[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65172-65196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18749]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-23090]


Revised Highway Safety Program Guidelines Nos. 3, 8, 14, 15, 19, 
and 20

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Revisions to highway safety program guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: Section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to promulgate uniform guidelines for State 
highway safety programs.
    This notice revises six of the existing guidelines to reflect 
program methodologies and approaches that have proven to be successful 
and are based on sound science and program administration. The 
guidelines the agency is revising today are Guideline No. 3--Motorcycle 
Safety, Guideline No. 8--Impaired Driving, Guideline No. 14--Pedestrian 
and Bicycle Safety, Guideline No. 15--Traffic Enforcement Services 
(formerly Police Traffic Services), Guideline No. 19--Speed Management 
(formerly Speed Control), and Guideline No. 20--Occupant Protection.

DATES: The revised guidelines are effective on November 7, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Kirinich, Research and Program 
Development, NTI-100, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: (202) 366-
1755; Facsimile: (202) 366-7149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to promulgate uniform guidelines for State 
highway safety programs. As the highway safety environment changes, it 
is necessary for NHTSA to update the guidelines to provide current 
information on effective program content for States to use in 
developing and assessing their traffic safety programs. Each of the 
revised guidelines reflects the best available science and the real-
world experience of NHTSA and the States in developing and managing 
traffic safety programs. NHTSA will update the guidelines periodically 
to address new issues and to emphasize program methodology and 
approaches that have proven to be effective in these program areas.
    The guidelines offer direction to States in formulating their 
highway safety plans for highway safety efforts that are supported with 
section 402 grant funds as well as safety activities funded from other 
sources. The guidelines provide a framework for developing a balanced 
highway safety program and serve as a tool with which States can assess 
the effectiveness of their own programs. NHTSA encourages States to use 
these guidelines and build upon them to optimize the effectiveness of 
highway safety programs conducted at the State and local levels.
    The revised guidelines emphasize areas of nationwide concern and 
highlight effective countermeasures. The six guidelines NHTSA is 
revising today are the first in a series of planned revisions. As each 
guideline is updated, it will bear the date of its revision.
    All the highway safety program guidelines, including the six 
guidelines revised today, will be available soon on the NHTSA Web site 
in the Highway Safety Grant Management Manual.
    In a Notice published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2006 
(71 FR 6830), the agency proposed to amend six highway safety program 
guidelines and requested comments on the proposed revisions. These 
guidelines included Guideline No. 3--Motorcycle Safety, Guideline No. 
8--Impaired Driving, Guideline No. 14--Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, 
Guideline No. 15--Traffic Enforcement Services (formerly Police Traffic 
Services), Guideline No. 19--Speed Management (formerly Speed Control), 
and Guideline No. 20--

[[Page 65173]]

Occupant Protection. In response to a request from the Motorcycle 
Riders Foundation, the agency published a Notice extending the comment 
period from March 13, 2006 to March 27, 2006 (71 FR 10754).

II. Comments

    The agency received approximately 1,034 comments in response to the 
proposed revisions. Commenters included four State agencies (the 
Georgia Department of Driver Services, the Louisiana Department of 
Public Safety and Corrections, the Florida Department of 
Transportation, and the Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP)); 
the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department; the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police Highway Safety Committee (IACP); the 
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA); the Chicagoland Bicycle 
Federation; Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates); the 
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA); the Motorcycle Riders 
Foundation (MRF); the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA); the 
Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF); and chapters of American Bikers 
Aimed Toward Education (ABATE) from three States (Delaware, Michigan, 
and Wisconsin). The remaining comments were from individuals, most of 
whom commented on the proposed Motorcycle Safety Guideline, and many of 
whom identified themselves as motorcyclists or members of motorcycle 
rider organizations such as ABATE.

A. In General

    CHP expressed overall support for the guidelines, noting that it 
currently implements most of the principles contained in the six 
guidelines. The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections 
commented favorably regarding the proposed guidelines' consideration of 
State demographics and centralized program management. Advocates 
expressed general support for most of the proposed changes to the 
guidelines, and the AMA supported the guidelines as recommendations to 
States.
    The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections 
additionally commented that the guidelines incorporate ``a more 
comprehensive approach to program/problem management than previous 
guidelines'' but remarked that this broad-based approach favors larger 
States that have more resources. The Louisiana Department of Safety and 
Corrections suggested that NHTSA provide for ``scaled implementation'' 
based on States' relative availability of resources. Advocates 
commented that NHTSA should rank the criteria within the guidelines in 
order of importance and explain the basis for the rankings. As 
examples, Advocates suggested that NHTSA emphasize the need to ensure 
motorcycle helmet use and the need to ensure enactment of primary 
safety belt use laws.
    The agency disagrees with the assertion that the revisions favor 
larger, more resource rich States or that the guidelines should 
prioritize program components. Consistent with Congressional direction, 
the guidelines provide broad guidance to the States on best practices 
in each program area. The guidelines provide a comprehensive framework 
or outline for improving safety in each area. Given the unique and 
changing circumstances in each State, certain guidelines may have a 
greater or lesser impact on the safety plans of different States. The 
criteria listed within each guideline are not ranked in order of 
importance, as the guidelines describe what a comprehensive approach to 
highway safety should include. The guidelines remain unchanged in 
response to these comments.
    Advocates also commented that NHTSA should provide States with 
customized analyses of their section 402 programs at the beginning of 
each fiscal year to assist States with their programs. The purpose of 
the highway safety guidelines is to provide States a comprehensive 
description of a successful highway safety program addressing a given 
safety issue, not to offer a State-specific assessment of highway 
safety programs. Moreover, we do not intend the guidelines to be 
limited to activities funded under section 402, but rather to serve as 
a general guide to States in planning and administering all their 
highway safety activities. Accordingly, the agency made no changes to 
the guidelines as a result of this comment.
    GHSA submitted a number comments responding to the guidelines in 
general. GHSA commented that as a result of the requirement in the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59, that States develop 
strategic highway safety plans (SHSPs) setting statewide highway safety 
goals, ``the current NHTSA highway safety program guidelines no longer 
fit the current 402 program and are not in sync with the SHSP guidance 
either.'' GHSA asserted that the proposed revised guidelines, ``while 
generally reflective of current knowledge about priority highway safety 
issues, recommend state highway safety countermeasures that go far 
beyond the scope of the current 402 program, far beyond the current 
role of the State Highway Safety Office (SHSO), and far beyond the 
resources available to state highway safety offices.'' GHSA asked 
several questions about the intended use of the guidelines, their 
purpose (as related to other Federal highway safety programs and safety 
guidance), and the role of SHSOs in implementing the guidelines. More 
specifically, GHSA asked whether the guidelines are intended for 
section 402-funded programs only or are intended as guidance regarding 
overall highway safety programs.
    GHSA also commented that ``the proposed guidelines represent a 
highly idealized State highway safety program'' that no State currently 
has or will attain in the near future without additional funding and 
staffing. According to GHSA, because SHSOs do not have authority over 
portions of the proposed countermeasures, the guidelines are not 
``optimally useful.'' GHSA noted that the guidelines do not build upon 
existing guidance documents, such as the National Cooperative Highway 
Safety Research Program (NCHRP) series 500 guidance documents and the 
NHTSA-funded publication Countermeasures that Work, creating confusion 
for SHSOs and others who implement the programs. GHSA suggested that 
NHTSA work with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) outside the context of the 
highway safety program guidelines and in a way that is consistent with 
existing guidance documents if NHTSA desires to promulgate broad 
highway safety guidelines.
    NHTSA is fully supportive of the SHSP process. While SAFETEA-LU 
places statutory requirements on the State Departments of 
Transportation (State DOTs) to develop SHSPs, the agency does not view 
this as a requirement that the State DOTs take the lead on the entire 
highway safety process. Just as NHTSA has worked cooperatively with 
FHWA to develop SHSP guidance, the agency expects the Governors' 
Representatives for Highway Safety (GRs), whether they are located in 
the State DOTs or elsewhere, to act as full partners in the development 
of the SHSP. In fact, the statutory language regarding SHSPs makes it 
clear that existing programs--including the section 402 highway safety 
planning process--are not replaced by, or subsumed under, the SHSP 
process. NHTSA is required under 23 U.S.C. 402(a) to publish program 
guidelines, and SAFETEA-LU not only maintained

[[Page 65174]]

that requirement, but added guidelines to be developed. We regard the 
guidelines as excellent tools to assist in the development and 
implementation of SHSPs.
    The Highway Safety Act of 1966 contemplated the use of the highway 
safety program guidelines as broad tools to implement traffic safety 
programs. With that broad framework in mind, the guidelines are 
comprehensive and go beyond addressing solely those activities that are 
funded by section 402 dollars to supporting State efforts to provide 
broad highway safety leadership across the State. Since the 
establishment of the section 402 program, GRs and SHSOs have been 
viewed as leaders in highway safety, with responsibilities that reach 
beyond behavioral issues and beyond the limits of section 402 or NHTSA 
funding. In fact, SHSOs are required to perform a broad safety 
leadership role in each State. NHTSA regulations (23 CFR 1251.4) 
require a State highway safety agency to be authorized to: ``(a) 
Develop and implement a process for obtaining information about the 
highway safety programs administered by other State and local agencies; 
(b) periodically review and comment to the Governor on the 
effectiveness of highway safety plans and activities in the State 
regardless of funding source; (c) provide or facilitate the provision 
of technical assistance to other State agencies and political 
subdivisions to develop highway safety programs; and (d) provide 
financial and technical assistance to other State agencies and 
political subdivisions in carrying out highway safety programs.''
    SHSOs demonstrate such leadership on a regular basis. For example, 
SHSOs organize high visibility enforcement mobilizations, even though 
SHSOs may not directly supervise State and local law enforcement. 
Existing statutory requirements reinforce this approach, as the 
agency's approval of a State highway safety program is contingent on 
the program providing that the Governor of a State administer the 
program through a State highway safety agency that has ``adequate 
powers'' and is ``suitably equipped and organized'' to carry out the 
program.
    Further, the intended use of the revised guidelines is identical to 
the intended use of the existing guidelines--to provide broad guidance 
to the States on best practices in each highway safety program area. 
Countermeasures are more thoroughly discussed in the NCHRP series 500 
guidance documents and in the NHTSA-funded publication Countermeasures 
that Work; these tools provide detail to fill in the framework. All of 
these documents, along with additional behavioral research conducted by 
non-Federal sources, add to the robustness of available highway safety 
literature.
    The guidelines are not idealized; they are comprehensive. NHTSA 
recognizes that State needs and programs differ and acknowledges that 
the weight placed on certain guidelines or individual recommendations 
in the guidelines may vary from State to State. As in the past, the 
revised guidelines were prepared in cooperation with the FHWA, so that 
program areas such as Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety and Speed Management 
reflect a coordinated DOT approach.
    GHSA opposed linking the highway safety program guidelines to NHTSA 
assessments and management reviews, recommending that the guidelines 
act as ``guidance only,'' allowing States to adapt to their particular 
circumstances. GHSA suggested that NHTSA use the guidelines to assess 
its own programs and to make certain a sufficient basis exists for the 
guideline contents. Finally, GHSA recommended that in the next 
reauthorization cycle, NHTSA propose amendments to remove guidelines 
for areas that are no longer priorities or areas for which SHSOs do not 
have jurisdiction.
    The agency disagrees with GHSA's characterization of the guidelines 
as ``linked'' to management reviews. GHSA has reviewed the guidance for 
management reviews and special management reviews; there have been no 
changes to these documents based on the update of the guidelines, and 
none are currently planned. The program area framework in the 
guidelines, however, has been used as the basis for NHTSA program 
assessments for many years. The assessments are voluntary peer reviews 
often requested by States interested in improving their programs. The 
agency notes that in several instances, States that were identified as 
candidates for special management reviews (SMRs) asked if they could 
have an assessment in lieu of an SMR and implement the recommendations 
from the assessment. Only in these cases where an assessment is used in 
lieu on an SMR are States fully accountable for implementing the 
results of the assessment. Nevertheless, all States should track 
improvements and progress in implementing the recommendations from 
their peers. The agency has made no changes to the guidelines in 
response to GHSA's comments discussed above. GHSA's comments related to 
particular highway safety program guidelines are discussed below under 
the appropriate heading.
    The agency received a number of comments we consider outside the 
scope of the proposed revisions to the highway safety program 
guidelines. These comments related to a variety of topics, including 
illegal aliens, street signs, public works departments, vehicle 
headlights, ``big government,'' cell phone use and other distracted 
driving issues. Because these comments do not fall within the subject 
area of the revised guidelines, the agency has not addressed them in 
this action. We note, however, that in SAFETEA-LU, Congress directed 
the agency to issue an additional guideline for reducing crashes 
resulting from unsafe driving behavior (aggressive or fatigued driving 
and distracted driving arising from the use of electronic devices in 
vehicles). The agency will develop and publish this guideline at a 
later date.

B. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 3: Motorcycle Safety

    Nearly all of the approximately 1,034 comments received concerned, 
in whole or in part, the Motorcycle Safety guideline. Individual 
commenters, many of whom identified themselves as motorcyclists or 
members of motorcycle rider organizations such as ABATE, comprised the 
bulk of the comments received. Commenting motorcycle-related 
organizations included AMA, MRF, MSF, and three State ABATE chapters 
(Delaware, Michigan, and Wisconsin). Other commenters on this guideline 
included the Georgia Department of Driver Services, the Louisiana 
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the Florida Department of 
Transportation (Florida DOT), IACP, GHSA, and Advocates.
1. In General
    MRF and ABATE chapters of Delaware and Wisconsin commented 
favorably that the guideline presents an expanded approach to 
motorcycle safety, AMA welcomed the guideline's emphasis on crash 
reduction, and MSF expressed general support for the guideline.
2. Program Management
    The agency received several comments concerning the Program 
Management section. MRF, AMA, MSF and a number of individuals expressed 
support for the section as written. MSF supported the provisions 
encouraging motorcycle crash data collection and analysis and the 
routine evaluation of motorcycle safety programs and services. MSF 
recommended the addition of a provision encouraging the collection and 
analysis of intermediate data (e.g., skill development, attitude

[[Page 65175]]

change, knowledge gains). Crash, fatality and injury data are necessary 
to identify the types and severity of motorcycle safety problems in a 
State and so require specific reference. The guideline does not 
preclude States from using other types of data, including intermediate 
data. Consequently, the agency made no changes to the guideline in 
response to this comment.
    Three individuals expressed disagreement with the Program 
Management section, generally asserting that the recommendations fall 
outside NHTSA's authority. Another individual commented that this 
section should specify the involvement of motorcycle safety 
organizations in the process. Proper program management is crucial to 
improving motorcycle safety. The agency agrees that motorcycle safety 
organizations should be included when planning State motorcycle safety 
programs and notes that the guideline already addresses the inclusion 
of motorcycle safety organizations in this section, recommending that 
State motorcycle safety plans ``encourage collaboration among agencies 
and organizations responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety 
issues.'' The guideline remains unchanged in response to these 
comments.
3. Motorcycle Personal Protective Equipment & Legislation and 
Regulations
    Most of the comments received related to these two sections of the 
guideline. Within these sections, comments largely concerned the 
proposed provisions related to motorcycle helmets. Advocates and a few 
individual commenters voiced support for the inclusion of the helmet-
related provisions. Advocates further commented that these sections 
should rank helmet use as the top priority. As explained earlier, the 
agency declines to rank elements within each guideline.
    The vast majority of commenters opposed the inclusion of references 
to motorcycle helmets. MRF, AMA, State ABATE chapters of Delaware, 
Michigan, and Wisconsin, and numerous individuals each voiced similar 
concerns. These included lobbying restrictions, general opposition to 
helmet laws, restrictions against tying Federal funds to helmet laws or 
imposing a national helmet law, State (not Federal) jurisdiction over 
helmet laws, individual liberty/freedom/constitutional issues, lack of 
proven safety benefits associated with helmet use, safety disbenefits 
associated with helmet use (e.g., helmets are uncomfortable and inhibit 
vision or hearing).
    The Motorcycle Safety guideline remains unchanged in response to 
these comments. The guideline language does not violate lobbying 
restrictions, condition Federal funds on the enactment of a helmet law, 
constitute the imposition of a national helmet law, impede State 
jurisdiction over helmet laws, or violate individual liberties. The 
agency believes the inclusion of language recommending the use of 
helmets is consistent with the multitude of research confirming their 
safety benefits.
    A comprehensive motorcycle safety program works not only to prevent 
crashes but to reduce injuries resulting from a crash, and motorcycle 
helmet use is an important component for a comprehensive State program 
to reduce motorcycle-related injuries. Decades of research have proven 
that motorcycle helmets are effective in preventing head and brain 
injuries when a motorcyclist is involved in a crash and that State 
universal motorcycle helmet laws are the most effective mechanism to 
ensure that motorcyclists wear helmets each time they ride. Compared to 
a helmeted rider, an unhelmeted rider is more likely to incur a fatal 
head injury. Helmets also are effective in reducing the risk of non-
fatal head injuries, which often require expensive, long-term treatment 
and rehabilitation. The latest research, using data from 1993 to 2002, 
shows that helmets reduce motorcycle rider fatalities by 37 percent 
(Deuterman, 2004) and brain injuries by 65 percent (NHTSA, 2003).
    NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use is well above 90 percent 
in States with a universal helmet law that covers all riders and 
between 34 percent and 54 percent in States with no universal helmet 
law or a law covering only young riders (NHTSA, 2003). Motorcycle 
helmets are a motorcycle rider's primary protection in the event of a 
crash, regardless of age. Since 1997, six States have repealed their 
universal motorcycle helmet laws that covered riders of all ages 
(Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida, and Pennsylvania). In 
the first five of these States, for which we have data, observed helmet 
use dropped from nearly 100 percent compliance to around 50 percent 
within a few months. In the first year after the repeal of the 
universal helmet law, motorcycle fatalities for these States increased 
from 17 to 67 percent. Although an increase in the number of riders 
contributes to this increase, a large percentage of the increase 
correlates with decreased helmet use. In States that either reinstated 
or enacted a motorcycle helmet law in the past decade, helmet use has 
dramatically increased, and motorcyclist deaths and injuries have 
decreased.
    In view of these dramatic statistics, a motorcycle safety guideline 
that contained no reference to the safety benefits of helmets would be 
demonstrably incomplete. Commenters should note that the highway safety 
program guidelines are recommendations only, and do not require States 
to enact helmet laws.
    Several individuals also opposed the guideline's inclusion of 
language related to any personal protective equipment (e.g., gloves, 
boots, eye and face protection) or footrests. NHTSA has not changed its 
position on the inclusion of references to personal protective 
equipment or footrests since it revised the Motorcycle Safety guideline 
in 1995. Like helmets, other personal protective equipment and 
footrests are part of a comprehensive framework for improving 
motorcycle safety. The agency did not change the guideline in response 
to these comments.
4. Motorcycle Operator Licensing
    The agency received several comments related to the Motorcycle 
Operator Licensing section of the guideline. AMA commented favorably on 
this section. MRF expressed support for motorcycle license endorsements 
but suggested, as did some individual commenters, that licensing 
matters are State issues. A number of individuals expressed support for 
all motorcyclists to obtain a license endorsement to operate a 
motorcycle. NHTSA agrees that licensing matters are typically State 
issues and notes that the guidelines are recommendations for a 
comprehensive State licensing program.
    IACP and one individual commented that at the point of purchase, a 
motorcycle purchaser should be required to show a motorcycle license 
endorsement, learner's permit or certificate of completion of an 
approved motorcycle safety course. NHTSA declines to adopt this 
suggestion because the purchaser may not be the operator of the 
motorcycle and many States currently are unable to meet demands for 
rider training.
    With respect to the guideline's provision that State licensing 
systems should require cross-referencing of motorcycle registrations 
with motorcycle licenses, some individuals commented that NHTSA should 
administer a grant program to help States offset the costs of 
implementing this cross-referencing as well as other elements of 
motorcycle safety programs. A handful of individuals expressed concerns 
about privacy or law

[[Page 65176]]

enforcement abuse in cross-referencing registrations and licenses. 
Cross-referencing motorcycle registrations and licenses has proven 
effective in increasing the number of motorcycle operators that obtain 
licenses required to operate a motorcycle. This information is often 
used to notify registered motorcycle owners of State laws requiring 
license endorsements for motorcycle operation. To the agency's 
knowledge, this information is not shared with law enforcement. 
Congress has not authorized specific funding for States to conduct 
cross-referencing of motorcycle registrations with motorcycle licenses. 
The agency notes, however, that section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU authorized a 
motorcyclist safety grant program through Fiscal Year 2009 that would 
allow States to use section 2010 funds for motorcyclist safety training 
and motorcyclist awareness programs. The agency has made no changes to 
the guideline in response to these comments.
    MSF advocated the inclusion of an additional element in this 
section-the cross-referencing of training data with operator licensing 
records, particularly for States in which training is a prerequisite to 
licensing. MSF commented that collecting this information on training 
at the time riders obtain licenses will provide valuable information. 
While the agency believes the idea suggested by MSF would assist States 
in linking training and crash and citation data, we decline to make a 
recommendation for the specific information that should be contained on 
State operator licenses.
    Advocates and one individual commented that the agency should 
consider including in this section of the guideline a component related 
to graduated drivers licenses (GDLs) for beginning riders, regardless 
of age. Advocates suggested that requiring a 90-day learner's permit 
and restricting the number of times a person may obtain a learner's 
permit is insufficient to ensure a sufficient educational experience. 
ABATE of Wisconsin and several individuals commented that 90-day 
permits are not realistic in every State, as riders may have difficulty 
scheduling and completing testing within 90 days because of weather or 
inadequate staffing. Many States have GDL systems for drivers, but the 
agency does not feel it is appropriate for inclusion in this guideline 
at this time for motorcyclists. Although insufficient evidence 
currently exists to substantiate the effectiveness of a GDL system for 
motorcyclists, the agency is reviewing this issue. Experts in 
motorcycle safety and driver licensing, including the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, recommend limiting 
motorcycle learner's permits to 90 days. This is necessary to limit the 
practice by some motorcycle riders of avoiding full licensure by 
continuously obtaining and operating their motorcycles on learner's 
permits.
    The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections supported 
the provision limiting learner's permits to 90 days and recommended an 
additional provision in the guideline limiting vehicle registration to 
the same 90-day period. According to the Louisiana Department of Public 
Safety and Corrections, limiting vehicle registrations to 90 days would 
provide motorcycle operators an incentive to pursue full licensure and 
would provide law enforcement probable cause to stop motorcyclists if 
their license plates are expired. The guideline remains unchanged in 
this regard, as the agency does not believe vehicle registration should 
be limited to the same 90-day period as a learner's permit. 
Motorcyclists operating on a learner's permit do not always own the 
vehicle they are operating. Learner's permits and operator's licenses 
provide individuals with the privilege to operate any motorcycle and 
are not tied to the use of a specific motorcycle.
5. Motorcycle Rider Education and Training
    Numerous motorcycle organizations and individuals supported 
motorcycle rider education and training as a means to improve safety. A 
few of the comments focused on rider training course curricula. MSF 
recommended that, rather than providing that a State should have ``a 
mandate to use the State-approved curriculum,'' the guideline should 
provide that a State have ``a mandate to use a State-approved 
curriculum that meets nationally recognized standards for curriculum, 
materials, student evaluation, quality assurance and training, 
professional development and approval of instructors.'' One individual 
commented that the language pertaining to a ``mandated state-approved 
curriculum'' is too restrictive on course providers and would not 
facilitate timely incorporation of newly identified problems into 
curricula, as changes in curricula would require State approval through 
legislative action. Another individual suggested that NHTSA communicate 
with Harley Davidson regarding its Riders Edge course.
    The guideline remains unchanged in response to these comments. 
NHTSA declines to adopt MSF's suggestion and notes that the Motorcycle 
Safety guideline language already includes recommendations that State 
programs have a documented policy for instructor training and 
certification, established guidelines for conduct and quality control 
of the program, and a program evaluation plan. Additionally, the agency 
believes that the State must set the minimum requirements for each 
rider training course offered throughout the State. This baseline 
uniformity in curricula ensures that all riders obtaining training in a 
State are provided the same information and that training meets State 
licensing standards if licensing is conditioned upon the completion of 
training. Not all States require legislative action to make changes to 
motorcycle training curricula. Some States instead require 
administrative action to make such changes. To the extent that the 
requirement for legislative approval of changes in curricula would 
impede the inclusion of important information in curricula, the agency 
suggests that States instead allow administrative changes. The agency 
is familiar with the Riders Edge training course sponsored by Harley-
Davidson, Inc. The core of the course is the same as the training 
course developed by MSF that is currently used in at least 45 State 
rider training programs.
    One individual commented that NHTSA is attempting to privatize 
rider training and replace State-run programs. Another individual 
stated that a low-cost rider education course should be available to 
more people, pointing to the shortage of courses and long waiting lists 
for training nationwide. The agency does not favor privately developed 
rider training over publicly funded training. Decisions regarding 
whether a State or private entity will conduct training rest solely 
with States. As to the latter comment, the agency recognizes that many 
State programs currently cannot meet the demand for rider training 
courses, especially in the spring when demand is at its greatest. This 
section of the guideline includes a provision that each State 
motorcycle rider education program should address any backlog of 
training. The purpose of this guideline is to establish the components 
of a comprehensive and effective motorcycle safety program, and the 
agency hopes that by implementing the components of this section, 
States will be able to run more efficient courses and, in turn, offer 
more courses. The agency has made no changes to the guideline in 
response to these comments.
    MSF suggested that NHTSA amend this section of the guideline to 
encourage States to offer continued training for experienced riders as 
well

[[Page 65177]]

as training addressing older riders. NHTSA agrees, and we have modified 
the guideline to recommend that a State's program provide reasonable 
availability of rider education courses for all interested residents of 
any legal riding age and level of riding experience.
6. Motorcycle Operation Under the Influence of Alcohol or Other Drugs
    MSF and some individuals expressed support for this section of the 
guideline. MRF, ABATE of Wisconsin and several individuals expressed 
concern that law enforcement may unfairly ``target'' motorcyclists when 
conducting impaired driving enforcement campaigns. The guideline merely 
states that States should utilize high visibility law enforcement 
programs to reach impaired motorcyclists. States already have impaired 
driving enforcement campaigns in place that address impaired drivers of 
all motor vehicles, and the guideline does not encourage law 
enforcement to ``target'' motorcyclists in their enforcement efforts. 
The guideline remains unchanged in response to these comments.
    One individual proposed the inclusion of a recommendation that 
States lower the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit to .04 for 
motorcyclists when operating a motorcycle. As no research exists to 
support this recommendation, the agency did not adopt this suggestion.
7. Law Enforcement
    The agency received several positive comments regarding the Law 
Enforcement section of the guideline. MSF, MRF and ABATE of Delaware 
expressed support for educating law enforcement officers generally or 
with respect to problem identification. Additionally, MSF, MRF, AMA, 
ABATE of Wisconsin, ABATE of Delaware and a number of individual 
commenters supported improvements to crash investigation and data 
collection. MSF commented favorably on the guideline's emphasis on law 
enforcement training on the identification of impaired motorcycle 
operators.
    MRF, ABATE of Wisconsin, ABATE of Delaware and several individuals 
questioned the feasibility and practicality of educating law 
enforcement officers in the identification of helmets that comply with 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 218 and requested removal 
of this provision from the guideline, noting that no list of compliant 
helmets exists. Although it is true that no list of compliant helmets 
exists, the agency does not believe a list is necessary for a law 
enforcement officer to determine whether a motorcycle helmet is 
properly certified as compliant with FMVSS 218. Certain common 
indicators exist. For example, a helmet that is sold without a DOT 
sticker attached to the back of the helmet does not comply with the 
standard. If additional required labels are not adhered to the inside 
of a helmet, it does not comply with FMVSS 218. Further, a helmet 
weighing one pound or less or that has anything extending further than 
two-tenths of an inch from its surface does not meet the standard. 
Information on helmet labeling and other ways to detect non-compliant 
helmets is available to consumers, law enforcement officers and other 
interested parties, without charge, on NHTSA's Web site at http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/ outreach/media/catalog/Index.cfm.
    One individual stated that law enforcement should focus on lack of 
permits, lack of insurance and neglectful driving. NHTSA agrees that 
these issues are important, but does not believe they are necessary for 
inclusion in the guideline. The agency notes that the guideline 
provides that law enforcement agencies should establish goals to 
support motorcycle safety, which could include issues related to 
permits, insurance, or neglectful driving.
8. Highway Engineering
    MSF, MRF, AMA, GHSA, ABATE of Wisconsin and several individuals 
expressed support for the Highway Engineering section of this 
guideline. Although generally supportive of the elements in this 
section, MSF suggested that the agency list other highway design and 
maintenance measures (e.g., grating, rain groove and metal bridge 
decking placement, edged trap and grade crossing construction, barrier 
design, work zone warnings, highway joint and crack sealants and 
painted roadway markings) in addition to pavement skid factors and 
warning signs already listed. The agency has made no changes to the 
guideline in response to this comment, and notes that the current 
language that ``measures may include, but should not be limited to'' 
pavement skid factors and warning signs indicates that the list is not 
exhaustive.
    GHSA commented that selecting pavement skid factors is the 
responsibility of State DOTs, not SHSOs. As discussed earlier, SHSOs 
frequently take the lead on a wide range of highway safety matters, 
encouraging partners to adopt highway safety practices. Accordingly, 
even though SHSOs may not directly supervise matters related to 
pavement skid factors, the agency believes such measures are 
appropriate for inclusion in this guideline.
    The proposed guideline included a statement that ``balancing the 
needs of motorcyclists must always be considered.'' The Florida DOT 
recommended the removal of the word ``balancing'' from this sentence, 
commenting that motorcyclists have few unique engineering needs and the 
use of the term ``balancing'' implies that competing engineering 
considerations must be weighed against motorcyclist safety. The agency 
agrees with this comment and has removed the term from the guideline.
    One individual recommended the establishment of an advisory 
committee with participation by motorcycle organizations and State DOTs 
or highway departments, and another individual suggested motorcyclist 
involvement in determining highway safety design for motorcyclists. A 
third individual stated that NHTSA should focus on poor road 
conditions. The agency has made no change to the guideline, as these 
suggestions are accommodated under a separate effort. Section 1914 of 
SAFETEA-LU establishes a Motorcyclist Advisory Council under the 
auspices of FHWA. The Council will coordinate with and advise the 
Administrator of FHWA on infrastructure issues of concern to 
motorcyclists including barrier design, road design, construction and 
maintenance practices and intelligent transportation system 
technologies. FHWA is currently working to establish the Council.
9. Motorcycle Rider Conspicuity and Motorist Awareness Programs
    MSF and MRF generally supported this section of the guideline. MRF, 
ABATE of Wisconsin and several individuals, however, indicated 
opposition to requirements pertaining to a particular clothing color or 
reflectivity combinations for all motorcycles. MSF, AMA and some 
individuals commented on the need for inclusion of a motorcycle 
awareness component in State drivers' education courses. The Motorcycle 
Safety guideline does not require any State to enact legislation or 
implement any specific programs requiring motorcyclists to wear 
reflective or brightly colored clothing or helmets. Likewise, the 
guideline does not mandate the inclusion of motorcycle awareness in 
drivers' education courses; however, the agency will address these 
awareness issues when we update

[[Page 65178]]

Guideline No. 4--Driver Education. The agency has made no changes to 
the guideline in response to these comments.
    Although supportive of awareness generally, Advocates indicated 
that it does not support any shifting of responsibility for motorcycle 
safety to other road users. NHTSA believes that all road users share a 
common responsibility for safety. The guideline does not attempt to 
place responsibility for motorcycle safety on any specific segment of 
motor vehicle operators; instead, the agency believes motorist 
awareness programs are important to ensure that all road users operate 
together safely. The agency has made no changes to the guideline in 
response to this comment.
    The Georgia Department of Driver Services and several individuals 
commented on particular mechanisms to increase motorist awareness of 
the presence of motorcycles. According to these commenters, the 
guideline should ``strongly encourage or require'' motorcyclists'' 
daytime use of headlight modulators. In contrast, other commenters 
asserted that headlight modulators are unsafe. Several individuals 
suggested forward facing lighting, brake light flashing, amber or red 
side marker lighting, and headlight strobe lighting. One individual 
stated that passing on the right should be illegal and that vehicles 
equipped with global positioning systems should include motorcycle 
sensors. The agency is currently researching techniques for increased 
conspicuity, including the effects of daytime running lights on 
motorcycles and other motor vehicles. The guideline is unchanged in 
response to these comments. The guideline retains the provision that 
safety programs related to rider conspicuity and motorist awareness 
should address daytime use of motorcycle headlights. However, as NHTSA 
continues to research issues related to lighting, we may consider 
updating the guideline to reflect research findings.
    The agency received a number of comments advocating the need for 
increased motorist awareness of the presence of motorcycles and a 
comment urging specific qualifications for those teaching motorist 
awareness courses. The agency agrees that motorist education and 
awareness is an important component of a comprehensive motorcycle 
safety program. This continues to be a component of the Motorcycle 
Safety Guideline. We believe States should determine the specific 
criteria for approving instructors. The agency made no changes to the 
guideline as a result of these comments.
10. Communication Program
    MSF supported the Communication Program section of this guideline. 
The Florida DOT commented that the scope of this section should be 
similar to that of the Communication Program described in Guideline 
No.14--Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. The agency agrees. Consistent 
with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and the Occupant Protection 
guidelines, the Motorcycle Safety guideline adds that ``States should 
enlist the support of a variety of media, including mass media, to 
improve public awareness of motorcycle crash problems and programs 
directed at preventing them.''
    Several individual commenters articulated concerns regarding a lack 
of funding to support communication programs. The agency notes that 
funds for such activities are available through a number of highway 
safety grant programs. We note again that the motorcyclist safety grant 
program authorized by section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU through Fiscal Year 
2009 would allow qualifying States to use section 2010 funds for 
motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs.
11. Program Evaluation and Data
    MSF, MRF, ABATE of Wisconsin and several individuals commented in 
support of this section. MSF suggested the identification of 
intermediary measures and the collection of data to support process and 
impact, rather than only outcome. NHTSA believes MSF's suggestion is 
adequately addressed in this section by the statement ``encouraging, 
supporting and training localities in process, impact and outcome 
evaluation of local programs.'' Process and impact evaluation include 
intermediary measures, such as skill development, attitude change and 
knowledge gains.
    AMA commented that the guideline should include an increased focus 
on State data and record-keeping, especially with respect to motorcycle 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The agency agrees that the guideline 
should encourage States to collect accurate motorcycle VMT data and has 
added it to the final guideline.
    One individual stated that NHTSA should collect data only on 
crashes involving interstate and international travel and commerce. The 
agency disagrees with this comment. First, we note that this guideline 
pertains to State and local data collection. Moreover, NHTSA's mission 
is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic costs due to 
road traffic crashes, through education, research, safety standards and 
enforcement activity. It is imperative that the agency collect and 
analyze the broadest possible range of crash, injury and fatality data. 
It is through this analysis that the agency is able to identify highway 
safety problems and develop methods to address those problems. Limiting 
data collection to interstate and international travel and commerce 
would significantly limit the agency's ability to accomplish its 
mission. The agency has made no changes to the guideline in response to 
these comments.
    One individual asked that the term ``high risk population'' be 
removed, claiming it is a biased reference to motorcyclists. As used in 
this section, high-risk population refers to a specific segment of 
motorcyclists that is at a higher risk of crash involvement than the 
general motorcycle population, and, thus, may provide reason for 
specific programs to reach them, separate from programs addressing the 
general riding population. Review of State crash data may identify 
segments of motorcycle operators that are at higher risk of crashes due 
to characteristics such as alcohol use, speeding, and licensure. It is 
important that program resources are used in the most effective way to 
reach both the general public and identified high-risk populations. The 
reference to high-risk populations remains in the guideline.
    As an administrative matter, we are correcting the Program 
Evaluation and Data section to number it correctly as Section XI, 
rather than Section XII.

C. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 8: Impaired Driving

    CHP, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), GHSA, the 
Metropolitan Nashville Police Department and four individuals commented 
on the Impaired Driving guideline.
1. Program Management and Strategic Planning
    The agency received one comment from an individual suggesting that 
the guideline include institutions of higher education and the military 
among the parties listed as Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) task force 
or commission members. The agency agrees with this comment and has 
modified the guideline accordingly.
2. Prevention
    The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections suggested 
that

[[Page 65179]]

the agency add a section to provide for a standardized DWI treatment 
course, as courses currently vary in content and duration by 
jurisdiction. Treatment and the criminal justice system are addressed 
under Section V (Alcohol and Other Drug Misuse: Screening, Assessment, 
Treatment and Rehabilitation) of the Impaired Driving guideline. The 
agency believes that offenders must be assigned to the types of 
treatment most appropriate for them, based on an assessment by a 
certified substance abuse official. As recently explained in NHTSA's 
final rule amending its incentive grant program for alcohol-impaired 
driving prevention programs under 23 U.S.C. 410 (71 FR 20555), the 
agency does not endorse a specific assessment method. Accordingly, the 
agency has made no changes to the guideline in response to this 
comment.
3. Criminal Justice System
    The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department commented that if the 
Tennessee legislature were to enact a law providing for sanctions for a 
blood alcohol content (BAC) test refusal at least as strict as a high 
BAC offense, the department ``would have one of the best tools'' it has 
ever had to deal with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). The Louisiana 
Department of Public Safety and Corrections expressed support for the 
guideline's proposal that State laws require law enforcement officers 
to conduct mandatory BAC testing of drivers involved in crashes 
producing fatal or serious injuries, stating that receipt of Federal 
funds should be conditioned upon a State's mandatory BAC testing of 
such drivers. In contrast, CHP raised objections to the inclusion of 
mandatory BAC testing of such drivers, citing concerns regarding 
departmental policies and procedures, constitutional rights of persons 
tested, and availability of required time and resources.
    Under the section 410 grant program, States may qualify for 
incentive grant funds by complying with certain criteria, one of which 
includes enacting a law that provides for mandatory BAC testing of 
drivers involved in all fatal motor vehicle crashes but does not 
condition the administration of tests on the establishment of probable 
cause. The agency has revised the Impaired Driving guideline to 
recommend that States require mandatory BAC testing only for fatal 
crashes, rather than for fatal and serious injury crashes. In addition 
to providing consistency with the section 410 grant program, the agency 
believes this change strikes an appropriate balance between the need 
for robust BAC testing and CHP's concerns.
    The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections also 
commented on the recommendation that each State conduct frequent, 
highly visible, well publicized and fully coordinated impaired driving 
law enforcement efforts throughout the State. Rather than conduct law 
enforcement efforts ``statewide,'' the Louisiana Department of Public 
Safety and Corrections asserted that levels of effort ``should be 
tailored for the targeted community having the most severe impaired 
driving problem.'' The agency agrees with this comment and notes that 
the guideline accommodates this by specifying that law enforcement 
efforts should be conducted ``especially in locations where alcohol-
related fatalities most often occur.'' The agency has made no change to 
the guideline in response to this comment.
    IACP commented that emphasis should be placed more on court system 
involvement and data collection and less on training and standards. The 
agency notes that the portion of the guideline related to enforcement 
recommends officer training on the latest law enforcement techniques, 
including Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) and, as 
appropriate, media relations and Drug Evaluation and Classification 
(DEC) training. The agency believes that such training can facilitate 
detection, arrest and prosecution for impaired driving offenses. The 
agency agrees that court involvement and data collection play important 
roles in the impaired driving area. However, because court system and 
data collection issues are addressed in other parts of the guideline 
(e.g., sections pertaining to Program Management and Strategic 
Planning, Prosecution, and Adjudication) the agency has made no changes 
to this section of the guideline in response to this comment.
    The agency notes that it has made two conforming changes to this 
section of the guideline to make it consistent with the section 410 
grant program. The agency has changed the high BAC level to .15 BAC or 
greater rather than .16 BAC or greater. Additionally, the agency has 
incorporated an option regarding administrative license suspension for 
first-time offenders for at least 15 days followed immediately by a 
restricted provisional or conditional license for at least 75 days if 
such license restricts the offender to operating only vehicles equipped 
with an ignition interlock.
4. Alcohol and Other Drug Misuse: Screening, Assessment, Treatment and 
Rehabilitation
    The agency received three comments regarding this section. GHSA 
commented on the statement that States should encourage employers, 
educators and health care professionals to implement a system to screen 
and/or assess drivers for alcohol or drug abuse problems, and as 
appropriate, intervene and refer them for treatment. GHSA indicated 
that although it supports screening, intervention and alcohol 
assessments, state health agencies, not SHSOs, are responsible for 
developing and implementing those programs, and SHSOs could only play a 
secondary role in those functions. The highway safety program 
guidelines serve as guidance and do not impose a requirement. To the 
extent that highway safety offices are urging employers in their 
jurisdiction to discuss safety issues with their employees, such as 
encouraging safety belt use and discouraging impaired driving, it 
should not be a burden to ask employers also to screen employees for 
potential alcohol problems. The agency has included this element in the 
guideline due to the promise demonstrated by screening and brief 
intervention (SBI) to date. The agency believes that this innovative 
strategy has the potential to reduce alcohol-related and impaired 
driving crashes and fatalities. The cost to implement SBI is modest, 
research has clearly demonstrated its effectiveness in medical 
settings, and efforts are underway to test its viability and impact in 
other contexts. Employers are not a new audience for highway safety 
offices and do not require special efforts to reach. The guideline 
remains unchanged in response to this comment.
    The agency received two comments from individuals related to this 
section of the guideline. One commenter advocated adequate minimum 
penalties for repeat DWI offenders, particularly those who cause 
injuries to others. Another commenter questioned the role of NHTSA (and 
the government, in general) in establishing guidelines in this area. 
The guideline includes language pertaining to the adoption of a broad 
range of effective penalties for impaired driving, including enhanced 
penalties for repeat offenders, vehicular homicide or causing personal 
injury. The agency's role in issuing this and other guidelines is 
directed by Congress. The agency has made no changes to the guideline 
in response to these comments.

[[Page 65180]]

D. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 14: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

    The agency received comments from the Florida DOT, GHSA, the 
Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, and four individuals in response to the 
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety guideline.
1. In General
    GHSA generally commented that the State DOTs, not the SHSOs, are 
responsible for pedestrian and bicycle-related construction 
improvements, which cannot be funded using section 402 funds, and the 
Florida DOT similarly questioned the use of funds for training 
engineers and planners on design standards. The Florida DOT also 
questioned the guideline's inclusion of functions traditionally 
accomplished by a State's bicycle and pedestrian program coordinator or 
by the SHSO. Traffic safety problems require a multi-faceted approach 
including education, engineering and enforcement strategies, and 
require coordination and collaboration among many different government 
entities and local organizations. Since the establishment of the 
section 402 program, the GRs and SHSOs have identified themselves as 
leaders in highway safety, with knowledge that extends beyond the 
boundaries of the section 402 program or other NHTSA funding. The 
agency notes again that the Highway Safety Act of 1966 contemplated 
guidelines that extend beyond only those activities eligible for 
section 402 funding and encouraged SHSOs to provide broad highway 
safety leadership across the State. However, to alleviate any confusion 
regarding this issue, the agency has revised the guideline to include a 
statement in the introductory paragraph concerning the necessity for 
coordination among State agencies in the implementation of these 
highway safety programs.
    The Florida DOT commented that it would be impossible for the State 
to accomplish all the recommendations in the proposed guideline and 
recommended adding language that the guideline includes ``ideal 
circumstances, which every state should work toward.'' The guideline 
does not adopt this suggestion. The guidelines are not idealized; they 
are comprehensive. Given the unique and changing circumstances in each 
State, certain guidelines and parts of guidelines may have a greater or 
lesser impact on the safety plans of different States.
2. Program Management
    The agency received comments from the Florida DOT, the Chicagoland 
Bicycle Federation and three individuals regarding this guideline's 
Program Management section. The Florida DOT suggested that the 
statement urging the SHSO to promote the proper use of bicycle helmets 
also should include language regarding the promotion of proper and 
legal bicycling practices. Two individuals commented that helmets 
should be considered a secondary safety measure. The agency agrees with 
the Florida DOT comment and has incorporated the suggestion into the 
guideline. The agency has made no changes to the guideline in response 
to the comment that helmets should be a secondary measure and continues 
to recommend bicycle helmets as a primary measure of reducing death and 
injury.
    The Florida DOT commented that the guideline component concerning 
support of enforcement of State bicycle and pedestrian laws by SHSOs is 
too narrow and should include State laws affecting bicyclists and 
pedestrians. The agency agrees with this comment and has changed the 
guideline accordingly. The Florida DOT also questioned whether the 
statement that the SHSO should train program staff to effectively carry 
out recommended activities meant it should train staff to carry out the 
recommendations of the guideline or actually conduct the training in 
the field. The agency intended the former result and has clarified the 
role of the SHSO in this regard by revising this portion of the 
guideline to read ``train program staff to effectively coordinate the 
implementation of recommended activities.''
    The Chicagoland Bicycle Federation commented that the guideline's 
provision urging the SHSO to develop safety initiatives to reduce 
fatalities and injuries among high-risk groups should include 
aggressive motorists as well as the language ``as indicated by crash 
and injury trends.'' The agency believes the importance of implementing 
a comprehensive program dependent on State demographics is sufficiently 
addressed in this guideline in the introductory paragraph. Although 
addressing aggressive motorists is an important issue, the agency 
believes this issue is best addressed elsewhere in the guideline. 
Several sections of the guideline have been changed accordingly to 
include language about addressing aggressive motorists or sharing the 
road safely.
    One individual suggested that the guideline incorporate a provision 
for the development of State or regional plans to help improve 
pedestrian and bicycle safety. The agency agrees that such plans are 
important but has made no changes to the guideline in response to this 
comment, as planning is already described in the introductory paragraph 
of the Program Management section of the guideline.
3. Multi-Disciplinary Involvement
    The Florida DOT asked whether all the communities listed in the 
proposed guideline (e.g., bicycle coordinators, law enforcement, 
education, public health) should receive grant funds and whether it is 
the duty of the SHSO or the State Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to 
ensure multidisciplinary involvement. This section provides examples of 
the types of groups that should be involved in a comprehensive approach 
to developing pedestrian and bicycle safety programs and is not 
intended to describe groups to which grants should be distributed. The 
guideline addresses the role of the SHSO as a leader in the State in 
highway safety. The agency has made no changes to the guideline in 
response to this comment.
4. Legislation, Regulation and Policy
    The Florida DOT, the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation and one 
individual submitted comments on this section. The Florida DOT and the 
Chicagoland Bicycle Federation suggested alternative language for the 
statement that States ``should enact and enforce pedestrian and 
bicyclist-related traffic laws and regulations, including laws that 
require the proper use of bicycle helmets.'' The Florida DOT 
recommended including laws that contribute to pedestrian and bicycle 
safety. The Chicagoland Bicycle Federation suggested including ``laws 
that require education in schools about common causes of bicycling and 
walking injuries and how to avoid them.'' NHTSA agrees with the former 
suggestion and has revised the guideline accordingly. With respect to 
the latter suggestion, the agency believes the Outreach Program section 
of the guideline is the more appropriate section in which to address 
the issue of bicycle and pedestrian safety education. The agency has 
revised that section to indicate that pedestrian and bicycle safety 
education should include skills training incorporated into school 
physical education/health curricula.
    The Florida DOT also recommended the inclusion of a provision 
stating that laws and regulations for bicyclists should recognize their 
duties and rights as drivers, and one individual commented that laws 
should require bicyclists to follow the same rules as

[[Page 65181]]

motorists. The agency agrees with these comments and has added a 
provision to the guideline that each State should enact and enforce 
laws that contribute to bicycle and pedestrian safety, including laws 
that require bicyclists to follow the same rules of the road as 
motorists.
    The Florida DOT questioned why NHTSA can require States to pass 
bicycle helmet laws when State employees are unable to lobby for 
passage of laws. The Florida DOT also questioned whether the State 
Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator should develop policies to encourage 
coordination with public and private agencies in the development of 
regulations and laws. The highway safety program guidelines are 
recommendations and do not mandate enactment of laws or lobbying for 
legislation. This guideline presents a comprehensive approach to 
pedestrian and bicycle safety, including the enactment and enforcement 
of safety legislation. The SHSO is expected to take the lead in 
carrying out State highway safety programs and in coordinating with 
appropriate State agencies. The agency has made no changes to the 
guideline in response to these comments.
5. Law Enforcement
    The Florida DOT and the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation commented on 
this section of the guideline. The Florida DOT expressed confusion 
about this section because it combines law enforcement responsibilities 
with the role of SHSOs (i.e., providing training to law enforcement 
personnel in pedestrian and bicycle safety). The Chicagoland Bicycle 
Federation offered alternative language to provide training to law 
enforcement personnel ``on how motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists 
can avoid car-pedestrian and car-bike crashes'' and to enforce laws 
that ``cause most car-pedestrian and car-bike crashes.'' In response to 
the Florida DOT comment, as the agency previously noted, the SHSO is 
expected to be a leader in highway safety in the State, ensuring the 
implementation of a comprehensive statewide pedestrian and bicycle 
safety program. The Law Enforcement section of this guideline lists 
essential components that each State should ensure are included as part 
of a comprehensive program. The agency revised one bullet point in this 
section to indicate that an essential component of law enforcement is 
to ensure adequate training of law enforcement personnel. NHTSA has 
made no changes to the guideline in response to the Chicagoland Bicycle 
Federation's suggested language, as the agency does not believe the 
suggested changes are necessary.
6. Highway Engineering
    The Florida DOT, the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation and one 
individual commented on Highway Engineering. The Florida DOT 
recommended that NHTSA use consistent references in the heading and 
throughout this section to ``Highway Engineering'' or ``Highway and 
Traffic Engineering'' to avoid confusion regarding terms. The agency 
agrees and has revised the guideline using the term Highway and Traffic 
Engineering. The Florida DOT also commented that the inclusion of the 
statement that ``each State should ensure that State and community 
pedestrian and bicycle programs include a traffic engineering component 
that is coordinated with enforcement and educational efforts'' implies 
that States should fund engineering grant programs. The agency has made 
no changes to the guideline in response to this comment. As explained 
above, the reach of the guidelines appropriately extends beyond only 
those activities that can be funded by section 402 dollars to provide 
broad highway safety leadership across the State.
    The Chicagoland Bicycle Federation recommended adding language to 
this section to reference 23 U.S.C. 217, which pertains to bicycling 
and walking facilities. The agency believes the guideline adequately 
addresses pedestrian and bicycle facilities and does not require the 
inclusion of a specific reference to this statute. An individual 
suggested that the term ``pedestrian pathways'' used in this section is 
too narrow and that, instead, the term ``pedestrian facilities such as 
sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, and paths'' should be used. The 
agency agrees with this suggested change and has revised the guideline 
accordingly.
7. Communication Program
    The Florida DOT, the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation and one 
individual commented on this section. The Florida DOT stated that the 
communication program should refer specifically to the use of languages 
other than English when appropriate. The Chicagoland Bicycle Federation 
recommended that, in addition to visibility or conspicuity, 
communication programs address issues such as the ``life threatening 
nature of speeding and aggressive driving.'' The agency agrees that 
these recommended changes would improve the comprehensiveness of the 
guideline and has revised the guideline to incorporate these 
suggestions. Additionally, the agency has made a conforming change with 
respect to multilingual programs in the other five guidelines revised 
today.
8. Outreach Program
    The agency received comments from the Florida DOT and one 
individual regarding this section. The Florida DOT recommended using 
the term ``skills training'' rather than ``safety education.'' The 
agency agrees that specifically mentioning ``skills training'' would 
improve the guideline, and has revised the guideline to include this 
language. One individual commented that the promotion of skills 
training should also be included in the Program Management section of 
this guideline. The agency agrees that skills training is an important 
element of a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle safety program. 
However, the agency believes this element should be part of an outreach 
program, and does not need to be centrally coordinated by the SHSO. The 
agency has made no changes to the guideline in response to this 
comment.
9. Evaluation Program
    The agency received two comments pertaining to the Evaluation 
Program section. The Florida DOT commented that the term ``accidents'' 
should be replaced by ``crashes'' because NHTSA stresses that crashes 
are not accidents. Although the agency typically refers to ``crashes'' 
rather than accidents, the reference to ``accidents'' in this section 
refers to ``police accident reports,'' which are data collection tools 
used by police to report motor vehicle collisions. Because ``police 
accident report'' is the accepted term of reference used by law 
enforcement, no change is made to the guideline.
    One individual commented that the frequency of pedestrian and 
bicycle crashes reported should be ``based on pedestrian and bicycle 
activity levels or rates.'' Currently, it is not feasible to provide an 
accurate measurement of pedestrian and bicycle activity levels or 
rates. The guideline remains unchanged in response to this comment.

E. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 15: Traffic Enforcement Services

    The agency received comments on the Traffic Enforcement Services 
guideline from the IACP, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and 
Corrections, and GHSA.
1. In General
    IACP commented that the Traffic Enforcement Services Guideline 
could serve as a blueprint for a strategic highway safety plan under 
SAFETEA-LU. SAFETEA-LU established a new core Highway Safety 
Improvement

[[Page 65182]]

Program that is structured and funded to make significant progress in 
reducing highway fatalities. It requires SHSPs that focus on results. 
This requirement encompasses much more than the guideline suggests. The 
SHSP must be based on accurate and timely safety data, consultation 
with safety stakeholders and performance-based goals that address 
infrastructure and behavioral safety problems on all public roads.
2. Resource Management
    Noting that the guideline encourages SHSOs to work with law 
enforcement on comprehensive resource management plans to identify and 
deploy resources necessary to support traffic enforcement services, 
GHSA asserted that SHSOs do not have expertise in this area and that 
NHTSA does not offer training for resource management plans. GHSA 
suggested that law enforcement professional organizations should have 
responsibility for resource management plans, and that NHTSA should 
provide technical assistance to those organizations. NHTSA disagrees 
with GHSA and notes that the agency does provide training in program 
management and data analysis. SHSOs should work with their grantees to 
develop plans and provide adequate resources to meet traffic safety 
needs within their States. Although law enforcement expertise would be 
beneficial to SHSOs, they should use the knowledge and expertise of the 
State and local law enforcement agencies to develop a comprehensive 
traffic enforcement plan. The agency has made no changes to the 
guideline in response to this comment.
3. Communication Program
    IACP commented that this section of the guideline should emphasize 
feedback on communication with citizens. NHTSA agrees that feedback is 
necessary but believes it is adequately addressed. Specifically, this 
section of the guideline advocates the dissemination of information to 
the public about agency activities and accomplishments, the enhancement 
of relationships with news media and health and medical communities, 
the increase in the public's understanding of the enforcement agency's 
role in traffic safety, and the marketing of information about internal 
activities to sworn and civilian members of the agency. Accordingly, 
the guideline remains unchanged in response to this comment.
    The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections asserted 
that States ``should be afforded the opportunity to implement a level 
of the communications model commensurate with the problem 
identification and available resources.'' The agency agrees with this 
point, but does not believe any changes to the guideline are required 
to accommodate this.
4. Data and Program Evaluation
    GHSA commented that no SHSO or law enforcement agency has the 
resources to implement the evaluation program outlined in this 
guideline. NHTSA disagrees. Program evaluation has been a requirement 
for many years, and it would be detrimental to States to implement any 
program without an evaluation plan for measuring results. The guideline 
remains unchanged in response to this comment.

F. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 19: Speed Management

    The agency received comments on the Speed Management guideline from 
IACP, CHP, the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, Advocates, GHSA and one 
individual.
1. In General
    NHTSA received two comments pertaining to a national speed limit. 
Advocates expressed support for efforts to manage vehicle speed and 
suggested that the National Academy of Sciences or NHTSA review the 
effects of the repeal of the national speed limit on safety and oil 
conservation. An individual expressed opposition to varying speed 
limits on interstates. Because issues related to a national speed limit 
are not within the scope of the Speed Management guideline, the agency 
has made no changes to the guideline in response to these comments.
    The Chicagoland Bicycle Federation suggested alternative language 
for portions of nearly every section of the Speed Management guideline 
to address aggressive and distracted driving. The Chicagoland Bicycle 
Federation also proposed two additional sections for this guideline 
that would focus on aggressive and distracted driving in outreach and 
driver education/licensing programs. The agency notes that this 
guideline addresses speeding only--one component of aggressive driving. 
The agency plans to address aggressive and distracted driving in detail 
in the guideline required by SAFETEA-LU concerning unsafe driving 
behaviors. Accordingly, the agency has made no changes to the guideline 
in response to this comment.
2. Program Management
    IACP commented that this guideline should incorporate working group 
participation by speed-measuring device manufacturers and auto 
manufacturers. While the Program Management and Communication Program 
sections of this guideline provide for the establishment of Speed 
Management Working Groups, the guideline does not specify working group 
participants. However, nothing in this guideline would prevent States 
from soliciting the participation of these parties in working groups.
3. Problem Identification
    GHSA commented on provisions pertaining to State involvement in 
monitoring travel speed trends, monitoring the effects of vehicle 
speeds and the crash risk of setting appropriate speed limits, and 
evaluating effects of speed limits on safety and mobility. In 
particular, GHSA stated that these activities are usually conducted by 
State DOTs, county engineering departments, or local public works 
departments and that studying the effect of speeds on crash risks is a 
Federal research responsibility. GHSA also questioned whether any 
research could appropriately be funded out of the section 402 program. 
The agency believes that these efforts are appropriate for State and 
local transportation personnel, in conjunction with law enforcement and 
judicial and legislative authorities. The agency agrees that research 
is not an appropriate use of section 402 funds. However, the guideline 
does not contemplate research, instead referring to monitoring and 
evaluating--activities that are appropriate for section 402 funding. In 
any event, the agency notes again that these guidelines extend beyond 
activities that may be funded under section 402 and encourages SHSOs to 
work with State transportation officials to determine appropriate 
expenditure of funds for safety activities. The guideline is unchanged 
in response to this comment.
4. Engineering Countermeasures
    GHSA questioned the meaning of the term ``computer-based expert 
speed zone advisor,'' whether this system exists, and whether section 
402 funds are appropriate for activities related to the system. GHSA 
further commented that State application of traffic calming techniques 
to reduce speed in pedestrian and bicyclist activity areas is not a 
function of a SHSO and cannot be funded using section 402 funds. 
Finally, GHSA asserted that the development, employment and evaluation 
of onboard

[[Page 65183]]

vehicle and communications technologies that prevent drivers from 
exceeding safe speeds are appropriate for the Federal government, not 
for States.
    The FHWA developed the computer-based speed zone software, U.S. 
LIMITS. Purchase of the U.S. LIMITS software is an appropriate use of 
section 402 funds, provided that it is part of a comprehensive speed 
management program in an approved highway safety plan. The agency notes 
that although activities related to traffic calming techniques in 
bicycle and pedestrian areas cannot be conducted with section 402 
funding and are not typically SHSO responsibilities, the guidelines are 
not exclusively tied to section 402 funding or limited to SHSO 
functions. The agency agrees with GHSA's assertion that the 
development, employment and evaluation of speed-related onboard vehicle 
and communications technologies are Federal government 
responsibilities. However, the guideline language indicates that States 
should promote the application of these technologies, not develop, 
employ or evaluate them. The agency has made no changes to the 
guideline in response to these comments.
5. Enforcement Countermeasures
    CHP expressed opposition to the use of automated speed enforcement 
technologies for a variety of reasons (e.g., legality, due process, 
officer discretion, conflicts of interest). GHSA commented that, as 
with guidelines related to impaired driving, NHTSA should prepare speed 
sentencing guidelines. In response to the former comment, the agency 
believes automated speed enforcement is a legitimate component of a 
comprehensive speed management program and serves to enhance 
enforcement in areas that are unsafe for officers. As to the latter 
comment, the agency disagrees and believes that guidelines for non-
criminal traffic infractions should be set at the State or local level. 
The agency did not modify the guideline in response to these comments.

G. Comments Regarding Guideline No. 20: Occupant Protection

    Eight commenters responded to the Occupant Protection guideline, 
including NADA, IACP, Advocates, GHSA, CHP and three individuals.
1. In General
    NADA commented favorably on the guideline, noting that it is 
consistent with NADA's involvement in the National Safety Council's Air 
Bag & Seat Belt Safety Campaign. NADA affirmed its commitment to 
working with NHTSA, the States, and other stakeholders to implement the 
guideline. IACP commented that the automotive industry and aftermarket 
motor vehicle equipment industry should be included in this guideline, 
although IACP did not suggest how they should be included. NHTSA does 
not believe that specific inclusion of these entities is necessary, as 
States may reach out to a variety of groups of their choice on safety 
issues. The agency has made no changes to the guideline in response to 
this comment.
    Three individuals commented generally on this guideline. One 
individual asserted that teens should not have to ride in child 
restraints. Another individual commented that safety belt laws are a 
State issue and a third individual commented that wearing a safety belt 
should be a personal decision. On the basis of substantial research and 
safety information, NHTSA believes that children should be restrained 
in a booster seat until a safety belt fits them correctly--when they 
attain a height of 4 feet, 9 inches. NHTSA agrees that the enactment 
and enforcement of safety belt laws are State issues. This guideline 
does not require States to enact legislation or implement any specific 
programs. The guideline lays out elements that experience and research 
indicate are necessary for a comprehensive and effective occupant 
protection program. The guideline remains unchanged as a result of 
these comments.
2. Legislation, Regulation and Policy
    Advocates, GHSA, and CHP commented on this section of the 
guideline. Advocates reiterated its comment that the guideline should 
emphasize the importance of primary safety belt use laws and rank all 
elements under the guideline in order of importance. As previously 
discussed, the agency believes all the elements in the guidelines are 
important. The criteria listed are not ranked in order of importance, 
as the guideline provides a comprehensive approach to occupant 
protection. The agency has made no changes to the guideline in response 
to this comment.
    GHSA commented that the guideline's provision urging States to 
encourage motor vehicle insurers to offer economic incentives for 
policyholders who wear safety belts and secure children in child 
restraints is more appropriate for State insurance commissioners than 
SHSOs, as the commissioners are in a better position to reach out to 
insurance companies. The agency and SHSOs have a long-standing history 
of working with insurance associations (e.g., Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety) and individual companies to promote highway safety 
initiatives. These efforts have often included encouraging insurance 
companies to offer premium discounts to encourage certain behavior. 
Insurance commissioners are a part of the State government structure 
just as DOTs and State police agencies. This guideline reflects this 
long-standing practice of collaborative activity with the insurance 
industry to promote highway safety. For this reason, the agency has 
made no changes to the guideline in response to this comment.
    CHP commented on the guideline's recommendation that legislation 
permit primary enforcement requiring children under 13 years old to be 
properly restrained in the rear seat. CHP asserted that the guideline 
does not take into account varying body types or developmental factors 
for children under the age of 13, and is too broad, restrictive, and 
difficult to enforce, generating noncompliance among parents with 
larger children. The guideline remains unchanged in response to this 
comment. The agency's position on proper restraints for children under 
13 years old is also reflected in the Model Law for Child Passenger 
Safety and is based on sound research.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Analyses of crash data show a higher fatality risk for 
infant and child passengers up to age 12 in vehicles with dual air 
bags than in cars without passenger air bags (NHTSA, Chuck Kahane, 
1996). Data shows that children are safest in the rear seat. 
According to an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study, 
properly restrained children in the rear seat have the lowest crash 
death rates and children ages 12 and under ride safer in the rear 
seat when a passenger air bag is present. In vehicles without air 
bags, IIHS notes that children are 35 percent safer riding in the 
rear seat than in the front seat. According to the Partners for 
Child Passenger Safety, children are 40 percent more likely to be 
injured in the front seat. According to a 2005 report in the Journal 
of Pediatrics, appropriately restrained children in the rear seat 
are at the lowest risk of injury for all age groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Occupant Protection for Children Program
    Advocates commented that the guideline does not specifically refer 
to booster seats and recommended that the guideline identify booster 
seats as a distinct safety mechanism for older children that should be 
incorporated into the SHSP. The agency agrees with this comment. With 
24 percent of children ages 4 to 8 riding unrestrained--according to 
the 2005 National Occupant Protection Use (NOPUS) survey--the agency is 
committed to increasing the number of

[[Page 65184]]

children using booster seats. Accordingly, the agency has incorporated 
a reference to booster seats in this section of the guideline.
4. Outreach Program
    Advocates recommended that this section of the guideline promote 
efforts to provide child restraint systems to low-income families 
through subsidies or give-away programs, or in the alternative, that it 
reference the child safety and child booster seat incentive grant 
program authorized under section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU. The agency 
encourages States, as a component of a comprehensive child passenger 
safety program, to consider carefully crafted and administered child 
safety seat subsidy and/or give-away programs. The agency has added 
language to the Occupant Protection for Children Program section of the 
guideline to reflect this. The agency agrees that advising States of 
the section 2011 incentive grant program is important; we advise States 
of all our grant programs through our continuing efforts with SHSOs. 
However, we do not believe that this guideline is the appropriate 
vehicle to announce the availability of time-limited Federal grants. 
The availability of funds under the section 2011 program is subject to 
continued annual appropriations and to reauthorizing language extending 
the program beyond Fiscal Year 2009. The agency additionally notes that 
many State booster seat laws currently do not cover children up to 
eight years of age, the minimum threshold for eligibility under the 
section 2011 program.

Other Guidelines Remain Unchanged

    The guidelines published by today's action also will be placed on 
NHTSA's Web site in the Highway Safety Grant Management Manual in the 
near future. These guidelines are set forth below. Other guidelines are 
not addressed by today's action and remain in effect and unchanged.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 3 Motorcycle Safety (August 2006)

    Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and 
tribal governments and other parties as appropriate, should develop and 
implement a comprehensive highway safety program, reflective of State 
demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes, 
fatalities and injuries on public roads. The highway safety program 
should include a comprehensive motorcycle safety program that aims to 
reduce motorcycle crashes and related deaths and injuries. Each 
comprehensive State motorcycle safety program should address the use of 
helmets (meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218) and other 
protective gear, proper licensing, impaired riding, rider training, 
conspicuity and motorist awareness. This guideline describes the 
components that a State motorcycle safety program should include and 
the criteria that the program components should meet.

I. Program Management

    Each State should have centralized program planning, implementation 
and coordination to identify the nature and extent of its motorcycle 
safety problems, to establish goals and objectives for the State's 
motorcycle safety program and to 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 crashes, injuries 
and fatalities;
     Identify and prioritize the State's motorcycle safety 
problem areas;
     Encourage collaboration among agencies and organizations 
responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety issues;
     Develop programs (with specific projects) to address 
problems;
     Coordinate motorcycle safety projects with those for the 
general motoring public;
     Integrate motorcycle safety into State strategic highway 
safety plans, and other related highway safety activities including 
impaired driving, occupant protection, speed management and driver 
licensing programs; and
     Routinely evaluate motorcycle safety programs and 
services.

II. Motorcycle Personal Protective Equipment

    Each State is encouraged to have and enforce a mandatory all-rider 
motorcycle helmet use law. In addition, each State should encourage 
motorcycle operators and passengers to use the following protective 
equipment through an aggressive communication campaign:
     Motorcycle helmets that meet the Federal helmet standard;
     Proper clothing, including gloves, boots, long pants and a 
durable long-sleeved jacket; and
     Eye and face protection.
    Additionally, each passenger should have 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 that contains essential safe 
riding information;
     Motorcycle license examination, including knowledge and 
skill tests, and State licensing medical criteria;
     License examiner training specific to testing of 
motorcyclists;
     Motorcycle license endorsement;
     Cross-referencing of motorcycle registrations with 
motorcycle licenses to identify motorcycle owners who may not have the 
proper endorsement;
     Motorcycle license renewal requirements;
     Learner's permits issued for a period of 90 days and the 
establishment of limits on the number and frequency of learner's 
permits issued per applicant to encourage each motorcyclist to get full 
endorsement; 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 has:
     A source of program funding;
     A State organization to administer the program;
     A mandate to use the State-approved curriculum;
     Reasonable availability of rider education courses for all 
interested residents of legal riding age and varying levels of riding 
experience;
     A documented policy for instructor training and 
certification;
     Incentives for successful course completion such as 
licensing test exemption;
     A plan to address the backlog of training, if applicable;
     State guidelines for conduct and quality control of the 
program; and
     A program evaluation plan.

V. Motorcycle Operation Under the Influence of Alcohol or Other Drugs

    Each State should ensure that programs addressing impaired driving 
include an impaired motorcyclist component. The following programs 
should be used to reach impaired motorcyclists:
     Community traffic safety and other injury control 
programs, including outreach to motorcyclist clubs and organizations;

[[Page 65185]]

     Youth anti-impaired driving programs and campaigns;
     High visibility law enforcement programs and 
communications campaigns;
     Judge and prosecutor training programs;
     Anti-impaired driving organizations' programs;
     College and school programs;
     Workplace safety programs;
     Event-based programs such as motorcycle rallies, shows, 
etc.; and
     Server training programs.

VI. Legislation and Regulations

    Each State should enact and enforce motorcycle-related traffic laws 
and regulations. As part of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program 
each State is encouraged to have and enforce a law that requires all 
riders to use motorcycle helmets compliant with the Federal helmet 
standard. Specific policies should be developed to encourage 
coordination with appropriate public and private agencies in the 
development of regulations and laws to promote motorcycle safety.

VII. Law Enforcement

    Each State should ensure that State and community motorcycle safety 
programs include a law enforcement component. Each State should 
emphasize strongly the role played by law enforcement personnel in 
motorcycle safety. Essential components of that role include:
     Developing knowledge of motorcycle crash situations, 
investigating crashes, and maintaining a reporting system that 
documents crash activity and supports problem identification and 
evaluation activities;
     Providing communication and education support;
     Providing training to law enforcement personnel in 
motorcycle safety, including how to identify impaired motorcycle 
operators and helmets that do not meet FMVSS 218; and
     Establishing agency goals to support motorcycle safety.

VIII. 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 motorcyclists and all 
other motor vehicles.
    The needs of motorcyclists must always be considered. Therefore, 
each State should ensure that State and community motorcycle safety 
programs include a traffic-engineering component that is coordinated 
with enforcement and educational efforts. This engineering component 
should improve the safety of motorcyclists through the design, 
construction, operation and maintenance of engineering measures. These 
measures may include, but should not be limited to:
     Considering motorcycle needs when selecting pavement skid 
factors; and
     Providing advance warning signs to alert motorcyclists to 
unusual or irregular roadway surfaces.

IX. Motorcycle Rider Conspicuity and Motorist Awareness Programs

    State motorcycle safety programs, communication campaigns and state 
motor vehicle operator manuals should emphasize the issues of rider 
conspicuity and motorist awareness of motorcycles. These programs 
should address:
     Daytime use of motorcycle headlights;
     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.

X. Communication Program

    States should develop and implement communications strategies 
directed at specific high-risk populations as identified by data. 
Communications should highlight and support specific policy and 
progress underway in the States and communities and communication 
programs and materials should be culturally relevant, multilingual as 
necessary and appropriate to the audience. States should enlist the 
support of a variety of media, including mass media, to improve public 
awareness of motorcycle crash problems and programs directed at 
preventing them. States should:
     Focus their communication efforts to support the overall 
policy and program;
     Review data to identify populations at risk; and
     Use a mix of media strategies to draw attention to the 
problem.

XI. Program Evaluation and Data

    Both problem identification and continual evaluation require 
effective recordkeeping by State and local government. The State should 
identify the frequency and types of motorcycle crashes. After problem 
identification is complete, the State should identify appropriate 
countermeasures.
    The State should promote effective evaluation by:
     Supporting the analysis of police accident reports 
involving motorcyclists;
     Encouraging, supporting and training localities in 
process, impact and outcome evaluation of local programs;
     Conducting and publicizing statewide surveys of public 
knowledge and attitudes about motorcycle safety;
     Maintaining awareness of trends in motorcycle crashes at 
the national level and how trends might influence activities statewide;
     Evaluating the use of program resources and the 
effectiveness of existing countermeasures for the general public and 
high-risk population;
     Collecting and reporting accurate motorcycle vehicle miles 
traveled data; and
     Ensuring that evaluation results are used to identify 
problems, plan new programs and improve existing programs.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 8 Impaired Driving (August 2006)

    Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and 
tribal governments and other parties as appropriate, should develop and 
implement a comprehensive highway safety program, reflective of State 
demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes, 
fatalities and injuries on public roads. The highway safety program 
should include an Impaired Driving component that addresses highway 
safety activities related to impaired driving. (Throughout this 
guideline, the term impaired driving means operating a motor vehicle 
while affected by alcohol and/or other drugs, including prescription 
drugs, over-the-counter medicines or illicit substances.) This 
guideline describes the components that a State impaired driving 
program should include and the criteria that the program components 
should meet.

I. Program Management and Strategic Planning

    An effective impaired driving program should be based on strong 
leadership, sound policy development, program management and strategic 
planning, and an effective communication program. Program efforts 
should be data-driven, focusing on populations and geographic areas

[[Page 65186]]

that are most at risk, and science-based, determined through 
independent evaluation as likely to succeed. Programs and activities 
should be guided by problem identification and carefully managed and 
monitored for effectiveness. Adequate resources should be devoted to 
the problem and costs should be borne, to the extent possible, by 
impaired drivers. Each State should include the following as part of 
their impaired driving program:
     Task Forces or Commissions: Convene Driving While Impaired 
(DWI) task forces or commissions to foster leadership, commitment and 
coordination among all parties interested in impaired driving issues, 
including both traditional and non-traditional parties, such as highway 
safety enforcement, criminal justice, driver licensing, treatment, 
liquor law enforcement, business, medical, health care, advocacy and 
multicultural groups, the media, institutions of higher education and 
the military.
     Strategic Planning: Develop and implement an overall plan 
for short- and long-term impaired driving activities based on careful 
problem identification.
     Program Management: Establish procedures to ensure that 
program activities are implemented as intended.
     Resources: Allocate sufficient funding, staffing and other 
resources to support impaired driving programs. Programs should aim for 
self-sufficiency and, to the extent possible, costs should be borne by 
impaired drivers.
     Data and Records: Establish and maintain a records system 
that uses data from other sources [e.g., U.S. Census, Fatality Analysis 
Reporting System (FARS), Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES)] 
to fully support the impaired driving program, and that is guided by a 
statewide traffic records coordinating committee (TRCC) that represents 
the interests of all public and private sector stakeholders and the 
wide range of disciplines that need the information.
     Communication Program: Develop and implement a 
comprehensive communications program that supports priority policies 
and program efforts and is directed at impaired driving; underage 
drinking; and reducing the risk of injury, death and resulting medical, 
legal, social and other costs.

II. Prevention

    Prevention programs should aim to reduce impaired driving through 
public health approaches, including altering social norms, changing 
risky or dangerous behaviors and creating safer environments. 
Prevention programs should promote communication strategies that 
highlight and support specific policies and program activities and 
promote activities that educate the public on the effects of alcohol 
and other drugs, limit the availability of alcohol and other drugs, and 
discourage those impaired by alcohol and other drugs from driving.
    Prevention programs may include responsible alcohol service 
practices, transportation alternatives and community-based programs 
carried out in schools, work sites, medical and health care facilities, 
and by community coalitions. Prevention efforts should be directed 
toward populations at greatest risk. Programs and activities should be 
science-based and proven effective and include a communication 
component. Each State should:
     Promote Responsible Alcohol Service: Promote policies and 
practices that prevent underage drinking by people under age 21 and 
over-service to people ages 21 and older.
     Promote Transportation Alternatives: Promote alternative 
transportation programs, such as designated driver and safe ride 
programs, especially during high-risk times, which enable drinkers ages 
21 and older to reach their destinations without driving.
     Conduct Community-Based Programs: Conduct community-based 
programs that implement prevention strategies at the local level 
through a variety of settings, including schools, employers, medical 
and health care professionals, community coalitions and traffic safety 
programs.
    [cir] Schools: School-based prevention programs, beginning in 
elementary school and continuing through college and trade school, 
should play a critical role in preventing underage drinking and 
impaired driving. These programs should be developmentally appropriate, 
culturally relevant and coordinated with drug prevention and health 
promotion programs.
    [cir] Employers: States should provide information and technical 
assistance to employers and encourage employers to offer programs to 
reduce underage drinking and impaired driving by employees and their 
families.
    [cir] Community Coalitions and Traffic Safety Programs: Community 
coalitions and traffic safety programs should provide the opportunity 
to conduct prevention programs collaboratively with other interested 
parties at the local level and provide communications toolkits for 
local media relations, advertising and public affairs activities. 
Coalitions may include representatives of government such as highway 
safety; enforcement; criminal justice; liquor law enforcement; public 
health; driver licensing and education; business, including employers 
and unions; the military; medical, health care and treatment 
communities; multicultural, faith-based, advocacy and other community 
groups; and neighboring countries, as appropriate.

III. Criminal Justice System

    Each State should use the various components of its criminal 
justice system-laws, enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, criminal 
and administrative sanctions and communications-to achieve both 
specific and general deterrence.
    Specific deterrence focuses on individual offenders and seeks to 
ensure that impaired drivers will be detected, arrested, prosecuted and 
subject to swift, sure and appropriate sanctions. Using these measures, 
the criminal justice system seeks to reduce recidivism. General 
deterrence seeks to increase the public perception that impaired 
drivers will face severe consequences, discouraging individuals from 
driving impaired.
    A multidisciplinary approach and close coordination among all 
components of the criminal justice system are needed to make the system 
work effectively. In addition, coordination is needed among law 
enforcement agencies at the State, county, municipal and tribal levels 
to create and sustain both specific and general deterrence.

A. Laws

    Each State should enact impaired driving laws that are sound, 
rigorous and easy to enforce and administer. The laws should clearly 
define offenses, contain provisions that facilitate effective 
enforcement and establish effective consequences.
    The laws should define offenses to include:
     Driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs (whether 
illegal, prescription or over-the-counter) and treating both offenses 
similarly;
     Driving with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) limit of 
0.08, making it illegal ``per se'' to operate a vehicle at or above 
this level without having to prove impairment;
     Driving with a high BAC (i.e., 0.15 BAC or greater) with 
enhanced sanctions above the standard impaired driving offense;
     Zero Tolerance for underage drivers, making it illegal 
``per se'' for people under age 21 to drive with any measurable amount 
of alcohol in their system (i.e., 0.02 BAC or greater);

[[Page 65187]]

     Repeat offender with increasing sanctions for each 
subsequent offense;
     BAC test refusal with sanctions at least as strict or 
stricter than a high BAC offense;
     Driving with a license suspended or revoked for impaired 
driving, with vehicular homicide or causing personal injury while 
driving impaired as separate offenses with additional sanctions;
     Open container, prohibiting possession or consumption of 
any open alcoholic beverage in the passenger area of a motor vehicle 
located on a public highway or right-of-way (limited exceptions are 
permitted under 23 U.S.C. 154 and its implementing regulations, 23 CFR 
Part 1270); and
     Primary safety belt provisions that do not require that 
officers observe or cite a driver for a separate offense other than a 
safety belt violation.
    The laws should include provisions to facilitate effective 
enforcement that:
     Authorize law enforcement to conduct sobriety checkpoints, 
(i.e., stop vehicles on a nondiscriminatory basis to determine whether 
operators are driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs);
     Authorize law enforcement to use passive alcohol sensors 
to improve the detection of alcohol in drivers;
     Authorize law enforcement to obtain more than one chemical 
test from an operator suspected of impaired driving, including 
preliminary breath tests, evidential breath tests, and screening and 
confirmatory tests for alcohol or other impairing drugs; and
     Require law enforcement to conduct mandatory BAC testing 
of drivers involved in fatal crashes.
    The laws should establish effective penalties that include:
     Administrative license suspension or revocation (ALR) for 
failing or refusing to submit to a BAC or other drug test;
     Prompt and certain administrative license suspension of at 
least 90 days for first-time offenders determined by chemical test(s) 
to have a BAC at or above the State's ``per se'' level or of at least 
15 days followed immediately by a restricted, provisional or 
conditional license for at least 75 days, if such license restricts the 
offender to operating only vehicles equipped with an ignition 
interlock;
     Enhanced penalties for BAC test refusals, high BAC, repeat 
offenders, driving with a suspended or revoked license, driving 
impaired with a minor in the vehicle, vehicular homicide or causing 
personal injury while driving impaired, including: longer license 
suspension or revocation; installation of ignition interlock devices; 
license plate confiscation; vehicle impoundment, immobilization or 
forfeiture; intensive supervision and electronic monitoring; and threat 
of imprisonment;
     Assessment for alcohol or other drug abuse problems for 
all impaired driving offenders and, as appropriate, treatment, 
abstention from use of alcohol and other drugs and frequent monitoring; 
and
     Driver license suspension for people under age 21 for any 
violation of law involving the use or possession of alcohol or illicit 
drugs.

B. Enforcement

    Each State should conduct frequent, highly visible, well publicized 
and fully coordinated impaired driving (including zero tolerance) law 
enforcement efforts throughout the State, especially in locations where 
alcohol-related fatalities most often occur. To maximize visibility, 
States should maximize contact between officers and drivers, using 
sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols and should widely publicize 
these efforts-before, during and after they occur. Highly visible, 
highly publicized efforts should be conducted periodically and also on 
a sustained basis throughout the year. To maximize resources, the State 
should coordinate efforts among State, county, municipal and tribal law 
enforcement agencies. States should utilize law enforcement liaisons, 
for activities such as promotion of national and local mobilizations 
and increasing law enforcement participation in such mobilizations and 
for collaboration with local chapters of police groups and associations 
that represent diverse groups to gain support for enforcement efforts.
    Each State should coordinate efforts with liquor law enforcement 
officials. To increase the probability of detection, arrest and 
prosecution, participating officers should receive training in the 
latest law enforcement techniques, including Standardized Field 
Sobriety Testing (SFST), and selected officers should receive training 
in media relations and Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC).

C. Publicizing High Visibility Enforcement

    Each State should communicate its impaired driving law enforcement 
efforts and other elements of the criminal justice system to increase 
the public perception of the risks of detection, arrest, prosecution 
and sentencing for impaired driving. Each State should develop and 
implement a year-round communications plan that provides emphasis 
during periods of heightened enforcement, provides sustained coverage 
throughout the year, includes both paid and earned media and uses 
messages consistent with National campaigns. Publicity should be 
culturally relevant, appropriate to the audience and based on market 
research.

D. Prosecution

    States should implement a comprehensive program to visibly, 
aggressively and effectively prosecute and publicize impaired driving-
related efforts, including use of experienced prosecutors (e.g., 
Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutors), to help coordinate and deliver 
training and technical assistance to prosecutors handling impaired 
driving cases throughout the State.

E. Adjudication

    States should impose effective, appropriate and research-based 
sanctions, followed by close supervision, and the threat of harsher 
consequences for non-compliance when adjudicating cases. Specifically, 
DWI Courts should be used to reduce recidivism among repeat and high 
BAC offenders. DWI Courts involve all criminal justice stakeholders 
(prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers and judges) along 
with alcohol and drug treatment professionals and use a cooperative 
approach to systematically change participant behavior. The 
effectiveness of enforcement and prosecution efforts is strengthened by 
knowledgeable, impartial and effective adjudication. Each State should 
provide state-of-the-art education to judges, covering SFST, DEC, 
alternative sanctions and emerging technologies.
    Each State should utilize DWI courts to help improve case 
management and to provide access to specialized personnel, speeding up 
disposition and adjudication. DWI courts also increase access to 
testing and assessment to help identify DWI offenders with addiction 
problems and to help prevent them from re-offending. DWI courts 
additionally help with sentence monitoring and enforcement. Each State 
should provide adequate staffing and training for probation programs 
with the necessary resources, including technological resources, to 
monitor and guide offender behavior.

F. Administrative Sanctions and Driver Licensing Programs

    States should use administrative sanctions, including the 
suspension or revocation of an offender's driver's license; the 
impoundment, immobilization or forfeiture of a vehicle;

[[Page 65188]]

the impoundment of a license plate; or the use of ignition interlock 
devices, which are among the most effective actions to prevent repeat 
impaired driving offenses. In addition, other licensing activities can 
prove effective in preventing, deterring and monitoring impaired 
driving, particularly among novice drivers. Publicizing related efforts 
is part of a comprehensive communications program.
     Administrative License Revocation and Vehicle Sanctions: 
Each State's Motor Vehicle Code should authorize the imposition of 
administrative penalties by the driver licensing agency upon arrest for 
violation of the state's impaired driving laws, including 
administrative driver's license suspension, vehicle sanctions and 
installation of ignition interlock devices.
     Programs: Each State's driver licensing agency should 
conduct programs that reinforce and complement the State's overall 
program to deter and prevent impaired driving, including graduated 
driver licensing (GDL) for novice drivers, education programs that 
explain alcohol's effects on driving and the State's zero tolerance 
laws and a program to prevent individuals from using a fraudulently 
obtained or altered driver's license.

IV. Communication Program

    States should develop and implement a comprehensive communication 
program that supports priority policies and program efforts. 
Communication programs and materials should be culturally relevant and 
multilingual as appropriate. States should:
     Develop and implement a year-round communication plan that 
includes policy and program priorities; comprehensive research; 
behavioral and communications objectives; core message platforms; 
campaigns that are audience relevant and linguistically appropriate; 
key alliances with private and public partners; specific activities for 
advertising, media relations and public affairs; special emphasis 
periods during high risk times; and evaluation and survey tools;
     Employ a communications strategy principally focused on 
increasing knowledge and awareness, changing attitudes and influencing 
and sustaining appropriate behavior;
     Use traffic-related data and market research to identify 
specific audiences segments to maximize resources and effectiveness; 
and
     Adopt a comprehensive marketing approach that coordinates 
elements like media relations, advertising and public affairs/advocacy.

V. Alcohol and Other Drug Misuse: Screening, Assessment, Treatment and 
Rehabilitation

    Impaired driving frequently is a symptom of a larger alcohol or 
other drug problem. Many first-time impaired driving offenders and most 
repeat offenders have alcohol or other drug abuse or dependency 
problems. Without appropriate assessment and treatment, these offenders 
are more likely to repeat their crimes.
    In addition, alcohol use leads to other injuries and health care 
problems. Frequent visits to emergency departments present an 
opportunity for intervention, which might prevent future arrests or 
motor vehicle crashes, and result in decreased alcohol consumption and 
improved health.
    Each State should encourage its employers, educators and health 
care professionals to implement a system to identify, intervene and 
refer individuals for appropriate substance abuse treatment.
     Screening and Assessment: Each State should encourage its 
employers, educators and health care professionals to have a systematic 
program to screen and/or assess drivers to determine whether they have 
an alcohol or drug abuse problem and, as appropriate, briefly intervene 
or refer them for appropriate treatment. A marketing campaign should 
promote year-round screening and brief intervention to medical, health 
and business partners and to identified audiences. In particular:
     Criminal Justice System: Within the criminal justice 
system, people convicted of an impaired driving offense should be 
assessed to determine whether they have an alcohol or drug abuse 
problem and whether they need treatment. The assessment should be 
required by law and completed prior to sentencing or reaching a plea 
agreement.
     Medical and Health Care Settings: Within medical or health 
care settings, any adult or adolescent seen by a medical or health care 
professional should be screened to determine whether they may have an 
alcohol or drug abuse problem. A person may have a problem with alcohol 
abuse or dependence, a brief intervention should be conducted and, if 
appropriate, the person should be referred for assessment and further 
treatment.
     Treatment and Rehabilitation: Each State should work with 
health care professionals, public health departments and third party 
payers to establish and maintain treatment programs for persons 
referred through the criminal justice system, medical or health care 
professionals and other entities. This will help ensure that offenders 
with alcohol or other drug dependencies begin appropriate treatment and 
complete recommended treatment before their licenses are reinstated.
     Monitoring Impaired Drivers: Each State should establish a 
program to facilitate close monitoring of impaired drivers. Controlled 
input and access to an impaired driver tracking system, with 
appropriate security protections, is essential. Monitoring functions 
should be housed in the driver licensing, judicial, corrections and 
treatment systems. Monitoring systems should be able to determine the 
status of all offenders in meeting their sentencing requirements for 
sanctions and/or rehabilitation and must be able to alert courts to 
non-compliance. Monitoring requirements should be established by law to 
assure compliance with sanctions by offenders and responsiveness of the 
judicial system. Non-compliant offenders should be handled swiftly 
either judicially or administratively. Many localities are successfully 
utilizing DWI courts or drug courts to monitor DWI offenders.

VI. Program Evaluation and Data

    Each State should have access to and analyze reliable data sources 
for problem identification and program planning. Each State should 
conduct several different types of evaluations to effectively measure 
progress, to determine program effectiveness, to plan and implement new 
program strategies and to ensure that resources are allocated 
appropriately.
    Each State should establish and maintain a records system that uses 
data from other sources (e.g., U.S. Census, FARS, CODES) to fully 
support the impaired driving program. A statewide traffic records 
coordinating committee that represents the interests of all public and 
private sector stakeholders and the wide range of disciplines that need 
the information should guide the records system.
    Each State's driver licensing agency should maintain a system of 
records that enables the State to: (1) Identify impaired drivers; (2) 
maintain a complete driving history of impaired drivers; (3) receive 
timely and accurate arrest and conviction data from law enforcement 
agencies and the courts, including data on operators as prescribed by 
the commercial driver licensing regulations; and (4) provide timely and 
accurate driver history records to law enforcement and the courts.

[[Page 65189]]

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 14 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 
(August 2006)

    Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and 
tribal governments and other parties as appropriate, should develop and 
implement a comprehensive highway safety program, reflective of State 
demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes, 
fatalities and injuries on public roads. The highway safety program 
should include a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle safety program 
that promotes safe pedestrian and bicycle practices, educates drivers 
to share the road safely with other road users and provides safe 
facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists through a combination of 
policy, enforcement, communication, education, incentive and 
engineering strategies. This guideline describes the components that a 
State pedestrian and bicycle safety program should include and the 
criteria that the program components should meet. Given the 
multidisciplinary nature of the highway safety problem, implementation 
of a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle safety program requires 
coordination among several State agencies.

I. Program Management

    Each State should have centralized program planning, implementation 
and coordination to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety program 
issues as part of a comprehensive highway safety program. Evaluation 
should be used to revise existing programs, develop new programs and 
determine progress and success of pedestrian and bicycle safety 
programs. The State Highway Safety Office (SHSO) should:
     Train program staff to effectively coordinate the 
implementation of recommended activities;
     Provide leadership, training and technical assistance to 
other State agencies and local pedestrian and bicycle safety programs 
and projects;
     Conduct regular problem identification and evaluation 
activities to determine pedestrian and bicyclist fatality, injury and 
crash trends and to provide guidance in development and implementation 
of countermeasures;
     Promote proper and legal riding practices and the proper 
use of bicycle helmets as a primary measures to reduce death and injury 
among bicyclists;
     Coordinate with the State Department of Transportation to 
ensure provision of a safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists 
through engineering measures such as sidewalks and bicycle facilities 
in the planning and design of all highway projects;
     Support the enforcement by local enforcement agencies of 
State laws affecting pedestrians and bicyclists; and
     Develop safety initiatives to reduce fatalities and 
injuries among high-risk groups as indicated by crash and injury data 
trends, including children, older adults and alcohol-impaired 
pedestrians and bicyclists.

II. Multi-Disciplinary Involvement

    Pedestrian and bicyclist safety requires the support and 
coordinated activity of multidisciplinary agencies, at both the State 
and local levels. At a minimum, the following communities should be 
involved:
     State Pedestrian/Bicycle Coordinators;
     Law Enforcement and Public Safety;
     Education;
     Public Health and Medicine;
     Driver Education and Licensing;
     Transportation--Engineering, Planning, Local Transit ;
     Media and Communications;
     Community Safety Organizations; and
     Non-Profit Organizations.

III. Legislation, Regulation and Policy

    Each State should enact and enforce traffic laws and regulations, 
including laws that contribute to the safety of pedestrians and 
bicyclists. This includes laws that require the proper use of bicycle 
helmets and laws that require bicyclists to follow the same rules of 
the road as motorists. States should develop and enforce appropriate 
sanctions that compel compliance with laws and regulations. Specific 
policies should be developed to encourage coordination with appropriate 
public and private agencies 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 reporting system 
that documents crash activity and supports problem identification and 
evaluation activities;
     Providing communication and education support;
     Ensuring adequate training to law enforcement personnel on 
effective measures to reduce crashes among pedestrians and bicyclists;
     Establishing agency policies to support pedestrian and 
bicycle safety;
     Enforcing pedestrian and bicycle laws, and all laws that 
affect the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, including those aimed 
at aggressive drivers;
     Coordinating with and supporting education and engineering 
activities; and
     Suggesting creative strategies to promote safe pedestrian, 
bicyclist and motorist behaviors (e.g., citation diversion classes for 
violators).

V. Highway and Traffic Engineering

    Highway and traffic engineering is a critical element of any motor 
vehicle crash reduction program, but is especially important for the 
safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists. States should utilize 
national guidelines for constructing safe pedestrian and bicycle 
facilities in all new transportation projects, and are required to 
follow all Federal regulations on accessibility.
    Each State should ensure that State and community pedestrian and 
bicycle programs include a highway and traffic engineering component 
that is coordinated with enforcement and educational efforts. This 
engineering component should improve the safety of pedestrians and 
bicyclists through the design, construction, operation and maintenance 
of engineering measures such as:
     Pedestrian, bicycle and school bus loading zone signals, 
signs and markings;
     Parking regulations;
     Traffic calming, or other approaches for slowing traffic 
and improving safety;
     On-road facilities (e.g., signed routes, marked lanes, 
wide curb lanes, paved shoulders);
     Sidewalk design;
     Pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, curb 
ramps and paths;
     Off-road bicycle facilities (trails and paths); and
     Accommodations for people with disabilities.

VI. Communication Program

    Each State should ensure that State and community pedestrian and 
bicycle programs contain a comprehensive communication component to 
support program and policy efforts. This component should address 
coordination with traffic engineering and law enforcement efforts, 
school-based education programs, communication and awareness campaigns, 
and other focused educational programs such as those for seniors and 
other identified high-risk populations. The State should

[[Page 65190]]

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. Communication programs and 
materials should be culturally relevant and multilingual as 
appropriate, and should address issues such as:
     Visibility, or conspicuity, in the traffic system;
     Correct 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 traffic related pedestrian and 
bicycle fatalities and injuries;
     Driver training regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety;
     Rules of the road;
     Proper selection, use, fit and maintenance of bicycles and 
bicycle helmets;
     Skills training of bicyclists;
     Sharing the road safely among motorists and bicyclists; 
and
     The dangers that aggressive driving, including speeding, 
pose for pedestrians and bicyclists.

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. 
Outreach efforts should include a focus on reaching vulnerable road 
users, such as older pedestrians, young children and new immigrant 
populations. States should also incorporate pedestrian and bicycle 
safety education and skills training into school physical education/
health curricula. To encourage community and school involvement, States 
should:
     Establish and convene a pedestrian and bicycle safety 
advisory task force or coalition to organize and generate broad-based 
support for pedestrian and bicycle programs;
     Create an effective communications network among coalition 
members to keep members informed and to coordinate efforts;
     Integrate culturally relevant pedestrian and bicycle 
safety programs into local traffic safety injury prevention initiatives 
and local transportation plans;
     Provide culturally relevant materials and resources to 
promote pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs;
     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, and in materials 
for preschool age children and their caregivers;
     Encourage the promotion of safe pedestrian and bicyclist 
practices (including practices near school buses) through classroom and 
extra-curricular activities; and
     Establish and enforce written policies requiring safe 
pedestrian and bicyclist practices to and from school, including proper 
use of bicycle helmets on school property.

VIII. Driver Education and Licensing

    Each State should address pedestrian and bicycle safety in State 
driver education training, materials and licensing programs in the 
classroom and behind the wheel, including strategies for motorists and 
bicyclists on safely sharing the road.

IX. Evaluation Program

    Both problem identification and evaluation of pedestrian and 
bicycle crashes require effective record keeping by State and local 
government representatives. The State should identify the frequency and 
type of pedestrian and bicycle crashes to inform selection, 
implementation and evaluation of appropriate countermeasures. The State 
should promote effective program evaluation by:
     Supporting detailed analyses of police accident reports 
involving pedestrians and bicyclists;
     Encouraging, supporting and training localities in 
process, impact and outcome evaluation 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 countermeasures for the general public and 
high-risk populations; and
     Ensuring that evaluation results are used to identify 
problems, plan new programs and improve existing programs.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 15 Traffic Enforcement Services 
(August 2006)

    Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and 
tribal governments and other parties as appropriate, should develop and 
implement a comprehensive highway safety program, reflective of State 
demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes, 
fatalities and injuries on public roads. The highway safety program 
should include a traffic enforcement services program designed to 
enforce traffic laws and regulations; reduce traffic-crashes and 
resulting fatalities and injuries; provide aid and comfort to the 
injured; investigate and report specific details and causes of traffic 
crashes; supervise traffic crash and highway incident clean-up; and 
maintain safe and orderly movement of traffic along the highway system. 
This guideline describes the components that a State traffic 
enforcement services program should include and the minimum criteria 
that the program components should meet.

I. Program Management

A. Planning and Coordination

    Each State should have centralized program planning, implementation 
and coordination to achieve and sustain effective traffic enforcement 
services. The State Highway Safety Office (SHSO) should provide the 
leadership, training and technical assistance necessary to:
     Develop and implement a comprehensive highway safety plan 
for all traffic enforcement service programs, in cooperation with law 
enforcement (i.e., State, county, local or tribal law enforcement 
agency leaders);
     Generate broad-based support for traffic enforcement 
programs;
     Coordinate traffic enforcement services with other traffic 
safety program areas including commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety 
activities such as the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program; and
     Integrate traffic enforcement services into traffic safety 
and other injury prevention programs.

B. Program Elements

    State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies, in conjunction 
with the SHSO, should establish traffic safety services as a priority 
within their comprehensive enforcement programs. A law enforcement 
program should be built on a foundation of commitment, cooperation, 
planning, monitoring, and evaluation within the agency's enforcement 
program. State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies should:
     Provide the public with effective and efficient traffic 
enforcement services through enabling legislation and regulations;
     Coordinate activities with State Departments of 
Transportation to ensure

[[Page 65191]]

both support and accurate date collection;
     Develop and implement a comprehensive traffic enforcement 
services program that is focused on general deterrence and inclusive of 
impaired driving (i.e., alcohol or other drugs), safety belt use and 
child passenger safety laws, motorcycles, speeding and other programs 
to reduce hazardous driving behaviors;
     Develop cooperative working relationships with other 
governmental agencies, community organizations and traffic safety 
stakeholders on traffic safety and enforcement issues;
     Maintain traffic enforcement strategies and policies for 
all area of traffic safety including roadside sobriety checkpoints, 
safety belt use, pursuit driving, crash investigating and reporting, 
speed enforcement and hazardous moving traffic violations; and
     Establish performance measures for traffic enforcement 
services that are both qualitative and quantitative.
    Traffic enforcement services should look beyond the issuance of 
traffic citations to include enforcement of criminal laws and that 
address drivers of all types of vehicles, including trucks and 
motorcycles.

II. Resource Management

    The SHSO should encourage law enforcement agencies to develop and 
maintain a comprehensive resource management plan that identifies and 
deploys resources necessary to effectively support traffic enforcement 
services. The resource management plan should include a specific 
component on traffic enforcement services and safety, integrating 
traffic enforcement services and safety initiatives into a 
comprehensive agency enforcement program. Law enforcement agencies 
should:
     Periodically conduct assessments of traffic enforcement 
service demands and resources to meet identified needs;
     Develop a comprehensive resource management plan that 
includes a specific traffic enforcement services and safety component;
     Define the management plan in terms of budget requirements 
and services to be provided; and
     Develop and implement operational strategies and policies 
that identify the deployment of traffic enforcement services resources 
to address program demands and agency goals.

III. Training

    Training is essential to support traffic enforcement services and 
to prepare law enforcement officers to effectively perform their 
duties. Training accomplishes a wide variety of necessary goals and can 
be obtained through a variety of sources. Law enforcement agencies 
should periodically assess enforcement activities to determine training 
needs and to ensure training is endorsed by the state Police Officers 
Standards and Training (POST) agency. Effective training should:
     Provide officers the knowledge and skills 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 prevent inappropriate 
conduct by law enforcement officers;
     Motivate and enhance officer professionalism; and
     Require traffic enforcement knowledge and skills for all 
recruits. Law enforcement agencies should:
     Provide traffic enforcement in-service training to 
experienced officers;
     Provide specialized CMV in-service training to traffic 
enforcement officers as appropriate;
     Conduct training to implement specialized traffic 
enforcement skills, techniques, or programs; and
     Train instructors using certified training in order to 
increase agency capabilities and to ensure continuity of specialized 
enforcement skills and techniques.

IV. Traffic Law Enforcement

    Providing traffic enforcement services and the enforcement of 
traffic laws and ordinances is a responsibility shared by all law 
enforcement agencies. Among the primary objectives of this function is 
encouraging motorists and pedestrians to comply voluntarily with the 
laws and ordinances. Administrators should apply their enforcement 
resources in a manner that ensures the greatest impact on traffic 
safety. Traffic enforcement services should:
     Include accurate problem identification and countermeasure 
design;
     Apply at appropriate times and locations, coupled with 
paid media and communication efforts designed to make the motoring 
public aware of the traffic safety problem and planned enforcement 
activities; and
     Include a system to document and report results.

V. Communication Program

    States should develop and implement communication strategies 
directed at supporting policy and program elements. Public awareness 
and knowledge about traffic enforcement services are essential for 
sustaining increased compliance with traffic laws and regulations. 
Communications should highlight and support specific program activities 
underway in the community and communication programs and materials 
should be culturally relevant, appropriate to the audience and 
multilingual as necessary. This requires a well-organized, effectively 
managed social marketing campaign that addresses specific high-risk 
populations. The SHSO, in cooperation with law enforcement agencies, 
should develop a statewide communications plan and campaign that:
     Identifies and addresses specific audiences at particular 
risk;
     Addresses enforcement of safety belt use, child passenger 
safety, impaired driving, speed and other serious traffic laws;
     Capitalizes on special events and awareness campaigns;
     Identifies and supports the efforts of traffic safety 
activist groups, community coalitions and the health and medical 
community to gain increased support of, and attention to, traffic 
safety and enforcement;
     Uses national themes, events and materials;
     Motivates the public to support increased enforcement of 
traffic laws;
     Educates and reminds the public about traffic laws and 
safe driving behaviors;
     Disseminates information to the public about agency 
activities and accomplishments;
     Enhances relationships with news media and health and 
medical communities;
     Provides safety education and community services;
     Provides legislative and judicial information and support;
     Increases the public's understanding of the enforcement 
agency's role in traffic safety;
     Markets information about internal activities to sworn and 
civilian members of the agency;
     Enhances the agency's safety enforcement role and 
increases employee understanding and support; and
     Recognizes employee achievements.

[[Page 65192]]

VI. Data and Program Evaluation

    The SHSO, in conjunction with law enforcement agencies, should 
develop a comprehensive evaluation program to measure progress toward 
established project goals and objectives; effectively plan and 
implement statewide, county, local and tribal traffic enforcement 
services 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. Data should be collected from police accident 
reports, daily officer activity reports that contain workload and 
citation information, highway department records (e.g., traffic 
volume), citizen complaints and officer observations. 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, 
law enforcement decision-makers and members of the public and private 
sectors;
     Use results to guide future activities and to assist in 
justifying resources to governing 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;
     Maintain and report traffic data to appropriate 
repositories, such as police accident reports, the FBI Uniform Crime 
Report, FMCSA's SAFETYNET system and annual statewide reports; and
     Evaluate the impact of traffic enforcement services on 
criminal activity. 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 systems; and
     Be accessible to enforcement, planners and management.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 19 Speed Management (August 2006)

    Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and 
tribal governments and other parties as appropriate, should develop and 
implement a comprehensive highway safety program, reflective of State 
demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes, 
fatalities and injuries on public roads. The highway safety program 
should include a comprehensive speed management program that encourages 
citizens to voluntarily comply with speed limits. This guideline 
describes the components that a State speed management program should 
contain and the criteria that the program components should meet.
    Speed management involves a balanced program effort that includes: 
Defining the relationship between speed, speeding and safety; applying 
road design and engineering measures to obtain appropriate speeds; 
setting speed limits that are safe and reasonable; applying enforcement 
efforts and appropriate technology that effectively address speeders 
and deter speeding; marketing communication and educational messages 
that focus on high-risk drivers; and soliciting the cooperation, 
support and leadership of traffic safety stakeholders.

I. Program Management

    While speeding is a national problem, effective solutions must be 
applied locally. The success of a speed management program is enhanced 
by coordination and cooperation among the engineering, enforcement and 
educational disciplines. To reduce speeding-related fatalities, 
injuries and crashes, State, local or tribal governments should:
     Provide the NHTSA Speed Management Workshop that offers a 
comprehensive approach to speed management through partnering with a 
broad range of transportation and safety disciplines. This multi-
disciplinary team improves communication and cooperation and 
facilitates the development of innovative strategies for reducing 
speeding-related fatalities and injuries.
     Establish a Speed Management Working Group as outlined in 
the Speed Management Workshop Guidelines to develop and implement a 
localized action plan that identifies specific speeding and speeding-
related crash problems and the actions necessary to address problems 
and to establish the credibility of posted speed limits. The action 
plan should:
     Galvanize a localized effort and identify specific actions 
to be taken to effectively address managing speed and reducing 
speeding-related crash risks;
     Address how to effectively overcome institutional and 
jurisdictional barriers to setting appropriate speed limits and 
enforcement practices;
     Address how to effectively coordinate with stakeholders 
across organizations and disciplines to improve support needed for 
establishing an effective speed management program; and
     Address how to effectively communicate and exchange 
information between the transportation disciplines and the public to 
reinforce the importance of setting and enforcing appropriate speed 
limits.

II. Problem Identification

    The relationship between speed limits, travel speeds and speed 
differential are the defining components of speed management as a 
highway safety issue. Speed increases crash severity, however, crash 
probability resulting from speed and speed differential is not clearly 
defined. Data collection and analysis is required to identify and 
develop countermeasures and awareness initiatives that lead to 
appropriate modifications in driver behavior. To achieve this goal, 
States should assist Speed Management Working Groups in making 
appropriate decisions about resource allocation. Each State should 
provide leadership, training and technical assistance to:
     Monitor and report travel speed trends across the entire 
localized road network;
     Identify local road segments where excessive and 
inappropriate vehicle speeds contribute to speeding-related crashes;
     Monitor the effects on vehicle speeds and crash risk of 
setting appropriate speed limits; and
     Coordinate, monitor and evaluate the short- and long-term 
effect of State legislative and local ordinance changes that establish 
appropriate speed laws and posted speed limits on mobility and safety.

III. Engineering Countermeasures

    The establishment of appropriate speed limits facilitates voluntary 
public compliance and is the cornerstone for effective speed 
management. Speed management techniques and technology can be 
engineered into the existing highway system or incorporated into the 
Intelligent Transportation System to improve voluntary compliance with 
speed limits and prevent speeding. The State should aid established 
Speed Management Working Groups by providing the leadership, training 
and technical assistance necessary to:

[[Page 65193]]

     Comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
guidelines to establish appropriate speed limits;
     Provide a computer-based expert software system speed zone 
advisor to set credible, safe and consistent speed limits;
     Train traffic engineers in the proper techniques to deploy 
speed-monitoring devices and conduct engineering studies for the 
purpose of establishing appropriate speed limits;
     Determine and apply the appropriate frequency for speed 
limit signs;
     Identify sites and applications where variable speed limit 
signs can reinforce appropriate speed limits for prevailing conditions;
     Identify and apply appropriate traffic calming techniques 
for reducing speed in pedestrian and bicyclist activity areas;
     Employ speed-activated roadside displays that warn drivers 
exceeding safe speeds based on roadway curve geometry, pavement 
friction and/or vehicle characteristics; and
     Promote the application of onboard vehicle and 
communication technologies that prevent drivers from exceeding safe 
speeds, including adaptive cruise control, vehicle limit sensing and 
feedback, driver control speed limitors, wireless roadside beacons, 
vehicle infrastructure integrated safety systems and stability control 
systems.

IV. Communication Program

    Communication strategies, accompanied by enforcement, can modify 
driver behavior. Communication programs should be developed to ensure 
motorist acceptance and to enhance compliance with the introduction of 
revised speed limits and strict enforcement operations. Communication 
programs and materials should be cultural relevant and multilingual as 
appropriate. If the public is not aware of, or does not understand, the 
potential consequences of speeding to themselves and others, they are 
unlikely to adjust speeds for traffic and weather conditions, or to 
comply with posted speed limits. The State should aid established Speed 
Management Working Groups by providing the leadership, training and 
technical assistance necessary to:
     Develop and evaluate culturally relevant public awareness 
campaigns to educate drivers on the importance of obeying speed limits 
and the potential consequences of speeding;
     Use market research to identify and clearly understand 
how, when and where to reach high-risk drivers;
     Develop a strategy to educate the public about why and how 
speed limits are set;
     Capitalize on special enforcement activities or events 
such as saturation patrols and sobriety checkpoints, impaired driving 
crackdowns, occupant protection mobilizations, and other highly 
publicized sustained enforcement activities;
     Identify and collaboratively support efforts of highway 
safety partners, traffic safety stakeholders and the health and medical 
communities to include speed management as a priority safety, economic 
and public health issue; and
     Promote responsible driver behavior and speed compliance 
in advertising.

V. Enforcement Countermeasures

    Enforcement is critical to achieve compliance with speed limits. 
More than half of all traffic stops result from speeding violations, 
and public support for speed enforcement activities depends on the 
confidence of the public that speed enforcement is fair, rational and 
motivated by safety concerns. The State should provide the leadership, 
training and technical assistance necessary to:
     Support speed enforcement operations that:
    [cir] Compliment a comprehensive speed management program including 
traffic engineering, enforcement, judiciary and public support;
    [cir] Strategically address speeders, locations and conditions most 
common or most hazardous in speeding-related crashes; and
    [cir] Support the national commercial motor vehicle safety 
enforcement program;
     Integrate speed enforcement into related highway safety 
and priority enforcement activities such as impaired driving 
prevention, safety belt use, motorcycle rider training and other injury 
control activities;
     Provide speed enforcement guidelines that promote driver 
compliance with appropriately set speed limits;
     Coordinate speed enforcement programs with educational and 
media communication activities;
     Ensure the accuracy and reliability of speed-measuring 
devices used during speed enforcement operations through compliance 
with the appropriate performance specifications and established testing 
protocols;
     Ensure the knowledge, skills and abilities of law 
enforcement officers involved in speed enforcement activities through 
comprehensive speed management training and appropriate speed-measuring 
device operator training programs; and
     Promote the proper use of automated speed enforcement 
programs, application of automated speed enforcement technologies and 
compliance with automated speed enforcement implementation guidelines 
designed to deter speeding effectively and to prohibit revenue 
generation beyond reasonable operational cost.

VI. Legislation, Regulation and Policy

    A key component of a successful speed management program is 
consistent, effective public policy to support speed management 
strategies and countermeasures. Traffic court judges, prosecutors, 
safety organizations, health professionals, lawmakers and policy makers 
have a stake in establishing the legitimacy of speed limits and 
effectively managing speed to reduce injuries and fatalities. The 
support and leadership of traffic court judges and prosecutors is 
essential to ensure that speeding violations are treated seriously and 
consistently. Safety goals can only be achieved through the leadership 
of local authorities who are responsible for implementing most speed 
management measures. Each State should aid established Speed Management 
Working Groups by providing the leadership, training and technical 
assistance necessary to:
     Promote speed management as a public policy priority;
     Create a network of key partners to carry the speed 
management message and leverage their resources to extend the reach and 
frequency of a speed management communication program;
     Target speed management initiatives at sites and on 
highways that offer the greatest opportunity for making a significant 
reduction in speeding-related crashes;
     Provide speed management program information and training 
opportunities for traffic court judges and prosecutors that outline the 
negative effects of speeding on the quality of life in their 
communities;
     Provide sentencing guidelines to ensure and promote 
consistent treatment of violators in order to defuse any public 
perception that speed limits are arbitrary or capricious; and
     Promote and provide speed management workshops within 
communities to enhance communications and support for the 
implementation of a comprehensive,

[[Page 65194]]

balanced and effective speed management program.

VII. Data and Evaluation

    An evaluation component is a critical element of any speed 
management program. The evaluation design should measure the impact and 
effectiveness of a comprehensive speed management program on traffic 
fatalities, injuries and crashes and provide information for future 
program revisions, improvement and planning. The State should aid 
established Speed Management Working Groups by providing the 
leadership, training and technical assistance necessary to:
     Include an evaluation component in the initial program 
planning efforts to ensure that data will be available and that 
sufficient resources will be allocated;
     Provide reports regularly to a Speed Management Working 
Group, project and program managers; law enforcement commanders and 
officers; transportation engineers; members of the highway safety, 
health and medical communities; public and private sectors; and other 
traffic safety stakeholders;
     Use evaluation results to verify problem identification, 
guide future speed management activities and assist in justifying 
resources to legislative bodies;
     Conduct surveys to determine program effectiveness and 
public knowledge and attitudes about the speed management program;
     Analyze speed compliance and speeding-related crashes in 
areas with actual hazards to the public;
     Evaluate the effectiveness of speed management activities 
provided in relation to other priority traffic safety areas; and
     Maintain and report traffic data to the SHSO and other 
appropriate repositories, including the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 
FMCSA's SAFETYNET system and annual statewide reports.

Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 20 Occupant Protection (August 
2006)

    Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and 
tribal governments and other parties as appropriate, should develop and 
implement a comprehensive highway safety program, reflective of State 
demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes, 
fatalities and injuries on public roads. The highway safety program 
should include a comprehensive occupant protection program that 
educates and motivates the public to properly use available motor 
vehicle occupant protection systems. A combination of legislation and 
use requirements, enforcement, communication, education and incentive 
strategies is necessary to achieve significant, lasting increases in 
safety belt and child safety seat usage. This guideline describes the 
components that a State occupant protection program should include and 
the criteria that the program components should meet.

I. Program Management

    Each State should have centralized program planning, implementation 
and coordination to achieve and sustain high rates of safety belt use. 
Evaluation should be used to revise existing programs, develop new 
programs and determine progress and success. The State Highway Safety 
Office (SHSO) should:
     Provide leadership, training and technical assistance to 
other State agencies and local occupant protection programs and 
projects;
     Establish and convene an occupant protection advisory task 
force or coalition to organize and generate broad-based support for 
programs. The coalition should include agencies and organizations that 
are representative of the State's demographic composition and critical 
to the implementation of occupant protection initiatives;
     Integrate occupant protection programs into community/
corridor traffic safety and other injury prevention programs; and
     Evaluate the effectiveness of the State's 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 public 
concerning motor vehicle occupant protection systems. This legal 
framework should include:
     Legislation permitting primary enforcement that requires 
all motor vehicle occupants to use systems provided by the vehicle 
manufacturer;
     Legislation permitting primary enforcement that requires 
that children birth to 16 years old (or the State's driving age) be 
properly restrained in an appropriate child restraint system (i.e., 
certified by the manufacturer to meet all applicable Federal safety 
standards) or safety belt;
     Legislation permitting primary enforcement that requires 
children under 13 years old to be properly restrained in the rear seat 
(unless all available rear seats are occupied by younger children);
     Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) laws that include three 
stages of licensure, and that place restrictions and sanctions on high-
risk driving situations for novice drivers (i.e., nighttime driving 
restrictions, passenger restrictions, zero tolerance, required safety 
belt use);
     Regulations requiring employees and contractors at all 
levels of government to wear safety belts when traveling on official 
business;
     Official policies requiring that organizations receiving 
Federal highway safety program grant funds develop and enforce an 
employee safety belt use policy; and
     Encouragement to motor vehicle insurers to offer economic 
incentives for policyholders who wear safety belts and secure children 
in child safety seats or other appropriate restraints.

III. Enforcement Program

    Each State should conduct frequent, high-visibility law enforcement 
efforts, coupled with communication strategies, to increase safety belt 
and child safety seat use. Essential components of a law enforcement 
program include:
     Written, enforced safety 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 safety belt and child safety seat 
laws, including citations and warnings;
     Accurate reporting of occupant protection system 
information on police accident report forms, including safety belt and 
child safety seat use or non-use, restraint type, and airbag presence 
and deployment;
     Communication campaigns to inform the public about 
occupant protection laws and related enforcement activities;
     Routine monitoring of citation rates for non-use of safety 
belts and child safety seats;
     Use of National Child Passenger Safety Certification 
(basic and in-service) for law enforcement officers; and
     Utilization of law enforcement liaisons, for activities 
such as promotion of national and local mobilizations and increasing 
law enforcement participation in such mobilizations and collaboration 
with local chapters of police groups and associations that represent 
diverse groups to gain support for enforcement efforts.

IV. Communication Program

    As part of each State's communication program, the State should 
enlist the support of a variety of media, including mass media, to 
improve public awareness and knowledge and to

[[Page 65195]]

support enforcement efforts to about safety belts, air bags, and child 
safety seats. Communication programs and materials should be culturally 
relevant and multilingual as appropriate. To sustain or increase rates 
of safety belt and child safety seat use, a well organized, effectively 
managed communication program should:
     Identify specific audiences (e.g., low belt use, high-risk 
motorists) and develop messages appropriate for these audiences;
     Address the enforcement of the State's safety belt 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;
     Provide materials and media campaigns in more than one 
language as necessary;
     Use national themes and materials;
     Participate in national programs to increase safety belt 
and child safety seat use and use law enforcement as the State's 
contribution to obtaining national public awareness through 
concentrated, simultaneous activity;
     Utilize paid media, as appropriate;
     Publicize safety belt use surveys and other relevant 
statistics;
     Encourage news media to report safety belt use and non-use 
in motor vehicle crashes;
     Involve media representatives in planning and 
disseminating communication campaigns;
     Encourage private sector groups to incorporate safety belt 
use messages into their media campaigns;
     Utilize and involve all media outlets: television, radio, 
print, signs, billboards, theaters, sports events, health fairs; and
     Evaluate all communication campaign efforts.

V. Occupant Protection for Children Program

    Each State should enact occupant protection laws that require the 
correct restraint of all children, in all seating positions and in 
every vehicle. Regulations and policies should exist that provide clear 
guidance to the motoring public concerning occupant protection for 
children. Each State should require that children birth to 16 years old 
(or the State's driving age) be properly restrained in the appropriate 
child restraint system or safety belt. Gaps in State child passenger 
safety and safety belt laws should be closed to ensure that all 
children are covered in all seating positions, with requirements for 
age-appropriate child restraint use. Key provisions of the law should 
include: driver responsibility for ensuring that children are properly 
restrained; proper restraint of children under 13 years of age in the 
rear seat (unless all available rear seats are occupied by younger 
children); a requirement that passengers be in designated seating 
positions and a ban on passengers in the cargo areas of light trucks; 
and a limit on the number of passengers based on the number of 
available safety belts in the vehicle. To achieve these objectives, 
State occupant protection programs for children should:
     Collect and analyze key data elements in order to evaluate 
the program progress;
     Assure that adequate and accurate training is provided to 
the professionals who deliver and enforce the occupant protection 
programs for parents and caregivers;
     Assure that the capability exists to train and retain 
nationally certified child passenger safety technicians to address 
attrition of trainers or changing public demographics;
     Promote the use of child restraints and assure that a plan 
has been developed to provide an adequate number of inspection stations 
and clinics, which meet minimum quality criteria;
     Continue programs and activities to increase the use of 
booster seats by children who outgrow infant or convertible child 
safety seats but are still too small to safely use safety belts.
     Maintain a strong law enforcement program that includes 
vigorous enforcement of the child occupant protection laws;
     Enlist the support of the media to increase public 
awareness about child occupant protection laws and the use of child 
restraints. Strong efforts should be made to reach underserved 
populations;
     Assure that the child occupant protection programs at the 
local level are periodically assessed and that programs are designed to 
meet the unique demographic needs of the community;
     Establish the infrastructure to systematically coordinate 
the array of child occupant protection program components;
     Encourage law enforcement participation in the National 
Child Passenger Safety Certification (basic and in-service) training 
for law enforcement officers; and
     Consider carefully crafted and administered child safety 
seat subsidy and/or give-away programs.

VI. Outreach Program

    Each State should encourage extensive statewide and community 
involvement in occupant protection education by involving individuals 
and organizations outside the traditional highway safety community. 
Representation from the health, business and education sectors, and 
from diverse populations, within the community should be encouraged. 
Community involvement should broaden public support for the State's 
programs and increase a State's ability to deliver highway safety 
education programs. To encourage statewide and 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 about issues;
     Provide culturally relevant materials and resources 
necessary to conduct occupant protection education programs, especially 
directed toward young people, in local settings; and
     Provide materials and resources necessary to conduct 
occupant protection education programs, especially directed toward 
specific cultural or otherwise diverse populations represented in the 
State and in its political subdivisions.
    States should undertake a variety of outreach programs to achieve 
statewide and community involvement in occupant protection education, 
as described below. Programs should include outreach to diverse 
populations, health and medical communities, schools and employers.

A. Diverse Populations

    Each State should work closely with individuals and organizations 
that represent the various ethnic and cultural populations reflected in 
State demographics. Individuals from these groups might not be reached 
through traditional communication markets. Community leaders and 
representatives from the various ethnic and cultural groups and 
organizations will help States to increase the use of child safety 
seats and safety belts. The State should:
     Evaluate the need for, and provide, if necessary, 
materials and resources in multiple languages;
     Collect and analyze data on fatalities and injuries in 
diverse communities;

[[Page 65196]]

     Ensure representation of diverse groups on State occupant 
protection coalitions and other work groups;
     Provide guidance to grantees on conducting outreach in 
diverse communities;
     Utilize leaders from diverse communities as spokespeople 
to promote safety belt use and child safety seat; and
     Conduct outreach efforts to diverse organizations and 
populations during law enforcement mobilization periods.

B. Health and Medical Communities

    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 SHSO, 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 during work hours;
     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 
spokespeople for safety belt use and child safety seat use;
     Provide information about the availability of child safety 
seats at, and integrate child safety seat inspections into, maternity 
hospitals and other prenatal and natal care centers; and
     Collect, analyze and publicize data on additional injuries 
and medical expenses resulting from non-use of occupant protection 
devices.

C. Schools

    Each State should encourage local school boards and educators to 
incorporate occupant protection education into school curricula. The 
SHSO in cooperation with the State Department of Education 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 use safety belts when operating a motor vehicle on the 
job;
     Encourage active promotion of regular safety belt use 
through classroom and extracurricular activities as well as in school-
based health clinics;
     Work with School Resource Officers (SROs) to promote 
safety belt use among high school students; and
     Establish and enforce written school policies that require 
students driving to and from school to wear safety belts. Violation of 
these policies should result in revocation of parking or other campus 
privileges for a stated period of time.

D. Employers

    Each State and local subdivision should encourage all employers to 
require safety belt use on the job as a condition of employment. 
Private sector employers should follow the lead of Federal and State 
government employers and comply with Executive Order 13043, 
``Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States'' as well as all 
applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
Regulations or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (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 for non-use; and
     Conduct occupant protection education programs for 
employees on their safety belt use policies and the safety benefits of 
motor vehicle occupant protection devices.

VII. Data and Program Evaluation

    Each State should access and analyze reliable data sources for 
problem identification and program planning. 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, ensuring that 
it meets current, applicable Federal guidelines;
     Maintain trend data on child safety seat use, safety belt 
use and air bag deployment in fatal crashes;
     Identify high-risk populations through observational usage 
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 communication as well as special/
high-risk population education programs;
     Obtain data on morbidity, as well as the estimated cost of 
crashes, and determine the relation of injury to safety belt use and 
non-use; and
     Ensure that evaluation results are an integral part of new 
program planning and problem identification.

    Issued on: October 31, 2006.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-18749 Filed 11-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P