Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Quick Launch
Safety Recommendation H-13-005
Details
Synopsis: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has long been concerned about alcohol-impaired driving, which accounts for approximately one-third of all US highway fatalities. In the past several decades, awareness of the dangers of alcohol-impaired driving has increased. Public and private entities focusing on this safety issue have changed social perceptions concerning alcohol-impaired driving; they have also achieved important legislative actions to help reduce it. Due to these efforts, the number of lives lost annually in alcohol-impaired-driver-related crashes declined 53 percent, from 21,113 in 1982 to 9,878 in 2011; and the percentage of highway fatalities resulting from alcohol-involved crashes is down from 48 percent in 1982 to about 31 percent today. In recent years, however, US success in addressing this safety issue has plateaued. Since 1995, although the annual number of fatalities has declined, nearly one in three of all highway deaths still involves an alcohol-impaired driver. The cause of these deaths is well understood and preventable, yet even the most concerted efforts have not kept thousands of lives from being lost each year. If traditional methods are no longer reducing the problem, new—and possibly challenging—initiatives must be considered. In this safety report, the NTSB— • Describes the scope of the impaired driving problem; • Summarizes the efforts of advocacy groups, researchers, law enforcement agencies, traffic safety groups, public health organizations, legislators, and motor vehicle agencies, as well as federal, state, and local governments, to reduce the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities; • Examines the effect of alcohol consumption on an individual’s ability to operate a motor vehicle and on the risk of being involved in a crash; and • Evaluates the effectiveness of current and emerging alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures and identifies new approaches and actions needed to reduce and ultimately eliminate alcohol-impaired driving.
Recommendation: TO THE 50 U.S. STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Establish a per se blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit of 0.05 or lower for all drivers who are not already required to adhere to lower BAC limits.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Open - Await Response
Mode: Highway
Location: United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: DCA12SS006
Accident Reports:
Report #: SR-13-01
Accident Date: 6/28/2012
Issue Date: 6/3/2013
Date Closed:
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: Commonwealth of Kentucky (Open - Initial Response Received)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Open - Initial Response Received)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Open - Await Response)
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Open - Initial Response Received)
Commonwealth of Virginia (Open - Await Response)
District of Columbia (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Alabama (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Alaska (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Arizona (Open - Await Response)
State of Arkansas (Open - Await Response)
State of California (Open - Await Response)
State of Colorado (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Connecticut (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Delaware (Open - Await Response)
State of Florida (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Georgia (Open - Await Response)
State of Hawaii (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Idaho (Open - Await Response)
State of Illinois (Open - Await Response)
State of Indiana (Open - Await Response)
State of Iowa (Open - Await Response)
State of Kansas (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Louisiana (Open - Await Response)
State of Maine (Open - Unacceptable Response)
State of Maryland (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Michigan (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Minnesota (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Mississippi (Open - Await Response)
State of Missouri (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Montana (Open - Await Response)
State of Nebraska (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Nevada (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of New Hampshire (Open - Await Response)
State of New Jersey (Open - Await Response)
State of New Mexico (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of New York (Open - Acceptable Response)
State of North Carolina (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of North Dakota (Open - Unacceptable Response)
State of Ohio (Open - Await Response)
State of Oklahoma (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Oregon (Open - Await Response)
State of Rhode Island (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of South Carolina (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of South Dakota (Open - Await Response)
State of Tennessee (Open - Await Response)
State of Texas (Open - Await Response)
State of Utah (Open - Acceptable Response)
State of Vermont (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Washington (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of West Virginia (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Wisconsin (Open - Initial Response Received)
State of Wyoming (Open - Initial Response Received)
Keyword(s):

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

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

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

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

From: District of Columbia
To: NTSB
Date: 10/3/2013
Response: -From Cathy Lanier, Chief of Police: The District of Columbia (D.C.) enacted legislation (Comprehensive Impaired Driving Amendment Act of2012) lowering the per se BAC limit to 0.04 for all commercial drivers. This affects not only motor carrier operators, but a range of operators, from taxi cab drivers, tour bus drivers to pedi-cab operators. The per se BAC limit for non-commercial drivers remains 0.08.

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

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

From: State of Alaska
To: NTSB
Date: 9/5/2013
Response: -From Jeff Jones, Special Assistant, Office of the Governor of Alaska: Thank you for the notice of the National Transportation Safety Board's wrong-way driving accidents report and the impact of this type of accident on older drivers. I have consulted with safety experts in the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), who both manage all highway crash records, and also prepare the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) in Alaska, a requirement that Congress passed in 2005 legislation known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act- A Legacy for Users. Under Section 148 of Title 23, the law calls for a comprehensive traffic safety plan, based in large part on a review of data pertaining to crash causation factors. The most recent SHSP was completed in 2012 (http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/stsplindex.shtml). By federal law, this plan must be based on evidence of crash records, traffic citations, and other information, and then sets out a series of recommendations to focus our efforts on those strategies and projects that would best allocate scarce safety funding. The most recent plan did not identify wrong-way crashes as a significant factor on Alaska's roadways, nor did it identify seniors as experiencing a disproportionate number of overall crashes. Currently 10.1 percent of Alaska's drivers are over 65 but they account for 9.0 percent of total crashes. The age of our drivers is an emerging concern, due in large part to our population demographics that indicate the state has among the fastest growing number of seniors of all states. In 2010, the United States Census Bureau projected that "The Alaska senior population is projected to grow at a significant rate, from just over 90,000 seniors in 2010 to more than 137,500 in 2020 and over 157,800 in 2030." This trend will continue to require adjustment in a wide variety of transportation policies and other state services going forward. -From Joseph Masters, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety and Patrick J. Kemp, P.E., Commissioner, Department of Transportation: Current Alaska law allows for a BAC under 0.08. The exception to that is with drivers under the age of 21 which have a .00 threshold (Alaska Statutes 28.15.1832 and 28.35.280), and drivers operating a commercial motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.04 or more (Alaska Statute 28.33.030). The research conducted by Alaska Department of Public Safety (DPS) indicates that the vast majority of fatal crashes involving alcohol occur with a driver having a BAC of 0.08 or greater. It does not appear that lowering the BAC to 0.05 would have a significant impact on these crash rates and, as of this time, there are potential issues with the implementation of effective Standardized Field Sobriety Tests that would accurately, effectively, and consistently detect impairment at 0.05.

From: State of Alabama
To: NTSB
Date: 12/11/2014
Response: -From Bill Whatley, Public Safety Unit Chief, Law Enforcement and Traffic Safety Division, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs: There are no plans to address this issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: State of Connecticut
To: NTSB
Date: 12/4/2014
Response: -From Joseph T. Cristalli, Jr., Principal Safety Program Coordinator, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation: (Division of Criminal Justice response) CT's per se BAC law-§ 14-227a, establishes. 08 as the threshold level.

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

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

From: State of Florida
To: NTSB
Date: 1/22/2015
Response: -From Lora Bailey Hollingsworth, P.E., Chief Safety Officer, Highway Safety Coordinator: Legislation was considered but it did not move on the floor. Further action is not anticipated at this time. Close H-13-5.

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

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

From: State of Florida
To: NTSB
Date: 9/20/2013
Response: From Ananth Prasad, P.E., Florida Department of Transportation: Section 316.193, Florida Statutes, establishes the per se breath alcohol level (BAL) for impaired driving. The FIDC created an internal task force to review Florida traffic laws, make recommendations for legislative changes and secure support for passage of priority legislation. Additionally, the FIDC established a goal to reduce the number of impaired driving fatalities and serious injuries by 15% by 2015 compared to 2009 data. Alcohol Related/Suspected fatalities and injuries totaled 15,139 in 2009 and 12,736 in 2011. Progress is measured and reported through the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) Performance Dashboard (located at www.flhsmv.gov).

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

From: NTSB
To: State of Hawaii
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Has Hawaii reconsidered its position on this recommendation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

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

From: State of Hawaii
To: NTSB
Date: 8/22/2013
Response: -From Neil Abercrombie, Governor of Hawaii: Although it is a safety issue, establishing a per se blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit of 0.05 is not recommended at this time: It would take legislative action to pass the 0.05 law and at this time legislators do not see it passing. Society is not ready to accept this low BAC requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: State of Kansas
To: NTSB
Date: 9/13/2013
Response: -Chris Bortz, Traffic Safety Manager, Kansas Department of Transportation: Implementation of a per se .05 level of impairment will require additional research. Research items will focus on, but are not limited to, law enforcement identification of impaired drivers at the new lower level and assessment of the resources needed to arrest impaired drivers, conduct the administrative hearings, adjudicate and treat offenders.

From: Commonwealth of Massachusetts
To: NTSB
Date: 3/24/2015
Response: -From Krystian Boreyko, Program Coordinator, Highway Safety Division, Office of Grants and Research, Executive Office of Public Safety and Security: In 2013 or 2014, did Massachusetts consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation? Massachusetts did not consider any applicable legislation and it is unlikely to do so.

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

From: Commonwealth of Kentucky
To: NTSB
Date: 12/3/2014
Response: -From Michael W. Hancock, P.E., Secretary, Transportation Cabinet, Commonwealth of Kentucky: Per se BAC of 0.05 was proposed during the 2014 legislative session but did not advance (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/14RS/HB14.htm ).

From: NTSB
To: Commonwealth of Kentucky
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: What is the status of the legislation? What further actions are planned to address this recommendation?

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

From: Commonwealth of Kentucky
To: NTSB
Date: 9/17/2013
Response: -Michael W. Hancock, P.E., Secretary: A bill to address this recommendation has been prefiled for the 2014 Kentucky General Assembly, which convenes in January. Bill Request 40, if enacted, would lower the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05.

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

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

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

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

From: NTSB
To: State of Maine
Date: 2/26/2015
Response: We are disappointed that you have not established, and have no plans to establish, a per se 0.05 or lower BAC limit. We urge you to reconsider your position and enact such legislation to reduce the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities caused by alcohol impaired driving to better protect all Maine residents and others traveling on Maine’s roadways. Pending your taking such action, Safety Recommendation H-13-5 is classified OPEN—UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: State of Maine
To: NTSB
Date: 10/9/2014
Response: -From Lauren V. Stewart, Director, Maine Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Highway Safety: No.

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

From: State of Maryland
To: NTSB
Date: 11/25/2014
Response: -From Kathleen Graham, Safety Program Section Chief, Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration: Maryland continues to monitor this recommendation and any research and analysis that will further support this movement. The Highway Safety Office continues to monitor directives provided by NHTSA and provide information to the Governor's representative for highway safety regarding this matter.

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

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

From: State of Maryland
To: NTSB
Date: 7/10/2013
Response: -From James T. Smith, Jr., Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation: Thank you for your letter regarding Maryland's compliance with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Recommendations. The Governor received your letter and asked me to respond on his behalf. One of Maryland's priorities is safe driving. In particular, issues related to impaired-driving receive a great deal of attention and resources from the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration's (MVA), Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO), and its State and local partners. The NTSB 's continued efforts to improve laws and practices nationally are important to Maryland and are among those considered and monitored for implementation or already in place in our Strategic Highway Safety Plan and the Impaired Driving Emphasis Area Team (IDEAT). The H-13-05- asks States to establish a per se blood alcohol concentration limit of 0.05 BAC or lower for all drivers. Maryland is carefully monitoring this recommendation and any research and analysis that will further support this movement. In addition, the MHSO will monitor the directives provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and provide information to the Governor's representative for highway safety regarding this matter.

From: State of Michigan
To: NTSB
Date: 12/3/2014
Response: -From Michael Prince, Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning: Currently, Michigan has a sunset provision for the state’s .08 BAC law. The legislative focus will be to remove this sunset before pursuing the lowering of the limit to .05 BAC. The Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning will be funding a study in FY 2015 to analyze the state’s current .08 BAC law.

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

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

From: State of Michigan
To: NTSB
Date: 8/26/2013
Response: -From Col. Kristie Kibbey Etue, Director, State of Michigan, Department of State Police, Lansing, Michigan: To date, there have been no legislative proposals to lower the BAC to .05 in Michigan. We are monitoring the establishment and impact of . 05 BAC laws in other states as well as ongoing research on this issue through the Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP), a division of the Michigan State Police (MSP).

From: State of Minnesota
To: NTSB
Date: 11/7/2014
Response: -From Donna Berger, Director, Office of Traffic Safety, Governor’s Highway Safety Representative: No, the Minnesota legislature has not considered this and is unlikely to do so.

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

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

From: State of Minnesota
To: NTSB
Date: 8/21/2013
Response: -From Ramona L. Dohman, Commissioner: Lowering the current BAC from 0.08 to 0.05 would require legislative approval. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) will continue to educate legislators on the effects of impaired driving.

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

From: State of Missouri
To: NTSB
Date: 11/17/2014
Response: -Leanna Depue, Highway Safety Director, MoDOT Traffic and Highway Safety: Missouri has taken no action to implement this recommendation. No immediate action is planned.

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

From: State of New York
To: NTSB
Date: 9/9/2015
Response: -From Charles R. DeWeese, Assistant Commissioner, New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee: New York already prohibits driving with a BAC as low as .06. However, New York believes that lowering the per se BAC to 0.05 would render current statutes obsolete, would carry with it a large burden upon localities for enforcement, and conflict with current chemical test reading evidence. Legislation was introduced in 2013-14 (A.7565) that would lower the blood alcohol concentration required for driving while intoxicated from .08 of one per centum to .06, and for aggravated driving while intoxicated from .18 per centum to .14. Similar legislation was also introduced in 2015/16 (A.4369) that also did not pass. NY is not aware of any bills that would lower the BAC to .05 or lower.

From: NTSB
To: State of New York
Date: 6/12/2015
Response: We are encouraged by your efforts to use your “driving while ability impaired” offense to prohibit driving with a BAC as low as .06 and to attempt to enact legislation, in 2013 and 2014, to lower New York’s BAC limit to .06. We urge you to continue these efforts and to enact the recommended legislation to further reduce the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities caused by alcohol impaired driving. Pending your completing such action, Safety Recommendation H 13-5 is classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: State of New York
To: NTSB
Date: 11/4/2014
Response: -From Chuck DeWeese, Assistant Commissioner, Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee: On behalf of New York State DMV Commissioner Barbara Fiala, I have attached the updates on Open NTSB Highway Safety Recommendations. New York continues to make progress on some of the outstanding issues but, as you are aware, many of the areas of concern require legislative action which often takes years to achieve passage. The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles remains committed to the safety of transportation on our highways and will continue to seek improvements, including those recommended by the NTSB. Please advise if you have any questions. New York already prohibits driving with a BAC as low as .06. However, New York believes that lowering the per se BAC to 0.05 would render current statutes obsolete, would carry with it a large burden upon localities for enforcement, and conflict with current chemical test reading evidence. Legislation was introduced in 2013-14 (A.7565) that would lower the blood alcohol concentration required for driving while intoxicated from .08 of one per centum to .06, and for aggravated driving while intoxicated from .18 per centum to .14. This bill did not pass the Legislature. NY is not aware of any bills that would lower the BAC to .05 or lower.

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

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

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

From: State of Nebraska
To: NTSB
Date: 11/14/2014
Response: -From Fred E. Zwonechek, Administrator, Nebraska Office of Highway Safety: No consideration of a 0.05 BAC limit occurred in 2013 or 2014 and to our knowledge, no effort is expected in 2015.

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

From: State of Nevada
To: NTSB
Date: 12/29/2014
Response: -From Traci Pearl, Highway Safety Coordinator: No, and not to my knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

From: State of New Mexico
To: NTSB
Date: 9/19/2013
Response: -From Robert J. Archuleta, Director, Traffic Safety Division: Currently, New Mexico statutes set a general per se BAC limit of 0.08 in the person's blood or breath {NMSA 1978 § 66-8-102). In order to reduce the BAC level, the legislature would have to pass legislation that reduces the existing BAC limit from 0.08 to the recommended BAC level of 0.05. However, it is unlawful for a person to drive a commercial motor vehicle in this state if the person has a BAC of 0.04, which is lower than the NTSB recommendation. The State of New Mexico also defines "Aggravated DWI" as driving a vehicle with a BAC of 0.16 or higher, causing bodily injury to a human being as a result of the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle while driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, or refusing to submit to a chemical test. In addition, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 215t Century (MAP 21) has required that “mid-range" states, such as New Mexico, implement a statewide impaired driving task force which plans, implements, and endorses an 11lmpaired Driving Plan." This plan has been completed and sent to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as per MAP 21 guidelines. During the planning process of the group led by the Highway Safety Office, the recommendation from the NTSB will be discussed and taken into consideration with recommendations to the Executive and Legislature based on the data, research, and technology.

From: State of North Carolina
To: NTSB
Date: 12/9/2014
Response: -From Don Nail, Director, GR, Governor’s Highway Safety Program, North Carolina Department of Transportation: Drivers under the age of 21 are restricted to 0.00 BAC, CMV drivers to 0.00 and adhere to lower BAC limits. drivers with a prior conviction to a 0.00 and any driver convicted of DWI to a 0.04. All other drivers the illegal BAC is 0.08. The DWI Task Force is discussing this issue.

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

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

From: NTSB
To: State of North Dakota
Date: 3/6/2015
Response: We are disappointed that your state has not established, and has no plans to establish, a per se 0.05 or lower BAC limit. We urge you to reconsider your position and enact such legislation to reduce the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities caused by alcohol impaired driving to better protect all North Dakota residents. Pending your taking such action, Safety Recommendation H-13-5 is classified OPEN—UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

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

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

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

From: State of North Dakota
To: NTSB
Date: 7/30/2013
Response: -From Jack Dalrymple, Governor: North Dakota was the last state in the nation to implement the per se BAC of 0.08. Gaining public and political support for a per se BAC 0.05 or lower for all drivers who are not already required to adhere to of 0.05 will be very difficult.

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

From: State of Oklahoma
To: NTSB
Date: 11/26/2014
Response: -From Garry Thomas, Director, Oklahoma Highway Safety Office: Oklahoma did consider applicable legislation in 2013 or 2014; however, the legislation did not pass out of committee. OK has no immediate plans to pursue this recommendation.

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

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

From: State of Rhode Island
To: NTSB
Date: 11/6/2014
Response: -From Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation: Rhode Island did not consider legislation to lower its BAC limit to .05 or lower in 2013 or 2014. A new Governor will be elected in November, 2014 and a briefing book of transportation issues will be prepared for the Governor's Transition Team.

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

From: State of South Carolina
To: NTSB
Date: 12/2/2014
Response: -From Leroy Smith, Director, South Carolina Department of Public Safety: Establish a per se blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit of .05 or lower for all drivers who are not already required to adhere to lower BAC limits. NTSB Response/Questions: The Director of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety responded that the purview to lower the BAC level rests solely with the General Assembly. In 2013 or 2014 did South Carolina consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation? Status: In May of 2013 Senate Bill 706 (see Attachment 4) was introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A key element of this legislation would lower the BAC limit in South Carolina from .08 to .05. The relevant section reads: SECTION 4. Section 56-5-2933(A) of the 1976 Code is amended to read: "(A) It is unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle within this State while his alcohol concentration is eighffive one-hundredths of one percent or more. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of the offense of driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration and, upon conviction, entry of a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, or forfeiture of bail must be punished as follows: As noted in the letter accompanying these recommendations, the ability to amend the current law governing BAC levels continues to rest solely with the South Carolina General Assembly. The SC Department of Public Safety cannot foresee whether proposed legislation similar to S. 706 will be reintroduced or prevail in the upcoming 2015 session. Please note that there is a section in our Highway Safety Plan that addresses impaired driving. This section includes a thorough review of the statistics, trend line analysis, and goal setting statements, as well as countermeasures and specific projects that the state hopes to implement. Impaired driving has been identified as an Emphasis Area in the state's updated SHSP (a change from the prior edition when Impaired Driving was grouped together in a "High risk Drivers" category). In making Impaired Driving its own Emphasis Area, the state is conveying the message that combating impaired driving is a high priority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: NTSB
To: State of Utah
Date: 8/10/2018
Response: We are pleased to learn that you enacted legislation establishing a 0.05-percent per se BAC limit. We know that drivers with a BAC of 0.08 percent are more than twice as likely to be involved in a crash compared to sober drivers, and that lower per se limits lead to fewer fatal crashes. More than 100 countries have established per se BAC limits at or below 0.05 percent, and Utah has made history by being first in the United States to do so. We applaud your work to improve traffic safety and to separate drinking from driving in Utah, and we look forward to further updates on your implementation progress as you move toward the law’s December 30, 2018, effective date. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation H-13-5 is classified OPEN-ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: State of Utah
To: NTSB
Date: 12/16/2014
Response: -From Kristy K. Rigby, Director, Highway Safety Office: The state has taken a wait-and-see stance and is watching what other states do with this recommendation.

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

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

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

From: State of Vermont
To: NTSB
Date: 12/22/2014
Response: -From Ted Minall, Law Enforcement Liaison, Contractor, NHTSA, Region 1, Vermont Office: To implement this a legislative change would have to take place. During the 2014 Legislative Session there was discussion of a bill being introduced, however, it never occurred.

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

From: State of Washington
To: NTSB
Date: 12/4/2014
Response: -From Director Darrin T. Grondel, Washington Traffic Safety Commission: Lowering the BAC limit has been discussed with legislators and presented as an option recommended by NTSB at legislative transportation committee hearings. No legislation has been introduced yet.

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

From: State of West Virginia
To: NTSB
Date: 11/21/2014
Response: -From Steven O. Dale, Governor’s Representative for Highway Safety, West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles: There appears still to be little interest "will" in the WV Legislature to lower the BAC limit to .05. The WV DMV does take action to revoke at .05 if evidence of impairment is present; will move to revoke at the administrative level.

From: NTSB
To: State of West Virginia
Date: 9/4/2014
Response: Will West Virginia reconsider its position on this recommendation and consider applicable legislation? Will there be any effort to address this recommendation?

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

From: State of West Virginia
To: NTSB
Date: 9/10/2013
Response: -From Paul A. Mattox, Jr., P.E., Secretary of Transportation/ Commissioner of Highways: West Virginia was one of the last states to enact legislation for 0.08 BAC in 2004. As such, the state has limited evaluation of the historical data on the effect of lowering the BAC from 0.10 to 0.08. An additional reduction of the BAC to 0.05 so soon after the reduction to 0.08 would be unpopular with both the legislature and populace at this time. We agree that enough data exists that a thorough evaluation process is needed. We have identified the resources to develop appropriate analyses and assessments of the law reducing BAC to 0.08 and its impact.

From: State of Wisconsin
To: NTSB
Date: 12/3/2014
Response: -From Mark Gottlieb, P.E., Secretary, Department of Transportation: In 2013 or 2014, Wisconsin did not consider applicable legislation to establish a BAC limit of .05 or lower for drivers not already required to adhere to lower BAC limits. It is uncertain if the legislature will consider this recommendation in the future.

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

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

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

From: State of Wyoming
To: NTSB
Date: 7/8/2013
Response: -From Dalene Call, Supervisor, Highway Safety Behavioral Program, Wyoming Department of Transportation: This letter is in reply to your letter addressed to the Honorable Matthew H. Mead, Governor of Wyoming dated June 3, 2013. This letter was received by our agency on June 26, 2013 from Governor Mead's Office with a request that we respond directly to you and copy the Governor's Office on our reply. Your inquiry requested a response within 90 days detailing action taken or intended to implement recommendations contained in your "Safety Recommendation" letter. The State of Wyoming is actively working to reduce the number of impaired driving fatalities on our highways. Governor Mead has created a "Council on Impaired Driving", and given them instructions that, "nothing is off the table", in reference to our states approach to DUI. We appreciate your recommendations and will take them to our Governor's Council on Impaired Driving for further discussion. The focus of your inquiry concerns the problem of impaired driving and measuring the effectiveness of countermeasures. Your five (5) recommendations to the State of Wyoming and our responses are as follows. H-13-005: in Wyoming, any driver with a blood-alcohol absorptionor BAC- above .08 percent is deemed "per se intoxicated" under the law. Any change to this statue will require action by the State Legislature.