Revised Highway Safety Program Guidelines Nos. 3, 8, 14, 15, 19, and 20, 65172-65196 [E6-18749]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65172-65196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://
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 indic