Reclassification of Motorcycles (Two and Three Wheeled Vehicles) in the Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics, 23854-23859 [2011-10258]
Download as PDF
23854
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Notices
average daily gross ton-miles (GTM);
average container lifts per day (TEUs);
containers transported on lines (TEUs);
transit passenger miles and hours of
travel; transit passenger & nonpassenger counts; transit rider
characteristics; average bike and or
pedestrian users at key locations;
average daily traffic (ADT) and average
daily truck traffic (ADTT); average daily
total train delay (minutes); average daily
total (all vehicles) vehicle delay at
crossings; transit service level; facility
service level; average hourly (or peak &
off-peak) vehicle travel time; average
hourly (or peak & off-peak) buffer index;
annual crash rates by type/severity;
average slow order miles and average
daily delay minutes due to slow orders;
bridge condition (Sufficiency Rating);
road closure/lost capacity time (lanehours).
3. [For final Report] Project
Outcomes.—Detailing Project successes
and/or the influence of external factors
on Project expectations. Including an ex
post examination of project
effectiveness in relation to the Preproject Report baselines.
A 60-day Federal Register notice was
published on February 15, 2011 (76 FR
8804). Since the publication of the 60day Federal Register notice, no
comments were received to the Docket
(DOT–OST–2011–0019) and therefore
no review of comments was required, so
none was performed by the Department.
The Department’s estimated burden
for this information collection is the
following:
Expected Number of Respondents:
126.
Frequency: Quarterly, and yearly.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 8 hours for each Quarterly
Progress and Monitoring Report; 8 hours
for each Annual Budget Review; 8 hours
for each Quarterly Performance
Measurement Report.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
9,072 hours.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended;
and 49 CFR 148.
Issued in Washington, DC on April 22,
2011.
Claire W. Barrett,
Chief Information Management and Privacy
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–10184 Filed 4–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Apr 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To
Release Airport Property at the Dubois
Regional Airport, Reynoldsville, PA
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) DOT.
ACTION: Notice of request to release
airport property.
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to rule and
invite public comment on the release of
land at the Dubois Regional Airport,
Reynoldsville, Pennsylvania under the
provisions of Section 47125(a) of Title
49 United States Code (U.S.C.).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this
application may be mailed or delivered
to the following address: Robert W.
Shaffer, Manager, Dubois Regional
Airport, 377 Aviation Way,
Reynoldsville, PA 15851; and at the
FAA Harrisburg Airports District Office:
Lori K. Pagnanelli, Manager, Harrisburg
Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale
Dr., Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori
Ledebohm, Community Planner,
Harrisburg Airports District Office
location listed above.
The request to release property may
be reviewed in person at this same
location.
SUMMARY:
The FAA
invites public comment on the request
to release property at the Dubois
Regional Airport under the provisions of
Section 47125(a) of Title 49 U.S.C. On
April 20, 2011, the FAA determined that
the request to release property at the
Dubois Regional Airport (DUJ),
Pennsylvania submitted by the
Clearfield-Jefferson Counties Regional
Airport Authority (Authority) met the
procedural requirements.
The following is a brief overview of
the request:
The Authority requests the release of
real property totaling 5.01 acres, of nonaeronautical airport property to AVERA
Companies of Houston, TX. The land
was originally purchased with Federal
funds in 1988, AIP Grant 3–42–0023–
05–88. The undeveloped property is
located on the southeast corner within
the Air Commerce Park, which is
directly north of the main DuBois
Regional Airport parking lot. AVERA
Companies is proposing to develop the
property and erect a building. The
subject land does not serve an
aeronautical purpose and is not needed
for airport development, as shown on
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Airport Layout Plan. All proceeds
from the sale of property are to be used
for the capital development of the
airport. Fair Market Value (FMV) will be
obtained from the land sale and
reinvested back into an AIP eligible
project at the airport.
Any person may inspect the request
by appointment at the FAA office
address listed above. Interested persons
are invited to comment on the proposed
release from obligations. All comments
will be considered by the FAA to the
extent practicable.
Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, on
April 20, 2011.
Lori K. Pagnanelli,
Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2011–10236 Filed 4–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2010–0010]
Reclassification of Motorcycles (Two
and Three Wheeled Vehicles) in the
Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final Notice.
AGENCY:
This Notice announces the
revision to FHWA’s guidance regarding
State reporting of motorcycle
registration information disseminated to
the public in FHWA’s annual
publication Guide to Reporting Highway
Statistics. The intent of this action is to
improve FHWA’s motorcycle
registration data to assist in the analysis
of crash data relating to these vehicles.
Thus, it is critical that the motorcycle
registration data collected and
published by FHWA is accurate,
comprehensive, and timely. The
FHWA’s Guide to Reporting Highway
Statistics (Guide) is the document that
FHWA uses to instruct States about
what data is required by FHWA to
perform its mission of informing
Congress, the highway community, and
the general public on a wide variety of
highway extent, condition, use, and
performance measures.
DATES: Effective Date: 90 days after date
of publication in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ralph Erickson, Highway Funding and
Motor Fuels Team Leader, Office of
Policy, HPPI–10, (202) 366–9235, or
Adam Sleeter, Office of the Chief
Counsel, (202) 366–8839, Federal
Highway Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Notices
20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
An electronic copy of this document,
the original notice, and comments
received may be downloaded from the
Office of the Federal Register’s home
page at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/
index.html and the Government Printing
Office’s Web page at: https://
www.gpoaccess.gov.
Background
The information collected in
accordance with the Guide 1 is
authorized under 23 U.S.C. 315, which
authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to prescribe and
promulgate rules and regulations to
carry out the requirements of Title 23 of
the United States Code. Under 23 CFR
1.5, FHWA has the ability to request
data that is used to relate highway
system performance to investment
under FHWA’s strategic planning and
performance reporting process in
accordance with the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results
Act.2 Additionally, 23 CFR 420.105(b)
requires States to provide data that
support FHWA’s responsibilities to the
Congress and the public. The Guide has
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the control
number 2125–0032.
The FHWA’s current definition of a
motorcycle is two-fold: (1) Motorcycles,
and (2) motor bicycles and scooters. The
specific language for defining
motorcycles, provided in FHWA’s
Guide, follows:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Item I.E.2. Motorcycles: This item includes
two-wheeled and three-wheeled
motorcycles. Sidecars are not regarded as
separate vehicles—a motorcycle and
sidecar are reported as a single unit.
Item I.E.3. Motor bicycles and scooters:
Mopeds should be included with motordriven cycles (motor bicycles) in the
States that require their registration.
States annually report data to FHWA
from their motor vehicle registration
systems. As a result, such data is based
on the definitions developed by States
which may or may not approximate
FHWA’s definition of motorcycles,
motor bicycles, scooters or personalized
conveyances.
The FHWA researched State
legislation (including the District of
Columbia, but not Puerto Rico) for
1 Guide, Chapter 3, Report Identifying MotorVehicle Registrations and Taxation, page 3–2.
2 Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (GPRA), Sec. 3 and 4, Public Law 103–62.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Apr 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
definitions of motorcycles and similar
vehicles. We found several
characteristics that specifically
differentiated motorcycle-type vehicles
from other vehicle types. Several States
further defined the difference between
motorcycles and mopeds, or in a few
States, motor scooters. The
characteristics for defining motorcycles
included vehicles: With two to three
wheels in contact with the ground (48
States), with a seat or saddle for the
passenger(s) (36 States), with a sidecar
or trailer (4 States), and with a steering
handlebar (2 States). Additionally, one
State defined motorcycles as having no
enclosure on the vehicle for the operator
(driver) or passenger.
The following characteristics were
used by some States to define the
difference between motorcycles,
mopeds, and in a few cases, motor
scooters: Speeds not in excess of 25 to
45 miles per hour (MPH) (3 States
mention 25 MPH, 13 mention 30 MPH,
1 State each mentions 35 or 45 MPH);
engine displacement of not greater than
50 to 150 cubic centimeters (cc) (21
States mention 50 cc, 1 State mentions
55 cc, and 1 State mentions 150 cc).
Some States used brake horsepower
(HP) instead of, or in addition to,
displacement to identify vehicle power
(4 States mention 1.5 HP, 12 mention
2.0 HP, 1 State mentions 2.7 HP, and 1
State mentions 5 HP). Wheel diameter
for differentiating motorcycles and
mopeds from motor scooters is
mentioned by 5 States (2 States mention
wheel diameter greater than 10 inches,
1 State mentions wheel diameter greater
than 14 inches, and 2 States mention
wheel diameter greater than 16 inches);
and 4 States mentioned a platform or
deck for a standing driver as a
characteristic of a motor scooter.
History
The FHWA has collected motorcycle
registration data since 1914. This data
reveals that in the last few years the
population of motorcycles and related
vehicle types has risen dramatically. In
turn, the crash data for motorcycles has
shown dramatic increase due to many
factors including, but not limited to,
rider experience, rider impairment,
decreased use of helmets, and increased
exposure. Exposure is a statistical term
of reference that indicates increasing
performance of a given activity yields an
increase in the chance that some related
event will occur, in this case crashes
related to motorcycle riding activity will
occur.
Data from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration’s
(NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23855
System (FARS) 3 indicated in 2009,
motorcycle rider fatalities decreased for
the first time after 11 consecutive years
of increases: From 2,116 in 1997 to
5,312 in 2008, and then down to 4,462
in 2009. Other trends include a dramatic
rise in motorcycle ownership and
changes in other factors such as
motorcycle size and new designs for
these vehicles. However, this increase in
fatality data is disproportionate to
reported increases in motorcycle
registration and in reported miles
traveled. Due to this disconnect, safety
advocates have encouraged improving
the data collection process in order to
better analyze and identify rider
exposure and crash causality.
On October 3, 2007, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
sent a letter to FHWA containing an
NSTB Safety Recommendation H–07–
34, which states:
Following the 2007 Motorcycle Travel
Symposium, develop guidelines for the states
to use to gather accurate motorcycle
registrations and motorcycle vehicle miles
traveled data. The guidelines should include
information on the various methods to collect
registrations and vehicle miles traveled data
and how these methods can be put into
practice.
The FHWA is committed to improving
both sets of data identified in the NTSB
safety recommendation. This final
notice addresses the NTSB
recommendation to gather more
accurate motorcycle registration data.
To achieve this goal, FHWA established
an interagency review team consisting
of experts from FHWA’s Offices of
Safety and Research, and various
NHTSA offices, to assist in the
following activities:
1. Review State laws to determine the
State of practice for motorcycle
registrations by documenting State laws
and practices;
2. Improve the definition of
motorcycles in the Guide to Reporting
Highway Statistics;
3. Develop guidelines for the States to
use to gather and report more accurate
motorcycle registration data;
4. Include information on the various
methods to collect and report
registrations in the guidelines; and
5. Initiate actions to bring the best
methods in wider practice.
The FHWA is seeking to provide
better registration data for other
agencies and the general public to
analyze motorcycle crash data. For
FHWA, the issue is two-fold: FHWA
must provide the States complete and
comprehensive instructions on the data
3 FARS data can be viewed at: https://wwwfars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
23856
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Notices
The Model Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria (MMUCC) 5 defines a
motorcycle as a two- or three-wheeled
motor vehicle designed to transport one
or two people. Included are motor
scooters, mini-bikes, and mopeds.
The FARS and National Automotive
Sampling System (NASS) General
Estimates System (GES) follows the
ANSI D 16.1 definition. The FARS and
GES data are used in traffic safety
analyses by NHTSA as well as other
public and private entities. The
information is used to estimate how
many motor vehicle crashes of different
kinds take place, and is also used in the
analyses by researchers and highway
safety professionals in order to
determine the factors involved in the
crashes.
Reference Material
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
FHWA needs to collect to perform its
responsibilities, and FHWA must work
with the States to assure that they are
providing accurate data to the extent
that they can in accordance with FHWA
instructions. A corollary to both issues
is that FHWA’s instructions should
allow the States to provide the data that
they actually collect and not to demand
data that they do not already gather.
The FHWA will refine its definition of
motorcycles and related two- and threewheeled vehicles to better differentiate
motorcycles, mopeds and motor
scooters. This document was
coordinated with NHTSA. As indicated
above, this document addresses State
reporting of motorcycle registration
information. It should be understood
that the definitions used for reporting
purposes do not comport in all
particulars with the definitions used by
NHTSA. For example, NHTSA has
specific definitions for ‘‘motorcycle’’ and
‘‘motor driven cycle’’ as part of the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(FMVSSs) (see 49 CFR 571.3). The issue
of whether a product is considered a
motorcycle for purposes of the FMVSSs
is dependent on NHTSA’s regulations
and the statutes administered by
NHTSA. Any questions about
motorcycles in the context of NHTSA’s
regulations or programs should be
directed to NHTSA.
The Guide to Reporting Highway
Statistics is FHWA’s guidance to the
States for reporting a variety of data
items, including two categories of
motorcycles: Motorcycles and motorized
bicycles.
The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) D 16.1 4 defines a
motorcycle as any motor vehicle having
a seat or saddle for the use of its
operator and designed to travel on not
more than three wheels in contact with
the ground. This includes large
motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, speed
limited motor-driven cycles, mopeds,
motor scooters, and motorized or motor
assisted bicycles.
The definitions of motorcycle type
vehicles found in 49 CFR 571.3 state
that:
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.
Motor-driven cycle means a
motorcycle with a motor that produces
5-brake horsepower or less.
Concerns About Varied Motorcycle
Definitions
The American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators, (AAMVA),
listed a number of vehicle
characteristics for which there are
discrepancies among States’ motorcycle
definitions. Some States require a
motorcycle to have a seat that the rider
straddles, while others do not. Some
State laws allow a steering wheel. Other
States do not specify, meaning they do
not restrict registration to vehicles with
handlebars. Many States do not include
a requirement for wheel rim diameters
exceeding 10 inches. Many States do not
disqualify vehicles with a full enclosure
for rider or passenger. Most States do
not regard sidecars as separate vehicles,
although most States would consider a
trailer a separate vehicle and may
require a separate registration. In terms
of mopeds, the same difficulties exist
regarding the characteristics of a seat,
saddle, and steering handle as those
noted for motorcycles. The AAMVA
also noted that some States do not
require mopeds to have pedals, and that
many do not have a brake horsepower
requirement in their definition.
4 American National Standards Institute, https://
webstore.ansi.org.
5 Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria:
https://www.mmucc.us/.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Apr 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
Discussion of Comments
The comment period opened on
March 23, 2010, and closed on June 24,
2010. Ninety-six comments were
received.
Commenters on the notice fell into
several categories: An organization
representing States and State
registration administrators, individual
States, a major private manufacturer,
individuals representing motorcycle
‘‘clubs,’’ and many individuals.
Commenters addressed a range of
subjects.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A number of commenters discussed
problems that may arise due to the
different State laws and regulations
classifying motorcycles and other
similar vehicles. Some of these
commenters expressed concerns about
vehicles that would not fit any of
FHWA’s proposed definitions and
therefore would be left without a means
for certification for road and highway
use. Enclosed and three-wheeled
vehicles are of primary concern, because
some States do not classify them as
motorcycles. Therefore, if the new
definitions exclude them from the
definition of motorcycle, States will
need to create new regulations to certify
these types of vehicles for driving.
Additionally, a commenter from Oregon
stated that a handlebar requirement for
motorcycles would leave certain
vehicles in Oregon without a
classification for registration. Some
commenters also addressed the need to
keep these smaller fuel-efficient
vehicles on the road, both for energy
conservation reasons and to allow
individuals with disabilities or older
individuals an option for driving similar
to the experience of motorcycling.
Some commenters noted that new
definitions are necessary due to the
proliferation of new vehicle types and
the unintended consequences of
misclassification. Harley Davidson
Motor Company (HDMC) stated that the
need to revise the regulations is timely
as many new motorcycle-type vehicles
are reaching the market and traditional
definitions do not address these newer
vehicles. One commenter stated that
new regulations are needed because
classifying mopeds and scooters as
motorcycles leads to increased theft
because it may require that these lighter
weight vehicles be parked on the street.
The FHWA’s intent is to provide
guidance in the form of suggested
categories to address the proliferation of
motorcycle vehicle types for data
collection and analysis purposes. The
FHWA recognizes the wide variation of
vehicles that are primarily described as
motorcycles, and does not want to
impose rigid definitions. Rather, FHWA
is organizing a set of definitions more
specific than the existing, general
descriptions of motorcycles to improve
State data reporting.
Reporting and Registration Concerns:
New Classifications
States expressed concerns about the
administrative, logistical and financial
burdens of providing information based
on the updated guidance. The Florida
Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles, (FDHSMV) referred to
Bill 971, which was recently passed by
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
the Florida legislature and includes a
definition for three-wheeled vehicles.
The FDHSMV suggested adding a
category for three-wheeled vehicles to
accommodate the Florida classification.
A commenter stated that Oregon
currently registers mopeds, but not
motor scooters or motor-assisted
bicycles and that legislation would be
required to change this. The Washington
Department of Licensing (WDOL) only
records and reports registrations for two
classifications: Motorcycles and
mopeds. The Washington State
Department of Transportation does not
have a means to determine which
mopeds would be categorized as cycles
or scooters under FHWA’s new
categories. Accordingly, the WDOL
estimated that the cost of updating their
computers to process the information
included in the new guidance would be
over $620,000 in the first year. The
WDOL also pointed out that unless
FHWA requires manufacturers to report
the new information required for
categorization on the Manufacturer’s
Statement of Origin or the
Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin,
there is no mechanism for WDOL to
collect the data.
The FHWA recognizes that some
States may incur significant costs if they
choose to adopt the new definitions
provided in FHWA’s guidance.
However, this guidance is not
mandatory, therefore, States may avoid
incurring any costs by continuing to
collect and provide motorcycle data
according to their own existing
legislative guidelines. If a State
determines that the costs outweigh the
benefits of adopting the new definitions,
then the State may continue to provide
motorcycle data according to their own
existing definitions.
Reporting Concerns: Vehicle
Identification Numbers (VINs)
The Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, (IIHS), supports the use of VINs
for reporting vehicle information. The
IIHS has grouped street legal
motorcycles into 10 different classes:
Scooter, cruiser, chopper, touring, dual
purpose, standard, sport touring, unclad
sport, sport, and super sports. These
classifications consider design
characteristics such as intended use,
riding position, engine power, passenger
comfort, and cost. Statistical analyses
performed on this data by IIHS and the
Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), an
affiliate of IIHS, which was derived
from VINs, revealed substantial
differences in accident data of these
vehicle classifications. The IIHS stated
that using VINs will create the
opportunity for more sophisticated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Apr 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
classification of motorcycle types than
the limited categories in the Guide.
Therefore, using VINs will increase
FHWA’s ability to assess the safety risks
of new types of vehicles as they are used
and enter the market. Additionally, IIHS
stated that VIN information may be
easier for many States to provide than
vehicle classification.
The FHWA agrees that studies done
by both the HLDI and the IIHS establish
the important conclusion that
motorcycle classifications reveal
differing accident characteristics. The
HLDI has offered to license the software
or provide the service to FHWA free of
charge. The FHWA appreciates this
offer, and may pursue this cooperative
research outside the scope of this notice.
The FDHSMV commented that
collecting VIN information would put a
substantial burden on the States.
Additionally, AAMVA, and the
FDHSMV, questioned the value of
reporting VIN information, stating that
VINs for motorcycles are far less
standardized than VINs for cars and
trucks.
Commenters also cited privacy
concerns associated with collecting
VINs and possible violations of the
Drivers Privacy Protection Act.
The FHWA concurs with the view
that collecting VINs from the States
would incur significant costs to the
States and FHWA and the benefits of
this approach are not worth the cost of
collection. By not collecting VINs,
FHWA will avoid potential privacy
concerns raised in the comments.
Safety Issues
Some comments addressed safety
issues. Some stated that the lack of
safety features such as airbags and
sidecars is a necessary requirement for
motorcycles, because simple twowheeled vehicles do not require the
additional complexity of safety features.
Additionally, some commenters felt that
seatbelts or other restraints should not
be included in the definition of a
motorcycle, because in the event of a
crash on that type of vehicle the
operator and the vehicle should part
ways for safety reasons. One commenter
suggested that helmets should not be
required for enclosed three-wheeled
vehicles that pass safety tests.
An individual representing the
American Automobile Association
stated that the skill set for driving a
three-wheeled vehicle is different from
the skill set required for driving a
motorcycle. Therefore, any attempt to
make two- and three-wheeled vehicle
definitions all-inclusive for the new
generation of three-wheeled vehicles
potentially endangers the public.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23857
One commenter suggested that a
distinction should be made between onroad and off-road vehicles, because offroad vehicles may have features that
make them more dangerous in the event
of an accident, such as being low to the
ground. Additionally, according to this
commenter, operators of off-road
vehicles may be more inclined to ignore
the rules of the road than operators of
on-road vehicles.
These comments are outside the scope
of this notice, as FHWA is not
considering safety features or handling
characteristics as descriptors in the
definition of motorcycle types. State
registrations and FHWA characteristics
are based on the physical appearance of
the vehicles.
International Classification System
The HDMC advocates synchronizing
FHWA vehicle classes with classes used
internationally, specifically with the
United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe’s classification scheme. The
FHWA researched the suggested United
Nations Economic Commission for
Europe standards and concludes that
they suffer from the same lack of detail
that makes FHWA’s current definitions
insufficient.
Request for a Committee
The American Motorcyclist
Association requested that FHWA create
a Motorcycle Definition Committee with
representatives from FHWA and State
departments of transportation to
overhaul the current definition(s) of
motorcycles and similar vehicles. The
FHWA believes the request for
comments on this notice was sufficient
notification and that comments to the
docket are sufficient for FHWA to
understand the issues involved.
Enclosed Vehicles
The AAMVA stated that States are
currently struggling with how to register
enclosed two- and three-wheel vehicles,
as well as how best to test the drivers
on their ability to drive those vehicles.
AAMVA is working to create a group to
consider these issues, though some
States would already consider enclosed
vehicles to be motorcycles because they
have no specific definition or
requirements related to whether the
vehicle is enclosed or not. The AAMVA
noted that most States would currently
consider three-wheeled vehicles that are
small, lightweight, and not enclosed
motorcycles for registration purposes.
These States most likely could not
distinguish them from other
motorcycles for purposes of reporting to
FHWA. The FHWA agrees and has
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
23858
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Notices
decided to incorporate a separate
category to capture these vehicles.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Steering Mechanisms
The HDMC notes that while steering
handlebars are traditional for
motorcycles, the newer categories of
motorcycles may have other steering
mechanisms, and they recommend that
FHWA remove handlebars as a
motorcycle-defining characteristic. An
individual representing the ABATE (A
Brotherhood Against Totalitarian
Enactments) organization of Maryland
recommended that the definition of
motorcycle require handlebars.
Additionally, a commenter from Oregon
stated that requiring handlebars for
motorcycles would leave certain
vehicles in Oregon without a
classification for registration. The
FHWA concurs with HDMC and will
remove the handlebar characteristic
from the motorcycle classification.
Opinions on Motorcycle Definitions
Generally
There were a number of comments by
individuals representing organizations
expressing their opinions on the
definition of a motorcycle. The Vice–
Chair of Oregon Governors’ Advisory
Commission on Motorcycle Safety
stated that a traditional motorcycle is a
single–track vehicle that is directed by
a combination of counter-steering and
leaning, primarily the former, and a
three wheel vehicle requires neither. An
individual representing the Minnesota
Motorcycle Safety Advisory Committee
defined a motorcycle as a vehicle
powered entirely by a motor with two
or three wheels, handlebars and without
a roof. These two comments are
addressed in FHWA’s motorcycle
definition.
An individual representing the
ABATE organization of Maryland stated
that the new definition of a motorcycle
should be broken down into three types:
Two wheels, three wheels (‘‘trikes,’’
whether the two-wheeled axle is in front
or in back), and four wheel all terrain
vehicles (ATV or quad bike).
Motorcycles would have the following
traits: Handlebars rather than a steering
wheel, no side by side seating for
passengers, and the rider in a straddle
position when riding. The FHWA
considered these vehicle characteristics
in its typology, removed the handlebar
requirement as noted above, and did not
exclude side-by-side seating, which may
or may not be a characteristic of a
motorcycle with an enclosure. The
FHWA does not include four-wheeled
vehicles in this motorcycle typology, as
a four-wheeled vehicle licensed for
highway use would in popular usage be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Apr 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
described as an automobile and not a
motorcycle.
The Motorcycle Industry Council
proposed that the moped and motor
bicycle classification vehicle engine size
should not exceed 2 brake horsepower,
rather than 5 brake horsepower as
proposed, which they stated applies
specifically to a ‘‘motor-driven cycle.’’
The FHWA agrees and has incorporated
this recommendation into the moped
and motor bicycle typology because
horsepower is a useful distinguishing
characteristic between mopeds and the
more powerful motorcycles.
The HDMC made specific comments
on FHWA’s proposed definitions.
FHWA concurs with HDMC’s comment
advocating removing handlebars as a
motorcycle-defining characteristic as
discussed above. The HDMC does not
consider either a seat or saddle for
driver and passengers nor a wheel
diameter suitable defining
characteristics. The FHWA considers
both wheel diameter and seat
arrangements appropriate defining
characteristics. The FHWA has changed
the wheel diameter characteristic to
wheel rim diameter to better define
wheel diameter.
The HDMC also stated that the
distinction between motorcycles,
mopeds, and scooters is best made by
distinguishing vehicles by design speed
(such as 30 miles per hour), rather than
by vehicle physical appearance. This
concept has merit; vehicles used on the
streets and highways that have
insufficient power to keep up with
normal traffic should not be registered
for highway use. In those conditions
they are unsafe and highly disruptive to
normal traffic flow. However, it will be
difficult to determine the level of speed
that constitutes a defining characteristic
agreeable to the various stakeholders.
Many individuals commenting on
their own behalf expressed strong
opinions on the definitions of
motorcycles, often demonstrating their
passion for motorcycles and the
motorcycle community. The majority of
individual commenters to the docket
agreed that motorcycles are a twowheeled, powered vehicle for one or
two people. For example, an individual
wrote that motorcycles should ‘‘include
all two wheeled vehicles that the rider
sits straddled the frame/motor or fuel
tank with passenger seating also
straddled and behind the rider.’’ The
FHWA believes this wording is overly
specific and is not normally used by
States as distinguishing characteristics,
and therefore does not include them in
the definition. Some individuals
suggested that the definition of
motorcycle include all motorcycle type
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
vehicles, with multiple subdefinitions,
to avoid certification and registration
issues. The FHWA concurs and believes
the typology used in FHWA notice
adequately addresses this comment.
Beyond these comments, the
comments on motorcycle characteristics
and attributes varied widely. The
FHWA considered these comments.
However, these comments failed to
address a comprehensive typology of
motorcycle and like vehicles, which was
the focus of FHWA’s request for
comments. Many of these comments are
incorporated into FHWA’s modified
categories. The remainder represented
differing opinions such that no
consistent conclusions could be drawn
from them. None of these individual
comments offered a considered,
complete description of motorcycle
types. The FHWA concludes that these
comments are sufficiently incorporated
into FHWA’s modified definitions.
The current language for defining
motorcycles in FHWA’s Guide to
Reporting of Highway Statistics (Chapter
3, Report Identifying Motor Vehicle
Registration and Taxation, page 3–2) is
as follows:
Item I.E.2. Motorcycles: This item includes
two-wheeled and three-wheeled
motorcycles. Sidecars are not regarded as
separate vehicles— a motorcycle and
sidecar are reported as a single unit.
Item I.E.3. Motor bicycles and scooters:
Mopeds should be included with motordriven cycles (motor bicycles) in the
States that require their registration.
Based on the comments received, the
current language for defining
motorcycles in FHWA’s Guide to
Reporting of Highway Statistics (Chapter
3, Report Identifying Motor Vehicle
Registration and Taxation, page 3–2) is
updated as follows:
Item I.E.2. Motorcycles (without enclosures):
This item includes vehicles with the
following characteristics:
1. Two or three wheels in contact with the
ground (excluding trailers suitable for
motorcycle hauling)
2. A seat or saddle for driver and
passengers
3. Wheel rim diameters 10 inches or more
4. Do not include an enclosure for the
driver or passengers
5. Sidecars and trailers are not regarded as
separate vehicles— a motorcycle and sidecar
or trailer is reported as a single unit.
Item I.E.3. Motorcycles (with enclosures):
This item includes vehicles with the
following characteristics:
1. Two or three wheels in contact with the
ground (excluding trailers suitable for
motorcycle hauling)
2. A seat or saddle (in-line or side-by-side)
for driver and passengers
3. Wheel rim diameters 10 inches or more
4. Includes an enclosure for the driver or
passengers
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2011 / Notices
5. Sidecars and trailers are not regarded as
separate vehicles—a motorcycle and sidecar
or trailer is reported as a single unit.
Item I.E.4 Mopeds or motor bicycles: This
item includes vehicles with the
following characteristics:
1. Two wheels in contact with the ground
2. A seat or saddle for driver and
passengers (if any)
3. A steering handle bar
4. Do not include an enclosure for the
driver or passengers
5. Have a brake horsepower not exceeding
2 HP.
Item I.E.5 Personalized conveyances licensed
for highway use: This item includes
vehicles with the following
characteristics:
1. Two wheels in contact with the ground
2. Has a platform or deck for the use of a
standing operator
3. A steering handle bar
4. Do not include an enclosure for the
driver or passengers
5. Have a brake horsepower not exceeding
2 HP.
6. Have a direct drive energy transmission
from the engine to the drive wheel(s) (no
transmission).
Issued on: April 20, 2011.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–10258 Filed 4–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
Financial Management Service
Proposed Collection of Information:
CMIA Annual Report and Direct Cost
Claims
Financial Management Service,
Fiscal Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Financial Management
Service, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on a
continuing information collection. By
this notice, the Financial Management
Service solicits comments concerning
the ‘‘CMIA Annual Report and Direct
Cost Claims.’’
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before June 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Financial Management Service, 3700
East West Highway, Records and
Information Management Branch, Room
135, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the form(s) and instructions
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Apr 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
should be directed to Victor Poore,
Program Manager, Cash Management
Improvement Act Program, 401 14th
Street, SW., Room 420, Washington, DC
20227, (202) 874–6751.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Financial
Management Service solicits comments
on the collection of information
described below:
Title: CMIA Annual Report and Direct
Cost Claims.
OMB Number: 1510–0061.
Form Number: None.
Abstract: States and Territories must
report interest owed to and from the
Federal government for major Federal
assistance programs on an annual basis.
The data is used by Treasury and other
Federal agencies to verify State and
Federal interest claims, to assess State
and Federal cash management practices
and to exchange amounts of interest
owed.
Current Actions: Extension of
currently approved collection.
Type of Review: Regular.
Affected Public: Federal Government,
State, Local or Tribal Government.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
56.
Estimated Time per Respondent:
average of 393.5 hours per state.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 22,036.
Comments: Comments submitted in
response to this notice will be
summarized and/or included in the
request for Office of Management and
Budget approval. All comments will
become a matter of public record.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology;
and (e) estimates of capital or start-up
costs and costs of operation,
maintenance and purchase of services to
provide information.
Dated: April 14, 2011.
Kristine Conrath,
Assistant Commissioner, Federal Finance.
[FR Doc. 2011–10129 Filed 4–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–35–M
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23859
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
Financial Management Service
Proposed Collection of Information;
Financial Institution Agreement and
Application for Designation as a
Treasury Tax and Loan Depositary;
and Resolution Authorizing the
Financial Institution Agreement and
Application
Financial Management Service,
Fiscal Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Financial Management
Service, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on a
continuing information collection. By
this notice, the Financial Management
Service solicits comments concerning
the FMS 458 and FMS 459 forms
‘‘Financial Institution Agreement and
Application for Designation as a
Treasury Tax and Loan Depositary; and
Resolution Authorizing the Financial
Institution Agreement and Application
for Designation as a Treasury Tax and
Loan Depositary.’’
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before June 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Financial Management Service, 3700
East-West Highway, Records and
Information Management Branch, Room
135, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
should be directed to Mauricio Mattos,
Investment Management Division, 401
14th Street, SW., Room 318A,
Washington, DC 20227, (202) 874–7868.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Financial
Management Service solicits comments
on the collection of information
described below:
Title: Financial Institution Agreement
and Application for Designation as a
Treasury Tax and Loan Depositary; and
Resolution Authorizing the Financial
Institution Agreement and Application
for Designation as a Treasury Tax and
Loan Depositary.
OMB Number: 1510–0052.
Form Number: FMS 458 and FMS
459.
Abstract: Financial institutions are
required to complete an Agreement and
Application to participate in the Federal
Tax Deposit/Treasury Tax and Loan
Program. The approved application
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23854-23859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10258]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2010-0010]
Reclassification of Motorcycles (Two and Three Wheeled Vehicles)
in the Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice announces the revision to FHWA's guidance
regarding State reporting of motorcycle registration information
disseminated to the public in FHWA's annual publication Guide to
Reporting Highway Statistics. The intent of this action is to improve
FHWA's motorcycle registration data to assist in the analysis of crash
data relating to these vehicles. Thus, it is critical that the
motorcycle registration data collected and published by FHWA is
accurate, comprehensive, and timely. The FHWA's Guide to Reporting
Highway Statistics (Guide) is the document that FHWA uses to instruct
States about what data is required by FHWA to perform its mission of
informing Congress, the highway community, and the general public on a
wide variety of highway extent, condition, use, and performance
measures.
DATES: Effective Date: 90 days after date of publication in the
Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralph Erickson, Highway Funding and
Motor Fuels Team Leader, Office of Policy, HPPI-10, (202) 366-9235, or
Adam Sleeter, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-8839, Federal
Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
[[Page 23855]]
20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
An electronic copy of this document, the original notice, and
comments received may be downloaded from the Office of the Federal
Register's home page at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ and the
Government Printing Office's Web page at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov.
Background
The information collected in accordance with the Guide \1\ is
authorized under 23 U.S.C. 315, which authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to prescribe and promulgate rules and regulations to
carry out the requirements of Title 23 of the United States Code. Under
23 CFR 1.5, FHWA has the ability to request data that is used to relate
highway system performance to investment under FHWA's strategic
planning and performance reporting process in accordance with the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act.\2\
Additionally, 23 CFR 420.105(b) requires States to provide data that
support FHWA's responsibilities to the Congress and the public. The
Guide has approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the control number 2125-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Guide, Chapter 3, Report Identifying Motor-Vehicle
Registrations and Taxation, page 3-2.
\2\ Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), Sec.
3 and 4, Public Law 103-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FHWA's current definition of a motorcycle is two-fold: (1)
Motorcycles, and (2) motor bicycles and scooters. The specific language
for defining motorcycles, provided in FHWA's Guide, follows:
Item I.E.2. Motorcycles: This item includes two-wheeled and three-
wheeled motorcycles. Sidecars are not regarded as separate
vehicles--a motorcycle and sidecar are reported as a single unit.
Item I.E.3. Motor bicycles and scooters: Mopeds should be included
with motor-driven cycles (motor bicycles) in the States that require
their registration.
States annually report data to FHWA from their motor vehicle
registration systems. As a result, such data is based on the
definitions developed by States which may or may not approximate FHWA's
definition of motorcycles, motor bicycles, scooters or personalized
conveyances.
The FHWA researched State legislation (including the District of
Columbia, but not Puerto Rico) for definitions of motorcycles and
similar vehicles. We found several characteristics that specifically
differentiated motorcycle-type vehicles from other vehicle types.
Several States further defined the difference between motorcycles and
mopeds, or in a few States, motor scooters. The characteristics for
defining motorcycles included vehicles: With two to three wheels in
contact with the ground (48 States), with a seat or saddle for the
passenger(s) (36 States), with a sidecar or trailer (4 States), and
with a steering handlebar (2 States). Additionally, one State defined
motorcycles as having no enclosure on the vehicle for the operator
(driver) or passenger.
The following characteristics were used by some States to define
the difference between motorcycles, mopeds, and in a few cases, motor
scooters: Speeds not in excess of 25 to 45 miles per hour (MPH) (3
States mention 25 MPH, 13 mention 30 MPH, 1 State each mentions 35 or
45 MPH); engine displacement of not greater than 50 to 150 cubic
centimeters (cc) (21 States mention 50 cc, 1 State mentions 55 cc, and
1 State mentions 150 cc). Some States used brake horsepower (HP)
instead of, or in addition to, displacement to identify vehicle power
(4 States mention 1.5 HP, 12 mention 2.0 HP, 1 State mentions 2.7 HP,
and 1 State mentions 5 HP). Wheel diameter for differentiating
motorcycles and mopeds from motor scooters is mentioned by 5 States (2
States mention wheel diameter greater than 10 inches, 1 State mentions
wheel diameter greater than 14 inches, and 2 States mention wheel
diameter greater than 16 inches); and 4 States mentioned a platform or
deck for a standing driver as a characteristic of a motor scooter.
History
The FHWA has collected motorcycle registration data since 1914.
This data reveals that in the last few years the population of
motorcycles and related vehicle types has risen dramatically. In turn,
the crash data for motorcycles has shown dramatic increase due to many
factors including, but not limited to, rider experience, rider
impairment, decreased use of helmets, and increased exposure. Exposure
is a statistical term of reference that indicates increasing
performance of a given activity yields an increase in the chance that
some related event will occur, in this case crashes related to
motorcycle riding activity will occur.
Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) \3\ indicated in
2009, motorcycle rider fatalities decreased for the first time after 11
consecutive years of increases: From 2,116 in 1997 to 5,312 in 2008,
and then down to 4,462 in 2009. Other trends include a dramatic rise in
motorcycle ownership and changes in other factors such as motorcycle
size and new designs for these vehicles. However, this increase in
fatality data is disproportionate to reported increases in motorcycle
registration and in reported miles traveled. Due to this disconnect,
safety advocates have encouraged improving the data collection process
in order to better analyze and identify rider exposure and crash
causality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FARS data can be viewed at: https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 3, 2007, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
sent a letter to FHWA containing an NSTB Safety Recommendation H-07-34,
which states:
Following the 2007 Motorcycle Travel Symposium, develop
guidelines for the states to use to gather accurate motorcycle
registrations and motorcycle vehicle miles traveled data. The
guidelines should include information on the various methods to
collect registrations and vehicle miles traveled data and how these
methods can be put into practice.
The FHWA is committed to improving both sets of data identified in the
NTSB safety recommendation. This final notice addresses the NTSB
recommendation to gather more accurate motorcycle registration data. To
achieve this goal, FHWA established an interagency review team
consisting of experts from FHWA's Offices of Safety and Research, and
various NHTSA offices, to assist in the following activities:
1. Review State laws to determine the State of practice for
motorcycle registrations by documenting State laws and practices;
2. Improve the definition of motorcycles in the Guide to Reporting
Highway Statistics;
3. Develop guidelines for the States to use to gather and report
more accurate motorcycle registration data;
4. Include information on the various methods to collect and report
registrations in the guidelines; and
5. Initiate actions to bring the best methods in wider practice.
The FHWA is seeking to provide better registration data for other
agencies and the general public to analyze motorcycle crash data. For
FHWA, the issue is two-fold: FHWA must provide the States complete and
comprehensive instructions on the data
[[Page 23856]]
FHWA needs to collect to perform its responsibilities, and FHWA must
work with the States to assure that they are providing accurate data to
the extent that they can in accordance with FHWA instructions. A
corollary to both issues is that FHWA's instructions should allow the
States to provide the data that they actually collect and not to demand
data that they do not already gather.
The FHWA will refine its definition of motorcycles and related two-
and three-wheeled vehicles to better differentiate motorcycles, mopeds
and motor scooters. This document was coordinated with NHTSA. As
indicated above, this document addresses State reporting of motorcycle
registration information. It should be understood that the definitions
used for reporting purposes do not comport in all particulars with the
definitions used by NHTSA. For example, NHTSA has specific definitions
for ``motorcycle'' and ``motor driven cycle'' as part of the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) (see 49 CFR 571.3). The issue
of whether a product is considered a motorcycle for purposes of the
FMVSSs is dependent on NHTSA's regulations and the statutes
administered by NHTSA. Any questions about motorcycles in the context
of NHTSA's regulations or programs should be directed to NHTSA.
Reference Material
The Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics is FHWA's guidance to the
States for reporting a variety of data items, including two categories
of motorcycles: Motorcycles and motorized bicycles.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) D 16.1 \4\ defines
a motorcycle as any motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use
of its operator and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in
contact with the ground. This includes large motorcycles, motor-driven
cycles, speed limited motor-driven cycles, mopeds, motor scooters, and
motorized or motor assisted bicycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American National Standards Institute, https://webstore.ansi.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definitions of motorcycle type vehicles found in 49 CFR 571.3
state that:
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.
Motor-driven cycle means a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-
brake horsepower or less.
The Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) \5\ defines a
motorcycle as a two- or three-wheeled motor vehicle designed to
transport one or two people. Included are motor scooters, mini-bikes,
and mopeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria: https://www.mmucc.us/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FARS and National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General
Estimates System (GES) follows the ANSI D 16.1 definition. The FARS and
GES data are used in traffic safety analyses by NHTSA as well as other
public and private entities. The information is used to estimate how
many motor vehicle crashes of different kinds take place, and is also
used in the analyses by researchers and highway safety professionals in
order to determine the factors involved in the crashes.
Discussion of Comments
The comment period opened on March 23, 2010, and closed on June 24,
2010. Ninety-six comments were received.
Commenters on the notice fell into several categories: An
organization representing States and State registration administrators,
individual States, a major private manufacturer, individuals
representing motorcycle ``clubs,'' and many individuals. Commenters
addressed a range of subjects.
Concerns About Varied Motorcycle Definitions
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, (AAMVA),
listed a number of vehicle characteristics for which there are
discrepancies among States' motorcycle definitions. Some States require
a motorcycle to have a seat that the rider straddles, while others do
not. Some State laws allow a steering wheel. Other States do not
specify, meaning they do not restrict registration to vehicles with
handlebars. Many States do not include a requirement for wheel rim
diameters exceeding 10 inches. Many States do not disqualify vehicles
with a full enclosure for rider or passenger. Most States do not regard
sidecars as separate vehicles, although most States would consider a
trailer a separate vehicle and may require a separate registration. In
terms of mopeds, the same difficulties exist regarding the
characteristics of a seat, saddle, and steering handle as those noted
for motorcycles. The AAMVA also noted that some States do not require
mopeds to have pedals, and that many do not have a brake horsepower
requirement in their definition.
A number of commenters discussed problems that may arise due to the
different State laws and regulations classifying motorcycles and other
similar vehicles. Some of these commenters expressed concerns about
vehicles that would not fit any of FHWA's proposed definitions and
therefore would be left without a means for certification for road and
highway use. Enclosed and three-wheeled vehicles are of primary
concern, because some States do not classify them as motorcycles.
Therefore, if the new definitions exclude them from the definition of
motorcycle, States will need to create new regulations to certify these
types of vehicles for driving. Additionally, a commenter from Oregon
stated that a handlebar requirement for motorcycles would leave certain
vehicles in Oregon without a classification for registration. Some
commenters also addressed the need to keep these smaller fuel-efficient
vehicles on the road, both for energy conservation reasons and to allow
individuals with disabilities or older individuals an option for
driving similar to the experience of motorcycling.
Some commenters noted that new definitions are necessary due to the
proliferation of new vehicle types and the unintended consequences of
misclassification. Harley Davidson Motor Company (HDMC) stated that the
need to revise the regulations is timely as many new motorcycle-type
vehicles are reaching the market and traditional definitions do not
address these newer vehicles. One commenter stated that new regulations
are needed because classifying mopeds and scooters as motorcycles leads
to increased theft because it may require that these lighter weight
vehicles be parked on the street.
The FHWA's intent is to provide guidance in the form of suggested
categories to address the proliferation of motorcycle vehicle types for
data collection and analysis purposes. The FHWA recognizes the wide
variation of vehicles that are primarily described as motorcycles, and
does not want to impose rigid definitions. Rather, FHWA is organizing a
set of definitions more specific than the existing, general
descriptions of motorcycles to improve State data reporting.
Reporting and Registration Concerns: New Classifications
States expressed concerns about the administrative, logistical and
financial burdens of providing information based on the updated
guidance. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles,
(FDHSMV) referred to Bill 971, which was recently passed by
[[Page 23857]]
the Florida legislature and includes a definition for three-wheeled
vehicles. The FDHSMV suggested adding a category for three-wheeled
vehicles to accommodate the Florida classification. A commenter stated
that Oregon currently registers mopeds, but not motor scooters or
motor-assisted bicycles and that legislation would be required to
change this. The Washington Department of Licensing (WDOL) only records
and reports registrations for two classifications: Motorcycles and
mopeds. The Washington State Department of Transportation does not have
a means to determine which mopeds would be categorized as cycles or
scooters under FHWA's new categories. Accordingly, the WDOL estimated
that the cost of updating their computers to process the information
included in the new guidance would be over $620,000 in the first year.
The WDOL also pointed out that unless FHWA requires manufacturers to
report the new information required for categorization on the
Manufacturer's Statement of Origin or the Manufacturer's Certificate of
Origin, there is no mechanism for WDOL to collect the data.
The FHWA recognizes that some States may incur significant costs if
they choose to adopt the new definitions provided in FHWA's guidance.
However, this guidance is not mandatory, therefore, States may avoid
incurring any costs by continuing to collect and provide motorcycle
data according to their own existing legislative guidelines. If a State
determines that the costs outweigh the benefits of adopting the new
definitions, then the State may continue to provide motorcycle data
according to their own existing definitions.
Reporting Concerns: Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs)
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, (IIHS), supports the
use of VINs for reporting vehicle information. The IIHS has grouped
street legal motorcycles into 10 different classes: Scooter, cruiser,
chopper, touring, dual purpose, standard, sport touring, unclad sport,
sport, and super sports. These classifications consider design
characteristics such as intended use, riding position, engine power,
passenger comfort, and cost. Statistical analyses performed on this
data by IIHS and the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), an affiliate
of IIHS, which was derived from VINs, revealed substantial differences
in accident data of these vehicle classifications. The IIHS stated that
using VINs will create the opportunity for more sophisticated
classification of motorcycle types than the limited categories in the
Guide. Therefore, using VINs will increase FHWA's ability to assess the
safety risks of new types of vehicles as they are used and enter the
market. Additionally, IIHS stated that VIN information may be easier
for many States to provide than vehicle classification.
The FHWA agrees that studies done by both the HLDI and the IIHS
establish the important conclusion that motorcycle classifications
reveal differing accident characteristics. The HLDI has offered to
license the software or provide the service to FHWA free of charge. The
FHWA appreciates this offer, and may pursue this cooperative research
outside the scope of this notice.
The FDHSMV commented that collecting VIN information would put a
substantial burden on the States. Additionally, AAMVA, and the FDHSMV,
questioned the value of reporting VIN information, stating that VINs
for motorcycles are far less standardized than VINs for cars and
trucks.
Commenters also cited privacy concerns associated with collecting
VINs and possible violations of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act.
The FHWA concurs with the view that collecting VINs from the States
would incur significant costs to the States and FHWA and the benefits
of this approach are not worth the cost of collection. By not
collecting VINs, FHWA will avoid potential privacy concerns raised in
the comments.
Safety Issues
Some comments addressed safety issues. Some stated that the lack of
safety features such as airbags and sidecars is a necessary requirement
for motorcycles, because simple two-wheeled vehicles do not require the
additional complexity of safety features. Additionally, some commenters
felt that seatbelts or other restraints should not be included in the
definition of a motorcycle, because in the event of a crash on that
type of vehicle the operator and the vehicle should part ways for
safety reasons. One commenter suggested that helmets should not be
required for enclosed three-wheeled vehicles that pass safety tests.
An individual representing the American Automobile Association
stated that the skill set for driving a three-wheeled vehicle is
different from the skill set required for driving a motorcycle.
Therefore, any attempt to make two- and three-wheeled vehicle
definitions all-inclusive for the new generation of three-wheeled
vehicles potentially endangers the public.
One commenter suggested that a distinction should be made between
on-road and off-road vehicles, because off-road vehicles may have
features that make them more dangerous in the event of an accident,
such as being low to the ground. Additionally, according to this
commenter, operators of off-road vehicles may be more inclined to
ignore the rules of the road than operators of on-road vehicles.
These comments are outside the scope of this notice, as FHWA is not
considering safety features or handling characteristics as descriptors
in the definition of motorcycle types. State registrations and FHWA
characteristics are based on the physical appearance of the vehicles.
International Classification System
The HDMC advocates synchronizing FHWA vehicle classes with classes
used internationally, specifically with the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe's classification scheme. The FHWA researched the
suggested United Nations Economic Commission for Europe standards and
concludes that they suffer from the same lack of detail that makes
FHWA's current definitions insufficient.
Request for a Committee
The American Motorcyclist Association requested that FHWA create a
Motorcycle Definition Committee with representatives from FHWA and
State departments of transportation to overhaul the current
definition(s) of motorcycles and similar vehicles. The FHWA believes
the request for comments on this notice was sufficient notification and
that comments to the docket are sufficient for FHWA to understand the
issues involved.
Enclosed Vehicles
The AAMVA stated that States are currently struggling with how to
register enclosed two- and three-wheel vehicles, as well as how best to
test the drivers on their ability to drive those vehicles. AAMVA is
working to create a group to consider these issues, though some States
would already consider enclosed vehicles to be motorcycles because they
have no specific definition or requirements related to whether the
vehicle is enclosed or not. The AAMVA noted that most States would
currently consider three-wheeled vehicles that are small, lightweight,
and not enclosed motorcycles for registration purposes. These States
most likely could not distinguish them from other motorcycles for
purposes of reporting to FHWA. The FHWA agrees and has
[[Page 23858]]
decided to incorporate a separate category to capture these vehicles.
Steering Mechanisms
The HDMC notes that while steering handlebars are traditional for
motorcycles, the newer categories of motorcycles may have other
steering mechanisms, and they recommend that FHWA remove handlebars as
a motorcycle-defining characteristic. An individual representing the
ABATE (A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments) organization of
Maryland recommended that the definition of motorcycle require
handlebars. Additionally, a commenter from Oregon stated that requiring
handlebars for motorcycles would leave certain vehicles in Oregon
without a classification for registration. The FHWA concurs with HDMC
and will remove the handlebar characteristic from the motorcycle
classification.
Opinions on Motorcycle Definitions Generally
There were a number of comments by individuals representing
organizations expressing their opinions on the definition of a
motorcycle. The Vice-Chair of Oregon Governors' Advisory Commission on
Motorcycle Safety stated that a traditional motorcycle is a single-
track vehicle that is directed by a combination of counter-steering and
leaning, primarily the former, and a three wheel vehicle requires
neither. An individual representing the Minnesota Motorcycle Safety
Advisory Committee defined a motorcycle as a vehicle powered entirely
by a motor with two or three wheels, handlebars and without a roof.
These two comments are addressed in FHWA's motorcycle definition.
An individual representing the ABATE organization of Maryland
stated that the new definition of a motorcycle should be broken down
into three types: Two wheels, three wheels (``trikes,'' whether the
two-wheeled axle is in front or in back), and four wheel all terrain
vehicles (ATV or quad bike). Motorcycles would have the following
traits: Handlebars rather than a steering wheel, no side by side
seating for passengers, and the rider in a straddle position when
riding. The FHWA considered these vehicle characteristics in its
typology, removed the handlebar requirement as noted above, and did not
exclude side-by-side seating, which may or may not be a characteristic
of a motorcycle with an enclosure. The FHWA does not include four-
wheeled vehicles in this motorcycle typology, as a four-wheeled vehicle
licensed for highway use would in popular usage be described as an
automobile and not a motorcycle.
The Motorcycle Industry Council proposed that the moped and motor
bicycle classification vehicle engine size should not exceed 2 brake
horsepower, rather than 5 brake horsepower as proposed, which they
stated applies specifically to a ``motor-driven cycle.'' The FHWA
agrees and has incorporated this recommendation into the moped and
motor bicycle typology because horsepower is a useful distinguishing
characteristic between mopeds and the more powerful motorcycles.
The HDMC made specific comments on FHWA's proposed definitions.
FHWA concurs with HDMC's comment advocating removing handlebars as a
motorcycle-defining characteristic as discussed above. The HDMC does
not consider either a seat or saddle for driver and passengers nor a
wheel diameter suitable defining characteristics. The FHWA considers
both wheel diameter and seat arrangements appropriate defining
characteristics. The FHWA has changed the wheel diameter characteristic
to wheel rim diameter to better define wheel diameter.
The HDMC also stated that the distinction between motorcycles,
mopeds, and scooters is best made by distinguishing vehicles by design
speed (such as 30 miles per hour), rather than by vehicle physical
appearance. This concept has merit; vehicles used on the streets and
highways that have insufficient power to keep up with normal traffic
should not be registered for highway use. In those conditions they are
unsafe and highly disruptive to normal traffic flow. However, it will
be difficult to determine the level of speed that constitutes a
defining characteristic agreeable to the various stakeholders.
Many individuals commenting on their own behalf expressed strong
opinions on the definitions of motorcycles, often demonstrating their
passion for motorcycles and the motorcycle community. The majority of
individual commenters to the docket agreed that motorcycles are a two-
wheeled, powered vehicle for one or two people. For example, an
individual wrote that motorcycles should ``include all two wheeled
vehicles that the rider sits straddled the frame/motor or fuel tank
with passenger seating also straddled and behind the rider.'' The FHWA
believes this wording is overly specific and is not normally used by
States as distinguishing characteristics, and therefore does not
include them in the definition. Some individuals suggested that the
definition of motorcycle include all motorcycle type vehicles, with
multiple subdefinitions, to avoid certification and registration
issues. The FHWA concurs and believes the typology used in FHWA notice
adequately addresses this comment.
Beyond these comments, the comments on motorcycle characteristics
and attributes varied widely. The FHWA considered these comments.
However, these comments failed to address a comprehensive typology of
motorcycle and like vehicles, which was the focus of FHWA's request for
comments. Many of these comments are incorporated into FHWA's modified
categories. The remainder represented differing opinions such that no
consistent conclusions could be drawn from them. None of these
individual comments offered a considered, complete description of
motorcycle types. The FHWA concludes that these comments are
sufficiently incorporated into FHWA's modified definitions.
The current language for defining motorcycles in FHWA's Guide to
Reporting of Highway Statistics (Chapter 3, Report Identifying Motor
Vehicle Registration and Taxation, page 3-2) is as follows:
Item I.E.2. Motorcycles: This item includes two-wheeled and three-
wheeled motorcycles. Sidecars are not regarded as separate
vehicles-- a motorcycle and sidecar are reported as a single unit.
Item I.E.3. Motor bicycles and scooters: Mopeds should be included
with motor-driven cycles (motor bicycles) in the States that require
their registration.
Based on the comments received, the current language for defining
motorcycles in FHWA's Guide to Reporting of Highway Statistics (Chapter
3, Report Identifying Motor Vehicle Registration and Taxation, page 3-
2) is updated as follows:
Item I.E.2. Motorcycles (without enclosures): This item includes
vehicles with the following characteristics:
1. Two or three wheels in contact with the ground (excluding
trailers suitable for motorcycle hauling)
2. A seat or saddle for driver and passengers
3. Wheel rim diameters 10 inches or more
4. Do not include an enclosure for the driver or passengers
5. Sidecars and trailers are not regarded as separate vehicles--
a motorcycle and sidecar or trailer is reported as a single unit.
Item I.E.3. Motorcycles (with enclosures): This item includes
vehicles with the following characteristics:
1. Two or three wheels in contact with the ground (excluding
trailers suitable for motorcycle hauling)
2. A seat or saddle (in-line or side-by-side) for driver and
passengers
3. Wheel rim diameters 10 inches or more
4. Includes an enclosure for the driver or passengers
[[Page 23859]]
5. Sidecars and trailers are not regarded as separate vehicles--
a motorcycle and sidecar or trailer is reported as a single unit.
Item I.E.4 Mopeds or motor bicycles: This item includes vehicles
with the following characteristics:
1. Two wheels in contact with the ground
2. A seat or saddle for driver and passengers (if any)
3. A steering handle bar
4. Do not include an enclosure for the driver or passengers
5. Have a brake horsepower not exceeding 2 HP.
Item I.E.5 Personalized conveyances licensed for highway use: This
item includes vehicles with the following characteristics:
1. Two wheels in contact with the ground
2. Has a platform or deck for the use of a standing operator
3. A steering handle bar
4. Do not include an enclosure for the driver or passengers
5. Have a brake horsepower not exceeding 2 HP.
6. Have a direct drive energy transmission from the engine to
the drive wheel(s) (no transmission).
Issued on: April 20, 2011.
Victor M. Mendez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-10258 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P