[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23854-23859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html and the 
Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://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: http://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, http://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: http://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