Motorcyclist Safety Grant Program, 40891-40904 [06-6354]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 19, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40891-40904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6354]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements 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 six statutorily-specified grant 
criteria. To receive an initial section 2010 grant, a State must 
demonstrate compliance with at least one of the six grant criteria. To 
receive a grant in subsequent fiscal years, a State must demonstrate 
compliance with at least two of the six grant criteria. This final rule 
establishes the requirements a State must meet and the procedures it 
must follow to receive a section 2010 Motorcyclist Safety grant, 
beginning in fiscal year 2006.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on July 19, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues: Marti Miller, 
Regional Operations and Program Delivery, 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. Section 2010 Statutory Requirements
III. Section 2010 Administrative Requirements
IV. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
V. Comments
    A. In General
    B. Comments Regarding Programmatic Criteria
    1. Motorcycle Rider Training Courses
    2. Motorcyclists Awareness Program
    3. Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles and 
Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired 
Motorcyclists
    4. Impaired Driving Program
    C. Comments Regarding Administrative Issues
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. Preliminary 2005 Fatality Analysis Reporting 
System (FARS) data show a projected increase of 7.7% in motorcycle 
fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the purposes of the section 2010 grants, NHTSA proposed 
in the NPRM that the term ``motorcycle'' would 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.'' NHTSA 
received no comments on the meaning of the term ``motorcycle.'' 
Therefore, we retain the definition without change in this final 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 40892]]

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. Section 2010 Statutory 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,'' based on six 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 for an initial section 2010 
grant, a State must demonstrate compliance with at least one of the six 
grant criteria, and to qualify for a grant in subsequent fiscal years, 
a State must demonstrate compliance with at least two of the six grant 
criteria. Under this 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 Code, and 
includes any of the fifty States, the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico.

III. Section 2010 Administrative Requirements

    SAFETEA-LU stipulates several administrative requirements for the 
section 2010 grant program. 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.
    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\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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.

IV. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    The agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 
24, 2006 (71 FR 29855) to implement the new section 2010 grant program 
under SAFETEA-LU. The NPRM outlined certain procedural steps to be 
followed by States seeking to apply for a grant and set forth proposed 
requirements for the six eligibility criteria.
    For the Motorcycle Rider Training Courses criterion, the NPRM 
generally proposed that a State use a training curriculum that is 
approved by the designated State authority having jurisdiction over 
motorcyclist safety issues and taught by certified motorcycle rider 
training instructors; offer at least one motorcycle rider training 
course in a majority of the State's counties or political subdivisions 
or in counties or political subdivisions that account for a majority of 
the State's registered motorcycles; and use quality control procedures 
to assess motorcycle rider training courses and instructor training 
courses conducted in the State.
    For the Motorcyclists Awareness Program criterion, the NPRM 
proposed that a State develop a program by, or in coordination with, 
the designated State authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist 
safety issues; use State data to identify and prioritize the State's 
motorcycle safety problem areas; encourage collaboration among agencies 
and organizations responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety 
issues; and incorporate 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.
    The NPRM proposal for the Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes 
Involving Motorcyclists criterion required that a State experience at 
least a reduction of one in the number of motorcycle fatalities and at 
least a whole number reduction in the rate of motor vehicle crashes 
involving motorcyclists. The NPRM explained that this criterion would 
rely on final FARS data, State crash data and Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) motorcycle registration data to determine whether 
a State experienced the required reductions for the preceding calendar 
year as compared to the calendar year occurring immediately prior to 
the preceding calendar year.
    The agency's proposal for the fourth criterion, Impaired Driving 
Program, included requirements that a State have an impaired driving 
program that uses State data to identify and prioritize the State's 
impaired driving and impaired motorcycle operation problem areas and 
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 proposed that for the purposes of this criterion, 
``impaired'' would refer to alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired as 
defined by State law, provided that the State's legal alcohol-
impairment level does not exceed .08 BAC.
    For the Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired 
Motorcyclists criterion, the NPRM proposed that a State experience at 
least a reduction of one in the number of fatalities involving alcohol-
impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle operators

[[Page 40893]]

and at least a whole number reduction in the rate of reported crashes 
involving alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle operators. As 
with the Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcyclists 
criterion discussed above, the NPRM proposed that this criterion would 
rely on final FARS data, State crash data and FHWA motorcycle 
registration data to determine whether a State experienced the required 
reductions for the preceding calendar year as compared to the calendar 
year occurring immediately prior to the preceding calendar year.
    The NPRM proposed that for the sixth criterion, Use of Fees 
Collected From Motorcyclists for Motorcycle Programs, a State may 
qualify as a ``Law State'' or a ``Data State.'' NHTSA proposed 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. NHTSA proposed that a 
Data State would mean a State that does not have such a law or 
regulation but can provide data and/or documentation from official 
records 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.
    For each of the six eligibility criteria, the NPRM proposed various 
supporting submissions required for a State seeking to qualify.
    The proposal specified an application deadline of August 15 for 
fiscal year 2006 and August 1 for subsequent fiscal years. To afford 
the States additional time, consistent with the agency's need for 
review time, we have changed the due date for fiscal year 2006 from 
August 15 to August 18. Under the proposal, States would certify that 
they would conduct activities and use funds in accordance with the 
requirements of the section 2010 program and other applicable laws and 
that they would maintain 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 State or 
Federal fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
    Consistent with the procedures in other highway safety grant 
programs administered by NHTSA, the proposal provided that, within 30 
days after notification of award but in no event later than September 
12, States must submit an electronic HS Form 217 obligating the grant 
funds to the Motorcyclist Safety grant program. The NPRM also proposed 
that States identify their proposed use of grant funds in the Highway 
Safety Plans prepared under the section 402 program and detail program 
accomplishments in the Annual Report submitted under that program. The 
proposal explained that these documentation requirements would continue 
each fiscal year until all grant funds were expended.
    Because SAFETEA-LU did not specify a matching requirement for the 
section 2010 program, the NPRM explained that the Federal share of 
programs funded under section 2010 would be 100 percent.
    The NPRM proposed that States could qualify under certain criteria 
in second and subsequent years by certifying that the State has made no 
changes to the materials previously submitted to and approved by NHTSA. 
The final rule clarifies that a State may use a certification for 
qualification only if it has made no changes to the materials 
previously submitted to and approved for award by NHTSA. The NPRM 
provided a certification form applying to those criteria for the second 
and subsequent fiscal years as well as a general certification form 
that applies to all criteria each fiscal year. Based on the agency's 
experience with certification forms, particularly with respect to the 
new grant programs authorized by SAFETEA-LU, we included additional 
references to Appendix A in the regulatory text and provided clarifying 
instructions in Appendices A and B. The agency believes these additions 
will contribute to the ease of use.

V. Comments

    The agency received submissions from 34 commenters in response to 
the NPRM. Commenters included three State highway safety agencies (the 
Tennessee Department of Safety, the Utah Department of Public Safety, 
and the Nevada Office of Traffic Safety); a company that offers 
training in accident scene management (Accident Scene Management, 
Inc.); the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA); the Motorcycle 
Riders Foundation (MRF); and 28 individuals, some of whom identified 
themselves as motorists, riders or members of motorcycle rider 
organizations such as American Bikers Aimed Toward Education (ABATE) or 
BikePAC.

A. In General

    The agency received several positive comments in response to the 
NPRM. The Nevada Office of Traffic Safety commented that the proposal 
was acceptable as written. GHSA expressed general support for the NPRM. 
The MRF and one individual commented that the NPRM provides adequate 
flexibility to States and is consistent with the statutory language.
    A number of commenters raised issues that are not within the scope 
of the grant program or the rule. The agency received comments from 13 
individuals generally opposed to the use or intensity of daytime 
running lights (DRLs) on motor vehicles and/or motorcycles. One 
individual advocated the right of motorcyclists to have their 
motorcycles serviced at aftermarket shops rather than by motorcycle 
dealers. Another individual urged the agency to add as a criterion for 
the selection of grant recipients a requirement that the legislature 
enact mandatory and more severe penalties for motor vehicle drivers who 
cause the death of motorcyclists. Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU does not 
address any of these issues or authorize the agency to do so in this 
grant program. Consequently, we have made no changes to the rule in 
response to these comments.
    The remaining comments relate to administrative issues or 
particular grant criteria. The agency received at least one comment 
concerning five of the six eligibility criteria. Because we received no 
comments pertaining to the Use of Fees Collected From Motorcyclists for 
Motorcycle Programs criterion, the requirements for this criterion 
remain unchanged in the final rule. Comments related to the remaining 
five eligibility criteria and to certain administrative requirements 
States must meet to qualify for a section 2010 grant are addressed 
below, under the appropriate heading.

B. Comments Regarding Programmatic Criteria

1. Motorcycle Rider Training Courses
    The agency received several comments generally in favor of 
increased motorcycle rider education and training and we agree that 
increased and continuing rider education can be beneficial in ensuring 
the safety of motorcyclists.
    Two individuals commented that motorcyclists should receive 
insurance benefits as an incentive for completing training courses. 
Another individual commented that motorcycle education should include 
stress management and avoidance techniques. Accident Scene Management, 
Inc. and one individual asked NHTSA to ensure that a portion of the 
section 2010 grants funds be used to educate motorcyclists on first 
response or bystander assistance

[[Page 40894]]

training or to encourage first response or bystander assistance 
training as part of motorcycle safety training.
    Although NHTSA welcomes insurance incentives to encourage 
motorcycle rider training, matters of insurance are traditionally 
issues of State law and an insurance incentive requirement is not 
specified in the statute. Therefore, the agency believes an insurance 
incentive requirement is not appropriate for inclusion in the rule. As 
to the content of motorcycle rider training course curricula, the 
agency acknowledges that stress management and first response or 
bystander training may be valuable tools for motorcyclists. Nothing in 
the rule or the statutory language would preclude a State from pursuing 
the objectives recommended by the commenters. However, we believe the 
statutory language of section 2010 demonstrates that Congress intended 
to provide States with significant latitude in developing curricula. 
Accordingly, we decline to mandate these as requirements, and the final 
rule continues to provide States with discretion in developing their 
motorcycle rider training course curricula.
    While the agency does not believe that a mandate for first response 
or bystander assistance training is appropriate for inclusion in the 
rule, we understand the importance of bystander care and have developed 
the First Care, First There program to provide the public information 
and training to offer lifesaving bystander care at the scene of a 
motorcycle or motor vehicle crash, increasing the chance of survival 
for victims. Program materials include First There, First Care 
brochures, instructor preparation kits for medical professionals, and 
student booklet/emergency action card sets in English and Spanish. 
These materials may be ordered by States for use in their programs, 
without charge, directly from the NHTSA Web site at: https://nhtsa.gov/
people/outreach/media/catalog/Index.cfm.
    GHSA questioned the accuracy of FHWA motorcycle registration data 
under this criterion as well as the Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes 
Involving Motorcycles criterion and the Reduction of Fatalities and 
Accidents Involving Impaired Motorcyclists criterion. GHSA correctly 
noted that the NPRM proposed the use of FHWA motorcycle registration 
data for these latter two criteria to calculate reductions in 
fatalities and crashes, and this is discussed below under the heading 
for the criteria related to reductions in fatalities and crashes. 
However, the NPRM did not propose the use of FHWA motorcycle 
registration data for the Motorcycle Rider Training Courses criterion. 
Rather it proposed the use of official State motor vehicle records 
corresponding to counties or political subdivisions if a State seeks to 
qualify 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. The final rule 
retains the use of State motor vehicle records for this criterion, as 
FHWA motorcycle registration data is collected on a statewide basis and 
does not show motorcycle registrations by county or political 
subdivision.
    In the NPRM, the agency noted that about half of all motorcycle-
related fatalities occur in rural areas and stated that it is important 
that training is accessible to motorcyclists in rural areas. In section 
2010 of SAFETEA-LU, Congress recognized the importance of training in 
rural areas by specifying that an eligible use of funds includes 
improvements in program delivery of motorcycle training to both urban 
and rural areas. The NPRM encouraged States to establish training 
courses and course locations that are accessible to both rural and 
urban areas but stopped short of conditioning funding on the provision 
of training to rural areas.
    GHSA questioned NHTSA's advocacy of training in rural areas, 
stating that the high incidence of fatalities in rural areas does not 
necessarily equate with training needs in rural areas. According to 
GHSA, ``if a state has motorcycle training in counties that cover the 
majority of the state's population, there is little justification for 
providing additional training in the remaining rural counties.''
    The agency continues to believe it is important to make training 
available to rural motorcycle operators and encourages States to 
provide courses in both urban and rural areas. We believe that 
providing a State the option under this criterion either to offer 
training in a majority of its counties or political subdivisions or to 
offer training in counties or political subdivisions that account for a 
majority of the State's registered motorcycles strikes an acceptable 
balance between rural and urban training. However, because the NPRM did 
not mandate rural training, no changes are made in response to GHSA's 
comment. The agency trusts that States will select the proper option 
under this criterion to ensure that training is offered throughout the 
State.
2. Motorcyclists Awareness Program
    The agency received several comments from individuals generally in 
favor of increased motorist awareness of the presence of motorcycles 
and agrees that increased awareness is a key to ensuring the safety of 
motorcyclists. One individual commented that it is unfair to place more 
burden on motorcyclists than on motorists for education and prevention 
of motorcycle crashes. This individual and another individual 
recommended, as a more efficient use of money, that motorcycle 
awareness training be required for all driver license applicants. The 
requirements and conditions of driver licensing are properly a matter 
of State law. While the commenters' points may have merit, we decline 
to mandate a requirement in an area traditionally subject to State law.
    Four individuals suggested the use of section 2010 grant funds for 
awareness activities using specific communications mechanisms (e.g., 
television, radio, billboards, bumper stickers), and two of those 
individuals recommended particular awareness messages (``Look Twice, 
Save a Life'', ``Share the Road with Motorcyclists'', ``Let's Not Meet 
by Accident''). NHTSA agrees that using such communications mechanisms 
and awareness messages can be beneficial to a comprehensive awareness 
program. However, we do not believe it is appropriate to dictate 
communications mechanisms or awareness messages. A State should be free 
to tailor its communications mechanisms and awareness messages to 
particular needs in the State. Nothing in the statutory language or the 
final rule, however, precludes States from using section 2010 grants 
for the specific purposes suggested by these commenters.
    Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU requires that a State have ``an 
effective statewide program to enhance motorist awareness of the 
presence of motorcyclists.'' To effectuate this requirement, the NPRM 
proposed that a State use State data to identify and prioritize its 
motorcyclist awareness problem areas and that it have a communications 
plan 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). To demonstrate compliance with this 
portion of the criterion, the NPRM proposed that a State provide 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 and a copy of its strategic communications plan 
showing that it is designed to

[[Page 40895]]

educate motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of 
motorcycle crashes is highest.
    The Utah Department of Public Safety expressed overall support for 
the NPRM's proposal under this criterion but indicated that the 
proposed language (that the communications plan be designed to educate 
motorists in those jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle 
crashes is highest) ``seems to leave questions about interpretation.'' 
The Utah Department of Public Safety commented that the program would 
be ``well served'' if NHTSA incorporated ``dual level criteria'' to 
achieve a statewide program, including counties where a majority of 
motorcycles are registered and counties where the majority of the 
motorcycle crashes occurred. According to the Utah Department of Public 
Safety, in Utah and in many western States, population densities vary 
widely between counties. The Utah Department of Public Safety explained 
that, in Utah, six of the twenty-nine counties contain over 85 percent 
of the State's population.
    Given such high densities of population in a relatively few number 
of counties in some States, the agency agrees that it is beneficial to 
incorporate a motorcycle registration component into this criterion. 
Although not precisely clear from the comment, we interpret Utah's 
request to seek inclusion of this approach as an alternative option. We 
have changed the final rule to require that a State must have a 
motorcyclists awareness program that incorporates a strategic 
communications plan that is designed to educate motorists in those 
jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes is highest or 
in those jurisdictions that account for a majority of the State's 
registered motorcycles. To demonstrate compliance with this new option, 
a State must provide a list of counties or political subdivisions in 
the State and the corresponding number of registered motorcycles for 
each county or political subdivision according to official State motor 
vehicle records. Additionally, the State's strategic communications 
plan must show that it is designed to educate motorists in those 
jurisdictions that account for a majority of the State's registered 
motorcycles (i.e., the counties or political subdivisions that account 
for a majority of the State's registered motorcycles as evidenced by 
State motor vehicle records). Because FHWA motorcycle registration data 
is not specific to counties or political subdivisions, the final rule 
requires a State to use its own motor vehicle records under this 
option.
    In the NPRM, the agency proposed that a State use motorcycle crash 
data from the calendar year occurring immediately before the fiscal 
year of the grant application to identify and prioritize the State's 
motorcycle safety problem areas. For example, for fiscal year 2006, the 
NPRM would require a State to provide motorcycle crash data from 
calendar year 2005. The Utah Department of Public Safety expressed 
doubt about its ability to provide current data in a timely manner and 
instead recommended using the definition of ``preceding calendar year'' 
proposed for the two eligibility criteria pertaining to fatality and 
crash reductions.
    Congress limited its use of the term ``preceding calendar year'' to 
the two eligibility criteria pertaining to fatality and crash 
reductions. If a State chooses to apply using this option of the 
criterion, the agency prefers the most recent data and believes that 
many States will be able to provide data as proposed in the NPRM. 
However, because we recognize that some States may have difficulty, we 
have changed the rule to require a State to use and provide motorcycle 
crash data from the calendar year occurring immediately before the 
fiscal year of the grant application or, only if that data is not 
available, data from the calendar year occurring two years before the 
fiscal year of the grant application. That is, under this option, for 
fiscal year 2006, a State must use and provide motorcycle crash data 
from calendar year 2005 or, only if that data is not available, data 
from calendar year 2004. The final rule makes a conforming change for 
data required under the Impaired Driving Program criterion.
    GHSA raised a number of additional concerns regarding the NPRM 
proposal for the Motorcyclists Awareness Program criterion. Focusing an 
awareness campaign on the majority of counties or political 
subdivisions with the highest numbers of motorcycle crashes, according 
to GHSA, may not correlate with inadequate motorist awareness of 
motorcyclists. GHSA also commented that lack of awareness does not lend 
itself to deployment to specific locations, asserting that States 
conduct awareness campaigns on a statewide basis rather than by 
targeting specific locations. With respect to the former point, NHTSA 
believes this concern is addressed in the final rule by the 
incorporation of an option for a State's strategic communications plan 
to educate motorists in those jurisdictions that account for a majority 
of the State's registered motorcycles, as discussed above. As to the 
latter concern, the agency disagrees with this assertion, as States 
routinely target particular locations in their awareness campaigns. We 
decline to change the rule in response to this comment.
    GHSA expressed concern about the NPRM's proposal that a State use a 
variety of communications mechanisms. GHSA commented that States have 
limited resources and cannot engage in a communications campaign that 
rises to the level of campaigns for safety belts and impaired driving. 
GHSA indicated that States may have sufficient resources for some 
communications (e.g., brochures, flyers and posters), but not for 
billboards, newspaper ads, other paid media or computer-based training. 
Mindful that the funding for motorcyclists awareness programs is often 
limited, the NPRM did not specify which communications mechanisms a 
State must utilize as part of its motorcyclists awareness program, 
instead providing States with significant latitude to use 
communications mechanisms that best fit their needs and budget 
constraints. Based on NHTSA's experience with dispersing traffic safety 
messages, the agency believes that a variety of communications 
mechanisms can be most effective in a comprehensive awareness program. 
The final rule remains unchanged and continues to provide discretion to 
States regarding this issue.
    GHSA also commented that States are unlikely to develop a strategic 
communications plan for motorcyclist awareness alone, instead 
developing a broad communications plan that covers all priority highway 
safety programs, including motorcyclist awareness. GHSA stated that 
communications strategies that work with other highway safety issues 
may not be appropriate with respect to motorcyclist awareness. A ``more 
reasonable'' approach, according to GHSA, would require that a State 
develop a ``statewide educational program'' with its motorcycle safety 
agency and other agencies and organizations responsible for, or 
impacted by, motorcycle safety issues.
    As part of its communications program, the agency encourages States 
to develop a comprehensive communications plan to address its safety 
problems. This plan is intended to have communications efforts support 
State safety program activity on the ground. Consequently, the agency 
encourages and expects States to develop a comprehensive safety plan 
that includes a communications support program in lieu of individual 
countermeasure-specific communications plans. Accordingly, a 
motorcyclist safety awareness

[[Page 40896]]

communications component developed as part of a comprehensive State 
communications program is acceptable. Alternatively, a State may 
develop a stand-alone motorcycle safety strategic communications plan 
that describes how the communications will support State motorcycle 
safety countermeasure program initiatives. While the first approach is 
preferred and encouraged, either approach is adequate for grant 
eligibility. The rule includes language to clarify this issue.
    As to GHSA's suggestion that the agency instead require a 
``statewide educational program'' with collaboration among motorcycle 
safety agencies and organizations, the agency continues to believe that 
an awareness program is an educational program, and the statutory 
language of section 2010 requires a State to conduct its awareness 
program statewide. The final rule adopts the NPRM language and requires 
that States collaborate with agencies and organizations responsible 
for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety issues.
3. Reduction of Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles and 
Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired Motorcyclists
    The MRF questioned the use of certain data for the Reduction of 
Fatalities and Crashes Involving Motorcycles criterion and the 
Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired Motorcyclists 
criterion. The MRF recommended the use of State crash data, rather than 
what the MRF understood to be ``FHWA FARS'' data for motorcycle 
crashes. The MRF explained that it has notified both NHTSA and FHWA 
that the FARS motorcycle crash data is flawed. NHTSA is aware of 
concerns the MRF has raised previously about FHWA data but not about 
FARS data (FARS data is compiled by NHTSA, not by FHWA). The agency 
understands those concerns to be related to FHWA vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT) data, not motorcycle registration data. The NPRM did not propose 
using FHWA VMT data. We retain the use of FHWA motorcycle registration 
data in the final rule, as the agency continues to believe the FHWA 
motorcycle registration database contains reliable motorcycle 
registration data compiled annually in a single source for all 50 
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
    To the extent that the MRF intended to express concern regarding 
the use of FARS data, the agency notes that FARS is one of the premier 
reporting systems in the world for fatal crash data and is used by 
researchers worldwide. As indicated in the NPRM, 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 comprehensive, quality-controlled 
fatality data. Accordingly, we preserve the use of FARS data in the 
rule. The final rule retains the NPRM proposal to use State crash data 
provided by the State to determine the number of motor vehicle crashes 
involving motorcycles and the number of reported crashes involving 
alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired motorcycle operators for the 
respective criteria.
    GHSA also raised concerns about the use of FHWA data for these 
criteria and recommended that NHTSA use the FHWA motorcycle 
registration data on a short term basis only until NHTSA develops a 
better database. In doing so, GHSA cited a report from the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) questioning the adequacy of FHWA 
motor vehicle registration data, and asked whether the same concerns 
could be raised about FHWA motorcycle registration data. The IIHS 
report GHSA cites refers to FHWA licensed drivers data, not to 
registration data. NHTSA has no plans to develop an alternative 
motorcycle registration database. For the reasons stated above, the 
final rule retains the use of FHWA data for these criteria.
4. Impaired Driving Program
    The agency received no comments specific to the Impaired Driving 
Program criterion. However, two individuals commented generally in 
favor of focusing additional attention and funds on reducing impaired 
driving. Another individual commented that grant funds should be used 
for placing alcohol impairment awareness messages such as ``Ride 
Straight, Drive Straight'' on billboards near establishments serving 
alcohol. Nothing in the final rule would preclude a State from using 
section 2010 grant funds in that manner, provided those efforts are 
part of the State's motorcyclist safety training and motorcyclist 
awareness programs. The rule provides States broad discretion to 
determine how best to use the section 2010 grant funds for their 
motorcyclist safety training and awareness programs.
    To demonstrate compliance with this criterion and with the 
Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents Involving Impaired Motorcyclists 
criterion, the NPRM proposed that a State would provide a copy of its 
law or regulation defining impairment, and ``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. The 
agency received no comments related to this proposal. However, to 
reduce burdens on States submitting applications under these criteria, 
the agency will accept either a copy of a State's law or regulation 
defining impairment or the legal citation(s) to the State's law or 
regulation defining impairment. A State seeking to apply under the 
Impaired Driving Program or Reduction of Fatalities and Accidents 
Involving Impaired Motorcyclists criteria should note that if its legal 
alcohol-impairment level exceeds .08 BAC, it is not eligible to receive 
a grant under these criteria. The agency made changes in the rule to 
clarify this point and to permit a State to provide the legal 
citation(s) to the State's law or regulation defining impairment or a 
copy of its law or regulation defining impairment.

C. Comments Regarding Administrative Issues

    Section 2010 specifies that a State receiving grant funds under 
this program 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. The Utah Department of Public Safety 
stated that this language may lead a State to believe that expenditures 
for programs funded with other NHTSA funds must be maintained and 
requested that NHTSA specify that the maintenance of effort provision 
applies only to ``non-NHTSA sources'' of funds. We decline to do so. By 
its terms, the maintenance of effort provision applies to all sources 
of funds for motorcyclist safety training programs and motorcyclist 
awareness programs, including NHTSA funds. If Congress had intended 
otherwise, it would have so specified in the statutory language.
    Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU requires NHTSA to make grants to States 
but includes a provision permitting a State receiving a grant under 
this program to suballocate funds to a non-profit organization 
incorporated in the State to carry out grant activities under the 
program. The MRF expressed support for the

[[Page 40897]]

suballocation of grant funds to non-profit organizations. One 
individual commented that grant money should be offered to Motorcycle 
Rights Organizations (MROs) to help offset the costs to the MROs for 
their established motorcyclist awareness programs. The suballocation 
provision allows a State to suballocate grant funds to an MRO under the 
grant program, provided it is a nonprofit organization incorporated in 
that State.
    The Tennessee Department of Public Safety commented that a grant 
under this program ``will be much easier * * * for state organizations 
to administer and operate if it is a `flow Thru' type grant'' rather 
than a grant requiring contracts. The Tennessee Department of Public 
Safety asserted that ``flow thru'' grants facilitate faster set up and 
implementation, whereas contract bidding is time consuming. The agency 
interprets this comment as a request that grant funds be awarded 
directly to non-profit organizations to carry out grant activities, 
eliminating the need for States to suballocate funds. SAFETEA-LU 
specifies that grants are to be made to States, and the agency has no 
discretion to deviate from this provision. The suballocation provision 
provides flexibility to the States, should they choose to make use of 
it.
    One individual commented that grant money should be used for entry-
level training motorcycles designed for beginners. Consistent with the 
statutory language, the NPRM provided discretion to States to determine 
how best to use the section 2010 grant funds for their motorcyclist 
safety training programs. In particular, the statutory language 
specifies the procurement or repair of practice motorcycles as an 
eligible use of funds. The agency believes Congress intended that 
States purchase or repair motorcycles as determined by a State's 
training needs. The final rule does not include a requirement that 
States may purchase motorcycles only of a particular size. (However, 
purchases must comply with applicable Office of Management and Budget 
cost principles--OMB Circular A-87 if a State makes a purchase and OMB 
Circular A-122 if a non-profit organization receiving a suballocation 
makes a purchase).

VI. Statutory Basis for This Action

    This final rule implements 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 rule was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
    The rule 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 rule does not affect amounts over the significance threshold of 
$100 million each year. The rule 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 this rule are 
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 rule does 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 rule does not create an inconsistency 
or interfere with any actions taken or planned by other agencies. The 
rule does not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof. Finally, the rule 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 
this rule is not economically significant. The impacts of the rule are 
minimal and 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 
that the rule will 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 will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rule 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 
rule will 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

[[Page 40898]]

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 rule in accordance with the principles 
and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that 
the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to 
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation 
of a federalism summary impact statement. Moreover, the final rule will 
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)

    This final rule does not have any preemptive or 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

    There are reporting requirements contained in the final rule that 
are considered to be information collection requirements, as that term 
is defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part 
1320. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.), the agency is submitting these requirements to OMB for approval.

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 final rule does not 
meet the definition of a Federal mandate because the resulting annual 
State expenditures will not exceed the $100 million threshold and 
because there is no Federal mandate. This program is voluntary and 
States that choose to apply and qualify will receive grant funds.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has reviewed this rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that this final 
rule will 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 final rule under Executive Order 
13175, and has determined that this rule will not have a substantial 
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, will not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will 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.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, the agency amends 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 which a State Previously Received a Grant Award
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 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.
    Motorcyclist safety training or Motorcycle rider training means a 
formal program of instruction that is

[[Page 40899]]

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 a motorcycle advisory council 
appointed by the Governor of the State.
    Preceding calendar year means the calendar year that precedes the 
beginning of the fiscal year of the grant by one year. (For example, 
for grant applications in fiscal year 2006, which began in October 
2005, the preceding calendar year is the 2004 calendar year and final 
FARS data, State crash data and FHWA motorcycle registration data from 
the ``preceding calendar year'' would, therefore, be such data from 
calendar year 2004.)
    State means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.


Sec.  1350.4  Qualification requirements.

    To qualify for a grant under this part, a State must meet, in the 
first fiscal year it receives a grant, at least one, and in the second 
and subsequent fiscal years it receives a grant, at least two, of the 
following grant criteria:
    (a) Motorcycle rider training course. To satisfy this criterion, a 
State must 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, subject to the following requirements:
    (1) The State must, at a minimum:
    (i) Use a training curriculum that:
    (A) Is approved by the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;
    (B) 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
    (C) May include innovative training opportunities to meet unique 
regional needs;
    (ii) Offer at least one motorcycle rider training course either--
    (A) In a majority of the State's counties or political 
subdivisions; or
    (B) In counties or political subdivisions that account for a 
majority of the State's registered motorcycles;
    (iii) Use 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
    (iv) Use quality control procedures to assess motorcycle rider 
training courses and instructor training courses conducted in the 
State.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion in the first 
fiscal year it seeks to qualify, a State must submit:
    (i) A copy of the official State document (e.g., law, regulation, 
binding policy directive, letter from the Governor) identifying the 
designated State authority over motorcyclist safety issues;
    (ii) 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;
    (iii)(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;
    (iv) 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
    (v) A brief description of the quality control procedures to assess 
motorcycle rider training courses and instructor training courses used 
in the State (e.g., conducting site visits, gathering student feedback) 
and the actions taken to improve the courses based on the information 
collected.
    (3) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion in the second and 
subsequent fiscal years it seeks to qualify, a State must submit:
    (i) If there have been changes to materials previously submitted to 
and approved for award by NHTSA under this criterion, information 
documenting any changes; or
    (ii) If there have been no changes to materials previously 
submitted to and approved for award by NHTSA under this criterion, 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 (See Appendix A of this part).
    (b) Motorcyclists awareness program. To satisfy this criterion, a 
State must 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, subject to the 
following requirements:
    (1) The motorcyclists awareness program must, at a minimum:
    (i) Be developed by, or in coordination with, the designated State 
authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;
    (ii) Use State data to identify and to prioritize the State's 
motorcyclists awareness problem areas;
    (iii) Encourage collaboration among agencies and organizations 
responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety issues; and
    (iv) Incorporate a strategic communications plan that--
    (A) Supports the State's overall safety policy and countermeasure 
program;
    (B) Is designed, at a minimum, to educate motorists in those 
jurisdictions where the incidence of motorcycle crashes is highest or 
in those jurisdictions that account for a majority of the State's 
registered motorcycles;
    (C) Includes marketing and educational efforts to enhance 
motorcyclist awareness; and
    (D) Uses a mix of communication mechanisms to draw attention to the 
problem.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance with this criterion in the first 
fiscal year it seeks to qualify, a State must submit:
    (i) A copy of the State document identifying the designated State 
authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;
    (ii) A letter from the Governor's Highway Safety Representative 
stating that the State's motorcyclists awareness program was developed 
by or in coordination with the designated State authority having 
jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety issues;

[[Page 40900]]

    (iii) Data used to identify and prioritize the State's motorcycle 
safety problem areas, including--
    (A) If the State seeks to qualify under this criterion by showing 
that it identifies and prioritizes the State's motorcycle safety 
problem areas based on motorcycle crashes, 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 must be from the calendar year occurring immediately before 
the fiscal year of the grant application or, only if that data is not 
available, data from the calendar year occurring two years before the 
fiscal year of the grant application (e.g., for a fiscal year 2006 
grant, a State must provide data from calendar year 2005, if such data 
is available, or data from ca