Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59197 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 8, 12, 

and 16 

Government procurement. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

Edward Loeb, 

Director, Acquisition Policy Division. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR parts 8, 12, 

and 16 as set forth below: 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 8, 12, and 16 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 

PART 8—REQUIRED SOURCES OF 

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 

2. Amend section 8.405–2 by 

redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph 

(f); and adding a new paragraph (e) to 

read as follows: 

8.405–2 Ordering procedures for services 

requiring a statement of work. 

* * * * * 

(e) Use of time-and-materials and 

labor-hour orders for services. (1) Except 

as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section, agencies shall use fixed-price 

orders for the acquisition of commercial 

services to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

(2) A time-and-materials or labor-hour 

order may be used for the acquisition of 

commercial services only when— 

(i) It is not possible at the time of 

placing the order to estimate accurately 

the extent or duration of the work or to 

anticipate costs with any reasonable 

degree of confidence; and 

(ii) The agency acquires the services 

through a competitive procedure under 

paragraph (c). 

(3) Prior to the issuance of a time-andmaterials or labor-hour order, the 

contracting officer shall— 

(i) Execute a determination and 

findings (D&F) for the order, in 

accordance with paragraph (e)(4) of this 

section that a fixed price order is not 

suitable; 

(ii) Include a ceiling price in the order 

that the contractor exceeds at its own 

risk; and 

(iii) Authorize any subsequent change 

in the order ceiling price only upon a 

determination, documented in the order 

file, that it is in the best interest of the 

procuring agency to change the ceiling 

price, and the change does not affect the 

scope of the task order as awarded (see 

12.207(b)(1)(ii)). 

(4) The D&F required by paragraph 

(e)(3) of this section shall contain 

sufficient facts and rationale to justify 

that a fixed-price order is not suitable. 

At a minimum, the D&F shall— 

(i) Include a description of the market 

research conducted (see 8.404(c), 

Acquisition planning, and 10.002(e)); 

(ii) Establish that it is not possible at 

the time of placing the order to 

accurately estimate the extent or 

duration of the work or anticipate costs 

with any reasonable degree of certainty; 

(iii) Establish that the current 

requirement has been structured to 

maximize the use of fixed-price orders 

(e.g., by limiting the value or length of 

the time-and-materials/labor-hour order; 

establishing fixed prices for portions of 

the requirement) on future acquisitions 

for the same or similar requirements; 

and 

(iv) Describe actions to maximize the 

use of fixed-price orders on future 

acquisitions for the same requirements 

(see 12.207(b)(2)). 

(5) Additional approval is required for 

orders with a total performance period, 

including options, of more than three 

years: 

(i) The D&F prepared in accordance 

with paragraph (e)(3) of this section 

shall be signed by the contracting officer 

and approved by the head of the 

contracting activity prior to the 

execution of the base period; and 

(ii) The order shall include a ceiling 

price that the contractor exceeds at its 

own risk. The contracting officer shall 

document the order file to justify the 

reasons for and amount of any 

subsequent change in the ceiling price. 

* * * * * 

PART 12—ACQUISITION OF 

COMMERCIAL ITEMS 

3. Amend section 12.207 by adding 

paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: 

12.207 Contract type. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) See 8.405–2(e) for requirement for 

determination and findings when using 

Federal Supply Schedules. 

* * * * * 

PART 16—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 

4. Revise section 16.201 to read as 

follows: 

16.201 General. 

(a) Fixed-price types of contracts 

provide for a firm price or, in 

appropriate cases, an adjustable price. 

Fixed-price contracts providing for an 

adjustable price may include a ceiling 

price, a target price (including target 

cost), or both. Unless otherwise 

specified in the contract, the ceiling 

price or target price is subject to 

adjustment only by operation of contract 

clauses providing for equitable 

adjustment or other revision of the 

contract price under stated 

circumstances. The contracting officer 

shall use firm-fixed-price or fixed-price 

with economic price adjustment 

contracts when acquiring commercial 

items. 

(b) Time-and-materials contracts and 

labor-hour contracts are not fixed-price 

contracts. 

5. Add section 16.600 to read as 

follows: 

16.600 Scope. 

Time-and-materials contracts and 

labor-hour contracts are not fixed-price 

contracts. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24104 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 177 

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

RIN 2137–AE63 

Hazardous Materials: Limiting the Use 

of Electronic Devices by Highway 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) proposes to prohibit texting 

on electronic devices by drivers during 

the operation of a motor vehicle 

containing a quantity of hazardous 

materials requiring placarding under 

part 172 of the 49 CFR or any quantity 

of a select agent or toxin listed in 42 

CFR part 73. Additionally, in 

accordance with requirements 

published today by the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), 

motor carriers are prohibited from 

requiring or allowing drivers of covered 

motor vehicles to engage in texting 

while driving. This rulemaking would 

improve health and safety on the 

Nation’s highways by reducing the 

prevalence of distracted driving-related 

crashes, fatalities, and injuries involving 

drivers of commercial motor vehicles. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the docket number 

PHMSA–2010–0221 by any of the 

following methods: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
59198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, Routing Symbol M–30, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

• Hand Delivery: To Docket 

Operations; Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this rule. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change, including any personal 

information provided. Please see the 

discussion of the Privacy Act below. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents and 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

Room W12–140, Ground Level, 

Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Supko, Office of Hazardous Materials 

Standards, (202) 366–8553, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. US DOT Strategy 

The United States Department of 

Transportation (US DOT) is leading the 

effort to end the dangerous practice of 

distracted driving on our nation’s 

roadways and in other modes of 

transportation. Driver distraction can be 

defined as the voluntary or involuntary 

diversion of attention from the primary 

driving tasks due to an object, event, or 

person that shifts the attention away 

from the fundamental driving task. The 

US DOT has identified three main types 

of distraction that occur while operating 

a motor vehicle: 

1. Visual—taking your eyes off of the 

road; 

2. Manual—taking your hands off of 

the wheel; and 

3. Cognitive—taking your mind off of 

driving. 

The US DOT is working across the 

spectrum with private and public 

entities to tackle distracted driving, and 

will lead by example. The individual 

agencies of the US DOT are working 

together to share knowledge, promote a 

greater understanding of the issue, and 

identify additional strategies to end 

distracted driving. Additionally, the 

majority of the 50 states have forbidden 

texting while driving any motor vehicle. 

See US DOT Distracted Driving Web 

site, http://www.distraction.gov; see also 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

Web site, http://www.iihs.org/. 

B. PHMSA Distracted Driving Safety 

Advisory Notice 

In support of the US DOT strategy to 

end distracted driving, PHMSA issued 

‘‘Safety Advisory Notice: Personal 

Electronic Device Related Distractions 

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

August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45697) to alert 

the hazardous materials community to 

the dangers associated with the use of 

mobile phones and electronic devices 

while operating a commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV; 49 CFR 383.5). In the 

notice, PHMSA stresses the heightened 

risk of transportation incidents 

involving hazardous materials when 

CMV drivers are distracted by electronic 

devices. Accordingly, the notice urges 

motor carriers that transport hazardous 

materials to institute policies and 

provide awareness training to 

discourage the use of mobile telephones 

and electronic devices by motor vehicle 

drivers. 

C. FMCSA Rulemaking and Definitions 

1. FMCSA Rulemakings 

In a final rule published in the 

Federal Register today entitled, 

‘‘Limiting the Use of Wireless 

Communication Devices’’ the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

adopted requirements prohibiting 

texting on electronic devices by CMV 

drivers. FMCSA’s final rule adopts a 

prohibition consistent with 

requirements originally proposed and 

considers comments submitted in 

response to the original NPRM issued 

on April 1, 2010 under Docket FMCSA– 

2009–0370 (75 FR 16391). The final rule 

prohibits texting by CMV drivers 

operating in interstate commerce and 

imposes sanctions for drivers that fail to 

comply. In both the final rule and 

NPRM FMCSA cites numerous studies 

evaluating the dangers of various forms 

of distracted driving. 

2. Definitions 

In existing Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Regulations (FMCSRs; 49 CFR 

Parts 350–399) FMCSA defines a ‘‘CMV’’ 

in § 383.5 of the 49 CFR as follows: 

Commercial motor vehicle means a 

motor vehicle or combination of motor 

vehicles used in commerce to transport 

passengers or property if the motor 

vehicle— 

(a) Has a gross combination weight 

rating of 11,794 kilograms or more 

(26,001 pounds or more) inclusive of a 

towed unit(s) with a gross vehicle 

weight rating of more than 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 pounds); 

(b) Has a gross vehicle weight rating 

of 11,794 or more kilograms (26,001 

pounds or more); 

(c) Is designed to transport 16 or more 

passengers, including the driver; or 

(d) Is of any size and is used in the 

transportation of hazardous materials as 

defined in this section. 

In a final rule published today 

addressing the use of wireless 

communication devices by CMV drivers 

FMCSA defines the terms ‘‘electronic 

device’’ and ‘‘texting’’ in § 383.5 (75 FR 

16403) as follows: 

Electronic device includes, but is not 

limited to, a cellular telephone; personal 

digital assistant; pager; computer; or any 

other device used to input, write, send, 

receive, or read text. 

Texting means manually entering 

alphanumeric text into, or reading text 

from, an electronic device. 

(1) This action includes, but is not 

limited to, short message service, emailing, instant messaging, a command 

or request to access a World Wide Web 

page, or engaging in any other form of 

electronic text retrieval or entry, for 

present or future communication. 

(2) Texting does not include: 

(i) Reading, selecting, or entering a 

telephone number, an extension 

number, or voicemail retrieval codes 

and commands into an electronic device 

for the purpose of initiating or receiving 

a phone call or using voice commands 

to initiate or receive a telephone call; 

(ii) Inputting, selecting, or reading 

information on a global positioning 

system or navigation system; or 

(iii) Using a device capable of 

performing multiple functions (e.g., fleet 

management systems, dispatching 

devices, smart phones, citizen band 

radios, music players, etc.) for a purpose 

that is not otherwise prohibited in this 

part. 

In addition, in today’s final rule 

FMCSA defines the term ‘‘driving’’ in 

§ 392.80(c) as follows: 

Driving means operating a commercial 

motor vehicle, with the motor running, 

including while temporarily stationary 

because of traffic, a traffic control 

device, or other momentary delays. 

Driving does not include operating a 

commercial motor vehicle with or 

without the motor running when the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59199 

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

Bocanegra, J. (2009) Driver distraction in 

commercial vehicle operations. (Document No. 

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

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, August 2010, 

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

2The formal peer review of the ‘‘Driver 

Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations Draft 

Final Report’’ was completed by a team of three 

technically qualified peer reviewers who are 

qualified (via their experience and educational 

background) to critically review driver distractionrelated research. 

3Although the final report does not elaborate on 

texting, the drivers were engaged in the review, 

preparation, and transmission of typed messages via 

wireless phones. 

driver has moved the vehicle to the side 

of, or off, a highway and has halted in 

a location where the vehicle can safely 

remain stationary. 

D. Studies, Data, and Analysis on Driver 

Distractions 

Distracted driving reduces a driver’s 

situational awareness, decisionmaking, 

or performance, possibly resulting in a 

crash, near-crash, or unintended lane 

departure by the driver. In an effort to 

understand and mitigate crashes 

associated with driver distraction, the 

US DOT has been studying the 

distracted driving issue with respect to 

both behavioral and vehicle safety 

countermeasures. Researchers and 

writers classify distraction into various 

categories, depending on the nature of 

their work. Texting while driving 

applies to these three types of driver 

distraction (visual, physical, and 

cognitive), and thus may pose a 

considerably higher safety risk than 

other sources of driver distraction. 

Below we summarize recommendations, 

studies, data, and analysis that provide 

the foundation for this NPRM. 

1. NTSB Safety Recommendation 

H–06–27 

On November 14, 2004, a motorcoach 

crashed into a bridge overpass on the 

George Washington Memorial Parkway 

in Alexandria, Virginia. This crash was 

the impetus for a National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

investigation and subsequent 

recommendation (Safety 

Recommendation H–06–27) to FMCSA 

regarding cell phone use by passengercarrying CMVs. The NTSB determined 

that one probable cause of the crash was 

the use of a hands-free cell phone, 

resulting in cognitive distraction; 

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

low bridge warning signs. 

In a letter to NTSB dated March 5, 

2007, FMCSA agreed to initiate a study 

to assess: 

• The potential safety benefits of 

restricting cell phone use by drivers of 

passenger-carrying CMVs; 

• The applicability of an NTSB 

recommendation to property-carrying 

CMV drivers; 

• Whether adequate data existed to 

warrant a rulemaking; and 

• The availability of statistically 

meaningful data regarding cell phone 

distraction. 

Subsequently, the report ‘‘Driver 

Distraction in Commercial Vehicle 

Operations’’ was published on October 

1, 2009. 

2. Driver Distraction in Commercial 

Vehicle Operations (‘‘the VTTI 

Study’’)—Olson et al., 2009 1

Under contract with FMCSA, the 

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 

(VTTI) completed its ‘‘Driver Distraction 

in Commercial Vehicle Operations’’ 

study 2 and released the final report on 

October 1, 2009. The purpose of the 

study was to investigate the prevalence 

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

the VTTI study) recorded in a 

naturalistic data set that included over 

200 truck drivers and 3 million miles of 

data. The dataset was obtained by 

placing monitoring instruments on 

vehicles and recording the behavior of 

drivers conducting real-world revenueproducing operations. The study found 

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

crashes, 46 percent of near-crashes, and 

60 percent of all safety-critical events. 

Tasks that significantly increased risk 

included texting, looking at a map, 

writing on a notepad, or reading. 

Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to 

identify tasks that were high risk. For a 

given task, an odds ratio of ‘‘1.0’’ 

indicated the task or activity was 

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

baseline driving scenario. An odds ratio 

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

and odds ratios of less than ‘‘1.0’’ 

indicated a safety-critical event was less 

likely to occur. The most risky behavior 

identified by the research was ‘‘text 

message on cell phone,’’ 3 with an odds 

ratio of 23.2. This means that the odds 

of being involved in a safety-critical 

event are 23.2 times greater for drivers 

who text message while driving than for 

those who do not. Texting drivers took 

their eyes off the forward roadway for 

an average of 4.6 seconds during the 6- 

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

per second), this equates to a driver 

traveling 371 feet, the approximate 

length of a football field, including the 

end zones, without looking at the 

roadway. At 65 mph (or 95.3 feet per 

second), the driver would have traveled 

approximately 439 feet without looking 

at the roadway. This clearly creates a 

significant risk to the safe operation of 

the CMV. 

Other tasks that drew drivers’ eyes 

away from the forward roadway in the 

study involved the driver interacting 

with technology: Calculator (4.4 

seconds), dispatching device (4.1 

seconds), and cell phone dialing (3.8 

seconds). Technology-related tasks were 

not the only ones with high visual 

demands. Non-technology tasks with 

high visual demands, including some 

common activities, were: Reading (4.3 

seconds), writing (4.2 seconds), looking 

at a map (3.9 seconds), and reaching for 

an object (2.9 seconds). 

The study further analyzed 

population attributable risk (PAR), 

which incorporates the frequency of 

engaging in a task. If a task is done more 

frequently by a driver or a group of 

drivers, it will have a greater PAR 

percentage. Safety could be improved 

the most if a driver or group of drivers 

were to stop performing a task with a 

high PAR. The PAR percentage for 

texting is 0.7 percent, which means that 

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

and thus, could be avoided by not 

texting. 

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

Task Odds ratio 

Population 

attributable 

risk 

percentage * 

Complex Tertiary** Task: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
59200 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

during simulated driving. Salt Lake City, Utah: The 

Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 

Online. First published as doi:10.1177/ 

0018720809353319. Retrieved December 22, 2009, 

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

0018720809353319?ijkey=gRQOLrGlYnBfc&

keytype=ref&siteid=sphfs. 

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

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

player, and text messaging tasks with the Ford 

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

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

Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers 

International. Available from SAE International at: 

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2009–01– 

0786. 

6The Engineering Meetings Board has approved 

this paper for publication. It has successfully 

completed SAE’s peer review process under the 

supervision of the session organizer. This process 

requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry 

experts. 

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

2006). The effects of text messaging on young 

novice driver performance. Victoria, Australia: 

Monash University Accident Research Centre, from: 

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

muarc246.pdf. 

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

Task Odds ratio 

Population 

attributable 

risk 

percentage * 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moderate Tertiary ** Task: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

** Non-driving related tasks. 

A complete copy of the final report for 

this study is included in PHMSA Docket 

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

www.regulations.gov. 

3. Text Messaging During Simulated 

Driving—Drews, et al., 2009 4

This research was designed to identify 

the impact of text messaging on 

simulated driving performance. Using a 

high-fidelity driving simulator, 

researchers measured the performance 

of 20 pairs of participants while: (1) 

Only driving, and (2) driving and text 

messaging. Participants followed a pace 

car in the right lane, which braked 42 

times, intermittently. Participants were 

0.2 seconds slower in responding to the 

brake onset when driving and text 

messaging, compared to driving-only. 

When drivers are concentrating on 

texting, either reading or entering, their 

reaction times to braking events are 

significantly longer. 

4. Driver Workload Effects of Cell 

Phone, Music Player, and Text 

Messaging Tasks With the Ford SYNC 

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

Shutko, et al., 2009 5

A recent study by Ford Motor 

Company,6 involving 25 participants, 

compared using a hands-free voice 

interface to complete a task while 

driving with using personal handheld 

devices (cell phone and music player) to 

complete the same task while driving. 

Of particular interest were the results of 

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

The study found that texting, both 

sending and reviewing a text, was 

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

message on a handheld cell phone while 

driving was 11 seconds. The median 

total eyes-off-road time when sending a 

text message using a handheld cell 

phone while driving was 20 seconds. 

5. The Effects of Text Messaging on 

Young Novice Driver Performance— 

Hosking, et al., 2006 7

Hosking studied a very different 

driver population, but obtained similar 

results. This study used an advanced 

driving simulator to evaluate the effects 

of text messaging on 20 young, novice 

Australian drivers. The participants 

were between 18 and 21 years old, and 

they had been driving 6 months or less. 

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

the participants said that they use them 

anyway. 

The young drivers took their eyes off 

the road while texting, and they had a 

harder time detecting hazards and safety 

signs, as well as maintaining the 

simulated vehicle’s position on the road 

than they did when not texting. While 

the participants did not reduce their 

speed, they did try to compensate for 

the distraction of texting by increasing 

their following distance. Nonetheless, 

retrieving and particularly sending text 

messages had the following effects on 

driving: 

• Difficulty maintaining the vehicle’s 

lateral position on the road; 

• Harder time detecting hazards; 

• Harder time detecting and 

responding to safety signs; 

• Up to 400 percent more time with 

drivers’ eyes off the road than when not 

texting. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59201 

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

messaging on driver behavior: A simulator study. 

Report prepared for the RAC Foundation by 

Transport Research Laboratory. From: http:// 

www.racfoundation.org/files/ 

textingwhiledrivingreport.pdf. 

9The work described in this report was carried 

out in the Human Factors and Simulation group of 

the Transport Research Laboratory. The authors are 

grateful to Andrew Parks who carried out the 

technical review and auditing of this report. 

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

(2010). Distraction in Commercial Trucks and 

Buses: Assessing Prevalence and Risk in 

Conjunction With Crashes and Near-Crashes. 

Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration. 

6. The Effect of Text Messaging on 

Driver Behavior: A Simulator Study— 

Reed and Robbins, 2008 8

The RAC Foundation commissioned 

this report 9 to assess the impact of text 

messaging on driver performance and 

the attitudes surrounding that activity in 

the 17- to 24-year old driver category. 

There were 17 participants in the study. 

The results demonstrated that driving 

was impaired by texting. Researchers 

reported that ‘‘failure to detect hazards, 

increased response times to hazards, 

and exposure time to that risk have clear 

implications for safety.’’ They reported 

an increased stopping distance of 12.5 

meters, or three car lengths, and 

increased variability of lane position. 

7. Cell Phone Distraction in Commercial 

Trucks and Buses: Assessing Prevalence 

in Conjunction With Crashes and NearCrashes—Hickman 10

The purpose of this research was to 

conduct an analysis of naturalistic data 

collected by DriveCam®. The 

introduction of naturalistic driving 

studies that record drivers (through 

video and kinematic vehicle sensors) in 

actual driving situations created a 

scientific method to study driver 

behavior under the daily pressures of 

real-world driving conditions. The 

research documented the prevalence of 

distractions while driving a CMV, 

including both trucks and buses, using 

an existing naturalistic data set. This 

data set came from 183 truck and bus 

fleets comprising a total of 13,306 

vehicles captured during a 90-day 

period. There were 8,509 buses and 

4,797 trucks. The data sets in the 

current study did not include 

continuous data; it only included 

recorded events that met or exceeded a 

kinematic threshold (a minimum g-force 

setting that triggers the event recorder). 

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

response to another vehicle) and 

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

not related to a safety-critical event, 

such as a vehicle that traveled over train 

tracks and exceeded the kinematic 

threshold). A total of 1,085 crashes, 

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

were captured in the dataset. 

Odds ratios were calculated to show 

a measure of association between 

involvement in a safety-critical event 

and performing non-driving related 

tasks, such as dialing or texting. The 

odds ratios show the odds of being 

involved in a safety-critical event when 

a non-driving related task is present 

compared to situations when there is no 

non-driving related task. The odds ratios 

for text/email/accessing the Internet 

tasks were very high, indicating a strong 

relationship between text/e-mail/ 

accessing the Internet while driving and 

involvement in a safety-critical event. 

Very few instances of this behavior were 

observed during safety-critical events in 

the current study and even fewer during 

control events. Although truck and bus 

drivers do not text frequently, the data 

suggest that truck and bus drivers who 

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

access the Internet are very likely to be 

involved in a safety-critical event. 

E. Existing Texting Prohibitions and 

Restrictions by Federal, State, and Local 

Governments 

1. Executive Order 13513 

The President immediately used the 

feedback from the DOT Summit on 

Distracted Driving and issued Executive 

Order 13513, which ordered that: 

Federal employees shall not engage in text 

messaging (a) when driving a Government 

Owned Vehicle, or when driving a Privately 

Owned Vehicle while on official Government 

business, or (b) when using electronic 

equipment supplied by the Government 

while driving. 

The Executive Order is applicable to the 

operation of CMVs by Federal 

government employees carrying out 

their duties and responsibilities, or 

using electronic equipment supplied by 

the government. This order also 

encourages contractors to comply while 

operating CMVs on behalf of the Federal 

government. 

2. Regulatory Guidance 

On January 27, 2010, FMCSA 

published regulatory guidance 

concerning the applicability of 49 CFR 

390.17, Additional equipment and 

accessories, to any CMV operator 

engaged in ‘‘texting’’ on an electronic 

device while driving a CMV in interstate 

commerce (75 FR 4305). The guidance 

interpreted § 390.17 as prohibiting 

texting on electronic devices while 

driving because it decreases the safety of 

operations. 

3. Federal Railroad Administration 

On October 7, 2008, FRA published 

Emergency Order 26 (73 FR 58702). 

Pursuant to FRA’s authority under 49 

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

which took effect on October 1, 2008, 

restricts railroad operating employees 

from using distracting electronic and 

electrical devices while on duty. Among 

other things, the order prohibits both 

the use of cell phones and texting. FRA 

cited numerous examples of the adverse 

impact that electronic devices can have 

on safe operations. These examples 

included fatal accidents that involved 

operators who were distracted while 

texting or talking on a cell phone. In 

light of these incidents, FRA is 

imposing restrictions on the use of such 

electronic devices, both through its 

order and a rulemaking that seeks to 

codify the order. In a NPRM published 

May 18, 2010, FRA proposed to amend 

its railroad communications regulations 

by restricting the use of mobile 

telephones and other distracting 

electronic devices by railroad operating 

employees (75 FR 27672). 

4. State Restrictions 

Texting while driving is prohibited in 

30 States and the District of Columbia. 

A list of states and territories that have 

taken such actions can be found at the 

following DOT Web site: http:// 

www.distraction.gov/state-laws. 

Generally, the state requirements are 

applicable to all drivers operating motor 

vehicles within those jurisdictions, 

including CMV operators. Because some 

states do not currently prohibit texting 

while driving, there is a need for a 

Federal regulation to address the safety 

risks associated with texting by CMV 

drivers. Generally, state laws and 

regulations remain in effect and could 

continue to be enforced with regard to 

CMV drivers, provided those laws and 

regulations are compatible with the 

Federal requirements. This proposed 

rule does not affect the ability of states 

to institute new prohibitions on texting 

while driving. For more information see 

the Federalism section later in this 

document. 

II. Applicability of This NPRM 

PHMSA’s Office of Hazardous 

Materials Safety is the Federal safety 

authority for the transportation of 

hazardous materials by air, rail, 

highway, and water. Under the Federal 

hazardous materials transportation law 

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

seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is 

charged with protecting the nation 

against the risks to life, property, and 

the environment that are inherent in the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
59202 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

or transportation within a single state. The term 

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

transportation involving the crossing of a state 

boundary. Additionally, ‘‘interstate commerce’’ 

includes transportation originating or terminating 

outside the state of United States. 

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

Subchapter B, including Parts 350–399, of the 49 

CFR are applicable to all employers, employees, 

and commercial motor vehicles, which transport 

property or passengers in interstate commerce. The 

only FMCSA regulations that are applicable to 

intrastate operations are: The commercial driver’s 

license (CDL) requirement, for drivers operating 

commercial motor vehicles as defined in 49 CFR 

383.5; controlled substances and alcohol testing for 

all persons required to possess a CDL; and 

minimum levels of financial responsibility for the 

intrastate transportation of certain quantities of 

hazardous materials and substances. 

13The FMCSRs require certain commercial 

carriers to obtain a US DOT number by filling out 

DOT form MC–150 (OMB Control Number 2126– 

0013). Companies that operate commercial vehicles 

transporting passengers or hauling cargo in 

interstate commerce must be registered with the 

FMCSA and must have a US DOT Number. The US 

DOT Number serves as a unique identifier when 

collecting and monitoring a company’s safety 

information acquired during audits, compliance 

reviews, crash investigations, and inspections. 

FMCSA provides two services for people who need 

to obtain a U.S. DOT number. The MC–150 form 

can be downloaded from the FMCSA web site in 

PDF form and mailed in; or, they may file 

electronically via the Web site. Both options are 

found at the following URL: http:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/factsfigs/formspubs.htm. 

commercial transportation of hazardous 

materials. The Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171– 

180) are promulgated under the 

mandate in Section 5103(b) of Federal 

hazardous materials transportation law 

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

seq.) that the Secretary of 

Transportation ‘‘prescribe regulations for 

the safe transportation, including 

security, of hazardous material in 

intrastate, interstate, and foreign 

commerce.’’ Section 5103(b)(1)(B) 

provides that the HMR ‘‘shall govern 

safety aspects, including security, of the 

transportation of hazardous material the 

Secretary considers appropriate.’’ As 

such, PHMSA strives to reduce the risks 

inherent to the transportation of 

hazardous materials in both intrastate 

and interstate commerce.11

The final rule published in the 

Federal Register today by FMCSA 

under Docket FMCSA–2009–0370 

incorporates texting restrictions into 

§ 392.80 of the FMCSRs that apply to 

CMV motor carriers and drivers in 

interstate commerce. During the 

coordination process for PHMSA’s 

August 3, 2010 safety advisory notice on 

distracted driving, PHMSA and FMCSA 

representatives expressed concern that 

changes to the FMCSRs regarding 

distracted driving would only apply to 

motor carriers and drivers of CMVs that 

operate in interstate commerce.12 As 

such, the final rule published by 

FMCSA today regarding distracted 

driving does not apply to motor carriers 

and drivers that transport a quantity of 

hazardous materials requiring 

placarding under part 172 of the 49 CFR 

or any quantity of a material listed as a 

select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73 

in intrastate commerce. 

PHMSA developed this NPRM to 

expand the population of drivers who 

are prohibited from texting by FMCSA’s 

final rule to include drivers who 

transport a quantity of hazardous 

materials requiring placarding under 

part 172 of the 49 CFR or any quantity 

of a material listed as a select agent or 

toxin in 42 CFR part 73 in intrastate 

commerce. The safety benefits 

associated with limiting the distractions 

caused by electronic devices are equally 

applicable to drivers transporting a 

quantity of hazardous materials 

requiring placarding under part 172 of 

the 49 CFR or any quantity of a material 

listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 

CFR part 73 in intrastate commerce as 

they are to interstate commerce. The use 

of an electronic device while driving 

constitutes a safety risk to the motor 

vehicle driver, other motorists, and 

bystanders. As adopted in the FMCSA 

final rule, the consequences of texting 

while driving a CMV can include state 

and local sanctions, fines, and possible 

revocation of commercial driver’s 

licenses. 

III. Summary of Changes 

In accordance with the comments 

received and public meeting discussion 

this NPRM proposes the following 

changes by section: 

Section 177.804. We propose to add a 

new paragraph (b) to prohibit texting by 

any person transporting a quantity of 

hazardous materials requiring 

placarding under part 172 of the 49 CFR 

or any quantity of a material listed as a 

select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73. 

As such, motor carriers and drivers who 

engage in the transportation of covered 

materials must comply with the 

distracted driving requirements in 

§ 392.80 of the FMCSRs. 

IV. Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This 

Rulemaking 

This rulemaking is issued under 

authority of the Federal hazardous 

materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 

5101 et seq.), which authorizes the 

Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 

regulations for the safe transportation, 

including security, of hazardous 

materials in interstate, intrastate, and 

foreign commerce. 

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

PHMSA has determined that this 

rulemaking action is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

and significant under DOT regulatory 

policies and procedures because of the 

substantial Congressional and public 

interest concerning the crash risks 

associated with distracted driving, even 

though the economic costs of the rule do 

not exceed the $100 million annual 

threshold. 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to regulate in the ‘‘most costeffective manner,’’ to make a ‘‘reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs,’’ 

and to develop regulations that ‘‘impose 

the least burden on society.’’ As 

discussed throughout this rulemaking, 

the intent of this NPRM is to expand the 

applicability of FMCSA’s final rule and 

prohibit texting by drivers of motor 

vehicles that contain a quantity of 

hazardous materials requiring 

placarding under Part 172 of the 49 CFR 

or any quantity of a material listed as a 

select agent or toxin in 42 CFR Part 73. 

As a result, the population of motor 

carriers covered by this proposed rule is 

comprised of a very small portion of 

motor carriers operating in intrastate 

commerce. 

PHMSA’s calculated its affected 

population by assessing hazmat 

registration data from the 2010–2011 

registration year. This data is collected 

on DOT form F 5800.2 in accordance 

with § 107.608(a) of the 49 CFR. 

Generally, the registration requirements 

apply to any person who offers for 

transportation or transports a quantity of 

hazardous materials requiring 

placarding under part 172 of the 49 

CFR. Additional data collected on form 

F 5800.2 verify that the person is indeed 

a carrier, the mode of transportation 

used, and the US DOT Number.13 Using 

this key data from the registration form 

submissions we can make some 

assumptions to estimate the number of 

persons registered that we consider 

motor carriers subject to this NPRM. 

Based on our analysis of form F 5800.2– 

18,841 persons have registered as motor 

carriers of hazardous materials. Of those 

18,841 persons 17,599 included a US 

DOT Number. Therefore, based on 

PHMSA’s registration data, the 

difference between persons registered as 

motor carriers and persons that have 

obtained a US DOT Number is 1,242 

(18,841–17,599 = 1,242). PHMSA 

considers these persons to be intrastate 

motor carriers. We compared these 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59203 

14MCMIS contains information on the safety 

fitness of commercial motor carriers (truck & bus) 

and hazardous material shippers subject to both the 

FMCSRs and the HMR. This information is 

available to the general public through the MCMIS 

Data Dissemination Program. 

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

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

registration-USDOT.htm. 

numbers with the FMCSA Motor Carrier 

Management Information System 

(MCMIS).14 Based on MCMIS data we 

verified that the 1,242 carriers identified 

through registration data have not been 

issued a US DOT Number by FMCSA. 

To better define the population of 

intrastate motor carriers subject to this 

rulemaking we assessed the data further. 

Generally, registration data is limited to 

persons that offer or transport placarded 

quantities of hazardous materials. 

Registration data does not include 

persons that transport a material listed 

as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 

73. In addition, the data includes those 

intrastate motor carriers that are 

required to obtain a US DOT Number 

through their state even if they operate 

solely in intrastate commerce. FMCSA 

indicates that 28 states currently require 

motor carriers to obtain a US DOT 

Number, regardless if they operate in 

interstate or intrastate commerce.15

Based on these assumptions, the 

number of intrastate carriers identified 

through hazmat registration data may be 

underestimated by up to 60% to 70%. 

Another assumption that must be 

considered is that 30 states and the 

District of Columbia have adopted a 

broad based ban on texting while 

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

of the carriers identified as intrastate 

carriers are already subject to a ban on 

texting while driving. Accordingly, this 

would indicate that the number of 

intrastate carriers identified as 

uncovered by a texting ban by 

evaluating hazardous materials 

registration data could be over estimated 

by as much as 60%. 

Based on the assumptions outlined 

above, and PHMSA’s desire to take a 

conservative approach to the affected 

population, we multiply the number of 

intrastate carriers identified through 

registration data by a 20% 

underreporting factor. This will result in 

a total population affected by this 

rulemaking of 1,490 intrastate motor 

carriers (1,242 × 1.20 = 1,490). In 

addition to the number of interstate 

motor carriers, PHMSA estimates that 

each interstate motor carrier employs 

approximately 8 drivers. Therefore, the 

estimated population of intrastate motor 

carrier drivers affected by this proposed 

rule is 11,920 (1,490 × 8 = 11,920). This 

conservative estimate ensures that 

PHMSA is fully considering the impacts 

of expanding applicability of the 

FMCSA final rule to prohibit texting by 

drivers of motor vehicles that contain a 

quantity of hazardous materials 

requiring placarding under part 172 of 

the 49 CFR or any quantity of a material 

listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 

CFR part 73. 

The regulatory evaluation prepared in 

support of this rulemaking considers the 

following potential costs: (a) Loss in 

carrier productivity due to time spent 

while parking or pulling over to the side 

of the roadway to perform texting 

activities; (b) increased fuel usage due to 

idling as well as exiting and entering the 

travel lanes of the roadway; and (c) 

increased crash risk due to covered 

CMVs that are parked on the side of the 

roadway and exiting and entering the 

travel lanes of the roadway. The 

regulatory evaluation also considers 

potential costs to the states. However, 

since the analysis does not yield 

appreciable costs to the states, further 

analysis pursuant to the Unfunded 

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

1532) was deemed unnecessary. 

PHMSA estimates that this proposed 

rule will cost $5,227 annually. 

Additionally, PHMSA has not identified 

a significant increase in crash risk 

associated with drivers’ strategies for 

complying with this proposed rule. As 

indicated in the regulatory evaluation, a 

crash resulting in property damage only 

(PDO) averages approximately $17,000 

in damages. Consequently, the texting 

prohibition would have to eliminate just 

one PDO crash every 3.25 years for the 

benefits of this proposed rule to exceed 

the costs. A summary of the costs and 

threshold analysis is provided in the 

following table: 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND THRESHOLD

ANALYSIS

Cost of Lost Carrier Productivity.$438 

Cost of Increased Fuel Consumption.$3,411 

Cost of Parking, Entering and 

Exiting Roadway Crashes.

$1,378 

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

Benefit of Eliminating One Fatality.$6 million. 

Break-even Number of Lives 

Saved.

< 1 

The productivity losses, as well as 

other costs, were estimated for only one 

year, as the entire threshold analysis 

was performed as an undiscounted 

annual estimation. The loss of 

productivity is expected to diminish 

(but not necessarily vanish within one 

year), as the motor carrier industry 

adjusts to the texting restriction and as 

new (permissible) technologies arise 

that compensate for the loss of the 

texting functionality. PHMSA is 

unaware of the specific future 

technologies that might arise, but we 

continue to research and monitor 

technological changes in the market. 

C. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

agencies to assure meaningful and 

timely input by state and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that may have a substantial, 

direct effect on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. A rule has 

implications for Federalism under 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it 

has a substantial direct effect on state or 

local governments and would either 

preempt state law or impose a 

substantial direct cost of compliance on 

them. We invite state and local 

governments to comment on the effect 

that the adoption of this rule may have 

on state or local safety or environmental 

protection programs. 

D. Executive Order 13175 

This proposed rule has been analyzed 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because this proposed rule does not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments and does not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires Federal 

agencies to consider the effects of the 

regulatory action on small business and 

other small entities and to minimize any 

significant economic impact. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses and not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

Accordingly, DOT policy requires an 

analysis of the impact of all regulations 

on small entities, and mandates that 

agencies strive to lessen any adverse 

effects on these businesses. 

PHMSA has conducted an economic 

analysis of the impact of this proposed 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
59204 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

rule on small entities and certifies that 

a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not 

necessary because the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

proposed rule. We assume that all of the 

1,490 motor carriers identified by this 

proposed rule are small entities. 

However, the direct costs of this rule 

that small entities may incur are only 

expected to be minimal. They consist of 

the costs of lost productivity from 

foregoing texting while on-duty and fuel 

usage costs for pulling to the side of the 

road to idle the truck or passengercarrying vehicle and send or receive a 

text message. The majority of motor 

carriers are small entities. Therefore, 

PHMSA will use the total cost of this 

proposed rule ($5,227) applied to the 

number of small entities (1,490) as a 

worse case evaluation which would 

average $3.51 annually per carrier. 

F. Executive Order 13272 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This notice has been developed in 

accordance with Executive Order 13272 

(‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s 

procedures and policies to promote 

compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to ensure that potential 

impacts of draft rules on small entities 

are properly considered. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule would call for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

A regulation identifier number (RIN) 

is assigned to each regulatory action 

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. The RIN contained in the heading 

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

Agenda. 

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule does not impose 

unfunded mandates, under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. It does not result in costs of 

$140.8 million or more to either state, 

local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, and 

is the least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objective of the rule. 

J. Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477 through 19478) or you may visit 

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

privacy-sensitive rulemaking because 

the rule will not require any collection, 

maintenance, or dissemination of 

Personally Identifiable Information (PII) 

from or about members of the public. 

K. National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires Federal 

agencies to consider the consequences 

of major Federal actions and that they 

prepare a detailed statement on actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. PHMSA 

assessment did not reveal any 

significant positive or negative impacts 

on the environment expected to result 

from the rulemaking action. There could 

be minor impacts on emissions, 

hazardous materials spills, solid waste, 

socioeconomics, and public health and 

safety. Interested parties are invited to 

address the potential environmental 

impacts of regulations applicable to 

texting while driving. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 177 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Motor carriers, Radioactive materials, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 

CFR Chapter I is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 177—CARRIAGE BY PUBLIC 

HIGHWAY 

1. The authority citation for part 177 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1.53. 

2. Section 177.804 is amended by: 

a. Designating the extisting text as 

paragraph (a); 

b. Adding a heading to the newly 

designated paragraph (a); and 

c. Adding a new paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 177.804 Compliance with Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations. 

(a) General. * * * 

(b) Prohibition against texting. Drivers 

of commercial motor vehicles, as 

defined in 49 CFR 383.5, transporting a 

quantity of hazardous materials 

requiring placarding under 49 CFR part 

172 or any quantity of a material listed 

as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 

73 are prohibited from texting while 

driving in accordance with § 392.80 of 

the FMCSRs. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

21, 2010, under authority delegated in 49 

CFR part 106. 

R. Ryan Posten, 

Senior Director for Hazardous Materials 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24114 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 100818375–0379–02] 

RIN 0648–XX84 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies 

Fishery; Reopening of a Proposed 

Rule Comment Period Through 

October 1, 2010 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule, reopening and 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is reopening the 

comment period for the proposed rule to 

Implement Addenda to 17 Fishing Year 

(FY) 2010 Northeast Multispecies Sector 

Operations Plans and Contracts. The 

comment period is being reopened and 

extended to provide additional 

opportunity for public comment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by 5 p.m., local time on 

October 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–XX84, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Melissa 

Vasquez. 

• Mail: Paper, disk, or CD–ROM 

comments should be sent to Patricia A. 

Kurkul, Regional Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 

Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930. Mark the outside of the 

envelope: ‘‘Comments on 2010 Sector 

Exemption Rule.’’ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS