Highway Safety Programs; Determination of Effectiveness

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 1205

[NHTSA Docket No. 93-20; Notice 1]

RIN 2127-AE89

Highway Safety Programs; Determination of Effectiveness

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

(ISTEA) was signed into law December 18, 1991. Section 2002(a) of

ISTEA, Highway Safety Programs, requires that the Secretary of

Transportation either designate six key areas as priority highway

safety programs or submit a report to congress describing the reasons

for not prioritizing these programs. The six program areas involve:

Speed control, Use of occupant protection devices, Driving while

impaired, Motorcycle safety, School Bus Safety, and Police Traffic

Services. The existing National Priority Program Areas address four of

the six areas identified by the Act, but do not include Speed Control

or School Bus Safety. The agencies have reviewed existing data and

statistics regarding deaths and injuries attributable to these two

areas and have considered the availability of existing countermeasures

related to speed control and school bus safety, and tentatively propose

to include Speed Control as a Priority Program Area, but have

tentatively concluded that School Bus Safety does not warrant being

included as a Priority Program. Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on this proposal.

DATES: Comments on this document must be received no later than

February 28, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Commenters should reference the docket and notice numbers of

this document and be submitted (preferably in ten copies) to: Docket

Section, room 5109, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

In NHTSA: Ms. Marlene Markison, Office of Regional Operations, NRO-01,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590, telephone: (202) 366-0166; or Ms. Kathy DeMeter,

Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, telephone: (202) 366-1834. In FHWA: Ms. Julie Cirillo,

HHS-112, Federal Highway Administration, telephone: (202) 366-2170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program (the 402

program) was established under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23

U.S.C. 402. The Act required the establishment of Uniform Standards for

State Highway Safety Programs to assist the States and local

communities in organizing their highway safety programs.

Eighteen such standards were established and have been administered

at the Federal level by FHWA and NHTSA. NHTSA is responsible for

developing and implementing highway safety programs relating to the

vehicle and driver, while FHWA has similar responsibilities in program

areas involving the roadway.

Until 1976, the 402 program was principally directed towards

achieving State and local compliance with the 18 Highway Safety Program

Standards, which were considered mandatory requirements with financial

sanctions for noncompliance. Under the Highway Safety Act of 1976,

Congress provided for a more flexible implementation of the program so

that the Secretary would not have to require State compliance with

every uniform standard or with each element of every uniform standard.

As a result, the standards became more like guidelines for use by the

States. Management of the program then shifted from enforcing standards

to one of problem identification, and countermeasure development and

evaluation, using the standards as a framework for the State programs.

In 1981, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1981, Public Law 97-35, revising the section 402 program. The Act

directed the agencies to conduct rulemaking to determine those State

and local highway safety programs most effective in reducing accidents,

injuries, and fatalities.

On April 1, 1982, NHTSA and FHWA issued a joint final rule (47 FR

15116) identifying six National Priority Program Areas which the

agencies then considered to be the most effective highway safety

programs. The six program areas included one FHWA program area, Safety

Construction and Operational Improvements, and the following NHTSA

Program Areas: Occupant Protection, Alcohol Countermeasures, Police

Traffic Services, Emergency Medical Services, and Traffic Records.

The April 1982 final rule provided that these National Priority

Program Areas would be eligible for Federal funding under an expedited

procedure under the 402 program (23 CFR 1205.4.). It also established a

mechanism by which other, non-priority programs identified by a State

may be eligible for Federal funding. (23 CFR 1205.5 (a) and (b).)

Periodic Review and Determination of Priority Programs

On April 2, 1987, the enactment of the Surface Transportation and

Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-17) revised 23

U.S.C. 402. The changes provided for a periodic review of the

effectiveness of the various programs eligible for funding under

section 402 in reducing crashes, injuries and fatalities. The periodic

review procedure was believed to be the best method of ensuring the

continued relevance of the section 402 program to changing

circumstances and traffic safety needs, and for ensuring that Federal

funds continue to be used for the most effective programs.

The legislation also provided that the terms ``standard'' and

``standards'' within 23 CFR Part 1204 be replaced with the words

``guideline'' and ``guidelines.'' The purpose of this amendment was to

conform the language of section 402 to the current implementation of

the programs.

Pursuant to these amendments, NHTSA and FHWA conducted a rulemaking

action to review those programs most effective in reducing crashes,

injuries and fatalities. In a final rule issued on April 6, 1988, (53

FR 1255) the agencies determined that the National Priority Program

Areas should continue to include the one FHWA program area, Roadway

Safety (formerly, Safety Construction and Operational Improvements),

and the five NHTSA program areas that had been identified in 1982. In

addition, the agencies determined that a sixth NHTSA area, Motorcycle

Safety, should also be included.

On May 3, 1991, NHTSA/FHWA published a joint NPRM (56 FR 20387)

proposing to add Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety as one of the National

Priority program areas. The public comments supported that proposal and

resulted in the addition of that area as one of the National Priority

Program Areas eligible for the expedited funding process.

As a result of these prior rulemaking actions, the National

Priority Program Areas currently include the following:

1. Alcohol and Other Drug Countermeasures

2. Police Traffic Services

3. Occupant Protection

4. Traffic Records

5. Emergency Medical Services

6. Motorcycle Safety

7. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and

8. Roadway Safety

The agencies apply three criteria to determine whether a program

area should be identified as a National Priority Program under 23 CFR

Part 1205:

Whether the problem is of national concern;

Whether effective countermeasures have been developed in

this area which address this concern; and

Whether State programs in the area appear to be among the

most effective in reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities as

compared to other traffic safety program areas.

In determining whether a problem is of national concern, the

agencies consider the relative magnitude of the problem.

Today's notice is being issued to solicit comments on a proposal of

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to expand this list of National

Priority Program Areas to include Speed Control, and to obtain comments

on the agencies' preliminary determination that School Bus Safety

should not be added as a National Priority Program Area at this time.

The agencies have considered relevant data, statistics, and other

available information in reaching this conclusion and now seek public

comments from interested parties on these tentative determinations. The

following discussion highlights the key issues and factors considered

by the agencies in making these preliminary determinations. (In a

separate notice published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register, the agencies are requesting comments on revisions and

amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines relating to several

program areas including Speed Control.)

Speed Control as a National Priority Area

Is Speeding a Problem of National Concern?

The issue of speed control has received considerable attention by

NHTSA and FHWA. Over the course of the agencies' history, we have

funded and promoted many programs and initiatives addressing the

problem. Speeding is defined as not only exceeding the posted speed

limit, but also driving too fast for conditions. Some common

conclusions from these programs and initiatives indicate that higher

speeds and speeds too fast for conditions (whether or not travelling in

excess of the speed limit) adversely affect the safety of motorists.

Speeding is Becoming More Prevalent

While many speed/traffic surveys are taken, reliable data on travel

speed are relatively limited, and often difficult to compare. The most

reliable speed data are those reported by the States for National

Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) roadways posted at 55 mph. The Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) publishes an annual report containing a

compendium of speed monitoring data submitted by each State. Analyses

of recent speed monitoring data by the FHWA indicate that speeds at

which many motorists travel have increased in recent years.

There are less comprehensive data collected for roadways which have

speed limits of less than 55 mph, including the many rural highways and

urban/suburban streets and roads which are posted at lower speeds for

reasons of road design, traffic patterns, volume, and safety. These

non-NMSL roads account for 74 percent of the total paved road mileage

in the U.S. and for approximately 47 percent of all traffic deaths. The

lack of empirical data makes it difficult to identify the extent of the

speeding problem on these non-NMSL roads. A recent FHWA study of these

roads entitled Assessment of Current Speed Zoning Criteria found that:

(1) On average, seven out of ten motorists exceeded posted limits; (2)

average speeds ran approximately two to six mph above posted limits;

and (3) prevailing 85th percentile speeds ran approximately eight to

twelve mph above posted limits. The observations of law enforcement

executives and other highway safety officials confirm that speeds are

increasing on these roads.

Speed surveys on the Interstate highways also show that average

speeds and the percent of traffic travelling at high speeds have also

increased on these roads. For example, the percent of vehicles

exceeding 65 mph (on roadways with a 65 mph speed limit) were estimated

to be 47 percent in 1990 (up from 37% in 1988) while those exceeding 70

mph accounted for approximately 19 percent (up from approximately 16

percent in 1988).

After Congress amended the NMSL in 1987 to permit 20 States to

increase the speed limit to 65 mph on rural interstates as a

demonstration program, NHTSA issued a detailed report on the effects of

the increase. This interim report indicated that average speeds

increased somewhat on rural interstates. The latest NMSL research,

contained in the agency's Report to Congress on the Effects of the 65

mph Speed Limit through 1990 (NHTSA, May 1992), shows the average

travel speed on rural 65 mph Interstates in 1990 was 65 mph (up from 63

mph in 1988); the 85th percentile speed was 71 mph (up from 69 mph in

1988); and fatalities on rural interstates were an estimated 30 percent

higher in 1990 than the number expected, based on historical trends,

had the speed limit remained at 55 mph. A series of focus group

discussions held by NHTSA with the general public suggest that most

drivers recognize speeding as a violation of the law, but few regard

the violation as a serious offense.

These studies all suggest that the motoring public does not view

speeding per se as an immediate risk to their personal safety.

Excessive Speed Causes Crashes

Speeding is one of the most prevalent reported factors associated

with crashes. Studies identify correlations between speeding and other

factors including alcohol involvement, young drivers, male drivers,

motorcyclists, and nighttime driving. Speeding is cited as a

contributing factor in approximately 11 percent of all police-reported

crashes and in approximately 34 percent of all fatal crashes (NHTSA,

Fatal Accident Reporting System, 1991). It is estimated that in 1991,

13,909 fatalities and 77,277 moderate to critical injuries occurred in

speed-related crashes. The economic cost of all speed-related crashes

(including all injury levels) was over $18 billion.

Excessive speed has long been recognized as one of the prime

factors contributing to motor vehicle crashes. This contribution has

several sources:

Drivers have less time to react when travelling at higher

speeds since speed increases the distance a vehicle travels during the

time it takes for a driver to react to a perceived danger;

Speed increases the total stopping distance necessary to

halt a vehicle; and

Speed reduces a driver's ability to steer safely around

curves on highways, or objects in the roadway.

A major speed-related factor which has been linked to crash

involvement is speed variance: The difference in speed among vehicles

in the traffic stream. Speed variance is calculated in terms of

standard deviation from the mean speed. For example, ten vehicles all

traveling at 55 mph on the same highway would have a mean speed of 55

mph and a standard deviation of zero, whereas five vehicles traveling

at 65 mph and five vehicles traveling at 45 mph would have a mean speed

of 55 mph but a standard deviation of 10.5.

Research studies such as those in 55: A Decade of Experience

(Transportation Research Board, 1984) have shown that motor vehicle

crashes are more likely where speed variance is greater. As speed

variance increases, vehicles come close to each other more frequently.

This leads to more frequent lane changes and passing maneuvers as the

faster drivers seek to avoid slower vehicles. Data from the National

Crash Severity Study (1979) show that vehicles travelling 20 mph above

the average speed experience a crash risk 11 times greater than those

travelling at the average speed. This data implies that crashes can be

reduced by controlling speed variance. Controlling speed variance is

especially critical on roadways with speed limits less than 65 mph,

where conflicting actions and reactions typically cause much larger

variations in speed.

Speed Increases the Severity of Crashes

The trend toward increased speeds is cause for concern because of

the reduced margin for error and the increase in severity for those

vehicles involved in crashes. As the speed of a car increases from 20

mph to 80 mph, a factor of four, the energy of the impact delivered in

a collision with a fixed object goes up by a factor of sixteen. The

chance of death or serious injury increases dramatically for every 10

mph increase in vehicle speed for the crash involved vehicle. The

National Crash Severity Study (NHTSA, 1979) revealed that a driver

crashing with a 50 mph change in velocity is twice as likely to be

killed as one crashing with a 40 mph change in velocity. In short,

crashes at higher speeds increase the potential for more deaths and

disabling injuries.

Have Effective Speed Control Countermeasures Been Developed?

Enforcement personnel have several effective countermeasures

available for speed control which have been developed by new

technology. Traditional methods of speed control once involved the use

of stopwatches and pneumatic hoses stretched across the roadway to

determine vehicle speeds. Later developments included the introduction

of radar and VASCAR which more precisely measured vehicle speeds and

reduced the degree of possible operator error. Currently laser speed

measuring devices with an extremely high degree of accuracy are

becoming available to the law enforcement community.

NHTSA has taken an active role in identifying and evaluating new

law enforcement technology. After evaluating new devices, NHTSA has

established demonstration programs to introduce those devices into the

law enforcement community to further advance speed control efforts.

These demonstration programs have included enforcing speed limits using

radar, VASCAR, laser speed measuring devices, aerial speed measurement,

photo radar, electronic signing and saturation patrols.

NHTSA studies show that one of the best methods to obtain

compliance with speed limits is to combine an aggressive enforcement

campaign with a vigorous public information and education effort.

Public service announcements (PSA) regarding speed are regularly

developed and distributed by NHTSA. Furthermore, other effective

countermeasures, such as saturation patrols and multi-agency, multi-

jurisdictional enforcement efforts, have been developed and furnished

to the law enforcement community. These programs can easily become a

part of an agency's traffic enforcement program.

Several highway design and traffic control measures have also

demonstrated effectiveness for speed control. Freeway design,

culminating in the Interstate System, eliminated all at-grade

intersections thus providing for free flow traffic. This singular

design characteristic resulted in significant reduction in speed

variance and the promotion of uniform operating speed. Speed variances

on the Interstate System have traditionally been in the range of 6-9

miles per hour while speed variances on non-freeway facilities can be

as great as 20 miles per hour.

In addition, the need to control speed for varying conditions has

led to the development of variable message speed signs. These devices,

first used on the New Jersey Turnpike in the late 1960's have had

widespread implementation on all types of facilities and warn drivers

of impeding congestion, weather conditions, construction, and incidents

which required reduction in operating speed. Real time regulatory

variable speed limits are now being tested in the State of Washington.

The agencies believe that Federal, State, and local governments

should have balanced programs that use the most cost-effective

strategies for decreasing crash risks from speeding. This includes: (1)

Targeting enforcement where speeding has a significant impact on public

safety and accompanying it with public information and education; (2)

using a variety of techniques and technologies for speed control; (3)

understanding who speeds, where, and why; and (4) ensuring that posted

speed limits are appropriate for conditions. These efforts can be

further enhanced through the development of comprehensive speed control

programs which include establishment of appropriate criteria for the

setting and posting of speed limits, focused attention upon roadway

construction and condition, posting of appropriate roadway signs,

elimination of hazards adjacent to the roadway, and establishment of

research projects to further study the characteristics and consequences

of speeding in order to develop improved countermeasures and

guidelines.

NHTSA submitted a report to Congress in 1991 entitled Speed

Enforcement Program Plan to identify methods to address the speeding

problem. The plan relies heavily upon programs and projects that have

proven to be most effective and outlines speed control initiatives that

have proven successful. The plan also stresses a law enforcement

commitment to controlling speed on all public roads, using state-of-

the-art equipment, with a strong emphasis on public information and

education designed to increase driver compliance with speed limits.

Are State Speed Control Programs Effective in Reducing Crashes,

Injuries, and Fatalities?

The State programs that have been conducted to date demonstrate

that speed control countermeasures are extremely effective in reducing

deaths and injuries. For example, the New York State Police 55 mph

enforcement project was successful in decreasing the number of drivers

traveling at the highest rates of speed (often considered to be

``professional speeders''). While average speed declined slightly from

61.6 to 61.3 mph, the percent of drivers exceeding 70 mph declined from

6.9% to 5.1%. The percent exceeding 65 mph declined from 24.1% to

21.4%, and the percent exceeding 60 mph declined from 56.4% to 55.7%.

This success is believed to have ultimately led to reductions in the

number of fatal crashes, fatalities and serious injuries suffered in

New York.

In South Carolina, it is believed that the state's rural initiative

involving sheriffs contributed to a significant reduction in crashes,

injuries, and fatalities in 1991 as compared to 1989. During that

period, the state experienced 12,472 fewer crashes, 2,331 fewer

injuries and 106 fewer fatalities. South Carolina's PSA campaign also

received widespread recognition from across the State and is believed

to have contributed to the reduction of crashes during the time the

campaign was operational.

During the first year of the St. Louis enforcement operation,

ending September 1991, the average speed dropped from 62 mph to 61 mph

on the 55 mph roadways in the metro area, as a result of the police

agencies issuing 3,698 citations and 5,600 warnings for speeding during

the Operation Gateway period. This cooperative program is continuing

and is expected to result in further speed decreases on the involved

roadways in the metro St. Louis area.

Similarly, the speed control efforts targeting commercial vehicles

appear to be effective, with early results from the 1987 Commercial

Motor Vehicle Enforcement project in California indicating that all

crashes where commercial vehicles were at fault decreased by 3.5% (from

810 in 1986 to 782 in 1987) in the five test sites throughout the

State. Further, the number of accidents caused by commercial vehicles

which resulted in injuries in these test sites also declined by 11.2%

(from 259 in 1986 to 230 in 1987). Accompanying that reduction was a

corresponding decrease in the societal cost of injuries and fatalities

resulting from such crashes.

Determination Regarding Speed Control

The agencies believe it is clear that excessive speed does

represent a significant traffic safety problem. Speeding is a problem

throughout the country in all regions and on all types of roads.

Numerous countermeasures have been developed that have proven to be

most effective in addressing this problem.

The agencies, therefore, tentatively conclude that Speed Control

meets all requisite criteria and propose to include it as a National

Priority Program Area.

School Bus Safety as a National Priority Area

Is School Bus Safety a Problem of National Concern?

The safety of children in school buses has been a primary concern

of parents and school systems ever since buses began to be used to

transport children. That concern has helped develop school buses into

the safest form of transportation in the country. According to the

National Safety Council's ``Accident Facts'' (1991), during the 1989-90

school year, it is estimated that 380,000 buses were used to transport

22 million pupils approximately 3.8 billion miles (21 million miles per

school day). The National Safety Council statistics also indicate

fatality rates per hundred million passenger miles in 1989 were 1.12

for passenger cars and 0.04 for school buses.

The relative safety of school buses is evident from the following

table, which shows all vehicle occupant fatalities. Included are the

number of preschool (0-4) and school-age children (5-18) who were

fatally injured in motor vehicle crashes in 1990, and the type of

vehicle in which they were riding at the time.

Table 1.--Occupant Fatalities by Vehicle Type and Age Group Fatal Accident Reporting System 1990

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Age of occupant

Total ----------------------------------------------------------------

0-4 5-12 13-18 19+ Unknown

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total..................... 37,134 623 716 4,292 31,466 37

Vehicle type:

Passenger Car................. 24,092 476 457 3,042 20,086 31

Light Truck/Van............... 7,387 101 164 701 6,419 2

Medium Truck.................. 134 2 0 7 125 0

Heavy Truck................... 571 2 4 7 556 2

Motorcycle.................... 3,244 2 27 310 2,904 1

School Bus.................... 13 0 5 2 6 0

Other Bus..................... 19 0 1 4 14 0

On/Off Road Vehicle........... 1,214 33 35 149 997 0

Other Vehicle................. 296 4 19 55 218 0

Unknown....................... 164 3 4 15 141 1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

School bus-related crashes result in fatalities not only to

occupants of school buses and other vehicles, but also to pedestrians.

Pedestrians accounted for 28 percent of the total school bus-related

fatalities from 1986 through 1990. In crashes involving school buses

during that period, an average of 38 pedestrians were fatally injured

each year, with 72 percent being struck by the bus, while the remaining

28 percent were struck by another vehicle. Approximately 75 percent of

pedestrian fatalities involving school buses from 1986-1990 were of

school age (less than 20 years of age); of these, approximately 69

percent were struck by the bus.

The National Safety Council reports that during the 1989-1990

school year, most of these pedestrian fatalities involved individuals

who were either approaching or leaving a loading zone and that more

than half of the pupil pedestrian victims were struck by the school bus

which they were boarding or exiting. The National Academy of Science's

Special Report No. 222, ``School Bus Safety,'' (1989) states that

injuries received at bus stops tend to be more severe than injuries

received on board a bus. The report also states that, as pedestrians,

children between the ages of five and six are particularly vulnerable

and account for more than one-half of the young pedestrians fatally

injured by school buses.

School bus crashes have a much different effect on the population

as a whole than automobile crashes. When a child is fatally injured in

a school bus crash there is a greater sense of loss and a greater sense

of tragedy. For this reason, school bus fatalities and crashes often

receive a high degree of public attention and draw an immediate and

passionate response from the community. However, the number of

fatalities in school bus crashes is small, particularly when

considering exposure and when compared to the number of fatalities

related to other priority programs.

In 1991, passenger cars were involved in 82.8 percent of all

traffic crashes and 67.9 percent of all fatal crashes; whereas school

buses were involved in only 0.4 percent of all traffic crashes and in

0.3 percent of all fatal crashes. These data demonstrate that the

safety problem related to school buses is not great when compared to

that of other types of vehicles.

Have Effective School Bus Safety Measures Been Developed?

Although statistics demonstrate that school buses already provide a

remarkably safe form of transportation, the agency has taken steps to

further improve school bus safety. At the request of Congress, the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) studied school bus safety to

determine which safety measures would be ``most effective'' in

protecting school children while boarding, exiting and riding in school

buses. (See, ``Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance

Act of 1987,'' Pub. L. 100-17, 204(a), 101 Stat. 219, April 2, 1987.)

In May 1989, the National Research Council (NRC), an agency of the NAS,

issued a report entitled ``Improving School Bus Safety,'' Special

Report No. 222. The report confirmed the high level of safety provided

by the Nation's school bus fleet, and also suggested measures that

could further improve the safety of school buses.

In accordance with the 1987 law, NHTSA reviewed the findings of the

NAS report and, on July 13, 1989, published a notice in the Federal

Register (54 FR 29629), in which the agency determined which safety

measures would be most effective in protecting the safety of school

children while boarding, exiting and riding in school buses.

NHTSA found replacing pre-1977 school buses to be a ``most

effective'' measure, because of the higher level of crashworthiness

provided by NHTSA's 1977 school bus standards, the improved mirror

systems, and other crash avoidance measures typically provided on newer

school buses. The agency also found prohibiting standees on school

buses to be a ``most effective'' measure. In addition, NHTSA found a

number of measures which address the safety of children while boarding

or exiting the bus to be ``most effective.'' They include equipping new

buses with stop signal arms and cross-view mirrors and implementing

student crossing, pedestrian safety education and school bus driver

training programs. NHTSA also identified a number of measures as

``effective.''

The agency took several steps to encourage the adoption of these

``effective'' and ``most effective'' measures. In FY's 1990 and 1991,

NHTSA set aside, in accordance with provisions in the Highway Safety

Act of 1987 (Title II, Pub. L. 100-17), funds to assist the States in

implementing these school bus safety measures. The funds were used by

States on measures that had been designated by NHTSA to be either

``effective'' or ``most effective'' in improving school bus safety.

In addition, NHTSA conducted a number of rulemaking actions to

upgrade the agency's school bus safety standards. For example, NHTSA

issued a final rule on May 3, 1991, requiring new school buses

manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with a stop signal

arm (56 FR 20363); a final rule on November 2, 1992, revising the

minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improving

access to school bus emergency doors (57 FR 49413); and a final rule on

December 2, 1992, requiring that school buses enable drivers to see,

either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of

and along both sides of the buses (57 FR 57000).

Further, as stated previously, in a final rule dated October 4,

1991, NHTSA and FHWA expanded the list of National Priority programs

areas, which are eligible for section 402 funding using an expedited

process, to include Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. The agencies

considered the problem of school bus-related pedestrian fatalities when

they decided to add Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety to the list of

priority programs, and specifically stated, in the final rule, that

programs designed to prevent these fatalities are within the scope of

this new priority program.

Are These School Bus Safety Measures Effective in Reducing Crashes,

Injuries, and Fatalities?

As stated previously, school buses already provide the safest form

of transportation in our country. Since the number of fatalities that

are school bus-related is already so small, it is difficult to quantify

the benefits of the actions that have been taken. The agencies believe,

however, that these measures are the ones most likely to reduce or

eliminate fatal and serious injuries.

Determination Regarding School Bus Safety

Based upon the agencies' review of the available material regarding

the scope of the problem, including FHWA studies regarding bus driver

training and driver fatigue, we have determined that significant

attention has been devoted to school bus safety, and steps have been

taken to improve the already excellent safety record of this mode of

transportation.

In view of the successful measures already taken, the agencies do

not view school bus transportation as a problem nearly as significant

as other highway safety program areas.

Furthermore, the states already have the ability under the section

402 program to address school bus and other highway safety programs,

and are proficient in allocating existing resources as they deem

necessary to achieve maximum safety benefits. In addition, the recent

designation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety as a National Priority

program area has facilitated the States' ability to address the

majority of school bus-related fatalities, which occur while children

are boarding or existing, not riding the bus.

The agencies believe that the establishment of School Bus Safety as

a priority area could result in States shifting 402 funds away from

other priority programs, and that the expenditure of an increased level

of 402 funds in this manner would not significantly affect the overall

safety of school buses.

Therefore, the agencies tentatively conclude that School Bus Safety

should not be included as a National Priority program at this time. The

agencies wish to stress that this tentative decision should not be

construed to imply that the current resources focused upon School Bus

Safety should be reduced or redirected. NHTSA and FHWA believe that all

existing efforts in this area should be continued to maintain the

impressive safety record associated with school bus transportation. The

agencies hereby request data, statistics, and other substantive

information relevant to this determination.

Comments

Those wishing to comment on this document should limit comments to

the safety aspects of these two programs, and submit data or statistics

which demonstrate the extent of the nation's highway safety problem

which is attributable to either Speeding or School Bus Safety, along

with any discussion of countermeasures which are or could be effective

in reducing the number of deaths and injuries in either of these two

areas. In determining whether these programs should be identified as

National Priority Programs, the agencies will determine whether the

problem is of national concern; whether effective countermeasures have

been developed to address the concern; and whether State programs

appear to be among the most effective as compared to other traffic

safety program areas.

In order to expedite the submission of comments, simultaneous with

issuance of this notice, copies of this notice will be mailed to all

Governors and Governors' Representatives for Highway Safety.

Comments should not exceed 15 pages in length. It is requested but

not required that 10 copies be submitted. Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

All comments received before the closing date indicated above will

be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at

the above address both before and after that date. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be

considered. However, the rulemaking action may proceed at any time

after that date. The agencies will continue to file relevant material

in the docket as it becomes available after the closing date, and it is

recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for

new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their

comments in the docket should enclose, in the envelope with their

comments, a pre-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the

comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

Economic and Other Effects

The agencies have considered the impacts that would be associated

with this proposed action, and determined that it is significant within

the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and the DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures since it raises policy issues concerning the setting of

priority programs. This rulemaking document was reviewed under E.O.

12866. The rulemaking would not affect the level of funding available

in the highway safety program, or otherwise have a significant economic

impact. The agency has prepared a Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation

which is available in the docket.

Small Entity Impact

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agencies

have evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based on

the evaluation, we certify that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. States will

be recipients of any funds awarded under the regulation and,

accordingly, the preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is

unnecessary.

Environmental Impacts

The agencies have also analyzed this action for the purpose of the

National Environmental Policy Act. The agencies have determined that

this action would not have any effect on the human environment.

Federalism Assessment

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and it has been determined

that it has no federalism implication that warrants the preparation of

a federalism assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The requirement relating to this proposal, that each State must

submit a highway safety plan to receive section 402 grant funds, is

considered to be an information collection requirement, as that term is

defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part

1320. Accordingly, these requirements have been submitted to and

approved by OMB, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.). These requirements have been approved through 11/30/95;

OMB No. 2127-0501. This NPRM would establish no new information

collection requirement, as that term is defined by the OMB in 5 CFR

part 1320.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1205

Grant programs, Highway safety.

In consideration of the foregoing, the agencies propose to amend 23

CFR part 1205 as follows:

PART 1205--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 1205 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 402; delegations of authority at 49 CFR

1.48 and 1.50.

2. In Sec. 1205.3, paragraph (a)(7) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 1205.3 Identification of National Priority Program Areas.

(a) * * *

(7) Speed enforcement.

* * * * *

Issued on January 4, 1994.

Rodney E. Slater,

Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

Howard M. Smolkin,

Executive Director, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-445 Filed 1-13-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P-M