U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

99–010 

" ! SENATE 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2010

111–355 

Calendar No. 656 

DISTRACTED DRIVING PREVENTION ACT OF 

2009 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 1938 

NOVEMBER 30, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROCcongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

GEORGE S. LEMIEUX, Florida 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ELLEN DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE ANDREWS, General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN HENDRICKS, Republican General Counsel 

TODD BERTOSON, Republican Senior Counsel 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
Calendar No. 656 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–355 

DISTRACTED DRIVING PREVENTION ACT OF 2009 

NOVEMBER 30, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1938] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 1938) to establish a program to reduce injuries and deaths caused by cell phone use and texting 

while driving, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 1938, as reported, is to establish a program to 

reduce injuries and deaths caused by cell phone use and texting 

while driving. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

estimates that in 2008, nearly 16 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities and 22 percent of all motor vehicle injuries occurred in crashes 

in which at least one form of distracted driving was reported in the 

crash report. As large as these numbers are, they still may not 

state the true size of the problem, as the identification of distraction by law enforcement and its role in a crash can be very difficult 

to ascertain. What is clear is that exposure to distracted driving 

has skyrocketed with the explosion of cell phones and other personal wireless devices. Today, 87 percent of Americans own some 

form of wireless device. 

Distracted driving encompasses a wide range of behavior, including cell phone use, that takes the driver’s attention away from his 

or her primary driving responsibilities. As overall cell phone use 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
2 

1The entire report is available at www.nhtsa.gov. 

and text messaging have increased year-to-year, the proportion of 

vehicle fatalities associated with driver distraction has risen—from 

12 percent in 2004 to 16 percent in 2008. In a 2009 poll conducted 

by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 67 percent of drivers 

self-reported using a cell phone while driving, and 21 percent selfreported that they send and receive text messages while driving. 

Distracted Driving Data 

As cell phone use increased dramatically during the past decade, 

NHTSA researchers began looking into the safety risks of cell 

phone use by drivers. The NHTSA staff collected and summarized 

more than 100 private, university, and foreign clinical studies examining driver attention span, the effect of telephone conversations 

on a driver’s cognitive abilities, and driver reaction times when distracted. Looking at its own limited crash data at the time, NHTSA 

researchers estimated that in 2002, cell phone use was a contributing factor in crashes that killed an estimated 508 to 1,248 people. 

An exact figure was impossible to determine due to the lack of definitive data. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Ray LaHood 

and NHTSA have focused considerable time and attention on distracted driving research and awareness. At the DOT’s Distracted 

Driving Conference on September 30 and October 1, 2009, NHTSA 

released a compilation of safety statistics related to cell phone use 

and texting in passenger cars.1 The data was drawn from NHTSA’s 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling System’s General Estimates System (NASS GES). 

The FARS annually collects fatality crash data from the States. 

The NASS GES is a nationally representative sample of police-reported crashes across a range of causes and accident severity. 

According to NHTSA, in 2008, 2.3 million people were injured in 

motor vehicle traffic crashes. Of these, 37,261 people were killed. 

Driver distraction played a role in 515,000 vehicle injuries, or 22 

percent of all injuries, and played a role in 5,870 fatalities, or 16 

percent of all vehicle fatalities. Drivers under 20 years of age accounted for the greatest proportion of distracted driving fatalities. 

NHTSA conducts an annual survey of seat belt use in each State, 

referred to as the National Occupant Protection Use Survey. The 

survey recently began recording information on the use of electronic devices while driving. In 2008, the survey results show that 

11 percent of drivers at any given daylight hour were using an 

electronic device, whether hand-held or hands-free. The same survey results show that 6 percent of drivers at any given daylight 

hour, or 812,000 drivers, were holding a cell phone to their ears. 

That usage rate was a reduction from 2007, when the survey results show that more than one million drivers held a cell phone to 

their ears at any given daylight hour. The decrease, however, may 

be the result of more drivers using hands-free devices. 

NHTSA’s Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey (MVOSS) is a 

periodic telephone survey to obtain data on attitudes, knowledge, 

and behavior on seat belt use, child safety, and other aspects of occupant protection. In 2007, the survey showed that 81 percent of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
3 

2See NHTSA 2007 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey, Volume 4: Crash Injury and Emergency Medical Services Report at 20. 3 Id. at 23–4. 

4 Id. at 29. 

5See The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Phase II—Results of the 100-Car Field Experi- ment. April 2006. Accesssible at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/ 

Crash%20Avoidance/Driver%20Distraction/100CarMain.pdf. 6 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded in NHTSA Databanks, at 6. September 2009. 7See Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, ‘‘New Data from VTTI Provides Insight Into Cell 

Phone Use and Driving Distraction,’’ July 27, 2009. 

drivers have a wireless phone with them when they drive.2 Of 

those that have a wireless phone in the vehicle, 64 percent of respondents said they always or usually answer incoming phone calls 

and 16 percent said they talk while driving during most or all of 

their trips.3 Only 10 percent said they never make a phone call 

while in the car.4

Prior to NHTSA’s compilation of the above statistics, several 

news reports about distracted driving cited studies that mostly consisted of artificial environments, such as driving simulators in university labs, or placing cameras inside a limited number of passenger cars or trucks to record driver behavior. The most frequently cited study (funded by NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and performed by Virginia 

Tech’s Transportation Institute) installed video and other recording 

equipment in 100 passenger vehicles and recorded driver behavior 

during a one-year period.5 The researchers also tracked drivers in 

100 commercial vehicles for a period of 18 months. NHTSA warned 

that the ‘‘findings of the 100-car study cannot be generalized to 

represent the behavior of the Nation’s population or the potential 

causal factors for the crashes that occur across the Nation’s roadways.’’ 6 Texting was studied only for commercial drivers, but not 

passenger car drivers. 

The Virginia Tech study concluded that: 

• Drivers of passenger vehicles are 

• 2.8 times more likely to be in a crash when dialing a 

cell phone; 

• 1.3 times more likely to be in a crash when talking or 

listening on a cell phone; and 

• 1.4 times more likely to be in a crash when reaching 

for an object. 

• Drivers of heavy vehicles and trucks are 

• 5.9 times more likely to be in a crash when dialing a 

cell phone; 

• 1.0 times more likely to be in a crash when talking or 

listening on a cell phone; 

• 6.7 times more likely to be in a crash when using or 

reaching for an electronic device; and 

• 23.2 times more likely to be in a crash when text messaging. Text messaging risk is high because that distraction had the longest duration of a driver’s eyes leaving 

sight of the road. 

• Drivers’ eyes diverted during text messaging for an average of 4.6 seconds over a 6 second interval. A driver traveling 

55 miles per hour would cover the length of a football field by 

the time he or she looked up after 4.6 seconds.7


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
4 

8See Federal Communications Commission, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, Fourteenth Report. May 20, 2010. 9 Id. 10 ‘‘2nd’’ denotes the restriction to be a ‘‘secondary’’ offense under the State law. 11 Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa (2nd 

for adult; primary for teens), Kentucky, Louisiana (2nd), Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska (2nd), New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York (2nd), North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia (2nd), Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 12 Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana (2nd), Maine, Maryland (2nd), Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska (2nd), New 

Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas (intermediate license holders 

only), Virginia (2nd), Washington, and West Virginia. 13 Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska (2nd), Texas, and West 

Virginia. 

This driving data comes against the backdrop of the overall surge 

in cell phone subscriptions and cell phone use. In 2008, there were 

270 million wireless subscribers in the U.S.8 From 1995 to 2008, 

the number of wireless subscribers increased by 8 times, and the 

number of minutes talked increased by 58 times. In 2008, wireless 

consumers used 2.2 trillion minutes and sent and received 110 billion text messages each month.9

Federal and State Roles 

Driver licensing, rules of the road, and traffic enforcement are 

generally a State responsibility. However, the Federal government, 

through FMCSA, regulates motor carrier and motorcoach safety, 

and certain aspects of school bus safety. NHTSA regulates the safety of vehicles, and conducts a number of programs, including incentive-based programs with the States, to encourage safer driver behavior. 

State Laws on Distracted Driving 

There are great variations among State distracted driving laws, 

including what constitutes a violation, and the penalties for a violation. Some States make the law a ‘‘secondary’’ offense, meaning 

that a law enforcement officer must have a separate enforcement 

reason (e.g., speeding) other than the cell phone or texting violation 

to pull over a driver. 

Currently, no State has banned all use of cell phones while driving. 7 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah (2nd),10 Washington (2nd)) and the District of Columbia 

have banned the use of a hand-held phone while driving. Texas has 

banned the use of a hand-held phone in school crossing zones and 

Illinois has banned the use of a hand-held phone in construction 

and school zones. Texting while driving has been targeted by a majority of the States as well. As of this writing, 30 States and the 

District of Columbia ban all drivers from texting.11

A number of States have placed greater restrictions on teen drivers. 25 States and the District of Columbia ban teen drivers from 

talking on all cell phones.12 Also, a number of States with no general prohibition on texting prohibit such behavior for teen drivers.13

Maine takes a broad view of distracted driving. Maine’s distracted driving law defines ‘‘operation of a motor vehicle while distracted’’ as an activity that is not necessary for the operation of the 

vehicle, and that actually impairs, or would reasonably be expected 

to impair, the ability of the driver to safely operate the vehicle. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
5 

Federal Law on Distracted Driving for Commercial Vehicles 

Unlike most passenger vehicle drivers, commercial motor vehicles often serve as office space for their drivers. Devices to receive 

directions, follow-up on orders, or maintain contact with dispatchers are necessary for a truck or bus driver to perform his or 

her duties. These devices, too, may be distracting if they divert a 

driver’s attention away from the roadway. 

In 2006, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that the FMCSA publish regulations prohibiting cell 

phone use by commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders with passenger or school bus endorsements while operating a motorcoach or 

bus, except in emergency situations. This recommendation followed 

an NTSB investigation of a 2004 bus accident in Alexandria, Virginia, that injured 11 of the 27 passengers. The NTSB found that 

the probable cause of the accident was the bus driver’s failure to 

notice and respond to warning signs due to cognitive distraction resulting from conversing on a hands-free cellular telephone while 

driving. The NTSB has since added this recommendation to its 

‘‘Most Wanted’’ list of transportation safety improvements. 

On January 27, 2010, Secretary LaHood issued guidance for commercial motor vehicle drivers regarding an existing motor carrier 

safety rule to make clear that texting while driving is prohibited. 

On April 1, 2010, the Secretary formally proposed a rule to directly 

prohibit texting by commercial motor vehicle drivers operating in 

interstate commerce, and to impose sanctions and penalties for violations. The proposed rule would also revoke the CDL of any school 

bus driver convicted of texting while driving a school bus. Comments were due on May 3, 2010. 

Although the FMCSA has not yet issued a final rule regarding 

distracted drivers for CDL holders, commercial motor vehicle drivers are covered by most State laws that have banned hand-held 

phone use and texting while driving for all drivers. Many States 

have exceptions for emergencies and emergency workers. Illinois 

and Oregon reference commercial motor vehicle drivers in their exceptions. In Illinois, a commercial motor vehicle driver is permitted 

to read a message displayed on a permanently installed communications device that does not exceed 10 square inches. Oregon permits hand-held cell phone use while driving if the person is operating within the scope of the person’s employment and if the operation of the motor vehicle is necessary for the person’s job. 

Role for the Federal Communications Commission 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency established by the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act). The agency is 

charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. Title III of the 

Communications Act provides the FCC with authority to regulate 

‘‘radio communications,’’ or wireless spectrum and services. In practice, that means the agency oversees a wide variety of issues that 

affect the consumer wireless experience and access to spectrum for 

commercial wireless providers. 

As wireless phones and mobile devices have surged in popularity 

in recent years, the FCC’s focus on wireless issues has increased. 

To date, however, the agency has not used its regulatory authority 

to address distracted driving. While there are limits to the FCC’s 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
6 

jurisdiction in this area, the agency can use its authority to work 

with technology companies to promote solutions. For example, some 

have proposed technology that would disable certain cell phone 

functions when inside a car, or send automated responses to callers 

that the owner of the phone is driving, and thus cannot answer the 

phone. The FCC may be a natural forum to promote such technological solutions. The FCC can play an important role in determining the technical feasibility and potential issues with proposed 

devices for jamming cell phone signals in vehicles to stop distracted 

driving. 

The wireless phone industry has recognized that it is in its best 

interest to address distracted driving. To this end, CTIA—The 

Wireless Association has begun a campaign with the National Safety Council to educate teenagers about the dangers of texting while 

driving. This campaign includes a website, educational materials, 

and a public service announcement for television. 

The Federal Role in Traffic Safety 

When traffic safety issues of national importance arise, the Federal government has used Federal funding incentives and penalties 

to influence States. Highway safety programs under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Committee use incentives to affect 

highway safety behaviors and practices. During past multi-year reauthorizations of the transportation bill, the Commerce Committee 

has created grant programs that give funding incentives to States 

to enact highway safety laws and programs. Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy 

For Users, or ‘‘SAFETEA–LU’’ (P.L. 109–59), the last multi-year reauthorization that passed in 2005, the Commerce Committee authorized grant programs that send roughly $500 million a year to 

States for highway safety programs and funding incentives to enact 

safety belt and drunk driving laws. 

S. 1938 uses this approach to encourage States to aggressively 

address the deaths and injuries caused by distracted driving. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

The Distracted Driving Prevention Act would create a new program to make grants to States as an incentive to pass laws against 

distracted driving. The program is modeled after similar incentivebased programs that have granted States money to fight drunk 

driving and encourage safety belt use. 

To qualify for a grant, a State must adopt a law or amend an 

existing law to meet certain minimum criteria. Specifically, the 

State must enact a ban on all texting while driving, require drivers 

using a cell phone to use a hands-free device, and prohibit drivers 

under the age of 18 from using any cell phone device while driving. 

The State must make a violation of the statute a primary offense 

and enact an unspecified minimum penalty for a violation. The 

State must also enact increased civil and criminal penalties for a 

driver who causes an accident while texting or using a cell phone. 

The State grants for distracted driving would be funded with existing surpluses in the primary safety belt incentive program. 

The bill would also create and fund a national education and advertising program to educate the public about the dangers of distracted driving. The campaigns within these programs are meant 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
7 

to be comprehensive and include more than just direct appeals to 

drivers not to use a cell phone or text while driving. Part of the 

reason drivers make calls and send texts while driving is that employers, friends, and family members pressure drivers for immediate responses in non-emergency situations. 

The Secretary of Transportation would be required to prescribe 

regulations on the use of electronic or wireless devices, including 

cell phones and other distracting devices, by commercial motor vehicle and school bus drivers during the performance of their duties. 

The regulations would cover commercial motor vehicles, with gross 

vehicle weight greater than 10,000 pounds, buses with more than 

16 passengers (including the driver), vehicles used to transport 

hazardous materials in a quantity that requires placarding, and 

certain school buses. In recognition of the fact that motor carriers 

and commercial motor vehicle drivers rely on a variety of devices 

to run their businesses and operations, the Committee’s direction 

allows the Secretary flexibility regarding the regulations to be 

issued. However, the Committee expects the Secretary to base the 

regulations on a robust analysis of safety data and research, and 

ensure the safety of motor vehicle drivers, passengers, and other 

users of our roads and highways. 

To improve safety research, the bill would direct DOT to study 

distracted driving by passenger and commercial drivers, and direct 

the FCC to identify technologies with the potential to reduce the 

dangers of distracted driving. The bill would also require States to 

collect data on distracted driving accidents as part of the crash 

data they already collect. 

To reduce distractions in new vehicles, the Secretary of Transportation would be required to issue regulations that prohibit 

screens for visual entertainment in new vehicles that are in the 

driver’s view. Exceptions would be made for images related to vehicle operation, communications systems, and navigation systems. 

S. 1938 would not increase the budget deficit. The grant program 

in section 2, and the national advertising campaign in section 3, 

are paid for by redirecting unused surpluses from the SAFETEA– 

LU grants for States that enact a new primary safety belt law. The 

number of States enacting a new primary safety belt law has 

slowed in recent years, leaving only a few eligible States. 

Any State that enacts a new primary safety belt law in 2010 and 

2011 would still receive their safety belt grant from the pool of 

$124 million. But funding not claimed for new primary safety belt 

laws would be redirected to the distracted driving grant program. 

The first $7.5 million through the first fiscal quarter of FY 2011 

would be directed to the national advertising campaign in section 

3. Funding for section 3 is expected to be annualized at $30 million, 

which Congress reauthorizes or extends through the highway and 

transit program, which currently expires on December 31, 2010. 

The remaining funds—approximately $94 million dollars—would be 

divided by existing safety funding formulas among States with a 

qualifying distracted driving law under section 2. Any surpluses 

from the safety belt program in fiscal year 2010 would be rolled 

over into the same account in fiscal year 2011 to add to the pool 

of funds for States that qualify for a distracted driving grant in fiscal year 2011. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
8 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2009, S. 1938, was introduced on October 27, 2009, by Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking 

Member Hutchison, and Senators Lautenberg, Thune, Klobuchar 

and Schumer, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science 

and Transportation. The bill has five additional co-sponsors: Senators Casey, Nelson of Florida, Udall of New Mexico, Vitter, and 

Warner. On October 28, 2009, the Committee held a hearing on 

distracted driving. The witnesses were Secretary of Transportation 

Ray LaHood and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. The Committee considered S. 1938 in Executive Session on June 9, 2010, at 

which time a substitute amendment was offered. The Committee 

favorably reported the bill, as amended, by a roll call vote of 17 

yeas and 8 nays. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

JULY 15, 2010. 

Hon. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1938, the Distracted Driving 

Prevention Act of 2010. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Sarah Puro (for federal costs) and Samuel Wice (for the impact on the private sector). 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1938—Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2010 

Summary: S. 1938 would authorize the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to use previously appropriated contract authority (the authority to incur obligations in advance of appropriations and a mandatory form of budget authority) 

for activities related to preventing distracted driving (such as using 

a cell phone while driving) in fiscal year 2011. CBO estimates that 

enacting the legislation would have no significant impact on the 

federal budget. 

Enacting S. 1938 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 

S. 1938 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Any costs to state, 

local, or tribal governments would result from complying with conditions of assistance. 

The bill would impose private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA on commercial drivers and on the manufacturers and owners of motor vehicles. Because the cost of the requirements on commercial drivers would depend upon future regulations, CBO cannot 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
9 

estimate whether the aggregate cost of the mandates would exceed 

the annual threshold established in UMRA for the private sector 

($141 million in 2010, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: S. 1938 would authorize NHTSA to use $7.5 million of previously appropriated contract authority during the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 for activities related to preventing distracted driving. Those activities include providing grants to states and conducting educational outreach and research. 

CBO assumes that use of the contract authority would continue 

to be controlled by obligations on limitations contained in appropriation acts. CBO expects that the rate of expenditures for activities to prevent distracted driving would be similar to spending that 

would otherwise occur; therefore, enacting the bill would have no 

significant impact on the federal budget. 

Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: S. 

1938 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

UMRA. Any costs to State, local, or tribal governments would result from complying with conditions of assistance. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill would impose 

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA on commercial drivers 

and on the manufacturers and owners of motor vehicles. Because 

the cost of the requirements on commercial drivers would depend 

upon future rules and regulation, CBO cannot estimate whether 

the aggregate cost of the mandates on private-sector entities would 

exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for such mandates ($141 million in 2010, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Commercial motor vehicles and school buses 

The bill would prohibit drivers of commercial vehicles and school 

buses from using electronic or wireless devices in circumstances 

where such use interferes with their safe operation of the vehicles. 

The cost of the mandate would be any income forgone by those 

commercial drivers, typically truck drivers, whose income depends 

on the distance driven. That cost would depend on the specific regulations the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

imposes. According to FMCSA, there are seven million commercial 

drivers, and the average full-time driver of a truck makes slightly 

less than $20 an hour. 

Prohibition on electronic visual entertainment in driver’s view 

S. 1938 would direct the Department of Transportation to establish a new standard that would prohibit electronic screens from displaying broadcast television, movies, video games, and other visual 

entertainment that is visible to the driver while driving. According 

to information from industry sources, no vehicle manufacturers 

offer or plan to offer in the future devices providing entertainment 

in the driver’s view while driving. Thus, CBO estimates that the 

cost of the mandate would be minimal if any. 

Similarly, vehicle owners would be prohibited from adding aftermarket devices providing such entertainment in the driver’s view. 

The cost of the mandate would be minimal. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Sarah Puro; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Samuel Wice. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
10 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

The majority of the bill focuses on Federal and State government 

initiatives. State distracted driving laws would apply to an estimated population of 208 million licensed drivers. Section 8 would 

apply to commercial motor vehicle drivers, estimated at 3.4 million 

persons, although that number can fluctuate based on economic 

conditions. Section 10 would require the Secretary to issue new 

regulations that would prohibit auto manufacturers from installing 

entertainment screens in new cars that are in the view of the driver while driving. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

S. 1938 would not increase the budget deficit because it would 

redirect existing highway trust fund money already allocated to the 

primary safety belt program. Minimal regulatory costs of prohibiting commercial vehicle drivers from using distracting electronic 

devices and prohibiting entertainment screens in new cars from the 

view of drivers would be be more than offset by the economic cost 

savings of reducing traffic accidents that cause property damage, 

serious injuries, and death. 

PRIVACY

This bill would not have any adverse impact on the privacy of individuals. 

PAPERWORK

The Committee does not anticipate a major increase in paperwork burdens resulting from this legislation. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

contained in the bill, as reported, meet the definition of congressionally directed spending items under the rule. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title and table of contents 

The section would provide that S. 1938 may be cited as Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2010. 

Section 2. Distracted driving incentive grants 

The section would amend chapter 4 of title 23, United States 

Code, by adding a new section 413 entitled ‘‘Distracted driving incentive grants.’’ Subsection 413(a) would direct the Secretary of 

Transportation to create a new program to make grants to States 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
11 

that enact and implement a statute that meets the requirements 

set forth in subsections 413(b) and (c). Specifically, a State statute 

would meet the requirements of subsections 413(b) and (c) if it prohibits the use of a wireless communications device for texting while 

driving; prohibits a driver from holding a wireless communications 

device to make a call while driving; requires distracted driving 

issues to be tested as part of the State driver’s license examination; 

makes a violation a primary offence; creates a minimum fine for a 

first-time violation of the statute; imposes increased penalties for 

repeat violations; and provides increased civil and criminal penalties for a driver that causes an accident while using a device in 

violation of the statute. 

A State statute meeting the requirements of the section would be 

permitted under section 413(d) to provide exceptions for a driver 

contacting emergency services; the use of hands-free devices for 

drivers 18 or older; manipulation of a device to use the hands-free 

functionality; use of a wireless communications device by emergency services in the performance of their duties; and use of a device by commercial motor vehicle drivers, if such use is permitted 

under the regulations promulgated pursuant to section 31152 of 

title 49. 

Subsection 413(e) would require the Secretary to make a grant 

to a State beginning in fiscal year 2011 that enacts a qualifying 

law before July 1 or maintains a qualifying statute enacted in the 

previous year that is in effect through the end of June of the grant 

year. Under subsection 413(f), grants would be apportioned among 

qualifying States according to the same formula as safety belt and 

drunk driving grant programs. 

Subsection 413(g) would direct a State receiving a grant to use 

at least 50 percent of funds to educate the public and advertise information about the dangers of texting or using a cellphone while 

driving; for traffic signs notifying the public of distracted driving 

laws; for enforcement of the distracted driving law; or for a combination of such efforts. Up to 50 percent of the grant money could 

be devoted to other projects that improve traffic safety. 

Subsection 413(h) sets forth the definition of several terms used 

in the section. 

Section 3. Distracted driving national education program 

The section would require NHTSA to establish and administer 

two nationwide, high-visibility education and advertising campaigns to educate drivers about the dangers of texting and 

cellphone use while driving. In addition to the national campaigns, 

the section would allow NHTSA to use funds for targeted advertising campaigns in States or local jurisdictions that have enacted 

distracted driving laws and would require NHTSA to give consideration to advertising directed at non-English speaking populations. 

Subsection 3(d) would allow NHTSA to coordinate with States to 

carry out the educational and advertising campaigns under this 

section to coincide with high-visibility enforcement of State laws 

prohibiting texting or use of a cellphone while driving. Subsection 

3(e) would require NHTSA to evaluate the effectiveness of the campaigns each year and report the results to Congress. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
12 

Section 4. Research and data collection 

The section would amend section 408(e)(2) of title 23, United 

States Code, to revise the data elements regarding vehicle crash 

causation collected by States that receive certain grants from 

NHTSA. New subsection 408(e)(2)(A) would add data elements, as 

determined appropriate by the Secretary, in consultation with the 

States and law enforcement, on the impact on traffic safety of the 

use of electronic devices while driving. 

In meeting the requirements of subparagraph (A), subsection 

408(e)(2)(B) would require that States and local governments to include a space in official vehicle accident investigation reports to 

record whether a wireless communications device was in use at the 

time of an accident; require that all law enforcement officers inquire about and record the use of such device; and incorporate the 

information into its traffic safety information system. 

The section would apply to grants under section 408 of title 23, 

United States Code, for fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 

2010. 

Section 5. Research program 

The section would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a dedicated program at the Federal level to study distracted 

driving by passenger and commercial drivers. The program would 

include studies of driver behavior, vehicle technology, and portable 

electronic devices that are commonly brought into passenger or 

commercial vehicles. The section would allow the Secretary to 

grant research contracts to nongovernmental entities provided that 

the entities do not produce or sell passenger or commercial vehicles, electronic equipment used in vehicles, or portable electronic 

equipment commonly brought into vehicles. 

Section 6. FCC Report on distracted driving technology 

The section would require the FCC within 180 days after the 

date of enactment to submit a report identifying data the FCC can 

collect to help understand the problem of distracted driving; existing and developing technologies with potential to reduce the dangers of distracted driving; and existing FCC authority to take the 

initiative to reduce the dangers of distracted driving. 

Section 7. Provision of information to the states 

The section would provide a limited exception to the prohibition 

on NHTSA from conveying safety information to States unless specifically requested to do so by a State entity. NHTSA would be permitted to provide government-sponsored research and highway 

safety data or technical assistance relating to legislative proposals 

addressing the potential dangers of texting and cell phone use. 

Section 8. Commercial motor vehicles and school buses 

The section would amend subchapter II of chapter 311 of title 49, 

United States Code, by adding a new section 31152. Within one 

year of the date of enactment, the Secretary would be required to 

prescribe regulations on the use of electronic or wireless devices— 

including cell phones and other distracting devices—by commercial 

motor vehicle and school bus drivers during the performance of 

their duties. The regulations would cover commercial motor vehiVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR355.XXX SR355

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
13 

cles, including large trucks (gross vehicle weight greater than 

10,000 pounds), buses with more than 16 passengers (including the 

driver), vehicles used to transport hazardous materials in a quantity that requires placarding, and certain school buses. The section 

would require the Secretary to prohibit the use of such devices in 

circumstances in which the Secretary determines that their use 

would interfere with the safe operation of the vehicle. The Secretary would be allowed to permit the use of wireless and electronic 

devices that would otherwise be prohibited, if the Secretary determines that they are necessary for the safety of the driver or the 

public in emergency circumstances. 

Section 9. Funding 

The section would amend section 2001(a)(4) of Public Law 109– 

59 to fund the State grant program and the national advertising 

campaign, by redirecting unused surpluses from the SAFETEA–LU 

grants for States to enact a new primary safety belt law. The section would designate $7.5 million for carrying out the national advertising campaign established for the first quarter of FY 2010 in 

section 3. Unallocated funds available for grants for States to enact 

a new primary safety belt law would be carried over to the next 

year for use under section 406 and 413 (the distracted driving incentive grants). 

Section 10. Prohibition on electronic visual entertainment 

The section would require the Secretary of Transportation to 

issue regulations, within two years after the date of enactment, 

that prohibit electronic screens in cars from displaying visual entertainment that is visible to the driver while driving. The section 

would require that the regulation allow electronic screens that display information or images regarding vehicle operation, vehicle surroundings, communications systems, and navigation systems. The 

section also provides that, if the Secretary determines a deadline 

for a final rule cannot be met, the Secretary shall notify Congress 

and establish a new deadline for that rule. 

ROLLCALL VOTES IN COMMITTEE

In executive session on June 9, 2010, Senator Rockefeller offered 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1938. Senator 

Wicker then requested a rollcall vote on the bill, as amended. The 

Committee favorably reported S. 1938 by a vote of 17 ayes and 8 

nays. 

YEAS—17 NAYS—8 

Mr. Inouye 1 Ms. Snowe 

Mr. Kerry Mr. Ensign 1

Mr. Dorgan Mr. DeMint 

Mrs. Boxer 1 Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Nelson Mr. LeMieux 

Ms. Cantwell Mr. Isakson 

Mr. Lautenberg Mr. Brownback 1

Mr. Pryor Mr. Johanns 

Mrs. McCaskill 

Ms. Klobuchar 

Mr. Udall 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
14 

Mr. Warner 

Mr. Begich 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. Thune 

Mr. Vitter 1

Mr. Rockefeller 

1 By proxy. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

UNITED STATES CODE 

TITLE 23. HIGHWAYS 

CHAPTER 4. HIGHWAY SAFETY

§ 406. Safety belt performance grants 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall make grants to States in 

accordance with the provisions of this section to encourage the enactment and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts 

in passenger motor vehicles. 

(b) GRANTS FOR ENACTING PRIMARY SAFETY BELT USE LAWS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall make a single grant to 

each State that either— 

(A) enacts for the first time after December 31, 2002, 

and has in effect and is enforcing a conforming primary 

safety belt use law for all passenger motor vehicles; or 

(B) in the case of a State that does not have such a primary safety belt use law, has after December 31, 2005, a 

State safety belt use rate of 85 percent or more for each 

of the 2 calendar years immediately preceding the fiscal 

year of a grant, as measured under criteria determined by 

the Secretary. 

(2) AMOUNT.—The amount of a grant available to a State in 

fiscal year 2006 or in a subsequent fiscal year under paragraph 

(1) shall equal 475 percent of the amount apportioned to the 

State under section 402(c) for fiscal year 2003. 

(3) JULY 1 CUT-OFF.—For the purpose of determining the eligibility of a State for a grant under paragraph (1)(A), a conforming primary safety belt use law enacted after June 30th of 

any year shall— 

(A) not be considered to have been enacted in the Federal fiscal year in which that June 30th falls; but 

(B) be considered as if it were enacted after October 1 

of the next Federal fiscal year. 

(4) SHORTFALL.—If the total amount of grants provided for 

by this subsection for a fiscal year exceeds the amount of funds 

available for such grants for that fiscal year, the Secretary 

shall make grants under this subsection to States in the order 

in which— 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
15 

(A) the conforming primary safety belt use law came into 

effect; or 

(B) the State’s safety belt use rate was 85 percent or 

more for 2 consecutive calendar years (as measured under 

by criteria determined by the Secretary), whichever first 

occurs. 

(5) CATCH-UP GRANTS.—The Secretary shall make a grant to 

any State eligible for a grant under this subsection that did not 

receive a grant for a fiscal year because of the application of 

paragraph (4), in the next fiscal year if the State’s conforming 

primary safety belt use law remains in effect or its safety belt 

use rate is 85 percent or more for the 2 consecutive calendar 

years preceding such next fiscal year (subject to the condition 

in paragraph (4)). 

ø(c) GRANTS FOR PRE-2003 LAWS.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.——To the extent that amounts made available for grants under this section for any of fiscal years 2006 

through 2009 exceed the total amount of grants to be awarded 

under subsection (b) for the fiscal year, including amounts to 

be awarded for catch-up grants under subsection (b)(5), the 

Secretary shall make a single grant to each State that enacted, 

has in effect, and is enforcing a conforming primary safety belt 

use law for all passenger motor vehicles that was in effect before January 1, 2003. 

ø(2) AMOUNT; INSTALLMENTS.—The amount of a grant available to a State under this subsection shall be equal to 200 percent of the amount of funds apportioned to the State under section 402(c) for fiscal year 2003. The Secretary may award the 

grant in annual installments. 

ø(d) ALLOCATION OF UNALLOCATED FUNDS.— ø(1) ADDITIONAL GRANTS.—The Secretary shall make additional grants under this section of any amounts made available 

for grants under this section that, on July 1, 2009, have not 

been allocated to States under this section. 

ø(2) ALLOCATION.—The additional grants made under this 

subsection shall be allocated among all States that, as of that 

date, have enacted, have in effect, and are enforcing conforming primary safety belt laws for all passenger motor vehicles. The allocations shall be made in accordance with the formula for apportioning funds among the States under section 

402(c).¿ 

(e) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), a State may use 

a grant under this section for any safety purpose under this 

title or for any project that corrects or improves a hazardous 

roadway location or feature or proactively addresses highway 

safety problems, including— 

(A) intersection improvements; 

(B) pavement and shoulder widening; 

(C) installation of rumble strips and other warning devices; 

(D) improving skid resistance; 

(E) improvements for pedestrian or bicyclist safety; 

(F) railway-highway crossing safety; 

(G) traffic calming; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
16 

(H) the elimination of roadside obstacles; 

(I) improving highway signage and pavement marking; 

(J) installing priority control systems for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections; 

(K) installing traffic control or warning devices at locations with high accident potential; 

(L) safety-conscious planning; and 

(M) improving crash data collection and analysis. 

(2) SAFETY ACTIVITY REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding para- graph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that at least $1,000,000 

of amounts received by States under this section are obligated 

for safety activities under this chapter. 

(3) SUPPORT ACTIVITY.—The Secretary or his designee may 

engage in activities with States and State legislators to consider proposals related to safety belt use laws. 

(f) CARRY-FORWARD OF EXCESS FUNDS.—If the amount available 

for grants under this section for any fiscal year exceeds the sum 

of the grants made under this section for that fiscal year, the excess amount and obligational authority shall be carried forward 

and made available for grants under this section in the succeeding 

fiscal year. 

(g) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share payable for grants 

under this section shall be 100 percent. 

(h) PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE DEFINED.—In this section, the 

term ‘‘passenger motor vehicle’’ means— 

(1) a passenger car; 

(2) a pickup truck; and 

(3) a van, minivan, or sport utility vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds. 

§ 408. State traffic safety information system improvements 

(a) GRANT AUTHORITY.—Subject to the requirements of this section, the Secretary shall make grants to eligible States to support 

the development and implementation of effective programs by such 

States to— 

(1) improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of the safety data of the 

State that is needed to identify priorities for national, State, 

and local highway and traffic safety programs; 

(2) evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to make such improvements; 

(3) link the State data systems, including traffic records, 

with other data systems within the State, such as systems that 

contain medical, roadway, and economic data; and 

(4) improve the compatibility and interoperability of the data 

systems of the State with national data systems and data systems of other States and enhance the ability of the Secretary 

to observe and analyze national trends in crash occurrences, 

rates, outcomes, and circumstances. 

(b) FIRST-YEAR GRANTS.—To be eligible for a first-year grant 

under this section in a fiscal year, a State shall demonstrate to the 

satisfaction of the Secretary that the State has— 

(1) established a highway safety data and traffic records coordinating committee with a multidisciplinary membership 

that includes, among others, managers, collectors, and users of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
17 

traffic records and public health and injury control data systems; and 

(2) developed a multiyear highway safety data and traffic 

records system strategic plan— 

(A) that addresses existing deficiencies in the State’s 

highway safety data and traffic records system; 

(B) that is approved by the highway safety data and 

traffic records coordinating committee; 

(C) that specifies how existing deficiencies in the State’s 

highway safety data and traffic records system were identified; 

(D) that prioritizes, on the basis of the identified highway safety data and traffic records system deficiencies of 

the State, the highway safety data and traffic records system needs and goals of the State, including the activities 

under subsection (a); 

(E) that identifies performance-based measures by which 

progress toward those goals will be determined; and 

(F) that specifies how the grant funds and any other 

funds of the State are to be used to address needs and 

goals identified in the multiyear plan. 

(c) SUCCESSIVE YEAR GRANTS.—A State shall be eligible for a 

grant under this subsection in a fiscal year succeeding the first fiscal year in which the State receives a grant under subsection (b) 

if the State— 

(1) certifies to the Secretary that an assessment or audit of 

the State’s highway safety data and traffic records system has 

been conducted or updated within the preceding 5 years; 

(2) certifies to the Secretary that its highway safety data and 

traffic records coordinating committee continues to operate and 

supports the multiyear plan; 

(3) specifies how the grant funds and any other funds of the 

State are to be used to address needs and goals identified in 

the multiyear plan; 

(4) demonstrates to the Secretary measurable progress toward achieving the goals and objectives identified in the 

multiyear plan; and 

(5) submits to the Secretary a current report on the progress 

in implementing the multiyear plan. 

(d) GRANT AMOUNT.—Subject to subsection (e)(3), the amount of 

a year grant made to a State for a fiscal year under this section 

shall equal the higher of— 

(1) the amount determined by multiplying— 

(A) the amount appropriated to carry out this section for 

such fiscal year, by 

(B) the ratio that the funds apportioned to the State 

under section 402 for fiscal year 2003 bears to the funds 

apportioned to all States under such section for fiscal year 

2003; or 

(2)(A) $300,000 in the case of the first fiscal year a grant is 

made to a State under this section after the date of enactment 

of this subparagraph; or (B) $500,000 in the case of a succeeding fiscal year a grant 

is made to the State under this section after such date of enactment. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
18 

(e) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS.— (1) MODEL DATA ELEMENTS.—The Secretary, in consultation 

with States and other appropriate parties, shall determine the 

model data elements that are useful for the observation and 

analysis of State and national trends in occurrences, rates, outcomes, and circumstances of motor vehicle traffic accidents. In 

order to be eligible for a grant under this section, a State shall 

submit to the Secretary a certification that the State has 

adopted and uses such model data elements, or a certification 

that the State will use grant funds provided under this section 

toward adopting and using the maximum number of such 

model data elements as soon as practicable. 

ø(2) DATA ON USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES.—The model data 

elements required under paragraph (1) shall include data elements, as determined appropriate by the Secretary, in consultation with the States and appropriate elements of the law 

enforcement community, on the impact on traffic safety of the 

use of electronic devices while driving.¿ 

(2) DATA ON USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES.— (A) The model data elements required under paragraph 

(1) shall include data elements, as determined appropriate 

by the Secretary, in consultation with the States and appropriate elements of the law enforcement community, on the 

impact on traffic safety of the use of electronic devices while 

driving. 

(B) In order to meet the requirements of subparagraph 

(A), State and local governments shall— 

(i) require that official vehicle accident investigation 

reports include a designated space to record whether or 

not the use of a personal wireless communications device (as defined in section 413(h)(3)) was in use at the 

time of the accident by any driver involved in the accident; 

(ii) require that all law enforcement officers, as part 

of a vehicle accident investigation, inquire about and 

record the information required by clause (i); and 

(iii) incorporate the information collected under 

clause (i) into its traffic safety information system. 

(3) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—No grant may be made to a 

State under this section in any fiscal year unless the State enters into such agreements with the Secretary as the Secretary 

may require to ensure that the State will maintain its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for highway safety 

data programs at or above the average level of such expenditures maintained by such State in the 2 fiscal years preceding 

the date of enactment of the SAFETEA–LU. 

(4) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of adopting and implementing in a fiscal year a State program described in subsection (a) may not exceed 80 percent. 

(5) LIMITATION ON USE OF GRANT PROCEEDS.—A State may 

use the proceeds of a grant received under this section only to 

implement the program described in subsection (a) for which 

the grant is made. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 1.—Section 402(d) of this title 

shall apply in the administration of this section. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
19 

§ 413. Distracted driving incentive grants 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall make a grant under this 

section to any State that enacts and implements a statute that meets 

the requirements of subsections (b) and (c) of this section. 

(b) PROHIBITION ON TEXTING WHILE DRIVING.—A State statute 

meets the requirements of this subsection if the statute— 

(1) prohibits the use of a personal wireless communications 

device by a driver for texting while driving; 

(2) makes violation of the statute a primary offense; 

(3) establishes— 

(A) a minimum fine for a first violation of the statute; 

and 

(B) increased fines for repeat violations; and 

(4) provides increased civil and criminal penalties than 

would otherwise apply if a vehicle accident is caused by a driver who is using such a device in violation of the statute. 

(c) PROHIBITION ON HANDHELD CELLPHONE USE WHILE DRIV- ING.—A State statute meets the requirements of this subsection if the 

statute— 

(1) prohibits a driver from holding a personal wireless communications device to conduct a telephone call while driving; 

(2) makes violation of the statute a primary offense; 

(3) requires distracted driving issues to be tested as part of 

the State driver’s license examination; 

(4) establishes— 

(A) a minimum fine for a first violation of the statute; 

and 

(B) increased fines for repeat violations; and 

(5) provides increased civil and criminal penalties than 

would otherwise apply if a vehicle accident is caused by a driver who is using such a device in violation of the statute. 

(d) PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS.—A statute that meets the requirements of subsections (b) and (c) may provide exceptions for— 

(1) use of a personal wireless communications device by a 

driver to contact emergency services; 

(2) allows the use of hands-free devices that enable a driver, 

other than a driver who has not attained the age of 18, to initiate, conduct, or receive a telephone call without holding the 

device; 

(3) manipulation of such a device by a driver to activate, deactivate, or initialize the hands-free functionality of the device; 

(4) use of a personal wireless communications device by emergency services personnel while operating an emergency services 

vehicle and engaged in the performance of their duties as emergency services personnel; and 

(5) use of a device by an individual employed as a commercial motor vehicle driver, or a school bus driver, within the 

scope of such individual’s employment if such use is permitted 

under the regulations promulgated pursuant to section 31152 of 

title 49. 

(e) GRANT YEAR.—The Secretary shall make a grant under this 

section to a State in any year beginning fiscal year 2011 in which 

the State— 

(1) enacts a law that meets the requirements of subsections (b) 

and (c) before July 1; or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
20 

(2) maintains a statute, that meets the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), enacted in a previous year that is in effect 

through June 30th of the grant year. 

(f) DISBURSEMENT AND APPORTIONMENT.—Grants to qualifying 

States shall be disbursed after July 1 each year according to the apportionment criteria of section 402(c). 

(g) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—A State that receives a grant under 

this section— 

(1) shall use at least 50 percent of the grant— 

(A) to educate and advertise to the public information 

about the dangers of texting or using a cellphone while 

driving; 

(B) for traffic signs that notify drivers about the distracted driving law of the State; 

(C) for law enforcement of the distracted driving law; or 

(D) for a combination of such uses; and 

(2) may use up to 50 percent of the grant for other projects 

that improve traffic safety and that are consistent with the criteria in section 402(a). 

(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) DRIVING.—The term ‘‘driving’’ means operating a motor 

vehicle on a public road, including operation while temporarily 

stationary because of traffic, a traffic light or stop sign, or otherwise. It does not include operating a motor vehicle when the 

vehicle has pulled over to the side of, or off, an active roadway 

and has stopped in a location where it can safely remain stationary. 

(2) HANDS-FREE DEVICE.—The term ‘‘hands-free device’’ 

means a device that allows a driver to use a personal wireless 

communications device to initiate, conduct, or receive a telephone call without holding the personal wireless communications device. 

(3) PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE.—The term 

‘‘personal wireless communications device’’ means a device 

through which personal wireless services (as defined in section 

332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

332(c)(7)(C)(i))) are transmitted. It does not include a global 

navigation satellite system receiver used for positioning, emergency notification, or navigation purposes. 

(4) PRIMARY OFFENSE.—The term ‘‘primary offense’’ means an 

offense for which a law enforcement officer may stop a vehicle 

solely for the purpose of issuing a citation in the absence of evidence of another offense. 

(5) PUBLIC ROAD.—The term ‘‘public road’’ has the meaning 

given that term in section 402(c). 

(6) TEXTING.—The term ‘‘texting’’ means reading from or 

manually entering data into a personal wireless communications device, including doing so for the purpose of SMS texting, 

e-mailing, instant messaging, or engaging in any other form of 

electronic data retrieval or electronic data communication. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
21 

UNITED STATES CODE 

TITLE 49. TRANSPORTATION 

SUBTITLE VI—MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS

PART B—COMMERCIAL

CHAPTER 311. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

SUBCHAPTER III. SAFETY REGULATION

§ 31152. Regulation of the use of distracting devices in commercial motor vehicles and school buses 

(a) IN GENERAL.—No later than 1 year after the enactment of the 

Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2010, the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations on the use of electronic or wireless devices, including cell phones and other distracting devices, by 

an individual employed as the operator of— 

(1) a commercial motor vehicle while that individual is engaged in the performance of such individual’s duties as the operator of the commercial motor vehicle; or 

(2) a school bus (as defined in section 30125(a)(1)) that is a 

commercial motor vehicle (as defined in section 31301(4)(A)) 

while that individual is engaged in the performance of such individual’s duties as the operator of the school bus. 

(b) BASIS FOR REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall base the regulations required by subsection (a) on accident data analysis, the results of ongoing research, and other information, as appropriate. 

(c) PROHIBITED USE.—The Secretary shall prohibit the use of such 

devices in circumstances in which the Secretary determines that 

their use interferes with the driver’s safe operation of a school bus 

or commercial motor vehicle. 

(d) PERMITTED USE.—Under the regulations, the Secretary may 

permit the use of a device, the use of which is prohibited under subsection (c), if the Secretary determines that such use is necessary for 

the safety of the driver or the public in emergency circumstances. 

PUBLIC LAW 109–59: SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR 

USERS 

SEC. 2001. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The following sums are authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account): 

(1) HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS.—For carrying out section 

402 of title 23, United States Code, $163,680,000 for fiscal year 

2005, $217,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $220,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2007, $225,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $235,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2009, $235,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and 

$58,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2010, and 

ending on December 31, 2010. 

(2) HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—For carrying out section 403 of title 23, United States Code, 

$71,424,000 for fiscal year 2005, $110,000,000 for fiscal year 

2006, $107,750,000 for fiscal year 2007, $107,750,000 for fiscal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
22 

year 2008, $105,500,000 for fiscal year 2009, $107,329,000 for 

fiscal year 2010, and $27,061,000 for the period beginning on 

October 1, 2010, and ending on December 31, 2010. 

(3) OCCUPANT PROTECTION INCENTIVE GRANTS.—For carrying out section 405 of title 23, United States Code, $19,840,000 for 

fiscal year 2005, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $25,000,000 

for fiscal year 2007, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, 

$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 

2010, and $6,250,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 

2010, and ending on December 31, 2010. 

(4) SAFETY BELT PERFORMANCE GRANTS.—For carrying out section 406 of title 23, United States Code, $124,500,000 for 

fiscal year 2006, $124,500,000 for fiscal year 2007, 

$124,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, $124,500,000 for fiscal year 

2009, $124,500,000 for fiscal year 2010, and ø$31,125,000¿ 

$23,625,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2010, and 

ending on December 31, ø2010.¿ 2010, of which $7,500,000 

shall be for carrying out section 3 of the Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2010. If any amount of the funds authorized by 

this paragraph has not been allocated to States meeting the criteria of section 406 of title 23, United States Code, by July 1 

of a fiscal year beginning after fiscal year 2009, the unallocated 

amount shall be allocated to States meeting the criteria of section 413 of that title. Unallocated amounts from sections 406 

and 413 in a fiscal year shall be carried over to the next fiscal 

year for use under sections 406 and 413. 

(5) STATE TRAFFIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM IMPROVE- MENTS.—For carrying out section 408 of title 23, United States Code, $34,500,000 for fiscal year 2006, $34,500,000 for fiscal 

year 2007, $34,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, $34,500,000 for fiscal year 2009, $34,500,000 for fiscal year 2010, and $8,625,000 

for the period beginning on October 1, 2010, and ending on December 31, 2010. 

(6) ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING COUNTERMEASURES INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM.—For carrying out section 410 of title 23, United States Code, $39,680,000 for fiscal year 2005, 

$120,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $125,000,000 for fiscal year 

2007, $131,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and $139,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2009, $139,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and 

$34,750,000 for the period beginning on October 1, 2010, and 

ending on December 31, 2010. 

(7) NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER.—For the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration to carry out chapter 303 of title 

49, United States Code, $3,968,000 for fiscal year 2005, 

$4,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, 

$4,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, 

$4,078,000 for fiscal year 2010, and $1,029,000 for the period 

beginning on October 1, 2010, and ending on December 31, 

2010. 

(8) HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM.—For carrying out section 2009 of this title $29,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, 

$29,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, $29,000,000 for fiscal year 

2008, $29,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, $29,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2010, and $7,250,000 for the period beginning on October 

1, 2010, and ending on December 31, 2010. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
23 

(9) MOTORCYCLIST SAFETY.—For carrying out section 2010 of 

this title $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $6,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2007, $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $7,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2009, $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and $1,750,000 for 

the period beginning on October 1, 2010, and ending on December 31, 2010. 

(10) CHILD SAFETY AND CHILD BOOSTER SEAT SAFETY INCENTIVE GRANTS.—For carrying out section 2011 of this title 

$6,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, 

$6,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, 

$7,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and $1,750,000 for the period 

beginning on October 1, 2010, and ending on December 31, 

2010. 

(11) DISTRACTED DRIVING PROGRAM.—For carrying out section 

3 of the Distracted Driving Prevention Act of 2010, $7,500,000 

for the period beginning on October 1, 2010, and ending on December 31, 2010. 

ø(11)¿ (12) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—For administrative 

and related operating expenses of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in carrying out chapter 4 of title 23, 

United States Code, and this title $17,500,000 for fiscal year 

2006, $17,750,000 for fiscal year 2007, $18,250,000 for fiscal 

year 2008, and $18,500,000 for fiscal year 2009, $25,047,000 

for fiscal year 2010, and $6,332,000 for the period beginning on 

October 1, 2010, and ending on December 31, 2010. 

(b) PROHIBITION ON OTHER USES.—Except as otherwise provided 

in chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code, and this title, (including the amendments made by this title), the amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 

Account) for a program under such chapter shall only be used to 

carry out such program and may not be used by States or local governments for construction purposes. 

(c) APPLICABILITY OF TITLE 23.—Except as otherwise provided in 

chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code, and this title, amounts 

made available under subsection (a) for each of fiscal years 2005 

through 2011 shall be available for obligation in the same manner 

as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 

United States Code. 

(d) TRANSFERS.—In each fiscal year, the Secretary may transfer 

any amounts remaining available under paragraph (3), (5), or (6) 

of subsection (a) to the amounts made available under any other 

of such paragraphs in order to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that each State receives the maximum incentive funding for 

which the State is eligible under sections 405, 408, and 410 of title 

23, United States Code. 

(e) CLARIFICATIONS.—The amounts made available by each of 

subsections (a)(1) through (a)(7) shall be less any amounts made 

available from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 

Transit Account) by laws enacted before the date of enactment of 

this Act for the respective programs referred to in each of such subsections for fiscal year 2005. Amounts authorized by such subVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:26 Dec 01, 2010 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR355.XXX SR355

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC
24 

sections are post-rescission and shall not be subject to any rescission after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HROC