Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/12/02/2011-30749/drivers-of-cmvs-restricting-the-use-of-cellular-phones
Timestamp: 2017-02-24 19:27:55
Document Index: 781169801

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009390', '§\u2009383', '§\u2009383', '§\u2009383', '§\u2009386', '§\u2009386', '§\u2009392', '§\u2009392', '§\u2009392', '§\u2009392', 'arts 177', 'arts 383', 'art 390', 'art 391', 'art 392', 'arts 177', 'art 172', 'art 73', '§\u2009392', '§\u2009383', 'art 383', '§\u2009391', '§\u2009383', 'art 383', '§\u2009383', 'art 391', '§\u2009391', '§\u2009392', '§\u2009383', '§\u2009390', '§\u2009392', 'art 386', '§\u2009392', '§\u2009390', 'art1', 'art 177', 'art2', '§\u2009177', '§\u2009392', 'art 172', 'art 73', 'art3', 'art 383', 'art4', '§\u2009383', 'art5', '§\u2009383', '§\u2009383', '§\u2009383', 'art6', 'art 384', 'art7', '§\u2009384', '§\u2009384', 'art8', 'art 390', 'art\n49', 'art9', '§\u2009390', '§\u2009390', '§\u2009390', '§\u2009391', '§\u2009390', 'art10', '§\u2009390', '§\u2009390', 'art11', 'art 391', 'art\n49', 'art12', '§\u2009391', '§\u2009391', '§\u2009391', '§\u2009391', '§\u2009391', '§\u2009390', '§\u2009391', 'art13', '§\u2009391', '§\u2009391', '§\u2009392', 'art14', 'art 392', 'art15', '§\u2009392', '§\u2009392', 'art16', 'art 392', '§\u2009392', '§\u2009392']

:: Drivers of CMVs: Restricting the Use of Cellular Phones
A Rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration on 12/02/2011
75470-75488
Enhanced Content - Submit Public Comment 337
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2011-30749
III. Discussion of Comments A. FMCSA Comments B. PHMSA Comments
EOBR Electronic On-Board Recorder
NSC National Safety Council
PAR Population Attributable Risk
PU Power Unit
UMA United Motorcoach Association
VTTI Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
In an effort to understand and mitigate crashes associated with driver distraction, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) conducted research concerning behavioral and vehicle safety countermeasures to driver distraction. Data from studies [1] indicate that both reaching for and dialing a mobile telephone increase the odds of a CMV driver's involvement in a safety- critical event, such as a crash, near crash, or unintended lane departure.[2] Start Printed Page 75472The odds of being involved in a safety-critical event are three times greater when the driver is reaching for an object than when the driver is not reaching for an object. The odds of being involved in a safety-critical event are six times greater while the driver is dialing a cell phone than when the driver is not dialing a cell phone. These increases in risk are primarily attributable to the driver's eyes being off the forward roadway. Additionally, these activities have high population attributable risk (PAR) percentages. PAR percent is the percent of the drivers involved in a safety critical event that would not occur if performing the task while driving were eliminated. Tasks that are performed more frequently have a higher PAR percentage. The highest PAR percentage in the study was 7.6 percent—reaching for an object, including cell phones. Dialing a cell phone had a PAR of 2.5. Because of the data on distractions associated with the use of hand-held mobile telephones while driving [3] (i.e. reaching for and dialing a mobile telephone), FMCSA and PHMSA believe it is in the best interest of public safety to restrict a CMV driver's use of such devices.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that one probable cause of a November 2004 bus crash was the use of a hands-free cell phone. This crash was the impetus for an NTSB investigation (NTSB/HAR-06/04 PB2007-916201) and a subsequent recommendation to FMCSA that the Agency prohibit cell phone use by all passenger-carrying CMVs.[4] FMCSA also received recommendations on cell phone use from its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC). One of MCSAC's recommendations for the National Agenda for Motor Carrier Safety was that FMCSA initiate a rulemaking to ban a driver's use of hand-held and hands-free mobile telephones while operating a CMV.
It is not clear, however, if simply talking on a mobile telephone presents a significant risk while driving. For example, Olson, et al. (2009) detailed the risks of reaching for and dialing a phone while driving and found that “talking or listening to a hands-free phone” and “talking or listening to a hand-held phone” were relatively low-risk activities that involved only brief periods of eyes off the forward roadway. FMCSA and PHMSA determine that it is the action of taking one's eyes off the forward roadway to reach for and dial a hand-held mobile telephone [5] (two high PAR activities) that has the greatest risk. The Agencies address those risky behaviors by restricting holding mobile telephones while driving a CMV.
While no State has completely banned mobile telephone use, some States have gone further than this rule for certain categories of drivers. For example, 19 States and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of all mobile telephones while driving a school bus. Additionally, nine States and the District of Columbia have traffic laws prohibiting all motor vehicle drivers from using a hand-held mobile telephone while driving. Transit bus and motorcoach drivers are the focus of stricter mobile telephone rules in some States and local jurisdictions.[6] The restriction of hand-held mobile telephone use by all CMV drivers is based on available data and in line with existing regulations that hold CMV drivers to higher standards.[7] Distracted Driving Summit
The information and feedback DOT received during its first Distracted Driving Summit, held September 30-October 1, 2009, in Washington, DC, highlighted the need for action and demonstrated widespread support for a ban against texting and mobile telephone use while driving. Summit participants, who included industry representatives, safety experts, elected officials, and law enforcement, gathered to address the safety risk posed by this growing problem across all modes of surface transportation. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stated: “Keeping Americans safe is without question the Federal government's highest priority.” The Secretary pledged to work with Congress to ensure that the issue of distracted driving would be appropriately addressed.[8] At the conclusion of the Summit, the Secretary announced a series of concrete actions that the Obama Administration and DOT would be taking to address distracted driving.
The authority for this rule derives from the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act), 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (1986 Act), 49 U.S.C. chapter 313. The 1984 Act (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, Oct. 30, 1984) provides authority to regulate the safety of operations of CMV drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles.” Although this authority is very broad, the 1984 Act also includes specific requirements in 49 U.S.C. 31136(a):
The relevant provisions of the FMCSRs (49 CFR subtitle B, chapter III, subchapter B) apply to CMV drivers and employers operating CMVs included in Start Printed Page 75473the statutory authority of the 1984 Act. The 1984 Act defines a CMV as a self-propelled or towed vehicle used on the highways to transport persons or property in interstate commerce; and that either: (1) Has a gross vehicle weight/gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 pounds or greater; (2) is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation; (3) is designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, not for compensation; or (4) is transporting any quantity of hazardous materials requiring placards to be displayed on the vehicle (49 U.S.C. 31132(1)). All drivers operating CMVs are subject to the FMCSRs, except those who are employed by Federal, State, or local governments (49 U.S.C. 31132(2)).
In addition to the statutory exemption for government employees, there are several regulatory exemptions in the FMCSRs that are authorized under the 1984 Act, including, among others, one for school bus operations and one for CMVs designed or used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver) not for direct compensation (49 CFR 390.3(f)(1) and (6)). The school bus operations exemption only applies to interstate transportation of school children and/or school personnel between home and school. This particular exemption is not based on any statutory provisions, but is instead a discretionary rule promulgated by the Agency. Therefore, FMCSA has authority to modify the exemption. Modification of the school bus operations exemption requires the Agency to find that such action “is necessary for public safety, considering all laws of the United States and States applicable to school buses” (former 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)(1)).[9] FMCSA also has authority to modify the non-statutory exemption for small, passenger-carrying vehicles not for direct compensation, but is not required to comply with former 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) in modifying that exemption.[10] FMCSA applies restrictions on hand-held mobile telephone use to both school bus operations by private operators in interstate commerce and small passenger-carrying vehicles not for direct compensation, although they will continue to be exempt from the rest of the FMCSRs. Other than transportation covered by statutory exemptions, FMCSA has authority to restrict the use of mobile telephones by drivers operating CMVs.
In general, the 1986 Act explicitly identifies several “serious traffic violations” as grounds for disqualification (49 U.S.C. 31301(12) and 31310). In addition to the specifically enumerated “serious traffic violations,” the 1986 Act provides related authority that allows FMCSA to Start Printed Page 75474designate additional serious traffic violations by rulemaking if the underlying offense is based on the CDL driver committing a violation of a “State or local law on motor vehicle traffic control” (49 U.S.C. 31301(12)(G)). The FMCSRs state, however, that unless and until a CDL driver is convicted of the requisite number of specified offenses within a certain time frame (described below), the required disqualification may not be applied (49 CFR 383.5 (defining “conviction” and “serious traffic violation”) and 383.51(c)).
FMCSA Response. Because drivers have other options available that do not require pulling over and stopping, FMCSA disagrees that this rule would impede business. Stops can be avoided by using technological solutions such as a hands-free mobile telephone with a speaker phone function or a wired or wireless earphone. Most mobile telephones have a speaker phone function and one-touch dialing and thus would be compliant with this rule. Additionally, the Agency estimated the minimum cost of upgrading from a non-compliant mobile telephone to a compliant one to be as low as $29.99.[11] Therefore, abiding by the final rule will not create a burden on, or hardship for, CMV drivers.
A few commenters, including First Group America [12] and the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), thought the Agency should ban both hand-held and hands-free mobile telephone use.
Although talking on the cell phone did not show an increased risk, a driver must take several risk-increasing steps, such as reaching for and dialing the cell phone, in order to use the electronic device for conversation. Based on these studies, FMCSA determined that it is the action of taking one's eyes off the Start Printed Page 75475forward roadway to reach for and dial the mobile telephone that is the highly risky activity. Therefore, because the reaching and dialing tasks are necessary to use a hand-held mobile telephone, the Agency will only restrict hand-held mobile telephone use by CMV drivers while operating in interstate commerce in this final rule. Reaching for and dialing a mobile telephone are both visual and manual distractions and reduce a driver's situational awareness; adversely impact decision making or driving performance; and result in an increased risk of a crash, near-crash, unintended lane departure by the driver, or other unsafe driving action.[13] To address this risk, the Agency also restricts holding mobile telephones while driving a CMV.
Many commenters requested that the Agency clarify the term “reaching.” The Owner- Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) noted that truck drivers safely reach for and press buttons or turn knobs to operate various equipment, including windshield wipers, temperature controls, radios, and CD players. The Snack Food Association, Southern Company, and the State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles commented that prohibiting reaching was “too proscriptive” or broad. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said that this “overly prescriptive” regulatory wording would inhibit development of innovative technologies for the commercial vehicle fleet. One commenter suggested that drivers should be fined for holding the phone to their ear in lieu of establishing the prohibition based on the reaching task because it would be difficult to differentiate between reaching for other items in the cab and reaching for a mobile telephone. The State of New York Department of Motor Vehicles noted that the New York State Vehicle Traffic Law states that “using (a phone) Start Printed Page 75476shall mean holding a mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user's ear.” The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association suggested allowing negligible movements to activate a hands-free mobile telephone. ATA recommended educating drivers to place hands-free devices within close proximity. A few commenters asked, why, if the radio, CB, and phone are all located within an easy arm's reach, the Agency is proposing to restrict only the use of hand-held mobile telephones.
FMCSA Response. FMCSA acknowledges commenters' concerns and revises the regulatory text to allow drivers to reach for the compliant mobile telephone (i.e., hands-free) provided the device is within the driver's reach while he or she is in the normal seated position, with the seat belt fastened. This concept is a familiar one and found elsewhere in the FMCSRs. See, for example, 49 CFR 393.51 (certain CMVs must have an air pressure gauge “visible to a person seated in the normal driving position.”). In addition, the Agency modeled its language on existing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rules. The NHTSA rules regarding the location of controls (49 CFR 571.101, S5.1.1) require certain controls, such as the hazard warning signal, windshield wiper, or climate control system, to be located so that they are operable by the driver when, “[t]he driver is restrained by the seat belts installed in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208 (Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection) and adjusted in accordance with the vehicle manufacturers' instructions” (49 CFR 571.101, S5.6.2). These changes are reflected in the amended definition of “use a hand-held mobile telephone” in § 390.5.
FMCSA Response. FMCSA removed the language “with or without the motor running.” Now the Agency states that “driving” means operating a commercial motor vehicle on a highway, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. Driving does not include operating a commercial motor vehicle when the driver has moved the vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has halted in a location where the vehicle can safely remain stationary. The Agency also revised the regulatory text to clarify that the restriction against using a hand-held mobile telephone applies when a CMV is operated “on a highway.” See 49 CFR 390.5 (definition of highway). The Agency believes this clarification addresses emerging technologies such as hybrid vehicles, which are operated at times without the motor running. Therefore, as long the “driver has moved the vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has halted the vehicle in a location where it can safely remain stationary,” use of the mobile telephone is allowed. Our new definition for “driving” is addressed in § 383.51 and explained in Part IV, Discussion of the Rule.
Some commenters said they use their mobile telephones to enter the vehicle's odometer reading in the phone when crossing State lines and press the send button to create a time stamp. The American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) and The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers were concerned that the synchronizing of mobile telephones with other electronic devices would be affected by this rulemaking. Specifically, Alliance said that the definition of “texting” in § 383.5 should not be revised by removing the dialing exception in paragraph (2)(i). One commenter asked if text-to-voice and voice-to-text functions could be used under this rule.
In the definition of “texting” in §§ 383.5 and 390.5, the Agency included the exception for dialing in the texting rule to allow mobile telephone use until the time the Agency decided to address it through separate rulemaking concerning mobile telephones. Removing the dialing option in this rule limits the operator's ability to engage in unsafe, eyes-off-forward-roadway behavior.
Many commenters, including OOIDA, questioned why other risky activities that may cause driver distraction were not addressed in this rule. Commenters asked if there would be future prohibitions on activities like reading, Start Printed Page 75477operating radios and CBs, or eating. Some asked that global positioning systems (GPS) and dispatching devices be included in the prohibition. The National School Transportation Association cited its recommended policy that “Drivers may not use a cell phone or other personal portable device while operating a school bus or any other vehicle transporting students * * *.” Advocates believed that the Agency should extend the proposal to include other types of electronic devices and technologies that cause driver distraction; otherwise Advocates argued that the Agency's action is arbitrary and capricious.
FMCSA Response. The Fourth Amendment concerns raised by OOIDA are without merit. The regulation of the use of a mobile phone while operating a CMV does not constitute a “search” or “seizure” to which the Fourth Amendment applies. A driver could not successfully claim that observance of this conduct would violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cf United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). Nothing in the rule authorizes enforcement officers to require a driver to make a mobile telephone available so that the officer can review call history for purposes of enforcing this rule. It is the Agency's view that the rule may be enforced without raising Fourth Amendment concerns. Assuming that a Fourth Amendment argument might be raised in connection with the enforcement of the rule, given the government's interest in safety on public highways and the closely regulated nature of the commercial motor vehicle industry, it is FMCSA's view that a Fourth Amendment challenge is unlikely to be successful. Cf. New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987). In any event, the acquisition of evidence in a particular case will be governed by the principles established in judicial precedents interpreting and applying the Fourth Amendment and relevant statutory provisions, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848 (1986).
In response to the United Transportation Union, FMCSA currently has an appeals process in place for disqualifications. If a driver obtains a “letter of disqualification” for violating the hand-held mobile telephone Start Printed Page 75478restriction, he or she can either accept it or petition for review within 60 days after service of such action pursuant to 49 CFR 386.13. The petition must be submitted to FMCSA and must contain the following: (1) Identification of what action the petitioner wants overturned; (2) copies of all evidence upon which petitioner relies, in the form set out in § 386.49; (3) all legal and other arguments that the petitioner wishes to make in support of his/her position; (4) a request for oral hearing, if one is desired, which must set forth material factual issues believed to be in dispute; (5) certification that the reply has been filed in accordance with § 386.31; and (6) any other pertinent material.
Some commenters stated that employers should not be held responsible for a driver's use of a hand-held mobile telephone. Others suggested that employers should be prohibited from calling drivers during work hours. Some commenters said that employers would be fined, instead of drivers, to increase revenue from a violation. The Snack Food Association commented that employer sanctions are inappropriate where an employer has a policy banning hand-held phone use already in place. ATA said that a motor carrier should not be deemed to have allowed hand-held phone use if they have taken good faith steps to ensure compliance. ATA, AMSA, and other commenters suggested the Agency add the word “knowingly” to § 392.82 so that it would read as follows: “No motor carrier shall knowingly allow or require its drivers to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a CMV.”
FMCSA acknowledges the concern raised by industry representatives addressing employer liability for a driver's improper use of a hand-held mobile telephone. We recognize that there will be cases when a CMV driver uses a mobile telephone in violation of the employer's policy. The Agency, however, disagrees with the suggestion by some commenters that the word “knowingly” be added to the restriction in § 392.82(a)(2) that states “no motor carrier shall allow or require its drivers to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a CMV.” As noted above, a motor carrier should put in place or have company policies or practices that make it clear that a carrier does not allow or require hand-held mobile phone use while driving. A motor carrier is responsible for the actions of its drivers.
UMA noted that its members have largely responded to its advisory on the inherent risks of using cellular phones, and have developed and enforced Start Printed Page 75479policies that direct drivers to restrict their use of cellular phones to emergency and security purposes only.
FMCSA Response. The Agency agrees with the UMA and the many companies whose cell-phone policies continue to allow the use of mobile telephones to contact law enforcement in cases of emergency and for security purposes. The Agency, however, did not propose to prohibit CMV drivers from placing emergency calls. In the NPRM, the Agency said in § 392.82: “Emergencies. Using a hand-held mobile telephone is permissible by drivers of a CMV when necessary to communicate with law enforcement officials or other emergency services” (75 FR 80033, Dec. 21, 2010). This final rule allows a CMV driver to use either a hand-held or hands-free mobile telephone to contact law enforcement or other emergency services for such purposes as reporting an accident or drunk driver.
FMCSA Response. Previous Agency decisions support the premise that the CMV operations of utility companies cannot be classified as emergency services.[14] They are subject to varying degrees of regulation by Federal, State, and local authorities and do not specifically deal with the protection of life and property. Public utility employees operate large or hazardous- material-laden vehicles both day and night throughout the year, sometimes under the most adverse weather conditions. During declarations of emergency, drivers may be eligible for exemptions from some regulations under 390.23.
For more information on research, outreach, and education, the reader may reference NHTSA's Driver Distraction Program. This program is a plan to communicate NHTSA's priorities to the public with regard to driver distraction safety challenges, focusing on the long- term goal of eliminating crashes that are attributable to distraction. The complete overview can be found at http://www.distraction.gov/​files/​dot/​6835_​DriverDistractionPlan_​4-14_​v6_​tag.pdf. The Secretary considers preventing distracted driving a priority for the Department and has promoted funding for education, awareness, and outreach on this initiative.
FMCSA received one comment regarding the analytical treatment of driver compliance in the Agency's Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation. The commenter argued that the Agency's assumption of 100 percent compliance overstates the potential benefits of the rule. The commenter further argued that Start Printed Page 75480monitoring and enforcing the rule would be problematic and imperfect, which would further make compliance inconsistent.
FMCSA Response. When FMCSA conducts regulatory evaluations for rulemakings, the Agency must establish a baseline for its analysis, which essentially describes the current state of the regulatory conditions involved. A baseline, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, is “the best assessment of the way the world would look absent the proposed regulation.” [15] The purpose of a regulatory evaluation is to provide decision makers with the estimated costs and benefits associated with the rule. Sometimes the goal of regulation is to correct a deficiency in existing rules manifested, for example, by excessive enforcement violations. In developing the regulatory evaluation, the Agency assumes complete compliance and attempts to show the impact of the provision once it is implemented. When estimating the costs and benefits of rules, the analysis must therefore assume complete (100%) compliance in its hypothetical depiction of various options. This approach creates an “all things equal” relationship between the multiple options within a given rule, as well as between the various rules.
FMCSA Response. The FMCSA agrees with Advocates' comment that the Agency's cost/benefit analysis shows that the highest net benefit would result from adopting a complete cell phone ban for all CMV drivers. The commenters, however, did not recognize the distinction between a cost/benefit analysis and a threshold analysis, which are both used in the Agency's analysis for this rule. OMB recognizes that it will not always be possible to express in monetary units all of the important benefits and costs of rules. If the non-quantified benefits and costs are likely to be important, OMB guidance [16] requires that a threshold analysis be carried out in order to evaluate their significance. A threshold or a break-even analysis answers the question, “how small could the value of the non-quantified benefits be (or how large would the value of the non-quantified costs need to be) before the rule would yield zero net benefits”?
The Agency is not required to choose the regulatory option with the highest net benefit. In the NPRM, FMCSA offered its preference for Option Four (a restriction on the use of hand-held mobile telephones by all interstate CMV drivers) because it minimizes (for an entire CMV population) the costs of restricting mobile telephone use, including costs associated with inconvenience, disruption of patterns of business operations, and stifling technological innovations. Furthermore, it is not clear whether talking on a mobile telephone presents a significant risk while driving.
PHMSA received one comment from the Chemical Facility Security News concerning the reporting of security incidents. The commenter was concerned that a ban on the use of cell phones may prevent drivers from reporting potential security threats while en route to their destination. The commenter noted that over the road truck drivers were one of the first groups that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) targeted in its “If You See Something, Say SomethingTM” Campaign. DHS recognized that truck drivers would be seeing many things in operation of their commercial vehicles that might be indicators of potential terrorist activities, including attempts at hijacking hazardous materials. The commenter recognizes that this rule would not stop those reports from being made, but would require the delay of those reports until the vehicle was parked off the roadway.
ATA stated that employers should not be held responsible for a driver's use of a hand-held mobile telephone. ATA suggested the Agency add the word “knowingly” to § 392.82 so that it would read as follows: “No motor carrier shall knowingly allow or require its drivers to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a CMV.”
This rule amends regulations in 49 CFR parts 177, pertaining to carriage of hazardous materials by public highway; Start Printed Page 75481parts 383 and 384, concerning the Agency's CDL regulations; part 390, general applicability of the FMCSRs; part 391, driver qualifications and disqualifications; and part 392, driving rules. In general, this rule reduces the risks of distracted driving by restricting hand-held mobile telephone use by drivers who operate CMVs.
This rulemaking also amends the authority citations for 49 CFR parts 177, 383, 384, 390, 391, and 392 to correct statutory references and eliminate references that are either erroneous or unnecessary.
PHMSA adds a new paragraph (c) to prohibit the use of hand-held mobile telephones by any CMV driver 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 § 392.82 of the FMCSRs. This ensures that the FMCSA restriction on a driver's use of hand-held mobile telephones applies to both intrastate and interstate motor carriers operating CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5.
The definition of “mobile telephone” reflects the wide variety of radio telephone services, in addition to cell phone services, that are licensed by FCC and might be available for use in a CMV. “Mobile telephone” could include, for example, a satellite telephone service or a broadband radio service. Using such wireless communication services is just as distracting to a CMV driver as using a cell phone. FCC classifies these services as “commercial mobile radio services,” which are incorporated into the definition of mobile telephone. The FCC definition for mobile telephone does not include two-way or Citizens Band radio services.
To be consistent and to address commenters' concerns, FMCSA modified the existing definition of “texting” in 49 CFR 390.5 to reflect the Agency's restriction on a driver's use of a hand-held mobile telephone in this rule. FMCSA eliminated the dialing exception, as it would now be considered texting. Under the provisions implemented in this rule, the driver can press a single button to initiate or terminate a call. The Agency also removed the proposed definition of “using a hand-held mobile telephone” from § 383.5. Part 383 establishes the disqualification of CDL drivers that is defined by State or local law or ordinance on motor vehicle traffic control that restricts or prohibits the use of hand-held mobile telephones. In contrast, the Federal disqualification standards and definitions are contained in §§ 391.15 and 390.5.
In Table 2 to 49 CFR 383.51, FMCSA adds a new serious traffic violation that would result in a CDL driver being disqualified. This serious traffic violation is a conviction for violating a State or local law or ordinance on motor vehicle traffic control restricting or prohibiting hand-held mobile telephone use while driving a CMV. The Agency modified the definition of “driving” in footnote 2, removing the phrase “with the motor running” and replacing it with “on the highway” (consistent with our definition of “highway” in 49 CFR 390.5), to clarify the scope of the restriction. The modified definition now reflects the use of hybrid vehicles on the highways, which can be operated without the motor running. Our definition for “driving” now reads as follows: “Driving, for the purpose of this disqualification, means operating a commercial motor vehicle on a highway, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. Driving does not include operating a commercial motor vehicle when the driver has moved the vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has halted in a location where the vehicle can safely remain stationary.” The Agency's decision to change the definition of driving is consistent with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31310(e), which indicates the serious traffic violation must occur while the driver is operating a CMV that requires a CDL; the operative provisions in the revised table 2 of § 383.51(c) limit the types of violations that could result in a disqualification accordingly.
Due to intervening amendments (76 FR 39019, July 5, 2011; 76 FR 68332, November 4, 2011), FMCSA redesignates proposed paragraph (f) as paragraph (h). It requires all States that issue CDLs to implement the new provisions in part 383 that relate to disqualifying CDL drivers for violating the new serious traffic violation of using a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a CMV. States are required to implement these provisions as soon as practical, but not later than 3 years after this rule is effective.Start Printed Page 75482
FMCSA modifies several discretionary regulatory exemptions concerning the applicability of the existing FMCSRs, including one for school bus operations and one for CMVs designed or used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver), not for direct compensation (49 CFR 390.3(f)(1) and (6)). The Agency finds that this action is necessary for public safety regarding school bus transportation by interstate motor carriers, a finding required by the applicable statutory provisions, as explained above in the legal authority section. In addition, the Agency determined that, in order to enhance public safety to the greatest extent possible, the rule will apply to the operation by drivers of small, passenger-carrying vehicles (designed to transport 9-15 passengers), not for direct compensation, who are otherwise exempt from most of the FMCSRs under 49 CFR 390.3(f)(6).
FMCSA amends 49 CFR 390.5 by adding new definitions for the terms “mobile telephone” and “use a hand-held mobile telephone,” for general application. In this rulemaking, FMCSA defines “use a hand-held mobile telephone” to clarify that certain uses of a hand-held mobile telephone are restricted, including holding, dialing, and reaching in a proscribed manner for the mobile telephone to conduct voice communication. (That is, if a compliant mobile telephone is close to the driver and operable by the driver while restrained by properly installed and adjusted seat belts, then the driver would not be considered to be reaching. Reaching for any mobile telephone on the passenger seat, under the driver's seat, or into the sleeper berth are not acceptable actions.) As stated above in § 383.5, FMCSA also modified the definition of “texting.”
FMCSA amends 49 CFR 391.2, which provides certain exceptions to the requirements of part 391 for custom farm operations, apiarian industries, and specific farm vehicle drivers, to enable the Agency to make violations of the Federal mobile telephone restriction a disqualifying offense for such drivers. While the explicit Federal restriction against hand-held mobile telephone use applies directly to these drivers, the disqualification provision in § 391.15(g) below would not apply without this amendment to the current exceptions under 49 CFR 391.2.
FMCSA adds a new paragraph (f) to 49 CFR 391.15 entitled, “Disqualification for violation of restriction on using a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a commercial motor vehicle.” This provision provides for the disqualification from operating a CMV in interstate commerce of any driver convicted of two or more violations within a 3-year period of the new hand-held mobile telephone use restriction while operating a CMV as set forth in § 392.82. For the driver's first hand-held mobile telephone use conviction, the Agency could assess a civil penalty against the driver. If a driver is convicted of committing a second hand-held mobile telephone use violation within 3 years, he or she would be disqualified for 60 days, in addition to being subject to the applicable civil penalty. For three or more hand-held mobile telephone use convictions for violations committed within 3 years, a driver would be disqualified for 120 days, in addition to being subject to the applicable civil penalty.
This change to the disqualifying offenses for interstate drivers mirrors the Agency's corresponding new provisions governing the disqualification offenses for CDL drivers in § 383.51(c). The required number of convictions to cause a disqualification by FMCSA and the period of disqualification is the same: 60 days for the second offense within 3 years and 120 days for three or more offenses within 3 years. In addition, the first and each subsequent violation of such a restriction or prohibition by a driver are subject to civil penalties imposed on such drivers, in an amount up to $2,750 (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(A), 49 CFR 386.81 and Appendix B, A(4)).
FMCSA eliminates the exception pertaining to school bus drivers as a necessary change in light of § 390.3 (f)(1) and (6).
In § 392.82(a), FMCSA adds a new restriction on use of a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a CMV. This section also states that motor carriers must not allow or require CMV drivers to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving. Any violation by an employer would subject the employer to civil penalties in an amount up to $11,000 (49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(A), 49 CFR 386.81 and part 386 Appendix B, paragraph (a)(3)).
In § 392.82(b), a definition of “driving a commercial motor vehicle” is incorporated into the restriction on use of a hand-held mobile telephone while driving, in order to confine the use of that term to the restriction and the related disqualification. We also seek to avoid limiting the scope of the same term as used in other provisions of the FMCSRs.
FMCSA has eliminated the exception pertaining to school bus drivers as a necessary change in light of § 390.3 (f)(1) and (6).
FMCSA adds a limited exception to the hand-held mobile telephone restriction to allow CMV drivers to use their hand-held mobile telephones if necessary to communicate with law enforcement officials or other emergency services. Emergency services are not limited to traditional emergency responders. It may include those who provide security and protection in the special environments in which CMV drivers operate. CMV drivers are always encouraged to report incidents that may threaten national security in a manner consistent with safety.” [17] V. Regulatory Analyses
The rule adopted here restricts the use of hand-held mobile telephones by drivers of CMVs. FMCSA adds new driver disqualification sanctions for: (1) Interstate drivers of CMVs who fail to comply with this Federal restriction and (2) CDL holders who have multiple convictions for violating a State or local law or ordinance on motor vehicle traffic control that restricts the use of hand-held mobile telephones. Additionally, motor carriers operating CMVs are prohibited from requiring or allowing a CMV driver to engage in the use of a hand-held mobile telephone. This rulemaking improves safety on the Nation's highways by reducing the prevalence of distracted driving-related crashes, fatalities, and injuries involving Start Printed Page 75483drivers of CMVs. In addition, the rulemaking reduces the financial and environmental burden associated with these crashes and promotes the efficient movement of traffic and commerce on the Nation's highways. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that, in 2009, 5,474 people were killed on U.S. roadways in motor vehicle crashes that were reported to have involved distracted driving.[18] These fatalities impose a considerable monetary cost to society estimated to be approximately $32.8 billion.[19] In the regulatory evaluation (in the docket for this rule), FMCSA estimates the benefits and costs of implementing a restriction on the use of hand-held mobile telephones while driving a CMV.
Table 1—Threshold Analysis Results Total estimated annual costs *Annual break-even number of fatalities prevented **Restriction on Use of Hand-Held Mobile Telephones—All CMV Drivers$12.1 Million ***Approximately 2. Fatalities.* This cost estimate does not include a one-time cost to the States of $2.2 million.** A statistical life is valued at $6 million.*** This is a worst case annual cost as it would apply only if 100% of CMV drivers were theoretically replaced every year.
With regard to truck PUs, the Agency determined in the 2003 Hours-of-Service Rulemaking RIA [20] that a PU produces about $172,000 in revenue annually (adjusted for inflation).[21] According to the SBA, motor carriers with annual revenue of $25.5 million are considered small businesses.[22] This equates to 148 PUs (25,500,000/172,000). Thus, FMCSA considers motor carriers of property with 148 PUs or fewer to be small businesses for purposes of this analysis. The Agency then looked at the number and percentage of property carriers with recent activity that would have 148 PUs or fewer. The results show that at least 99 percent of all interstate property carriers with recent activity have 148 PUs or fewer.[23] This amounts to 481,788 carriers. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of interstate carriers of property are considered small entities.
With regard to passenger carriers, the Agency conducted a preliminary analysis to estimate the average number of PUs for a small entity earning $7 million annually, based on an assumption that a passenger-carrying PU generates annual revenues of $150,000. This estimate compares reasonably to the estimated average annual revenue per PU for the trucking industry ($172,000). The Agency used a lower estimate because passenger carriers generally do not accumulate as many vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per PU as carriers of property; [24] and it is assumed, therefore, that they would generate less revenue on average. The analysis concludes that passenger carriers with 47 PUs or fewer ($7,000,000 divided by $150,000/PU = 46.7 PU) are considered small entities. The Agency then looked at the number and percentage of passenger carriers registered with FMCSA that have 47 PUs or fewer. The results show that at least 96 percent of all interstate Start Printed Page 75484passenger carriers with recent activity have 47 PUs or fewer.[25] This amounts to 11,338 carriers. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of interstate passenger carriers are considered small entities.
In order to estimate the economic impact of the rule on small entities, FMCSA computed a total annual cost per carrier for each industry segment. First, FMCSA allocated the total cost [26] of the rule in the first year among property and passenger carriers according to their respective shares of total carrier population.[27] Interstate property carriers constitute 98 percent of the total of interstate carriers, whereas interstate passenger carriers constitute 2 percent. The total annual cost of the rule ($12,095,948) [28] was thus weighted by 98 percent for property carriers, leading to a total cost of $11,854,036, and by 2 percent for passenger carriers, leading to a total cost of $241,919. Next, FMCSA divided the two weighted costs by their respective number of small carriers, as described above, arriving at a cost-per-carrier for each segment: $11,854,029/481,788 = $24.60 for property carriers; and $241,919/11,338 = $21.33 for passenger carriers, for a weighted average of $24.50 per small entity.
While this rule clearly impacts a substantial number of small entities, the Agency does not consider a weighted average cost of approximately $24.50 per entity per year to be economically significant in light of the estimated average annual revenue of $172,000.[29 30] PHMSA
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 entitled, “Governmental Start Printed Page 75485Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.”
Start Amendment Part1. The authority citation for part 177 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part2. Amend § 177.804 by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) Prohibition against the use of hand-held mobile telephones. In accordance with § 392.82 of this Start Printed Page 75486chapter, a person transporting a quantity of hazardous materials requiring placarding under Part 172 of this chapter or any quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73 may not engage in, allow, or require use of a hand-held mobile telephone while driving.
Start Amendment Part3. The authority citation for part 383 is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part4. Amend § 383.5 by adding the definition “mobile telephone” in alphabetical order and revising the definition of “texting” to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part5. Amend § 383.51 by adding a new paragraph (c)(10) to Table 2 and revising footnote 2 to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 383.51 Disqualifications of drivers.
Table 2 to § 383.51If the driver operates a motor vehicle and is convicted of:For a second conviction of any combination of offenses in this Table in a separate incident within a 3-year period while operating a CMV, a person required to have a CLP or CDL and a CLP or CDL holder must be disqualified from operating a CMV for . . .For a second conviction of any combination of offenses in this Table in a separate incident within a 3-year period while operating a non-CMV, a CLP or CDL holder must be disqualified from operating a CMV, if the conviction results in the revocation, cancellation, or suspension of the CLP or CDL holder's license or non-CMV driving privileges, for . . .For a third or subsequent conviction of any combination of offenses in this Table in a separate incident within a 3-year period while operating a CMV, a person required to have a CLP or CDL and a CLP or CDL holder must be disqualified from operating a CMV for . . .For a third or subsequent conviction of any combination of offenses in this Table in a separate incident within a 3-year period while operating a non-CMV, a CLP or CDL holder must be disqualified from operating a CMV, if the conviction results in the revocation, cancellation, or suspension of the CLP or CDL holder's license or non-CMV driving privileges, for . . . * * * * * * *(10) Violating a State or local law or ordinance on motor vehicle traffic control restricting or prohibiting the use of a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a CMV.260 daysNot applicable120 daysNot applicable. * * * * * * *2 Driving, for the purpose of this disqualification, means operating a commercial motor vehicle on a highway, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. Driving does not include operating a commercial motor vehicle when the driver has moved the vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has halted in a location where the vehicle can safely remain stationary.
Start Amendment Part6. The authority citation for part 384 is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part7. Amend § 384.301 by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 384.301 Substantial compliance—general requirements.
Start Amendment Part8. The authority citation for part 390 is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132, 31133, 31136, 31144, 31151, and 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677-1678; secs. 212 and 217, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. Start Printed Page 754871144, 1726, 1743-1744); sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745; and 49 CFR 1.73.
Start Amendment Part9. Amend § 390.3 by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(6) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 390.3 General applicability.
(1) All school bus operations as defined in § 390.5, except for the provisions of §§ 391.15(f), 392.80, and 392.82 of this chapter.
(6) The operation of commercial motor vehicles designed or used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver), not for direct compensation, provided the vehicle does not otherwise meet the definition of a commercial motor vehicle, except that motor carriers and drivers operating such vehicles are required to comply with §§ 390.15, 390.19, 390.21(a) and (b)(2), 391.15(f), 392.80 and 392.82 of this chapter.
Start Amendment Part10. Amend § 390.5 by adding the definitions “mobile telephone” and “use a hand-held mobile telephone” in alphabetical order and revising the definition of “texting” to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 390.5 Definitions.
Start Amendment Part11. The authority citation for part 391 is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31133, 31136, and 31502; sec. 4007(b), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat, 1914, 2152; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 215, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; and 49 CFR 1.73.
Start Amendment Part12. Revise § 391.2 to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 391.2 General exceptions.
(a) Farm custom operation. The rules in this part, except for § 391.15(e) and (g), do not apply to a driver who drives a commercial motor vehicle controlled and operated by a person engaged in custom-harvesting operations, if the commercial motor vehicle is used to—
(b) Apiarian industries. The rules in this part, except for § 391.15(e) and (g), do not apply to a driver who is operating a commercial motor vehicle controlled and operated by a beekeeper engaged in the seasonal transportation of bees.
(c) Certain farm vehicle drivers. The rules in this part, except for § 391.15(e) and (g), do not apply to a farm vehicle driver except a farm vehicle driver who drives an articulated (combination) commercial motor vehicle, as defined in § 390.5 of this chapter. For limited exemptions for farm vehicle drivers of articulated commercial motor vehicles, see § 391.67.
Start Amendment Part13. Amend § 391.15 by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 391.15 Disqualification of drivers.
(1) General rule. A driver who is convicted of violating the restriction on using a hand-held mobile telephone in § 392.82(a) of this chapter is disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle for the period of time specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
Start Amendment Part14. The authority citation for part 392 is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part15. Amend § 392.80 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 392.80 Prohibitions against texting.
Start Amendment Part16. Amend part 392, subpart H, by adding a new § 392.82 to read as follows:End Amendment Part
§ 392.82 Using a hand-held mobile telephone.
(b) Definitions. For the purpose of this section only, driving means operating a commercial motor vehicle on a highway, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. Driving does not include Start Printed Page 75488operating a commercial motor vehicle when the driver has moved the vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has halted in a location where the vehicle can safely remain stationary.
Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Cynthia L. Quarterman,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. End Signature
Olson, 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. The study is in the docket at #FMCSA-2010-0096-0016. Hickman, J., Hanowski, R. & Bocanegra, J. (2010), Distraction in commercial trucks and buses: assessing prevalence and risk in conjunction with crashes and near- crashes, (Document No. FMCSA-RRR-10-049) Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The study is in the docket at #FMCSA-2010-0096-0004.
In popular usage, mobile telephones are often referred to as “cell phones.” As explained later in the final rule, a variety of different technologies are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (47 CFR 20.3) to provide mobile telephone services; thus, the rule here would apply to the range of technologies used to provide wireless telephone communications and the rule uses the broader term “mobile telephones.” However, some of the materials discussed in this preamble use the popular term “cell phone,” and the discussion continues that usage in such cases as appropriate.
As discussed under part II.B, the legal authority supporting the two regulatory programs of FMCSA and PHMSA differs. FMCSA's authority to adopt the FMCSRs applies to CMV drivers who operate in interstate commerce. PHMSA's authority to adopt the HMRs extends to CMV drivers who operate in intrastate commerce as well.
NTSB (2006). Motorcoach collision with the Alexandria Avenue Bridge overpass, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Alexandria, Virginia, November 14, 2004 (Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-06/04; NTIS report number PB2007-916201). Retrieved May 16, 2011, from: http://www.ntsb.gov/​Publictn/​2006/​HAR0604.pdf.
The concept of “holding” is included in our definition of “use a hand-held mobile telephone.”
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety list of cellphone laws. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.iihs.org/​laws/​cellphonelaws.aspx.
See 49 CFR 392.2, Applicable operating rules, which states that every commercial motor vehicle must be operated in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated. However, if a regulation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration imposes a higher standard of care than that law, ordinance or regulation, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulation must be complied with.
DOT (Oct. 1, 2009). U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Announces Administration-Wide Effort to
Combat Distracted Driving (DOT 156-09). Retrieved May 16, 2011, from: http://www.dot.gov/​affairs/​2009/​dot15609.htm.
Former section 31136(e)(1) was amended by section 4007(c) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 403 (June 9, 1998) (TEA-21). However, TEA-21 also provides that the amendments made by section 4007(c) “shall not apply to or otherwise affect a waiver, exemption, or pilot program in effect on the day before the date of enactment of [TEA-21] under * * * section 31136(e) of title 49, United States Code.” (Section 4007(d), TEA-21, 112 Stat. 404 (set out as a note under 49 U.S.C. 31136)). The exemption for school bus operations in 49 CFR 390.3(f)(1) became effective on November 15, 1988, and was adopted pursuant to section 206(f) of the 1984 Act, later codified as section 31136(e) (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; General, 53 FR 18042-18043, 18053 (May 19, 1988) and section 1(e), Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat 1003 (July 5, 1994)). Therefore, any action by FMCSA affecting the school bus operations exemption would require the Agency to comply with former section 31136(e)(1).
The exemption in 49 CFR 390.3(f)(6) was not adopted until 2003, after the enactment of TEA-21, in a final rule titled, “Safety Requirements for Operators of Small Passenger-Carrying Commercial Motor Vehicles Used In Interstate Commerce” (68 FR 47860, Aug. 12, 2003).
Upgrading is defined as the purchase of a mobile telephone that has voice dialing and speaker phone capabilities. The average cost of the least costly compliant phone is $29.99 (with a 2-year contract). See the Regulatory Evaluation accompanying this final rule for a full explanation of this cost.
A North American surface transportation provider that includes school bus and transit services, as well as Greyhound Lines, Inc.
For further discussion, see the Research section of the NPRM (75 FR 80020).
See the Federal Highway Administration's Notice of Final Disposition entitled, “Commercial Driver's License Program; Waivers; Final Disposition,” at 53 FR 37313, Sept. 26, 1988.
OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (09/17/2003), p. 11.
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4, Sept. 17, 2003, p. 2.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) encourages everyone to report suspicious observations under the “See Something, Say SomethingTM” brand to a regional or local number. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has ambitiously recruited active participation from the commercial motor carrier community for both its Highway Watch® and First ObserverTM programs, encouraging commercial drivers to “observe, assess, and report” suspicious activity and to report such activity to a national call center ((888) 217-5902) in a manner consistent with safety.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Traffic Safety Facts, Research Note, DOT HS 811 379, September 2010.
This cost assumes a value of statistical life equal to $6 million.
FMCSA Regulatory Analysis, “Hours-of-Service of Drivers; Driver Rest and Sleep for Safe Operations,” Final Rule (68 FR 22456, Apr. 23, 2003).
Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) as of June 17, 2010.
FMCSA Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2008, Tables 1 and 20; http://fmcsa.dot.gov/​facts-research/​LTBCF2008/​Index-2008.
Regulatory Analysis for: Hours-of-Service of Drivers; Driver Rest and Sleep for Safe Operations, Final Rule, FMCSA (68 FR 22456; Apr. 23, 2003).