Environmental Assessment - Texting 3-29-2010

PUBLIC NOTICE – ALL INTERESTED PARTIES

LIMITING THE USE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICES RIN#2126-AB22 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Washington, DC

March 2010

Contact: Michael M. Johnsen Environmental Program Analyst U.S. Department of Transportation FMCSA 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590-0001 202-366-4111

ABSTRACT: FMCSA performed an environmental assessment to determine the impacts of the proposals in the rulemaking Limiting the Use of Wireless Communication Devices according to the National Environmental Policy Act and FMCSA Order 5610.1.

FMCSA’s analysis is aimed at determining whether the proposal has an impact on the environment to the degree that requires an Environmental Impact Statement. FMCSA is requesting comments on the environmental analysis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ………………………………… 3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Introduction ……………………………………………………………….. 3 Background ……………………………………………………………….. 3 Studies on the Hazards of Texting……….……………………………….. 5 Potential Engine Idle Time While Texting…………..……………………. 8 Impacts of Crashes………………………………………………………… 9 Scope of Analysis ………………………………………………………… 9

2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES …………………………………….. 11 2.1 2.2 2.3

Overview of Alternatives ………………………………………………… 11 Option 1: Implement a Prohibition on Texting While Driving ………….. 11 Option 2: No-Action Alternative…… …………….……………………... 11

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ……………………………. 12 3.1

Affected Environment ……………………………………………………. 12 3.1.1 Physical Environment Affected …………………………………….. 12

3.2

Environmental Consequences …………………………………………….

3.2.1 Air Emissions..……………………………………………………...

3.2.2 Socioeconomics ……………………………………………………

3.2.3 Public Health and Safety………………………………………….

3.2.4 Solid Waste…………………………………………………….......

3.2.5 Hazardous Materials………………………………………………

3.2.6 Unaffected Areas………………………………………………….

3.3

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………. 22

13 13 17 18 19 20 21

4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ………………………………. 23 4.1 4.2

List of Agencies and Persons Consulted …………………………………. 23 List of Preparers and Reviewers …………………………………………. 23

5. REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………. 24 6. SIGNATURE PAGE…………………………………………………………. 25

2

1. 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION With the increased use of texting devices, particularly for sending and receiving short alphanumeric messages, there is growing concern about the safety impact that texting while driving can have on operators of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). The FMCSA’s primary mission is to reduce large bus and truck fatalities and crashes; thus the Agency is concerned about this new source of driver distraction and is proposing to ban texting while driving a CMV. This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) would amend part 390 regarding general applicability (§390.3) and definitions (§390.5). It would also amend part 392, Driving of Commercial Vehicles, subpart G, Prohibited Practices, by prohibiting texting activities to limit the distraction of CMV drivers. Additionally, this rule would amend §383.51, Disqualification of drivers for conviction of certain state or local laws or ordinances on texting. It would also amend §391.15, Disqualifications of Drivers, to provide that any CMV driver convicted of violating a Federal or State prohibition banning texting would be disqualified after his or her second conviction. This NPRM would amend definitions (§383.5) related to texting. Part 384 would also be amended regarding state requirements for grant funding.

In accordance with procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as amended, FMCSA’s NEPA Order 5610.1(National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts), and other applicable requirements, FMCSA prepares this Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine whether the impact to the environment and related areas from the action is significant enough to warrant a more extensive analysis through an Environmental Impact Statement.

1.2 BACKGROUND Driver distraction has been defined by Trezise et al1 as the voluntary or involuntary diversion of attention from the primary driving tasks, not related to impairment (from alcohol, drugs, fatigue, or a medical condition), where the diversion occurs because the driver is performing an additional task (or tasks) and temporarily focusing on an object, event, or person not related to the primary driving tasks. The diversion reduces a driver’s situational awareness, decision making, or performance and it may result, in some instances, in a collision, near-miss or corrective action by the driver and/or other road user.

From a practical standpoint driver distraction can be defined as the combination of 1

Trezise, I., Stoney, E. G., Bishop, B., Eren, J., Harkness, A., Langdon, C., & Mulder, T. (2006). Report of the road safety committee on the inquiry into driver distraction. Rep. No. 209. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Road Safety Committee, Parliament of Victoria.

3

inattention and a critical incident or incidents. Driver inattention is clearly related to driver behavior and is caused by many events or tasks. These tasks vary in complexity, but are typically divided into three categories: (1) primary tasks (required for vehicle control); (2) secondary tasks (driving-related, but not required for vehicle control, such as checking mirrors or the speedometer); and (3) tertiary tasks (non-driving related, such as texting or eating). For tertiary tasks, the level of complexity is further divided into complex, moderate and simple. Among complex tertiary tasks, texting on a cell phone ranks the highest, meaning that the odds of being involved in a critical incident are greater than when a driver is not texting.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there are four types of driver distraction: Visual (taking one’s eyes off the road), auditory (listening to something that would distract one from driving/road), physical (taking one’s hands off the wheel) and cognitive (thinking about something other than the road/driving). Texting while driving applies to at least three types of distraction,2 and thus poses a considerable risk to road safety.

As for critical incidents, they can be defined as crashes, near-crash events, crash-relevant conflicts, and unintentional lane deviations. There are three main factors that could lead to a critical incident:3 driver factors, vehicular factors and environmental factors. Driver factors are the most prominent cause of traffic crashes.

Driver distraction statistics based upon police accident reports attribute driver distraction as a primary factor in 25-30 percent of crashes; however, most research attributes a much higher percentage, since there are potential errors and deficiencies in attributing an accident to the driver’s distraction in police accident reports. First, these reports are not designed to account for pre-crash behavior. Second, reports cannot account for nearcrashes or close-calls. Considering the relative rarity of traffic crashes in relation to the total number of vehicle miles traveled, it is imperative, from statistical and practical standpoints, to additionally account for pre-crash behavior and near-crashes.

Many studies have examined the link between driver distraction and potential crashes.

These studies are discussed below. For further discussion of recent research on driver distraction, see NHTSA’s “Driver Distraction: A Review of the Current State-ofKnowledge,” by Thomas A. Ranney (2008).4 Different elements of the Federal government have reacted to the risks of wireless communication devices and texting. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation issued an emergency order in October 2008 restricting on-duty railroad operating employees’ use of cellular telephones and other distracting electronic and electrical devices. FRA will be initiating a rulemaking that will codify this 2

Auditory distraction is the least applicable to texting.

For incidents attributable to long-haul and short-haul drivers, the three most prevalent types are: entering roadway without sufficient clearance, backing in roadway (in presence of through traffic), and late braking for stopped/stopping traffic, tied with wide turn into adjacent lane (FMCSA Technical Brief: Light Vehicle-Heavy Vehicle Interactions: A Preliminary Assessment Using Critical Incident Analysis) 4 NHTSA- Driver Distraction: A Review of the Current State-of-Knowledge, April, 2008 3

4

emergency order. In addition, the President issued an executive order on October 1, 2009, banning Federal employees from text messaging while driving in a governmentowned vehicle, while performing official duties, or while using a government-supplied electronic device.

Several States have already implemented some type of texting prohibition. Currently, 19 States, plus the District of Columbia, have prohibited texting while driving.

The Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC), a committee mandated under Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and composed of motor carrier industry, safety enforcement and safety advocate representatives, in its report to the Secretary of Transportation titled, “Developing a National Agenda for Motor Carrier Safety,” dated March 27, 2009, recommended that as part of the National Agenda, FMCSA should add “distracted driving” to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). According to the MCSAC, documented research shows that there are cognitive distractions and increases in crashes from cellular phone use and text messaging. Therefore, the committee recommended that FMCSA initiate a rulemaking to prohibit the use of hand-held and hands-free cellular phones and text messaging.

In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a recommendation to FMCSA to publish regulations prohibiting cellular telephone use by commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders with passenger-carrying or school bus endorsements, while driving under the authority of that endorsement, except in emergencies.

While this proposed rulemaking does not explicitly address cellular telephone use, it does serve as a significant first step in addressing an aspect of the broader problem of distracted driving while using wireless electronic devices. Moreover, the Agency intends to consider the NTSB’s and MCSAC’s recommendations in a later rulemaking.

1.3 STUDIES ON THE HAZARDS OF TEXTING The FMCSA performed a literature search on research studies that could contribute to the Agency’s understanding of the risk of texting while driving. There are only a few studies on the topic, with several studies also encompassing other driver distraction activities involving wireless communication devices. They are listed in this section to provide a basis for understanding the risk texting poses as a driver distraction.

Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations (“the VTTI Study”) – Olson et al., 20095

5

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/FMCSA-RRR-09-042.pdf last accessed 01/04/10.

5

This peer-reviewed6 study analyzed data from two large-scale naturalistic truck driving studies using 200 truck drivers who collectively drove more than 3 million miles. Of the 4,452 safety-critical events noted in the data, 60 percent had some type of tertiary task listed as a potential contributing factor. The study found that the odds of being involved in a safety critical event, such as a crash or near crash, are 23 times greater while texting than when the driver is not texting.

However, one must interpret that finding with caution and in proper perspective. In order to correctly assess the odds, or the odds ratio, of a task, one must consider the frequency of that task. The population attributable risk (PAR) considers the frequency of engaging in a task. The PAR is the incidence rate of a condition in a specified population that is associated with or attributable to exposure to a specific risk. If a task is performed more frequently, it will have a greater PAR percentage. The VTTI study confirms this fact.

The PAR percentage for texting is 0.7 percent, or 0.7 percent of the risk of being involved in a safety-critical event is attributable to texting, and, thus, could be avoided by not texting. In other words, if drivers did not text while driving, the number of safetycritical events would decrease. This decrease is the PAR percentage for being involved in a safety-critical event while texting. By comparison, the PAR percentage for the task of reaching for an object in a vehicle is 7.6, because it occurs more frequently than texting. This does not mean that texting should be ignored. On the contrary, these findings suggest that as texting becomes more prevalent, the frequency of safety-critical events is likely to increase.

Another noted finding of the study is the average time the driver’s eyes are off the road while texting. The study found that during 6-second intervals, texting drivers took their eyes off the forward roadway for 4.6 seconds. This equates to a CMV driver traveling the length of a football field, including the end zones, at 55 mph without looking at the roadway. The study did not observe any texting-related crashes, but did observe 31 texting-related safety critical events. These observations call for future research exploring in more detail the correlation between texting while driving and crash risk.

Driver Workload Effects of Cell Phone, Music Player, and Text Messaging Tasks with the Ford SYNC Voice Interface versus Handheld Visual-Manual Interfaces – Shutko, et al., 20097

6

The 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 distraction-related research. The purpose of the peer review of this study is to provide FMCSA with insight into the scientific approach and veracity of the study methods, results, and conclusions.

7 Shutko, 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 visual-manual interfaces (paper presented at SAE World Congress & Exhibition, April 2009, Detroit, MI). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers International.

6

This peer-reviewed8 study had 25 participants and showed that tasks that draw the driver’s eyes away from the forward road lead to a significant increase in risk. The median total eyes off road time was 11 seconds when reviewing a text message using a handheld cell phone while driving. The median total eyes off road time was 20 seconds when sending a text message using a handheld cell phone while driving.

Text Messaging During Simulated Driving – Drews et al., 20099 This study aimed 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 (1) while only driving and (2) while driving and text messaging. Participants followed a paced car in the right lane, which intermittently braked 42 times. Participants were 0.2 seconds slower in responding to the brake onset when driving and text messaging, compared to driving only. Also, participants were significantly faster responding to the brake onset for driving only compared to entering and reading/receiving text messages, but no significant difference in responding to the brake onset was found between entering and reading text messages. When drivers were concentrating on texting in any form, their reaction times to braking events were significantly higher.

The Effect of Text Messaging on Driver Behaviour- A Simulator Study – Reed et al., 200810 The RAC Foundation commissioned this report to assess the impact of text messaging on driver performance and the attitudes surrounding that activity in the 17 to 25-year old driver category. There were 17 participants in the study, aged 17 to 24. The results demonstrated that driving was impaired by texting. Writing text messages produced significantly greater impairment than reading them. 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. This research was used to assist in trend analysis for driver distraction.

Synthesis of Literature and Operating Safety Practices Relating To Cell Phone/Personal Data Assistant Use In Commercial Truck and Bus Operations – FMCSA Study, Ongoing Study, Final Report is due Spring 2010 The objectives of this ongoing research project are threefold. First, the project will synthesize findings related to cell phone use in automobiles and CMVs. Second, the project will identify current cell phone practices, PDA use, including texting, and the 8

Page one of the document states “The 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.”

9 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 10 Ibid.

7

magnitude of the use in the motor carrier industry. FMCSA will consider how these cardriver findings apply to truck and bus drivers and what led fleet managers to restrict or manage cell phone and PDA use. Third, the project will identify the scope and objectives of ongoing related studies, and any significant knowledge gaps that might influence a regulatory approach.

Cell Phone Distraction in Commercial Trucks and Buses: Assessing Prevalence in Conjunction with Crashes and Near-Crashes, FMCSA Ongoing Study, Preliminary results available Spring 2010 The purpose of this ongoing research is to conduct an analysis of naturalistic data collected by DriveCam over a 1-year period. Commercial trucks (3-axle and tractortrailer) and buses will be the target vehicles in the analyses. This study will provide FMCSA with descriptive data on the adverse consequences of cell phone use and other distractions while driving, including texting. In addition, DriveCam will re-review all valid cell phone events within the last 90 days to determine the frequency of the following cell phone variables: dial cell phone, reach for cell phone, reach for Bluetooth/headset/earpiece, talk/listen on hands-free cell phone, talk/listen on hand-held cell phone, and text/email/surf web on cell phone. The results of these analyses will provide information on the scope of cell phone use, and other distractions, during valid safety events and crashes.

1.4 POTENTIAL ENGINE IDLING TIME WHILE TEXTING In order to calculate the environmental impacts of this rule, it is essential to estimate the number of times CMV drivers text while driving throughout the year. Based on data used in the VTTI study, FMCSA determined that texting occurred in approximately 0.20 percent of trips. The Agency estimates that there are approximately 7 million active CMV drivers,11 and that a full-time driver will work 240 days per year.12 Because some drivers make multiple trips in a day, the number of working days would underestimate the number of trips. However, a large fraction of the 7 million active CMV drivers are not employed full-time. On net, it is likely that active CMV drivers average fewer than 240 trips per year. Nevertheless, the Agency will use this 240-trip figure because it can be associated with an upper bound for the environmental impacts of this rule. If 7 million drivers are texting on 0.20 percent of 240 trips, then texting is occurring on 3.36 million trips annually (7,000,000 Ă— 240 Ă— .002).

Next, FMCSA estimated the amount of time spent texting. Text messages tend to be short and abbreviated and can be entered and sent in under a minute. Other types of texting covered by this proposed prohibition, such as emailing, however, may consume more time. Moreover, drivers who engage in texting will likely do so multiple times while driving. The Agency assumes that a texting driver on average spends 2 minutes texting per trip. Comments from the public are invited on this estimate.

11

This estimate was a result of analysis by FMCSA based on May 2005 Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) data and the 2003 Drug and Alcohol Survey.

12 See Information Collection Supporting Statement for Hours of Service of drivers.

8

All told, the Agency estimates that the maximum annual amount of time drivers send and receive texts to be 112,000 hours ((3,360,000 trips × 2 minutes) ÷ 60 minutes per hour)).

A driver has several options available if FMCSA prohibits texting while driving. The driver could:   

Forego entering or reading messages altogether; Revert to all-voice communication; or Undertake texting during non-driving time.

If drivers opt to continue to read and send texts but do so while pulled over to safe places allowed by the regulations, this calculation can be used to estimate the maximum engine idle time emissions that could be produced by this rule. FMCSA assumes that for texting, most drivers, if not all, will idle their trucks while performing texting tasks. If drivers pull off the roadway, additional fuel is burned exiting and returning to the roadway.

1.5 IMPACTS ON CRASHES The FMCSA’s primary mission is to reduce CMV crashes and fatalities. Along with producing the societal benefit of safety (preventing injuries and fatalities from CMV crashes), reducing CMV crashes also reduces: 1) emissions that result from congestion caused by a CMV crash; 2) solid wastes generated from a crash; and 3) the potential for hazardous material (HM) releases. Consequently, FMCSA has calculated the emissions, solid waste and HM releases from CMV crashes in the report “The Environmental Costs of CMV Crashes” (FMCSA 2007).

Even though FMCSA can not currently estimate the actual number of crashes that would be prevented by this rule, FMCSA can demonstrate that texting contributes to driver distraction, and that driver distractions lead to crashes. While the VTTI study did not observe any texting-related crashes, it found a large number of occurrences of unsafe driving behavior when drivers were texting relative to when they were not. Regardless, the Agency believes that the low cost of the proposed texting prohibition requires a quite modest improvement in safety for the rule to produce benefits to society. Consequently, in its regulatory evaluation for this rule, FMCSA performs a threshold analysis that looks at the costs of the proposed changes and estimates the number of fatalities or crashes that would have to be prevented in order for the rule to provide an overall benefit to society.

The Agency estimates that, at most, the proposed rule would cause CMV drivers to bear a cost of approximately $ 2.7 million annually. This cost consists of value of driver time lost due to texting while not driving during on-duty time, increased fuel usage due to trucks that are parked on the shoulder of the road, and increased crash risk of possible rear-end collisions of commercial motor vehicles being parked off the roadway and of pulling into and out of travel lanes of roadways. Current guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation places the value of a statistical life at $6.0 million.

9

Consequently, the proposed texting prohibition would have to eliminate only one CMV crash fatality for the benefits of this rule to exceed the costs. Preventing a texting-related crash may offset greater environmental and economic damages than what FMCSA estimates for a Mid-Level scenario in the “Environmental Costs of CMV Crashes” report.

Nineteen States and the District of Columbia as well as a number of trucking companies have already implemented some type of texting prohibition with varying degrees of enforcement and compliance. Consequently, many drivers are already operating under prohibitions similar to those proposed in FMCSA’s rulemaking. Thus, environmental impacts may be less than estimated in this analysis.

1.6 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS This EA will analyze the potential environmental consequences associated with adopting the NPRM. This Chapter, Chapter 1 of this EA, offers background information regarding the purpose of and need for the rulemaking. Chapter 2 describes FMCSA’s Federal actions and the no-action alternative. Chapter 3 describes both the affected environment and the potential environmental consequences to that affected environment resulting from the actions and the no-action alternative. Per FMCSA Order 5610.1, this EA will focus only on those resource categories that are potentially impacted, of interest to the public, or important to the decision: public health and safety; HM transportation; socioeconomics; solid waste disposal; and congestion and air quality. Chapter 3 also offers a summary comparison of each alternative’s environmental consequences. Chapter 4 lists those agencies and persons with whom FMCSA consulted during this NEPA compliance process, as well as preparers and reviewers of this document. Chapter 5 lists references consulted during the development of this document.

The potential impacts of this NPRM on the environment are related to: 1) the change in the crash rate this rule may cause, which impacts the generation of solid waste, HM releases, and emissions and congestion from roadway delays; and 2) any additional emissions released by actions taken by the driver in response to the prohibition on texting, such as pulling off the roadway and idling the vehicle to communicate via texting instead of texting while driving.

10

2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES This section provides an overview of the alternatives FMCSA is considering in this rulemaking. There are two paths FMCSA can take: Option One is to amend its regulations to prohibit texting by CMV operators while driving and Option Two is to take No Action.

The FMCSA also considered different ways to enact a texting prohibition that centered on which populations of drivers would be covered: all CMV drivers or only CDL-CMV drivers. The FMCSA estimates that CDL holders make up about 4.2 million, or 60 percent of total CMV drivers.13 However, as explained in the NPRM, FMCSA does not have authority to directly regulate all CDL drivers.

In order to represent the maximum level of environmental impact of any possible alternative FMCSA could consider, the option of applying a texting prohibition to both CDL holders and CMV drivers is examined in this assessment. If the environmental impact of a texting prohibition on the maximum population of drivers is deemed small enough not to merit further analysis, then an option of CDL-only drivers would only result in a further reduction of environmental impacts.

These options are further described below while the environmental impacts of these two actions are considered in Chapter 3.

2.2 OPTION 1: IMPLEMENT A PROHIBITION ON TEXTING WHILE DRIVING A CMV This alternative is proposed in the NPRM, which would: prohibit all CMV drivers from texting while driving on an active roadway; and disqualify all CMV drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles while texting.

2.3 OPTION 2: NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action alternative would leave the regulations as they are and no prohibition would be enacted. Since trends indicate texting activity to be increasing rapidly, the assumption is that CMV drivers would increase their rates of texting as well. FMCSA is able to demonstrate that texting contributes to driver distraction, which leads to CMV crashes. Subsequently, the No-Action Alternative has the potential to lead to a higher CMV crash rate, with subsequent impacts to the environment.

13

Estimate based on FMCSA analysis from 2005 MCMIS data and 2003 the Drug and Alcohol survey.

11

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter begins by describing the environment affected by the rulemaking. It then presents the potential environmental consequences to that affected environment resulting from the proposed action and its alternatives. Per FMCSA Order 5610.1, this EA will focus only on those resource categories that are potentially impacted, of interest to the public, or important to the proposal that texting by CMV drivers should be prohibited.

3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The actual physical environment that may be affected by the changes includes the environment around the roads over which motor carriers operate. These roads and the infrastructure of the roadway system that CMVs utilize could be affected by CMV crashes where drivers may be involved in crashes or where they may opt for temporarily parking and idling their vehicle to send, receive and read text messages.

3.1.1 Physical Environment Affected The physical environment potentially affected by the proposed action includes: the airspace, water resources (e.g., streams, lakes), cultural and historical resources (e.g., properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places), biological and ecological resources (e.g., wetlands, plant and animal species and their habitat, forests, grasslands), and special ecological resources (e.g., threatened and endangered plant and animal species and their habitats, national and State parklands, biological reserves, Wild and Scenic Rivers) that exist directly adjacent to and in the vicinity of the roads, terminals, and facilities where CMVs operate.

Figure 1.0 depicts the National Highway System, which is approximately 160,000 miles (256,000 kilometers) of roadway important to the Nation’s economy, defense, and mobility (FHWA 2005). As shown in Figure 1.0, the impacts of changes to the highway system or to vehicles operating on the highway system affect the whole Nation.

In addition, because CMVs operate throughout the entire highway system, the potential for CMV crashes exists along all of these roads whether the operator is a CDL driver or simply operates a CMV not requiring a CDL. CMV crashes impact their immediate environment because of physical alterations (such as a fire that destroys an overpass), fuel spills, commodity spills (especially pertinent in spills of HM), and the noise generated from the crash and ensuing emergency response. CMV crashes also produce traffic congestion resulting in increased emissions, both of which can be fairly significant.

12

Figure 1.0 National Highway System (FHWA 2005) 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The following subchapters examine the environmental consequences for this rulemaking.

The discussion in each section covers the potential impacts from amending the regulations to prohibit texting. This rule potentially impacts several areas FMCSA considers in performing environmental analysis as required in FMCSA Order 5610.1.

Other environmental areas FMCSA typically examines for impacts that are not potentially affected are listed in Section 3.2.6, Areas Not Affected.

The FMCSA calculations used in this analysis examine a maximum level of environmental impact. Thus, estimates assume driver behaviors that maintain their level of texting by exiting from the active roadway. Estimates of an “average� CMV crash are taken from The Environmental Cost of CMV Crashes (FMCSA 2007) report as the midlevel scenario in the report.

3.2.1 Air Emissions The possibility for an impact on air emissions from the action to prohibit texting exists from potential increases in idling while texting (if drivers chose to do so) and a reduction

13

in emissions from the potential avoidance of crashes. There is also a potential for a very slight increase in the number of property damage only (PDO) crashes from drivers entering and exiting an active roadway if they opt to pull over and text. The FMCSA has estimated the amount of air emissions generated by a CMV crash; thus, any action FMCSA takes to prevent crashes also produces a reduction in emissions from the congestion caused by the crash.

In FMCSA’s environmental analysis, the Agency considers the release of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a major contributor to global warming, and the impact the Agency’s actions may have on emissions contributing to global warming. At the time of the publication of this analysis, the Environmental Protection Agency is considering adding CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The FMCSA includes CO2 in its analysis in this section of the Environmental Assessment.

Option One: Implement a Prohibition on Texting While Driving A CMV Idling Increases As mentioned above in Section 1.4, there is a potential that an increase in emissions could occur if Option 1 is enacted due to drivers pulling over and idling their vehicles while performing texting functions that are prohibited to be performed while driving. For this assessment, FMCSA will assume the maximum level of texting will continue to occur, with drivers pulling over to safe areas and idling their engines. From the above analysis, FMCSA estimates that drivers spend 112,000 hours annually texting while driving. Since the actual emissions from an engine depend on the engine type and construction, the emissions (other than CO2) from a gallon of diesel fuel will vary from truck type to truck type. Another way of estimating the emissions impact of this proposed rule, which is used in this analysis, is to do an inventory analysis of the amount of additional gallons of diesel fuel this rule could cause to be burned in CMVs across the vehicle type spectrum. This type of analysis compares the potential increase in fuel consumed with the total average as a comparison of possible impacts.

FMCSA uses an estimate of about 0.8 gallons of fuel burned in a large truck or bus per hour of idling.14 In addition, drivers may travel extra distances to arrive at a safe place to text, or they may pull over to the side of the road. For drivers who drive to a safer location, FMCSA estimates that distance to be, on average, one mile. Truck fuel efficiency varies but is generally between 5 and 10 miles per gallon. Consequently, adding an additional 0.2 gallons of diesel burned per hour of texting for the additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) drivers may experience equates to a total of 1 gallon of fuel burned per hour of texting.

If Option 1 of this rule causes drivers of CMVs to idle their vehicles while texting, and an approximate 1 gallon per hour idling is consumed, 112,000 additional gallons of diesel fuel would be consumed as a result of this rule. The number of highway diesel fuel 14

From EPA’s Smartway website at http://www.epa.gov/smartway/transport/documents/tech/idlingreduction.pdf last accessed 11/25/09.

14

gallons EPA estimated were consumed in 2007 is 41.5 billion gallons15 (EPA 2007).

Thus, this rule would only increase annual diesel fuel consumption, and subsequent air emissions, by 0.0000027 percent (112,000 / 41,500,000,000). This is a negligible amount of additional emissions compared to what is released from truck diesel engines annually.

Increase in crash risk To comply with the texting prohibition, some CMV drivers may opt to temporarily stop their vehicles on the sides of roadways to send text messages. It is possible that this behavior could increase crashes, thus FCMSA compiled the weighted crash data from NHTSA’s 2008 General Estimate System (GES) dataset. Table 1 below presents crashes in which a truck is leaving a parked position, entering a parked position, or merging (not including lane changes) immediately prior to a crash. Crashes such as these rarely happen, and are overwhelmingly PDO crashes.

Table 1.

2008 GES Truck Crash Data: Parking or Re-Entering Roadway Leaving Parked Entering Parked Merging Totals All 1875 1352 1326 4,553 Fatal 0 0 0 0 Injury 9 29 181 219 PDO16 1609 1323 1145 4,077 Unknown Severity 257 0 0 257 In the Regulatory Evaluation for this rulemaking (FMCSA 2010), FMCSA estimated that CMV drivers make 1.68 billion trips per year and that texting occurs in 3.36 million of those trips. Parking/unparking/merging crashes occurred 4,500 times, or in under 0.0003 percent of trips. Assuming at worst all 3.36 million texting trips will now result in a driver pulling over to text, at most 9 additional crashes (0.0003% x 3.36 million), all of which would likely be PDO, could occur.

It is difficult to produce an accurate estimate of how many crashes this rule will prevent.

Because of this, in the Regulatory Evaluation for this rule, FMCSA uses a threshold analysis to determine how many crashes the proposed rule would have to prevent in order for the rule to be beneficial. This same type of analysis can be used here. The rule would have to prevent enough texting-related crashes to offset the 9 additional crashes that would result from drivers parking or re-entering a roadway as a result of the texting prohibition.

PDO crashes generally are smaller in scale and close roadways for a shorter period of time. Consequently, congestion behind a PDO crash is less than that behind a crash that produces an injury or a fatality. Table 2 below displays the very small amount of 15

This figure includes light-duty, heavy-duty and spillover amounts of diesel for a total amount of highway diesel consumed.

16 PDO stands for Property Damage Only

15

emissions generated behind nine average crashes. These emissions represent a profile from the national fleet mix.

Table 2.

Estimated Emissions Prevented by Eliminating Nine Average17 CMV Crashes EPA Criteria Pollutants Released (kg) CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2 678.69 51.39 85.77 4.86 3.69 9.99 21,767 Decreases If Option 1 was chosen, and a prohibition on texting reduced crashes, there would be a subsequent reduction in air emissions from the fleet mix of congestion that those crashes would have caused. As mentioned previously, FMCSA cannot accurately estimate the number of crashes prevented by this rule. However, because FMCSA can demonstrate that texting contributes to driver distraction and driver distractions lead to crashes, FMCSA assumes this NPRM will prevent at least nine texting-related PDO CMV crashes. For the purposes of this analysis, FMCSA uses these nine crashes as a worst case scenario to determine a possible maximum environmental impact. If a textingrelated crash is more severe than an average of all CMV crashes, fewer texting-related crashes would be needed to offset the possible additional emissions from these nine crashes. There is certainly potential for the NPRM to prevent at least one texting related crash that produces an injury or fatality and that results in congestion emissions that would likely outweigh the emissions from nine PDO crashes.

Since the number of crashes prevented is unknown, Table 3 displays the emissions by pollutant that are prevented by the reduction in one average CMV crash compared to national average emissions.

Table 3.

Estimated Emissions Prevented By Eliminating an Average18 CMV Crash Compared to National Average Emissions19 EPA Criteria Pollutants Released CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2 Rule (kg) 75.41 5.71 9.53 0.54 0.41 1.11 2,418.56 National Ave. (mil 38,185.2 3,311.2 5,112.0 161.5 108.0 82.6 NA* 17

“Average” means the mid-level congestion scenario as determined in FMCSA’s “Environmental Cost of CMV Crashes” report. Severe crashes that could include a fatality or injury would produce more congestion on a highway than a slight crash that may result in property damage only. The actual amount depends on the type of crash and the current flow of traffic along the roadway that is blocked and delayed.

18 Ibid.

19 2007 Highway vehicle emissions from EPA’s National Emissions Inventory Air Pollution Emissions Trends Data available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html#tables last accessed 3/23/10. PM are counted with condensables.

16

kg) * EPA has not set standards for CO2

Due to the differences in the profile of emission analysis between CMV idling and emissions avoided from CMV crash reductions,20 it is difficult to estimate how many crashes would need to be avoided in order to reduce possible increases in emissions from texting while idling. However, due to the extremely small amount of possible emissions from texting while idling, this does not impact the overall assessment that emissions from this rulemaking, if any additional emissions are even realized, are extremely small.

Option 2: No-Action Alternative If Option 2 is chosen, there will be no changes to the current baseline operations since there will be no change to the FMCSRs. The FMCSA is able to demonstrate that texting contributes to driver distraction, which leads to CMV crashes. Subsequently, the NoAction Alternative has the potential to lead to a higher CMV crash rate, with subsequent impacts to the environment.

FMCSA seeks comments on this analysis.

3.2.2 Socioeconomics As part of the rulemaking action, and in compliance with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), the costs and benefits from the proposed regulations have been analyzed in the Regulatory Evaluation for this rulemaking (FMCSA 2010).

The results of the Regulatory Evaluation, developed in parallel to this EA, describe the socioeconomic impacts for this rule.

Option One: Implement a Prohibition on Texting While Driving A CMV In its regulatory evaluation for this rule, FMCSA performs a threshold analysis that looks at the costs of the proposed changes and estimates the number of fatalities or crashes that would have to be prevented in order for the rule to provide an overall benefit to society.

The Agency estimates that at most, CMV drivers will bear a cost of approximately $ 2.7 million annually. This costs consists of the value of driver time lost due to having to pull off the roadway to perform texting activities, increased fuel usage due to having to pull over to the side of the roadway, and increased crash risk of possible rear-end collision of CMVs being parked off the roadway (negligible) and of pulling into and out of the roadway. Current guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation places the value of a statistical life at $6.0 million. Consequently, the proposed texting prohibition would have to eliminate only one CMV crash fatality for the benefits of this rule to exceed the costs.

20

The emissions profiles modeled from congestion due to a CMV crash are based on the national fleet mix as modeled by EPA, which is not the same as emissions from CMVs only. In addition, FMCSA performed an inventory analysis of idling emissions to national diesel consumption totals.

17

Option 2: No-Action Alternative If Option 2 is chosen, there would be no additional costs or benefits from the action since the regulations would not change. FMCSA, however, is able to demonstrate that texting contributes to driver distraction, which leads to CMV crashes. As detailed above in the Option 1 analysis, if the No-Action Alternative leads to one fatal CMV crash, it would have a significant socio-economic cost over Option 1.

For a further description of potential socioeconomic impacts from this rulemaking, please see FMCSA’s Regulatory Evaluation.

3.2.3 Public Health and Safety NEPA requires FMCSA to examine the impact of this rulemaking on the safety and health of the public. The primary mission of FMCSA is to reduce fatalities and injuries from CMV crashes. The purpose of this rulemaking is to improve public health and safety. The reader is directed to the rulemaking preamble text as well and the regulatory evaluation of this rule for further discussion on the potential safety benefits of this rule.

Option One: Implement a Prohibition on Texting While Driving a CMV As noted above, the VTTI study, while not observing any texting-related crashes, did observe a large number of occurrences of safety critical events and unsafe driving behavior resulting from drivers texting while driving relative to when they are not texting. This shows that texting contributes to driver distraction, which is a known reason for CMV crashes. The Agency believes that the low cost of the proposed texting prohibition requires only a modest improvement in safety for the rule to produce benefits to society. Consequently, in its regulatory evaluation for this rule, FMCSA performs a threshold analysis that looks at the costs of the proposed changes and estimates the number of fatalities or crashes that would have to be prevented in order for the rule to provide an overall benefit to society.

Nineteen States and the District of Columbia, as well as several trucking companies that operate large fleets have already implemented some sort of electronic communication device ban, which have varying degrees of requirements, enforcement and compliance.

Given that some drivers are already operating under a texting prohibition and have modified their behaviors accordingly, the already low costs of FMCSA’s proposed rule may be even lower. Even without considering current compliance with the proposed rule, the Agency believes that net safety benefits of a texting prohibition are evident.

To comply with the texting prohibition, some CMV drivers may opt to temporarily stop their vehicles on the sides of roadways to send text messages. The potential for increased crashes from this behavior may exist; thus, FCMSA compiled the weighted crash data from NHTSA’s 2008 GES dataset in Table 1. The table, which is set forth again below, presents crashes in which a truck is leaving a parked position, entering a parked position,

18

or merging (not including lane changes) immediately prior to a crash. Crashes such as these rarely happen, and are overwhelmingly PDO crashes.

Table 4.

2008 GES Truck Crash Data, Parking or Re-Entering Roadway Leaving Parked Entering Parked Merging Totals All 1875 1352 1326 4,553 Fatal 0 0 0 0 Injury 9 29 181 219 PDO 1609 1323 1145 4,077 Unknown Severity 257 0 0 257 In the Regulatory Evaluation, FMCSA estimated CMV drivers make 1.680 billion trips per year, and that texting occurs in 3.36 million of those trips.

Parking/unparking/merging crashes occurred about 4,500 times, or in under 0.0003 percent of trips. Assuming that at worst all 3.36 million texting trips will now result in a driver pulling on and off the roadway to text, at most nine additional crashes (0.0003% x 3.36 million), all of which would be PDO, would occur.

Option 2: No-Action Alternative FMCSA is able to demonstrate that texting contributes to driver distraction, which leads to CMV crashes. Subsequently, the No-Action Alternative has the potential to lead to a higher CMV crash rate, with subsequent impacts on public health and safety.

3.2.4 Solid Waste CMV crashes produce solid waste from the wreckage of the vehicles involved in the crashes. The FMCSA estimated the amount of solid waste generated in CMV crashes.

Option One: Implement a Prohibition on Texting While Driving A CMV If drivers choose to continue to text but do so in accordance with the proposed regulations, FMCSA’s analysis for this rule shows there is a possible increase in PDO crashes from trucks parked and re-entering a roadway. The Agency estimates that nine additional PDO crashes are possible due to this increased crash risk. FMCSA cannot accurately predict the number of crashes avoided by the proposed regulations, but knows that texting is a significant factor in driver distraction and resulting crashes. Accordingly, FMCSA estimates that this rule will produce a net benefit. The impact to solid waste generation is shown in Table 5 below where the rates of solid waste generated are shown in the first two columns and the amount generated from nine PDO crashes is estimated in the far right column. The rule would need to reduce the overall number of crashes enough to offset the amount of solid waste generated by nine PDO crashes. If a textingrelated crash is more severe than an average of all CMV crashes, fewer texting-related crashes would be needed to offset the possible additional wastes from these nine crashes.

19

Table 5. Solid Waste Generated in an Average21 CMV Crash (kg) And in Nine PDO Crashes 100% Vehicle 50% Vehicle Replacement (Totaled; Replacement (Non-Fatal For Fatal Crashes) Crash) 329

165

Total for 9 PDO Crashes (using 50% Vehicle Replacement Estimate) 1,485

Option 2: No-Action Alternative If Option 2 is chosen, there would be no reduction in solid wastes if Option 1 reduced at least nine PDO crashes. FMCSA is able to demonstrate that texting contributes to driver distraction, which leads to CMV crashes. Subsequently, the No-Action Alternative has the potential to lead to a higher CMV crash rate, with subsequent impacts to the environment.

3.2.5 Hazardous Materials HM releases occur in CMV crashes where HM is cargo. The FMCSA estimated the average amounts of HM released in an average CMV crash.

Option One: Implement a Prohibition on Texting While Driving A CMV If Option 1 is chosen and there is the expected reduction in crashes from the NPRM, Table 6 shows the HM per average CMV crash that would not be released into the environment. The Agency estimates that the texting prohibition could lead to nine additional PDO crashes due to drivers exiting the road or parking on the shoulder in order to text. The impact on HM releases is shown in Table 6 below where HM release amounts are shown by hazard class type and the amount of nine PDO crashes is estimated in the far right column. Note that HM spills are averaged out among all CMV crashes to derive the following numbers.

Table 6. Estimated HM Prevented by Average22 CMV Crash and Amount Released From Nine Average Crashes HM Class Description Amount Estimated to be Amount Released Prevented by and Average From 9 Average 21

“Average” means the mid-level congestion scenario as determined in FMCSA’s “Environmental Cost of CMV Crashes” report. Severe crashes which could include a fatality or injury would produce more congestion on a highway than a slight crash that may result in property damage only. The actual amount depends on the type of crash and the current flow of traffic along the roadway that is blocked and delayed.

22 Ibid

20

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9

Explosives Gasses Flammable Liquids Flammable Solids Oxidizers Toxics & Infectious Substances Radioactive Corrosive Misc.

Crash 0.1827 lbs 0.3913 gal equiv.

2.6455 gal

Crashes 1.6443 lbs 3.5217 gal equiv.

23.8096 gal

0.0124 lbs

0.5463 lbs

0.3197 lbs 0.1038 lbs

2.8773 lbs 0.9342 lbs

0.0014 curries 0.1407 gal 0.3898 lbs

0.0126 curries 1.2663 gal 3.5082 lbs

The rule would need to reduce the overall number of crashes enough to offset the amount of HM releases generated by nine PDO crashes. As detailed above, FMCSA cannot accurately predict the number of texting-related crashes that would be avoided by the rule, but knows that texting is a significant factor in driver distraction and estimates that this rule will prevent more crashes than it could cause. In addition, if a texting-related crash is more severe than an average of all CMV crashes, fewer texting-related crashes may be needed to offset the possible additional releases from these nine crashes.

Option 2: No-Action Alternative If Option 1 did indeed prevent CMV crashes, comparatively there could be an increase in the HM released into the environment if Option 2 were chosen. FMCSA is able to demonstrate that texting contributes to driver distraction, which leads to CMV crashes.

Subsequently, the No-Action Alternative has the potential to lead to a higher CMV crash rate, with subsequent HM impacts to the environment.

3.2.6 Unaffected Areas The following areas are not expected to be significantly impacted under any of the proposed scenarios in this NPRM. It should be noted, however, that these resources may experience minor net benefits from the proposals that reduce CMV crashes. The FMCSA has quantified the environmental impacts of a CMV crash. Preventing CMV crashes, and related cargo spills (especially of HM), reduces congestion and subsequent air pollution and produces net positive environmental benefits.

Section 4(f) Compliance: Section 4(f) of the DOT Act requires agencies within the DOT to make a special effort to preserve the natural beauty of historic sites, public parks and recreation lands. If a transportation program, project, or activity requires the use of public land in a public park, it must include all possible planning to minimize harm to the park or historic area. FMCSA does not expect such 4(f) properties to be impacted and consequently, no 4(f) statement needs to be prepared for this rulemaking.

21

Endangered Species: The changes in this rulemaking are not expected to impact endangered species.

Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Resources: This rulemaking is not expected to affect any archaeological, cultural, or historic resources.

Wetlands: The proposed change in the regulations is not expected to affect wetlands.

Environmental Justice: The environmental justice issues require us to look at the impact that the proposed action might have on segments of the population that are marginalized by their economic, social, or ethnic backgrounds. The FMCSA does not expect this rulemaking to impact Environmental Justice issues.

Noise: The FMCSA does not expect any significant impact to noise levels from this rulemaking.

Clean Air Act Requirements: In addition to the NEPA requirements to examine impacts on air quality, we have also analyzed this proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA) section 176(c), (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA’s general conformity requirement since it would not result in any potential increase in emissions that are above the general conformity rule’s de minimis emission threshold levels (40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)). Moreover, based on our analysis, it is reasonably foreseeable that the NPRM would not significantly increase total CMV mileage, nor would it change the routing of CMVs, how CMVs operate, or the CMV fleet-mix of motor carriers. This action merely establishes requirements to prohibit texting while driving and establishes a procedure for disqualification.

3.3 CONCLUSION As presented in Chapter 3, a comparison of the options for this NPRM indicates that there are no significant positive or negative impacts on the environment expected to result from the rulemaking action, though there could be small impacts on emissions, hazardous materials spills, solid waste, socioeconomics considerations, and public health and safety.

The FMCSA requests comments on this environmental analysis.

22

4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 4.1 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted In the course of completing the NEPA compliance process for the proposed rulemaking, FMCSA consulted with technical experts within FMCSA who are familiar with the impact the rulemaking could have, as well as what the potential environmental consequences of those impacts could be.

4.2 List of Preparers and Reviewers The following persons participated in the preparation of this EA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation: Michael M. Johnsen, Environmental Policy Analyst Education: BS, Natural Resources Management (University of Maryland). MS, Environmental Policy and Science (Johns Hopkins University) Experience: 20 years in the Environmental/Chemical Management fields Alan W. Strasser, Attorney Education: BA, Psychology (SUNY College at Oneonta, NY). JD, MA, Environmental Law/Policy (Vermont Law School).

Experience: 20 years in the Environmental field

23

5. REFERENCES EPA 2007. Clean Diesel Trucks, Buses, and Fuel: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (the “2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule”). Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Table II.B-8 pg II-122.

Available from EPA’s website: http://epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/regs/2007-heavyduty-highway.htm last accessed 11/24/2009 FHWA2005. The National Highway System. USDOT Federal Highway Administration.

February 1, 2005. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs FMCSA 2004. FMCSA Order 5610.1 National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures And Policy For Considering Environmental Impacts, March 2004, USDOT, FMCSA FMCSA 2007. Environmental Costs of Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Crashes Phase II – Part 2: Estimation Report. March 2007, FMCSA FMCSA 2009. Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation for the Limiting The Use Of Wireless Communication Devices RIN# Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. FMCSA [Date] OLSON 2009. Olson, Rebecca L., Richard J. Hanowski, Jeffrey S. Hickman, and Joseph Bocanegra, Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations (Blacksburg, Virginia: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, July 2009.) FMCSA-RRR-09-042.

(Downloaded October 20, 2009, from http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/artpublic-reports.aspx?)

VTTI 2009. Olson, Rebecca L., Richard J. Hanowski, Jeffery S. Hickman, and Jospeh Bocanegra, Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations (Blacksburg, VA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, July 2009.) FMCSA-RRR-09-042

24

PUBLIC NOTICE – ALL INTERESTED PARTIES FMCSA’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

LIMITING THE USE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICES RIN#AB22 The FMCSA’s environmental assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with FMCSA’s NEPA Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts (FMCSA Order 5601.1) and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations dated 28 November 1978 (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).

This environmental assessment serves as a concise public document to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining the need to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).

This environmental assessment concisely describes the action, the need for the action, the alternatives, and the environmental impacts of the action and alternatives. This environmental assessment also contains a comparative analysis of the preferred alternatives, and a list of the agencies and persons consulted during the EA preparation.

__________ _________________________________________________________ Date Michael M. Johnsen, Environmental Protection Specialist

__________ Date

_________________________________________________________ Larry Minor, Associate Administrator, Office of Policy and Development

In reaching my decision/recommendation on the FMCSA’s action, I have considered the information contained in this EA on the potential for environmental impacts.

__________ _________________________________________________________ Date Anne S. Ferro, Administrator for FMCSA

25