Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 1204

RIN 2127-AE90

[NHTSA Docket No. 93-21; Notice 2]

Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Revisions to guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: Section 2002 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Highway Safety Programs, requires that

the uniform guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs include six

critical programs. This notice amends the contents of existing Part

1204 by adopting guidelines on three of these programs: Speed Control;

Occupant Protection and Roadway Safety. This notice also revises six of

the existing guidelines to reflect new issues and to emphasize program

methodology and approaches that have proven to be successful in these

program areas. Finally, this notice removes the guidelines from the

Code of Federal

[[Page 36642]]

Regulations. The guidelines, as revised here, will be published in a

separate document made available to the states.

DATES: The amendments made by this action are effective on August 17,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In NHTSA: Ms. Marlene Markison, Office

of State and Community Services, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, telephone:

(202) 366-2121; or Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, Office of Chief Counsel,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, telephone: (202) 366-

1834. In FHWA: Ms. Mila Plosky, Office of Highway Safety, Federal

Highway Administration, telephone: (202) 366-6902.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program (section 402

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

U.S.C. Sec. 402. The Act required the establishment of uniform

standards for State highway safety programs to assist 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; FHWA has similar responsibilities in program areas

involving the roadway. FHWA is also responsible for implementing

programs relating to commercial motor vehicle safety.

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 non-compliance. Under the Highway Safety Act of 1976,

Congress provided for a more flexible implementation of the program so

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, and management of the program shifted from enforcing standards

to one of problem identification and countermeasure development and

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

On April 2, 1987, the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation

Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17) revised 23 U.S.C. Sec. 402.

The legislation provided, among other things, that the standards

promulgated under section 402 and codified in 23 CFR Part 1204 be

changed to guidelines. The purpose of this amendment was to conform the

language of section 402 and Part 1204 to the manner in which the

programs were then being implemented.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

(ISTEA) was enacted in December 1991. Section 2002 of ISTEA required

that the uniform guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs include

programs:

(1) to reduce injuries and deaths resulting from motor vehicles

being driven in excess of the posted speed limits [Speed Control];

(2) to encourage the proper use of occupant protection devices

(including the use of safety belts and child restraint systems) by

occupants of motor vehicles and to increase public awareness of the

benefit of motor vehicles equipped with airbags [Occupant

Protection]; (3) to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from

persons driving motor vehicles while impaired by alcohol or a

controlled substance [Impaired Driving]; (4) to reduce deaths and

injuries resulting from crashes involving motor vehicles and

motorcycles [Motorcycle Safety]; (5) to reduce injuries and deaths

resulting from crashes involving school buses [School Bus Safety];

and (6) to improve law enforcement services in motor vehicle

accident prevention, traffic supervision, and post-accident

procedures [Police Traffic Services].

Section 2002 also required that the Secretary of Transportation

designate these six programs as National Priority program areas or

submit a report to Congress explaining the reasons for not so

designating these programs.

Four of the six programs identified in section 2002 (Occupant

Protection, Impaired Driving, Motorcycle Safety and Police Traffic

Services) had already been designated as National Priority program

areas, along with four additional programs (Emergency Medical Services,

Traffic Records, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, and Roadway Safety). In

a final rule published in the Federal Register on December 13, 1994 (59

FR 64120), the agencies decided to add Speed Control, but not School

Bus Safety, to the list of priority programs, bringing the number of

programs on the list to nine.

Four of the six programs identified in section 2002 (Alcohol

Safety, Motorcycle Safety, School Bus Safety and Police Traffic

Services) are specifically addressed by the existing 18 Highway Safety

Program Guidelines. The guidelines do not specifically address Speed

Control or Occupant Protection.

In a Notice and Request for Comment published in the Federal

Register on January 14, 1994 (59 FR 2320), the agencies proposed to

issue two new guidelines to address these two programs. The notice also

proposed to add a new guideline to address Roadway Safety. By adding

these three guidelines, there will be a highway safety program

guideline associated with each program that has been designated a

National Priority program area by the agencies. The notice also

proposed to make revisions to the six other guidelines that address

National Priority program areas (Motorcycle Safety, Alcohol in Relation

to Highway Safety, Traffic Records, Emergency Medical Services,

Pedestrian Safety and Police Traffic Services).

Comments Received

The agencies received 35 comments to the docket in response to the

notice, including comments from 20 State agencies (with responsibility

for transportation/highway safety, law enforcement and health); a

municipal law enforcement agency; a county health department; four

individuals; one corporation (3M); and eight national organizations.

The national organizations that commented represent highway safety

interests (National Association of Governors' Highway Safety

Representatives and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety); law

enforcement organizations (International Association of Chiefs of

Police and National Sheriffs' Association); pupil transportation

interests (National School Transportation Association and National

Association of Fleet Administrators); and others (National Emergency

Number Association and Institute of Transportation Engineers).

The comments were generally supportive of the agencies' proposal to

add new guidelines in the areas of Speed Control, Occupant Protection

and Roadway Safety and, in today's notice, NHTSA and FHWA have decided

to add these three new guidelines. The comments were also generally

supportive of the agencies' proposed revisions to the guidelines

pertaining to Motorcycle Safety, Alcohol in Relation to Highway Safety,

Traffic Records, Emergency Medical Services, Pedestrian Safety, and

Police Traffic Services and, in today's notice, these guidelines have

been revised.

The comments recommended some additional revisions to the

guidelines. These comments, and any changes to the guidelines that the

agencies have made as a result, are discussed below.

[[Page 36643]]

General Comments

Two commenters (the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the

West Virginia Department of Transportation) noted that ISTEA mandated

the use of Safety Management Systems, but the guidelines made little,

if any, reference to their use. These commenters recommended that the

agencies explain the relationship between the guidelines and Safety

Management Systems.

These guidelines are meant to provide direction to state and

community highway safety efforts which are supported with Section 402

grant funds. The Section 402 process in every state is an integral part

of the state's Safety Management System.

To reduce crashes, ISTEA required that every State implement a

process for managing highway safety by ensuring that safety improvement

opportunities are considered and implemented on all highway systems and

during all phases of programs/projects. Although each state has a

unique approach to developing and implementing this SMS, the process

required is similar to the Section 402 process. It includes problem

identification and goal setting; data collection and analysis;

identification of performance measures; and selection and evaluation of

strategies.

The SMS differs from the 402 process in that its scope is broader.

The process brings together new highway safety partners and resources,

and provides for coordination among all those involved in highway

safety, including engineers, enforcement officers, educators, motor

carriers, medical personnel, state officials, and metropolitan planning

organizations. It is intended that the process will assist

decisionmakers in setting highway safety priorities for all safety

elements (human, vehicle, and roadway), and in allocating a broad range

of highway safety resources. Safety projects and programs identified

through the SMS process may be included for funding in each state's

Section 402 plan, Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program State

Enforcement Plan (SEP) and metropolitan and statewide transportation

plans and improvement programs, as appropriate.

The Washington State Department of Health applauded the agencies

for emphasizing the connection made by traffic safety professionals

between traffic safety and good health. Washington State stressed the

importance of informing the public about medical care cost savings that

could result from safe traffic habits and of forming ``partnerships''

between traffic safety professionals and public health officials,

hospitals and EMS/trauma providers. In December 1994, NHTSA completed

and distributed to the public a Model for Integrating Injury Control

System Elements. The agencies have made a number of changes to the

guidelines to incorporate elements of this Injury Control Model, which

stress a systematic approach for preventing and controlling injuries on

our nation's highways.

The Washington State Department of Health also recommended

editorial changes regarding the use of the terms ``crash,''

``accident,'' ``impaired driving'' and ``drunk and drugged driving.''

Except where it was impracticable, such as when referencing Police

Accident Reports or Drunk and Drugged Driving (3D) Awareness Week,

these comments have been incorporated in the guidelines.

Addition of Three New Guidelines

Guideline #19: Speed Control

Historically, Speed Control has not been separately identified as a

National Priority program area under 23 CFR 1204 or described in a

separate guideline. It has, however, been an integral part of the

Police Traffic Services program. Speed control initiatives have been

supported under the Police Traffic Services priority program, under the

guideline, and also through FHWA's Motor Carrier Safety Assistance

Program (MCSAP) as part of an overall traffic enforcement program aimed

specifically at commercial motor vehicles.

In accordance with ISTEA, on January 14, 1994, the agencies

published in the Federal Register an NPRM proposing to designate Speed

Control as a separate National Priority program area and a notice

proposing to add a separate guideline on Speed Control. On December 13,

1994 (59 F.R. 64120), the agencies published a final rule designating

Speed Control as a separate National Priority program area. In today's

notice, the agencies are adding a separate guideline on Speed Control.

The agencies received 16 comments regarding the addition of new

guideline 19. There was strong support from most respondents for

establishing speed control as a separate guideline, consistent with the

support expressed for its inclusion as a priority program area. Three

commenters specifically welcomed the addition of the separate

guideline. The Florida Department of Transportation thought the

inclusion of the guideline would give uniform direction to the States

for building effective programs. The Georgia Department of Public

Safety and The Illinois State Police were pleased that the area of

speed control would now receive individualized attention.

In contrast, two commenters questioned the need to separate speed

control from police traffic services and one commenter questioned the

need for a speed control guideline. The Michigan Department of State

Police believed that keeping these guidelines combined would lead to a

more efficient use of shrinking police resources and better reflect the

integrated belts, alcohol, and speed programs undertaken by many

States. The West Virginia Division of Highways thought that public

acceptance would likely be higher if speed control were part of a

``well-reasoned and balanced'' program, rather than a ``stand-alone''

effort. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) cited several NHTSA and

FHWA publications, which it believes contain more useful information

and are more widely distributed and easier to update than the

guideline. In its view, highway safety personnel have access to

numerous studies and publications concerning speed issues that contain

more current information than the guideline.

Consistent with the view of most commenters, the agencies have

retained the separate guideline. The issuance of the guideline is

appropriate and necessary in light of the recent designation of Speed

Control as a priority program area. The agencies do not believe that a

separate guideline precludes the integration of programs or the

efficient use of resources by the State. Nor do we think that it

represents a ``stand-alone'' effort subject to public disfavor. Rather,

it is one of many guidelines which, taken together, provide guidance to

the States in the implementation of a comprehensive program. With

respect to CHP's comment, the agencies recognize the existence of other

sources of information concerning speed control, and freely encourage

their use in addition to the information in the guideline.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the West Virginia

Division of Highways, and CHP each stressed the importance of traffic

engineering practices in the proper setting of speed limits.

Emphasizing that speed limits should be ``reasonable,'' West Virginia

thought existing speed limits should be subjected to engineering study

prior to funding speed enforcement programs, and recommended that the

guideline contain a strong statement to that effect. CHP urged that

training for traffic engineers include ``Developing guidelines for

setting speed limits; Establishing

[[Page 36644]]

appropriate signing policies; [and] Investigating alternative

approaches to speed control (signing, stripping, channeling, barriers,

speed undulations, etc.).''

The agencies note that the guideline already emphasizes the

important contribution of traffic engineering to the setting of speed

limits. The sections on Program Management, Setting of Speed Limits,

and Legislation stress the role of the ``traffic engineer,'' ``traffic

personnel,'' and ``engineering investigations'' in that process.

However, we agree that it is appropriate for the Training section to

contain a similar emphasis, and have adopted CHP's proposed language.

The agencies have not adopted West Virginia's suggestion to include a

statement that enforcement funding be preceded by engineering

evaluations of existing speed limits. To do so would hinder enforcement

efforts, based on a blanket presumption that existing speed limits are

not reasonable. The agencies are neither willing to accept that

presumption nor to place conditions on enforcement efforts, which we

view as a vital tool for effective speed control.

CHP thought the guideline was too detailed, in recommending under

the section on Training that law enforcement officers escort and assist

traffic engineers and technicians in the deployment of speed measuring

equipment. CHP viewed such escort and assistance as an operational

courtesy, and inappropriate for inclusion in a Federal guideline. In

contrast, the National Sheriff's Association thought that training law

enforcement officials in speed measurement was ``critical.'' CHP also

commented that ``new'' technology is over-emphasized in the guideline.

Citing the introductory paragraph's use of the term ``state-of-the-art

equipment'' for setting and enforcing speed limits and a similar

``emphasis'' in other sections, CHP argued that the emphasis should

instead be placed on ``appropriate technology,'' whether it is new or

traditional, because some new techniques are unproven.

The agencies agree with the National Sheriff's Association that

training of law enforcement officials is important. We do not agree

with CHP's view of the recommendation that law enforcement officers

escort and assist traffic engineers in deploying speed measuring

equipment. This is not a courtesy, but rather a training experience to

provide officers with a broad-based familiarity with speed measurement

devices. Consequently, the guideline retains the recommendation, but

the reference to ``escorting'' has been deleted to remove any

ambiguity. With respect to CHP's comment about ``new'' technology, the

introductory paragraph of the guideline, in fact, urges the use of

``both traditional methods and state-of-the-art equipment.'' Moreover,

the section on Technology exhorts the States to use only equipment

``that is approved or recognized as reliable.'' The agencies believe

that the guideline affords full flexibility, as written, for the use of

technology that is appropriate under the circumstances, while

accommodating prospective advances in the state of the art.

Consequently, we have not adopted CHP's comment.

CHP urged that the guideline devote more attention to speed

variability and traveling at speeds unsafe for conditions. The

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) supported efforts

to focus on speed variability as a cause of crashes, and endorsed the

funding of variable message boards that adjust speed limits to

conditions. In contrast, The Washington State Patrol thought that the

adoption of variable speed limits would create enforcement problems

because of motorist confusion, and the Minnesota Department of

Transportation was concerned about liability incident to the posting of

variable speed limits for prevailing conditions.

The agencies agree that the issues of speed variance and traveling

at speeds unsafe for conditions deserve special attention, particularly

from the standpoints of enforcement and education. Consequently, we

have added specific references to these problem areas in the sections

on Enforcement Program and Public Information and Education. The

agencies believe that variable message speed limit signs can provide

valuable safety benefits, and field evaluations have not disclosed

concerns about liability or motorist confusion. The agencies will

cooperate with State highway safety agencies to address any concerns

that might arise. We have retained the references to these devices in

the guideline, encouraging their use as a viable part of a

comprehensive speed control program.

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) suggested that

the term ``vigorous enforcement,'' which appears in the Enforcement

Program section, be defined in terms of the qualities and

characteristics that might comprise such an effort to better assist

jurisdictions in carrying out enforcement campaigns. The agencies

believe the term is unambiguous as stated--it conveys a high degree of

effort. The qualities and characteristics of a comprehensive speed

control program are set forth throughout the guideline.

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) commented that more

educational programs should be designed to raise public awareness of

the hazards of speeding. The NYPD thought this could be best

accomplished by starting with students during their freshman year in

high school. The Washington State Department of Health recommended that

language concerning bicyclists be included among the issues deserving

attention in anti-speeding efforts under the Enforcement Program

section. The agencies fully support increased educational efforts in

this area, and particularly those directed at an age group that has

been traditionally over-represented in highway injuries and fatalities.

We believe that the Public Information and Education section of the

guideline fully accommodates NYPD's interest in expanding educational

efforts concerning the hazards of speeding, and therefore no changes

have been made to the guideline. The agencies have adopted Washington's

comments concerning bicyclists, and have included a reference in the

Enforcement Program section.

The Washington State Patrol commented that the use of photo radar

technology and VASCAR, as identified in the Enforcement Program and

Technology sections of the guideline, is not approved under current

State statutes. Washington identified aerial speed enforcement as a

viable alternative to VASCAR. The Minnesota Department of

Transportation thought that the Program Management section was too

prescriptive. Minnesota did not articulate any reasons for its view,

but sought a less ``rigid framework.'' The agencies have made no change

to the guideline, because it does not compel the use of a particular

technology or framework. States have the flexibility to choose among

the different strategies contained in the guideline in implementing

speed control programs, according to their needs and particular

circumstances.

A number of commenters expressed concerns about the National

Maximum Speed limit. One commenter urged the repeal of the National

Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL). Another commenter complained that in the

guideline's section on Legislation, the NMSL was specifically excluded

from those speed limits that need to be ``realistic.'' Yet another

commenter urged renewed focus on the NMSL at the national level,

because of a perceived erosion in voluntary compliance. The NMSL is

governed by statute, and it is not within

[[Page 36645]]

the agencies' authority to change or rescind it. The agencies have

deleted the parenthetical statement in the Legislation section, which

implies unintentionally that the NMSL need not be ``realistic.'' The

statement was intended to convey that the NMSL is excluded from those

speed limits that States may set, but its existence may lead to

confusion and its deletion does not affect the guideline . With respect

to the comment urging a renewed national focus, the agencies would

point out that speed control has recently been designated as a priority

program area, reflecting a strong national focus on the issue and a

commitment to full cooperation with the States in this area.

Guideline #20: Occupant Protection

When the original highway safety program standards were established

by NHTSA and FHWA, an occupant protection program standard was not

included among them.

In 1982, the agencies issued a final rule which identified six

National Priority program areas that were considered the most effective

in reducing highway deaths and injuries. Occupant Protection was

designated as one of the six most effective programs. However, the

agencies did not at that time, and have not since, issued a highway

safety program standard or guideline on Occupant Protection.

The January 1994 Federal Register notice proposed to add a separate

guideline on Occupant Protection. In today's notice, the new guideline

is adopted.

The agencies received 11 comments regarding new guideline 20, which

generally expressed strong support for its addition. The Georgia

Department of Public Safety and the Illinois State Police were

especially supportive of giving occupant protection individualized

attention. The National Sheriff's Association (NSA) stated that strict

enforcement of occupant restraint and child safety seat use

requirements by all State, county, and municipal law enforcement

officers was ``a must.'' NSA also recommended that references to air

bags and anti-lock braking systems be included. Advocates for Highway

and Auto Safety urged the agencies to specifically endorse the primary

enforcement of mandatory safety belt and child restraint use laws as

part of the ``vigorous enforcement'' contemplated by the guideline.

The agencies agree with NSA that strict enforcement efforts are a

vital component of a successful occupant protection program, and

believe that the guideline, as proposed on January 14, 1994, places a

strong emphasis on enforcement. The agencies also agree that air bags

play an important role in occupant protection. In recognition of this

role, references to airbags already appear in the guideline, in the

sections on Legislation, Regulation, and Policy; Enforcement Program;

and Public Information and Education Program. In response to NSA's

comment, we have also added a reference to air bags in the context of

trend data collection in the Evaluation Program section. However, the

agencies do not agree that references to anti-lock brakes are

appropriate in the Occupant Protection guideline, as this issue falls

more properly within the ambit of crash avoidance. Consequently, the

agencies have not adopted NSA's suggestion to add such references. The

agencies agree with Advocates that primary enforcement legislation

deserves special emphasis, and have added appropriate language in the

section on Legislation, Regulation, and Policy.

The National Association of Fleet Administrators (NAFA) supported

all employer programs directing the use of safety belts by employees.

NAFA commented, however, that the employer's responsibility should be

limited to the adoption of policies and to informing employees of those

policies. NAFA voiced its member fleets' concerns that States might

pass laws requiring an employer to monitor compliance, raising the

specter of unjust liability and penalties. According to NAFA, it would

be unfair to hold an employer responsible where an employee willfully

disregards the employer's policy. The agencies agree with NAFA about

the importance of employer-based programs for the use of safety belts.

In fact, through a public/private partnership popularly known as

``NETS'' (Network of Employers for Traffic Safety), the agencies are

actively encouraging such programs, because of their demonstrated

safety benefits and resulting economic benefits to the employer. Since

the guideline proposed on January 14, 1994 does not discuss issues of

liability or responsibility associated with employer-based programs, no

changes have been made in response to NAFA's comment.

The proposed guideline provided for basic and in-service training

in the Enforcement Program section. In connection with that training,

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) commented that

NHTSA should not insist on a particular curriculum or dictate the

number of hours. In IACP's view, training should be described in terms

of learning goals and performance objectives. The guideline presently

allows the flexibility IACP seeks, specifying neither the particular

curriculum nor the number of hours of training required. Consequently,

no changes have been made in response to IACP's comment.

The Washington State Patrol expressed concern that data requested

in the Evaluation section of the guideline, such as conviction rates on

restraint violations, are not available or easily obtained. Collection

of the specific data listed in the guideline (safety restraint

citations and convictions) is not required but rather suggested as an

aid to the State in fashioning its evaluation program. The agencies are

aware that, while data on motor vehicle restraint violations are

generally available, conviction rate data may be more difficult to

obtain. Where such data are unavailable, States may choose to collect

other useful data for evaluation purposes.

The National School Transportation Association (NSTA) recommended

that the guideline discuss the issue of ``compartmentalization,'' to

educate the public about the safety record of school buses. NSTA also

suggested that continued emphasis be placed on school bus drivers

wearing safety belts. The agencies have not adopted NSTA's

recommendations, because they are more appropriate for consideration in

the specific context of school bus safety, and have been addressed

elsewhere. For example, NHTSA periodically publishes the ``School bus

safety report,'' a widely disseminated document containing useful

safety information, including a discussion of the importance of

compartmentalization. Additionally, the Highway Safety Program

Guideline on Pupil Transportation Safety (not under revision at this

time) places an emphasis on the importance of safety belt use by school

bus drivers.

3M Corporation commented that the guideline fails to consider the

safety of occupants of disabled vehicles, and recommended that

conspicuity enhancement, such as reflective license plates and garments

for stranded motorists, be considered. The agencies agree that

conspicuity can play a role in motorist safety. However, we do not

believe that the issue is appropriate for consideration in the context

of the occupant protection guideline, which addresses the protection of

vehicle occupants during a crash.

The New York City Police Department urged the expansion of programs

advocating the use of safety belts to junior high school through the

last year of high school. The proposed guideline already recommends

that programs for grades kindergarten through 12 include ``highway

safety in general and

[[Page 36646]]

occupant protection in particular.'' Accordingly, no change in the

guideline is necessary.

Guideline #21: Roadway Safety

When the original 18 standards were established, there was not an

individual roadway safety program standard. Instead, four standards

were published, each of which pertained to some aspect of safety in the

roadway environment: Standard 9 on Identification and Surveillance of

Accident Locations; Standard 12 on Highway Design, Construction and

Maintenance; Standard 13 on Traffic Engineering Services; and Standard

14 on Pedestrian Safety. In 1982, the agencies issued a final rule

which identified six National Priority Program Areas that were

considered the most effective in reducing highway deaths and injuries.

``Safety Construction and Operational Improvements'' was designated as

one of the six most effective programs. In 1987, the agencies changed

the ``Safety Construction and Operational Improvements'' priority

program to ``Roadway Safety'' to encompass a wider breadth of safety

activities related to the roadway environment. However, the agencies

have never issued an individual highway safety program standard or

guideline to encompass the entire area of either ``Safety Construction

and Operational Improvements'' or ``Roadway Safety.''

In the notice published on January 14, 1994, the agencies proposed

to more effectively organize and consolidate the roadway safety

components from each of the four guidelines that pertain to safety in

the roadway environment by creating a new guideline entitled ``Roadway

Safety.'' At that time, the agencies contemplated that the four related

guidelines would remain unchanged. The agencies received 14 comments

regarding the proposed Roadway Safety guideline, supporting the

creation of a separate new guideline. Two of the comments recommended

that, with the creation of this new guideline, the agencies could

eliminate guidelines 9, 12, and 13. The agencies agree with these

comments and have decided in this notice to remove these three

guidelines. The new Roadway Safety guideline will be numbered Guideline

No. 21, and contain additional section headings for ease of reference

and conformance with the format of the other guidelines. Guideline Nos.

9, 12 and 13 will be reserved.

The West Virginia Department of Transportation was the only

commenter that questioned the issuance of the Roadway Safety guideline,

stating that it was almost a verbatim restatement of the requirements

imposed on States under the Federal Aid Policy guide (23 CFR 924). The

agencies disagree with this comment. The guide to which West Virginia

referred deals specifically with the Highway Safety Improvement Program

(HSIP). Under this program, specific funding is set aside from the

Surface Transportation Program for carrying out the Rail-Highway

Crossings and Hazard Elimination programs. While HSIP funds are

available for roadway safety construction and hardware improvements,

Section 402 funds are not. The Roadway Safety guideline refers

specifically to non-construction items which are authorized under

Section 402. In addition, the guideline is broader in scope,

articulating recommended policies, practices, and procedures.

3M Corporation supported the use of conspicuity treatment on

vehicles and clothing for motorcyclists and pedestrians, and

recommended data collection and education efforts on the effectiveness

of conspicuous materials. The NYPD recommended educating all grades of

high school students, through community policing, on safety issues such

as the hazards attendant to changing flat tires in traffic lanes. The

agencies agree with 3M that use of conspicuous materials has a safety

benefit. However, 3M's recommendations are not directly related to this

guideline, which concerns safety aspects of roadways. Moreover, the

agencies note that conspicuity requirements are already in place for

highway construction and maintenance workers, and that the safety

benefits associated with enhanced visibility are well-established,

obviating the need for data collection and educational efforts in this

area. As discussed below, however, we have identified retroreflective

materials as important treatments for the improvement of nighttime

visibility. The agencies strongly support highway safety education

efforts, but note that NYPD's recommendation for education concerning

safety hazards to those changing tires is more appropriate for

consideration in the context of programs concerning pedestrians or

driver education.

The Michigan Department of State Police suggested that new

technology, such as high intensity sheeting on signs, might render

roadway lighting less cost effective than it has been in the past.

Michigan also thought that evaluating the impact of specific traffic

control measures on all traffic crashes might be problematic, and that

it might be more reasonable for States to evaluate spot improvements.

The agencies agree that new technology, such as retroreflective

materials, can provide valuable safety benefits at night, and should be

considered in addition to traditional lighting applications.

Accordingly, we have added a reference to retroreflective materials in

the guideline. The agencies also agree that spot evaluations are an

effective means of measuring the impacts of specific traffic control

measures on traffic crashes. Spot evaluations are currently routine

practice, and no change in the guideline is needed to accommodate them.

The ITE recommended that specific minimum education standards and

certain registration requirements be established for personnel

responsible for traffic engineering and highway safety. ITE believes

that the guideline should direct each State to implement such

requirements. The agencies share ITE's concerns that personnel involved

in traffic engineering and highway safety be properly trained and

qualified. However, the agencies believe it is appropriate for the

States to set standards in consultation with professionals within their

borders and based on particular State circumstances. We would point

out, however, that FHWA is developing a series of training courses on

the Safety Management System and other roadway safety topics. These

courses are specifically designed for those who are involved in safety

and traffic engineering, and are offered through the National Highway

Institute at locations across the country.

The Washington State Department of Health suggested that the

guideline include language recommending the development of an ``open

process for frequent roadway users, e.g., EMS/trauma providers, law

enforcement, CMV drivers, and commuters to report dangerous roadway

sections and/or specific hazards that they encounter.'' Many such

processes already exist. For example, the emergency telephone number

``911'' has been in use for many years, and is widely accepted as a

means of communicating roadway safety hazards. The Federal

Communications Commission recently issued a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking proposing that commercial wireless operations be required to

make Enhanced 911 available to customers, and is soliciting comments on

how this may be accomplished. In addition to the universal 911

emergency number, some States have provided emergency numbers for

motorists to report road hazards. Most law enforcement agencies also

monitor channel 9 on citizen's band radio. In Highway Safety Program

Guideline 11 (Emergency Medical Services), NHTSA supports these

[[Page 36647]]

programs by encouraging states to require a communication system that

begins with a universal system access number. In view of the many

programs currently in existence, the agencies do not believe that a

change in the guideline is necessary.

CHP commented that the guideline should support construction zone

safety programs, traffic operations programs, emerging technologies

having applications in the roadway safety environment, and public

awareness/education programs. CHP also sought consideration of

congestion mitigation efforts. Advocates suggested that where the

guideline refers to the regulation of traffic in work zones

(construction and repair sites and detours), it should clarify that

such zones should conform to recognized standards and guidelines, such

as the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The guideline

proposed on January 14, 1994 is sufficiently broad to support most of

the activities identified by CHP (construction zone safety programs,

traffic operations programs, and emerging technologies), provided they

do not involve highway construction, design, or maintenance activities,

for which Section 402 funds are not available. Federal-aid funds are

available separately under other programs to finance these latter

activities. (For example, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

establishes standards for specific traffic control devices and

procedures to be used in work zones. Funding for these devices and

activities is available through the regular Federal-aid program.) The

agencies agree that the guideline should be expanded to discuss public

awareness and congestion mitigation. Consequently, we have highlighted

public awareness issues in a new ``Outreach Program'' section and added

language concerning congestion mitigation under the section on Highway

Design, Construction, and Maintenance. The agencies also agree with

Advocates' comment concerning conformance with recognized standards,

and have added language identifying the Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices in the guideline.

The IACP encouraged a focus on two areas, under Program Management,

where it thought the agencies could make a significant impact. IACP

suggested that start-up funding be provided for up to 3 years for

additional police patrols in connection with the construction of a new

stretch of highway and funding of innovative programs bringing together

engineering and enforcement professionals at conferences and the like.

Funding for police patrols associated with highway construction is

authorized under other Federal-aid highway appropriations.

Consequently, the agencies have not adopted the recommendation

concerning the funding of police patrols with respect to this

guideline. The bringing together of engineering and enforcement

professionals is already accommodated by the guideline, which

specifically encourages a multi-disciplinary approach, including the

fostering of dialogue between engineering and enforcement personnel.

Consequently, while the agencies agree with the comment, no change in

the guideline is necessary.

Revision of Six Existing Guidelines

The highway safety program standards were first issued in the early

1970's, and the contents of most of these standards have not been

revised significantly since that time. The highway safety environment,

however, has changed dramatically during the past twenty years.

Accordingly, in the notice published on January 14, 1994, NHTSA and

FHWA proposed to update a number of the guidelines. The agencies

proposed to update only those guidelines that correspond to programs

currently designated as priority programs.

The National Association of Governors' Highway Safety

Representatives (NAGHSR) supported the agencies' proposed changes to

the guidelines, but expressed disappointment that the agencies ``did

not use this opportunity to propose additional amendments.'' NAGHSR

suggested that all of the guidelines should be revised and updated. In

particular, NAGHSR recommended that the guidelines should be revised to

better address emerging safety issues, such as high risk drivers and

rail grade crossing safety, and that the agencies should consider

establishing a process under which all the guidelines would be reviewed

periodically to ensure they are current and useful to State

implementing agencies.

With regard to NAGHSR's specific comment regarding emerging issues,

the agencies wish to note that rail grade crossing safety is addressed

in the Roadway Safety guideline referenced above, and issues involving

impaired drivers are fully addressed in the Impaired Driving guideline

referenced below.

With regard to the other issues raised in NAGHSR's comments, the

agencies will take them under advisement for future planning purposes.

However, the notice published in January 1994 proposed only to add

three guidelines and modify six others. As noted above, the creation of

a new Roadway Safety guideline has resulted in the removal of former

guidelines 9, 12 and 13. Modifications have not been made, however, to

any other guidelines. If the agencies decide to make changes to other

guidelines, such changes will be made after providing notice in the

Federal Register and an opportunity to comment.

Revision to Guideline No. 3--Motorcycle Safety

The agencies proposed that the Motorcycle Safety guideline would

continue to emphasize the importance of motorcyclists wearing helmets

and would be amended to place greater emphasis on improving the

knowledge and skills of motorcycle operators through motorcycle rider

education and training programs.

The agencies received 10 comments concerning proposed revisions to

the Motorcycle Safety Guideline. Four individuals submitted comments

opposing the mandatory use of motorcycle helmets. One stated that

Illinois, Iowa, and Colorado are consistently among the ten safest

motorcycling States, though they lack helmet laws. Another cited data

showing that motorcycle fatalities in Minnesota and Wisconsin

constitute a small percentage of both vehicular and head trauma

fatalities, and stated that fatalities had decreased after Minnesota's

rescission of its helmet law. A third cited data showing a large drop

in motorcycle fatalities in California since the implementation of a

motorcycle safety program in 1987. Three of the four commented that

States without mandatory helmet laws show lower rates of fatalities,

and urged education and training instead of mandatory use laws. One of

these highlighted driving under the influence of alcohol and failing to

obtain a motorcycle endorsement as issues associated with motorcycle

fatalities, and suggested the need for stiffer penalties.

These individuals raised a number of other points in opposition to

mandatory helmet use. One stated that, because motorcyclists are

covered by insurance, any argument that helmet use would lower health

care costs for everyone held no merit. Another cited claims that

helmeted riders ``may be involved in as many as 14 to 16% more

accidents than non-helmeted riders'' and that head injuries account for

28.1% of non-helmeted fatalities and 29.4% of helmeted fatalities.

According to this commenter, helmets contribute to obstructed vision

and hearing and

[[Page 36648]]

increased weight, temperature, and fatigue of the rider. This commenter

also criticized the DOT helmet tests for failure to ``probe all the

effects of a helmet in an actual accident situation.''

The agencies agree with the commenters that education and training

should form an important component of a comprehensive motorcycle safety

program, and that penalties should be imposed for driving under the

influence of alcohol and failing to obtain a motorcycle endorsement.

The guideline currently accommodates these concerns. The agencies do

not agree, however, that education and training should exist to the

exclusion of laws requiring the use of helmets. The arguments raised by

these commenters questioning the safety benefits attributable to

helmets fail to properly distinguish between fatality rates and

absolute numbers of fatalities. The apparently low fatality numbers

cited by the commenters follow naturally from the fact that there are

relatively few motorcycles on the road, and they travel relatively few

miles. Motorcycles make up only 2 percent of all registered vehicles in

the United States and account for only 0.5 percent of all vehicle miles

traveled. (Notably, most of the States cited by the commenters fall

within the bottom of the range with respect to numbers of motorcycles

registered and miles traveled, so it is not surprising that their

fatality statistics are even lower.) However, on the basis of vehicle

miles traveled, motorcyclists are about 20 times more likely to die in

a motor vehicle crash than are passenger car occupants. Moreover,

though motorcyclists were involved in only 1 percent of all police-

reported motor vehicle crashes in 1991, they accounted for 8 percent of

all occupant fatalities and almost 7 percent of total traffic

fatalities.

Riding a motorcycle is a very high risk form of transportation in

the normal traffic environment, and it is even more risky without a

helmet. NHTSA estimates that an unhelmeted motorcyclist is 40 percent

more likely to incur a fatal head injury and 15 percent more likely to

incur a non-fatal head injury than a helmeted motorcyclist when

involved in a crash. The level of protection afforded by helmets is

borne out by recent statistics in California, one year after

implementation of a mandatory motorcycle helmet use law. Statewide

fatilities decreased 37.5 percent from 523 fatalities in 1991 to 327 in

1992. An estimated 92 to 122 fatalities were prevented, and head

injuries decreased significantly among both fatally-injured and non-

fatally-injured motorcyclists.

The agencies do not agree with the comment that, because

motorcyclists carry insurance, health care costs are not an issue for

consideration. The data show that large numbers of motorcyclists either

do not carry insurance or do not carry enough insurance to fully cover

expenses. It is notable that the commenter stating this position also

cited statistics showing that many riders involved in motorcycle

fatalities did not have a motorcycle license. (It is reasonable to

assume that these unlicensed riders did not carry insurance.) More

importantly, the societal costs have been documented. The General

Accounting Office, in a 1991 report reviewing a broad array of

published and unpublished effectiveness studies on helmets and helmet

laws, highlighted the societal costs, stating that:

The studies we evaluated showed that nonhelmeted riders were

more extensive users of medical services and long-term care, and

were more likely to die or lose earning capacity through disability.

In one sense, the care of accident victims represents a claim on

society's resources regardless of how payment is made. The studies

we evaluated also indicated, however, that much of the actual

payment for care is made by society through tax-supported programs

or insurance premiums.

The agencies do not accept the premise that helmeted riders may be

involved in more accidents than non-helmeted riders due to helmet-

related factors, such as interference with vision or hearing. Studies

confirm that wearing helmets does not restrict the ability to hear horn

signals or the likelihood of visually detecting a vehicle in an

adjacent lane prior to initiating a lane change. The relatively higher

involvement of helmeted riders in crashes, as compared to non-helmeted

riders, follows naturally from the fact that, nationwide, more

motorcycle riders wear helmets than do not. Indeed, if 100 percent of

motorcycle riders wore helmets, 100 percent of the observed fatalities

would consist of helmeted victims. The agencies agree with the

commenter that the DOT helmet test cannot replicate all aspects of an

actual crash situation, but do not accept the conclusion that the test

has no value. Among other parameters, the test measures impact

attenuation, helmet retention, and resistance to penetration. These

parameters are important determinants of the level of crash protection

afforded by a helmet.

In contrast to the comments of these four individuals, the majority

of commenters generally supported the guideline. Four commenters

specifically identified the use of helmets as an important component of

the guideline. Advocates recommended that the guideline urge the

enactment of motorcycle helmet use laws more directly, rather than

parenthetically. The National Association of Governors' Highway Safety

Representatives (NAGHSR) thought that more emphasis should be placed on

mandatory helmet use laws, because it viewed helmets as the most

effective means of reducing motorcycle head injuries. The Minnesota

Department of Transportation urged continued emphasis on the importance

of wearing motorcycle helmets. 3M Corporation supported mandatory

helmet laws from the standpoint of conspicuity, recommending that

helmets be made conspicuous for both daytime and nighttime visibility.

The agencies agree with all of these comments about the importance of

wearing motorcycle helmets. In particular, the agencies agree with

Advocates that motorcycle helmet use laws deserve more than

parenthetical reference, and have included additional language in the

Program Management section. We have also added, under the section on

equipment, language clarifying that helmets should meet the Federal

Motor Vehicle safety Standard on helmets. The agencies agree with 3M

that daytime and nighttime conspicuity of helmets would add to

motorcyclist safety, and have included appropriate language in the

Conspicuity section of the guideline.

Several commenters made recommendations concerning training,

education, or licensing issues. Minnesota stressed the need for

emphasis on improving the knowledge and skills of operators. Advocates

noted that, even with school certification, adolescent motorcycle

operators suffered a disproportionate number of fatalities.

Consequently, Advocates believed that the guideline should not

encourage newly licensed and younger drivers to seek motorcycle license

endorsement. Instead, Advocates believed that training should be

limited to those with motorcycle licenses, and should not be conducted

in schools, youth groups, or the like, where it might serve to

encourage motorcycle riding by the young.

The Hawaii DOT recommended the deletion of the entire Rider

Education and Training section, reasoning that ``government should not

care how a rider is educated, only that he is educated,'' and

concluding that motorcycle riding criteria should be performance

oriented (i.e., government should set criteria for the licensing test,

but not for the training). Citing NHTSA's five-year study of driver

[[Page 36649]]

education in DeKalb County, Georgia, which showed only a short-term

benefit, Hawaii also suggested amendment of the introductory paragraph

of the guideline to remove training from the list of ``effective''

programs. According to Hawaii, enforcement, rather than training, is

the proper role of government. Hawaii also asked for more specificity

in the guideline's recommendations concerning licensing. For example,

Hawaii asked for the identification of medical criteria specific to

motorcycle (rather than car) licensing. With respect to license

renewal, Hawaii asked whether a knowledge test would be sufficient or

whether a skills test should also be required. Finally, Hawaii asked

what time frame the guideline contemplated by recommending the issuance

of a learner's permit only twice per applicant.

The agencies believe that training and education are an important

part of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program. Consequently, we

agree with Minnesota's comment concerning the need for emphasis on the

knowledge and skills of operators, and this is already reflected in the

guideline proposed on January 14, 1994. However, the appropriate age

for motorcycle licensing is properly a matter of State concern and, for

this reason, the agencies decline to recommend actions, as urged by

Advocates, that would restrict the availability of training for

adolescents. The agencies do not believe that motorcycle training and

education should be withheld from any segment of the population that

has reached the age set by the State for obtaining a motorcycle

license. Similarly, the agencies disagree with Hawaii's comment that

the guideline should concern itself with testing, but not with

training. A well balanced program should focus on both aspects, as

currently reflected in the guideline.

The identification of specific medical criteria relevant to

motorcycle licensing decisions and the nature of testing required for

license renewal are also matters properly left to the discretion of the

State. Consequently, the agencies have not adopted Hawaii's

recommendation to provide further specifics in the guideline concerning

these areas. In response to Hawaii's question regarding the issuance of

learner's permits only twice per applicant, the agencies have broadened

the language in the guideline to indicate that States should limit the

number or frequency of learner's permits issued to any one individual.

Hawaii also disagreed with the guideline's emphasis on impaired

motorcyclists. Instead, Hawaii thought it would be more cost-effective

to take a generic approach to the issue of DUI. The agencies agree that

DUI is a dangerous problem regardless of the type of vehicle being

operated, but believe it is important to include specific consideration

of impaired motorcyclists in this guideline. The problem of impaired

motorcyclists is commonly overlooked in most impaired driving

enforcement programs. Focus testing conducted by NHTSA has shown that

DUI messages directed at motorcyclists (a subgroup overrepresented in

DUI statistics), need to be different than those directed at other

motorists in order to produce the desired awareness. Consequently, it

is especially important that DUI programs and activities be referenced

separately in this guideline, and that they be tailored to the

motorcyclist audience.

The Texas Motorcycle Safety Bureau thought that the funding source

advocated by the guideline under the Program Management section should

be sufficient to fund all program needs and secured from use by other

state agencies. Texas noted that much additional funding would be

needed to implement the all-encompassing program addressed in the

guideline. Texas also recommended that the requirement for data

collection be more specific, but cautioned that if it included crash

data, it would fall within the responsibility of another State entity

and not be allowed. Finally, Texas expressed confusion about the

provision, under the section on Motorcycle Rider Education and

Training, advocating ``permission to spend money in other motorcycle

safety program areas as deemed appropriate.''

The agencies agree with Texas that the funding source sought under

the guideline should be secured from use for other purposes, but

believe that this is implicit in the guideline as written. With respect

to the concern about the need for additional funds, we are optimistic

that Texas will strive to implement comprehensive motorcycle safety

programs, making the best use of the funds available. The agencies

decline to further articulate the data collection requirement. States

are encouraged to collect data which they determine is useful in

contributing to motorcycle safety activities. The guideline does not

specify responsibilities for collecting data, so Texas need not be

concerned about conflicting duties among State agencies. The agencies

agree with Texas' comment that the provision about spending money in

other program areas is confusing, and have deleted it from the

guideline.

Revision to Guideline No. 8--Alcohol in Relation to Highway Safety

The agencies proposed that the guideline entitled ``Alcohol in

Relation to Highway Safety'' would be renamed ``Impaired Driving,'' and

would be amended to encourage use of a comprehensive, community-based

approach. Its goals would include preventing people from being killed

and injured in the short-term through general deterrence programs, and

permanently reducing the number of drivers impaired by alcohol or other

drugs through long-term prevention and intervention measures.

The agencies received eleven comments regarding the proposed

changes to Guideline 8. The National Sheriffs' Association and the New

York Police Department agreed with the proposed changes to this

guideline. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

supported the proposed revisions, particularly those portions that

encourage the adoption of programs that emphasize the likelihood of

officer-violator contact. Both the IACP and the Illinois State Police

emphasized the importance of police visibility in the community.

Illinois and the Minnesota Department of Transportation strongly

supported the guideline for recommending use of long-term prevention

and intervention programs, such as DARE, and expressed confidence that

such programs would reduce DUI/DWI levels significantly in the future.

Advocates stated that it favored the general approach and most of

the details included in the proposed amendments to Guideline 8, but

suggested that the agencies consider recommending that States adopt

0.05 BAC as the legal limit for the general driving public and

administrative license revocation or suspension sanctions as a means to

reduce impaired driving.

The agencies have not amended the guideline in response to this

comment. The agencies believe administrative license revocation or

suspension sanctions are already addressed sufficiently in the

guideline. Section II.A recommends that States should ``permit a broad

range of administrative and judicial penalties and actions'' and it

includes in its list of ``effective penalties'' for impaired driving

offenses the ``prompt and certain administrative license revocation or

suspension of at least 90 days for persons determined by chemical test

to violate the State's BAC limit.''

[[Page 36650]]

The agencies disagree that the legal limit should be lowered to

0.05 BAC for the general driving public. The agencies recommended that

States adopt 0.08 BAC for many of the reasons set forth in NHTSA's

Report to Congress on Alcohol Limits, Driving Under The Influence, in

October 1992. As the agency explained in the report:

A BAC level below 0.08 would have safety benefits if it could be

implemented effectively. However, a lower BAC might strain judicial

and enforcement resources and possibly result in public backlash if

these lower limits are viewed as unreasonable.

The Florida Department of Transportation stated that use of

preliminary breath test (PBT) devices has created confusion and

resulted in findings of not guilty in DUI cases in the State of

Florida, and recommended deleting from the guideline any reference to

PBTs and emphasizing instead use of the Standardized Field Sobriety

Test (SFST), with updated guidelines and training programs.

The agencies support the use of SFST and will continue to recommend

its use in Guideline 8. The agencies have not, however, deleted

references to PBTs from the guideline. PBTs are used widely in many

States. The agencies believe PBTs are extremely useful as law

enforcement tools, when used properly. In fact, the Illinois State

Police Department stated in its comments that ``the availability of PBT

devices is essential to enhanced DUI/DWI patrol, especially if .08

[BAC] is established as the per se [level for] alcohol impairment.''

The Michigan Department of State Police recommended that the

guideline be amended to include a reference to party host

responsibilities. The agencies agree that social host responsibilities

should be addressed in the guideline and have amended the Responsible

Alcohol Service section of Guideline 8 in response to this comment.

The Washington State Department of Health suggested that the

agencies make a number of specific changes to Guideline 8. The agencies

have adopted one of these suggestions. The agencies have not amended

section I.B on School Programs to promote the fact that underage

drinking is illegal in every State. This section recommends the type of

school programs that States should conduct, not the content of the

programs. Moreover, the guideline recognizes elsewhere (in sections I.D

and II.A) that it is illegal for persons under 21 years of age to

drink.

Section II.A recommends that States should ``provide effective

penalties for [certain] offenses.'' Washington recommended that the

guideline clarify that penalties should apply whether the offenses are

motor vehicle-related or not. The agencies have not amended the

guideline to make this change. We believe it is unnecessary,

particularly since the guideline lists, as an example, a mandatory

driver's license suspension for any violation of law involving the use

or possession of alcohol or other drugs by a person under the age of

21, an offense that is not necessarily motor vehicle-related.

Washington suggested that Guideline 8 be amended to recommend

tiered sentencing of hard core, repeat and high BAC drivers. The

agencies have not amended the guideline in response to this comment.

The guideline already recommends ``increasingly more severe penalties

for repeat offenders.'' The agencies do not currently have a position

on whether more severe penalties should be placed on high BAC drivers.

Finally, Washington recommended that public information and

education (PI&E) programs for deterrence should include information

about the risk of injury and/or death as well as legal, medical and

other costs. The agencies have amended the guideline to recommend that

this information be included in PI&E efforts. We have added this

recommendation to the prevention rather than the deterrence PI&E

section, however, where we believe it will have a greater impact.

The Hawaii Department of Transportation raised a number of issues,

most of which question the recommended use of sanctions that shift

responsibility away from individuals that drink and drive. Hawaii

objected, for example, to the recommended use by employers of treatment

programs, laws that impose liability on alcohol servers, and driver

licensing sanctions against license holders convicted of offenses that

do not involve the use of a motor vehicle.

The agencies wish to stress that most of the sanctions recommended

in Guideline 8 emphasize personal responsibility on the part of

individuals who drink and drive (such as administrative license

suspension, imprisonment, or impoundment or confiscation of license

plates or vehicles), as these sanctions are considered to be among the

most effective. However, there has been considerable success using some

of these other methods. Driver licensing sanctions against persons

under the age of 21 who purchase or possess alcohol illegally, whether

or not such persons are operating a motor vehicle at the time, have

been particularly effective. Accordingly, the agencies will continue to

include these recommendations in the guideline.

Hawaii raised several other issues, with respect to which the

agencies wish to provide clarification. Hawaii questioned the

guideline's recommendation that States implement K-12 traffic safety

education that includes an emphasis on impaired driving. Hawaii asks

whether the agencies believe children in grades K-3 should be educated

about this subject. The agencies believe students should be educated

about impaired driving well before they are old enough to obtain a

driver's license. We defer to educators to determine the appropriate

age at which to begin such education.

Hawaii objected to the recommendation in Guideline 8 that States

require the use of a victim impact statement prior to sentencing in

certain DWI cases. Hawaii argued that ``these statements may be

subjecting victims to additional misery without providing any profit.''

The agencies wish to explain that this recommendation is intended to

require that statements be used, if given by victims. It is not

intended to require that victims give statements if they do not wish to

do so.

Finally, Hawaii suggested that the guideline be changed to

recommend that ``happy hours'' be controlled rather than eliminated.

The agencies have amended the guideline, in response to this comment,

to clarify that the guideline does not recommend that all ``happy

hours'' be eliminated, only those ``that include free or reduced-price

alcoholic beverages.''

Revisions to Guideline No. 10--Traffic Records

The agencies proposed that the Traffic Records guideline would be

amended to recommend methods for establishing comprehensive traffic

records systems that would enable states to use data to identify

emerging traffic safety problems, develop appropriate countermeasures

and evaluate program performance.

The agencies received ten comments regarding the proposed changes

to Guideline 10.

The National Sheriffs' Association concurred with the agencies'

proposal. The Illinois State Police applauded the proposed changes,

particularly those relating to the development of a shared traffic data

base and improved linkage of data. The California Highway Patrol (CHP)

supported the creation of a linked traffic records system, but

cautioned that a great deal of time, effort and funding will be

required to accomplish

[[Page 36651]]

such a system. CHP stated that it had no suggestions to improve the

guideline.

NAGHSR recommended that the guidelines be revised to more

accurately reflect the role of traffic records as ``an essential,

integral part of every highway safety countermeasure [and] part of a

state's highway safety infrastructure.'' According to NAGHSR, the new

Safety Management System (SMS) requirements place additional importance

on traffic records, and the guidelines should be adjusted accordingly.

The agencies agree with NAGHSR's assessment regarding the importance of

traffic records in support of other highway safety countermeasures and

the new Safety Management System. In response to this comment, the

agencies have amended section III and the opening paragraph of the

Traffic Records Guideline to recognize these uses of traffic records.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) advised

increased support for use of citation/violation data and the Institute

of Transportation Engineers (ITE) commented that data should be

available for use by all State and local agencies with highway safety

responsibilities. The agencies agree that data should be available to

and used by State and local agencies. The agencies have supported

States and local agencies in their efforts to link data, such as under

the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) project.

ITE commented also that ``audits'' or ``surveys'' should be

conducted by States to determine such things as crash costs. The

agencies do not agree with this comment. ``Audits'' and ``surveys'' are

extremely labor-intensive procedures and the agencies believe it is not

practicable for all States to conduct them. Individual States may

choose to conduct these procedures, but the agencies have not amended

the guideline to recommend that all States do so.

The National School Transportation Association (NSTA) recommended

that the Federal government take a leadership role in the development

of better and more uniform data on school bus accidents and problem

drivers. The agencies are taking steps to improve these data.

Currently, pursuant to section 2002(a) of ISTEA, the Department is in

the process of soliciting comments from the highway safety community on

issues of data uniformity and reporting criteria for deaths and

injuries resulting from school bus crashes, as well as deaths and

injuries involving other circumstances.

The State of Kansas advised that the agencies postpone making any

final revisions to this Guideline until after it completed its Traffic

Records Assessments. The Kansas Traffic Records Assessment was

completed in August 1994. However, the Kansas comment raises the

broader question whether this Guideline should be revised while any

State Traffic Record Assessments are pending. The agencies strongly

believe the revision should not be delayed on this basis. Assessments

are being conducted in the Traffic Records and in other highway safety

areas, on a State-by-State basis. The purpose of these assessments is

to assist States as they review their highway safety programs, and note

program strengths and accomplishments as well as opportunities for

improvement. The agencies see no reason to postpone the revision of

these Highway Safety Program Guidelines until after all assessments

have been conducted. In fact, one of the reasons for revising the

guidelines is so that they can be used in future assessments.

3M recommended that Guideline 10 be modified to provide for the

collection of data on the conspicuity of clothing worn by pedestrians,

bicyclists and motorcyclists involved in crashes, and Advocates

recommended that the text regarding the Roadway File element of the

guideline be augmented by including a partial listing of relevant

design characteristics of a roadway that directly affect safety. The

agencies believe this level of specificity in the guideline is

unnecessary. The elements contained in the guideline are sufficiently

broad to encompass these details, without the need to list them

individually.

Advocates also recommended that Guideline 10 should encourage

States to cross-reference motor carrier information files. The agencies

agree with this comment, and have amended the guideline to clarify this

point.

Revisions to Guideline No. 11--Emergency Medical Services

The notice proposed that the Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

guideline would be amended to expand its focus, by recommending

improvements to the entire EMS and trauma care system for highway-

injured patients.

The agencies received seven comments regarding the proposed changes

to Guideline 11. The New York City Police Department and the National

Sheriffs' Association had no objections to the guideline, as proposed.

The Illinois State Police applauded the proposed changes,

particularly those relating to improved linkage of data and the focus

on first responder training. Advocates also supported the proposed

amendments to Guideline 11. Advocates recognized that there ``have been

vast improvements in safety due to developments in EMS response

capability * * * [which] greatly improves the chance for survival of

crash victims'' and stated that the ``proposed guideline will assist

states in that endeavor.''

The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) strongly supported

the proposed revisions to Guideline 11, particularly those relating to

use of a common phone number (e.g. 911) for quick public access to

emergency medical care, training and certification criteria. NENA

suggested that the guideline be further modified to recommend the

deployment of 911 (rather than other common phone number) systems, to

urge rapid upgrade to enhanced 911 services and to refer persons

interested in accomplishing these objectives to NENA for assistance.

The agencies have modified the guideline in response to NENA's

recommendations regarding the deployment of 911 and the rapid upgrade

to enhanced 911 services. NENA's third recommendation, however, has not

been accepted. It would be inappropriate for the agencies to appear to

endorse private organizations.

3M recommended that Guideline 11 be modified to recommend that

first responders and prehospital providers receive training on proper

procedures for roadway situations and use of clothing that enhances

conspicuity, as well as the proper care of clothing to reduce hazards

associated with blood-borne pathogens and other soils.

The National Standard Curricula for First Responders and the

Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Basic, which were developed by

NHTSA, both address issues relating to safety at the scene of a crash.

The specifics concerning the types of clothing to wear and how to care

for such clothing are best addressed in training courses conducted

using these curricula. They need not be included in the Highway Safety

Program Guideline.

The Washington State Department of Health suggested changes to the

guideline that would clarify its emphasis on injury and trauma

prevention. The agencies agree with Washington State's comments, and

have changed the guideline accordingly.

[[Page 36652]]

Revisions to Guideline No. 14--Pedestrian Safety

When the original highway safety program standards were established

by NHTSA and FHWA, Guideline 14 addressed pedestrian safety issues, but

there was no guideline that addressed bicycle safety. In 1991, NHTSA

and FHWA designated Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety as a National

Priority program area. Accordingly, in the notice published in January

1994, the agencies proposed to expand Guideline 14 to address bicycle

safety as well as pedestrian safety issues.

The agencies received eight comments regarding the proposed changes

to Guideline 14. The New York City Police Department supported the

combination of bicycle and pedestrian safety.

The National Sheriffs' Association concurred with the proposed

guideline, but noted that safety towns, children's villages and safety

farm/rural towns (Life Safety Programs) should be addressed. These Life

Safety Programs are examples of public information and education and

school-based programs conducted by States and communities for children

that fall within the scope of Sections VI and IX of the guideline. The

agencies support their use, but do not believe these programs need to

be mentioned specifically in the guideline.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation supported having

pedestrian and bicycle safety principles and rules included in all

driver training and licensing examinations. 3M Corporation recommended

that the guideline be modified to emphasize the use of highly visible

clothing to improve conspicuity for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The agencies believe these issues were covered sufficiently in the

guideline, as proposed. Section IX of the proposed guideline

recommended that each State ``should address pedestrian and bicycle

issues in State driver education and licensing programs [and that]

pedestrian and bicycle safety principles and rules should be included

in all driver training and licensing examinations.'' Section VI of the

proposed guideline recommended that State and community programs should

address ``being visible in the traffic system (conspicuity).'' These

portions of the guideline have not been changed.

3M also recommended that the guideline emphasize the use of retro-

reflective signing. Section V of the proposed guideline recommended the

application of appropriate traffic engineering measures, including the

use of signs. These signs are required to be constructed using

retroreflective materials, in accordance with the Manual on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices. The agencies note that Section V of the

proposed guideline referenced pedestrian but not bicycle signals, signs

and markings. The agencies have amended the guideline to correct this

omission.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) objected

to the guideline's emphasis on planning and designing sidewalks and

bicycle facilities. IACP argued that experienced bicycle riders find

these facilities to be more dangerous than operating a bicycle in a

conspicuous fashion on the roadway and asserted that measures, such as

bicyclist and motorist training plus improved conspicuity, would be

more effective at improving bicycle safety.

The proposed guideline advised States to provide ``a safe

environment for pedestrians and bicyclists'' and indicated that States

may use measures, such as sidewalks and bicycle facilities, for those

who wish to use them. The proposed guideline also recognized, in

Section V, that ``balancing the needs of pedestrians and those of

vehicular traffic (including bicycle) must always be considered.'' The

agencies agree that other measures, such as training and improved

conspicuity, are also important. Proposed Guideline 14 recognized that

``a comprehensive highway safety system is the most effective means of

producing consistent, long-term changes.'' The agencies do not believe

any changes are necessary in response to this comment.

The Washington State Department of Health recommended that the

guideline be amended to clarify that public information and education

should cover not only proper selection and use but also fit, and should

address both bicycle helmets and bicycles. The agencies agree, and have

amended the guideline accordingly.

Advocates supported the proposed changes to the guideline, but

recommended that the guideline include ``a more detailed presentation

of regulatory and legislative policies and countermeasures.'' In

response to this comment, the agencies have decided to include in

Section III of the guideline a specific example of legislation that we

support. The guideline has been amended to recommend that States should

enact and enforce bicycle helmet use laws.

The National School Transportation Association (NSTA) recommended

that a training program be developed for monitors who help load and

unload children riding on school buses. In addition, NSTA suggested

that children who walk to and from school should be educated about the

dangers school buses pose to pedestrians. NSTA cautioned, however,

against including this information in a general pedestrian safety

program.

In the final rule published in the Federal Register on December 13,

1994 (59 FR 64120), in which the agencies decided not to add School Bus

Safety to the list of National Priority program areas, the agencies

recognized that nearly one-third of all persons who die in school bus-

related crashes are non-occupants (i.e., pedestrians and bicyclists).

The agencies also identified steps currently underway to address this

problem, including the development of a separate school bus/pedestrian

safety educational program for children in grades K-6, and indicated

that:

States are able to address * * * school bus-related fatalities,

which occur while children are boarding or exiting * * * under the

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety program.

In today's notice, the agencies have modified Guideline No. 14 to

address loading and unloading of children who ride school buses and

other school bus-related issues that affect the safety of pedestrians

and bicyclists.

Revisions to Guideline No. 15--Police Traffic Services

The agencies explained in the January 14, 1994 notice that the

proliferation of highway safety legislation in recent years, such as

tougher DWI laws, child restraint and seat belt use laws, and

commercial motor vehicle safety laws, combined with an increased demand

for other law enforcement services, has placed a strain on police

agencies during a time of reduced budgets, manpower and resources. The

notice proposed to revise Guideline 15 to assist law enforcement

agencies by addressing how to do more with less.

The agencies received five comments regarding the proposed changes

to Guideline 15. The New York City Police Department supported the

agencies' approach and stated that the changes would further enhance

safety. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

concurred with the proposed changes to the guideline, particularly with

regard to enforcement actions where officers ``look beyond the traffic

ticket,'' the use of problem identification (such as Problem-Oriented

Policing, or POP, strategies) and the need to provide traffic

enforcement training. The Illinois State Police supported the agencies'

proposal, and stated that it ``provides a thorough framework for fine

tuning of the services performed by law enforcment.'' Illinois

[[Page 36653]]

cautioned, however, that significant progress will be difficult to

achieve without additional funding.

The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) suggested a number of

changes to the proposed guideline. NSA observed that the proposed

guideline mentions Police Departments, but not Sheriff's Offices, and

recommended that Sheriff's Offices should be mentioned specifically and

that State Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) should be

changed to read Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). NSA also

recommended that the guideline address waterway patrol (for which many

Sheriff's Offices have responsibility) and drugs that impair driving.

By referring to ``State and local law enforcement agencies'' and

``State Police Officer Standards and Training'' in Guideline 15, the

agencies did not intend to exclude County law enforcement agencies or

Sheriff's Offices. The guideline has been amended to clarify that

State, county and local law enforcement agencies are all covered and

that POST can refer to either police or peace officers.

The agencies have not amended the guideline in response to the

other recommendations in NSA's comments. Waterway patrol activities are

beyond the scope of what is authorized under the Section 402 Highway

Safety Program. Their inclusion in this Section 402 guideline would

therefore be inappropriate.

The guideline has not been amended to further address drugs that

impair driving. The agencies believe the guideline already addresses

this issue adequately. The introductory paragraph of Guideline 15, for

example, provides that ``Traffic law enforcement plays an important

role in deterring impaired driving involving alcohol or other drugs.''

The guideline also recommends that law enforcement agencies develop and

implement enforcement plans that include impaired driving involving

alcohol or other drugs, and that they address impaired driving

involving alcohol or other drugs in their public information and

education activities.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) commented that the guideline

should not mandate the provision of specialized commercial motor

vehicle in-service training to traffic enforcement officers. The

agencies recognize that CHP has officers who have been trained and who

enforce commercial motor vehicle requirements. This recommendation in

the guideline was intended to address the need for training in those

States that do not have these specialized resources available to them.

By providing specialized training, law enforcement agencies would be

able to augment ongoing inspection activities with the resources

already available in their current law enforcement program. Moreover,

the guideline represents recommendations to the States, not mandates.

The agencies have not changed the guideline in response to this

comment.

Other Guidelines Remain Unchanged

The agencies proposed that all other guidelines contained in part

1204 would remain intact and unchanged by this proposal. As discussed

above, commenters supported the agencies' proposal to add a new Roadway

Safety guideline, and suggested that guidelines 9, 12 and 13 would then

become duplicative and should be removed. The agencies have adopted

this suggestion. All other guidelines remain unchanged. The following

guidelines remain unchanged by this proposal:

Guideline No. 1 Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection

Guideline No. 2 Motor Vehicle Registration

Guideline No. 4 Driver Education

Guideline No. 5 Driver Licensing

Guideline No. 6 Codes and Laws

Guideline No. 7 Traffic Courts

Guideline No. 16 Debris Hazard Control and Cleanup

Guideline No. 17 Pupil Transportation Safety (Rev. 4/91)

Guideline No. 18 Accident Investigation and Reporting

It should be noted that the guidelines are not binding on the

States. A State's decision not to adopt a portion of a guideline, for

example, would not entail penalties for the State. Nonetheless, the

agencies encourage the use of the recommendations contained in these

guidelines to optimize the effectiveness of highway safety programs

conducted at the State and local level.

All Guidelines Removed From Code of Federal Regulations

As discussed above, with the passage of the Surface Transportation

and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17),

Congress gave statutory recognition to the treatment of the guidelines

as information the States could draw upon to build the framework of

their highway safety programs. With the shift in focus from mandatory

standards to advisory guidelines, this information need no longer

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). For these reasons, and

consistent with streamlining efforts under the President's regulatory

reform initiative, this action simultaneously removes all guidelines

from the 23 CFR part 1204. The existing guidelines, as amended by

today's action, and the new guidelines introduced by today's action,

will be published in a separate document which will be made available

to the States in the near future. For reference until that time, the

guidelines affected by today's action are set forth below in an

appendix.

Economic and Other Effects

The agencies have considered the impacts that are associated with

this action, and determined that it is not significant within the

meaning of Executive Order 12866 or the Department of Transportation

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The guidelines contained in Part

1204 are advisory, not mandatory. Accordingly, a full regulatory

evaluation is not necessary.

Since this matter relates to grants, the notice and comment

requirements established in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

553, are not applicable. Because the agencies were not required to

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this action, the

agencies are not required to analyze the effect of this action on small

entities, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The

agencies have nonetheless evaluated the effects of this notice on small

entities. Based on the evaluation, we certify that this notice will not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. 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 will not have a significant 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.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1204

Grant programs, Highway safety.

[[Page 36654]]

PART 1204--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

In consideration of the foregoing, and under the authority of 23

U.S.C. 402, 23 CFR part 1204 is removed and reserved.

Rodney E. Slater,

Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Issued on: July 11, 1995.

Appendix--Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 3, Motorcycle Safety

Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,

should have a comprehensive program to promote motorcycle safety and

prevent motorcycle-related injuries. To be effective in reducing the

number of motorcycle crash deaths and injuries, State programs

should address the use of helmets and other protective gear, proper

licensing, impaired riding, rider training, conspicuity, and

motorist awareness. This Motorcycle Safety Program Guideline will

assist States and local communities in the development and

implementation of effective motorcycle safety programs.

I. Program Management

Each State should identify the nature and extent of its

motorcycle safety problems, establish goals and objectives for the

State's motorcycle safety program, and implement projects to reach

the goals and objectives. State motorcycle safety plans should:

Designate a lead agency for motorcycle safety;

Develop funding sources;

Collect and analyze data on motorcycle safety;

Identify the State's motorcycle safety problem areas;

Develop programs (with specific projects) to address

problems;

Coordinate motorcycle projects with those for the

general motoring public;

Integrate motorcycle safety into community/corridor

traffic safety and other injury control programs; and

Include passage and enforcement of mandatory motorcycle

helmet legislation.

II. Motorcycle Personal Protective Equipment

Each State should encourage motorcycle operators and passengers

to use the following protective equipment:

Motorcycle helmets that meet the Federal helmet

standard (their use should be required by law);

Proper clothing, including gloves, boots, long pants,

and a durable long-sleeved jacket; and

Eye (which should be required by law) and face

protection.

Additionally, each passenger should be provided a seat and

footrest.

III. Motorcycle Operator Licensing

States should require every person who operates a motorcycle on

public roadways to pass an examination designed especially for

motorcycle operation and to hold a license endorsement specifically

authorizing motorcycle operation. Each State should have a

motorcycle licensing system that requires:

Motorcycle operator's manual;

Motorcycle license examination, including knowledge and

skill tests, and State licensing medical criteria;

License examiner training;

Motorcycle license endorsement;

Motorcycle license renewal requirements;

Learner's permit issued for a period of 90 days and

limits on the number or frequency of learner's permits issued per

applicant; and

Penalties for violation of motorcycle licensing

requirements.

IV. Motorcycle Rider Education and Training

Safe motorcycle operation requires specialized training by

qualified instructors. Each State should establish a State

Motorcycle Rider Education Program that provides for:

Source of program funding;

State organization to administer the program;

Use of Motorcycle Safety Foundation curriculum or

equivalent State-approved curriculum;

Reasonable availability of rider education courses for

all interested residents of legal riding age;

Instructor training and certification;

Incentives for successful course completion such as

licensing skills test exemption;

Quality control of the program;

Ability to purchase insurance for the program;

State guidelines for conduct of the program; and

Program evaluation.

V. Motorcycle Operation While Impaired by Alcohol or Other Drugs

Each State should ensure that programs addressing impaired

driving include a focus on motorcycles. The following programs

should include an emphasis on impaired motorcyclists:

Community/corridor traffic safety and other injury

control programs;

Public information and education campaigns;

Youth impaired driving programs;

Law enforcement programs;

Judge and prosecutor training programs;

Anti-impaired driving organizations; and

College and school programs.

VI. Motorcycle Conspicuity and Motorist Awareness Programs

State motorcycle safety programs should emphasize the issues of

rider conspicuity and motorist awareness of motorcycles. These

programs should address:

Daytime use of motorcycle lights;

Brightly colored clothing and reflective materials for

motorcycle riders and motorcycle helmets with high daytime and

nighttime conspicuity;

Lane positioning of motorcycles to increase vehicle

visibility;

Reasons why motorists do not see motorcycles; and

Ways that other motorists can increase their awareness

of motorcyclists.

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NO. 8--IMPAIRED DRIVING

Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,

should have a comprehensive program to combat impaired driving. This

guideline describes the areas that each State's program should

address. Throughout this guideline, ``impaired driving'' means

operating any motor vehicle while one's faculties are affected by

alcohol or other drugs, medications, or other substances. ``Impaired

driving'' includes, but is not limited to, impairment as defined in

State statutes.

I. Prevention

Each State should have prevention programs to reduce impaired

driving through approaches commonly associated with public health--

altering social norms, changing risky or dangerous behaviors, and

creating protective environments. Prevention and public health

programs promote activities to educate the public on the effects of

alcohol and other drugs, limit alcohol and drug availability, and

prevent those impaired by alcohol and drugs from driving. Prevention

programs are typically carried out in schools, work sites, medical

and health care facilities, and community groups. Each State should

implement a system of impaired driving prevention activities and

work with the traffic safety, health and medical communities to

foster health and reduce traffic-related injuries and their

resulting costs.

A. Public Information and Education for Prevention

States should develop and implement public information and

education (PI&E) programs directed at impaired driving, and reducing

the risk of injury or death and their resulting medical, legal and

other costs. Programs should start at the State level and extend to

communities through State assistance, model programs, and public

encouragement. States should:

Have a statewide plan, program, and coordinator for all

impaired driving PI&E activities;

Develop their own PI&E campaigns and materials, either

by adapting materials from the Federal government or other States,

or by creating new campaigns and materials;

Encourage and support communities to implement

awareness programs at the local level;

Encourage businesses and private organizations to

participate in impaired driving PI&E campaigns; and

Encourage media to support impaired driving highway

safety issues by reporting on programs, activities (including

enforcement campaigns), alcohol-related arrests, and alcohol-related

crashes.

B. School Programs

Student programs, including kindergarten through college and

trade school, play a critical role in preventing impaired driving.

States should:

Implement K-12 traffic safety education, with

appropriate emphasis on impaired

[[Page 36655]]

driving, as part of a comprehensive health education program;

Establish and support student safety clubs and

activities and create a statewide network linking these groups;

Establish liaisons with higher education institutions

to encourage policies to reduce alcohol, other drug, and traffic

safety problems on college campuses;

Promote alcohol- and drug-free events throughout the

school year, with particular emphasis on high-risk times such as

prom, spring break, and graduation;

Coordinate closely with anti-drug education efforts and

programs;

Develop working relationships with school health

personnel as a means of providing information to students about a

variety of traffic safety and health behaviors; and

Make effective use of criminal justice, medical, or

other professionals through presentations in the classroom or

assembly programs.

C. Employer Programs

States should provide information and technical assistance to

all employers, encouraging them to offer programs to reduce impaired

driving by employees and their families. These programs should

include:

Model policies for impaired driving and other traffic

safety issues, including safety belt use and speeding;

Management training to recognize and address alcohol

and drug impairment;

Education and treatment programs for employees; and

Employee awareness activities.

States should especially encourage companies and businesses to

provide impaired driving programs to their youthful employees. The

States should also be familiar with FHWA's drug and alcohol

requirements for employers of commercial motor vehicle (CMV)

drivers.

D. Responsible Alcohol Service

States should promote responsible alcohol service policies and

practices through social host programs and well-publicized and

enforced laws, regulations, policies and education in the retail

alcohol service industry (including package stores, restaurants, and

taverns). States should:

Implement and enforce programs to eliminate the sale or

service of alcoholic beverages to those under 21 years of age;

Promote alcohol server and service programs, including

assessments, written policies, and training;

Ensure adequate alcohol control regulations dealing

with issues such as service to visibly intoxicated patrons and the

elimination of ``happy hours'' during which free or reduced-price

alcoholic beverages are offered (food and non-alcoholic beverages

may be offered instead during such times);

Provide adequate resources (including budget, staff,

and training) to enforce alcohol beverage control regulations;

Promote the display of responsible alcohol use and

drinking and driving information in alcohol sales and service

establishments;

Promote participation in designated driver, safe rides,

and other alternative transportation programs; and

Provide that commercial establishments may be held

responsible for damages caused by any patron who was served alcohol

when visibly intoxicated.

E. Transportation Alternatives

States should promote alternative transportation programs that

enable drinkers to reach their destinations without driving.

Alternative transportation programs include:

Designated drivers; and

Safe rides.

II. Deterrence

Each State should have a deterrence program to reduce impaired

driving through activities to create the maximum possible perception

of detection, arrest and punishment among persons who might be

tempted to drive under the influence of alcohol or other drugs,

including CMV drivers. Close coordination with law enforcement

agencies on the municipal, county, and state levels is needed to

create and sustain the perceived risk of being detected and

arrested. Specialized traffic enforcement efforts, such as the Motor

Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), also serve as a core

element in the detection of impaired drivers. Equally close

coordination with courts and the motor vehicle licensing and

registration agency is needed to enhance the fear of punishment.

Effective use of all available media is essential to create and

maintain a strong public awareness of impaired driving enforcement

and sanctions.

Each State should implement a system of activities to deter

impaired driving. The deterrence system should include legislation,

public information and education, enforcement, prosecution,

adjudication, criminal sanctions, driver licensing, and vehicle

registration activities. The goal should be to increase the

perception and probability of arrest for violators and the

imposition of swift and sure sanctions.

A. Laws To Deter Impaired Driving

States should enact laws that define and prohibit impaired

driving in broad and readily enforceable terms, facilitate the

acquisition of evidence against impaired drivers, and permit a broad

range of administrative and judicial penalties and actions. These

laws should:

Define impaired driving offenses--

Establish .08 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) as the

blood alcohol level at or above which it is illegal to operate a

motor vehicle (``illegal per se'');

Establish .04 BAC as the illegal per se blood alcohol

level for commercial truck and bus operators, as provided by

commercial driver license regulations;

Establish that it is illegal per se for persons under

the age of 21 (the legal drinking age) to drive with any measurable

amount of alcohol in their blood, breath, or urine;

Establish that driving under the influence of other

drugs (whether illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter) is

unlawful and is treated similarly to driving under the influence of

alcohol;

Establish vehicular homicide or causing personal injury

while under the influence of alcohol as a separate offense; and

Prohibit open alcohol containers and consumption of

alcohol in motor vehicles.

Provide for effective enforcement of these laws--

Authorize police to conduct checkpoints, in which

vehicles are stopped on a nondiscriminatory basis to determine

whether or not the operators are driving under the influence of

alcohol or drugs;

Authorize police to use a preliminary breath test for a

vehicle operator stopped for a suspected impaired driving offense;

Authorize police to test for impairing drugs other than

alcohol;

Include implied consent provisions that permit the use

of chemical tests and that allow the arresting officer to require

more than one test of a vehicle operator stopped for a suspected

impaired driving offense;

Require prompt and certain license revocation or

suspension for persons who refuse to take a chemical test to

determine whether they were driving while intoxicated (``implied

consent''); and

Require mandatory blood alcohol concentration testing

whenever a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe

that a driver has committed an alcohol-related offense.

Provide effective penalties for these offenses--

Require prompt and certain administrative license

revocation or suspension of at least 90 days for persons determined

by chemical test to violate the State's BAC limit;

Provide for increasingly more severe penalties for

repeat offenders, including lengthy license revocation, substantial

criminal fines, jail, and/or impoundment or confiscation of license

plates or vehicles registered by the offender;

Provide for more stringent criminal penalties for those

convicted of more serious offenses, such as vehicular homicide;

Contain special provisions for youth under the age of

21 that mandate driver's license suspension for any violations of

laws regarding the use or possession of alcohol or other drugs; and

Establish victim assistance and victim restitution

programs and require the use of a victim impact statement prior to

sentencing in all impaired driving cases where death or serious

injury occurred.

B. Public Information and Education for Deterrence

States should implement public information and education (PI&E)

programs to maximize public perception of the risks of being caught

and punished for impaired driving. Public information programs

should be:

Comprehensive;

Seasonally focused; and

Sustained.

C. Enforcement

States should implement comprehensive enforcement programs to

maximize the

[[Page 36656]]

likelihood of detecting, investigating, arresting, and convicting

impaired drivers. These programs should:

Secure a commitment to rigorous impaired driving

enforcement from the top levels of police management and State and

local government;

Provide state-of-the-art training for police officers,

including Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) and Drug

Evaluation and Classification (DEC);

Provide adequate equipment and facilities, including

preliminary and evidentiary breath test equipment;

Deploy patrol resources effectively, using cooperative

efforts of various State and local police agencies as appropriate;

Maximize the likelihood of violator-officer contact;

Make regular use of sobriety checkpoints;

Facilitate the arrest process;

Implement state-of-the-art post-arrest investigation of

apprehended impaired drivers;

Emphasize enforcement of youth impaired driving and

drinking age laws; and

Emphasize enforcement of laws regulating alcohol or

drug impairment by CMV drivers.

D. Prosecution

States should implement a comprehensive program for visible and

aggressive prosecution of impaired driving cases. These programs

should:

Give impaired driving cases high priority for

prosecution;

Provide sufficient resources to prosecute cases

presented by law enforcement efforts;

Facilitate uniformity and consistency in prosecution of

impaired driving cases;

Provide training for prosecutors so they can obtain

high rates of conviction and seek appropriate sanctions for

offenders;

Prohibit plea bargaining in impaired driving cases,

through appropriate legislation;

Encourage vigorous prosecution of alcohol-related

fatality and injury cases under both impaired driving and general

criminal statutes; and

Ensure that prosecutors are knowledgeable and prepared

to prosecute youthful offenders appropriately.

E. Adjudication

The effectiveness of prosecution and enforcement efforts is lost

without support and strength in adjudication. States should

implement a comprehensive impaired driving adjudication program to:

Provide sufficient resources to adjudicate cases and

manage the dockets brought before them;

Facilitate uniformity and consistency in adjudication

of impaired driving cases;

Give judges the skills necessary to appropriately

adjudicate impaired driving cases;

Provide similar training to administrative hearing

officers who hear administrative license revocation appeals;

Inform the judiciary about technical evidence presented

in impaired driving cases, including SFST and DEC testimony;

Educate the judiciary in appropriate and aggressive

sanctions for offenders including violators of commercial motor

vehicle safety regulations; and

Ensure that judges are knowledgeable and prepared to

adjudicate youthful offenders cases in an appropriate and aggressive

manner.

F. Licensing

Driver licensing actions can be an effective means for

preventing, deterring, and monitoring impaired driving. In addition

to the license sanctions for impaired driving offenses discussed

earlier, States should:

Implement a graduated licensing system for novice

drivers;

Provide for license suspension for drivers under age 21

who drive with a BAC exceeding .02 (or some other low BAC value);

Issue distinctive licenses to drivers under the age of

21;

Monitor licensing records to identify high risk drivers

for referral to education or remediation programs;

Ensure the accurate and timely reporting of alcohol and

drug violations as prescribed by the Commercial Drivers License

(CDL) regulations;

Assure that all licensing records are used to help

assess whether a driver requires alcohol or drug treatment; and

Actively participate in the Driver License Compact to

facilitate the exchange of driver license information between

jurisdictions.

III. Treatment and Rehabilitation

Many first-time impaired driving offenders and most repeat

offenders have substantial substance abuse problems that affect

their entire lives, not just their driving. They have been neither

prevented nor deterred from impaired driving. Each State should

implement a system to identify and refer these drivers to

appropriate substance abuse treatment programs to change their

dangerous behavior.

A. Diagnosis and Screening

States should have a systematic program to evaluate persons who

have been convicted of an impaired driving offense to determine if

they have an alcohol or drug abuse problem. This evaluation should:

Be required by law;

Be conducted by qualified personnel prior to

sentencing; and

Be used to decide whether a substance abuse treatment

program should be part of the sanctions imposed.

B. Treatment and Rehabilitation

States should establish and maintain programs to treat alcohol

and other drug dependent persons referred through traffic courts and

other sources. These programs should:

Ensure that those referred for impaired driving

offenses are not permitted to drive again until their substance

abuse problems are under control;

Be conducted in addition to, not as a substitute for,

license restrictions and other sanctions; and

Be conducted separately for youth.

IV. Program Management

Good program management produces effective programs. Planning

and coordination are especially important for impaired driving

activities, since many different parties are involved. Each State's

impaired driving program management system should have an

established process for managing its planning (including problem

identification), program control, and evaluation activities. The

system should provide for community traffic safety programs (CTSPs),

State and local task forces, data analysis, and funding. It also

should include planning and coordination of activities with other

agencies involved in impaired driving programs, such as MCSAP, and

expansion of existing partnerships, such as with the health and

medical communities.

A. State Program Planning

States should develop and implement an overall plan for all

impaired driving activities. The plan should:

Be based on careful problem definition that makes use

of crash and driver record data; and

Direct State and community resources toward effective

measures that address the State's impaired driving issues.

B. Program Control

States should establish procedures to ensure that program

activities are implemented as intended. The procedures should

provide for systematic monitoring and review of ongoing programs to:

Detect and correct problems quickly;

Measure progress in achieving established goals and

objectives; and

Ensure that appropriate data are collected for

evaluation.

C. State and Local Task Forces and Community Traffic Safety and

Other Injury Control Programs

States should encourage the development of State and community

impaired driving task forces and community traffic safety and other

injury control programs. States should:

Use these groups to bring a wide variety of interests

and resources to bear on impaired driving issues;

Ensure that Federal, State, and local organizations

coordinate impaired driving activities, so that the activities

complement rather than compete with each other; and

Ensure that these groups include traditional and non-

traditional partners, such as law enforcement, local government,

business, education, community groups, health, medicine, prosecutors

and judges.

D. Data and Records

States should establish and maintain records systems for

accidents, arrests, dispositions, driver licenses, and vehicle

registrations. Especially important are tracking systems which can

provide information on every driver arrested for DWI to determine

the disposition of the case and compliance with sanctions. These

records systems should be:

Accurate;

Timely;

Able to be linked to each other; and

Readily accessible to police, courts, and planners.

[[Page 36657]]

E. Evaluation

States should evaluate all impaired driving system activities

regularly to ensure that programs are effective and scarce resources

are allocated appropriately. Evaluation should be:

Designed to use available traffic records and other

injury control data systems effectively;

Included in initial program planning to ensure that

appropriate data are available and that adequate resources are

allocated; and

Conducted regularly.

Evaluation results should be:

Reported regularly to project and program managers; and

Used to guide further program activities.

F. Funding

States should allocate funding to impaired driving programs that

is:

Adequate for program needs;

Steady--from dedicated sources; and

To the extent possible, paid by the impaired drivers

themselves. The programs should work toward being self-sufficient.

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NO. 10--TRAFFIC RECORDS

Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,

should establish and implement a complete and comprehensive traffic

records program. The Statewide program should include, or provide

for, data for the entire State. A complete and comprehensive traffic

records program is essential for the development and operation of a

viable Safety Management System and effective traffic-related injury

control efforts. It is also essential for the performance of

planning, problem identification, operational management and

control, tracking of safety trends, and the implementation and

evaluation of highway safety countermeasures and activities. It is

the key ingredient to safety effectiveness and management.

I. Traffic Records System

To provide a complete and useful records system for safety

program management at both the State and local level, the State

should have a data base consisting of the following:

A Crash File with data on the time, environment, and

circumstances of a crash; identification of the vehicles, drivers,

cyclists, occupants, and pedestrians involved; and documentation of

crash consequences (fatalities, injuries, property damage and

violations charged) with the data tied to a location reference

system;

A Driver File or driver history record of licensed

drivers in the State, with data on personal identification and

driver license number, type of license, license status (suspended or

revoked), driver restrictions, driver convictions for traffic

violations, crash history, driver control or improvement actions,

and safety education data;

A Vehicle File with information on identification,

ownership and taxation, and vehicle inspection (where applicable);

A Roadway File with information about roadway location,

identification, and classification as well as a description of a

road's total physical characteristics, which are tied to a location

reference system. This file should also contain data for normalizing

purposes, such as miles of roadway and average daily traffic (ADT);

A Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash File which uses

uniform data definitions and collects information on the vehicle

configuration, cargo body type, hazardous materials, information to

identify the motor carrier, as well as information on the crash

(States are encouraged to use available information systems to

cross-reference commercial vehicle citations for violations of

Federal and State commercial vehicle safety regulations);

A Citation/Conviction File which identifies the type of

citation and the time, date, and location of the violation; the

violator, vehicle and the enforcement agency; and adjudication

action and results, including court of jurisdiction (an Enforcement/

Citation File could be maintained separate from a Judicial/

Conviction File) and fines assessed and collected;

An Emergency Medical Services (EMS) file with emergency

care and victim outcome information about ambulance responses to

crashes, e.g., emergency care unit, care given, injury data, and

times of EMS notification and arrival; information on emergency

facility and hospital care, including Trauma Registry data; and

medical outcome data relative to crash victims receiving

rehabilitation and for those who died as the result of the crash;

and

Provisions for file linkage through common data

elements between the files or through other consistent means;

performance level data as part of the traffic records system;

demographic data to normalize or adjust for exposure when analyzing

the various data in the files; and provisions for the use of cost

data relative to amounts spent on countermeasure programs and the

costs of fatalities, injuries and property damage.

II. Data Characteristics

Traffic records programs should meet basic requirements for the

most effective use of the data by program managers. Accordingly,

each State should emphasize the following characteristics:

An accurate identification of the crash location;

Timely, accurate, and complete data collection and

input to all files, and especially to the Crash and Driver Files, to

assure maximum utilization and confidence in the traffic records

system. Each state is encouraged to join and fully participate in

the driver license compact to ensure that complete data are

available from other states;

Data uniformity, providing for uniform coding and

definition of data elements to allow a State to compare its crash

problems to other States, regions and the nation; and the use of

uniform coding of violations and convictions for the efficient

exchange of driver information between States;

Data consistency within a State over time to provide

for multi-year analysis of data to detect trends and for

identification of emerging problems, as well as to determine

beneficial effects of highway safety programs; and

Timely, accurate, and complete data output to ensure

that highway safety program managers will have records that are

accessible, understandable, and effective.

III. Use of Traffic Records

The measure of a good records system is the degree to which it

is used by those it was designed to serve. Each State will develop

and operate a Safety Management System and must use traffic records

as part of that System. In addition, each State should establish a

process for the effective use of traffic records by highway safety

management and other injury control professionals both Statewide and

for political subdivisions, when conducting the following

activities:

Performing planning, problem identification, program

management or control, tracking, implementation and evaluation,

pursuant to a management process developed by the State which

addresses the role or use of traffic records data;

Developing a problem identification strategy that

specifies the necessary data, assures that accurate and timely data

are available, defines the analyses conducted (including the

variables used, statistical tests applied, and trends examined), and

describes how results are reported and used;

Conducting analyses and presenting results so that they

are clearly understood and usable by managers, including the use of

problem reports which describe the magnitude of the problems, and

appropriate graphs, tables and charts to support the conclusions

reached; and

Performing program evaluation, beginning at the

planning stage and carrying through implementation and final

evaluation, essentially using the same types of data that were used

in developing the programs implemented.

IV. Managing Traffic Records

Each State should have an organizational structure in place for

effective administration of its traffic records program, at a

minimum consisting of the following components:

A permanent Traffic Records Committee, representing the

principal users and custodians of the data in the State, that

provides administrative and technical guidance. The Committee should

be responsible for adopting requirements for file structure and

linkage, assessing capabilities and resources, establishing goals

for improving the traffic records program, evaluating the program,

continuously developing cooperation and support from State and local

agencies as well as the private sector, and ensuring that high

quality and timely data are available to authorized persons or

agencies for appropriate use;

A single state agency with responsibility for

coordinating the traffic safety-related data aspects of the various

State information systems. This would include ensuring that the

necessary data were available for use in safety and analyses; and

Professional staff with analytical expertise to perform

data analysis for program planning and evaluation, including a basic

understanding of data processing as

[[Page 36658]]

it relates to the use of personal computers (PCs) and the ability to

use PC software application packages to perform problem

identification and program evaluation tasks.

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE, NO. 11--EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,

should ensure that persons incurring traffic injuries (or other

trauma) receive prompt emergency medical care under the range of

emergency conditions encountered. Each of the component parts of a

system should be equally committed to its role in the system and

ultimately to the care of the patient. At a minimum, the EMS program

should be made up of the components detailed in this chapter.

I. Regulation and Policy

Each State should embody comprehensive enabling legislation,

regulations, and operational policies and procedures to provide an

effective system of emergency medical and trauma care. This legal

framework should:

Establish the program and designate a lead agency;

Outline the lead agency's basic responsibilities,

including licensure and certification;

Require comprehensive planning and coordination;

Designate EMS and trauma system funding sources;

Require data collection and evaluation;

Provide authority to establish minimum standards and

identify penalties for noncompliance; and

Provide for an injury/trauma prevention and public

education program.

All of these components, which are discussed in different

sections of this guideline, are critical to the effectiveness of

legislation that is the legal foundation for a statewide EMS system.

II. Resource Management

Each State should establish a central lead agency at the State

level to identify, categorize, and coordinate resources necessary

for overall system implementation and operation. The lead agency

should:

Maintain a coordinated response and ensure that

resources are used appropriately throughout the State;

Provide equal access to basic emergency care for all

victims of medical or traumatic emergencies;

Provide adequate triage and transport of all victims by

appropriately certified personnel (at a minimum, trained to the

emergency medical technician [EMT] basic level) in properly

licensed, equipped, and maintained ambulances;

Provide transport to a facility that is appropriately

equipped, staffed, and ready to administer to the needs of the

patient (section 4: Transportation); and

Appoint an advisory council to provide a forum for

cooperative action and maximum use of resources.

III. Human Resources and Training

Each State should ensure that its EMS system has essential

trained persons to perform required tasks. These personnel include:

first responders (e.g., police and fire), prehospital providers

(e.g., emergency medical technicians and paramedics), communications

specialists, physicians, nurses, hospital administrators, and

planners.

Each State should provide a comprehensive statewide plan for

stable and consistent EMS training programs with effective local and

regional support. The State agency should:

Ensure sufficient availability of adequately trained

EMS personnel;

Establish EMT-Basic as the State minimum level of

training for all transporting EMS personnel;

Routinely monitor training programs to ensure

uniformity and quality control;

Use standardized curricula throughout the State;

Ensure availability of continuing education programs;

Require instructors to meet State requirements;

Develop and enforce certification criteria for first

responders and prehospital providers; and

Require EMS operating organizations to collect data to

evaluate emergency care in terms of the frequency, category, and

severity of conditions treated and the appropriateness of care

provided.

IV. Transportation

Each State should require safe, reliable ambulance

transportation, which is critical to an effective EMS system. States

should:

Develop statewide transportation plans, including the

identification of specific service areas;

Implement regulations that provide for the systematic

delivery of patients to appropriate facilities;

Develop routine, standardized methods for inspection

and licensing of all emergency medical transport vehicles;

Establish a minimum number of providers at the desired

level of certification on each response;

Coordinate all emergency transports within the EMS

system, including public, private, or specialty (air and ground)

transport; and

Develop regulations to ensure ambulance drivers are

properly trained and licensed.

V. Facilities

It is imperative that the seriously injured patient be delivered

in a timely manner to the closest appropriate facility. Each State

should ensure that:

Both stabilization and definitive care needs of the

patient are considered;

The determination is free of non-medical considerations

and the capabilities of the facilities are clearly understood by

prehospital personnel;

Hospital resource capabilities are known in advance, so

that appropriate primary and secondary transport decisions can be

made; and

Agreements are made between facilities to ensure that

patients receive treatment at the closest, most appropriate

facility, including facilities in other States or counties.

VI. Communications

An effective communications system is essential to EMS

operations and provides the means by which emergency resources can

be accessed, mobilized, managed, and coordinated. Each State should

require a communication system to:

Begin with the universal system access number 911;

Strive for quick implementation of enhanced 911

services which make possible, among other features, the automatic

identification of the caller's physical location;

Provide for prioritized dispatch (dispatch-to-

ambulance, ambulance-to-ambulance, ambulance-to-hospital, and

hospital-to-hospital communication);

Ensure that the receiving facility is ready and able to

accept the patient; and

Provide for dispatcher training and certification

standards.

Each State should develop a statewide communications plan that

defines State government roles in EMS system communications.

VII. Trauma Systems

Each State should maintain a fully functional trauma system to

provide a high quality, effective patient care system. States should

implement legislation requiring the development of a trauma system,

including:

Trauma center designation, using American College of

Surgeons Committee on Trauma guidelines as a minimum;

Triage and transfer standards for trauma patients;

Data collection and trauma registry definitions for

quality assurance;

Mandatory autopsies to determine preventable deaths;

and

Systems management and quality assurance.

VIII. Public Information and Education

Public awareness and education about the EMS system are

essential to a high quality system. Each State should implement a

public information and education (PI&E) plan to address:

The components and capabilities of an EMS system;

The public's role in the system;

The public's ability to access the system;

What to do in an emergency (e.g., bystander care

training);

Education on prevention issues (e.g., alcohol or other

drugs, occupant protection, speeding, motorcycle and bicycle

safety);

The EMS providers' role in injury prevention and

control; and

The need for dedicated staff and resources for PI&E

programming.

IX. Medical Direction

Physician involvement in all aspects of the patient care system

is critical for effective EMS operations. EMS is a medical care

system in which physicians delegate responsibilities to non-

physician providers who manage patient care outside the traditional

confines of the office or hospital. States should require physicians

to be involved in all aspects of the patient care system, including:

Planning and protocols;

[[Page 36659]]

On-line and off-line medical direction and

consultation; and

Audit and evaluation of patient care.

X. Evaluation

Each State should implement a comprehensive evaluation program

to effectively assess and improve a statewide EMS system. EMS system

managers should:

Evaluate the effectiveness of services provided to

victims of medical or trauma-related emergencies;

Define the impact of patient care on the system;

Evaluate resource utilization, scope of service,

patient outcome, and effectiveness of operational policies,

procedures, and protocols;

Develop a data-gathering mechanism that provides for

the linkage of data from different data sources through the use of

common data elements; and

Evaluate both process and impact measures on injury

prevention, and public information and education programs.

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NO. 14--PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFETY

Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,

should have a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle safety program

that educates and motivates its citizens to follow safe pedestrian

and bicycle practices. A combination of legislation, regulations,

policy, enforcement, public information, education, incentives, and

engineering is necessary to achieve significant, lasting

improvements in pedestrian and bicycle crash rates, and to reduce

resulting deaths and injuries.

Each State should recognize that its pedestrians and

bicyclists--citizens of all ages who are virtually unprotected from

the forces of a crash--face major safety problems and are a valid

traffic safety concern. Because of the diverse nature of these

issues, education, enforcement, and engineering are critical

components to any strategies devised to reduce these problems. In

formulating policy, the State should promote these specific issues:

The provision of early pedestrian and bicycle safety

education and training for preschool children;

The inclusion of pedestrian and bicyclist safety in

health and safety education curricula;

The inclusion of pedestrian and bicyclist safety in

driver training programs and driver licensing activities;

The provision of a safe environment for pedestrians and

bicyclists through such measures as sidewalks and bicycle

facilities, in the planning and design of all highway projects;

The use of bicycle helmets as a primary measure to

reduce death and injury among bicyclists;

An awareness of the role of alcohol in crashes

involving adult pedestrians;

The safeguarding of older citizens from crashes

involving pedestrians; and

The establishment and support of Community/Corridor

Traffic Safety Programs and other injury prevention programs at the

local level.

A comprehensive highway safety system is the most effective

means of producing consistent, long-term changes in knowledge and

behavior necessary to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. The

following components create a structure for identifying problem

areas; implementing, measuring, and evaluating the problem areas;

and directing the results back into system improvements. We believe

these elements will effectively address the problem.

I. Program Management

Each State should have centralized program planning, initiation,

and coordination to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety program

issues as part of a comprehensive highway safety program. Evaluation

is also important for determining progress and ultimate success of

pedestrian and bicycle safety programs and for providing those

results to revise existing programs and to develop new programs. The

State should have program staff trained in pedestrian and bicyclist

safety so that this program can:

Conduct regular problem identification activities to

identify fatality and injury crash trends for pedestrians and

bicyclists and to provide guidance in development of

countermeasures;

Provide leadership, training, and technical assistance

to other State agencies and local pedestrian and bicycle safety

programs and projects;

Convene a pedestrian and bicycle safety advisory task

force or coalition to organize, integrate with other involved

groups, and generate broad-based support for programs;

Integrate pedestrian and bicycle safety programs into

Community/Corridor Traffic Safety Programs, injury prevention

programs, and transportation plans; and

Evaluate the effectiveness of its pedestrian and

bicycle safety program.

II. Multi-Disciplinary Involvement

Pedestrian and bicyclist safety goes beyond the confines of any

single State or local agency (engineering, education or enforcement)

and requires the combined support and coordinated attention of

multiple agencies, representing a variety of disciplines, at the

State and local level. At a minimum, the following kinds of agencies

should be involved:

Law Enforcement

Education

Health and Medicine

Driver Education and Licensing

Transportation--Engineering, Planning

Public Communications

III. Legislation and Regulations

Each State should enact and enforce pedestrian and bicyclist-

related traffic laws and regulations, including laws that require

the use of bicycle helmets. Specific policies should be developed to

encourage coordination with Federal agencies (including NHTSA and

FHWA), in the development of regulations and laws to promote

pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

IV. Law Enforcement

Each State should ensure that State and community pedestrian and

bicycle programs include a law enforcement component. Each State

should strongly emphasize the role played by law enforcement

personnel in pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Essential components

of that role include:

Developing knowledge of pedestrian and bicyclist crash

situations, investigating crashes, and maintaining a report system

that supports problem identification and evaluation activities;

Providing public information and education support;

Providing training to law enforcement personnel in

matters of pedestrian and bicycle safety;

Establishing agency policies; and

Coordinating with and supporting education and

engineering components.

V. Highway Engineering

Traffic engineering is a critical element of any crash reduction

program. This is true not only for the development of programs to

reduce an existing crash problem, but also to design transportation

facilities that provide for the safe movement of pedestrians,

bicyclists, and all motor vehicles. Balancing the needs of

pedestrians and those of vehicular traffic (including bicycle) must

always be considered. Therefore, each State should ensure that State

and community pedestrian and bicycle programs include a traffic

engineering component. Traffic engineering efforts should be

coordinated with enforcement and educational efforts. This effort

should improve the protection of pedestrians and bicyclists by

application of appropriate traffic engineering measures in design,

construction, operation, and maintenance. These measures should

include but not be limited to the following:

Pedestrian, bicycle and school bus loading zone

signals, signs, and markings

Parking regulations

Sidewalk design

Pedestrian pathways

On-road facilities (signed routes, marked lanes, wide

curb lanes, and paved shoulders)

Off-road bicycle facilities (trails and paths)

VI. Public Information and Education

Each State should ensure that State and community pedestrian and

bicycle programs contain a public information and education

component. This component should address school-based education

programs, coordination with traffic engineering and law enforcement

components, public information and awareness campaigns, and other

targeted educational programs such as those for the elderly. These

programs should address issues such as:

Being visible in the traffic system (conspicuity)

Use of facilities and accommodations

Law enforcement initiatives

Proper street crossing behavior

Safe practices near school buses, including loading and

unloading practices

The nature and extent of the problem

Driver training with regard to pedestrian and bicycle

safety

Rules of the road

Proper selection, use and fit of bicycles and bicycle

helmets

[[Page 36660]]

Skills training for bicyclists

Proper use of bicycle equipment

Sharing the road

The State should enlist the support of a variety of media,

including mass media, to improve public awareness of pedestrian and

bicyclist crash problems and programs directed at preventing them.

VII. Outreach Program

Each State should encourage extensive community involvement in

pedestrian and bicycle safety education by involving individuals and

organizations outside the traditional highway safety community.

Community involvement broadens public support for the State's

programs and can increase a State's ability to deliver highway

safety education programs. To encourage community involvement,

States should:

Establish a coalition or task force of individuals and

organizations to actively promote safe pedestrian and bicycle safety

practices (see Program Management Component);

Create an effective communications network among

coalition members to keep members informed; and

Provide materials and resources necessary to promote

pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs.

VIII. School-Based Program

Each State should incorporate pedestrian and bicycle safety

education into school curricula. Safe walking and bicycle-riding

practices to and from school and school-related events are good

health habits and, like other health habits, must be taught at an

early age and reinforced until the habit is well established. The

State Department of Education and the State Highway Safety Agency

should:

Ensure that highway safety in general, and pedestrian

and bicycle safety in particular, are included in the State-approved

K-12 health and safety education curricula and textbooks;

Establish and enforce written policies requiring safe

walking and bicycling practices to and from school, including use of

bicycle helmets on school property; and

Encourage active promotion of safe walking and

bicycling practices (including helmet usage and safe walking and

riding practices near school buses) through classroom and extra-

curricular activities.

IX. Driver Education and Licensing

Each State should address pedestrian and bicycle issues

in State driver education and licensing programs. Pedestrian and

bicycle safety principles and rules should be included in all driver

training and licensing examinations.

X. Evaluation Program

Both problem identification and evaluation require good record

keeping by the State and its political subdivisions. The State

should identify the types and frequency of pedestrian and bicyclist

crash problems in terms that are relevant to both the selection and

evaluation of appropriate countermeasure programs.

The State should promote effective evaluation of programs by:

Supporting the continuing analysis of police accident

reports (PARs) of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes for both problem

identification and program evaluation activities;

Encouraging, supporting, and training localities in

impact and process evaluations of local programs;

Conducting and publicizing statewide surveys of public

knowledge and attitudes about pedestrian and bicyclist safety;

Maintaining awareness of trends in pedestrian and

bicyclist crashes at the national level and how this might influence

activities statewide;

Evaluating the use of program resources and the

effectiveness of existing general public and target population

countermeasure programs.

Ensuring that evaluation results are an integral part

of new program planning and problem identification.

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NO. 15--POLICE TRAFFIC SERVICES

Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,

should have an efficient and effective police traffic services (PTS)

program to enforce traffic laws, prevent crashes and their resulting

deaths and injuries, assist the injured, document specific details

of individual crashes, supervise crash clean-up, and restore safe

and orderly movement of traffic. PTS is critical to the success of

most traffic safety countermeasures and to the prevention of

traffic-related injuries. Traffic law enforcement plays an important

role in deterring impaired driving involving alcohol or other drugs,

achieving safety belt use, encouraging compliance with speed laws,

and reducing other unsafe driving actions. Experience has shown that

a combination of highly visible enforcement, public information,

education, and training is necessary to achieve a significant and

lasting impact in reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities. At a

minimum, a well-balanced statewide PTS program should be made up of

the components detailed below.

I. Program Management

A. Planning and Coordination

Centralized program planning, implementation, and coordination

are essential for achieving and sustaining effective PTS programs.

The State Highway Safety Agency (SHSA), in conjunction with State,

county and local law enforcement agencies, should ensure that these

planning and coordinating functions are performed with regard to the

State's traffic safety program, since law enforcement is in most

instances a principle component of that program. In carrying out its

responsibility of centralized program planning and coordination, the

State should:

Provide leadership, training, and technical assistance

to State, county and local law enforcement agencies;

Coordinate PTS and other traffic safety program areas

including Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) safety activities such as

the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program;

Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for all PTS

activities, in cooperation with law enforcement leaders;

Generate broad-based support for enforcement programs;

and

Integrate PTS into community/corridor traffic safety

and other injury prevention programs.

B. Program Elements

State, county and local law enforcement agencies, in conjunction

with the SHSA, should establish PTS as a priority within their total

enforcement program. A PTS program should be built on a foundation

of commitment, coordination, planning, monitoring, and evaluation

within the agency's enforcement program. State, county and local law

enforcement agencies should:

Provide the public with a high quality, effective PTS

system and have enabling legislation and regulations in place to

implement PTS functions;

Develop and implement a comprehensive enforcement plan

for impaired driving involving alcohol or other drugs, safety belt

use and child passenger safety laws, speeding, and other hazardous

moving violations. The plan should initiate action to look beyond

the issuance of traffic tickets to include enforcement of laws that

cover the more significant portions of the safety problem and that

address drivers of all types of vehicles, including trucks,

automobiles, and motorcycles;

Develop a cooperative working relationship with other

local, county, and State governmental agencies and community

organizations on traffic safety issues;

Issue and enforce policies on roadside sobriety

checkpoints, safety belt use, pursuit driving, crash investigating

and reporting, speed enforcement, and serious traffic violations;

and

Develop performance measures for PTS that are both

qualitative and quantitative.

II. Resource Management

States should encourage law enforcement agencies to develop and

maintain a comprehensive resource management plan to identify and

deploy resources needed to effectively support enforcement programs.

The resource management plan should include a specific component on

traffic enforcement and safety, integrating traffic enforcement and

safety initiatives into a total agency enforcement program. Law

enforcement agencies should:

Conduct periodic assessments of service demands and

resources to meet identified needs;

Develop a comprehensive resource management plan,

including a specific traffic enforcement and safety component;

Define the plan in terms of budget requirements and

services to be provided; and

Develop and implement operational policies for the

deployment of resources to address program demands and to meet

agency goals.

III. Traffic Law Enforcement

The enforcement of traffic laws and ordinances is a basic

responsibility shared by all law enforcement agencies. The primary

objective of this function is to encourage motorists and pedestrians

to comply voluntarily with the laws. Administrators

[[Page 36661]]

should apply their enforcement resources in ways that ensure the

greatest safety impact. Traffic law enforcement programs should be

based on:

Accurate problem identification;

Countermeasures designed to address specific problems;

Enforcement actions applied at appropriate times and

places, coupled with a public information effort designed to make

the motoring public aware of the problem and the planned enforcement

action; and

A system to document and publicize results.

IV. Public Information and Education

A. Necessity of Public Information and Education

Public awareness and knowledge about traffic enforcement are

essential for sustaining increased compliance with all traffic laws.

This requires a well-organized, effectively-managed public

information and education program. The SHSA, in cooperation with law

enforcement agencies, should develop a statewide public information

and education campaign that:

Identifies and targets specific audiences;

Addresses enforcement of safety belt use and child

passenger safety, impaired driving involving alcohol or other drugs,

speed, and other serious traffic laws;

Capitalizes on special events, such as Operation

C.A.R.E., Child Passenger Safety Awareness, Buckle Up, America! and

Drunk and Drugged Driving Awareness campaigns;

Identifies and supports the efforts of traffic safety

activist groups and the health and medical community to gain

increased support of and attention to traffic safety and

enforcement;

Uses national themes, events, and materials; and

Motivates the public to support increased enforcement

of traffic laws.

The task of public information can be divided into two

interconnected areas: external and internal information. Both areas,

properly administered, will benefit the agency and work in concert

to accomplish the goal of establishing and maintaining a positive

police-public relationship.

B. Development of Public Information and Education Functions by Law

Enforcement Agencies

External

Educate and remind the public about traffic laws and

safe driving behavior;

Disseminate information to the public about agency

activities and accomplishments;

Enhance relationships with news media and the health

and medical community;

Provide safety education and community services;

Provide legislative and judicial information and

support; and

Increase the public's understanding of the enforcement

agency's role in traffic safety.

Internal

Disseminate information about internal activities to

sworn and civilian members of the agency;

Enhance the agency's safety enforcement role and

increase employee understanding and support; and

Recognize employee achievements.

V. Data Collection and Analysis

The availability of valid data is critical to any approach

intended to increase the level of highway safety. An effective

records program provides fast and accurate information to field

personnel who are performing primary traffic functions and to

management for decision-making. Data are usually collected from

crash reports, daily officer activity reports that contain workload

and citation information, highway department records (e.g., traffic

volume), citizen complaints, and officer observations. An effective

records program should:

Provide information rapidly and accurately;

Provide routine compilations of data for management use

in the decision making process;

Provide data for operational planning and execution;

Interface with a variety of data systems, including

statewide traffic safety records system; and

Be accessible to enforcement, planners, and management.

VI. Training

Training is one of the most important activities in a law

enforcement agency, and it is essential to support the special

requirements of traffic law enforcement and safety. It is essential

for operational personnel to be prepared to effectively perform

their duties. Traffic enforcement training can be conducted by the

agency, the State POST (Police, or Peace, Officer Standards and

Training) agency, or a commercial trainer.

A. Purpose and Goals of Training

Training accomplishes a wide variety of important and necessary

goals. Proper training should:

Prepare officers to act decisively and correctly;

Increase compliance with agency enforcement goals;

Assist in meeting priorities;

Improve compliance with established policies;

Result in greater productivity and effectiveness;

Foster cooperation and unity of purpose;

Help offset liability actions; and

Motivate and enhance officer professionalism.

B. State, County and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Should:

Periodically assess enforcement activities to determine

training needs;

Require traffic enforcement knowledge and skills in all

recruits;

Provide traffic enforcement in-service training to

experienced officers;

Provide specialized CMV in-service training to traffic

enforcement officers;

Conduct training to implement specialized traffic

enforcement skills, techniques, or programs; and

Train instructors, to increase agency capabilities and

to ensure continuity of specialized enforcement skills and

techniques.

VII. Evaluation

The SHSA, in conjunction with State, county and local law

enforcement agencies, should develop a comprehensive evaluation

program to measure progress toward established project goals and

objectives; effectively plan and implement statewide, county and

local PTS programs; optimize the allocation of limited resources;

measure the impact of traffic enforcement on reducing crime and

traffic crashes, injuries, and deaths; and compare costs of criminal

activity to costs of traffic crashes. Law enforcement managers

should:

Include evaluation in initial program planning efforts

to ensure that data will be available and that sufficient resources

will be allocated;

Report results regularly to project and program

managers, to police field commanders and officers, and to the public

and private sectors;

Use results to guide future activities and to assist in

justifying resources to legislative bodies;

Conduct a variety of surveys to assist in determining

program effectiveness, such as roadside sobriety surveys, speed

surveys, license checks, belt use surveys, and surveys measuring

public knowledge and attitudes about traffic enforcement programs;

Evaluate the effectiveness of services provided in

support of priority traffic safety areas; and

Maintain and report traffic data to the International

Association of Chiefs of Police Traffic Data Report and other

appropriate repositories, such as the FBI Uniform Crime Report,

FHWA's SAFETYNET system, and annual statewide reports.

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NO. 19--SPEED CONTROL

Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions,

should have, as part of a comprehensive highway safety program, an

effective speed control program that encourages its citizens to

voluntarily comply with speed limits. The program should stress

systematic and rational establishment of speed limits, a law

enforcement commitment to controlling speed on all public roads, a

commitment to utilize both traditional methods and state-of-the art

equipment in setting and enforcing speed limits, and a strong public

information and education program aimed at increasing driver

compliance with speed limits.

I. Program Management

State and local law enforcement agencies, transportation

departments, and the State Highway Safety Agency (SHSA) should

establish speed control as a priority within their total highway

safety program. The speed control program should contain the

following elements: program management, procedures for establishing

reasonable speed limits, coordinated enforcement efforts, public

information and education, identification and utilization of new

technology, legislative coordination and

[[Page 36662]]

commitment, training, and evaluation. When planning and developing a

program to address speed control, the issue of speed should be

examined in light of the empirical data available, current methods

for setting speed limits, and the current public perception of speed

compliance. Added to these elements is the law enforcement response,

including the resources available to enforcement agencies. Only

after these components have been examined and defined can the goals

of a speed control program be formulated. In carrying out its

responsibility of centralized program planning and coordination, the

State should:

Develop and implement a comprehensive speed control

plan in cooperation with law enforcement leaders, traffic engineers,

educators, injury control professionals, and leaders of the

community;

Provide leadership, training, and technical assistance

to State and local law enforcement agencies and highway/traffic

agencies;

Generate broad based support for speed control programs

through education on the scope and severity of the problem; and

Integrate speed control into the overall traffic

enforcement and engineering program.

II. Enforcement Program

Each State should strongly emphasize speed enforcement as part

of its overall traffic enforcement program. The speed enforcement

program should include enforcement strategies and other components

of a comprehensive approach to address the speed issue. The plan

should address the following concepts:

Including public information and education components

along with vigorous enforcement in State and local anti-speeding

programs;

Collecting data to help in problem identification and

evaluation;

Identifying high risk crash locations where speed or

speed variance is a contributing factor in crashes;

Integrating speed control programs into related highway

safety activities such as drunk driving prevention, safety belt and

safety programs for young people and other injury control

activities;

Targeting anti-speeding programs to address specific

audiences and situations: young drivers, males, nighttime, adverse

weather and traffic conditions (i.e., travel at speeds unsafe for

conditions), drunk driving, commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers,

school zones, construction and maintenance work zones, and roads and

streets with major potential conflicts in traffic and with

pedestrians and bicyclists;

Using speed measuring devices that are both efficient

and cost effective, including new speed measurement technology such

as laser (LIDAR) speed measuring devices, electronic signing and

photo-radar; and

Training officers in the proper use of equipment and

educating other members of the criminal justice system, such as

judges and prosecutors, on the principles of devices using new

technology.

III. Setting of Speed Limits

States and local governments should undertake comprehensive

efforts to identify rational criteria for establishing speed limits

and should include strategies to address the speed issue. These

efforts should include:

Identification of criteria used to establish speed

limits, including the recognition of unique operational

characteristics of CMV's;

Use of state-of-the art technology to collect data to

establish speed limits;

Use of variable message speed limit signs to reinforce

the appropriate speed limit for prevailing conditions;

Identification of high hazard locations where speeding

is a contributing factor;

Coordination of an effort with enforcement agencies,

educators, and community leaders to provide information on setting

of speed limits; and

Training of traffic and enforcement personnel in the

proper techniques for establishing safe and reasonable speed limits

and in the use and deployment of speed monitoring equipment.

IV. Public Information and Education

Focused public information and education campaigns are an

essential part of a comprehensive speed control program. Research

shows that compliance with and support for traffic laws can be

increased through aggressive, targeted enforcement combined with an

effective public information and education campaign. The SHSA, in

cooperation with law enforcement and transportation agencies, should

develop a Statewide public information and education campaign that:

Identifies and targets specific audiences;

Addresses criteria for setting speed limits and

enforcement of speed limits particularly for locations experiencing

excessive speed, speed variance, travel at speeds unsafe for

conditions, or speed related crashes;

Capitalizes on special events (cooperative, multi-

jurisdictional enforcement efforts) and special holiday enforcement

programs;

Identifies and supports the efforts of traffic safety

activist groups and members of the health and medical communities to

gain increased support of

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.