle and gross weights
exceeding Federal Statutes.
Nondivisible Load Proceeding - Secretary would have to define, by commodity, whether a load
is divisible or not.
Weight Limitations - Freeze current state weight limits on the non-Interstate NHS (including
all the currently grandfathered higher weights)
Possible Departmental Responses/Positions
1. Take no action now
Pros
-
Secretary initiated TS&W Study - supports previous stance that it needs to be
completed before acting.
-
Fulfills commitment made to State partners to work openly and colloboratively
on a rational policy.
3-17-1997 10:27AM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.3
Enables formulation of a rational policy based on integration of TS&W Study
results.
Cons
-
Creates perception of leaving a gap on safety and infrastructure protection.
-
May preclude department from taking a leadership role on this significant issue.
2. Support the Oberstar Bill in total (excluding commodity-specific designation
req'ment)
Pros
-
Responds to safety and infrastructure protection concerns.
-
Because safety of single trailers longer than 53' is slightly worse (poorer off-
tracking), precluding their proliferation would have some safety benefit. Small
infrastructure protection benefit (ramps, curbs, guardrails; does not affect
pavement or bridge wear). Most State transportation departments would likely
support this move because of their concern for infrastructure. Technical
supporting arguments documentable.
-
Ending states' ability to claim grandfather rights on Interstates creates opportunity
to aggressively resist "creeping incrementalism" of weight on Interstates while
rationalized policy is developed.
-
Freezing weights on NHS prevents safety degradation and reduces infrastructure
damage. Other options are available, however, for addressing weight-related
safety and infrastructure concerns.
-
Ensures department will be a player in the debate on this issue.
-
Safety community will applaud this move.
Cons
-
Precludes formulation of a rational policy based on integration of TS&W Study
results and is inconsistent with Secretary's previous reluctance to support
measures such as this.
Oberstar Bill does not address current Bridge Formula B loopholes. which result
in increased bridge and pavement damage.
3-17-1997 10:27AM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.4
Violates states' outreach/openness expectations relative to TS&W Study.
-
May be difficult to develop supporting analysis for this position.
-
Federally intrusive.
3. Support Oberstar Bill (excluding commodity-specific designation req'ment), but
without Weight Restrictions
Pros
-
Sends signal that Department is serious about safety. Makes department a player
in debate.
-
Because safety of single trailers longer than 53' is slightly worse (poorer off-
tracking), precluding their proliferation would have some safety benefit. Small
infrastructure protection benefit (ramps, curbs, guardrails; does not affect
pavement or bridge wear). Most State transportation departments would likely
support this move because of their concern for infrastructure. Technical
supporting arguments documentable.
-
Ending states' ability to claim grandfather rights on Interstates creates opportunity
to aggressively resist "creeping incrementalism" of weight on Interstates while
rationalized policy is developed.
-
Maintains integrity of commitment to partner with states on the weight issue.
-
Preserves opportunity to develop a rationalized weight policy based on TS&W
Study results. Implies we have a better method for addressing weight related
concerns.
Cons
-
Could be perceived to be "weak" on safety and infrastructure protection relative
to weight.
-
Oberstar Bill does not address current Bridge Formula B loopholes. which result
in increased bridge and pavement damage.
-
Federally intrusive, but less so than Option 2.
-
Safety community less supportive.
MAR 17 '97 02:31PM DOT/OFC OF HEARINGS
P.2/2
Primary Seat Belt Laws
The NEXTEA proposal rolled out on March 12 included a new
incentive program to encourage states to adopt and enforce
aggressive laws and programs aimed at increasing seat belt use.
One of the several alternative ways for a state to qualify for
funding under the proposed programs to adopt primary seat belt
legislation a law permitting enforcement authorities to
issue summonses for seat belt violations alone, not just in the
context of a stop for another traffic violation. These primary
belt laws-which have been enacted by 11 states and the District
of Columbia have been demonstrated to increase seat belt use
significantly.
The Department is now considering proposing a "soft sanction"
that would go one step further by requiring states to adopt
primary seat belt laws by the end of the fifth year of the
reauthorization (i.e., by September 30, 2002) or have one percent
of their highway construction funds mandatorily shifted to seat
belt education and enforcement programs. These shifted funds
would be in addition to funds made available for safety
enforcement and education through NHTSA grant programs and the
flexible infrastructure safety category proposed in NEXTEA.
.08 Blood Alcohol Content
Also under consideration is a proposal to apply a similar "soft
sanction" to states that do not by the end of FY 2002 adopt a law
setting .08 BAC as the standard for impairment. Currently, only
13 states have .08 BAC laws. In addition, .08 BAC was one of the
eligibility options under the restructured alcohol incentive
program included in NEXTEA; however, because there were many
other ways to qualify, a sanction on .08 BAC could be viewed as
inconsistent with our NEXTEA proposal.
Motorcycle Helmet Laws
Also under consideration is a proposal to apply a similar soft
sanction to states that do not adopt laws making it unlawful for
any person operating a motorcycle to not wear a motorcycle
helmet. The sanction would be similar to that described above
except that 1 percent of the funds would be shifted to motorcycle
safety education. Federal sanctions for failure to adopt a
motorcycle helmet law were repealed in the 1995 National Highway
System bill. Since then, none of the 25 states that previously
had a helmet law has repealed it.
James Licher
- 66% belt usage
70% in seriourness
-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
get in to a bath
When you may drag
E1th down -
-
1
Srat belts
1
T cap) on how Many Othicles Clen get wemptions
from compliance innov
1
Salvays ditle afrom
-
mohibiary retails poon reselling defective
1
harmonization
speengthen
1
hajmat Enforcement
1
1
Seat belts as hey
alcohol Seaf belt Maprams
- $
(
David E. Tornquist
03/21/97 09:36:39 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Dorothy Robyn/OPD/EOP
CC:
See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
Subject: Clearance of ISTEA Safety Title
I asked LRD your question about how long it would take to clear the safety title of the ISTEA bill.
DOT should expect that it will take 2 weeks to clear the bill, unless significant problems arise.
Therefore, to get it to the Hill by April 9 for the Senate hearing, LRD will need it early next week.
One problem is that we can expect alot of key people to be out of the office during the upcoming
Congressional recess. Jim Jukes will convey this message to DOT's legislative office. If you can
convey that to DOT policy officials as well it would help.
Message Copied To:
Michael Deich/OMB/EOP
Ananias Blocker III/WHO/EOP
James J. Jukes/OMB/EOP
Mark J. Schwartz/OMB/EOP
Kenneth L. Schwartz/OMB/EOP
David J. Worzala/OMB/EOP
-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
-
(1) 80% penf. std.
(2)
(3) allowing states to cover Children
up to age 16
(
That's
They hate souctions
If we
-
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Philmet D/ AH:
-wice not ready to reach a/ment
-I'w going to P toworrow Bure t
NGAT ÷ NCL
PR:
- Why not try a new
me OK
- PR Lethed w/ LCi she thought DOT
IGD people shld handle it.
\
]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Non. Caup . of State Lesis-
Intures
get DOT antergoot.
people to call NON
Phil Phil - call - Call
-
NEXTEA
safety
NGA
-
std. line
-
we'll make a 1.H2 deal of it
Chairmar: GOD. Miller - we aced to do 5/thing quickly
WE'VE alverg always apposed sauctions
were work as gov's do achieve the
Fact we want to retain the autouring -
How hard all push Rio depends an
Don't know if we'll make calls
Couversations w/ gows skoff
DOT SAFETY TITLE: OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Primary Seat Belt Laws
The NEXTEA proposal rolled out on March 12 included a new six-year, $125 million
incentive program to encourage states to adopt and enforce aggressive laws and programs
aimed at increasing seat belt and child restraint use. Primary seat belt laws -- i.e., a law
permitting enforcement authorities to stop motorists and issues summonses solely for seat belt
violations, and not just in the context of a stop for another traffic violation -- figure in one of
the two options to qualify for the "basic grant" under this program. As proposed in
NEXTEA, a state may qualify for funds by either satisfying four out of five specified pro-
seat belt requirements, including having a primary belt law, or it may demonstrate that its belt
use is at least 80 percent, and increasing.
Experience with such primary belt laws -- which have been enacted by 11 states and the
District of Columbia, together covering about one-third of U.S. population -- indicates that
they work to increase belt use significantly. In primary law states, the level of belt use is 15
percent higher, on average, than in secondary law states. Moreover, much of the differential
is due to increases achieved in the first year after enactment. NHTSA estimates that
enactment of a primary seat belt law by all remaining states would save at least 1,800 lives
nationwide in the first year.
As part of the follow-on "safety title" to NEXTEA -- which will include regulatory, rather
than funding elements -- the Department is now inclined to propose a "soft sanction" that
would go beyond the incentive program. The proposal under consideration calls for requiring
states to adopt primary seat belt laws by the end of the fifth year of reauthorization (i.e., by
September 30, 2002) or have one-and-one-half percent of their highway construction funds
(three percent in subsequent years) mandatorily shifted to seat belt education and enforcement
programs. These shifted funds would be in addition to funds made available for safety
enforcement and education through NHTSA grant programs and the flexible infrastructure
safety category proposed in NEXTEA.
.08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws
Also under consideration is a proposal to apply a similar "soft sanction" to states that do not
by the end of FY 2002 adopt a law setting .08 Blood Alcohol Content as the standard for
impairment. Notwithstanding great progress in reducing drunk driving, over 40 percent of
fatal crashes are alcohol-related. Safety activists argue -- and NHTSA agrees -- that at .08
BAC virtually all drivers are substantially impaired in critical tasks such as braking, steering
and judgment. One study found that the risk of a crash is 11 times higher at .08 BAC than
when sober. Notwithstanding some public misunderstanding, .08 BAC does not impact the
responsible social drinker. To reach .08, a 170 lb. male needs to drink 4 drinks in 1 hour on
an empty stomach. A 120 lb. female needs 3 drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach.
Fourteen states currently have a .08 BAC limit. (Idaho, the most recent, passed .08 just last
week.) Recent studies have shown that fatalities have declined anywhere from 7 to 16
percent when states lowered their BAC limits from .10 to .08. However, the studies are too
few in number and not consistent enough to give a precise estimate of the reductions that
have occured, or would occur if additional states adopted .08 laws.
DOT is already on record supporting .08 BAC laws. In fact, adoption of both a .08 BAC law
and an administrative license revocation law is one of the three options to qualify for funds
under the proposed program alcohol incentive program included in NEXTEA. NEXTEA
proposes to authorize that program at about $40 million a year.
While the NEXTEA incentive programs will provide some encouragement to states to enact
primary seat belt and .08 BAC laws, they will not have the effect, albeit coercive, of a
sanction program. Sanction programs -- including programs by which states forfeit a portion
of their construction funds -- have in the past been used successfully to get states to enact 55
mph speed limits, age 21 drinking laws, secondary seat belt laws, and zero tolerance laws.
Strategic Considerations
Sanction strategies are generally disfavored by state governments, highway construction
interests, and states rights activists as an imposition on states rights and a diversion of needed
construction funds. Activists, in turn, often favor such programs because of their strong
motivational effect on states. The 1995 NHS bill repealed a range of sanctions -- including
national speed limits and motorcycle helmets provisions -- long unpopular with states and
various interest groups.
Of the two proposals, the seat belt sanction is likely to be the less controversial and more
likely to succeed. The issue of seat belt use has received enormous recent coverage given its
close nexus with the airbag debate. Somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the motoring
public is already using seat belts. Virtually all those involved in the coalition of groups
working on getting airbag safety messages out to the public -- including the auto
manufacturers, insurance companies, seat belt and air bag suppliers, safety and health care
organizations -- have made increased seat belt use, and primary laws in particular, a top
agenda item. The President has asked DOT to submit a report recommending strategies to
increase seat belt use. And NTSB has recently made seat belt usage a major priority.
A seat belt sanction proposal will galvanize the support of these various groups during a time
when the public is paying particular attention to the issue of seat belt use. Also, Congress is
increasingly aware of the issue, particularly as hearings on the air bag issue take place.
The proposal will draw opposition from the governors' highway safety offices (NAGHSR),
the National Motorists Association (the strongest supporters of repealing the speed limit law),
individual liberties groups, and the same conservative and western members of Congress who
allied to repeal sanctions in the NHS Act. NHTSA does not expect opposition from civil
rights or minority organizations. Overall, given the national focus on the issue and the broad
support it will receive from the manufacturing, insurance, safety and health care industries,
the measure has a significant chance of passing. DOT leadership is currently inclined to
include a "soft sanction" that would only "bite" in the final year of NEXTEA.
The battle over .08 will be more difficult. A .08 sanctions proposal will be broadly supported
by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), other safety organizations, health care and
insurance industries, and probably by the auto industry also. Congresswoman Lowey and
Senator Lautenberg have already introduced legislation requiring states to adopt .08 laws.
However, a sanction approach to .08 BAC will be vigorously opposed by the beverage,
restaurant and hotel industries. These interests are likely to mount an aggressive, well funded
campaign seeking to portray the proposal as scientifically unsupported and a threat to casual
drinkers. While these arguments can all be rebutted, public opinion is difficult to predict.
Given that the BAC standard has received much less recent publicity than the belt issue and
that the effectiveness studies on .08 are less than definitive, a .08 sanction will likely be
tougher to win than a seat belt sanction.
An additional consideration is possible impacts on the Administration's other ISTEA
reauthorization priorities. Led by Senator Chafee, the coalition of pro-ISTEA transportation
progressives that supports the Administration's bill would likely welcome a proposal that
included sanction provisions. At the same time, there is some possibility that sanctions
proposals would undermine the relatively positive reception given the Administration's
NEXTEA proposal by certain Republican transportation leaders (e.g., Chairman Shuster) and
state transportation officials. Possible "spill-over" is not of itself an argument against
sanction proposals, but it may weigh against proposing multiple sanction initiatives, on top of
the truck size restrictions DOT intends to propose.
DOT SAFETY TITLE: OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Primary Seat Belt Laws
The NEXTEA proposal rolled out on March 12 included a new six-year, $125 million
incentive program to encourage states to adopt and enforce aggressive laws and programs
aimed at increasing seat belt and child restraint use. Primary seat belt laws -- i.e., a law
permitting enforcement authorities to stop motorists and issues summonses solely for seat belt
violations, and not just in the context of a stop for another traffic violation -- figure in one of
the two options to qualify for the "basic grant" under this program. As proposed in
NEXTEA, a state may qualify for funds by either satisfying four out of five specified pro-
seat belt requirements, including having a primary belt law, or it may demonstrate that its belt
use is at least 80 percent, and increasing.
Experience with such primary belt laws -- which have been enacted by 11 states and the
District of Columbia, together covering about one-third of U.S. population -- indicates that
they work to increase belt use significantly. In primary law states, the level of belt use is 15
percent higher, on average, than in secondary law states. Moreover, much of the differential
is due to increases achieved in the first year after enactment. NHTSA estimates that
enactment of a primary seat belt law by all remaining states would save at least 1,800 lives
nationwide in the first year.
As part of the follow-on "safety title" to NEXTEA -- which will include regulatory, rather
than funding elements -- the Department is now inclined to propose a "soft sanction" that
would go beyond the incentive program. The proposal under consideration calls for requiring
states to adopt primary seat belt laws by the end of the fifth year of reauthorization (i.e., by
September 30, 2002) or have one-and-one-half percent of their highway construction funds
(three percent in subsequent years) mandatorily shifted to seat belt education and enforcement
programs. These shifted funds would be in addition to funds made available for safety
enforcement and education through NHTSA grant programs and the flexible infrastructure
safety category proposed in NEXTEA.
.08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws
Also under consideration is a proposal to apply a similar "soft sanction" to states that do not
by the end of FY 2002 adopt a law setting .08 Blood Alcohol Content as the standard for
impairment. Notwithstanding great progress in reducing drunk driving, over 40 percent of
fatal crashes are alcohol-related. Safety activists argue -- and NHTSA agrees -- that at .08
BAC virtually all drivers are substantially impaired in critical tasks such as braking, steering
and judgment. One study found that the risk of a crash is 11 times higher at .08 BAC than
when sober. Notwithstanding some public misunderstanding, .08 BAC does not impact the
responsible social drinker. To reach .08, a 170 lb. male needs to drink 4 drinks in 1 hour on
an empty stomach. A 120 lb. female needs 3 drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach.
Fourteen states currently have a .08 BAC limit. (Idaho, the most recent, passed .08 just last
week.) Recent studies have shown that fatalities have declined anywhere from 7 to 16
percent when states lowered their BAC limits from .10 to .08. However, the studies are too
few in number and not consistent enough to give a precise estimate of the reductions that
have occured, or would occur if additional states adopted .08 laws.
DOT is already on record supporting .08 BAC laws. In fact, adoption of both a .08 BAC law
and an administrative license revocation law is one of the three options to qualify for funds
under the proposed program alcohol incentive program included in NEXTEA. NEXTEA
proposes to authorize that program at about $40 million a year.
While the NEXTEA incentive programs will provide some encouragement to states to enact
primary seat belt and .08 BAC laws, they will not have the effect, albeit coercive, of a
sanction program. Sanction programs -- including programs by which states forfeit a portion
of their construction funds -- have in the past been used successfully to get states to enact 55
mph speed limits, age 21 drinking laws, secondary seat belt laws, and zero tolerance laws.
Strategic Considerations
Sanction strategies are generally disfavored by state governments, highway construction
interests, and states rights activists as an imposition on states rights and a diversion of needed
construction funds. Activists, in turn, often favor such programs because of their strong
motivational effect on states. The 1995 NHS bill repealed a range of sanctions -- including
national speed limits and motorcycle helmets provisions -- long unpopular with states and
various interest groups.
Of the two proposals, the seat belt sanction is likely to be the less controversial and more
likely to succeed. The issue of seat belt use has received enormous recent coverage given its
close nexus with the airbag debate. Somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the motoring
public is already using seat belts. Virtually all those involved in the coalition of groups
working on getting airbag safety messages out to the public -- including the auto
manufacturers, insurance companies, seat belt and air bag suppliers, safety and health care
organizations -- have made increased seat belt use, and primary laws in particular, a top
agenda item. The President has asked DOT to submit a report recommending strategies to
increase seat belt use. And NTSB has recently made seat belt usage a major priority.
A seat belt sanction proposal will galvanize the support of these various groups during a time
when the public is paying particular attention to the issue of seat belt use. Also, Congress is
increasingly aware of the issue, particularly as hearings on the air bag issue take place.
The proposal will draw opposition from the governors' highway safety offices (NAGHSR),
the National Motorists Association (the strongest supporters of repealing the speed limit law),
individual liberties groups, and the same conservative and western members of Congress who
allied to repeal sanctions in the NHS Act. NHTSA does not expect opposition from civil
rights or minority organizations. Overall, given the national focus on the issue and the broad
support it will receive from the manufacturing, insurance, safety and health care industries,
the measure has a significant chance of passing. DOT leadership is currently inclined to
include a "soft sanction" that would only "bite" in the final year of NEXTEA.
The battle over .08 will be more difficult. A .08 sanctions proposal will be broadly supported
by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), other safety organizations, health care and
insurance industries, and probably by the auto industry also. Congresswoman Lowey and
Senator Lautenberg have already introduced legislation requiring states to adopt .08 laws.
However, a sanction approach to .08 BAC will be vigorously opposed by the beverage,
restaurant and hotel industries. These interests are likely to mount an aggressive, well funded
campaign seeking to portray the proposal as scientifically unsupported and a threat to casual
drinkers. While these arguments can all be rebutted, public opinion is difficult to predict.
Given that the BAC standard has received much less recent publicity than the belt issue and
that the effectiveness studies on .08 are less than definitive, a .08 sanction will likely be
tougher to win than a seat belt sanction.
An additional consideration is possible impacts on the Administration's other ISTEA
reauthorization priorities. Led by Senator Chafee, the coalition of pro-ISTEA transportation
progressives that supports the Administration's bill would likely welcome a proposal that
included sanction provisions. At the same time, there is some possibility that sanctions
proposals would undermine the relatively positive reception given the Administration's
NEXTEA proposal by certain Republican transportation leaders (e.g., Chairman Shuster) and
state transportation officials. Possible "spill-over" is not of itself an argument against
sanction proposals, but it may weigh against proposing multiple sanction initiatives, on top of
the truck size restrictions DOT intends to propose.
DOT SAFETY TITLE: OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Primary Seat Belt Laws
The NEXTEA proposal rolled out on March 12 included a new six-year, $125 million
incentive program to encourage states to adopt and enforce aggressive laws and programs
aimed at increasing seat belt and child restraint use. Primary seat belt laws -- i.e., a law
permitting enforcement authorities to stop motorists and issues summonses solely for seat belt
violations, and not just in the context of a stop for another traffic violation -- figure in one of
the two options to qualify for the "basic grant" under this program. As proposed in
NEXTEA, a state may qualify for funds by either satisfying four out of five specified pro-
seat belt requirements, including having a primary belt law, or it may demonstrate that its belt
use is at least 80 percent, and increasing.
Experience with such primary belt laws -- which have been enacted by 11 states and the
District of Columbia, together covering about one-third of U.S. population -- indicates that
they work to increase belt use significantly. In primary law states, the level of belt use is 15
percent higher, on average, than in secondary law states. Moreover, much of the differential
is due to increases achieved in the first year after enactment. NHTSA estimates that
enactment of a primary seat belt law by all remaining states would save at least 1,800 lives
nationwide in the first year.
As part of the follow-on "safety title" to NEXTEA -- which will include regulatory, rather
than funding elements -- the Department is now inclined to propose a "soft sanction" that
would go beyond the incentive program. The proposal under consideration calls for requiring
states to adopt primary seat belt laws by the end of the fifth year of reauthorization (i.e., by
September 30, 2002) or have one-and-one-half percent of their highway construction funds
(three percent in subsequent years) mandatorily shifted to seat belt education and enforcement
programs. These shifted funds would be in addition to funds made available for safety
enforcement and education through NHTSA grant programs and the flexible infrastructure
safety category proposed in NEXTEA.
.08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws
Also under consideration is a proposal to apply a similar "soft sanction" to states that do not
by the end of FY 2002 adopt a law setting .08 Blood Alcohol Content as the standard for
impairment. Notwithstanding great progress in reducing drunk driving, over 40 percent of
fatal crashes are alcohol-related. Safety activists argue -- and NHTSA agrees -- that at .08
BAC virtually all drivers are substantially impaired in critical tasks such as braking, steering
and judgment. One study found that the risk of a crash is 11 times higher at .08 BAC than
when sober. Notwithstanding some public misunderstanding, .08 BAC does not impact the
responsible social drinker. To reach .08, a 170 lb. male needs to drink 4 drinks in 1 hour on
an empty stomach. A 120 lb. female needs 3 drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach.
Fourteen states currently have a .08 BAC limit. (Idaho, the most recent, passed .08 just last
week.) Recent studies have shown that fatalities have declined anywhere from 7 to 16
percent when states lowered their BAC limits from .10 to .08. However, the studies are too
few in number and not consistent enough to give a precise estimate of the reductions that
have occured, or would occur if additional states adopted .08 laws.
DOT is already on record supporting .08 BAC laws. In fact, adoption of both a .08 BAC law
and an administrative license revocation law is one of the three options to qualify for funds
under the proposed program alcohol incentive program included in NEXTEA. NEXTEA
proposes to authorize that program at about $40 million a year.
While the NEXTEA incentive programs will provide some encouragement to states to enact
primary seat belt and .08 BAC laws, they will not have the effect, albeit coercive, of a
sanction program. Sanction programs -- including programs by which states forfeit a portion
of their construction funds -- have in the past been used successfully to get states to enact 55
mph speed limits, age 21 drinking laws, secondary seat belt laws, and zero tolerance laws.
Strategic Considerations
Sanction strategies are generally disfavored by state governments, highway construction
interests, and states rights activists as an imposition on states rights and a diversion of needed
construction funds. Activists, in turn, often favor such programs because of their strong
motivational effect on states. The 1995 NHS bill repealed a range of sanctions -- including
national speed limits and motorcycle helmets provisions -- long unpopular with states and
various interest groups.
Of the two proposals, the seat belt sanction is likely to be the less controversial and more
likely to succeed. The issue of seat belt use has received enormous recent coverage given its
close nexus with the airbag debate. Somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the motoring
public is already using seat belts. Virtually all those involved in the coalition of groups
working on getting airbag safety messages out to the public -- including the auto
manufacturers, insurance companies, seat belt and air bag suppliers, safety and health care
organizations -- have made increased seat belt use, and primary laws in particular, a top
agenda item. The President has asked DOT to submit a report recommending strategies to
increase seat belt use. And NTSB has recently made seat belt usage a major priority.
A seat belt sanction proposal will galvanize the support of these various groups during a time
when the public is paying particular attention to the issue of seat belt use. Also, Congress is
increasingly aware of the issue, particularly as hearings on the air bag issue take place.
The proposal will draw opposition from the governors' highway safety offices (NAGHSR),
the National Motorists Association (the strongest supporters of repealing the speed limit law),
individual liberties groups, and the same conservative and western members of Congress who
allied to repeal sanctions in the NHS Act. NHTSA does not expect opposition from civil
rights or minority organizations. Overall, given the national focus on the issue and the broad
support it will receive from the manufacturing, insurance, safety and health care industries,
the measure has a significant chance of passing. DOT leadership is currently inclined to
include a "soft sanction" that would only "bite" in the final year of NEXTEA.
The battle over .08 will be more difficult. A .08 sanctions proposal will be broadly supported
by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), other safety organizations, health care and
insurance industries, and probably by the auto industry also. Congresswoman Lowey and
Senator Lautenberg have already introduced legislation requiring states to adopt .08 laws.
However, a sanction approach to .08 BAC will be vigorously opposed by the beverage,
restaurant and hotel industries. These interests are likely to mount an aggressive, well funded
campaign seeking to portray the proposal as scientifically unsupported and a threat to casual
drinkers. While these arguments can all be rebutted, public opinion is difficult to predict.
Given that the BAC standard has received much less recent publicity than the belt issue and
that the effectiveness studies on .08 are less than definitive, a .08 sanction will likely be
tougher to win than a seat belt sanction.
An additional consideration is possible impacts on the Administration's other ISTEA
reauthorization priorities. Led by Senator Chafee, the coalition of pro-ISTEA transportation
progressives that supports the Administration's bill would likely welcome a proposal that
included sanction provisions. At the same time, there is some possibility that sanctions
proposals would undermine the relatively positive reception given the Administration's
NEXTEA proposal by certain Republican transportation leaders (e.g., Chairman Shuster) and
state transportation officials. Possible "spill-over" is not of itself an argument against
sanction proposals, but it may weigh against proposing multiple sanction initiatives, on top of
the truck size restrictions DOT intends to propose.
04/02/97
12:43
2024562896
002
04/02/97
11:13
202 366 2106
NUA U1
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNORS' HIGHWAY SAFETY REPRESENTATIVES
NAGHSR
April 1. 1997
Honorable Rodney Slater
Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th St. SW
Room 10200
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Secretary Stater:
AS partners in highway safety, NAGHSR is dismayed that we have not been consulted on the major safety
initiative about to be unveiled. It is our understanding that you intend to pursue penalities on states which
fail to enact standard safety belt legislation by 2003. Needless to say, NAGHSR is very disappointed by
your position. We had at least hoped to discuss our concerns with you prior to the rollout of the
Department's safety bill.
If the Department's safety bill is going to include penalties, NAGHSR suggests that you make the penalties
somewhat flexible. Allow states to come into compliance with the requirements by: 1) either enacting
standard (primary) safety belt legislation, 2) meeting a specified peformance standard, or 3)allowing states
to strengthen child restraint laws by covering children up to age 16 with a primary-law. States In
noncompliance by 2003 would face penalties, as we understand Is being proposed in the safety bill.
Under the second option, the performance standard could be one based on the Administration's own
current occupant protection goal: an 80% safety belt usage rate. If a state chose that option, it would have
to demonstrate that it was utilizing safety belt survey methodology consistent with NHTSA survey
protocols.
The U.S. DOT has consistently supported performance-based programs and strategies. NEXTEA
includes many performance-based programs, particularly in the motor carrier and highway safety parts of
the legislation. If DOT truly believes in such an approach, than the states urga the Administration to
include a performance-based alternative In the safety bill and strongly suggest that the standard be
realistic and achievable within current resource constraints.
Under the third option, states could Increase safety belt use by strengthening their child restraint laws.
Improvements in child restraint laws would help close the gaps between safety belt and child restraint laws
and ensure seamless coverage for every vehicle occupant. no matter what age. Perhaps more
importantly, these improvements would help protect one of the most vulnerable groups at risk of air bag
injury.
The bottom line is that the public should be encouraged to buckle up in order to protect themselves
against the potential dangers of air bags and to ensure that they have maximum occupant protection. If
the states can achieve increased safety belt usage without enacting laws which may be controversial in
their respective jurisdictions, then DOT ought to allow them to do 50.
(=) 750 FIRST STREET, NE & SUITE 720 5 WASHINGTON, DC 20002 1-1 PHONE 202.789.0942 FAX 202.789.0946
04/02/97
12:44
2024562896
003
04/02/97
11:14
202 386 2106
NOA-01
004/004
NAGHSR, whose members represent the primary implementers of federal behavioral safety programs, is
very concernea that DO r is making a décision which will significantly impact states without first discussing
the issue with them. The Department seems to be listening to only one set of special Interest voices on
safety issues. If the Department is going to operate in the Inclusive manner which has characterized past
policy development efforts, then we believe you should hear all perspectives on the issues. If you are
sincere about partnering, then you should act accordingly and open a dialogue with all safety groups.
Sincerely,
ARP
Highway Safety Representative
and NAGHSR Chair
04/02/97
19:52
202 366 2106
NOA-01
002/002
JOHN F. SMITH, JR.
General Motors
Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer and President
March 17, 1997
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Your recent radio addresses on traffic safety issues and related comments by
Secretary of Transportation Slater have sent an important message to the
American people - safety belt and proper child safety seat use need to be
increased to further reduce highway fatalities and injuries.
In recent years, substantial progress has been made in the national belt use
rate. However, we know from the experience in Canada, Australia, and
some European countries that much higher belt use levels are achievable.
The plan for increasing safety belt use, which you have requested from the
Department of Transportation, should establish a national commitment to
achieving world-class levels of safety belt use in the U.S. We applaud your
action in requesting the DOT plan and pledge our support in helping to
implement it.
I was very sorry to hear of your mishap this past week. We all trust that you
will have a rapid recovery.
Sincerely,
Jack
100 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 431301 Detroit, Michigan 48243-7301
James A. Brown
04/03/97 10:39:13 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Dorothy Robyn/OPD/EOP, Mark J. Schwartz/OMB/EOP
cc:
James C. Murr/OMB/EOP
Subject: Articles on MD Vehicle Searches
Seat Belts and Police Searches
Wednesday, March 12 1997; Page A18
The Washington Post
TODAY A worthwhile and up-to-now strongly supported bill to save lives in Maryland is
scheduled for a House of Delegates floor vote. But unless sensible heads prevail, the proposal
could be lost -- and for a wrong reason. The measure is patterned after legislation enacted in
other states that, like Maryland, have had seat-belt laws that can be enforced only in
connection with some other traffic violation. Under the new bill, an officer could cite
beltlessness without having to tie it to some other charge -- a significant change that has been a
definite lifesaver elsewhere. But now a police policy that went into effect only days ago in
Prince George's has given some legislators pause.
Last Thursday night, officers in the county launched an aggressive drive along what they list
as "gun corridors" to stop cars for all sorts of big and small traffic violations -- including a
broken taillight or an unsignaled turn -- and then search drivers, passengers and vehicles for
guns and drugs.
The opening-night results showed no guns found in 53 traffic stops and 31 searches, with eight
people arrested for misdemeanors, including five for possession of marijuana. While a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling last year found such "pretextual stops" constitutional, opponents argue
that if police look long enough they can find a reason to pull over any vehicle. Thus, allowing
primary enforcement of seat-belt requirements could give county police one more way to stop
and search a car.
We share concerns about the intrusiveness and need for this kind of aggressive search policy.
But defeating the new belt bill would not directly or effectively address the policy -- just as it
would make no sense to eliminate taillight laws or license-display requirements. In Maryland,
68 percent of the front-seat occupants who died in crashes in 1995 were unbelted. Belts save
lives, cut down on injuries and help control health costs. The statewide seat-belt bill should
stand on its own merits -- which are clearly considerable.
Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company
Philip P. Pan, Pr. George's Police Take Aim at Eight Gun Corridors'; Traffic Violations
Give Officers Cause for Searches, The Washington Post, March 8 1997; Page B01
In bright white letters on a field of blue, a large metal sign at the side of Indian Head Highway
greets motorists from the District: "Welcome to Maryland."
Within a few blocks, four cars have been pulled over by a half-dozen Prince George's County
police cruisers with red and blue lights flashing. Drivers and passengers stand shivering in the
cold night, some with their hands on their heads. After patting them up and down, the officers
turn to the motorists' cars, shining flashlights under the seats and peeking in the glove
compartments.
All of them have been stopped for everyday traffic violations -- a broken taillight, an expired
license tag, a turn without signaling. They merited special attention from the police only
because they happened to be driving on one of the county's eight "gun corridors" --
high-traffic routes from the District that are plagued by homicides, shootings and armed
robberies.
On Thursday night, Prince George's police launched an aggressive campaign to seize firearms
along those roads, beginning with the highway and covering all eight corridors by the end of
April. The plan is for extra officers, many of them working overtime, to pull over motorists
for minor infractions and ask permission to search their cars.
The strategy takes full advantage of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions granting police
sweeping powers to stop and search motorists -- rulings that have alarmed civil libertarians
concerned about the use of "racial profiling." The tactic also relies on a theory that is gaining
currency among police officials across the country: Aggressive patrols focused in small areas
on small crimes can bring down violent crime.
"Little things lead to big things," said Cpl. Kevin Davis, spotting a new Lexus making an
illegal turn. Moments later, he pulled it over.
"Do you have any drugs or guns in there?" Davis asked.
"No."
"Do you mind if I search it to make sure?" he asked.
"No. Go ahead."
Davis took the driver's car keys and placed them on the roof of the vehicle. He told the driver
to put his hands on his head, then he opened the door and told him to step out. He frisked the
driver as other officers searched the Lexus.
They found nothing, but after running the driver's name through a police computer, they
learned he was wanted on an October domestic battery warrant. Davis handcuffed him and
took him to jail.
None of the 16 officers working the gun corridor program on its first night discovered any
guns, despite 53 traffic stops and 31 searches. Only four of the 35 drivers who were asked to
let their cars be searched refused. Police made eight arrests, all of them on misdemeanor
charges. Five of those arrested were charged with marijuana possession.
Lt. Pete Quimby, one of the officers running the operation, said the goal was to reduce crime
by deterring criminals and taking their guns. Police say 55 percent of violent crime in Prince
George's is committed with guns, compared with 29 percent nationwide.
Police officials used computers to identify eight "hot spots" of gun violence along the D.C.
border -- Riggs Road, Queens Chapel Road, Sheriff Road, Central Avenue, Marlboro Pike,
Suitland Road, Branch Avenue and Indian Head Highway -- and they plan to saturate those
routes with officers on Thursday through Saturday nights.
For years, the courts have been divided over whether it was legal for police to stop motorists
for traffic violations when their true intent was to search for drugs or guns. But last year, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that such "pretextual stops" were constitutional.
"A lot of police officers don't think the law is on our side, but it is," Davis said. "We just
have to use it effectively."
Like the other officers, Davis has been trained to spot violations of minor traffic laws: broken
lights, cracked windshields, tinted windows, even worn tires.
If they look long enough, the officers say, they can find a reason to pull over almost any
vehicle. Indeed, some of the cars were stopped on Thursday night for infractions that some of
the police cruisers also were guilty of -- a broken headlight.
And that's the problem, according to civil libertarians. They argue that officers end up
stopping people on a hunch and without any reason to believe they may have guns.
"It raises the question: To what extent are we willing to give up our liberty in the name of
fighting crime?" said Mark Kappelhoff, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.
He questioned whether motorists allowing officers to search their cars really believe they have
any other choice -- especially if they're worried about a ticket. He also warned that police
officers would end up singling out young black men.
Police officials in Prince George's County -- a majority-black suburb -- say they are sensitive
to the danger of using racial profiles, and they have emphasized that officers must treat all
drivers with "courtesy and professionalism" to win the community's support. On the first
night, at least, that approach seemed to work.
"I think it's a good idea," said one 24-year-old resident stopped for a broken brake light. He
waited 20 minutes with his hands on his trunk while Davis searched his car and checked if he
had a valid license, but said, "It's an inconvenience, but it's for the better."
@CAPTION: Prince George's police Lt. Pete Quimby, left, and Cpl. Kevin Davis search two
men stopped for having a burned-out taillight on their car.
@CAPTION: Cpl. Kevin Davis, left, and another Prince George's officer check a car that was
stopped for a traffic offense. The driver had an outstanding warrant.
@CAPTION: Cpl. Kevin Davis examines fake temporary license plates that were on one of
the cars stopped on Indian Head Highway.
© Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company
April 1, 1997
SCHEDULE REQUEST
Accept
Regret
Pending
TO:
Anne Hawley
Stephanie Streett
FROM:
Gene Sperling
Bruce Reed
REQUEST:
Seat-Belt Promotion Event with Constituency Groups
BACKGROUND:
DOT is preparing to submit a report, requested by the President
in December, recommending ways to promote seat belt use.
The Administration also is about to transmit to Congress
legislation calling for a "soft sanction" -- a financial incentive
to encourage states to adopt "primary" seat belt laws (ones that
allow for ticketing solely for failure to use a seat belt). These
proposed actions are supported by a broad coalition, including
auto manufacturers, insurance companies, health and safety
organizations and law enforcement officials. The event will
reinforce the President's commitment to highway safety -- a
topic to which he has devoted four of his radio addresses in the
last two years.
DATE/TIME:
Monday, April 7 (or any day that week)
DURATION:
45 minutes
LOCATION:
Room 450
PARTICIPANTS:
The President and Vice President, Secretary Slater, automobile
and insurance industry representatives, governors, mayors,
Members of Congress, law enforcement officials, and consumer
advocates.
REMARKS:
Speech will be provided.
MEDIA:
Open
CONTACT:
Dorothy Robyn, NEC (456-2801)
Elizabeth Drye, DPC (456-5573)
Talking Points for Rob Liberatore
Unfortunately, the President has to delay by a week his meeting with the CEOs, due
to some unavoidable scheduling problems. We are hoping to reschedule it for April
11th.
I apologize for this delay; April 3 marks one year since the day Ron Brown was
killed, and a Memorial service has been scheduled, which made the rest of the
President's schedule that day unworkable.
While I have you on the phone, I'd like to get your reaction to a tentative plan we
have for an announcement the President would make in conjunction with his
meeting with the 3 CEOs:
As you know, the President has been looking for ways that he can promote greater
use of seat belts -- an idea the Big 3 has advocated for decades. Two months ago,
he asked DOT to prepare a report on ways to promote seat belt usage, and that
report is close to being ready. Moreover, in keeping with the recommendations in
the report, we are all but ready to announce a "soft sanction" on seat belt use:
Under this proposed policy, states would have to adopt a primary seat belt law (that
is, one that allows for ticketing solely for failure to use a seat belt) by late 2003 or
else 1.5% of a state's federal highway construction money would be moved into its
highway safety program.
We would like to highlight this new policy when we announce it, and doing it in
conjunction with the President's meeting with the auto company CEOs is one way to
do that. Of course, we would want to have others that have been part of the Air
Bag Safety Campaign coalition present as well.
I want to make sure, first, that Chrysler (and the other companies) are completely
comfortable with that policy proposal. Second, I want to know if the CEOs would
be comfortable participating, along with the President, in an announcement of the
new policy.
[Gene: Cheri Carter has heard that the Big 3 CEOs will be meeting with Rodney Slater on
April 8. She wants you to try to find out if that's the case when you talk to Rob. If the
CEOs are really upset about having the meeting pushed off until April 11, because they're
going to have to be here three days earlier, we want to know that sooner rather than later.]
Melissa
Talking Points for Rob Liberatore
Unfortunately, the President has to delay by a week his meeting with the CEOs, due
to some unavoidable scheduling problems. We are hoping to reschedule it for April
11th.
I apologize for this delay; April 3 marks one year since the day Ron Brown was
killed, and a Memorial service has been scheduled, which made the rest of the
President's schedule that day unworkable.
While I have you on the phone, I'd like to get your reaction to a tentative plan we
have for an announcement the President might possibly make in conjunction with his
meeting with the 3 CEOs:
As you know, the President has been looking for ways that he can promote greater
use of seat belts an idea the Big 3 has advocated for decades. Two months ago,
he asked DOT to prepare a report on ways to promote seat belt usage, and that
report is close to being ready. Moreover, in keeping with the recommendations in
the report, we are all but ready to announce a "soft sanction" on seat belt use:
Under this proposed policy, states would have to adopt a primary seat belt law (that
is, one that allows for ticketing solely for failure to use a seat belt) by late 2003 or
else 1.5% of a state's federal highway construction money would be moved into its
highway safety program.
We would like to highlight this new policy when we announce it, and doing it in
conjunction with the President's meeting with the auto company CEOs is one way to
do that. Of course, we would want to have others that have been part of the Air
Bag Safety Campaign coalition present as well.
I want to make sure, first, that Chrysler (and the other companies) are completely
comfortable with that policy proposal. Second, I want to know if the CEOs would
be comfortable participating, along with the President, in an announcement of the
new policy.
[Gene: Cheri Carter has heard that the Big 3 CEOs will be meeting with Rodney Slater on
April 8. She wants you to try to find out if that's the case when you talk to Rob. If the
CEOs are really upset about having the meeting pushed off until April 11, because they're
going to have to be here three days earlier, we want to know that sooner rather than later.]
Theyre in dhure
Take advan tays of ,t.
If it can b2 the news of The day -
air bass,
Big 3 - So mush Nocus du Johicts, as & Enough an
behaviour, which They 'UZ
So they ainh the fre. has finally gotten cligin
Boat if May think if going do be lof 22 stories,
,will be buried.
They really Runh air is a big deal - Ru is
Viral
But will only huppen if President Stands upt
they think
make to hear own.
will save 9000 Ave,
\
Due , sal that and Clay broofy
Uriting
Only 1 conhoversial theiry - soft sauctions
/ incrudives only get you to for
- Narl. Assa of God's Hishway Sapety Reps
(sapedy cliant to ASATO)
- head are were Cou sideing Rain
- Shut 580mg /R. to States - we arge
- Jackie G: great!
-Fasorance Institute - Brian O'NEll
5h/d be
inthusiantic
incentions only get you so for
- Andy Card - had it in his speech
Carco'd sh/d be
civil liferties
radio address
decided do do
POTUS was gaing to call on all states
report insteal
Urban Leazue -only - gep. WE'DL called
NXACP
Willie Brown - 5 hong aloreate - has feat 1025,
to others
4
Western god's - In 80.7 werdous
from policy so/point -
carless
- don't take this an
were withing to fight for y!!
tankids
tero fokrauce- 24-510-28 have
- POTUS called for it, beet w/
- Byed incroduced /2412- - it pared!
NAVE
12 states that have if repl ~ 35% of prp.
It's going to be a Light!
We can't just introduce it; walk away.
# of grates debat
just passed
Glendeaum in Crash 4 who uso; be was
saved
- Neel sound gov's at weat
This will unity all robe halders
But to get do an goal - will take lots of
work-
/ 'Gou's have
- Car Co's
Who will to Fay for his
wdent Educ,
- insurance
/ safety
Campaigus
- Employees - crasher are biggest sam she Cause of
injuries
-
Sports - athletes are great cale wodels
- We do lots f stuff of NFL j NBA
- Eater tainment industry
- cops 1 key to Explacement
- wedical commity
We started crisis Mer coalition a yr. aso HCP
air bas assuel 7 behavior } tech. issue
To promots
behavident
( wed 10 get kids to
D.
They've naised $ 14M
sit in back seat
57 of 12 fatchries have
allu the be
Air bag Sofety
went idea:
Have POTOS
will not good to get to 90% unless are all
I want to applaud street The
- a 500. -
)
N. Car. police ("Clickit on Ticket")
-NEL
-Etc.
Big 3: If the isjust aas then Event
May'll br
\
They're very excited Meat be has fevally
piched up Re
Chagress:
- McCain /-, Wolf both
- Shuster
\
Phil Reckt (366-2775)
3-28-97
Splint $12019 in 19808 a get
sead belot Kgid. Enocued
safeny advo
Big 3 Safe Jey
1
\
Big 3 - Phil Hageltine - needs. American formation Crolition for
Trappic Sofahy (ACTS)
Steve (GM) O "Tooke-Chair - of Aid Bay Sofiedy
Caurepaign
Big 3 hasport #12 123RF M
wto air
+
H 2-3M spend by each of Big 3
Du itr over
Brian ONEill - Insurance destitute you
Highway Safevey
'Crosh 1250 facility
(
only megative UOiCE w woods is gov's
-
tothed to Cutler - WE'll Come up a)
\
/8 it winnable?
Mark Schwartz
3.27.97
OIRA
naired
Look at states Read have adopted primary scat
belt lows
Not much
to Seat belt npt. on soft fauctions
Testimonials -w.C.
- Oue reasen don high seat belf arrenge in other
Countries- - state writ pick up your tab
if you weren't weasing
1
04/03/97
13:02
202 366 3820
CHIEF COUNSEL
002/003
[Revised and expanded 4/3/97]
SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
In its 30-year history, the program originally established by the Highway Safety Act of 1966 has
employed both sanctions and incentives in an effort to secure the adoption of highway safety
programs by the States. Each has had good results in some circumstances. Sanctions have been
used more often than incentives.
Examples:
The 1966 Highway Safety Act itself provided sanctions (10 percent of highway
construction funds) for a State that failed to adopt any of the standards issued under the
Act. Standards were issued on such subjects as school bus safety, police traffic services,
and alcohol countermeasures. Sanctions were threatened on several occasions but none
had to be imposed. The sanctions authority was ended by Congress in 1976.
The 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit, enacted in 1974, provided that no highway
projects would be approved in any State that had a speed limit in excess of 55 mph. The
States complied immediately and remained in compliance until the speed limit was
repealed in 1995.
Section 408 of title 23, United States Code, enacted in 1982, provided incentives for
States that adopted alcohol traffic safety programs. Over the life of the program, which
phased out by 1994, 30 States became eligible for grants.
The national minimum drinking age law, enacted in 1984, provides a penalty for the first
year of 5 percent of highway funds and a penalty of 10 percent for subsequent years. All
jurisdictions except Puerto Rico complied before the penalties became effective and
remain in compliance today.
Section 410 of title 23, United States Code, enacted in 1988 as a follow-on to Section
408, provides incentives for states that adopt administrative license revocation programs
for drunk drivers and other measures to reduce drunk driving. Thirty-seven States and the
District of Columbia have qualified for these grants.
Section 159 of title 23, United States Code, enacted in 1991, provides that States that do
not suspend or revoke the drivers licenses of convicted drug offenders are subject to a
penalty for the first year of S percent of highway funds and a penalty of 10 percent for
subsequent years. The section provides a "trap door," through which a State can escape
penalties if its legislature adopts a resolution objecting to the revocation of licenses. The
States must certify their status each year by September 1. In 1996, 20 States certified that
they had license revocation laws and the rest used the trap door.
Section 153 of title 23, United States Code, enacted in 1991, was a two-phase program,
04/03/97
13:02
202 366 3820
CHIEF COUNSEL
003/003
2
beginning with three years of incentives for States that passed safety belt use laws and
motorcycle helmet use laws, followed by redirection sanctions (1.5 percent in the first
year, 3 percent in subsequent years) for States that failed to adopt such laws. All but eight
States already had safety belt use laws, and the remaining States (except New Hampshire)
passed them. Fewer than half the States had motorcycle helmet use laws, and only four
additional States passed such laws, resulting in the transfer of $51 million in Fiscal Year
1995 from the highway programs to the highway safety programs in the 28 States that
lacked a helmet law. The motorcycle helmet provision in Section 153 was repealed in
1995. The safety belt sanctions remain in the law. New Hampshire was given an
alternative to passage of a safety belt use law and has not been sanctioned.
The zero-tolerance law adopted in 1995 as Section 161 of title 23, United States Code, in
response to President Clinton's initiative on under-age drinking, provides a penalty for the
first year of 5 percent of highway funds and a penalty of 10 percent for subsequent years
(the same as the penalty for the Age-21 Law). At the time of the President's
announcement in June 1995, 21 States and the District of Columbia had passed laws.
Since that time, 13 States have passed laws, and the remaining States are actively pursuing
legislation to enact or improve zero tolerance laws before the October 1, 1998 deadline.
April 3, 1997
DECISION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Gene Sperling and Bruce Reed
SUBJ:
"Soft Sanction" to Promote Seat Belt Use
As part of a follow-on to NEXTEA, DOT would like to propose a "soft sanction" to
promote seat belt use. Many governors will not like this, and the NGA may oppose it.
You need to decide whether to approve it.
Background
The NEXTEA bill that you announced on March 12 includes a new, six-year, $125 million
incentive program to encourage states to adopt and enforce aggressive laws and programs
aimed at increasing use of seat belts and child restraints. A state may qualify for funds
either by satisfying four out of five pro-seat belt requirements, including having a primary
belt law, or by demonstrating that its belt use is at least 80 percent and rising.
As part of the NEXTEA follow-on safety title (which addresses regulation rather than
funding), DOT would like to add a stick to the carrot. Under DOT's proposed soft
sanction, by October 2002, states must either adopt a primary belt law (one that allows for
ticketing solely for failure to use a seat belt) or else reach the goal of 85 percent belt usage
by other means. A state that does neither would have 1.5 percent of its federal highway
funds (3 percent in subsequent years) transferred into its highway safety program.
Primary belt laws -- which have been enacted by 11 states and the District of Columbia,
representing a third of all Americans -- appear to increase belt use significantly. Belt use is
15 percent higher, on average, in primary law states compared to secondary law states.
Moreover, much of the benefit occurs in the first year. NHTSA estimates that enactment of
a primary law by the remaining 39 states would save 1,800 lives in the first year alone.
Sanctions
Nearly every President in the last 30 years has sought or approved sanctions to promote
highway safety. A federal law enacted in 1974 (and repealed in 1995) provided that no
highway projects would be approved in any state that had a speed limit in excess of 55
mph. Under legislation signed by President Reagan in 1984, states had to raise the
minimum drinking age to 21 or else lose 5 percent of their federal highway allocation (10
percent after the first year). A 1991 federal law penalized states that did not pass seat belt
and helmet use laws (1.5 percent of their highway allocation in the first year, 3 percent
thereafter). (See Tab A for additional examples of sanctions and incentives.)
Strategic Considerations
The National Governors Association and the governors' highway safety offices (NAGHSR)
have weighed in against the proposal [George Voinovich and Bob Miller sent a letter to
Frank Raines]. We also would expect opposition from the National Motorists Association
(the strongest advocates for repealing the speed limit sanction), individual liberties groups,
and the same conservative and western Members of Congress who allied to repeal sanctions
in the 1995 National Highway System Act. NHTSA does not expect opposition from civil
rights or minority organizations (the National Urban League is on record in support of
primary seat belt laws).
We would expect to receive support from a broad coalition, including auto manufacturers,
insurance companies, safety advocates, health groups and law enforcement officials.
DOT believes the proposal has a very good chance of getting congressional approval,
particularly because the air bag issue has focused public attention on the importance of seat
belts.
_Approve
_Disapprove
03/27/97
14:42
202 366 2106
NOA-01
001/001
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNORS' HIGHWAY SAFETY REPRESENTATIVES
NAGHSR
March 25, 1997
Honorable Rodney Slater
Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th St. SW
Room 10200
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Secretary Slater:
I am writing to urge you to reconsider the use of penalties in the Department's forthcoming safety bill. It is
NAGHSR's understanding that DOT will propose, as part of the safety bill which is presently under review
at the Office of Management and Budget, that states be penalized if they fail to enact primary safety belt
laws by the year 2002. States will have 1.5% of certain highway construction funds redirected in the first
year and 3% redirected in the following and subsequent years.
While NAGHSR supports state enactment of primary safety belt laws, we strongly oppose the use of
penalties and sanctions to force states to enact such laws. The Association believes that sanctions are too
broad and not targeted, do not tie the problem to a safety-related policy solution, and can be
counterproductive. Further, if there is not strong public support for the sanction, they may not be effective
as was the case with the sanctions relating to the National Maximum Speed Limit. Sanctions sometimes
encourage states to enact weak laws just so they can avoid being penalized or to enact the necessary
legislation but do little to enforce the laws.
Sanctions also ignore the efforts of the states to do the right thing. Currently, 22 states are attempting to
enact primary laws, 13 states are attempting to close the gaps in child restraint laws, and 7 states are
attempting to require children to ride in the back seat. If any of the states fail at these efforts, they could
be penalized, regardless of how hard they tried to enact the necessary legislation. Sanctions create a
tremendous amount of state resentment toward the federal government, even if the sanctions are for good
public policy purposes. Repeated use of penalties and sanctions do much to reinforce negative state
attitudes toward safety issues -- exactly the opposite of what the federal government intends.
Further, redirection penalties are not much of an improvement over more traditional sanctions. States still
view redirection as a funding loss because the redirected funding cannot be used for highway construction
purposes. Additionally, redirection tends to pit one arm of state government against another. Construction
funds are sacrificed for safety purposes, and often state departments of transportation hold state highway
safety offices personally responsible for this action. Instead of encouraging state departments of
transportation and others with highway interests to support the enactment of safety legislation, redirection
often has exactly the opposite effect.
To date, only 11 states have primary belt laws. Under the DOT proposal, 39 states would have four years
to enact the requisite legislation. However, it generally takes state legislatures several years to enact
legislation, particularly controversial legislation like primary belt law legislation. Consequently, it is highly
unlikely that the majority of states will have enacted the required legislation by 2002. The majority of
states, therefore would be subject to penalties.
750 FIRST STREET, NE
10
SUITE 720
5
WASHINGTON, DC 20002
PHONE 202.783.0942
FAX 202.789.0946
03/27/97
14:38
202 366 2106
NOA
1.
003/008
We strongly believe that incentives are the best way to influence state behavior. Current experience
indicates that incentives have been successful. Since passage of ISTEA and partly as a result of the
Section 410 impaired driving Incentive grant program, 8 states enacted .08 BAC laws, 34 states enacted
zero tolerance laws, and ten states enacted administrative license revocation laws. If the Administration
wants to positively Influence state behavior, then it should increase the funding for the occupant protection
incentive grant program proposed under NEXTEA.
NAGHSR understands and appreciates your need to make a bold statement on behalf of safety with the
proposed legislation. We strongly urge you, however, to consider a different way of making such 8
statement -- a way which will bring states and other key constituencies together for safety instead of
pulling them apart.
I would be glad to discuss our position with you in person or over the phone. I may be reached at
614/466-3250. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Lawa Ladwig
Laura Ludwig, Deputy Director
Ohio Office of the Governor's Highway Safety Representative
and NAGHSR Chair
CC:
Ricardo Martinez, NHTSA Administrator
Jane Garvey, Acting FHWA Administrator
03/27/97
14:39
202 366 2106
NOA-01
005/008
01/30/97 THU 09:29 FAX 202 822 1399
AIR BAG SAFETY CAMPAIGN
005
STATE OF LOUISIANA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2532 JENELLA MISMUE
DANNY R. MITCHELL
suite 1
SHREVEPORT LOUISLANA 71100
DISTRICT 2
(318) 588-2004
TRANSPORTATION
HEALTH AND WELFARE
February 9, 1996
Michigan Legislature
State Capitol Building
Lansing, MI 48913
Dear Legislators:
As an African-American legislator from Louisiana, I
participated last spring in the debate over passage of a
primary safety belt law for our state. In fact, I was one
of the ten sponsors of this bill. I understand that the
state of Michigan is considering strengthening your safety
belt law from secondary to primary enforcement.
During the Louisiana debate on this bill, the question about
potential harassment was raised. I can fully appreciate the
concerns in your state over any unintended consequences
which might arise as a result of an upgrade in safety belt
enforcement.
We have surveyed the offices of several of my colleagues in
the Louisiana Legislature in addition to the major police
departments in the state to determine if there have been any
complaints of harassment associated with enforcement of this
law. I am pleased to relate to you that the record is clear
on this question, there have been no reports or complaints
of harassment.
In my opinion, one of the major reasons why Louisiana's
Legislature voted by overwhelming majorities to upgrade our
safety belt law is our concern about young people and
families in our state. During 60 daysi of our session last
spring, 13 young people died in Louisiana after they were
ejected from their vehicles. We know that as many as half
of these young people might have survived if only they had
buckled up.
When we realized that two young people a week died in
traffic crashes in our state, we woke up and understood that
this issue is truly a public health issue. It crosses
racial boundaries and is simply about protecting our
children and families from needless pain and suffering.
03/27/97
14:40
202 366 2106
NOA-01
006/008
01/30/97 THU 09:29 FAX 202 822 1399
AIR BAG SAFETY CAMPAIGN
006
Michigan Legislators
February 9, 1995
Page 2
The reality is that as parents, grandparents, friends and
neighbors we all survived our high risk years, however,
increasing numbers of young people are not so lucky. The
facts are clear on safety belt use -- they save lives,
families and futures. Plus, from a fiscal perspective,
increased belt use leads to fewer fatalities, injuries and
associated medical costs borne by public and private
dollars. In a recent survey, 84% of our population agreed
that safety belts could reduce the level of injuries
experienced in a crash.
I appreciate Michigan's desire to examine all issues
associated with a stronger safety belt law. In Louisiana
we have not experienced negative outcomes from our primary
belt law. Simply put, more people in our state buckle up
now and that is good for us all
Ry
03/27/97
14:40
202 366 2106
NOA-01
1.
007/008
01/30/97 THU 09:30 FAX 202 822 1399
AIR BAG SAFETY CAMPAIGN
1
007
STATEMENT COMPIDENCE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
MURPHY J. "MIKE" FOSTER, JR.
GOVERNOR
February 9, 1996
Michigan Legislature
State Capitol Building
Lansing, MI 48913
Dear Senator:
As the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety in the State of Louisiana, I want to report to the
people of Michigan on an important issue our two states have in common: the primary seat belt law,
which allows police officers to stop motorists and issue minor citations solely because the officer can see
that a driver or occupants are not wearing their seat belts. 1 understand that your Legislature is
considering such a law at this time.
A year ago, the Louisiana Legislature debated a similar law over a two-month period The good people
of our state joined in the debate and asked for real information on whether such a law would really save
lives and keep families together. Some also expressed concern about whether law enforcement officers
might use the law as an excuse to stop and harass members of Louisiana's large minority population.
This office looked carefully at the experience of other states that had already passed primary seat belt
laws. Every state we questioned reported that their law works well and that they have had no reports of
harassment associated with it.
Louisiana's Legislature passed our primary belt law in May 1995. Police began enforcement on schedule
last November 1, 1995. I am pleased to report to the people of Michigan that Louisiana's law has
entirely succeeded. There have been absolutely no reports of any police department using the law to stop
motorists unjustly, or to harass them.
Safety belt use in Louisiana has increased significantly since passage of the primary belt law. In our state,
the increased belt use sustained over one year will save 34 lives and prevent 1100 injuries. Many families
across the state are held together by this large reduction in trauma and deaths. As a bonus, at our higher
rate of safety belt use, over the next year our state will save more than $8 million in public and private
medical costs due to the reduction in avoidable injuries resulting from traffic crashes.
I am proud of Louisiana's primary seat belt law. Legislators here are glad they supported it. It is
working well As one state newspaper wrote in support of our primary safety belt bill "It iss 'f often that
our state government is able to make such a difference in the lives of its citizens."
The similar legislation being considered in Michigan is worthy of everyone's support.
Sincerely,
James E Champegre
James E. Champagne
Executive Director
Governor's Highway Safety Representative
JEC/vs
"BUCKLE UP LOUISIANA WE CARE
LOUISIANA HIGHWAY SAFETY COMMISSION. P.O. BOX 66335, BATON ROUGE. LA 70896
(504) 925-6991
DPSNG soas
03/27/97
14:41
202 366 2106
NOA-01
1.
008/008
AIR BAG SAFETY CAMPAIGN
4
009
01/30/97 THU 09:31 FAI 202 822 1399
Office of the Mayor
COTARD COUNTY OF
WILLIE LEWIS BROWN. JR.
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY BAN FRANCISTED THE go THE
February 20, 1996
Michigan State Legislature
State Capitol Building
Lansing, MI 48913
Dear Legislators:
In 1993, while 1 was Speaker of the California Assembly, I authored
legislation that allowed police officers to stop a motorist and issue a
citation if the police officer could see that the driver was not wearing a
safety belt.
The law, now in effect for two years, has been entirely successful. Seat
belt use has increased dramatically, and this has simply saved hundreds of
lives and even more injuries from occurring.
I have not heard of one single case of police officers using this life-
saving law as an excuse to stop motorists to harass them. In fact, as
more California motorists have buckled up, our police officers have had to
Issue fewer seat belt citations each year.
Our California law has been a good one. If Michigan's legislators pass a
similar law, I am sure it will have the same beneficial results in your fine
state.
Sincerely,
Willie L. Brown, Jr.
Mayor
401 VAN NESS AVENUE. ROOM JJG, SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 54102
(415) 554-6141
RECYCLED MPLA
03/27/97
14:39
202 366 2106
NOA-01
004/008
Chairman
JONATHAN S. LINEN
National Urban League, Inc.
Senior Vice Chairman
CHARLES M. COLLINS
The Equal Opportunity Building
500 East 62nd Street, New York, N.Y. 10021-8379
Vice Chairmen
REGINALD K. BRACK, JR.
February 13, 1997
Telephone (212) 310-9000
KENNETH D. LEWIS
Secretary
Ms. Janet Dewey
MARTHA M. MITCHELL
Executive Director
Treasurer
Air Bag Safety Campaign
RICHARD A. KRAFT
1019 19th Street, NW, Suite 401
Washington, DC 20036-5105
President and Chief Executive Officer
HUGH B. PRICE
Dear Ms. Dewey:
Board of Trustees
Michael B. Alexander
I am proud to offer this letter of endorsement from The National Urban League
Jerry L. Ashford
supporting the Air Bag Safety Campaign's important efforts to promote primary
Stephanie Bell-Rose
Clinton J. Brown
enforcement of the mandatory seat belt laws. Thank you and all those you
Cheryl L. Bruins
arranged to join you for coming to meet me and discuss this important
Thelma Scott Brunson
campaign.
Leonard S. Coleman, Jr.
John W. Dean, Esq.
Danielle V. Eaddy, Esq.
The data is clear and compelling -- seat belts save lives and are an important
Stedman Graham
means of preventing serious injuries. Yet somehow the 2 out of 3 people in cars
Rodney G. Gregory, Esq.
Joseph S. Helewicz
who do not buckle up ignore these facts and continue to put themselves and their
Bonnie Guiton Hill
loved ones at risk. Clearly more must be done and we believe the campaign
Eleanor V. Horne
Noel Irwin-Hentschel
currently underway is the right approach.
Robert Johnson
Charles E. Kiernan
We have discussed the concern some have voiced that primary enforcement may
William M. Lewis, Jr.
William G. Mays
provide an opening for police harassment. While police harassment is a possible
Rev. Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson
unintended consequence of the law, the data we have examined from several
Diane Stevens Robinson
states reveal no reported complaints. Police harassment should be a concern to
Michael E. Rossi
Benjamin S. Ruffin
all of us and should be stopped. There are undoubtedly far more powerful and
Ivan Seidenberg
effective methods to address police harassment than opposition to primary
William E. Simms
enforcement of seat belt laws.
Paul Tagliabue
Robert D. Taylor
Paul A. Toliver
The National Urban League stands ready to provide any assistance we can to
Israel Tribble, Jr., Ed.D.
William Julius Wilson, Ph.D.
support your efforts.
Rossalind Y. Woodhouse, Ph.D.
Carolyn L. Wright-Lewis
Sincerely,
Honorary Trusiees
M. ANTHONY BURNS
Coy G. EKLUND
Milton J. Little, Jr.
DAVID T. KEARNS
Senior Vice President
THEODORE W. KHEEL
ROBERT C. LARSON
National Policy, Research and Advocacy
03/27/97
14:37
202 366 2106
NOA-01
001/008
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA
400 7th Street, SW., Room 5220, Nassif Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20590
FAX #202-366-2106
DATE:
3/27/97
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING 7 PAGE (s) TO:
NAME:
Dorothy Robyn
ORGANIZATION:
TELEPHONE NO.
FAX NO.
456- 2223
FROM:
Philip Reckt
TELEPHONE NO. 366-2775
REMARKS:
MAR 24 '97 16PM AVIATION INTL AFFAIR
P.2
Analysis of .08 Studies
There have been four major studies of the effects following the implementation of .08 laws in
states. The following includes descriptions and comments about each.
"The Effects Following the Implementation of an 0.08 BAC Limit and an
Administrative Per Se Law in California," Research and Evaluation Associates,
sponsored by NHTSA, DOT HS 807 777, August 1991.
Description: California implemented .08 on 1/1/90 and Administrative License Revocation
(ALR) on 7/1/90. NHTSA studied driver awareness, the effects of the laws on police and
courts, and the effects on arrests and crashes. The two laws and their publicity appear to
have reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities by 12% in 1990. The police and courts
required only minimal changes to accommodate the .08 law.
Comment:
The study could not quantify the separate effect of each law.
"The General Deterrent Impact of California's 0.08% Blood Alcohol Concentration
Limit and Administrative Per Se License Suspension Laws," Patrice Rogers,
California Department of Motor Vehicles, Research and Development Section,
CAL-DMV-RSS-95-158, September 1995.
Description: Intervention time series analysis was used to evaluate the deterrent impact of these
laws in the general population of driving under the influence (DUI) offenders as measured
by the effects on alcohol-related traffic accidents. While there were reductions in some of
the alcohol measures, 08 could not be linked to any significant decreases in the
"had-been-drinking" (HBD) crashes or in fatal crashes. Where impact did occur in
association with the .08 law, it was consistently in the form of a permanent 7.2%
reduction in nighttime fatal and severe-injury crashes, reflecting a one-year estimated total
decrease of approximately 500 such crashes following the law.
Comment: Some in the alcohol industry point to this study as finding no effect of .08, but it
did, as stated above. The effect was not seen in the HBD crashes or in total fatal crashes,
but the 7.2% reduction was in nighttime fatal and severe crashes, where alcohol
involvement is historically high.
"The Impact of Lowering the Illegal BAC Limit to .08 in Five States in the U.S.,"
Delmas Johnson and James Fell, NHTSA, 39th Proceedings of the Association for
the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, October 1995.
Description: An analysis was conducted using fatal crash data (from FARS) to determine the
impact of lowering the per se limit to .08 in five states which had the law for at least 2
years. The results revealed statistically significant reductions of driver involvement in
alcohol-related fatal crashes after .08 legislation took effect in 4 out of the 5 states,
MAR 24 '97 04:16PM AVIATION INTL AFFAIR
P.3
ranging from 4% in California to 40% in Vermont. This assessment appears to indicate
that the implementation of .08 laws and other related activities (i.e. public information
about the laws) are associated with reductions in fatal crash driver alcohol involvement
Comment:
The study did not control for other factors which could have influenced the
reductions such as increased enforcement, other DWI legislation, and public information
and education. Significant reduction were found in only 9 of 30 measures used. NHTSA
is conducting further analyses of these 5 states in attempts to control for some potentially
influencing factors. That analysis should be completed in the summer of 1997.
"Lowering State Legal Blood Alcohol Limits to 0.08%: The Effect on Fatal Motor
Vehicle Crashes," Ralph Hingson, Timothy Heeren, Michael Winter, Boston
University, American Journal of Public Health, Vol 86, No.9, September 1996.
Description: The first 5 states that lowered legal blood alcohol limits to .08 were paired with 5
nearby states that retained 10. Within each pair, comparisons were made for the
maximum equal available number of prelaw and postlaw years. States adopting .08
experienced 16% and 18% relative postlaw declines in the proportion of fatal crashes
involving fatally injured drivers with BACs .08 or higher and 15 or higher, respectively.
If all states adopt .08, at least 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually.
Comment:
The five comparison or control states were selected based upon three criteria:
geography, population, and BAC testing rate on fatal drivers. The control state had to be
nearby the .08 state to account for regional differences, had to be similarly populated
(small, medium, large), and had to have a fairly high BAC testing rate on fatally injured
drivers (the average testing rate was 81% during the study periods). These criteria are
common practice in public health studies of this kind.
The effects most likely would not have been the same if five different control states
were selected. However, according to the strict criteria noted above, the five
selected states were pretty much the only ones that could have been used.
Many researchers believe that the sample size in controls should be higher than the
sample size in the experimental group. When NHTSA performs these analyses, it
uses "the rest of the states" as a comparison to the .08 states (see Johnson and Fell,
1995). There are good reasons to do this and it is a weakness in the Hingson
study.
However, Hingson had used his "matched pair" methodology in other research
without criticism. In fact, the "match pair" philosophy is used by many top
researchers in traffic safety. His paper was peer reviewed by the American Public
Health Association editors before it was published, so it passed their muster.
Future Studies
NHTSA is sponsoring a study by the University of North Carolina on the effects of
.08 in North Carolina. That study is in progress and should be completed by the
summer of 1997. Preliminary indications are a small positive effect (unknown if
statistically significant).
3-24-1997 14PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.2
Analysis of .08 Studies
There have been four major studies of the effects following the implementation of .08 laws in
states. The following includes descriptions and comments about each.
"The Effects Following the Implementation of an 0.08 BAC Limit and an
Administrative Per Se Law in California," Research and Evaluation Associates,
sponsored by NHTSA, DOT HS 807 777, August 1991.
Description: California implemented .08 on 1/1/90 and Administrative License Revocation
(ALR) on 7/1/90. NHTSA studied driver awareness, the effects of the laws on police and
courts, and the effects on arrests and crashes. The two laws and their publicity appear to
have reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities by 12% in 1990. The police and courts
required only minimal changes to accommodate the .08 law.
Comment: The study could not quantify the separate effect of each law.
"The General Deterrent Impact of California's 0.08% Blood Alcohol Concentration
Limit and Administrative Per Se License Suspension Laws," Patrice Rogers,
California Department of Motor Vehicles, Research and Development Section,
CAL-DMV-RSS-95-158, September 1995.
Description: Intervention time series analysis was used to evaluate the deterrent impact of these
laws in the general population of driving under the influence (DUI) offenders as measured
by the effects on alcohol-related traffic accidents. While there were reductions in some of
the alcohol measures, .08 could not be linked to any significant decreases in the
"had-been-drinking" (HBD) crashes or in fatal crashes. Where impact did occur in
association with the .08 law, it was consistently in the form of a permanent 7.2%
reduction in nighttime fatal and severe-injury crashes, reflecting a one-year estimated total
decrease of approximately 500 such crashes following the law.
Comment: Some in the alcohol industry point to this study as finding no effect of .08, but it
did, as stated above. The effect was not seen in the HBD crashes or in total fatal crashes,
but the 7.2% reduction was in nighttime fatal and severe crashes, where alcohol
involvement is historically high.
"The Impact of Lowering the Illegal BAC Limit to .08 in Five States in the U.S.,"
Delmas Johnson and James Fell, NHTSA, 39th Proceedings of the Association for
the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, October 1995.
Description: An analysis was conducted using fatal crash data (from FARS) to determine the
impact of lowering the per se limit to .08 in five states which had the law for at least 2
years. The results revealed statistically significant reductions of driver involvement in
alcohol-related fatal crashes after .08 legislation took effect in 4 out of the 5 states,
3-24-1997 4: 15PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.3
ranging from 4% in California to 40% in Vermont. This assessment appears to indicate
that the implementation of .08 laws and other related activities (i.e. public information
about the laws) are associated with reductions in fatal crash driver alcohol involvement.
Comment:
The study did not control for other factors which could have influenced the
reductions such as increased enforcement, other DWI legislation, and public information
and education. Significant reduction were found in only 9 of 30 measures used. NHTSA
is conducting further analyses of these 5 states in attempts to control for some potentially
influencing factors. That analysis should be completed in the summer of 1997.
"Lowering State Legal Blood Alcohol Limits to 0.08%: The Effect on Fatal Motor
Vehicle Crashes," Ralph Hingson, Timothy Heeren, Michael Winter, Boston
University, American Journal of Public Health, Vol 86, No.9, September 1996.
Description: The first 5 states that lowered legal blood alcohol limits to .08 were paired with 5
nearby states that retained .10. Within each pair, comparisons were made for the
maximum equal available number of prelaw and postlaw years. States adopting .08
experienced 16% and 18% relative postlaw declines in the proportion of fatal crashes
involving fatally injured drivers with BACs .08 or higher and .15 or higher, respectively.
If all states adopt .08, at least 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually.
Comment:
The five comparison or control states were selected based upon three criteria:
geography, population, and BAC testing rate on fatal drivers. The control state had to be
nearby the .08 state to account for regional differences, had to be similarly populated
(small, medium, large), and had to have a fairly high BAC testing rate on fatally injured
drivers (the average testing rate was 81% during the study periods). These criteria are
common practice in public health studies of this kind.
The effects most likely would not have been the same if five different control states
were selected. However, according to the strict criteria noted above, the five
selected states were pretty much the only ones that could have been used.
Many researchers believe that the sample size in controls should be higher than the
sample size in the experimental group. When NHTSA performs these analyses, it
uses "the rest of the states" as a comparison to the .08 states (see Johnson and Fell,
1995). There are good reasons to do this and it is a weakness in the Hingson
study.
However, Hingson had used his "matched pair" methodology in other research
without criticism. In fact, the "match pair" philosophy is used by many top
researchers in traffic safety. His paper was peer reviewed by the American Public
Health Association editors before it was published, so it passed their muster.
Future Studies
NHTSA is sponsoring a study by the University of North Carolina on the effects of
.08 in North Carolina. That study is in progress and should be completed by the
summer of 1997. Preliminary indications are a small positive effect (unknown if
statistically significant).
3-21-1997 12:58PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.2
LOWERING THE ILLEGAL PER SE
BAC LIMIT TO .08
POINT/COUNTERPOINT
Point 1
A.08 law will cause moderate drinkers to drink less alcohol, or
not even drink at all, for fear of breaking the law or being
arrested for driving while impaired.
Counterpoint
There is no evidence in the 5 states which have had a .08 law
for more than a year that per capita alcohol consumption was
affected by the law. In California, for instance, per capita
alcohol consumption in 1989 (before the law) was 2.15 gallons
of alcohol. In 1990, after the law went into effect, per capita
consumption was 2.13, with only wine consumption decreasing
(insignificantly), according to figures from the alcohol industry.
While per capita alcohol consumption decreased somewhat in
Utah, Oregon, Maine and Vermont after their .08 laws were
passed, the decrease was no different than the decreasing
trend that was already occurring in those states.
Point 2
A .08 law will cause a shift in drinking behavior from licensed
establishments (restaurants, bars, taverns) to the home where
no driving is involved.
Counterpoint
On the contrary, there is evidence from Maine that restaurant
sales increased 11% in 1988, the year .08 went into effect.
However, if a shift is happening, there are plenty of incentives
that the hospitality industry can use to bring customers back to
their premises and reduce the risk of driving while impaired:
promote the designated driver program by
providing free or reduced price non-alcoholic
beverages to those individuals;
promote non-alcoholic beers and wines;
provide free rides home for drivers who appear to
be impaired; and
engage in responsible alcohol service by training
servers, making food available to patrons, not
serving intoxicated customers, etc.
3-21-1997 59PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.3
Finally, the intention of.08 legislation is to send a message to
drivers that the laws against DWI are getting stricter and that if
they do get caught driving impaired they will be prosecuted. It
is intended to reduce drinking and driving behavior, not drinking
behavior.
Point 3
A .08 law will diminish efforts to deal with the real problem
----
the hard core drinking drivers with very high BACs.
Counterpoint
Efforts continue to attack the impaired driving problem from all
angles. For approximately 70-80% of fatally injured drinking
drivers each year, their fatality is their first alcohol-related
contact with the system, no matter what their BAC. .08
legislation is just one of many laws and programs that NHTSA
is encouraging states to adopt. Other legislation that NHTSA
promotes include zero tolerance (.02 BAC) laws for drivers
under age 21, administrative license revocation laws to ensure
swift punishment for DWI, graduated licensing programs for
new drivers, self-sufficient DWI programs, and various vehicle-
actions against repeat DWI offenders. In the area of
enforcement, NHTSA promotes the use of sobriety checkpoints
and saturation patrols to catch impaired drivers, training for
police on standardized field sobriety testing, and increased
enforcement of underage drinking and driving. New public
information and education programs will target hard core
drinking drivers. Responsible alcohol service programs are also
encouraged by NHTSA, which have the potential of preventing
intoxicated patrons from driving. NHTSA spends substantial
time and energy promoting all of the above.
Point 4
Instead of lowering the illegal BAC limit from . 10 to .08, why
not adopt more severe sanctions for drivers with high BAC
levels (e.g. those at 15 or .20 and higher)? These are the
majority of drinking drivers arrested and involved in fatal
crashes.
Counterpoint
Some states, such as Florida, use both systems. Florida
lowered its per se BAC limit to .08 on January 1, 1994. There
is also no question that drivers with very high BACs (.15 +) are
more impaired and have greater crash risks than drivers at .08
For many years, Florida has had mandatory minimum jail
sentences and fines for drivers convicted of DWI at BACs =
.15 or greater. These "mandatory minimums" do not apply to
drivers under .15 BAC. Both laws are rational and make sense
It should not be "one or the other," but can be both.
There is evidence that .08 reduces alcohol-related fatalities.
3-21-1997 1 00PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.4
While more severe penalties based upon BAC makes sense,
there is no evidence to date that this system is effective.
Point 5
The only evidence that NHTSA has that .08 is effective in
reducing alcohol-related crashes is the California study, and that
study has flaws:
(1)
There was only a 5% reduction in alcohol-related
fatalities in California between 1989 and 1990,
not 12% as reported by NHTSA.
(2)
The national decrease in alcohol-related fatalities
was the same as California's between 1989 and
1990. Therefore, .08 did not have an effect.
(3)
California's own studies show no significant
decrease in alcohol-related crashes or fatalities
between 1989 and 1990.
(4)
Most of the states with .08 laws had higher
proportions of drivers with alcohol in fatal crashes
than the national average in 1992.
(5)
California actually had an increase in the number of
fatally injured drivers with BACs = 15-.19
between 1989 and 1990, where the real problem
lies.
(6)
The NHTSA study in California showed no
significant decrease in crashes where the police
reported a driver as "had been drinking" (HBD).
Counterpoint
The evaluation of .08 in California was not the only reason
NHTSA has endorsed .08 laws. There is substantial evidence
that critical driving performance measures are impaired at .08
and that the risk of a crash is significantly elevated at .08 and
beyond. Many industrialized nations use .08 or a lower BAC as
a standard for impairment. The fact that the California study
indicated bottom-line effectiveness of the law was just one
more ingredient in the decision. With regard to the specific
"flaws" in the California study, here are the facts:
3-21-1997 1:00PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.5
(1)
The evaluation used an accepted methodology to
study the effects of the .08 law --- time series
analyses using the AutoRegressive Integrated
Moving Averages (ARIMA) model. Data were
analyzed 4 years before the law change and 1 year
after. The trend model before the law took effect
predicted alcohol-related fatalities for 1990.
Actual alcohol-related fatalities for 1990 were
12% below that predicted while non-alcohol-
related fatalities experienced no change. The 12%
significant decrease took place in the first six
months of 1990 when .08 was in effect but the
administrative license revocation (ALR) law was
not. In analyses of the effects of laws, it is not
appropriate to merely compare one year of
aggregated data before the law change to one year
of aggregated data after the law. The NHTSA
study used an acceptable, peer-reviewed,
statistical approach to the problem.
(2)
Many things went on in the rest of the nation to
explain the national decrease from 1989 to 1990.
These things were controlled for to the extent
possible in the California study, which is why the
time series method was used. The fact is,
California's alcohol-related fatality decrease was
significant and was due mainly to the .08 and ALR
laws.
(3)
California has published no studies to date which
make this statement. The California Department of
Motor Vehicles is conducting its own analyses of
the effects of the .08 and ALR laws and plans to
publish those results this year.
3-21-1997 1:01PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.6
(4)
Here are the estimates of drivers in fatal crashes
with positive BACs for the 5 states with .08 and
the nation as a whole in 1992:
Percent Drivers in Fatal
Crashes with BAC> .01
CA
27.4
ME
29.1
OR
28.5
UT
20.4
VT
33.4
Nation
28.6
Three of the five states with .08 had lower
proportions of drivers with positive BACs
compared to the national average. However, these
comparisons are irrelevant to the effects of .08
laws. Some of these .08 states started out with
higher than national average alcohol rates. It is the
reduction in alcohol-related fatalities due to the law
change, not comparisons to the national average,
that is the issue.
(5)
California did experience a slight, non-significant
increase in the number of driver fatalities with
BACs = .15-.19 in 1990 compared to 1989.
However, they experienced decreases in driver
fatalities in all other BAC ranges, including those
with .20 BAC and above. Overall, California
experienced a decrease in driver fatalities with
positive BACs between 1989 and 1990, certainly
the desired effect.
(6)
Experience in many past evaluations shows that
police may change their behavior in reporting HBD
crashes in the year following a highly publicized
law change. Police became more aware of the
problem and feel more compelled to report HBD
crashes. Many times this behavior change offsets
any real decreases since crashes reported as
"HBD" in the year following the law change may
not have been reported as such in the year before.
This phenomenon is common and it is why other
measures of alcohol involvement are used in
scientifically accepted evaluations.
3-21-1997 1:02PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.7
Finally, NHTSA is conducting an analyses of the effects of .08
in the 5 states which have had the legislation for over a year.
So far, 9 out of 30 measures of alcohol-involvement in fatal
crashes show statistically significant decreases when the .08
law went into effect in 4 of the 5 states. Results of these
analyses will be published in the spring of 1994.
Point 6
.08 is just the first step in a process to lower the illegal limit
even further.
Counterpoint
NHTSA believes that a .08 limit is practical, rational and
acceptable to the public. NHTSA has no plans to recommend
limits lower than .08 for adults, except for commercial drivers
(where the national standard is already .04) and for drivers
under age 21 where NHTSA recommends zero tolerance: .02 or
lower.
JCF
3/18/94
3-21-1997 :02PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.8
ACT SHEET
0.08 BAC Illegal Per Se Level
t is illegal per se to drive a motor
affected significantly at 0.08 BAC.
vehicle with a blood alcohol
Performance decrements in some of these
concentration (BAC) at or above a
tasks are as high as 60-70 percent at 0.08
specified level in all but two States of
BAC according to studies.
the United States. The customary level,
The risk of being involved in a crash increases
currently the law in 35 States and DC,
substantially by 0.08 BAC. The risk of being in
was 0.10 for all drivers aged 21 and
a crash gradually increases at each BAC level,
above. However, 13 states have
but rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or
lowered their level to 0.08. In a 1992
exceeds 0.08 BAC compared to drivers with
no alcohol in their blood systems. Research
Report to Congress, NHTSA
by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
recommended that all states lower
indicates that the relative risk of being killed
their illegal per se level to 0.08 for all
in a single vehicle crash at 0.08 BAC is eleven
drivers aged 21 and above.
times that of drivers at .00 BAC (no alcohol).
Lowering the per se limit is a proven effective
Key Facts
countermeasure which will reduce alcohol-
related traffic fatalities. There was a 12
In 1995, 41 percent of the 41,798
percent reduction in alcohol-related fatalities
motor vehicle deaths were alcohol-
in California in 1990, the year 0.08 and an
related. This percentage translates into
administrative license revocation law went
17,274 alcohol-related deaths last year.
into effect. The decrease in alcchol-related
fatalities occurred at both high and low BAC
Over 80 percent of drivers involved in
levels, even drivers with BACs of .20 or
fatal crashes with positive BACs had
greater.
levels exceeding 0.08.
0.08 is a reasonable BAC level. A 0.08 BAC is
not reached with a couple of beers after work
An average male weighing 170 pounds
or a glass or two of wine with dinner. Studies
must consume more than four drinks
show that the average 170 pound male
within one hour on an empty stomach
would have to consume more than four
to reach a 0.08 BAC level.
drinks within one hour on an empty stomach
to reach 0.08 BAC. The average 137 pound
A recent analysis of five states that
female would need three drinks on an empty
lowered the BAC limit to 0.08 showed
stomach to reach that level. Typically, that
that significant decreases in alcohol-
(continued)
related fatal crashes occured in four
out of the five states as a result of the
legislation.
Contents
Key Facts
Why 0.087
Why 0.087
Virtually all drivers are substantially
impaired at 0.08 BAC. Laboratory and test
Point/Counterpoint
National
track research shows that the vast majority
Highway
of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are
Impact on the Criminal Justice
Traffic Safety
impaired at 0.08 with regard to critical
System
Administration
driving tasks. Braking, steering, lane
Who Supports 0.087
U.S.
changing, judgment, and divided
Department of
attention, among other measures, are all
Information Sources
Transportation
3-21-1997 1 04PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P.9
Why 0.087 (continued)
Point: 0.08 legislation is the first step in
female driver would need four drinks over a two
lowering the limit even further.
hour period to get above 0.08 BAC and the male
would need five drinks.
Counterpoint: NHTSA has no plan to
recommend a per se limit below 0.08 for adult
The public supports a 0.08 BAC level. NHTSA
drivers. The agency does recommend, however,
surveys all show that most people would not drive
a zero tolerance limit for drivers under the age
after consuming two or three drinks in an hour.
of 21 since they may not drink alcohol legally
Most other industrialized nations have set BAC
anyway, and a .04 limit for commercial drivers.
limits at 0.08 or lower and have had these laws for
many years. For example, Canada, Great Britain,
The 0.08 limit is reasonable and has the potential
Austria, and Switzerland have a 0.08 BAC level. The
for saving thousands of lives and many more
states in Australia have 0.05 or 0.08 BAC levels.
Injuries on the highways if it is implemented by
more states in the U.S.
Point Counterpoint
States considering 0.08 legislation should review all
Impact on the Criminal Justice System
the facts, including the rationale behind 0.08 and
When California lowered the BAC limit to 0.08
the potential impact on alcohol-related deaths.
there was little impact on court administrators or
Opposition to 0.08 legislation generally includes
judges. The main impact has been on prosecutors'
the following claims:
decisions concerning whether cases should be filed.
Point: 0.08 legislation will not affect high BAC
Previously, DWI arrestees with BACs below 0.12
problem drinker drivers.
typically were allowed to plea to reduced charges.
Since the limit was changed, this plea-bargain "cut
Counterpoint: There is evidence that 0.08
off" has dropped to about 0.10 BAC. No increases
legislation reduced the proportion of fatally
have been reported in the proportion of DWI
injured drivers who had BACs greater than or
defendants pleading guilty, requesting jury trials,
equal to .20 in California.
or appealing convictions.
Point: 0.08 legislation will affect alcohol
consumption and, therefore, affect the
economy.
Counterpoint: There is no evidence that per
capita alcohol consumption was affected in any
of the five states examined by NHTSA with the
0.08 legislation.
States with BAC Per Se Laws
(as of August 1996)
AK
MES
WA
MT
ND
MN
NY
WI
ID
SD
RJ
MI
WY
FA
LA
NE
OH
IN
a
WV
NV
CO
VA
MO
KY
NC
TN
AZ
OK
AR
GA
.08 (AL, CA, FL, HI, KS, ME, NC,
us
NH, NM, OR, UT, VA, VT)
TX
LA
.10
No Per Se Law (MA, SC)
3-21-1997 1 05PM
FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005
P. 10
Who Supports 0.08?
Information Sources
The following organizations support 8 BAC limit of
Driving Under the Influence: A Report to Congress
0.08 or lower:
on Alcohol Limits. NHTSA, Report Number DOT HS
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
807 879, October 1992.
All State Insurance
The Effects Following the Implementation of an
0.08 BAC Limit and an Administrative Per Se Law
American Alliance for Rights and
in California. NHTSA, Report Number DOT HS 807
Responsibilities
777, August 1991.
American Association of Motor Vehicle
The Effects of Low Dases of Alcohol on Driving
Administrators
Skills: A Review of the Evidence. Moscowitz,
American Association of Neurological
Herbert and Robinson, Christopher D., National
Surgeons
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA,
Report Number DOT HS 807 280, July 1988.
American Automobile Manufacturers
Association
Alcohol-Related Relative Risk of Fatal Driver
Injuries in Relation to Driver Age and Sex Zador,
American Coalition for Traffic Safety
Paul, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,
American Insurance Association
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52. 4, 1991.
American Medical Association
Alcohol Limits for Drivers: A Report on the Effects
American Spinal Injury Association
of Alcohol and Expected Institutional Responses to
American Trucking Associations
New Limits. NHTSA, Report Number DOT HS 807
692, April 1991.
Association for the Advancement of
Automotive Medicine
Lowering the Illegal Per Se BAC Limit to 08. Point/
Counterpoint. NHTSA 1994.
American Spinal Injury Association
Improving the Understanding of Alcohol
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Impairment and BAC Levels. and their Relationship
Federal Highway Administration
to Highway Accidents. NHTSA Report DOT HS 807
Insurance Information Institute
433, May 1989.
The 0.08 Alcohol Concentration Limit House
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Research Policy Brief. Minnesota House of
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Representatives, March 1994.
Kemper Insurance Group
08 Saves Lives in Your State, 11 Minute video on
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
merits of .08 produced by USAA for NHTSA
National Safety Council
08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws: Facts Myths. and
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws
Fictions. Kathryn Stewart, Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention, October 1993.
and Ordinances
The Impact of Lowering Illegal BAC Limit to 08 in
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Five States in the U.S. Johnson, Delmas: and Fell,
National Safety Council
James, NHTSA, 39th AAAM Proceedings, 1995.
National Sheriffs' Association
Nationwide Insurance
Operation Lifesaver
Students Against Driving Drunk
U.S. Department of Justice
USAA Insurance
U.S. Surgeon General
The reports and additional Information are available from your State Highway Safety Office, the NHTSA
Regional Office serving your State, or from NHTSA Headquarters, Traffic Safety Programs, NTS-20, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9588.
BRENNAN T @ A1
03/24/97 02:11:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To:
Dorothy Robyn, James A. Brown, MAZUR_M@ A1@CD@LNGTWY
CC:
Subject: Increasing seat belt use
I've no objection to this, but I thought a reminder regarding the "offsetting
behavior" hypothesis might be useful. That hypothesis, due in this context to
research by Sam Peltzman, posits that mandating caution along one dimension of
behavior is not likely to have much of an effect on the incidence of harm,
because people will "offset" these risk reductions with more hazardous behavior
in other areas. For example, one may drive less carefully on a slick surface if
one has antilock brakes. I believe that insurers in fact have stopped giving
discounts for ABS because the data did not show that ABS did not in fact lead to
damage reductions. Peltzman's famous study reached a similar conclusion
regarding seat belt use.
I bring this up not because I oppose the initiative, but perhaps to remind you
of the Peltzman hypotheses in case any opposed to this initiative raises it.
Along those lines, the document is notable in that while it talks about
increased use of seat belts and the ability of seat belts to reduce harm, there
is no reported finding that mandatory use of seat belts has in fact led to
reduced harm. There are some data reported on Medicare and Medicaid savings,
but I strongly suspect those are based on simple projections assuming that
increased seat belt use would be purely "additive" as far as safety goes, and
that there would be no offsetting behavior.
One point supporting the initiative is that the "offsetting behavior" hypothesis
does not hold if the mandatory rule, e.g., for seat belt use, forces drivers to
adopt a greater *total* level of caution than they would absent the rule. In
other words, it is impossible for them to take as much risk with the rule as
they would take absent it. Accordingly, a rule addressing behavior of "high
risk" drivers, as discussed in the middle of p. 4, might have some effect.
More than you wanted to know, I'm sure!
Tim B.