[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36641-36666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17418]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 and attention to speed control, traffic 
safety, and injury control issues;
     Uses national themes, events, and materials; and
     Motivates the public to support speed control by 
pointing out the public health issues of injury, death, and medical 
and other economic costs of speed related crashes.

V. Technology

    New and updated technology for speed measurement is needed to 
determine appropriate speed limits for a variety of conditions and 
to achieve maximum enforcement activity with fewer available 
resources. Current technology for measuring speed, such as loop 
detectors, should be used not only to establish viable speed limits 
but also to vary speed limits to conform to existing conditions. For 
enforcement activities, State and local governments should only 
utilize speed measurement equipment that is approved or recognized 
as reliable and accurate. All law enforcement agencies should use 
the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) regional 
testing laboratories to ensure that equipment used to measure speeds 
meets minimum standards. For CMV enforcement purposes, the FHWA will 
provide MCSAP funding only for those items of speed control 
equipment approved by the IACP or which meet other suitable 
standards. The SHSA, in conjunction with law enforcement and 
traffic/highway agencies, should support programs providing for:
     Collection of operational speed data to determine 
appropriate speed limits and for use of these data in conjunction 
with variable message signs;
     Police Radar and Laser (LIDAR) Model Minimum 
Specifications--NHTSA, in cooperation with the IACP and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has developed model 
specifications and testing protocols for speed control devices. 
Using these model specifications, IACP in cooperation with 
manufacturers and NHTSA, has established a program to test speed 
control devices that are available for purchase by law enforcement 
agencies. Reports of the testing were published by IACP along with a 
Consumer Products List which provides law enforcement agencies with 
the names of devices conforming with the model performance 
specifications.
     Police Radar and Laser (LIDAR) Testing Program--To 
ensure that law enforcement agencies can continue to purchase and 
operate accurate speed control devices, IACP, in cooperation with 
manufacturers and NHTSA, has established an ongoing process of 
performance testing for newly developed devices and for maintaining 
existing equipment. Testing laboratories have been established at 
five universities. These laboratories will continue the testing 
program and will provide services to the law enforcement community.
     Model Performance Specifications and Test Protocols--
NIST, Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, is developing model 
minimum performance and testing protocols for automated speed 
enforcement (ASE) devices, including photo-radar devices;
     Basic Training Program in VASCAR Speed Measurement--
NHTSA has developed a training course for the VASCAR (Visual Average 
Speed Computer and Recorder) time-distance speed measurement 
devices. This course was developed specifically for use by law 
enforcement officers; and
     Basic Training Program in Radar Speed Measurement--
NHTSA has developed a basic training course which teaches the 
correct procedures for law enforcement's use of police radar and 
also the proper instructional techniques for those teaching the 
course.

VI. Legislation

    To encourage voluntary compliance by drivers, speed limits must 
be safe, reasonable, and uniform to the greatest extent possible. 
Realistic speed limits on roadways should:
     Be based upon traffic and engineering investigations;
     Encourage drivers to comply with the posted limits and 
allow enforcement agencies to better target speeders; 

[[Page 36663]]

     Be accompanied by sanctions, including court and 
administrative penalties, which are set by law;
     Be as consistent as possible with the physical and 
operational characteristics (actual and perceived) of the roadway; 
and
     Take into account the needs and safety of all highway 
users, motorists and non-motorists alike.
    Legislative components of an effective speed control program 
should:
     Encourage the highway safety community to develop laws, 
rules, and regulations that will provide for reasonable and safe 
speed limits;
     Provide appropriate legislation to allow the 
establishment of regulatory variable speed limits, such as the 
provisions of Chapter 11, Article VIII of the Uniform Vehicle Code;
     Provide for public information and education programs 
to explain how speed limits are established and to convince drivers 
that speed limits are realistic, reasonable, and include sanctions; 
and
     Establish sanctions for speeding violations that are 
reasonable, uniform, and effective as a deterrent.
    New devices and technology are available for use in determining 
appropriate speed limits and in law enforcement actions to measure 
the speed of vehicles. Transportation and law enforcement agencies 
should work closely with the SHSA to make certain new technologies 
can be used under existing legislation. As necessary, these groups 
should work together in ensuring development and adoption of 
legislation allowing use of new technologies.

VII. Training

    NHTSA fully supports and encourages training for law enforcement 
officers in the use of speed measurement devices, model speed 
enforcement strategies, combined enforcement projects, and planning 
and implementing public information and education programs.
    In support of law enforcement training, NHTSA will continue to 
publish and widely distribute training programs. These courses are 
related to established as well as new and emerging techniques of 
speed measurement and enforcement. The training courses are 
recommended for officers in law enforcement agencies using speed 
measuring devices. FHWA also provides training programs on CMV 
traffic enforcement.
    Training for law enforcement officers involved in speed 
enforcement should include:
     Proper use of devices used to measure speed;
     How to use data and analysis to define the speed 
problem, to target enforcement activities, and to evaluate the 
results of countermeasures;
     How to relate speed enforcement to public safety;
     How to plan and implement a PI&E program on speed 
enforcement;
     Model speed enforcement strategies including examples 
of combined enforcement programs; and
     Assisting traffic engineers and technicians in 
deployment and use of speed measuring equipment.
    Training for traffic engineers and technicians should include:
     Proper use and development of speed measurement 
equipment;
     Developing guidelines for setting speed limits;
     Establishing appropriate signing policies;
     Investigating alternative approaches to speed control 
(e.g., signing, stripping, channeling, barriers, speed undulations); 
and
     Interpreting geometric, operational and environmental 
data for their impact on roadway safety and user performance.

VIII. Evaluation

    The SHSA, in conjunction with State and local law enforcement 
and transportation agencies should develop a comprehensive 
evaluation program to measure progress toward established project 
goals and objectives. The evaluation should measure the impact of 
speed control programs on traffic crashes, injuries, and deaths; and 
provide information for revised improved program planning. These 
agencies 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, to transportation 
engineers, to members of the highway safety and health and medical 
communities, and to the public and private sectors;
     Use results to verify problem identification, guide 
future speed control activities, and assist in justifying resources 
to legislative bodies;
     Conduct a variety of surveys to assist in determining 
program effectiveness, such as speed surveys and surveys measuring 
public knowledge and attitude about speed control programs;
     Analyze speed compliance and speed-related crashes in 
areas with actual hazards to the public;
     Evaluate the effectiveness of speed control activities 
provided in support of other priority traffic safety areas; and
     Maintain and report traffic data to the SHSA, IACP 
Traffic Data Report and other appropriate repositories, such as the 
FBI Uniform Crime Reports FHWA's SAFETYNET system, and annual 
statewide reports.

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NO. 20--OCCUPANT PROTECTION

    Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions, 
should have a comprehensive occupant protection program that 
educates and motivates its citizens to use available motor vehicle 
occupant protection systems. A combination of use requirements, 
enforcement, public information, education, and incentives is 
necessary to achieve significant, lasting increases in safety belt 
usage, which will prevent fatalities and control the number and 
severity of injuries. Therefore, a well-balanced State occupant 
protection program should include the components described below.

I. Program Management

    Each State should have centralized program planning, 
implementation and coordination to achieve and sustain high rates of 
safety belt use. Evaluation is also important for determining 
progress and ultimate success of occupant protection programs. The 
State Highway Safety Agency (SHSA) should:
     Provide leadership, training, and technical assistance 
to other state agencies and local occupant protection programs and 
projects;
     Convene an occupant protection advisory task force or 
coalition to organize and generate broad-based support for programs;
     Integrate occupant protection programs into community/
corridor traffic safety and other injury prevention programs; and
     Evaluate the effectiveness of its occupant protection 
program.
II. Legislation, Regulation, and Policy

    Each State should enact and enforce occupant protection use 
laws, regulations, and policies to provide clear guidance to the 
motoring public concerning motor vehicle occupant protection 
systems. This legal framework should include:
     Legislation, permitting primary enforcement, requiring 
all motor vehicle occupants to use the systems provided by the 
vehicle manufacturer and educational programs to explain their 
benefits and the correct way to use them;
     Legislation, permitting primary enforcement, requiring 
children up to 40 pounds (or five years old if weight cannot be 
determined) to ride in a safety device certified by the manufacturer 
to meet all applicable Federal performance standards;
     Regulations requiring employees of all levels of 
government to wear safety belts when traveling on official business;
     Official policy requiring that organizations receiving 
Federal highway safety program grant funds have and enforce an 
employee safety belt use policy; and
     Encouragement for automobile insurers to offer economic 
incentives for policy holders to wear safety belts, to secure small 
children in child safety seats, and to purchase cars equipped with 
air bags.

III. Enforcement Program

    Each State should have a strong law enforcement program, coupled 
with public information and education, to increase safety belt and 
child safety seat use. Essential components of a law enforcement 
program include:
     Written, enforced belt use policies for law enforcement 
agencies with sanctions for noncompliance to protect law enforcement 
officers from harm and for officers to serve as role models for the 
motoring public;
     Vigorous enforcement of public safety belt use and 
child safety seat laws, including citations and warnings;
     Accurate reporting of occupant protection system 
information on accident report forms, including use or non-use of 
belts or child safety seats, type of belt, and presence of and 
deployment of air bag;
     Public information and education (PI&E) campaigns to 
inform the public about occupant protection laws and related 
enforcement activities; 

[[Page 36664]]

     Routine monitoring of citation rates for non-use of 
safety belts and child safety seats; and
     Certification of an occupant protection training course 
for both basic and in-service training by the Police (or Peace) 
Officer Standards and Training (POST) board.

IV. Public Information and Education Program

    As part of each State's public information and education 
program, the State should enlist the support of a variety of media, 
including mass media, to improve public awareness and knowledge 
about safety belts, air bags, and child safety seats. To sustain or 
increase rates of safety belt and child safety seat use, a well-
organized, effectively managed public information program should:
     Identify and target specific audiences, (e.g., low-use, 
high risk motorists) and develop messages appropriate for these 
audiences;
     Address the enforcement of the State's belt use and 
child passenger safety laws; the safety benefits of regular, correct 
safety belt (both manual and automatic) and child safety seat use; 
and the additional protection provided by air bags;
     Capitalize on special events, such as nationally 
recognized safety and injury prevention weeks and local enforcement 
campaigns;
     Coordinate different materials and media campaigns 
where practicable, (e.g., by using a common theme and logo);
     Use national themes and materials to the fullest extent 
possible;
     Publicize belt-use surveys and other relevant 
statistics;
     Encourage news media to report belt use and non-use in 
motor vehicle crashes;
     Involve media representatives in planning and 
disseminating public information campaigns;
     Encourage private sector groups to incorporate belt-use 
messages into their media campaigns;
     Take advantage of all media outlets: television, radio, 
print, signs, billboards, theaters, sports events, health fairs; and
     Evaluate all media campaign efforts.

V. Health/Medical Program

    Each State should integrate occupant protection into health 
programs. The failure of drivers and passengers to use occupant 
protection systems is a major public health problem that must be 
recognized by the medical and health care communities. The SHSA, the 
State Health Department, and other State or local medical 
organizations should collaborate in developing programs that:
     Integrate occupant protection into professional health 
training curricula and comprehensive public health planning;
     Promote occupant protection systems as a health 
promotion/injury prevention measure;
     Require public health and medical personnel to use 
available motor vehicle occupant protection systems when on the job;
     Provide technical assistance and education about the 
importance of motor vehicle occupant protection to primary 
caregivers (e.g., doctors, nurses, clinic staff);
     Include questions about safety belt use in health risk 
appraisals;
     Utilize health care providers as visible public 
spokespersons for belt use and child safety seat use;
     Provide information about availability of child safety 
seats through maternity hospitals and other pre-natal and natal care 
centers (see Program Component VI: Child Passenger Safety Program); 
and
     Collect, analyze, and publicize data on additional 
injuries and medical expenses resulting from non-use of occupant 
protection devices.

VI. Child Passenger Safety Program

    Each State should vigorously promote the use of child safety 
seats. States should require every child up to 40 pounds to ride 
correctly secured in a child safety seat that meets Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards (see Program Component II: Legislation, 
Regulation, and Policy). State and community child passenger safety 
programs that will help to achieve that objective should be 
established to:
     Educate parents, pediatricians, hospitals, law 
enforcement, EMS and the general public about the safety risks to 
small children, the benefits of child safety seats, and their 
responsibilities for compliance with child passenger safety laws;
     Encourage child safety seat retailers and auto dealers 
to provide information about child seat and vehicle compatibility, 
as well as correct use;
     Require safe child transportation policies for 
certification of pre-school and day care providers;
     Require hospitals to ensure that newborn and other 
small children are correctly secured in an approved child safety 
seat or safety belt upon discharge;
     Make child safety seats available at affordable cost to 
low-income families, with appropriate education on how to use them; 
and
     Encourage local law enforcement to vigorously enforce 
child passenger safety laws, including safety belt use laws as they 
apply to children.

VII. School-Based Program

    Each State should incorporate occupant protection education in 
school curricula. Buckling up is a good health habit 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 and traffic-related injury 
control in general, and occupant protection in particular, are 
included in the State-approved K-12 health and safety education 
curricula and textbooks;
     Establish and enforce written policies requiring that 
school employees operating a motor vehicle on the job use safety 
belts; and
     Encourage active promotion of regular safety belt use 
through classroom and extra-curricular activities as well as in the 
school-based health clinics.

VIII. Worksite Program

    Each State should encourage all employers to require safety belt 
use on the job as a condition of employment. The Federal government 
has already taken that step for its employees. Private sector 
employers should follow the lead of Federal and State government 
employers and comply with all applicable FHWA Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Regulations or Occupational Health and Safety (OSHA) 
regulations requiring private business employees to use safety belts 
on the job. All employers should:
     Establish and enforce a safety belt use policy with 
sanctions; and
     Conduct occupant protection education programs for 
employees on their belt use policies and the safety benefits of 
motor vehicle occupant protection.

IX. Outreach Program

    Each State should encourage extensive community involvement in 
occupant protection 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 use of occupant protection 
systems;
     Create an effective communications network among 
coalition members to keep members informed; and
     Provide materials and resources necessary to conduct 
occupant protection education programs, especially directed toward 
young people, in local settings.

X. Evaluation Program

    Each State should conduct several different types of evaluation 
to effectively measure progress and to plan and implement new 
program strategies. Program management should:
     Conduct and publicize at least one statewide 
observational survey of safety belt and child safety seat use 
annually, making every effort to ensure that it meets applicable 
federal guidelines;
     Maintain trend data on child safety seat use, safety 
belt use, and air bag deployment in fatal crashes;
     Identify target populations through observational 
surveys and crash statistics;
     Conduct and publicize statewide surveys of public 
knowledge and attitudes about occupant protection laws and systems;
     Obtain monthly or quarterly data from law enforcement 
agencies on the number of safety belt and child passenger safety 
citations and convictions;
     Evaluate the use of program resources and the 
effectiveness of existing general public and target population 
education programs;
     Obtain data on morbidity as well as the estimated cost 
of crashes, compare on the basis of safety belt usage and non-usage; 
and
     Ensure that evaluation results are an integral part of 
new program planning and problem identification. 

[[Page 36665]]


HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE NO. 21--ROADWAY SAFETY

    Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions, 
should have a comprehensive roadway safety program that is directed 
toward reducing the number and severity of traffic crashes. Roadway 
Safety applies to highway safety activities related to the roadway 
environment. (Section 402 funds may not be used for highway 
construction, maintenance, or design activities, but they may be 
used to develop and implement systems and procedures for carrying 
out safety construction and operation improvements.)

I. Program Management

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides 
administrative oversight for the Roadway Safety portion of the 
Section 402 highway safety program in close coordination with the 
State Highway Safety Agency (SHSA) and the State Highway Agency 
(SHA). An effective Roadway Safety program is based on sound 
analyses of roadway-related crash information and applies 
engineering principles in identifying highway design or operational 
improvements that will address the crash problem. The SHSA should:
     Assign program staff to work directly with the FHWA 
division safety engineer on roadway-related safety programs;
     Work in close harmony with the SHA, particularly with 
SHA staff who are responsible for traffic engineering, pedestrian 
and bicycle programs, commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety, rail-
highway crossing safety issues, work zone safety, design and 
operational improvements, and hazardous roadway locations;
     Foster an ongoing dialogue among all disciplines with a 
vested interest in highway safety, including engineers, enforcement 
personnel, traffic safety specialists, driver licensing 
administrators, CMV safety specialists, and data specialists;
     Promote a multi-disciplinary approach to addressing 
highway safety issues which focuses on comprehensive solutions to 
identified problems (e.g., a Community/ Corridor Traffic Safety 
Program (C/CTSP));
     Become familiar with the various highway-safety related 
categories of Federal-aid highway funds--in addition to Section 
402--in order to maximize the safety benefits of the entire program;
     Become familiar with the State's traffic records system 
and play a role in the system's ongoing operation, maintenance and 
enhancement;
     Become familiar with the Motor Carrier Safety 
Assistance Program (MCSAP) and coordinate MCSAP and section 402 
program activities; and
     Assist community leaders in managing and/or 
coordinating roadway safety issues which fall under the jurisdiction 
of local communities.

II. Identification and Surveillance of Crash Locations

    Each state, in cooperation with county and other local 
governments, should have a program for identifying crash locations 
and for maintaining surveillance of those locations having high 
crash rates or losses. A model program should have the following 
characteristics:
     Procedures for accurate identification of crash 
locations on all roads and streets which identify crash experience 
on specific sections of the road and street system.
     An inventory of high crash locations and locations 
experiencing sharp increases in crashes and design and operational 
features with which high crash frequencies or severities are 
associated.
     Appropriate measures for reducing crashes and 
evaluating the effectiveness of safety improvements on any specific 
section of the road or street system.
     A systematically organized method to ensure continuing 
surveillance of the roadway network for potentially high crash 
locations and to develop methods for their correction.

III. Highway Design, Construction and Maintenance

    Every state, in cooperation with county and local governments, 
should have a program of highway design, construction, and 
maintenance to improve highway safety. A model program should have 
the following characteristics:
     Design guidelines relating to safety features such as 
sight distances, horizontal and vertical curvature, spacing of 
decision points, width of lanes, etc., for all new construction or 
reconstruction on expressways, major streets and highways, and 
through-streets and highways.
     Street systems that are designated to provide a safe 
traffic environment for all roadway users when subdivisions and 
residential areas are developed or redeveloped.
     Efforts to ensure that roadway lighting or new 
technology, such as retroreflective materials, is provided or 
upgraded on a priority basis at expressways and other major arteries 
in urban areas, junctions of major highways in rural areas, 
locations or sections of streets and highways which have high ratios 
of night-to-day motor vehicle and/or pedestrian crashes, and tunnels 
and long underpasses.
     Guidelines for pavement design and construction with 
specific provisions for high skid resistance qualities.
     A program for resurfacing or other surface treatment 
with emphasis on correction of locations or sections of streets and 
highways with low skid resistance and high or potentially high crash 
rates susceptible to reduction by providing improved surfaces.
     Efforts to ensure that there is guidance, warning and 
regulation of traffic approaching and traveling over construction or 
repair sites and detours, in conformance with the Manual on Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices.
     A method for systematic identification and tabulation 
of all rail-highway grade crossings and a plan for the elimination 
of hazards and dangerous crossings.
     Projects which provide for the safe and efficient 
movement of traffic by ensuring that roadways and the roadsides are 
maintained consistent with the design guidelines which are followed 
in construction.
     Procedures to identify and correct hazards within the 
highway right-of-way.
     Procedures for incident management and congestion 
mitigation.
     Wherever possible for crash prevention and crash 
survivability, efforts to include at least the following highway 
design and construction features:

--roadsides which are clear of obstacles, with clear distance 
determined on the basis of traffic volumes, prevailing speeds, and 
the nature of development along the street or highway;
--supports for traffic control devices and lighting that are 
designed to yield or break away under impact wherever appropriate;
--protective devices that afford maximum protection to the occupants 
of vehicles where fixed objects cannot be reasonably removed or 
designed to yield;
--bridge railings and parapets which are designed to minimize 
severity of impact, redirect the vehicle so that it will move 
parallel to the roadway, and minimize danger to traffic below;
--guardrails, and other design features which protect people from 
out-of-control vehicles at locations of special hazard such as 
playgrounds, schoolyards and commercial areas.

     A post-crash program that includes at least the 
following:

--signs at freeway interchanges directing motorists to hospitals 
which have emergency care capabilities;
--maintenance personnel who are trained in procedures for summoning 
aid, protecting others from hazards at crash sites, and removing 
debris;
--provisions for access for emergency vehicles to and from freeway 
sections, where travel time would be reduced without reducing the 
safety benefits of access control.

IV. Traffic Engineering Services

    Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and 
with each Federal department or agency which controls highways open 
to public travel or supervises traffic operations, should have a 
program for applying traffic engineering measures and techniques, 
including the use of traffic control devices which are in 
conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to 
reduce the number and severity of traffic crashes.
    A model program should have the following characteristics:
     A comprehensive resource development plan to provide 
the necessary traffic engineering capability, including:

--provisions for supplying traffic engineering assistance to those 
jurisdictions that are unable to justify a full-time traffic 
engineering staff;
--provisions for upgrading the skills of practicing traffic 
engineers and for providing basic instruction in traffic engineering 
techniques to other professionals and technicians.

     Use of traffic engineering principles and expertise in 
the planning of public roadways, and in the application of traffic 
control devices.

[[Page 36666]]

     A traffic control device plan which includes:

--an inventory of all traffic control devices;
--periodic review of existing traffic control devices, including a 
systematic upgrading of substandard devices to conform with 
standards contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
Devices;
--a maintenance schedule adequate to insure proper operation and 
timely repair of control devices, including daytime and nighttime 
inspections; and
--where appropriate, the application and evaluation of new ideas and 
concepts in applying control devices and in the modification of 
existing devices to improve their effectiveness through controlled 
experimentation.

     An implementation schedule which utilizes traffic 
engineering resources to:

--review road projects during the planning, design, and construction 
stages to detect and correct features that may lead to operational 
safety difficulties;
--install safety-related improvements as part of routine maintenance 
and/or repair activities;
--correct conditions noted during routine operational surveillance 
of the roadway system to rapidly adjust for the changes in traffic 
and road characteristics as a means of reducing the frequency and 
severity of crashes;
--conduct traffic engineering analyses of all high crash locations 
and develop corrective measures;
--analyze potentially hazardous locations--such as sharp curves, 
steep grades, and railroad grade crossings--and develop appropriate 
countermeasures;
--identify traffic control needs and determine short- and long-range 
requirements;
--evaluate the effectiveness of specific traffic control measures in 
reducing the frequency and severity of traffic crashes; and
--conduct traffic engineering studies to establish traffic 
regulations, such as fixed or variable speed limits.

    Companion Highway Safety Program Manuals (February, 1974), which 
supplement this guideline, are available from the Federal Highway 
Administration's Office of Highway Safety. These supplements provide 
additional information to assist State and local agencies in 
implementing their roadway safety programs.

V. Outreach Program

    While considerable progress has been made in reducing the 
highway death rate, forecasts of increased highway travel place new 
demands on the highway system. By necessity, roadways are being 
reconstructed while open to traffic, which places additional demands 
on motorists and construction workers. Increasing awareness of 
roadway-related safety issues will enhance highway safety in 
construction zones. A proactive roadway safety outreach program will 
provide critical information to the public on roadway safety issues, 
explain existing roadway safety features, and establish 
communication channels among engineers, planners, enforcement 
personnel, highway safety advocacy groups, and the motoring public. 
To encourage outreach in the roadway safety area, States should:
     Identify those groups or individuals that may have an 
interest in promoting roadway safety, including roadway safety 
advocacy groups, law enforcement, community advocacy, the medical 
community, and create an effective communication network among the 
groups to keep members informed;
     Target specific areas in which the public needs roadway 
safety information and develop appropriate public information and 
education materials on various roadway safety issues.

VI. Evaluation

    Roadway Safety programs should be periodically evaluated by the 
State, or appropriate Federal department or agency where applicable, 
and the Federal Highway Administration should be provided with an 
evaluation summary. Evaluations should include measures of 
effectiveness in terms of crash reduction.

[FR Doc. 95-17418 Filed 7-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P