Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10771 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 61 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority 

This notice is issued under the 

authority of sections 101, 110, 112, and 

301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

7401, 7410, 7412, and 7601). 

Dated: February 16, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4389 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 177 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2010–0221 (HM–256)] 

RIN 2137–AE63 

Hazardous Materials: Limiting the Use 

of Electronic Devices by Highway 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) is prohibiting texting on 

electronic devices by drivers during the 

operation of a motor vehicle containing 

a quantity of hazardous materials 

requiring placarding or any quantity of 

a select agent or toxin listed in the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services ‘‘Select Agents and Toxins’’ 

regulations. Additionally, in accordance 

with requirements adopted on 

September 27, 2010 by the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA), motor carriers are prohibited 

from requiring or allowing drivers of 

covered motor vehicles to engage in 

texting while driving. This rulemaking 

improves the health and safety on the 

Nation’s highways by reducing the 

prevalence of distracted driving-related 

crashes, fatalities, and injuries involving 

drivers of commercial motor vehicles. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, including 

those referenced in this document, or to 

read comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time and 

insert PHMSA–2010–0221 in the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box, and then click ‘‘Search.’’ 

You may also view the docket online by 

visiting the Docket Management Facility 

in Room W12–140, DOT Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Supko, Office of Hazardous Materials 

Standards, (202) 366–8553, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. US DOT Strategy 

The United States Department of 

Transportation (US DOT) is leading the 

effort to end the dangerous practice of 

distracted driving on our nation’s 

roadways and in other modes of 

transportation. Driver distraction can be 

defined as the voluntary or involuntary 

diversion of attention from the primary 

driving tasks due to an object, event, or 

person that shifts the attention away 

from the fundamental driving task. The 

US DOT has identified three main types 

of distraction that occur while operating 

a motor vehicle: 

1. Visual—taking your eyes off of the 

road; 

2. Manual—taking your hands off of 

the wheel; and 

3. Cognitive—taking your mind off of 

driving. 

The US DOT is working across the 

spectrum with private and public 

entities to address distracted driving, 

and will lead by example. The 

individual agencies of the US DOT are 

working together to share knowledge, 

promote a greater understanding of the 

issue, and identify additional strategies 

to end distracted driving. Additionally, 

the majority of the 50 States have 

forbidden texting while driving any 

motor vehicle. See US DOT Distracted 

Driving Web site, http:// 

www.distraction.gov; see also Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety Web site, 

http://www.iihs.org/. 

B. NPRM 

On September 27, 2010, PHMSA 

proposed to limit the dangerous practice 

of texting on electronic devices by 

drivers during the operation of a motor 

vehicle containing a quantity of 

hazardous materials requiring 

placarding under part 172 of the 49 CFR 

or any quantity of a select agent or toxin 

listed in 42 CFR part 73. PHMSA 

received one comment in response to 

the NPRM. Generally, the commenter 

expresses support for PHMSA’s efforts, 

but requests expansion of the proposed 

texting limitation to include any person 

being paid to drive any type of vehicle. 

Additionally, the commenter suggests 

that PHMSA prohibit the use of any 

type of electronic device while driving. 

The comment is discussed in more 

detail in the Section-by-Section and 

Discussion of Comments sections of this 

final rule. 

C. FMCSA Rules and Definitions 

1. Final Rule 

On September 27, 2010 the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

published a final rule to codify 

requirements to limit the use of wireless 

communication devices by commercial 

motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. FMCSA’s 

final rule adopts a prohibition 

consistent with requirements originally 

proposed and considers comments 

submitted in response to the original 

NPRM issued on April 1, 2010 under 

Docket FMCSA–2009–0370 (75 FR 

16391). The final rule prohibits texting 

by CMV drivers operating in interstate 

commerce and imposes sanctions for 

drivers that fail to comply. Most directly 

applicable to this final rule, the FMCSA 

final rule adopts requirements 

prohibiting texting on electronic devices 

by drivers transporting a quantity of 

hazardous materials requiring 

placarding under part 172 of the 49 CFR 

or any quantity of a select agent or toxin 

listed in 42 CFR part 73. In the rule 

FMCSA clearly indicates that its 

authority to regulate hazardous 

materials is limited to CMV drivers 

operating in interstate commerce. 

Additionally, the FMCSA final rule cites 

numerous studies evaluating the 

dangers of various forms of distracted 

driving. 

2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On April 1, 2010, FMCSA published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 16391). FMCSA 

reviewed the over 400 public comments 

submitted in response to the proposed 

rule. Changes resulting from FMCSA’s 

comment evaluation are fully described 

in the preamble of the FMCSA final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 27, 2010 (75 FR 59118; 

59125). 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
10772 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., & 

Bocanegra, J. (2009) Driver distraction in 

commercial vehicle operations. (Document No. 

FMCSA–RRR–09–042) Washington, DC: Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, August 2010, 

from http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/artpublic-reports.aspx? 

2The formal peer review of the ‘‘Driver 

Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations Draft 

Final Report’’ was completed by a team of three 

technically qualified peer reviewers who are 

qualified (via their experience and educational 

background) to critically review driver distractionrelated research. 

3. Definitions 

Several terms and corresponding 

definitions found in the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs; 49 

CFR parts 350–399) are applicable to 

this final rule. Below we summarize key 

terms: 

a. Section 383.5 indicates that a 

commercial motor vehicle is a motor 

vehicle or combination of motor 

vehicles used in commerce to transport 

passengers or property if the motor 

vehicle—has a gross combination 

weight rating of 11,794 kilograms or 

more (26,001 pounds or more) inclusive 

of a towed unit(s) with a gross vehicle 

weight rating of more than 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds); has a gross 

vehicle weight rating of 11,794 or more 

kilograms (26,001 pounds or more); is 

designed to transport 16 or more 

passengers, including the driver; or is of 

any size and is used in the 

transportation of hazardous materials as 

defined in this section. 

b. Section 383.5 indicates that an 

electronic device includes, but is not 

limited to, a cellular telephone; personal 

digital assistant; pager; computer; or any 

other device used to input, write, send, 

receive, or read text. 

c. Section 383.5 indicates that texting 

means manually entering alphanumeric 

text into, or reading text from, an 

electronic device. Texting includes, but 

is not limited to, short message service, 

e-mailing, instant messaging, a 

command or request to access a World 

Wide Web page, or engaging in any 

other form of electronic text retrieval or 

entry, for present or future 

communication. Texting does not 

include—reading, selecting, or entering 

a telephone number, an extension 

number, or voicemail retrieval codes 

and commands into an electronic device 

for the purpose of initiating or receiving 

a phone call or using voice commands 

to initiate or receive a telephone call; 

inputting, selecting, or reading 

information on a global positioning 

system or navigation system; or using a 

device capable of performing multiple 

functions (e.g., fleet management 

systems, dispatching devices, smart 

phones, citizen band radios, music 

players, etc.) for a purpose that is not 

otherwise prohibited in this part. 

d. Section 392.80(c) indicates that 

driving means operating a commercial 

motor vehicle, with the motor running, 

including while temporarily stationary 

because of traffic, a traffic control 

device, or other momentary delays. 

Driving does not include operating a 

commercial motor vehicle with or 

without the motor running when the 

driver has moved the vehicle to the side 

of, or off, a highway and has halted in 

a location where the vehicle can safely 

remain stationary. 

D. PHMSA Distracted Driving Safety 

Advisory Notice 

In support of the US DOT strategy to 

end distracted driving, PHMSA issued 

‘‘Safety Advisory Notice: Personal 

Electronic Device Related Distractions 

(Safety Advisory Notice No.10–5)’’ on 

August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45697) to alert 

the hazardous materials community to 

the dangers associated with the use of 

mobile phones and electronic devices 

while operating a commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV; 49 CFR 383.5). In the 

notice, PHMSA stresses the heightened 

risk of transportation incidents 

involving hazardous materials when 

CMV drivers are distracted by electronic 

devices. Accordingly, the notice urges 

motor carriers that transport hazardous 

materials to institute policies and 

provide awareness training to 

discourage the use of mobile telephones 

and electronic devices by motor vehicle 

drivers. 

E. Studies, Data, and Analysis on Driver 

Distractions 

Distracted driving reduces a driver’s 

situational awareness, decision making, 

or performance, possibly resulting in a 

crash, near-crash, or unintended lane 

departure by the driver. In an effort to 

understand and mitigate crashes 

associated with driver distraction, the 

US DOT has been studying the 

distracted driving issue with respect to 

both behavioral and vehicle safety 

countermeasures. Researchers and 

writers classify distraction into various 

categories, depending on the nature of 

their work. Texting while driving 

applies to these three types of driver 

distraction (visual, physical, and 

cognitive), and thus may pose a 

considerably higher safety risk than 

other sources of driver distraction. 

Below we summarize recommendations, 

studies, data, and analysis that provide 

the foundation for this final rule. 

1. NTSB Safety Recommendation H–06– 

27 

On November 14, 2004, a motorcoach 

crashed into a bridge overpass on the 

George Washington Memorial Parkway 

in Alexandria, Virginia. This crash was 

the impetus for a National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

investigation and subsequent 

recommendation (Safety 

Recommendation H–06–27) to FMCSA 

regarding cell phone use by passengercarrying CMVs. The NTSB determined 

that one probable cause of the crash was 

the use of a hands-free cell phone, 

resulting in cognitive distraction; 

therefore, the driver did not ‘‘see’’ the 

low bridge warning signs. 

In a letter to NTSB dated March 5, 

2007, FMCSA agreed to initiate a study 

to assess: 

• The potential safety benefits of 

restricting cell phone use by drivers of 

passenger-carrying CMVs; 

• The applicability of an NTSB 

recommendation to property-carrying 

CMV drivers; 

• Whether adequate data existed to 

warrant a rulemaking; and 

• The availability of statistically 

meaningful data regarding cell phone 

distraction. 

Subsequently, the report ‘‘Driver 

Distraction in Commercial Vehicle 

Operations’’ was published on October 

1, 2009. 

2. Driver Distraction in Commercial 

Vehicle Operations (‘‘the VTTI 

Study’’)—Olson et al., 2009 1

Under contract with FMCSA, the 

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 

(VTTI) completed its ‘‘Driver Distraction 

in Commercial Vehicle Operations’’ 

study 2 and released the final report on 

October 1, 2009. The purpose of the 

study was to investigate the prevalence 

of driver distraction in CMV safetycritical events (i.e., crashes, nearcrashes, lane departures, as explained in 

the VTTI study) recorded in a 

naturalistic data set that included over 

200 truck drivers and 3 million miles of 

data. The dataset was obtained by 

placing monitoring instruments on 

vehicles and recording the behavior of 

drivers conducting real-world revenueproducing operations. The study found 

that drivers were engaged in nondriving related tasks in 71 percent of 

crashes, 46 percent of near-crashes, and 

60 percent of all safety-critical events. 

Tasks that significantly increased risk 

included texting, looking at a map, 

writing on a notepad, or reading. 

Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to 

identify tasks that were high risk. For a 

given task, an odds ratio of ‘‘1.0’’ 

indicated the task or activity was 

equally likely to result in a safetycritical event as it was a non-event or 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10773 

3Although the final report does not elaborate on 

texting, the drivers were engaged in the review, 

preparation, and transmission of typed messages via 

wireless phones. 

4 Drews, F.A., Yazdani, H., Godfrey, C.N., Cooper, 

J.M., & Strayer, D.L. (Dec. 16, 2009). Text messaging 

during simulated driving. Salt Lake City, Utah: The 

Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 

Online First. Published as doi:10.1177/ 

0018720809353319. Retrieved December 22, 2009, 

from http://hfs.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/

0018720809353319?ijkey=gRQOLrGlYnBfc&keytype

=ref&siteid=sphfs. 

baseline driving scenario. An odds ratio 

greater than ‘‘1.0’’ indicated a safetycritical event was more likely to occur, 

and odds ratios of less than ‘‘1.0’’ 

indicated a safety-critical event was less 

likely to occur. The most risky behavior 

identified by the research was ‘‘text 

message on cell phone,’’ 3 with an odds 

ratio of 23.2. This means that the odds 

of being involved in a safety-critical 

event are 23.2 times greater for drivers 

who text message while driving than for 

those who do not. Texting drivers took 

their eyes off the forward roadway for 

an average of 4.6 seconds during the 6- 

second interval surrounding a safetycritical event. At 55 mph (or 80.7 feet 

per second), this equates to a driver 

traveling 371 feet, the approximate 

length of a football field, including the 

end zones, without looking at the 

roadway. At 65 mph (or 95.3 feet per 

second), the driver would have traveled 

approximately 439 feet without looking 

at the roadway. This clearly creates a 

significant risk to the safe operation of 

the CMV. 

Other tasks that drew drivers’ eyes 

away from the forward roadway in the 

study involved the driver interacting 

with technology: Calculator (4.4 

seconds), dispatching device (4.1 

seconds), and cell phone dialing (3.8 

seconds). Technology-related tasks were 

not the only ones with high visual 

demands. Non-technology tasks with 

high visual demands, including some 

common activities, were: reading (4.3 

seconds), writing (4.2 seconds), looking 

at a map (3.9 seconds), and reaching for 

an object (2.9 seconds). 

The study further analyzed 

population attributable risk (PAR), 

which incorporates the frequency of 

engaging in a task. If a task is done more 

frequently by a driver or a group of 

drivers, it will have a greater PAR 

percentage. Safety could be improved 

the most if a driver or group of drivers 

were to stop performing a task with a 

high PAR. The PAR percentage for 

texting is 0.7 percent, which means that 

0.7 percent of the incidence of safetycritical events is attributable to texting, 

and thus, could be avoided by not 

texting. 

TABLE 1—ODDS RATIO AND POPULATION ATTRIBUTABLE RISK PERCENTAGE BY SELECTED TASK

Task Odds ratio 

Population 

attributable 

risk 

percentage * 

Complex Tertiary ** Task 

Text message on cell phone ..................................................................................................................................... 23.2 0.7 

Other—Complex (e.g., clean side mirror) ................................................................................................................. 10.1 0.2 

Interact with/look at dispatching device ..................................................................................................................... 9.9 3.1 

Write on pad, notebook, etc. ..................................................................................................................................... 9.0 0.6 

Use calculator ............................................................................................................................................................ 8.2 0.2 

Look at map ............................................................................................................................................................... 7.0 1.1 

Dial cell phone ........................................................................................................................................................... 5.9 2.5 

Read book, newspaper, paperwork, etc. ................................................................................................................... 4.0 1.7 

Moderate Tertiary ** Task 

Use/reach for other electronic device ........................................................................................................................ 6.7 0.2 

Other—Moderate (e.g., open medicine bottle) .......................................................................................................... 5.9 0.3 

Personal grooming ..................................................................................................................................................... 4.5 0.2 

Reach for object in vehicle ........................................................................................................................................ 3.1 7.6 

Look back in sleeper berth ........................................................................................................................................ 2.3 0.2 

Talk or listen to hand-held phone .............................................................................................................................. 1.0 0.2 

Eating ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.0 0 

Talk or listen to CB radio ........................................................................................................................................... 0.6 * 

Talk or listen to hands-free phone ............................................................................................................................ 0.4 * 

* Calculated for tasks where the odds ratio is greater than one. 

** Non-driving related tasks. 

A complete copy of the final report for 

this study is included in PHMSA Docket 

PHMSA–2010–0221, available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

3. Text Messaging During Simulated 

Driving—Drews, et al., 2009 4

This research was designed to identify 

the impact of text messaging on 

simulated driving performance. Using a 

high-fidelity driving simulator, 

researchers measured the performance 

of 20 pairs of participants while: (1) 

Only driving, and (2) driving and text 

messaging. Participants followed a pace 

car in the right lane, which braked 42 

times, intermittently. Participants were 

0.2 seconds slower in responding to the 

brake onset when driving and text 

messaging, compared to driving-only. 

When drivers are concentrating on 

texting, either reading or entering, their 

reaction times to braking events are 

significantly longer. 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
10774 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

5Shutko, J., Mayer, J., Laansoo, E., & Tijerina, L. 

(2009). Driver workload effects of cell phone, music 

player, and text messaging tasks with the Ford 

SYNC voice interface versus handheld visualmanual interfaces (paper presented at SAE World 

Congress & Exhibition, April 2009, Detroit, MI). 

Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers 

International. Available from SAE International at: 

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2009-01-0786. 

6The Engineering Meetings Board has approved 

this paper for publication. It has successfully 

completed SAE’s peer review process under the 

supervision of the session organizer. This process 

requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry 

experts. 

7Hosking, S., Young, K., & Regan, M. (February 

2006). The effects of text messaging on young 

novice driver performance. Victoria, Australia: 

Monash University Accident Research Centre, from: 

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/

muarc246.pdf. 

8Reed, N. & Robbins, R. (2008). The effect of text 

messaging on driver behavior: A simulator study. 

Report prepared for the RAC Foundation by 

Transport Research Laboratory. From: http:// 

www.racfoundation.org/files/ 

textingwhiledrivingreport.pdf. 

9The work described in this report was carried 

out in the Human Factors and Simulation group of 

the Transport Research Laboratory. The authors are 

grateful to Andrew Parks who carried out the 

technical review and auditing of this report. 

10Hickman, J., Hanowski, R., & Bocanegra, J. 

(2010). Distraction in Commercial Trucks and 

Buses: Assessing Prevalence and Risk in 

Conjunction with Crashes and Near-Crashes. 

Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration. 

4. Driver Workload Effects of Cell 

Phone, Music Player, and Text 

Messaging Tasks With the Ford SYNC 

Voice Interface Versus Handheld VisualManual Interfaces (‘‘The Ford Study’’)— 

Shutko, et al., 2009 5

A recent study by Ford Motor 

Company,6 involving 25 participants, 

compared using a hands-free voice 

interface to complete a task while 

driving with using personal handheld 

devices (cell phone and music player) to 

complete the same task while driving. 

Of particular interest were the results of 

this study with regard to total eyes-offroad time when texting while driving. 

The study found that texting, both 

sending and reviewing a text, was 

extremely risky. The median total eyesoff-road time when reviewing a text 

message on a handheld cell phone while 

driving was 11 seconds. The median 

total eyes-off-road time when sending a 

text message using a handheld cell 

phone while driving was 20 seconds. 

5. The Effects of Text Messaging on 

Young Novice Driver Performance— 

Hosking, et al., 2006 7

Hosking studied a very different 

driver population, but obtained similar 

results. This study used an advanced 

driving simulator to evaluate the effects 

of text messaging on 20 young, novice 

Australian drivers. The participants 

were between 18 and 21 years old, and 

they had been driving 6 months or less. 

Legislation in Australia prohibits handheld phones, but a large proportion of 

the participants said that they use them 

anyway. 

The young drivers took their eyes off 

the road while texting, and they had a 

harder time detecting hazards and safety 

signs, as well as maintaining the 

simulated vehicle’s position on the road 

than they did when not texting. While 

the participants did not reduce their 

speed, they did try to compensate for 

the distraction of texting by increasing 

their following distance. Nonetheless, 

retrieving and particularly sending text 

messages had the following effects on 

driving: 

• Difficulty maintaining the vehicle’s 

lateral position on the road. 

• Harder time detecting hazards. 

• Harder time detecting and 

responding to safety signs. 

• Up to 400 percent more time with 

drivers’ eyes off the road than when not 

texting. 

6. The Effect of Text Messaging on 

Driver Behavior: A Simulator Study— 

Reed and Robbins, 2008 8

The RAC Foundation commissioned 

this report9 to assess the impact of text 

messaging on driver performance and 

the attitudes surrounding that activity in 

the 17 to 24-year-old driver category. 

There were 17 participants in the study. 

The results demonstrated that driving 

was impaired by texting. Researchers 

reported that ‘‘failure to detect hazards, 

increased response times to hazards, 

and exposure time to that risk have clear 

implications for safety.’’ They reported 

an increased stopping distance of 12.5 

meters, or three car lengths, and 

increased variability of lane position. 

7. Cell Phone Distraction in Commercial 

Trucks and Buses: Assessing Prevalence 

in Conjunction With Crashes and NearCrashes—Hickman 10

The purpose of this research was to 

conduct an analysis of naturalistic data 

collected by DriveCam®. The 

introduction of naturalistic driving 

studies that record drivers (through 

video and kinematic vehicle sensors) in 

actual driving situations created a 

scientific method to study driver 

behavior under the daily pressures of 

real-world driving conditions. The 

research documented the prevalence of 

distractions while driving a CMV, 

including both trucks and buses, using 

an existing naturalistic data set. This 

data set came from 183 truck and bus 

fleets comprising a total of 13,306 

vehicles captured during a 90-day 

period. There were 8,509 buses and 

4,797 trucks. The data sets in the 

current study did not include 

continuous data; it only included 

recorded events that met or exceeded a 

kinematic threshold (a minimum g-force 

setting that triggers the event recorder). 

These recorded events included safetycritical events (e.g., hard braking in 

response to another vehicle) and 

baseline events (i.e., an event that was 

not related to a safety-critical event, 

such as a vehicle that traveled over train 

tracks and exceeded the kinematic 

threshold). A total of 1,085 crashes, 

8,375 near-crashes, 30,661 crashrelevant conflicts, and 211,171 baselines 

were captured in the dataset. 

Odds ratios were calculated to show 

a measure of association between 

involvement in a safety-critical event 

and performing non-driving related 

tasks, such as dialing or texting. The 

odds ratios show the odds of being 

involved in a safety-critical event when 

a non-driving related task is present 

compared to situations when there is no 

non-driving related task. The odds ratios 

for text/e-mail/accessing the Internet 

tasks were very high, indicating a strong 

relationship between text/e-mail/ 

accessing the Internet while driving and 

involvement in a safety-critical event. 

Very few instances of this behavior were 

observed during safety-critical events in 

the current study and even fewer during 

control events. Although truck and bus 

drivers do not text frequently, the data 

suggest that truck and bus drivers who 

use their cell phone to text, e-mail, or 

access the Internet are very likely to be 

involved in a safety-critical event. 

E. Existing Texting Prohibitions and 

Restrictions by Federal, State, and Local 

Governments 

1. Executive Order 13513 

The President immediately used the 

feedback from the DOT Summit on 

Distracted Driving and issued Executive 

Order 13513, which ordered that: 

Federal employees shall not engage in text 

messaging (a) when driving a Government 

Owned Vehicle, or when driving a Privately 

Owned Vehicle while on official Government 

business, or (b) when using electronic 

equipment supplied by the Government 

while driving. 

The Executive Order is applicable to the 

operation of CMVs by Federal 

government employees carrying out 

their duties and responsibilities, or 

using electronic equipment supplied by 

the government. This order also 

encourages contractors to comply while 

operating CMVs on behalf of the Federal 

government. 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10775 

11The term ‘‘intrastate commerce’’ is trade, traffic, 

or transportation within a single State. The term 

‘‘interstate commerce’’ is trade, traffic, or 

transportation involving the crossing of a State 

boundary. Additionally, ‘‘interstate commerce’’ 

includes transportation originating or terminating 

outside the state of United States. 

12 In accordance with § 390.3(a) the rules in 

Subchapter B, including parts 350–399, of 49 CFR 

are applicable to all employers, employees, and 

commercial motor vehicles, which transport 

property or passengers in interstate commerce. The 

only FMCSA regulations that are applicable to 

intrastate operations are: the commercial driver’s 

license (CDL) requirement, for drivers operating 

commercial motor vehicles as defined in 49 CFR 

383.5; controlled substances and alcohol testing for 

all persons required to possess a CDL; and 

minimum levels of financial responsibility for the 

intrastate transportation of certain quantities of 

hazardous materials and substances. 

2. Regulatory Guidance 

On January 27, 2010, FMCSA 

published regulatory guidance 

concerning the applicability of 49 CFR 

390.17, Additional equipment and 

accessories, to any CMV operator 

engaged in ‘‘texting’’ on an electronic 

device while driving a CMV in interstate 

commerce (75 FR 4305). The guidance 

interpreted § 390.17 as prohibiting 

texting on electronic devices while 

driving because it decreases the safety of 

operations. 

3. Federal Railroad Administration 

On October 7, 2008, FRA published 

Emergency Order 26 (73 FR 58702). 

Pursuant to FRA’s authority under 49 

U.S.C. 20102 and 20103, the order, 

which took effect on October 1, 2008, 

restricts railroad operating employees 

from using distracting electronic and 

electrical devices while on duty. Among 

other things, the order prohibits both 

the use of cell phones and texting. FRA 

cited numerous examples of the adverse 

impact that electronic devices can have 

on safe operations. These examples 

included fatal accidents that involved 

operators who were distracted while 

texting or talking on a cell phone. In 

light of these incidents, FRA is 

imposing restrictions on the use of such 

electronic devices, both through its 

order and a rulemaking that seeks to 

codify the order. In a NPRM published 

May 18, 2010, FRA proposed to amend 

its railroad communications regulations 

by restricting the use of mobile 

telephones and other distracting 

electronic devices by railroad operating 

employees (75 FR 27672). 

4. State Restrictions 

Texting while driving is prohibited in 

30 States and the District of Columbia. 

A list of States and territories that have 

taken such actions can be found at the 

following DOT Web site: http:// 

www.distraction.gov/state-laws. 

Generally, the State requirements are 

applicable to all drivers operating motor 

vehicles within those jurisdictions, 

including CMV operators. Because some 

States do not currently prohibit texting 

while driving, there is a need for a 

Federal regulation to address the safety 

risks associated with texting by CMV 

drivers. Generally, State laws and 

regulations remain in effect and could 

continue to be enforced with regard to 

CMV drivers, provided those laws and 

regulations are compatible with the 

Federal requirements. This final rule 

does not affect the ability of States to 

institute new prohibitions on texting 

while driving. For more information see 

the Federalism section later in this 

document. 

II. Applicability of This Final Rule 

PHMSA’s Office of Hazardous 

Materials Safety is the Federal safety 

authority for the transportation of 

hazardous materials by air, rail, 

highway, and water. Under the Federal 

hazardous materials transportation law 

(Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et 

seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is 

charged with protecting the nation 

against the risks to life, property, and 

the environment that are inherent in the 

commercial transportation of hazardous 

materials. The Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171– 

180) are promulgated under the 

mandate in Section 5103(b) of Federal 

hazardous materials transportation law 

(Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et 

seq.) that the Secretary of 

Transportation ‘‘prescribe regulations for 

the safe transportation, including 

security, of hazardous material in 

intrastate, interstate, and foreign 

commerce.’’ Section 5103(b)(1)(B) 

provides that the HMR ‘‘shall govern 

safety aspects, including security, of the 

transportation of hazardous material the 

Secretary considers appropriate.’’ As 

such, PHMSA strives to reduce the risks 

inherent to the transportation of 

hazardous materials in both intrastate 

and interstate commerce.11

The final rule published in the 

Federal Register on September 27, 2010 

by FMCSA under Docket FMCSA–2009– 

0370 incorporates texting restrictions 

into § 392.80 of the FMCSRs that apply 

to CMV motor carriers and drivers in 

interstate commerce. During the 

coordination process for PHMSA’s 

August 3, 2010 safety advisory notice on 

distracted driving, PHMSA and FMCSA 

representatives expressed concern that 

changes to the FMCSRs regarding 

distracted driving would only apply to 

motor carriers and drivers of CMVs that 

operate in interstate commerce.12 As 

such, FMCSA’s final rule does not apply 

to motor carriers and drivers that 

transport a quantity of hazardous 

materials requiring placarding under 

part 172 of the 49 CFR or any quantity 

of a material listed as a select agent or 

toxin in 42 CFR part 73 in intrastate 

commerce. 

PHMSA developed its NPRM and this 

final rule to expand the population of 

drivers who are prohibited from texting 

by FMCSA’s final rule to include drivers 

who transport a quantity of hazardous 

materials requiring placarding under 

part 172 of the 49 CFR or any quantity 

of a material listed as a select agent or 

toxin in 42 CFR part 73 in intrastate 

commerce. The safety benefits 

associated with limiting the distractions 

caused by electronic devices are equally 

applicable to drivers transporting a 

quantity of hazardous materials 

requiring placarding under part 172 of 

the 49 CFR or any quantity of a material 

listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 

CFR part 73 in intrastate commerce as 

they are to interstate commerce. The use 

of an electronic device while driving 

constitutes a safety risk to the motor 

vehicle driver, other motorists, and 

bystanders. As codified by the 

September 27, 2010 FMCSA final rule, 

the consequences of texting while 

driving a CMV can include State and 

local sanctions, fines, and possible 

revocation of a commercial driver’s 

license. 

III. Discussion of Comments 

PHMSA received one comment in 

response to our September 27, 2010 

NPRM. Generally, the commenter 

expresses support for PHMSA’s efforts, 

but requests expansion of the proposed 

texting limitation to include any person 

being paid to drive any type of vehicle. 

The commenter also suggests that the 

penalty for failure to obey the 

prohibition should result in a loss of 

driving privileges for six months for the 

first offense and one year for any 

additional offense. Further, the 

commenter indicates that if any 

infraction results in injury to 

pedestrians or drivers of other vehicles 

the driver may lose all driving privileges 

and serve six months for each infraction 

and up to twenty-three years for each 

fatality. Additionally, the commenter 

suggests that PHMSA prohibit the use of 

any type of electronic device while 

driving. The comment is discussed and 

addressed below. 

We appreciate the comment and fully 

understand the concerns the commenter 

expresses. In regard to the commenter’s 

suggestion that we expand the texting 

prohibition to include any person being 

paid to drive any type of vehicle, 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
10776 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

13The FMCSRs require certain commercial 

carriers to obtain a US DOT number by filling out 

DOT form MC–150 (OMB Control Number 2126– 

0013). Companies that operate commercial vehicles 

transporting passengers or hauling cargo in 

interstate commerce must be registered with the 

FMCSA and must have a US DOT Number. The US 

DOT Number serves as a unique identifier when 

collecting and monitoring a company’s safety 

information acquired during audits, compliance 

reviews, crash investigations, and inspections. 

FMCSA provides two services for people who need 

to obtain a US DOT number. The MC–150 form can 

be downloaded from the FMCSA Web site in PDF 

form and mailed in; or, they may file electronically 

via the Web site. Both options are found at the 

following URL: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/factsfigs/ 

formspubs.htm. 

PHMSA provides the following 

response. As we discuss in the 

Applicability of this Final Rule section 

above, PHMSA’s regulatory authority is 

limited to the transportation of 

hazardous materials in commerce. 

Though we see the utility in prohibiting 

texting by any person being paid to 

drive any type of vehicle, such a change 

is outside of the authority granted to 

PHMSA. 

The changes proposed in the 

September 27, 2010 NPRM are intended 

to align the HMR with requirements 

already adopted by the FMCSA to 

prohibit texting by CMV drivers (see the 

definition of a ‘‘commercial motor 

vehicle’’ in the BACKGROUND section 

of this final rule). Overall, the 

provisions in FMCSA’s final rule 

consider over 400 comments submitted 

in response to its NPRM issued on April 

1, 2010 under Docket FMCSA–2009– 

0370 (75 FR 16391). PHMSA 

incorporated the changes resulting from 

FMCSA’s evaluation of those comments 

into its September 27, 2010 NPRM. One 

key component of the FMCSA definition 

for a CMV is that it applies to a vehicle 

of any size that is used in the 

transportation of ‘‘hazardous materials’’ 

as defined in § 383.5. To be consistent 

with the final rule issued by FMCSA we 

relied on its definition of a ‘‘hazardous 

material’’ to be the triggering factor for 

the texting prohibition. The definition 

for ‘‘hazardous materials’’ provided in 

the FMCSRs reads as follows: 

Hazardous materials means any 

material that has been designated as 

hazardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103 and is 

required to be placarded under subpart 

F of 49 CFR part 172 or any quantity of 

a material listed as a select agent or 

toxin in 42 CFR part 73. 

As a result of this decision to promote 

consistency between the Agencies, we 

are covering the same population of 

‘‘hazardous materials’’ in any size 

vehicle. Both PHMSA and FMCSA 

continue to support that approach. 

Therefore, in this final rule we are 

adopting the population of covered 

drivers and materials as proposed in the 

NPRM. The texting prohibition adopted 

by this final rule applies to drivers who 

transport a quantity of hazardous 

materials requiring placarding under 

part 172 of the 49 CFR or any quantity 

of a material listed as a select agent or 

toxin in 42 CFR part 73. 

In regard to the commenter’s 

suggestions regarding the penalties for 

drivers that violate the texting 

prohibition, PHMSA provides the 

following response. The FMCSA 

incorporates disqualification penalties 

into § 391.15 of the FMCSRs. Generally, 

a driver who is convicted of violating 

the prohibition of texting in § 392.80(a) 

of the 49 CFR is disqualified for 60 days 

if the driver is convicted of two 

violations and 120 days if the driver is 

convicted of three violations of 

§ 392.80(a) of this chapter in separate 

incidents during any 3-year period. In 

addition to these penalties, drivers that 

are convicted of infractions that result 

in injury to pedestrians or drivers of 

other vehicles may face criminal 

penalties. 

PHMSA continues to support the 

penalties established by the September 

27, 2010 final rule published by the 

FMCSA. Therefore, we are adopting the 

changes to § 177.804 as proposed. 

In regard to the commenter’s 

suggestion that PHMSA prohibit the use 

of any type of electronic device while 

driving, PHMSA provides the following 

response. PHMSA and FMCSA are 

working closely to evaluate the risks 

associated with other distractions and 

devices that may cause distracted 

driving. As such, the Agencies plan to 

pursue additional restrictions to limit 

those risks through future regulatory 

actions. 

IV. Section-by-Section 

After fully considering the comments 

received in response to the September 

27, 2010 NPRM, PHMSA is adopting the 

following change, as proposed in the 

NPRM: 

Section 177.804. PHMSA is adding a 

new paragraph (b) to prohibit texting by 

any person transporting a quantity of 

hazardous materials requiring 

placarding under part 172 of the 49 CFR 

or any quantity of a material listed as a 

select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73. 

For consistency with existing FMCSA 

requirements PHMSA makes reference 

to the texting prohibition in § 392.80 of 

the FMCSRs. Specifically, § 392.80 

states that motor carriers and drivers 

transporting covered materials may not 

engage in texting while driving. In 

addition, § 392.80 provides a limited 

exception for emergency use that allows 

CMV drivers to text if necessary to 

communicate with law enforcement 

officials or other emergency services. 

V. Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This 

Rulemaking 

This rulemaking is issued under 

authority of the Federal hazardous 

materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 

5101 et seq.), which authorizes the 

Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 

regulations for the safe transportation, 

including security, of hazardous 

materials in interstate, intrastate, and 

foreign commerce. 

B. Executive Order 12866, Executive 

Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

PHMSA has determined that this 

rulemaking action is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

and significant under DOT regulatory 

policies and procedures because of the 

substantial Congressional and public 

interest concerning the crash risks 

associated with distracted driving, even 

though the economic costs of the rule do 

not exceed the $100 million annual 

threshold. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

require agencies to regulate in the ‘‘most 

cost-effective manner,’’ to make a 

‘‘reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs,’’ and to develop 

regulations that ‘‘impose the least 

burden on society.’’ As discussed 

throughout this rulemaking, the intent 

of this final rule is to expand the 

applicability of FMCSA’s requirements 

and prohibit texting by drivers of motor 

vehicles that contain a quantity of 

hazardous materials requiring 

placarding under part 172 of the 49 CFR 

or any quantity of a material listed as a 

select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73. 

As a result, the population of motor 

carriers covered by this final rule is 

comprised of a very small portion of 

motor carriers operating in intrastate 

commerce. 

PHMSA calculated its affected 

population by assessing hazmat 

registration data from the 2010–2011 

registration year. This data is collected 

on DOT form F 5800.2 in accordance 

with § 107.608(a) of the 49 CFR. 

Generally, the registration requirements 

apply to any person who offers for 

transportation or transports a quantity of 

hazardous materials requiring 

placarding under part 172 of the 49 

CFR. Additional data collected on form 

F 5800.2 verify that the person is indeed 

a carrier, the mode of transportation 

used, and the US DOT Number.13 Using 

this key data from the registration form 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10777 

14MCMIS contains information on the safety 

fitness of commercial motor carriers (truck & bus) 

and hazardous material shippers subject to both the 

FMCSRs and the HMR. This information is 

available to the general public through the MCMIS 

Data Dissemination Program. 

15 ‘‘What is a USDOT Number?’’ See:http:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration-licensing/

registration-USDOT.htm. 

submissions we can make some 

assumptions to estimate the number of 

persons registered that we consider 

motor carriers subject to this final rule. 

Based on our analysis of form F 5800.2, 

18,841 persons have registered as motor 

carriers of hazardous materials. Of those 

18,841 persons 17,599 included a US 

DOT Number. Therefore, based on 

PHMSA’s registration data, the 

difference between persons registered as 

motor carriers and persons that have 

obtained a US DOT Number is 1,242 

(18,841 ¥ 17,599 = 1,242). PHMSA 

considers these persons to be intrastate 

motor carriers. We compared these 

numbers with the FMCSA Motor Carrier 

Management Information System 

(MCMIS).14 Based on MCMIS data we 

verified that the 1,242 carriers identified 

through registration data have not been 

issued a US DOT Number by FMCSA. 

To better define the population of 

intrastate motor carriers subject to this 

rulemaking we assessed the data further. 

Generally, registration data is limited to 

persons that offer or transport placarded 

quantities of hazardous materials. 

Registration data does not include 

persons that transport a material listed 

as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 

73. In addition, the data includes those 

intrastate motor carriers that are 

required to obtain a US DOT Number 

through their State even if they operate 

solely in intrastate commerce. FMCSA 

indicates that 28 States currently require 

motor carriers to obtain a US DOT 

Number, regardless if they operate in 

interstate or intrastate commerce.15

Based on these assumptions, the 

number of intrastate carriers identified 

through hazmat registration data may be 

underestimated by up to 60% to 70%. 

Another assumption that must be 

considered is that 30 States and the 

District of Columbia have adopted a 

broad based ban on texting while 

driving. As a result, it is likely that 60% 

of the carriers identified as intrastate 

carriers are already subject to a ban on 

texting while driving. Accordingly, this 

would indicate that the number of 

intrastate carriers identified as not 

covered by a texting ban could be 

overestimated by as much as 60%. 

Based on the assumptions outlined 

above, and PHMSA’s desire to take a 

conservative approach to the affected 

population, we multiply the number of 

intrastate carriers identified through 

registration data by a 20% 

underreporting factor. This will result in 

a total population affected by this 

rulemaking of 1,490 intrastate motor 

carriers (1,242 × 1.20 = 1,490). In 

addition to the number of intrastate 

motor carriers, PHMSA estimates that 

each intrastate motor carrier employs 

approximately 8 drivers. Therefore, the 

estimated population of intrastate motor 

carrier drivers affected by this final rule 

is 11,920 (1,490 × 8 = 11,920). This 

conservative estimate ensures that 

PHMSA is fully considering the impacts 

of expanding applicability of the 

FMCSA requirements prohibiting 

texting by drivers of motor vehicles that 

contain a quantity of hazardous 

materials requiring placarding under 

part 172 of the 49 CFR or any quantity 

of a material listed as a select agent or 

toxin in 42 CFR part 73. 

The regulatory evaluation prepared in 

support of this rulemaking considers the 

following potential costs: (a) Loss in 

carrier productivity due to time spent 

while parking or pulling over to the side 

of the roadway to perform texting 

activities; (b) increased fuel usage due to 

idling as well as exiting and entering the 

travel lanes of the roadway; and (c) 

increased crash risk due to covered 

CMVs that are parked on the side of the 

roadway and exiting and entering the 

travel lanes of the roadway. The 

regulatory evaluation also considers 

potential costs to the States. However, 

since the analysis does not yield 

appreciable costs to the States, further 

analysis pursuant to the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1532) was deemed unnecessary. 

PHMSA estimates that this final rule 

will cost $5,227 annually. Additionally, 

PHMSA has not identified a significant 

increase in crash risk associated with 

drivers’ strategies for complying with 

this final rule. As indicated in the 

regulatory evaluation, a crash resulting 

in property damage only (PDO) averages 

approximately $17,000 in damages. 

Consequently, the texting prohibition 

would have to eliminate just one PDO 

crash every 3.25 years for the benefits of 

this final rule to exceed the costs. A 

summary of the costs and threshold 

analysis is provided in the following 

table: 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND THRESHOLD

ANALYSIS

Cost of Lost Carrier Productivity $438. 

Cost of Increased Fuel Consumption.$3,411. 

Cost of Parking, Entering and 

Exiting Roadway Crashes.

$1,378. 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND THRESHOLD

ANALYSIS—Continued 

Total Costs (annual) ............ $5,227. 

Benefit of Eliminating One Fatality.$6 million. 

Break-even Number of Lives 

Saved.

< 1. 

The productivity losses, as well as 

other costs, were estimated for only one 

year, as the entire threshold analysis 

was performed as an undiscounted 

annual estimation. The loss of 

productivity is expected to diminish 

(but not necessarily vanish within one 

year), as the motor carrier industry 

adjusts to the texting restriction and as 

new (permissible) technologies arise 

that compensate for the loss of the 

texting functionality. PHMSA is 

unaware of the specific future 

technologies that might arise, but we 

continue to research and monitor 

technological changes in the market. 

C. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

agencies to assure meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that may have a substantial, 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. A rule has 

implications for Federalism under 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it 

has a substantial direct effect on State or 

local governments and would either 

preempt State law or impose a 

substantial direct cost of compliance on 

them. In the NPRM, PHMSA invited 

State and local governments to comment 

on the effect that the adoption of this 

rule may have on State or local safety 

or environmental protection programs. 

PHMSA did not receive any comments 

in response to that request. 

D. Executive Order 13175 

This final rule has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because this final rule does not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian Tribal 

governments and does not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires Federal 

agencies to consider the effects of the 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
10778 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 39 / Monday, February 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

regulatory action on small business and 

other small entities and to minimize any 

significant economic impact. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses and not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

Accordingly, DOT policy requires an 

analysis of the impact of all regulations 

on small entities, and mandates that 

agencies strive to lessen any adverse 

effects on these businesses. 

PHMSA has conducted an economic 

analysis of the impact of this final rule 

on small entities and certifies that a 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not 

necessary because the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

subject to the requirements of this final 

rule. We assume that all of the 1,490 

motor carriers identified by this final 

rule are small entities. However, the 

direct costs of this rule that small 

entities may incur are only expected to 

be minimal. They consist of the costs of 

lost productivity from foregoing texting 

while on-duty and fuel usage costs for 

pulling to the side of the road to idle the 

truck or passenger-carrying vehicle to 

send or receive a text message. The 

majority of motor carriers are small 

entities. Therefore, PHMSA will use the 

total cost of this final rule ($5,227) 

applied to the number of small entities 

(1,490) as a worse case evaluation which 

would average $3.51 annually per 

carrier. 

F. Executive Order 13272 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This final rule has been developed in 

accordance with Executive Order 13272 

(‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s 

procedures and policies to promote 

compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to ensure that potential 

impacts of rulemakings on small entities 

are properly considered. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule would call for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

A regulation identifier number (RIN) 

is assigned to each regulatory action 

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. The RIN contained in the heading 

of this document can be used to crossreference this action with the Unified 

Agenda. 

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This final rule does not impose 

unfunded mandates, under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. It does not result in costs of 

$140.8 million or more to either State, 

local, or Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, and 

is the least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objective of the rule. 

J. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477 through 19478) or you may visit 

http://www.dot.gov. This rule is not a 

privacy-sensitive rulemaking because 

the rule will not require any collection, 

maintenance, or dissemination of 

Personally Identifiable Information (PII) 

from or about members of the public. 

K. National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal 

agencies to consider the consequences 

of major Federal actions and that they 

prepare a detailed statement on actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. PHMSA’s 

assessment did not reveal any 

significant positive or negative impacts 

on the environment expected to result 

from the rulemaking action. There could 

be minor impacts on emissions, 

hazardous materials spills, solid waste, 

socioeconomics, and public health and 

safety. In the NPRM PHMSA invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

potential environmental impacts of 

regulations applicable to texting while 

driving. PHMSA did not receive any 

comments in response to that request. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR part 177 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Motor carriers, Radioactive materials, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 

CFR Chapter I is amended as follows: 

PART 177—CARRIAGE BY PUBLIC 

HIGHWAY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 177 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 

1.53. 

■ 2. Section 177.804 is amended by: 

■ a. Designating the existing text as 

paragraph (a); 

■ b. Adding a heading to the newly 

designated paragraph (a); and 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 177.804 Compliance with Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations. 

(a) General. * * * 

(b) Prohibition against texting. In 

accordance with § 392.80 of the 

FMCSRs a person transporting a 

quantity of hazardous materials 

requiring placarding under 49 CFR part 

172 or any quantity of a material listed 

as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 

73 may not engage in, allow, or require 

texting while driving. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 17, 

2011, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

part 106. 

Cynthia L. Quarterman, 

Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4273 Filed 2–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 001005281–0369–02] 

RIN 0648–XA245 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources of the 

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; 

Closure 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial 

sector for king mackerel in the Florida 

east coast subzone. This closure is 

necessary to protect the Gulf king 

mackerel resource. 

DATES: The closure is effective 12:01 

a.m., local time, February 26, 2011, until 

12:01 a.m., local time, April 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727–824– 

5305, fax: 727–824–5308, e-mail: 

Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES