Public News

Summary of the Mobile Telephone Final Rule

Brief Overview:

1)      This rulemaking restricts a CMV driver from holding a mobile telephone to conduct a voice communication and dialing a mobile telephone by pressing more than a single button. Hands-free use is allowed via either an earpiece or the speakerphone function of the mobile telephone.

2)      Research commissioned by FMCSA shows that the odds of being involved in a safety-critical event (e.g., crash, near-crash, unintentional lane deviation) is 6 times greater for CMV drivers who engage dialing a mobile telephone while driving than for those who do not. Dialing drivers took their eyes off the forward roadway for an average of 3.8 seconds. At 55 mph (or 80.7 feet per second), this equates to a driver traveling 306 feet, the approximate length of a football field, without looking at the roadway[1].

Detailed Overview:

1)      Use a hand-held mobile telephone means:

a)      using at least one hand to hold a mobile telephone to conduct a voice communication;

b)      dialing a mobile telephone by pressing more than a single button, or

c)      reaching for a mobile telephone in a manner that requires a driver to maneuver so that he or she is no longer in a seated driving position, restrained by a seat belt that is installed in accordance with 49 CFR 393.93 and adjusted in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer’s instructions.

  • A driver of a CMV who desires to use a mobile phone while driving will need to use a mobile telephone (such as hands-free) located in close proximity to the driver that can be operated in compliance with this rule.
  • The ease of “reach” or accessibility of the phone is relevant only when a driver chooses to have access to a mobile telephone while driving. Essentially, before driving the vehicle, the CMV driver must be ready to conduct a voice communication on a mobile telephone.

 

2)      Driving means operating a commercial motor vehicle on a highway, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, 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.

3)      Using a hand-held mobile telephone while driving is a serious traffic violation that would result in a CDL driver being disqualified.

4)      Additionally, states would suspend a driver's CDL after two or more violations of any state law on hand-held cell phone use. FMCSA expects to issue a final rule later this year.

a)      The State which issues a driver their CDL will impose this disqualification whenever that driver is convicted for using a hand-held mobile while operating a CMV, 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 prohibition are subject to civil penalties imposed on such drivers, in an amount up to $2,750.

b)      Furthermore, this rule states that motor carriers must not allow nor require drivers to use a hand-held mobile while driving. Employers may also be subject to civil penalties in an amount up to $11,000.

c)      There is an emergency exception that allows CMV drivers to use their hand-held mobile telephones if necessary to communicate with law enforcement officials or other emergency services.

5)      We expect the rule to have a minimal economic impact as most existing phones are compliant because they have either a speaker phone function or a wired or wireless earpiece capability.

 


[1] 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.

 

NAPT Summary by Keith Paulson

For information on the Operation Lifesaver Region 4 Conference click here.

Status of Student Transportation Provisions at the End of the 2011 Regular Session

            The failure of the Legislature and the Governor to come to a budget accord put a severe crimp in the amount of legislation that passed during the 2011 legislative session.  Of all the bills relating to pupil transportation, only one—HF 1179 (McFarlane)/HF 939 (Nienow)—passed the full Legislature and was signed by the Governor.  Below is a run-down of what occurred and where the various provisions relating to pupil transportation are as we prepare for the up-coming special session.

 

  1. HF 1179 (McFarlane)/SF 939 (Neinow).  As stated above, this bill—developed by MAPT—contained three minor provisions that: (1) removes archaic “nonregular” language relating to transporting students to area learning centers on routes where space is available, (2) allows the Minnesota Department to keep a library of student safety instructional materials as opposed to developing new curricula, and (3) allows costs for field trips taken with a lift bus to be credited as special education transportation. These provisions had been part of the omnibus education funding bills the past two years, but due to breakdowns in negotiations and/or the failure to pass a bill that was sent to Governor for signature, they never became law.  Although the provisions are in the omnibus education policy bill that the Governor vetoed, MAPT staff also pursued passage as an individual bill instead of risking possible veto. That strategy worked as the bill passed the House by vote of 130-4 and the Senate by a vote of 64-0 and was signed by the Governor on May 27 and is now Chapter 103, Laws of Minnesota, 2011.

 

  1. HF 392 (Howes)/SF 992 (Wolf).  This bill would require crossing gates on all new school buses put in service in Minnesota after January 1, 2012.  The House bill also contained a number of vehicle standards updates that were supported by MAPT and MSBOA that were in HF 1181 (Howes).  The bill passed the House floor on a vote of 133-1, but did not receive corresponding action in the Senate as a separate bill.  This language is currently contained in both the House and Senate versions of the omnibus transportation policy bill—HF 1168 (Beard)/SF 920 (Gimse)—but neither of those bills made it to final passage.  It will be interesting to see if an omnibus transportation policy bill is pursued during the special session.  It may that all policy language, especially language that did not pass on both the House and Senate floor, will have to wait until next year, but that is hardly a given.

 

  1. HF 1214(Hortman)/SF 1124 (Wolf).  This is the booster seat language sought by the Department of Public Safety that would require all Type A buses (and Type 3 buses built to Type A crash standards) below 10,000 pounds to use booster seats when transporting children, same as required to use the devices in their family cars.  As a result of the exemptions passed last year, the Department of Public Safety was not eligible to receive a grant from the federal government to promote the use of booster seats.  While not passed on either the Senate or House floor as a separate bill, this language, like that of HF 392/SF 992, found its way into the omnibus transportation policy bill.

 

  1. HF 1181 (Howes)/No Senate Companion.  As referenced above, HF 1181 contained the vehicle standards portion of the MAPT/MSBOA 2011 platforms including adoption of the 2010 national standards, clarifying language on video camera placement, and placement of auxiliary fans.  This language was amended into HF 392, which did pass on the House floor by a vote of 133-1, but it did not surface in the House or Senate omnibus transportation policy bills.

 

  1. HF 1381 (Erickson)/SF 1167 (Olson).  These bills are the omnibus education policy bills from the respective legislative bodies and the final version of HF 1381 that was reached in conference committee included language that clarified the cost-allocation system used regarding the reporting of transportation costs.  The conference committee report on the omnibus education policy bill passed both the House and Senate, but was vetoed on May 31, 2011.

2011 Special Ed Driver and Assistant Award Winners

 

First Place Driver:  Robin Yeshe  #300 LaCrescent-Hokah

 

First Place Assistant:  Patricia Dahl  #196 Rosemount, Apple Valley, Eagan

 

 

Second Place Driver:  Pat Nicko  #001 Aitkin Schools

Pat Nicko

 

 

Second Place Assistant:  Kathy Barnes  ISD 833

Kathy Barnes

 

 

Third Place Driver:   Jerry Dahl  #196 Rosemount, Apple Valley, Eagan

 

Third Place Assistant:  Sue Weigel  #300 LaCrescent-Hokah

More Articles...

Products


List All Products