Motorcyclist Safety Grant Program, 29855-29867 [06-4792]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29855-29867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4792]



[[Page 29855]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1350

[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23700]
RIN 2127-AJ86


Motorcyclist Safety Grant Program

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes implementing regulations for the 
Motorcyclist Safety grant program authorized under section 2010 of the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. 
Eligibility for the section 2010 grants is based on 6 statutorily 
specified grant criteria.
    To be eligible to receive an initial section 2010 grant, a State 
must demonstrate compliance with at least 1 of the 6 grant criteria. To 
be eligible to receive a grant in subsequent fiscal years, a State must 
demonstrate compliance with at least 2 of the 6 grant criteria. This 
NPRM proposes minimum requirements a State must meet and procedures a 
State must follow to receive a section 2010 motorcyclist safety grant.

DATES: Written comments may be submitted to this agency and must be 
received by June 23, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted 
(preferably in two copies) to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Alternatively, you may 
submit your comments electronically by logging onto the Docket 
Management System (DMS) Web site at https://dms.dot.gov. Click on 
``Help'' to view instructions for filing your comments electronically. 
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should identify the 
Docket number of this document. You may call the docket at (202) 366-
9324. Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For program issues: Marti Miller, Office of Injury Control 
Operations and Resources, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; 
Telephone: (202) 366-2121.
    For legal issues: Allison Rusnak, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: (202) 366-1834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of SAFETEA-LU Requirements
III. Proposed Qualification Requirements
    A. Motorcycle Rider Training Courses
    B. Motorcyclists Awareness Program
    C. Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles
    D. Impaired Driving Program
    E. Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired 
Motorcyclists
    F. Use of Fees Collected From Motorcyclists for Motorcycle 
Programs
IV. Administrative Issues
    A. Application Requirements
    B. Awards
    C. Post-Award Requirements
    D. Uses of Grant Funds
V. Comments
VI. Statutory Basis for This Action
VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. National Environmental Policy Act
    H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribes)
    I. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)
    J. Privacy Act

I. Background

    An estimated 128,000 motorcyclists have died in traffic crashes 
since the enactment of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. There are nearly 
6 million motorcycles \1\ registered in the United States. Motorcycles 
made up more than 2 percent of all registered vehicles in the United 
States in 2004 and accounted for an estimated 0.3 percent of all 
vehicle miles traveled. Per vehicle mile traveled in 2004, 
motorcyclists were about 34 times more likely to die and 8 times more 
likely to be injured in a motor vehicle traffic crash than passenger 
car occupants. Motorcycle rider fatalities reached a high of 5,144 in 
1980. After dropping to a low of 2,116 in 1997, motorcycle rider 
fatalities have increased for 7 consecutive years, reaching a total of 
4,008 in 2004, the last full year for which data are available--an 
increase of 89 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the purposes of the section 2010 grants, NHTSA proposes 
that the term ``motorcycle'' will have the same meaning as in 49 CFR 
571.3, ``a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle 
for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than 
three wheels in contact with the ground.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Impaired motorcycle operation contributes considerably to 
motorcycle fatalities and injuries. In fatal crashes in 2004, a higher 
percentage of motorcycle operators than any other type of motor vehicle 
operator had blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels of .08 grams per 
deciliter (g/dL) or higher. The percentages for vehicle operators 
involved in fatal crashes were 27 percent for motorcycles, as compared 
to 22 percent for passenger cars, 21 percent for light trucks, and 1 
percent for large trucks.
    NHTSA traditionally promotes motorcycle safety through highway 
safety grants and technical assistance to States, data collection and 
analysis, research, and safety standards designed to contribute to the 
safe operation of a motorcycle. NHTSA has allocated resources to 
support these broad initiatives since the agency's inception in the 
late 1960s and has collected and analyzed data on motorcycle safety 
since 1975.

II. Summary of SAFETEA-LU Requirements

    On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was enacted 
into law (Pub. L. 109-59). Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU authorizes the 
Secretary of Transportation to ``make grants to States that adopt and 
implement effective programs to reduce the number of single- and multi-
vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists.'' Specifically, SAFETEA-LU 
authorizes the Secretary to make motorcyclist safety grants available 
to States that meet certain criteria. Eligibility for the section 2010 
grants is based on 6 grant criteria: (1) Motorcycle Rider Training 
Courses; (2) Motorcyclists Awareness Program; (3) Reduction of 
Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles; (4) Impaired Driving 
Program; (5) Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired 
Motorcyclists; and (6) Use of Fees Collected from Motorcyclists for 
Motorcycle Programs.
    SAFETEA-LU specifies that to qualify initially for a section 2010 
grant, a State must demonstrate compliance with at least 1 of the 6 
grant criteria. To qualify for a grant in subsequent fiscal years, a 
State must demonstrate compliance with at least 2 of the 6 grant 
criteria. Under this new four-year grant program, which covers fiscal 
years 2006 through 2009, a State may use grant funds for a variety of 
motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs or it 
may suballocate funds to a nonprofit organization incorporated in the 
State to carry out grant activities. The term ``State'' has the same 
meaning as in section 101(a) of title 23, United States

[[Page 29856]]

Code, and includes any of the fifty States, the District of Columbia 
and Puerto Rico.
    NHTSA is optimistic that the new section 2010 grant program will 
lead to improvements in motorcycle rider training and motorcyclist 
awareness and a reduction in impaired motorcycle operation as well as a 
decrease in fatalities and injuries resulting from crashes involving 
motorcycles. The statutory criteria are set forth more fully below, 
followed by the agency's proposed requirements to implement each of 
these criteria.

III. Proposed Qualification Requirements

A. Motorcycle Rider Training Courses

    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, SAFETEA-LU requires 
a State to have ``an effective motorcycle rider training course that is 
offered throughout the State, provides a formal program of instruction 
in accident avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills to 
motorcyclists and that may include innovative training opportunities to 
meet unique regional needs.''
Agency's Proposal (23 CFR 1350.4(a))
    To implement this criterion, the agency proposes that a State, at a 
minimum: (1) Use a training curriculum that is approved by the 
designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety 
issues, that includes a formal program of instruction in crash 
avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills for both in-
class and on-the-motorcycle training to motorcyclists, and that may 
include innovative training opportunities to meet unique regional 
needs; (2)(a) Offer at least one motorcycle rider training course in a 
majority of the State's counties or political subdivisions, or (b) 
Offer at least one motorcycle rider training course in counties or 
political subdivisions that account for a majority of the State's 
registered motorcycles; (3) To teach the curriculum, use motorcycle 
rider training instructors who are certified by the designated State 
authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues or by a 
nationally recognized motorcycle safety organization with certification 
capability; and (4) Use quality control procedures to assess motorcycle 
rider training courses and instructor training courses conducted in the 
State.
Basis for Proposal
    In developing the proposed requirements for this criterion, the 
agency was guided by the specific language of SAFETEA-LU as well as by 
established motorcycle safety program guidance contained in the 
agency's highway safety guideline on motorcycle safety. Section 402 of 
title 23 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to promulgate uniform guidelines for State highway 
safety programs. The motorcycle safety guideline reflects the sound 
science and the experience of States in motorcycle safety programs and 
offers direction to States in formulating their highway safety plans 
supported with section 402 grant funds. The guideline provides a 
framework for developing a balanced highway safety program and for 
assessing the effectiveness of motorcycle safety efforts.
    In order to provide the formal program of instruction in crash 
avoidance and other safety-oriented operational skills required by 
section 2010, NHTSA proposes that the State must use a curriculum 
approved by the designated State authority having jurisdiction over 
motorcyclist safety issues. Although SAFETEA-LU uses the term 
``motorcycle rider training'' for this criterion, section 2010(f)(1) of 
SAFETEA-LU defines the term ``motorcyclist safety training'' as a 
``formal program of instruction * * * approved for use in a State by 
the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist 
safety issues, which may include the State motorcycle safety 
administrator or motorcycle advisory council appointed by the Governor 
of the State.'' Because of the similarity of the terms ``motorcycle 
rider training'' and ``motorcyclist safety training'' and the common 
use of the words ``formal program of instruction'' in both sections 
2010(d)(2)(A) and (f)(1), NHTSA believes Congress intended the terms to 
apply synonymously, and that Congress defined ``motorcyclist safety 
training'' in order to give additional meaning to the motorcycle rider 
training courses criterion.
    Additionally, because State motorcycle rider training courses 
typically include both in-class and on-the-motorcycle training and 
NHTSA believes both are critical to the effectiveness of a motorcycle 
rider training course, the agency proposes that the curriculum must 
include both types of training.
    To effectuate the SAFETEA-LU requirement that a State offer its 
effective motorcycle rider training course throughout the State, NHTSA 
proposes that a State must offer at least one motorcycle rider training 
course in a majority of the State's counties or political subdivisions 
or offer at least one motorcycle rider training course in counties or 
political subdivisions that account for a majority of the State's 
registered motorcycles. For the purposes of this criterion, majority 
would mean greater than 50 percent. NHTSA recognizes that locations for 
motorcycle rider training courses may vary widely from State to State. 
Accordingly, the agency believes this proposal would provide 
flexibility to States seeking to qualify under this criterion. The 
agency notes that because we read the statutory language (``an 
effective motorcycle rider training course that is offered throughout 
the State'') (emphasis added) to contemplate that a State already offer 
motorcycle rider training courses when applying for these grants, the 
proposal would require States to submit information regarding the 
motorcycle rider training courses offered in the 12 months preceding 
the due date of the grant application.
    Because about half of all motorcycle-related fatalities occur in 
rural areas, NHTSA believes it is important that training reach 
motorcyclists in rural areas. Accordingly, in selecting counties or 
political subdivisions in which to conduct training, NHTSA encourages 
States to establish training courses and course locations that are 
accessible to both rural and urban residents. A State may offer 
motorcycle rider training courses throughout the State at established 
training centers, using mobile training units, or any other method 
defined as effective by the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues.
    Next, NHTSA proposes that motorcycle rider training instructors be 
certified by either the designated State authority having jurisdiction 
over motorcyclist safety issues or by a nationally recognized 
motorcycle safety organization with certification capability. Requiring 
instructors to attain certification in order to teach a motorcycle 
rider training course would contribute to the course's effectiveness by 
ensuring that instructors have obtained an appropriate level of 
expertise qualifying them to teach a course.
    Finally, NHTSA proposes that to qualify for a grant under this 
criterion, a State must carry out quality control procedures to assess 
motorcycle rider training courses and instructor training courses 
conducted in the State. NHTSA believes quality control procedures 
promote course effectiveness by encouraging improvements to courses 
when needed. The agency's proposal does not specify the quality control

[[Page 29857]]

procedures a State must use. Instead, the proposal would require the 
State to describe what quality control procedures it uses and the 
changes the State made to improve courses. At minimum, a State should 
gather evaluative information on an ongoing basis (e.g., by conducting 
site visits or gathering student feedback) and take actions to improve 
courses based on the information collected.
Demonstrating Compliance (23 CFR 1350.4(a)(2), (3))
    To demonstrate compliance with this criterion for the first fiscal 
year it seeks to qualify, a State would submit: (1) A copy of the 
official State document identifying the designated State authority 
having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues; (2) Document(s) 
demonstrating that the training curriculum is approved by the 
designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety 
issues and includes a formal program of instruction in crash avoidance 
and other safety-oriented operational skills for both in-class and on-
the-motorcycle training to motorcyclists; (3)(a) If the State seeks to 
qualify under this criterion by showing that it offers at least one 
motorcycle rider training course in a majority of counties or political 
subdivisions in the State--A list of the counties or political 
subdivisions in the State, noting in which counties or political 
subdivisions and when motorcycle rider training courses were offered in 
the 12 months preceding the due date of the grant application, or (b) 
If the State seeks to qualify under this criterion by showing that it 
offers at least one motorcycle rider training course in counties or 
political subdivisions that account for a majority of the State's 
registered motorcycles--A list of the counties or political 
subdivisions in the State, noting in which counties or political 
subdivisions and when motorcycle rider training courses were offered in 
the 12 months preceding the due date of the grant application and the 
corresponding number of registered motorcycles in each county or 
political subdivision according to official State motor vehicle 
records; (4) Document(s) demonstrating that the State uses motorcycle 
rider training instructors to teach the curriculum who are certified by 
the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist 
safety issues or by a nationally recognized motorcycle safety 
organization with certification capability; and (5) A brief description 
of the quality control procedures to assess motorcycle rider training 
courses and instructor training courses conducted in the State (e.g., 
conducting site visits, gathering student feedback) and the actions 
taken to improve the courses based on the information collected.
    To demonstrate compliance with this criterion for the second and 
subsequent fiscal years it seeks to qualify, a State would submit only 
information documenting any changes to materials previously submitted 
to and approved by NHTSA under this criterion, or if there have been no 
changes to those materials, a statement certifying that there have been 
no changes and that the State continues to offer the motorcycle rider 
training course in the same manner.

B. Motorcyclists Awareness Program

    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, SAFETEA-LU requires 
a State to have ``an effective statewide program to enhance motorist 
awareness of the presence of motorcyclists on or near roadways and safe 
driving practices that avoid injuries to motorcyclists.''
    ``Motorcyclist Awareness'' is defined in section 2010(f)(2) of 
SAFETEA-LU as ``individual or collective awareness of--(A) the presence 
of motorcycles on or near roadways; and (B) safe driving practices that 
avoid injury to motorcyclists.''
    ``Motorcyclist Awareness Program'' is defined in section 2010(f)(3) 
of SAFETEA-LU as ``an informational or public awareness program 
designed to enhance motorcyclist awareness that is developed by or in 
coordination with the designated State authority having jurisdiction 
over motorcyclist safety issues, which may include the State motorcycle 
safety administrator or a motorcycle advisory council appointed by the 
Governor of the State.''
Agency's Proposal (23 CFR 1350.4(b))
    To implement this criterion, the agency proposes that a State have 
a motorcyclist awareness program that, at a minimum: (1) Is developed 
by, or in coordination with, the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues; (2) Uses State data to 
identify and prioritize the State's motorcycle safety problem areas; 
(3) Encourages collaboration among agencies and organizations 
responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety issues; and (4) 
Incorporates a strategic communications plan that supports the overall 
policy and program, is designed to educate motorists in those 
jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes is highest, 
includes marketing and educational efforts to enhance motorcyclist 
awareness, and uses a mix of communication mechanisms to draw attention 
to the problem.
Basis for Proposal
    As with the Motorcycle Rider Training Course criterion, in 
developing the proposed requirements for this Motorcyclists Awareness 
Program criterion, the agency was guided by the specific language of 
SAFETEA-LU as well as by the highway safety guideline on motorcycle 
safety.
    First, the definition of ``motorcyclist awareness program'' in 
SAFETEA-LU specifies that a program under this criterion be developed 
by or in coordination with the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues.
    Before a problem can be effectively addressed, the agency believes 
that problem identification and prioritization must be performed. 
Therefore, NHTSA proposes to include as an element under this criterion 
problem identification and prioritization through the use of State 
data.
    Next, in order to add to the effectiveness of a motorcyclist 
awareness program, NHTSA proposes that a State's motorcyclist awareness 
program encourage collaboration among agencies and organizations 
responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety issues.
    Additionally, NHTSA proposes that because this criterion 
contemplates an informational or public awareness program to enhance 
motorist awareness of the presence of motorcyclists and because 
awareness efforts rely heavily on communication strategies and 
implementation, a State's motorcyclist awareness program should 
incorporate a strategic communications plan to support the overall 
policy and program. To ensure that the program is conducted statewide, 
the agency proposes that the communications plan be designed to educate 
motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle 
crashes is highest (i.e., the majority of counties or political 
subdivisions in the State with the highest numbers of motorcycle 
crashes). For the purposes of this criterion, majority would mean 
greater than 50 percent. Finally, based on NHTSA's experience with 
dispersing traffic safety messages, the agency proposes that a 
communications plan should include marketing and educational efforts 
and should use a variety of communication mechanisms to increase 
awareness of a problem.

[[Page 29858]]

Demonstrating Compliance (23 CFR 1350.4(b)(2), (3))
    To demonstrate compliance with this criterion for the first fiscal 
year it seeks to qualify, a State would submit: (1) A copy of the State 
document identifying the designated State authority having jurisdiction 
over motorcyclist safety issues; (2) A letter from the Governor's 
Highway Safety Representative stating that the State's motorcyclist 
awareness program was developed by or in coordination with the 
designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety 
issues; (3) Data used to identify and prioritize the State's motorcycle 
safety problem areas, including a list of counties or political 
subdivisions in the State ranked in order of the highest to lowest 
number of motorcycle crashes per county or political subdivision (such 
data would be from the calendar year occurring immediately before the 
fiscal year of the grant application (e.g., for fiscal year 2006, a 
State would provide data from calendar year 2005)); (4) A brief 
description of how the State has achieved collaboration among agencies 
and organizations responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety 
issues; and (5) A copy of the strategic communications plan showing 
that it supports the overall policy and program, is designed to educate 
motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle 
crashes is highest (i.e., the majority of counties or political 
subdivisions in the State with the highest numbers of motorcycle 
crashes), includes marketing and educational efforts to enhance 
motorcyclist awareness, and uses a mix of communication mechanisms to 
draw attention to the problem (e.g., newspapers, billboard 
advertisements, e-mail, posters, flyers, mini-planners, computer-led 
and instructor-led training sessions).
    To demonstrate compliance with this criterion for the second and 
subsequent fiscal years it seeks to qualify, a State would submit only 
information documenting any changes to materials previously submitted 
to and approved by NHTSA under this criterion, or if there have been no 
changes to those materials, a statement certifying that there have been 
no changes and that the State continues to implement the motorcyclists 
awareness program in the same manner.

C. Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles

    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, SAFETEA-LU requires 
a State to experience ``a reduction for the preceding calendar year in 
the number of motorcycle fatalities and the rate of motor vehicle 
crashes involving motorcycles in the State (expressed as a function of 
10,000 motorcycle registrations).''
Agency's Proposal (23 CFR 1350.4(c))
    The agency proposes that to satisfy this criterion in any fiscal 
year, a State must: (1) Based on final Fatality Analysis Reporting 
System (FARS) data, experience at least a reduction of one in the 
number of motorcycle fatalities for the preceding calendar year as 
compared to the calendar year immediately prior to the preceding 
calendar year; and (2) Based on State crash data expressed as a 
function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle 
registration data), experience at least a whole number reduction (i.e., 
at least a 1.0 reduction) in the rate of motor vehicle crashes 
involving motorcycles for the preceding calendar year as compared to 
the calendar year immediately prior to the preceding calendar year.
    Using the following data sources, NHTSA would perform the 
computations to determine a State's compliance with this criterion:
     The agency proposes that ``preceding calendar year'' would 
mean the calendar year that precedes the beginning of the fiscal year 
of the grant by one year. The term appears in the agency's proposal to 
identify the source year of data to be used for determining a State's 
compliance with this criterion. For example, for grant applications in 
fiscal year 2006, which began in October 2005, the preceding calendar 
year would be the 2004 calendar year and final FARS data, State crash 
data and FHWA motorcycle registration data from the ``preceding 
calendar year'' and the ``calendar year immediately prior to the 
preceding calendar year'' would, therefore, be such data from calendar 
years 2004 and 2003.
     NHTSA proposes to use Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) motorcycle registration data to determine motorcycle 
registrations under this criterion.
     The agency proposes to use State crash data provided by 
the State to determine the number of motor vehicle crashes involving 
motorcycles.
Basis for Proposal
    NHTSA believes that using the final FARS data will ensure that the 
most accurate fatality numbers are used to determine each State's 
compliance with this criterion. The FARS contains data derived from a 
census of fatal traffic crashes within the 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. All FARS data on fatal motor vehicle crashes 
are gathered from the States' own documents and coded into FARS formats 
with common standards. Final FARS data provide the most comprehensive 
and quality-controlled fatality data.
    The agency's proposed definition of ``preceding calendar year'' 
would ensure that the latest available final FARS data are used when a 
State applies for a grant under this criterion. For consistency in 
determining whether a State meets both statutory prongs of this 
criterion by experiencing both a reduction in the number of motorcycle 
fatalities and a reduction in the rate of motor vehicle crashes 
involving motorcycles, the proposed definition of ``preceding calendar 
year'' would apply to the rate calculation portion of this criterion as 
well. For fiscal year 2006 grants, NHTSA would compare 2003 final FARS 
data, State crash data and FHWA motorcycle registration data with 2004 
data under the proposed rule.
    NHTSA proposes to use FHWA motorcycle registration data because it 
contains reliable motorcycle registration data compiled in a single 
source for all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 
The FHWA reports and releases motorcycle registration data annually.
    Requiring a whole number reduction (i.e., at least a 1.0 reduction) 
is consistent with SAFETEA-LU's requirement that there be a reduction 
in the number of fatalities and the rate of motor vehicle crashes 
involving motorcycles in the State. The agency believes that such a 
reduction remains meaningful when viewed in light of the steady 
increase in motorcycle use and registrations in recent years.
    Finally, NHTSA data systems for all 50 States, the District of 
Columbia and Puerto Rico cover only fatal crashes. No national data 
system currently exists for all crashes that covers both crashes 
resulting in injuries and crashes involving property damage. 
Accordingly, NHTSA proposes to rely on crash data provided by each 
State for the crash-related portion of this criterion.
Demonstrating Compliance (23 CFR 1350.4(c)(2))
    To be considered for compliance under this criterion in any fiscal 
year it seeks to qualify, a State would submit: (1) State data showing 
the total number of motor vehicle crashes involving motorcycles in the 
State for the preceding calendar year and for the year immediately 
prior to the preceding calendar year; and (2) A description of

[[Page 29859]]

the State's methods for collecting and analyzing data showing the 
number of motor vehicle crashes involving motorcycles in the State for 
the preceding calendar year and for the calendar year immediately prior 
to the preceding calendar year, including a description of the State's 
efforts to make reporting of motor vehicle crashes involving 
motorcycles as complete as possible. The methods used by the State for 
collecting this data would be required to be the same in both years or 
improved in subsequent years. NHTSA would perform the necessary 
computations using the State-submitted data, final FARS data, and FHWA 
registration data to determine if the State meets the requirements of 
this criterion.

D. Impaired Driving Program

    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, SAFETEA-LU requires 
that a State must ``implement a statewide program to reduce impaired 
driving, including specific measures to reduce impaired motorcycle 
operation.''
Agency's Proposal (23 CFR 1350.4(d))
    To satisfy this criterion, the agency proposes that a State must 
have an impaired driving program that, at a minimum: (1) Uses State 
data to identify and prioritize the State's impaired driving and 
impaired motorcycle operation problem areas; and (2) Includes specific 
countermeasures to reduce impaired motorcycle operation with strategies 
designed to reach motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence 
of impaired motorcycle crashes is highest. NHTSA proposes that for the 
purposes of this criterion, ``impaired'' would refer to alcohol-or 
drug-impaired as defined by State law, provided that the State's legal 
impairment level does not exceed .08 BAC.
Basis for Proposal
    NHTSA recognizes that definitions of impairment differ from State 
to State, but that all States' definitions of alcohol-impaired driving 
currently include at most a .08 BAC limit. The agency proposes that 
each State may use its definition of impairment for the purposes of 
this criterion, provided that the State maintains at most a .08 BAC 
limit. In order to implement a program to reduce impaired driving, a 
State would use its own data to perform problem identification and 
prioritization to reduce impaired driving and impaired motorcycle 
operation in problem areas in the State.
    NHTSA proposes that if a State's program includes specific 
countermeasures to reduce impaired motorcycle operation with strategies 
designed to reach motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence 
of impaired motorcycle crashes is highest (i.e., the majority of 
counties or political subdivisions in the State with the highest 
numbers of impaired motorcycle crashes), it will be consistent with the 
SAFETEA-LU requirement that the impaired driving program under this 
criterion be implemented statewide. For the purposes of this criterion, 
majority would mean greater than 50 percent. Finally, as identified in 
SAFETEA-LU, a State's impaired driving program should include specific 
countermeasure strategies to reduce impaired motorcycle operation.
Demonstrating Compliance (23 CFR 1350.4(d)(2), (3))
    To demonstrate compliance with this criterion for the first fiscal 
year it seeks to qualify, a State would submit: (1) State data used to 
identify and prioritize the State's impaired driving and impaired 
motorcycle operation problem areas, including a list of counties or 
political subdivisions in the State ranked in order of the highest to 
lowest number of impaired motorcycle crashes per county or political 
subdivision (such data would be from the calendar year occurring 
immediately before the fiscal year of the grant application (e.g., for 
fiscal year 2006, a State would provide data from calendar year 2005)); 
(2) A description of the State's impaired driving program as 
implemented, including a description of its specific countermeasures 
used to reduce impaired motorcycle operation with strategies designed 
to reach motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of 
impaired motorcycle crashes is highest (i.e., the majority of counties 
or political subdivisions in the State with the highest numbers of 
impaired motorcycle crashes); and (3) A copy of the State's law or 
regulation defining impairment.
    To demonstrate compliance with this criterion for the second and 
subsequent years it seeks to qualify, a State would submit information 
concerning any changes to materials previously submitted to and 
approved by NHTSA under this criterion, or if there have been no 
changes to those materials, a statement certifying that there have been 
no changes and that the State continues to implement the impaired 
driving program in the same manner.

E. Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired 
Motorcyclists

    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, SAFETEA-LU requires 
that a State must experience ``a reduction for the preceding calendar 
year in the number of fatalities and the rate of reported crashes 
involving alcohol-or drug-impaired motorcycle operators (expressed as a 
function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations).''
Agency's Proposal (23 CFR 1350.4(e))
    The agency proposes that to satisfy this criterion in any fiscal 
year, a State must: (1) Based on final FARS data, experience at least a 
reduction of one in the number of fatalities involving alcohol- and 
drug-impaired motorcycle operators for the preceding calendar year as 
compared to the calendar year immediately prior to the preceding 
calendar year; and (2) Based on State crash data expressed as a 
function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations (using FHWA motorcycle 
registration data), experience at least a whole number reduction (i.e., 
at least a 1.0 reduction) in the rate of reported crashes involving 
alcohol- and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for the preceding 
calendar year as compared to the calendar year immediately prior to the 
preceding calendar year. Using the following data sources, NHTSA would 
perform the computations to determine a State's compliance with this 
criterion:
     As with criterion number 3 above, under this criterion, 
the agency proposes that ``preceding calendar year'' would mean the 
calendar year that precedes the beginning of the fiscal year of the 
grant by one year.
     The agency also proposes to use FHWA motorcycle 
registration data to determine motorcycle registrations under this 
criterion.
     The agency proposes to use State crash data provided by 
the State to determine the number of reported crashes involving 
alcohol- and drug-impaired motorcycle operators.
    The agency proposes that for the purposes of this criterion, 
``impaired'' would refer to alcohol-or drug-impaired as defined by 
State law, provided that the State's legal alcohol impairment level 
does not exceed .08 BAC.
Basis for Proposal
    The proposed use of FARS data, FHWA motorcycle registration data, 
State crash data and the proposed definition of preceding calendar year 
under this criterion mirror the proposed use of these terms under 
criterion number 3, as described above, and the rationale is the same. 
Additionally, the use of FARS data for this criterion will be 
particularly helpful because one of the limitations of the State crash 
data files is unknown alcohol use. In order to calculate alcohol-
related crash

[[Page 29860]]

involvement for a State, NHTSA uses a statistical model based on crash 
characteristics to impute alcohol involvement in fatal crashes where 
alcohol use was unknown or not reported.
    Because NHTSA recognizes that definitions of impairment differ from 
State to State, but that all States' definitions of alcohol-impaired 
driving currently include at most a .08 BAC limit, the agency proposes 
that each State may use its definition of alcohol- and drug-impairment 
for the purposes of this criterion, provided that the State maintains 
at most a .08 BAC limit.
Demonstrating Compliance (23 CFR 1350.4(e)(2))
    To be considered for compliance under this criterion in any fiscal 
year it seeks to qualify, a State would submit: (1) Data showing the 
total number of reported crashes involving alcohol- and drug-impaired 
motorcycle operators in the State for the preceding calendar year and 
for the year immediately prior to the preceding calendar year; (2) A 
description of the State's methods for collecting and analyzing data 
showing the number of reported crashes involving alcohol- and drug-
impaired motorcycle operators in the State for the preceding calendar 
year and for the calendar year immediately prior to the preceding 
calendar year, including a description of the State's efforts to make 
reporting of crashes involving alcohol- and drug-impaired motorcycle 
operators as complete as possible (the methods used by the State for 
collecting this data would be the same in both years or improved in 
subsequent years); and (3) A copy of the State's law or regulation 
defining alcohol- and drug-impairment. NHTSA would perform the 
necessary computations using the State-submitted data, final FARS data, 
and FHWA registration data to determine if the State meets the 
requirements of this criterion.

F. Use of Fees Collected From Motorcyclists for Motorcycle Programs

    To qualify for a grant based on this criterion, SAFETEA-LU requires 
that ``all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs will be 
used for motorcycle training and safety programs.''
Agency's Proposal (23 CFR 1350.4(f))
    The agency proposes that a State may qualify for a grant under this 
criterion as a ``Law State'' or a ``Data State.'' For the purposes of 
this criterion, NHTSA proposes that a Law State would mean a State that 
has a law or regulation requiring that all fees collected by the State 
from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and 
safety programs are to be used for motorcycle training and safety 
programs. For the purposes of this criterion, NHTSA proposes that a 
Data State would mean a State that does not have such a law or 
regulation.
    To qualify for a grant under this criterion as a Law State, NHTSA 
proposes that a State must have in place the law or regulation 
described above. To qualify for a grant under this criterion as a Data 
State, NHTSA proposes that a State must demonstrate that revenues 
collected for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety 
programs are placed into a distinct account and expended only for 
motorcycle training and safety programs.
Basis for Proposal
    NHTSA's proposal to permit a State to qualify under this criterion 
as either a Law State or a Data State provides flexibility to States 
and is consistent with the SAFETEA-LU language requiring that all fees 
collected by a State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding 
motorcycle training and safety programs be used for motorcycle training 
and safety programs.
Demonstrating Compliance (23 CFR 1350.4(f)(2), (3))
    To demonstrate compliance as a Law State under this criterion for 
the first fiscal year it seeks to qualify, a State would submit a copy 
of the law or regulation requiring that all fees collected by the State 
from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding motorcycle training and 
safety programs are to be used for motorcycle training and safety 
programs. To demonstrate compliance as a Law State in the second and 
subsequent years it seeks to qualify, a State would submit a copy of 
the law or regulation if it has changed since the State submitted its 
last grant application, or a certification that its law or regulation 
has not changed since the State submitted its last grant application 
and received approval.
    To demonstrate compliance as a Data State under this criterion, for 
any fiscal year it seeks to qualify, a State would submit data and/or 
documentation from official records from the previous State fiscal year 
showing that all fees collected by the State from motorcyclists for the 
purposes of funding motorcycle training and safety programs were, in 
fact, used for motorcycle training and safety programs. Such data and/
or documentation would show that revenues collected for the purposes of 
funding motorcycle training and safety programs were placed into a 
distinct account and expended only for motorcycle training and safety 
programs.

IV. Administrative Issues

A. Application Requirements (23 CFR 1350.5)

    The proposed rule outlines certain procedural steps to be followed 
when States wish to apply for a grant under this program. A State would 
submit, through its State Highway Safety Agency, an application to the 
appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator satisfying the minimum 
qualification requirements under Sec.  1350.4 and identifying the grant 
criteria under which it seeks to qualify. Application through a State 
Highway Safety Agency is consistent with other grant programs 
administered by NHTSA. To ensure that States have adequate notice and 
time to prepare and submit their applications for fiscal year 2006, 
applications for this grant program in fiscal year 2006 would be due no 
later than August 15. For the remaining fiscal years in which States 
apply for grant funds under this program, applications would be due no 
later than August 1.
    The Application would include the applicable criteria-specific 
certifications specified in Sec.  1350.4 and located in Appendix A. 
Additionally, the State would provide the following general 
certifications located in Appendix B: (1) It will use the motorcyclist 
safety grant funds awarded exclusively to implement programs in 
accordance with the requirements of section 2010(e) of SAFETEA-LU, 
Public Law 109-59; (2) It will administer the motorcyclist safety grant 
funds in accordance with 49 CFR part 18 and OMB Circular A-87; and (3) 
It will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for 
motorcyclist safety training programs and motorcyclist awareness 
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal 
years 2003 and 2004 (a SAFETEA-LU requirement).
    A State would submit an original and two copies of its application 
to the appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator. To ensure a manageable 
volume of materials for the agency's review of applications, the 
proposal provides that States should not submit media samples unless 
specifically requested.

[[Page 29861]]

B. Awards (23 CFR 1350.6)

    NHTSA will review each State's application for compliance with the 
requirements of the implementing regulations and will notify qualifying 
States in writing of grant awards. Upon initial review of the 
application, the proposed procedures would allow NHTSA to request 
additional information from the State prior to making a determination 
of award, in order to clarify compliance with the statutory criteria 
and grant application procedures.
    SAFETEA-LU specifies that the amount of a grant made to a State for 
a fiscal year under this grant program may not be less than $100,000 
and may not exceed 25 percent of the amount apportioned to the State 
for fiscal year 2003 under section 402 of title 23, United States Code. 
However, the release of the full grant amounts under section 2010 is 
subject to the availability of funding for each fiscal year. If there 
are expected to be insufficient funds to award full grant amount to all 
eligible States in any fiscal year, NHTSA may release less than the 
full grant amounts upon initial approval of a State's application, and 
release the remainder, up to the State's proportionate share of 
available funds, before the end of that fiscal year. If insufficient 
funds are appropriated to distribute the minimum amount ($100,000) to 
all qualifying States, all States would receive the same reduced 
amount. Project approval, and the contractual obligation of the Federal 
Government to provide grant funds, would be limited to the amount of 
funds released.

C. Post-Award Requirements (23 CFR 1350.7)

    Consistent with current procedures in other highway safety grant 
programs administered by NHTSA, the agency's proposal provides that 
within 30 days after notification of award but in no event later than 
September 12, a State would be required to submit electronically to the 
agency a Program Cost Summary (HS Form 217) obligating funds to the 
Motorcyclist Safety Grant Program. In addition, a State would be 
required to include documentation in the Highway Safety Plan (or in an 
amendment to that plan) prepared under 23 U.S.C. 402 indicating how it 
intends to use the motorcyclist safety grant funds. The State would 
also be required to detail program accomplishments in the Annual 
Performance Report required to be submitted under the regulation 
implementing the section 402 program. These documenting requirements 
would continue each fiscal year until all section 2010 grant funds have 
been expended.

D. Uses of Grant Funds (23 CFR 1350.8)

    As specified in SAFETEA-LU, a State may use section 2010 grant 
funds only for motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist awareness 
programs, including: (1) Improvements to motorcyclist safety training 
curricula; (2) Improvements in program delivery of motorcycle training 
to both urban and rural areas (including procurement or repair of 
practice motorcycles; instructional materials; mobile training units; 
and leasing or purchasing facilities for closed-course motorcycle skill 
training); \2\ (3) Measures designed to increase the recruitment or 
retention of motorcyclist safety training instructors; and (4) Public 
awareness, public service announcements, and other outreach programs to 
enhance driver awareness of motorcyclists, such as the ``share-the-
road'' safety messages developed using Share-the-Road model language 
required under section 2010(g) of SAFETEA-LU. As specified in SAFETEA-
LU, a State that receives a section 2010 grant may suballocate funds 
from the grant to a nonprofit organization incorporated in that State 
to carry out grant activities under section 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In connection with the leasing or purchasing of facilities, 
grantees should note that the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and 
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-115) 
places limits on the use of section 2010 funds. Specifically, the 
Act provides that none of the section 2010 funds ``shall be used for 
construction, rehabilitation, or remodeling costs, or for office 
furnishings and fixtures for State, local or private buildings or 
structures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SAFETEA-LU places an additional limitation on the use of grant 
funds. Specifically, a State that receives a section 2010 grant must 
maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for 
motorcyclist safety training programs and motorcyclist awareness 
programs at or above the average level of such expenditures in fiscal 
years 2003 and 2004. (A State may use either Federal or State fiscal 
years.) However, because section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU does not include a 
matching requirement, the Federal share of programs funded under 
section 2010 will be 100 percent.

V. Comments

    The agency finds good cause to limit the period for comment on this 
notice to 30 days. In order to publish a final rule in time to 
accommodate the application period for States and a subsequent review 
period for the agency, this comment period is deemed necessary. The 
shortened comment period will assist the agency in ensuring that grant 
funds under section 2010 are made available to States during the fiscal 
year.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on this notice of 
proposed rulemaking. It is requested, but not required, that two copies 
be submitted. All comments must be limited to 15 pages in length. 
Necessary attachments may be appended to those submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. (See 49 CFR 553.21.) This limitation is 
intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary arguments in a 
concise fashion.
    You may submit your comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) By mail to: Docket Management Facility, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-
23700, DOT, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590;
    (2) By hand delivery to: Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday;
    (3) By fax to the Docket Management Facility at (202) 493-2251; or
    (4) By electronic submission: log onto the DMS Web site at https://
dms.dot.gov and click on ``Help'' to obtain instructions.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date will be considered and will be available for examination 
in the docket at the above address before and after that date. To the 
extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be 
considered. However, the rulemaking action may proceed at any time 
after that date. The agency will continue to file relevant material in 
the docket as it becomes available after the closing date, and it is 
recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for 
new material.
    You may review submitted comments in person at the Docket 
Management Facility located at Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. You may also review submitted 
comments on the Internet by taking the following steps:
    (1) Go to the DMS Web page at https://dms.dot.gov.
    (2) On that page, click on ``Simple Search''.
    (3) On the next page (https://dms.dot.gov/search/
searchFormSimple.cfm) type in the five-digit docket number shown at the

[[Page 29862]]

beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were ``NHTSA-
2001-12345,'' you would type ``12345.'' After typing the docket number, 
click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for 
the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also 
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, 
instead of word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the 
documents are word searchable.
    Those persons who wish to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the docket should enclose, in the envelope with their 
comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

VI. Statutory Basis for This Action

    The agency's proposal would implement the grant program created by 
section 2010 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 
109-59).

VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB 
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The rulemaking 
action is not considered to be significant within the meaning of E.O. 
12866 or the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034 (February 26, 1979)).
    The agency's proposal does not affect amounts over the significance 
threshold of $100 million each year. The proposal sets forth 
application procedures and showings to be made to be eligible for a 
grant. The funds to be distributed under the application procedures 
developed in the proposal would be well below the annual threshold of 
$100 million, with authorized amounts of $6 million in each of FYs 
2006-2008 and $7 million in FY 2009.
    The agency's proposal would not adversely affect in a material way 
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, 
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. The agency's proposal would not create an 
inconsistency or interfere with any actions taken or planned by other 
agencies. The agency's proposal would not materially alter the 
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. Finally, the 
agency's proposal does not raise novel legal or policy issues arising 
out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles 
set forth in the Executive Order.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the agency has determined that 
if it is made final, this rulemaking action would not be economically 
significant. The impacts of the rule would be so minimal that a full 
regulatory evaluation is not required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency publishes a notice of rulemaking 
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for 
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the 
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small 
Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small 
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily 
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a).) No regulatory 
flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the 
rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that an action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposal under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. States are the recipients of funds awarded 
under the section 2010 program and they are not considered to be small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, I certify 
that this notice of proposed rulemaking would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999), requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with 
federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs and that is not required by statute unless the Federal Government 
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
incurred by State and local governments or the agency consults with 
State and local governments in the process of developing the proposed 
regulation. The agency also may not issue a regulation with federalism 
implications that preempts a State law without consulting with State 
and local officials.
    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with 
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has 
determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or 
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Moreover, the 
proposed rule would not preempt any State law or regulation or affect 
the ability of States to discharge traditional State government 
functions.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729,

[[Page 29863]]

February 7, 1996), the agency has considered whether this rulemaking 
would have any retroactive effect. This rulemaking action would not 
have any retroactive effect. This action meets applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 
Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless 
the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number. This NPRM, if made final, would result in a new 
collection of information that would require OMB clearance pursuant to 
5 CFR part 1320. In a Federal Register document of March 2, 2006 (71 FR 
10753), NHTSA sought public comment on the proposed collection of 
information for the motorcyclist safety grant program. The proposed 
collection would affect the fifty states, the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico. NHTSA estimates the total annual collection of information 
burden to be 1560 hours. NHTSA accepted public comment on this proposed 
collection until May 1, 2006.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with a base year of 
1995 (about $118 million in 2004 dollars)). This proposed rule does not 
meet the definition of a Federal mandate because the resulting annual 
State expenditures would not exceed the $100 million threshold. The 
program is voluntary and States that choose to apply and qualify would 
receive grant funds.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has reviewed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that this 
proposal would not have a significant impact on the quality of the 
human environment.

H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribes)

    The agency has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 
13175, and has determined that the proposed action would not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal 
governments, and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 
summary impact statement is not required.

I. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

J. Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of 
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or 
you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1350

    Grant programs-transportation, Highway safety, Motor vehicles-
motorcycles.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the agency proposes to amend 
chapter III of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding 
part 1350 to read as follows:

PART 1350--INCENTIVE GRANT CRITERIA FOR MOTORCYCLIST SAFETY PROGRAM

Sec.
1350.1 Scope.
1350.2 Purpose.
1350.3 Definitions.
1350.4 Qualification requirements.
1350.5 Application requirements.
1350.6 Awards.
1350.7 Post-award requirements.
1350.8 Use of grant funds.
Appendix A to Part 1350--Certifications Specific to Grant Criteria 
for Second and Subsequent Fiscal Years
Appendix B to Part 1350--General Certifications

    Authority: Sec. 2010, Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1535; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec.  1350.1  Scope.

    This part establishes criteria, in accordance with section 2010 of 
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), for awarding incentive grants to States 
that adopt and implement effective programs to reduce the number of 
single- and multi-vehicle crashes involving motorcyclists.


Sec.  1350.2  Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to implement the provisions of section 
2010 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and to encourage States to 
adopt effective motorcyclist safety programs.


Sec.  1350.3  Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    FARS means NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System.
    Impaired means alcohol- or drug-impaired as defined by State law, 
provided that the State's legal alcohol-impairment level does not 
exceed .08 BAC.
    Majority means greater than 50 percent.
    Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or 
saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than 
three wheels in contact with the ground.
    Motorcyclist awareness means an individual or collective awareness 
of--
    (1) The presence of motorcycles on or near roadways; and
    (2) Safe driving practices that avoid injury to motorcyclists.
    Motorcyclist awareness program means an informational or public 
awareness program designed to enhance motorcyclist awareness that is 
developed by or in coordination with the designated St