26180 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

The Commission further notes that 

cyber threats to network end users also 

threaten the abilities of the service 

provider’s network to function as 

designed and to be available when 

required. Such threats include, for 

example, the proliferation of botnets 

and from ‘‘MAC spoofing,’’ a technique 

whereby cyber hackers remotely change 

an assigned Media Access Control 

address of a network device to a 

different one, allowing the bypassing of 

access control lists on servers or routers, 

either ‘‘hiding’’ a computer on a network 

or allowing it to impersonate another 

computer. Therefore, the Commission 

seeks comment on steps that service 

providers should take, if any, to help 

detect and respond to threats to end 

users that take place on or through the 

service provider’s network, and the 

extent to which best practices in this 

area would enhance detection and 

maximize effectiveness of response. 

Procedural Matters 

Ex Parte Presentations. This matter 

will be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. See 47 

CFR 1.1200 & 1.1206. Although a Notice 

of Inquiry proceeding is generally 

exempt from the ex parte rules, the 

Commission finds that the public 

interest is best served by treating this 

critical cyber security matter as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding. See 

47 CFR 1.1200(a), 1.1204(b)(1). Persons 

making oral ex parte presentations are 

reminded that memoranda summarizing 

the presentations must contain 

summaries of the substance of the 

presentations and not merely a listing of 

the subjects discussed. More than a oneor two-sentence description of the views 

and arguments presented is generally 

required. Other rules pertaining to oral 

and written ex parte presentations in 

permit-but-disclose proceedings are set 

forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

Comment Filing Procedures. 

Comments may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 

Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) 

by filing paper copies. See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

Comments may be filed electronically 

using the Internet by accessing the 

ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Parties who 

choose to file by paper must file an 

original and four copies of each filing. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. Effective December 28, 

2009, all hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service firstclass, Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Ordering Clause 

Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o) and 

7(b), 403 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

154(i)–(j) & (o), 157(b) and 403, this 

Notice of Inquiry is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11162 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Chapter I 

[PS Docket No. 10–92; FCC 10–62] 

Effects on Broadband 

Communications Networks of Damage 

To or Failure of Network Equipment or 

Severe Overload 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Consistent with the 

recommendations of the National 

Broadband Plan, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) adopted this 

Notice of Inquiry to seek comment on 

the present state of survivability in 

broadband communications networks 

and to explore potential measures to 

reduce network vulnerability to failures 

in network equipment or severe 

overload conditions, such as would 

occur in natural disasters, pandemics, 

and other disasters or events that would 

restrain our ability to communicate. The 

Commission seeks comment broadly on 

the ability of existing networks to 

withstand localized or distributed 

physical damage, including whether 

there is adequate network redundancy 

and the extent of survivability of 

physical enclosures in which network 

elements are located, and severe 

overloads. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

June 25, 2010 and reply comments are 

due on or before July 26, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply 

comments may be filed using: (1) The 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 

Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) 

by filing paper copies. 

Comments and reply comments may 

be filed electronically using the Internet 

by accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Parties who choose to file by paper 

can submit filings by hand or messenger 

delivery, by commercial overnight 

courier, or by first-class or overnight 

U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings 

must be addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service firstclass, Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. Parties who 

choose to file by paper must file an 

original and four copies of each filing. 

Parties wishing to file materials with 

a claim of confidentiality should follow 

the procedures set forth in § 0.459 of the 

Commission’s rules. Confidential 

submissions may not be filed via ECFS 

but rather should be filed with the 

Secretary’s Office following the 

procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.459. 

Redacted versions of confidential 

submissions may be filed via ECFS. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Healy, Communications Systems 

Analysis Division, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau at 202–418– 

2448 or Jeffery Goldthorp, Chief, 

Communications Systems Analysis 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 26181 

Division, Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau at 202–418–1096. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Inquiry NOI in PS Docket No. 10–92, 

FCC 10–62, adopted and released on 

April 21, 2010. The complete text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

This document may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone (800) 378–3160 or (202) 488– 

5300, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or via email at fcc@bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Synopsis of the Notice of Inquiry 

The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (hereinafter 

‘‘ARRA’’) directed the Commission to 

prepare a National Broadband Plan 

(‘‘NBP’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) and report that plan to 

Congress. In particular, ARRA required 

the Commission to explore ways in 

which broadband infrastructure and 

services can ‘‘advance consumer welfare 

* * * public safety and homeland 

security * * * and other national 

purposes.’’ 

In response to a number of public 

notices issued as part of the NBP 

proceeding, the Commission received a 

wealth of commentary on the rapidly 

increasing importance of wireline and 

wireless broadband communications 

networks to consumers, businesses, 

emergency responders, and government 

agencies. A number of these comments 

focused on the importance of broadband 

survivability. Based on these comments 

and independent research conducted by 

Commission staff, the NBP laid out 

numerous proposals to ensure that our 

nation’s critical broadband 

infrastructure can serve the current and 

future needs of our citizens in a 

consistent and reliable fashion. 

Consistent with the recommendations 

of the NBP, the Commission adopted 

this Notice of Inquiry to enhance its 

understanding of the present state of 

survivability in broadband 

communications networks and to 

explore potential measures to reduce 

network vulnerability to failures in 

network equipment or severe overload 

conditions, such as would occur in 

natural disasters, pandemics, and other 

disasters or events that would restrain 

our ability to communicate. The 

Commission seeks comment broadly on 

the ability of existing networks to 

withstand localized or distributed 

physical damage, including whether 

there is adequate network redundancy 

and the extent of survivability of 

physical enclosures in which network 

elements are located, and severe 

overloads. 

Reliance on broadband 

communications networks is increasing 

across all elements of our society and all 

sectors of our economy. For example, 

IP-based telephony services have 

penetrated into the consumer and 

enterprise markets at a breakneck pace, 

in many cases without the end-users 

even knowing that a major technology 

change has occurred. People are no 

longer tied to a single public-switched 

telephone network (PSTN), but 

communicate through a wide range of 

interconnected networks (e.g., cable 

networks, fiber networks, local 

exchange carriers, licensed wireless 

broadband communications networks 

and unlicensed wireless internet service 

providers). As Americans increasingly 

rely on broadband communications 

networks for voice, video, data, and 

other communications services, the 

reliability and survivability of 

broadband communications networks 

becomes an even more critical factor in 

the safety, security, and well-being of 

the American people. 

The FCC realizes that the increasing 

use of broadband communications 

networks for telecommunications-type 

services has blurred the distinction 

between the PSTN and IP-based 

broadband communications networks. 

Consequently, the Commission believes 

it important that it better understand the 

implications that this migration will 

have on the communications 

survivability of our voice and 

broadband communications networks. 

Consumers, businesses, and 

government agencies increasingly rely 

on broadband communications 

networks to supply voice, video, and 

data service to fixed and mobile sites. 

For example, comments received in the 

National Broadband Plan proceeding 

indicate levels of broadband adoption 

ranging from 47% for rural residences to 

79% for non-rural businesses. The 

network infrastructure required to 

support these diverse needs is extensive 

and complicated. In some instances 

long-term collaboration between 

telecommunications providers and other 

major enterprises has led to the 

development of robust networks with 

purpose-built survivability features. The 

Commission is concerned, however, that 

these features may not adequately 

ensure the survivability of all types of 

broadband service throughout the 

country, including in lesser developed 

or sparsely populated areas. 

Broadband core networks are 

generally presumed to be quite 

survivable. Survivability is generally 

weaker in segments of communications 

networks closer to the network edge, 

however. In light of the ever-growing 

centrality of broadband communications 

it is imperative that we understand the 

resilience and survivability of our 

national broadband infrastructure. The 

Commission seeks comment, analysis, 

and information on the present state of 

broadband network survivability to 

three broad classes of harm: (1) Physical 

damage (whether due to malevolent 

acts, accidents, or force majeure), (2) 

inadequate redundancy, and (3) severe 

network overload. The Commission also 

seeks comment as specifically described 

below. 

Enhancing our understanding of the 

state of survivability in broadband 

communications networks and 

exploring potential measures to reduce 

network vulnerabilities furthers the 

Commission’s core purposes as set forth 

in section 1 of the Communications Act: 

(1) The establishment of ‘‘a rapid, 

efficient, Nation-wide and world-wide 

wire and radio communication service 

with adequate facilities,’’ (2) ‘‘the 

national defense,’’ and (3) ‘‘promoting 

safety of life and property through the 

use of wire and radio communication.’’ 

The Commission seeks comment on the 

strongest sources of authority to act in 

this regard should it choose to do so, 

and asks commenters to address 

whether different sources of authority 

would be required with regard to 

different types of communications 

providers. 

For example, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it has authority 

under Title II and Title III to adopt 

specific measures to reduce network 

vulnerabilities should it choose to do so. 

In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

could, if necessary, exercise ancillary 

authority to reduce network 

vulnerabilities, should the Commission 

choose to do so. In particular, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

scope of its ancillary authority with 

regard to the matters described in this 

NOI in light of the recent decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit in Comcast 

Corporation v. FCC. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
26182 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the survivability features and risks 

presented by the physical architecture 

of current broadband communications 

networks. What are the major single 

points of failure in broadband 

architectures (for example, edge router, 

gateway router, transport links, cell 

sites, and VoIP servers)? What are the 

impacts of failure these points? What 

measures do communications providers 

take to minimize the presence of single 

points of failure in broadband 

architectures? Under what conditions 

might these measures not be followed? 

What operational awareness do 

broadband service providers have on 

these dependencies? For example is the 

state of transport link diversity generally 

known and tracked by a broadband 

service provider? Do service providers 

account vulnerability of assets to 

specific threats? Is the incidence of 

single points of failure greater or lesser 

for small service providers and/or 

network operators? What special 

provisions are made to ensure the 

survivability of network services to 

critical response agencies like public 

safety answering points (PSAPs)? What 

provisions are made to ensure the 

survivability of cell sites relied on by 

first responders? Should traffic to 

critical response agencies or for critical 

services be prioritized? What other 

aspects of physical architecture create 

vulnerabilities in broadband 

communications networks? Besides 

single points of failure, are there dual 

failures that could impact a large 

number of users for an extended period 

of time? What should be the FCC’s role 

in reducing single points of failure in 

broadband communications networks? 

What should the FCC’s role be in 

increasing the level of redundancy in 

broadband communications networks 

taking into consideration the tradeoffs 

between potential regulatory burdens 

and the benefits of increased 

survivability? 

In addition to network architecture, 

the Commission seeks comment on the 

survivability of physical facilities in 

which network elements are located. At 

the outset, the Commission notes that 

the Network Reliability and 

Interoperability Council (NRIC) adopted 

a set of best practices for 

communications physical security. 

What are the most effective and widely 

deployed NRIC physical security best 

practices? What policies are typically 

put in place to ensure adherence to 

relevant NRIC physical security best 

practices? How are decisions made 

about when not to apply NRIC best 

practices? Is the present level of 

protection adequate, and, if so, by what 

measure? If not, what else should be 

done and how should this be 

accomplished? In addition, what other 

structural, mechanical, environmental 

or electrical standards are utilized in the 

construction of facilities that house 

broadband network elements? What 

should the FCC’s role be in encouraging 

the implementation of security best 

practices? 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on the risks posed by network facility 

co-location. For example, does the colocation of network hardware in ‘‘carrier 

hotels’’ or ‘‘SuperNodes’’ represent a 

significant vulnerability of networks to 

physical attack or natural disaster? How 

widespread is this practice? What steps 

have been taken to ensure redundancy 

and diversity of physical network links 

to and from these facilities? Are these 

redundancies adequate at the metro, 

national, and international scales? Are 

security standards at these facilities 

adequate and uniformly enforced? What 

should the FCC’s role be in the 

utilization of security standards for colocated network hardware? Finally, are 

the network elements housed in such 

facilities commonly protected by 

redundant elements in physically 

separated locations and will adequate 

power be available in an emergency? If 

not, how widespread is the lack of 

redundancy? What should the FCC’s 

role be in increasing the level of 

redundancy for co-located network 

elements? 

Redundancy is used in 

communications networks to improve 

survivability. Redundancy failures 

occur when a network is unable to route 

traffic over an alternate link when the 

primary or most desirable link is down. 

In the public-switched telephone 

network (PSTN), for example, switches, 

routers, and multiplexers often protect 

against service interruption due to one 

or more physical link failures by 

intelligently re-routing traffic around 

the failed link although calls that are in 

progress may be lost. Traditional 

telecommunications networks use 

monitoring and alarms to verify 

redundancy. Occasionally the re-routing 

fails to occur because the monitoring 

equipment does not recognize the 

physical link failure or because the rerouting equipment fails to execute the 

re-route. In addition, the cause of the 

initial link failure may also affect the 

redundant link, resulting in its failure. 

The Commission is concerned that the 

level of redundancy and the 

effectiveness of that redundancy in 

routing around failures may be 

inadequate in broadband 

communications networks. The 

Commission is also concerned that the 

quality of service (QoS) for the rerouted 

traffic is adequate. 

The Commission therefore seeks 

comment on the risk of physical link 

failures along with the resulting risk of 

redundancy failures in broadband 

communications networks. For 

example, to what extent are core and 

edge network links protected with 

‘‘dark’’ backup links? Are there instances 

where backup circuit paths occupy the 

same physical link as a primary circuit 

path? If so, how prevalent is this 

practice and what information, systems, 

or procedures might help to eliminate 

it? How best can the FCC help to 

prevent or resolve such problems? To 

what extent is switching and routing 

capacity in broadband communications 

networks protected by redundant 

systems or reserve switching capacity? 

Does good business practice dictate 

some minimum level of reserve 

switching capacity for a given network? 

If so, how is that capacity derived? Are 

the protection mechanisms themselves 

in broadband communications networks 

reliable? Are there failure mechanisms 

that will affect both the primary path 

and the back-up path? Finally, how can 

the FCC enhance the chances that 

redundancy works in broadband 

communications networks without 

unduly burdening network operators? 

Large-scale events such as pandemics 

or bioterror attacks may cause dramatic 

changes in broadband usage patterns as 

traffic that is ordinarily confined within 

enterprise or academic networks or 

passed between enterprise-grade access 

networks suddenly shifts onto 

residential-access networks. If 

residential access networks are 

unprepared or insufficiently resourced 

for such changes, the resulting network 

congestion could threaten the orderly 

functioning of our economy and prevent 

citizens from accessing critical public 

safety services such as 911 call centers. 

What can be learned from recent events 

that, while not catastrophic, resulted in 

a surge of telecommuting (e.g., the 

recent heavy snowstorms in the MidAtlantic States)? 

In order to better understand the risks 

associated with sudden shifts of 

network traffic during pandemics and 

similar events, the Commission seeks 

comment on the ability of broadband 

access networks (i.e., cable, DSL, fiberto-the-home, etc.) to maintain effective 

operation during severe network 

congestion or overload. For example, is 

the capacity of residential access 

networks sufficient to handle sudden 

surges in use? To what degree? To the 

extent that network capacity is 

insufficient or networks are 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 26183 

‘‘oversubscribed,’’ what methods and 

procedures are in place to handle these 

overloads and to rapidly apply network 

resources to where they are needed? 

What are the limits to these network 

management techniques? For example, 

is there a need for ways to prioritize 

broadband traffic during emergencies? 

Are some network segments or 

geographic areas more vulnerable than 

others? The Commission also seeks 

detailed data on past instances: When 

outbreaks of influenza have closed 

schools in a given area, what changes 

were observed in residential access 

network traffic, and how did these 

changes affect the networks? Should the 

FCC collect data on network usage 

during such events? 

As our broadband infrastructure 

continues to grow and mature, the 

Commission is committed to ensuring 

that it stands ready to support the 

myriad uses dreamed up by American 

innovators and enterprises. This Notice 

of Inquiry is a critical first step toward 

understanding survivability of our 

broadband communications networks to 

all types of failures and severe traffic 

overloads. The Commission looks 

forward to collaborating with 

consumers, businesses, and network 

operators to improve and secure our 

broadband infrastructure for the future. 

Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o) and 

7(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 

47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)–(j) & (o), and 

157(b) (2006), this Notice of Inquiry is 

adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11159 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Part 40 

[Docket OST–2008–0088] 

RIN OST 2105–AE01 

Procedures for Transportation 

Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Programs 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is proposing only to 

extend the date for the mandatory use 

of our recently updated Alcohol Testing 

Form (ATF) to January 1, 2011. The 

revised ATF went into effect on 

February 25, 2010 with a mandatory use 

date of August 1, 2010. After publishing 

the February 25 revisions, we learned 

that vendors and users of the ATF will 

not be able to deplete their current 

supply of ATFs by August 1, 2010. 

Therefore, in order to assist the 

transportation industries and their 

service agents in their efforts to be 

economically efficient and more 

environmentally ‘‘green,’’ we are seeking 

public comment to extend the 

mandatory use date to January 1, 2011. 

DATES: Comments to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking should be 

submitted by May 26, 2010. Late-filed 

comments will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not 

duplicate your docket submissions, 

please submit them by only one of the 

following means: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; 

• Hand Delivery: West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number DOT– 

OST—or the Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the 

beginning of your comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

program issues, Bohdan Baczara, Office 

of Drug and Alcohol Policy and 

Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 

SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366– 

3784 (voice), (202) 366–3897 (fax), or 

bohdan.baczara@dot.gov (e-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose 

On February 25, 2010, the Department 

published a final rule [75 FR 8528] 

which updated the Alcohol Testing 

Form (ATF). The Department 

anticipated that employers and alcohol 

testing technicians may currently have a 

large supply of old ATFs and to avoid 

unnecessarily wasting these forms, the 

Department permitted the use of the old 

ATF until August 1, 2010. Employers 

were authorized to begin using the 

updated ATF immediately. 

Since the final rule was published, 

the Department became aware that some 

vendors of the ATF might not be able to 

deplete their current supply of the ATFs 

before the August 1, 2010 

implementation date. In light of this 

new information and so as not to have 

the industry waste forms, the 

Department is proposing to extend the 

implementation date to January 1, 2011. 

The Department seeks your comments 

only about this new implementation 

date. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

The statutory authority for this 

proposed rule derives from the Omnibus 

Transportation Employee Testing Act of 

1991 (49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322, 5331, 

20140, 31306, and 45101 et seq.) and the 

Department of Transportation Act (49 

U.S.C. 322). 

This proposed rule is a nonsignificant rule both for purposes of 

Executive Order 12886 and the 

Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The 

Department certifies that it will not have 

a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities, for 

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. The Department makes these 

statements on the basis that by 

extending the implementation date of 

the new form, this rule will not impose 

any significant costs on anyone. The 

costs of the underlying Part 40 final rule 

were analyzed in connection with its 

issuance in December 2000. Therefore, 

it has not been necessary for the 

Department to conduct a regulatory 

evaluation or Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis for this proposed rule. The 

alcohol testing form complies with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. It has no 

Federalism impacts that would warrant 

a Federalism assessment. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol 

testing, Drug abuse, Drug testing, 

Laboratories, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Transportation. 

Issued April 28, 2010, at Washington DC. 

Jim L. Swart, 

Director. 

For reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Department of 

Transportation proposes to amend 49 

CFR part 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1