ANSI D.16, 8 TH EDITION

1. ANSI D.16, 8TH EDITION Consensus Body Discussion Traffic Records Forum August 10, 2016 Baltimore, Maryland

2. Review • Suggest • Revise – Add, Edit or Delete • Discuss • Reach Consensus • Change (or not) simultaneously with MMUCC5 updates to ensure uniformity The Effort

3. Subject to American National Standards Institute Requirements • Outreach must Include all Stakeholders and Interested Members of the Public. • All voices must be heard. • We must reach consensus – this means that each of us with a part of the crash reporting and analysis process must recognize that this is a broad multi-disciplinary process and each worker and function will be respected. • Everyone may not agree, but we must demonstrate that we have considered all comments and concerns. • The Consensus Body will vote on proposals following the Forum and a follow-up conference call. The Process

4. Issues • Proposals • Discussion

5. General - Format • PROPOSAL – Any time there are numbers greater than 999, use a comma for ease of reading. (e.g., 1,400 rather than 1400) • PROPOSAL - The Standard should have all definitions listed in alphabetical order for ease of access. The current categorical listing could be replaced by an initial alphabetical listing which includes the category involved, i.e., Automobile 2.2.12 – Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users. Additionally, include a Table in the Standard with Definitions listed by Individual categories. Change?

6. General - References Issue: ANSI D16 references the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) and the MUTCD (cir. 1989). According to the NCUTCD 20 Year Strategic Plan, the UVC has not been maintained since 2000 when last updated and will not be in the future. The MUTCD version is 3 editions outdated, and some of the definitions in MUTCD are linked back to the UVC. • PROPOSAL – • Eliminate all references to the UVC; • Eliminate references to definitions ‘housed’ within MUTCD, that are linked back to the UVC; • Keep references to definitions actually contained within MUTCD; and • Bring any definitions linked back to or contained in UVC into ANSI D.16 and maintain them here. Agree?

7. PROPOSAL: Add a definition of Total Lanes in Roadway Number of lanes definition is inconsistent between MMUCC and FARS, and is not defined in ANSI D16. The MMUCC 4th Edition did not include turning lanes in the definition of the total number of lanes in the roadway, while FARS does. Definition: Total number of lanes in the roadway on which this motor vehicle was traveling. A roadway is one part of a divided trafficway or, if undivided, the same as the trafficway. The number of lanes include turn bays, acceleration, deceleration, or center 2-way left turn lanes if in cross section of roadway and not physically separated. However, the number of lanes counted does not include any lanes unusable by restriction of the right-of-way (e.g., closed due to construction). Is it needed in ANSI– does it relate to crash classification? Add it? Definitions

8. General – Terminology • PROPOSAL Change the term “Accident” to the more commonly used term “Crash” throughout the ANSI D.16 standard. COMMENTS: At this time, the terms are used interchangeably in Federal Transportation law – MAP-21. DISCUSSION: The term "crash" has been promoted versus "accident" by NHTSA for decades now. The problem with "accident" is not how it's defined within ANSI D16.1, 7th edition and prior. The problem is that its common usage carries connotations of an event that is unavoidable or unforeseeable, and thus unpreventable; none of which is true of the crashes (or accidents) we study. I realize that in the safety industry, "accidents"  are not treated that way at all, and as a professional standard we could be safe in using the term. However, D16 has a wider audience and interacts with other guidance or standards that we should be mindful of. One such field is injury surveillance and prevention from the medical/epidemiological side. This is, at least in part, where the move away from "accident" and toward "crash" came from originally as the NHTSA administrator who was the impetus for this change was a medical doctor. His point was that how the word "accident" is understood in the community matters to how these events are treated in legislatures, safety programs, and so on. He was correct about that, and so the terminology shifted. The shift is a done deal. States call their databases "crash records systems." Law enforcement officers fill out a "police crash report" at the scene (although, there are still some forms that say "accident", this is a waning thing). 

9. Crash versus Accident terminology ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: I find the challenge of providing support for one term or the other is the seemingly interchangeability of the terms "crash" and "accident."  ANSI has predominantly used the term "accident," whereas MMUCC more frequently uses the term "crash." Valid arguments could be made on both sides, suggesting a crash more clearly defines an incident that results in property damage and/or injury. However, "accident" may more closely align with the principle description of an unstabilized situation - one which is not under human control. Thus the more common use of "accident," meaning not done intentionally. Though certainly we realize these incidents in most cases could be avoidable. Because of this I would support the idea that this revision be used to standardize a single term.  And due to the more common use of the term "crash," I would suggest that it become the standard and used in place of "accident" in this revised guideline, and any future defining of motor vehicle traffic incidents be consistent with this terminology. From Injury Surveillance:  "We assert that motor vehicle crash should replace motor vehicle accident in the clinical and research lexicon of traumatologists. Crash encompasses a wider range of potential causes for vehicular crashes than does the term accident. A majority of fatal crashes are caused by intoxicated, speeding, distracted, or careless drivers and, therefore, are not accidents."  For about 20 years AAMVA has had a policy to use Crash in place of Accident, when possible. We still have a lot of places where we use Accident. The reason being many states operate computer systems that predate this policy. We tend to add notes saying “The terms Accident and Crash may be used synonymously”.

10. Crash versus Accident terminology ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: (the last word) It's a question of accuracy.  Not all crashes are "accidents".   While it's also true that not all incidents are crashes, at least crash does not make a statement of personal fault, blame, intent.  "Accident" says something about the actions and behaviors of the people involved - crash, collision, wreck do not.   The Associated Press has directed media reporters to avoid using "accident" in any crash event in which negligence is claimed or proven.  This is a statement that drunk, drugged, distracted, high speed, aggressive and other negligent crashes should not be called "accidents".  Not to mention that intentional events (road rage, murder, vehicular suicide) are in no way "accidents".   In calling an incident "accident" we make a statement about the circumstances, and the mindset of the involved parties.  We are stating that there was no negligence and that there was no intent.  Again, in some cases this may be true, but we should not use a word that states this assumption.  Crash does not  make any accusation or implication of guilt, fault or blame.  It is a neutral statement regarding a physical circumstance.   In addition to AP, as noted in other comments, NHTSA and AAMVA have long standing policies with regard to avoiding the word, as does the International Association of Chiefs of Police.   Words have meaning.  We should use a word that most accurately reflects the circumstances and represents our knowledge of that circumstance.  In most cases we know it's a crash, we don't know that it's an "accident". 

11. Definitions, Classification • PROPOSAL Add definitions and a classification related to vehicle automation capability. Using MMUCC5 language, there are 3 levels of automation that we would initially capture and report. Abbreviated definitions are: No Automation – The driver is in complete and sole control of the primary vehicle controls – brake, steering, throttle, and motive power – at all times. Partial Automation – 3 levels • Automation of one or more specific control functions • Automation of at least 2 primary control functions designed to work in unison (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) • Automation that enables the driver to cede control of all safety critical functions under some environmental and traffic conditions (e.g., the google car) Full Automation – The driver is not expected to be available for control any time during the trip. Do we want to use the definitions that MMUCC5 establishes? Do we want to include in ANSI D.16 classification whether or not the vehicle capability was in use?

12. Definitions 2.1 Transport Vehicles and Transport Ways ISSUE: Many of the definitions in this section are unrelated to land travel and motor vehicle crashes. I am referring to the inclusion of boats, planes, submarines and helicopters, and the like. • PROPOSAL - Does anyone know if these are used? If not, it would make sense to change this section to Land Transport Vehicles and Land Transport Ways and remove the extraneous information. Can they be deleted?

13. Definitions 2.2 Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users • PROPOSAL: 2.2.45 Bicycle Lane should be updated to be consistent with MMUCC. ANSI: A bicycle lane is a bikeway which (1) is contiguous with a parallel roadway and (2) has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by pedalcycles. MMUCC: A bikeway adjacent to travel lanes which has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by pedalcyclists through striping, signage or pavement markings. • Change?

14. Definitions 2.2 Land Vehicles • ISSUE/PROPOSAL: Two changes to be considered under the definition of 2.2.9 Motorcycle.   1) D16 should address "autocycles" to be in alignment with MMUCC as this term is currently being addressed for MMUCC5. 2) D16 could also consider an inclusion under motorcycle for  "Motorcycle conversion kits".   These kits modify a two-wheeled motorcycle into what in appearance is a 3-wheeled motorcycle yet the removable conversionputs 4 wheels in contact with the ground thus causing classification questions with respect to this definition. Modification of the definition for 2.2.9 Motorcycle may also affect inclusions, exclusions, and examples under  2.2.9.1 Motor-driven cycle, 2.2.9.2 Large motorcycle, 2.2.9.3 speed-limited motor-driven cycle, 2.2.9.4 moped), 2.2.12 automobile, 3.12 Motorcycle Classification by Type. • Is there a need for a separate definition for 3-wheeled motorcycle as well?

15. Definitions 2.2.7.3 Commercial Motor Vehicle • ISSUE: Commercial motor vehicle in D16 matches the definition in MMUCC. However it is not quite the same as the definition of a CMV in regulation 49 CFR 390.5 (see https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/390.5 ) which focuses on trucks, buses and HAZMAT. As FMCSA wants information about CMVs reported to them, should D16 use the definition from the federal regulations?  If there is a reason for them being different it may help to include the reason with the CMV definition. COMMENT: We know that the difference between the two is weight versus use, but perhaps it might be beneficial to add an explanation?

16. Definitions 2.2 Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users • ISSUE: 2.2.41 Definition - Non-Motorist:  ANSI D16 and MMUCC definitions of non-motorist include occupants of motor vehicles not in transport, alongside pedestrians/ pedalcyclists/etc. FARS does not combine occupants of motor vehicles not in transport with non-motorists; instead, FARS separates persons into the following two categories: 1. Motor Vehicle Occupant (In-transport, Parked / Stopped Off Roadway/Working Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicles in Motion Outside the Trafficway)“ or 2. Not a Motor Vehicle Occupant Including occupants of MVs not-in-transport distorts non-motorist data since the essence of a non-motorist is not having protection during a crash (i.e., vehicle). Non-motorists and motorists of MVs not-in-transport require different countermeasures and safety programs. They should NOT be combined.

17. The MMUCC Panel has determined the following: Classification of persons in MVs as motorists or non-motorists will no longer depend on whether that vehicle is “in-transport.” Persons in parked cars would now considered motorists and occupants. The ANSI definitions are currently in line with the MMUCC, 4th edition definitions, as follows: • 2.2.40 motorist: Any occupant of a motor vehicle in-transport. • 2.2.41 non-motorist: Any person other than a motorist. Inclusions: Pedestrians Occupants of motor vehicles not in-transport Occupants of transport vehicles other than motor vehicles Are you in favor of making this change in D.16 to maintain consistency with MMUCC5 and to improve data for countermeasure development?

18. Definitions 2.2 Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users Trafficway The definition of trafficway (2.2.1) has contributed some debate in my state. Due to the rural nature of much our state and various methods of transport we are left with conflicting views on what a traffic way is based on the verbiage in 2.2.1 and accompanying Figure (1).  We need a more narrow definition of a trafficway which may better align with Figure 1.   All of the attributes in Figure 1’s example trafficway, in my view, demonstrate planned design and construction; however, this caveat is not mentioned in the definition of a trafficway. I’m not sure if this was intentional.  My state has many land ways which could be considered trafficways based off the current definition of 2.2.1, “any land way open to the public as a matter of right or custom for moving persons or property from one place to another”,  but come nowhere close to the examples provided in Figure 1.  Some of these “trafficways” as we know them have been transformed from simple footpath trails between villages to a way large enough to accommodate a large utility vehicle as defined in 2.2.11.  This transformation was not a planned/constructed improvement but has evolved over time (hundreds, possibly upwards of thousands of years) from foot traffic, to dog sleds, to snow mobiles/ATVs, and finally motor vehicles (including automobiles and pickups/SUV-some even registered for operation on the state’s road network). These ways do not come close (visually) to Figure 1’s example of a roadway, but have and are being used to transport goods and people from place to place.  As such this has not only a bearing on my state's FARS data, but our crash data as a whole.

19. Definitions 2.3 Injuries and Damage • PROPOSAL: In order to provide uniformity in reporting and to comply with the 3/15/2016 final rule regarding National Performance Management Measures: Highway Safety Improvement Program, 23 CFR, Part 490 ANSI will change its injury severity descriptions to comport with MMUCC4 definitions: Fatal injury (K): Any injury that results in death within 30 days after the motor vehicle crash in which the injury occurred. If the person did not die at the scene but died within 30 days of the motor vehicle crash in which the injury occurred, the injury classification should be changed from the attribute previously assigned to the attribute "Fatal Injury." Suspected serious injury (A): an injury other than fatal which results in one or more of the following: Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in significant loss of blood, broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg), crush injuries, suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury other than bruises or minor lacerations, significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10% or more of the body), unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene, or paralysis. Suspected minor injury (B): any injury that is evident at the scene of the crash, other than fatal or serious injuries. Examples include lump on the head, abrasions, bruises, minor lacerations (cuts on the skin surface with minimal bleeding and no exposure of deeper tissue/muscle.) Possible injury (C): any injury reported or claimed which is not a fatal, suspected serious or suspected minor injury. Examples include momentary loss of consciousness, claim of injury, limping, or complaint of pain or nausea. Possible injuries are those which are reported by the person or are indicated by his/her behavior, but no wounds or injuries are readily evident. No apparent injury (O): No apparent injury is a situation where there is no reason to believe that the person received any bodily harm from the motor vehicle crash. There is no physical evidence of injury and the person does not report any change in normal function.

20. Definitions 2.3 Injuries and Damage DISCUSSION: I agree with the proposed changes to align with 23 CFR, Part 490 and MMUCC 4th Ed.  However, in the quest by many of us to make data uniform and accurate across many systems and jurisdictions, the unit of measurement for a qualifying fatality-- 30 days from the motor vehicle crash leaves room for inconsistencies and misinterpretation, thus reducing uniformity and accuracy of the data.  My experience is that a large majority of MVC fatalities occur at the scene or within a few days of the crash; I feel it best to adopt a more accurate level of measurement when qualifying MVC fatalities.  PROPOSAL: I’d propose a 720 hour unit of measure (which is 30 days but removes possible inconsistencies in how data professionals count the passage of a day), or clearly define what constitutes the passing of a day for this classification. FARS/CRSS uses a consistency check of “DEATH DATE and DEATH TIME for this person must be within 720 hours of the CRASH DATE and CRASH TIME” Which I feel provides a greater level of uniformity across all data systems.  The desired result of 30 days for fatality inclusion is still there, but provides for a more narrowly defined way to measure the passage of time between crash and death.  This would effect a small number of crashes but would afford a greater level of uniformity. Change to 720 hours?

21. Definitions – 2.4.4 Unstabilized Situation ISSUE: Officers are often unclear about the term “unstabilized situation” - A set of events not under human control. It originates when control is lost and terminates when control is regained or, in the absence of persons who are able to regain control, when all persons and property are at rest. Example 9. A motor vehicle in-transport brakes, attempting to avoid a pedestrian crossing the roadway. The motor vehicle in-transport strikes the pedestrian. At the same time (i.e., when the first vehicle started to brake and before it came to rest), a second motor vehicle in-transport swerves to avoid a collision with the braking vehicle, striking a utility pole. The two motor vehicles in-transport do not strike each other, but these events are all within one unstabilized situation. COMMENT:  No other crash component (another traffic unit) is given the same consideration.  If we replace a bicyclist with the second motor vehicle described in “Example 9.)” with the same outcome resulting, the bicyclist is normally not considered part of the crash. DISCUSSION: Is vehicle #1 in this situation a non-contact vehicle if he did not strike the pedestrian? In the hypothetical with the bicyclist, would you make him part of the crash?

22. Definitions – 2.4.4 Unstabilized Situation • PROPOSALThe definition of 2.4.12 Motor Vehicle Accident does not specifically say that it must involve a “contact” motor vehicle in-transport.  Suggest adding the word "contact" to the definition to say “(1) involves a contact motor vehicle in-transport..."  • COMMENT:a motorist can brake forcefully and suddenly, causing an unbelted occupant to strike the dashboard or windshield and that is a motor vehicle in transport collision, first harmful event injury.  No contact occurred between another vehicle or object so I don't believe the inclusion of "contact" is a mandatory component of a motor vehicle crash. Discussion: Should “contact” be added?

23. Definitions – 2.4.4 Unstabilized Situation PROPOSAL Questions are often raised about whether or not a fatality should be counted as part of a motor vehicle traffic accident that involves an immersion harmful event (drowning). I propose that additional clarification be added under 2.4.4 unstabilized situation exclusion example #3 to state something to the effect of "an occupant of a vehicle that is a sinking vehicle or that enters into swift moving water is not in ‘a position of safety’. In these occurrences the unstabilized situation has not ended, and any damage or injury is still part of the same unstabilized situation”

24. Definitions - 2.5 Location • PROPOSAL- add the term, "Entrance/Exit Ramp-related" to the list of location definitions and also provide a figure that shows this area to clarify. This is an attribute in both MMUCC and FARS in several locations and warrants further clarification to enhance understanding.  A parallel recommendation has been made for MMUCC in Crash Element C16 – Relation to Junction. That recommendation involved adding an attribute Entrance/Exit Ramp Related. The MMUCC Panel chose not to add a new attribute, but to change the existing attribute to Entrance/Exit Ramp or related. In ANSI, 7th Ed., a ramp is defined as an auxiliary roadway used for entering or leaving through-traffic lanes. (2.5.17) MMUCC definition of Entrance/Exit Ramp: Crash occurs on an approach to or exit from a roadway or results from an activity, behavior or control related to the movement of traffic units entering or exiting a ramp. In ANSI D.16, Definition 2.7.7, an interchange crash will include all ramps... and include each roadway entering or leaving the interchange to a point 30 meters (100 feet) beyond the gore or curb return at the outermost ramp connection. Also see 3.8.3.4 Ramps or Frontage Roads Does the MMUCC change (combining Ramp and Ramp-related) render the ANSI proposal moot, or do we need a definition with more specificity to outline exactly what parameters are included in ramp-related?

25. Definitions 2.5.10 Intersection • PROPOSAL – in ANSI, use the definition of intersection that is used in the current MUTCD (2009), as follows: Intersection (a) The area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines, or if none,  the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two highways that join one another at, or approximately at, right angles, or the area within which vehicles traveling on different highways that join at any other angle might come into conflict. (b) The junction of an alley or driveway with a roadway or highway shall not constitute an intersection, unless the roadway or highway at said junction is controlled by a traffic control device. (c) If a highway includes two roadways that are 30 feet or more apart (see definition of Median),  then every crossing of each roadway of such divided highway by an intersecting highway shall be a separate intersection. (d) If both intersecting highways include two roadways that are 30 feet or more apart, then  every crossing of any two roadways of such highways shall be a separate intersection. (e) At a location controlled by a traffic control signal, regardless of the distance between the separate intersections as defined in (c) and (d) above:

26. Definitions 2.5.10 Intersection • Intersection – proposed new definition, cont’d. (1) If a stop line, yield line, or crosswalk has not been designated on the roadway (within the median) between the separate intersections, the two intersections and the roadway (median) between them shall be considered as one intersection; (2) Where a stop line, yield line, or crosswalk is designated on the roadway on the intersection approach, the area within the crosswalk and/or beyond the designated stop line or yield line shall be part of the intersection; and (3) Where a crosswalk is designated on a roadway on the departure from the intersection, the intersection shall include the area extending to the far side of such crosswalk. • Current D.16 Intersection definition: Same as MMUCC4 2.5.10 An intersection is an area which (1) contains a crossing or connection of two or more roadways not classified as driveway access and (2) is embraced within the prolongation of the lateral curb lines or, if none, the lateral boundary lines of the roadways. Where the distance along a roadway between two areas meeting these criteria is less than 10 meters (33 feet), the two areas and the roadway connecting them are considered to be parts of a single intersection. Change?

27. Definitions - 2.5 Location and 2.7 Location of Road Vehicle Accidents • PROPOSAL: Add clarification to address channelized intersections (2.5.13) and at-grade intersection in which traffic is diverted into definite paths by raised or painted traffic islands) by including a new Figure after the current Figure 5 to detail the definition that states: “Where the distance along a roadway between two areas meeting these criteria is less than 10 meters (33 feet), the two areas and the roadway connecting them are considered to be parts of a single intersection (See Figure 5).“ Note that there are suggestions to update several of the MMUCC Figures. Currently, the Figures in ANSI D.16 and those in MMUCC are the same. The updates should match as well.

28. Definitions – 2.7 Location of Road Vehicle Accidents and 3.8 Accident Classification by Location • PROPOSAL ANSI provides definitions of urban and rural locations, but not public and private property. While most crashes on private property are not required to be reported, there are some situations when reporting is mandated. Definitions of private and public property, as well as a classification of crashes based on public / private property may be needed. COMMENTS: The addition of the MMUCC element C2. Crash Classification in the 4th edition was in-part in recognition of this distinction. However, public versus private ownership of the land way is not a consideration with respect to the term "2.2.1 Trafficway"...  This most frequently raises challenging situations in locations like shopping centers, universities, or apartment complexes where the land ways are open to the public for transportation but not necessarily on public property.  These areas also add the complexity of parking lots where by definition the stalls and aisles are not considered trafficways but the parking lot way (if present) is a trafficway.

29. Definitions – 2.7 Location of Road Vehicle Accidents and 3.8 Accident Classification by Location • Because most states do not include private property crashes within their state crash repositories, there did not seem to be a great deal of interest in separating out the parking lot from the (generally) outside loop that encircles most lots but is still private property during discussion for ANSI D.16, 7th Ed. However, for those who do include private property crashes, there is probably benefit to better describing and differentiating the aisles between rows of parked vehicles and the perimeter thru-way. • Discussion noted that the perimeter thru-way is not always part of the private parking lot area and may be public property, thus reportable. • PROPOSAL: Crashes that occur in and around parking lots frequently raise questions.  I suggest that the term "parking lot way“ included under the definition 2.5.22 parking lot be given its own index ID and defined with additional detail and examples that could then be used under affected definitions such as 2.2.1 Trafficway, and 2.4.18 Traffic Accident.  

30. Definitions – 2.7 Location of Road Vehicle Accidents • PROPOSAL: Add a definition of driveway access related. MMUCC collects this information as driveway access OR related. Will adding a definition provide additional data based on that fact? • PROPOSAL: In 2.7.4.1 driveway access-related accident - clarify that if a non-contact vehicle is exiting a driveway and another vehicle has a harmful event as a result of an avoidance maneuver, the crash is still driveway access-related. The vehicle exiting the driveway does not have to be a contact vehicle in the crash. Change?

31. Classifications • PROPOSALThe ANSI classification by work status is limited to At work or Not at work.  In terms of classification of crashes, add a classification related to special use of the vehicle, to include: 01 Personal Business 02 Driver training   03 Construction/maintenance   04 Ambulance     05 Military   06 Taxi, Lyft, Uber (or separate)    07 Transportation of property   08 Agriculture 09 Wrecker or tow   10 Police   11 Other business   12 Fire fighting   13 Bus 

32. Classifications - special use COMMENTS: I would also consider adding mail carrier to your list of special use vehicles. Another commenter said to include this as “other.” Need discussion regarding the police, ambulance and fire vehicles here. MMUCC is very specific regarding "emergency use" for these vehicle types. They can be considered as at work under this category but not in "emergency use". Just want to make sure we don't cause confusion here and contradict MMUCC or unintentionally generate confusion when it comes to emergency vehicles. In regards to #07-Transportation of property,  that would almost always be a vehicle used in commerce, so in an effort to keep things simple , maybe call it "Commerce" or "Commercial. I believe it would be useful and beneficial to identify the additional types of special uses of vehicles:1. for-hire personal transportation that is not (or is not consistently nor clearly) captured under taxi (e.g., "ride sharing" services such as Uber, Lyft, etc.)2.Paratransit services such as those used to transport elderly or disabled persons At present, traffic safety professionals have no usable data with which to examine the safety of either of the above, other than proprietary data that individual businesses may occasionally publish.

33. Classification • PROPOSAL: Can a new classification “Driver Distraction” be added? Is there enough data?

34. The website for public comment on ANSI D.16 revisions is: www.atsip.org/forum Next step is compilation of comments and a brief conference call with the Consensus Body to allow those not at the Forum to participate. The formal voting will begin.

35. Thank you for your input!