Hours of Service of Drivers, 5957-5959 [05-2185]
Download as PDF
5957
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
made final, and for the contents in these
buildings.
National Environmental Policy Act.
This proposed rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44
CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. No environmental
impact assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Mitigation Division Director of the
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate certifies that this proposed
rule is exempt from the requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
proposed or modified BFEs are required
by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required
to establish and maintain community
eligibility in the NFIP. As a result, a
State
City/town/county
regulatory flexibility analysis has not
been prepared.
Regulatory Classification. This
proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of
September 30, 1993, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism.
This proposed rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under
Executive Order 12612, Federalism,
dated October 26, 1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice
Reform. This proposed rule meets the
applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778.
Source of flooding
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
Administrative practice and
procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 67—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 67
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,
3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.
§ 67.4
[Amended]
2. The tables published under the
authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be
amended as follows:
#Depth in feet above
ground Elevation in feet
(NGVD)
*Elevation in feet (NAVD)
Location
Existing
Massachusetts .......
Duxbury (Town),
Plymouth County.
Massachusetts Bay ..........
Approximately 1,000 feet southwest of
the intersection of Plymouth Avenue
and Bay Avenue.
Approximately 250 feet east of the intersection of Plymouth Avenue and Bay
Avenue.
Duxbury Bay/Bluefish
Approximately 600 feet west of the interRiver.
section of River Lane and Washington
Street.
Massachusetts Bay/KingApproximately 500 feet southeast of the
ston Bay.
intersection of Loring Street and Bay
Road.
Approximately 850 feet south of the intersection of Bay Road and Landing Road.
Duxbury Bay ..................... Approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Powder Point Avenue and
King Caesar Road.
Massachusetts Bay/Duck
Approximately 1,000 feet north of the
Hill River/The Marsh.
intersection of St. George Street and
Strawberry Lane.
Maps available for inspection at the Duxbury Town Hall, 878 Tremont Street, Duxbury, Massachusetts.
Send comments to Mr. Rocco Longo, Duxbury Town Manager, 878 Tremont Street, Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)
Dated: January 28, 2005.
David I. Maurstad,
Acting Director, Mitigation Division,
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate.
[FR Doc. 05–2115 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–12–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 385, 390 and 395
[Docket No. FMCSA–2004–19608; Formerly
FMCSA–1997–2350]
RIN 2126–AA90
Hours of Service of Drivers
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability in public
docket; addendum to the regulatory
impact analysis for the hours of service
rulemaking; request for comments.
AGENCY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:38 Feb 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Modified
*10
*11
*19
*21
*9
*10
*13
*11
*14
*15
*14
*17
*9
*11
SUMMARY: On January 24, 2005, the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) published in
the Federal Register (70 FR 3339) a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
regarding hours of service of
commercial motor vehicle drivers. In
that NPRM, FMCSA announced it is
reviewing and reconsidering the
regulations on hours of service of
drivers published on April 28, 2003,
and amended on September 30, 2003. In
the docket to this January 24, 2005,
NPRM, FMCSA re-filed the same
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), or
comprehensive analysis of economic
benefits and costs of the proposed rule,
as was filed in the docket for the April
2003 final rule. However, effective
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
5958
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
January 1, 2005, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
imposed new analytical requirements
on Federal agencies regarding the
preparation of RIAs for economically
significant rulemakings. These new
requirements include an uncertainty
analysis, or an analysis of the ‘‘degree of
uncertainty’’ associated with key
variables used in the analysis (i.e., the
percent of all truck-related crashes
where commercial driver fatigue is a
factor) and how significantly that
uncertainty affects the benefit and cost
estimates derived. A primary value of
uncertainty analysis is its ability to
highlight those key variables where
additional data collection (to reduce
uncertainty) would most benefit the
decision making process.
Additionally, OMB now requires a
cost-effectiveness analysis for those
rulemakings where improved public
health and safety are the primary
benefits. The cost effectiveness of a
regulatory action is typically measured
as a ratio of the change in costs
occasioned by the action compared to
its positive results (i.e., lives saved). A
primary value of cost-effectiveness
analysis is its ability to identify
regulatory options that achieve the most
effective use of the resources available
without requiring monetization of all of
the relevant benefits or costs. In light of
these new requirements, FMCSA has
prepared an addendum to the original
RIA containing the two supplemental
analyses and has made it available in
Docket FMCSA–2004–19608.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 10, 2005, which is the end of the
comment period announced January 24,
2005, in the NPRM for hours of service
(70 FR 3339).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
FMCSA–2004–19608 by any of the
following methods. Identify your
comments as responding to ‘‘RIA
ADDENDUM.’’ Do not submit the same
comments by more than one method.
However, in order to allow effective
public participation in this rulemaking
before the statutory deadline, we
encourage use of the Web site that is
listed first below. It will provide the
most efficient and timely method of
receiving and processing your
comments.
• Web site: https://dms.dot.gov:
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:38 Feb 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number (FMCSA–2004–19608) or
Regulatory Identification Number (RIN)
for this rulemaking (RIN–2126–AA90).
Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the
Privacy Act heading for further
information.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477), or you may visit https://
dms.dot.gov.
Comments received after the comment
closing date will be included in the
docket and we will consider late
comments to the extent practicable.
FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule
at any time after the close of the
comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Tom Yager, Hours-of-Service Team,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 202–366–1425.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit on July 16, 2004.
Public Citizen et al. v. Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 374 F.3d
1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Congress
subsequently provided that the 2003
regulations will remain in effect until
the effective date of a new final rule
addressing the issues raised by the
court, or September 30, 2005, whichever
occurs first (Section 7(f) of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2004,
Part V). FMCSA is reconsidering the
2003 regulations to determine what
changes may be necessary to be
consistent with the holdings and dicta
of the Public Citizen decision. To
facilitate discussion, the agency is
putting forward the 2003 rule as the
‘‘proposal’’ on which public comments
are requested.
Accordingly, in the docket of the
NPRM published on January 24, 2005,
FMCSA has included a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA), or
comprehensive analysis of economic
benefits and costs of the proposed rule
(Docket Number FMCSA–1997–2350–
23302, refiled as FMCSA–2004–19608–
80), which is the same RIA filed in the
docket of the April 2003 hours-ofservice rulemaking. However, effective
January 1, 2005, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
imposed new analytical requirements
on Federal agencies in the preparation
of RIAs for economically significant
rulemakings (OMB Circular No. A–4,
Guidelines for the Conduct of
Regulatory Analysis). These new
requirements include: (1) a quantitative
analysis of the degree of uncertainty
associated with key inputs to the
calculation of benefits and costs
(henceforth referred to as ‘‘uncertainty
analysis’’), and (2) a cost-effectiveness
analysis (CEA) for major rulemakings for
which primary benefits are improved
public health and safety. To meet these
new requirements, FMCSA has prepared
an addendum to the original RIA
containing the two supplemental
analyses and has made it available in
Docket FMCSA–2004–19608. For
instructions to access the docket, see the
‘‘Docket’’ heading, above.
Background
Uncertainty Analysis
As stated in OMB Circular A–4, ‘‘The
precise consequences (benefits and
costs) of regulatory options are not
always known with certainty,’’ and the
uncertainty associated with key inputs
to a regulatory impact analysis (i.e., the
percent of all truck-related crashes
where commercial driver fatigue is a
factor) has the potential to affect the
accuracy of the benefit and cost
estimates derived. However, while the
On January 24, 2005, FMCSA
published in the Federal Register (70
FR 3339) an NPRM regarding hours of
service of commercial motor vehicle
drivers. In that NPRM, FMCSA
announced that it is reviewing and
reconsidering the regulations on hours
of service of drivers published on April
28, 2003 (68 FR 22456), and amended
on September 30, 2003 (68 FR 56208).
These regulations were vacated by the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
precise consequences of a regulatory
option may not be known with
certainty, in many cases the probability
of their occurrence can be developed.
By examining the uncertainty of several
key variables used in the analysis (by
way of evaluating the probability of
their occurrence), analysts and decision
makers can become better informed as
to which variables most significantly
affect the benefit and cost results and
where additional information or data
collection (to reduce uncertainty) would
be most beneficial.
As such, a primary benefit of an
uncertainty analysis is that it highlights
which variables in the analysis are the
most important, and where additional
information for given variables would
most contribute to the accuracy of
results. In the present analysis, FMCSA
developed uncertainty distributions for
20 key variables. Examples include (1)
the percent of long-haul drivers with
‘‘intense’’ schedules (or those drivers in
long-haul operations who are fully
utilizing the daily and weekly driving
limits on a consistent basis), (2) the
percentage of hours worked by
commercial drivers in excess of allowed
hours, and (3) the percent of all truckrelated crashes where commercial driver
fatigue was determined to be a factor. A
complete list of the variables examined
is included in the Addendum filed in
the docket. It should be noted here that
the original RIA examined the economic
impacts of the 2003 final rule from two
sets of baseline assumptions: the first,
termed the ‘‘Current Rules/100%’’
option, assumed full compliance by
commercial drivers with the pre-2003
HOS rules when estimating the
economic impacts of the regulatory
change, while the second, termed the
‘‘Status Quo’’ option, assumed less than
full compliance with the pre-2003 rules
prior to estimating economic impacts.
However, the uncertainty analysis
conducted here was limited only to the
‘‘Status Quo’’ (or less than full
compliance) baseline assumption, since
only under this set of assumptions did
the annual costs of the rulemaking rise
above the dollar threshold (i.e., greater
than $1 billion in annual costs) outlined
in OMB Circular A–4 that requires such
an analysis. As such, when reporting on
the range of possible cost, benefit, and
net cost outcomes of this uncertainty
analysis, all results are measured
relative to the point estimates derived
from the original RIA under the ‘‘Status
Quo’’ baseline assumption.
Regarding total costs of the NPRM, the
uncertainty analysis revealed that there
was an 80 percent chance that total
annual costs of this rulemaking would
fall between $1 and $1.5 billion. Under
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:38 Feb 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
the ‘‘Status Quo’’ baseline, the original
RIA derived a point estimate of total
annual costs equal to $1.3 billion. As
such, the distribution of cost results
derived from the uncertainty analysis
closely tracked the point estimate of
costs derived under the original RIA.
Regarding total annual benefits of the
NPRM, the uncertainty analysis
revealed that there is about an 80
percent chance that annual benefits
would fall between $0.5 and $0.8
billion. Under the ‘‘Status Quo’’
baseline, the original RIA had derived a
point estimate of total annual benefits
equal to $0.7 billion. Regarding net
costs, the uncertainty analysis indicated
about an 80 percent chance that net
costs of the NPRM would fall between
$0.3 and $0.8 billion, and about a five
percent chance that net benefits would
accrue from implementation of the
proposed rule. Under the ‘‘Status Quo’’
baseline, the original RIA had derived a
point estimate of total net annual costs
equal to $0.6 billion.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
The cost effectiveness of a regulatory
action is typically measured as a ratio of
the change in costs occasioned by the
action compared to its positive results
(i.e., lives saved). A primary value of
cost-effectiveness analysis is its ability
to identify regulatory options that
achieve the most effective use of the
resources available without requiring
monetization of all of the relevant
benefits or costs. Regarding the results
of the cost effectiveness analysis, the
implementation of the NPRM was
estimated to result in a total annual cost
of $10.8 million for each fatality
prevented, and $0.4 million for each
injury prevented. It must be noted here
that the CEA results presented here will
tend to exaggerate the costs of
preventing injuries and fatalities,
because implementation of the NPRM
would not just prevent injuries and
fatalities, but would also prevent truckrelated crashes limited to propertydamage only. Additionally, the rule is
expected to result in time savings as a
result of the prevention of truck-related
crashes. Full details regarding the
results of these analyses may be found
in Docket FMCSA–2004–19608.
Issued on: February 1, 2005.
Annette M. Sandberg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–2185 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5959
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List Ptilagrostis porteri
(Porter feathergrass) as Threatened or
Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding for a petition to list
Ptilagrostis porteri (Porter feathergrass)
as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (the Act). We find that the
petition and additional information in
Service files do not present substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing this species may
be warranted. We will not be initiating
a further status review in response to
this petition. The public may submit to
us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of or
threats to the species.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on January 28,
2005. New information concerning this
species may be submitted for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: Data, information,
comments, or questions concerning this
petition finding should be submitted to
the Western Colorado Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological
Services Field Office, 764 Horizon
Drive, Building B, Grand Junction,
Colorado 81506. The petition finding
and supporting information are
available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address. The petition
and finding are available on our Web
site at https://r6.fws.gov/plants/
feathergrass.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allan R. Pfister, Supervisor, Western
Colorado Ecological Services Field
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see ADDRESSES section) (telephone
(970) 243–2778; facsimile (970) 245–
6933).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
E:\FR\FM\04FEP1.SGM
04FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 23 (Friday, February 4, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5957-5959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2185]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 385, 390 and 395
[Docket No. FMCSA-2004-19608; Formerly FMCSA-1997-2350]
RIN 2126-AA90
Hours of Service of Drivers
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability in public docket; addendum to the
regulatory impact analysis for the hours of service rulemaking; request
for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 24, 2005, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) published in the Federal Register (70 FR 3339) a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding hours of service of
commercial motor vehicle drivers. In that NPRM, FMCSA announced it is
reviewing and reconsidering the regulations on hours of service of
drivers published on April 28, 2003, and amended on September 30, 2003.
In the docket to this January 24, 2005, NPRM, FMCSA re-filed the same
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), or comprehensive analysis of economic
benefits and costs of the proposed rule, as was filed in the docket for
the April 2003 final rule. However, effective
[[Page 5958]]
January 1, 2005, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) imposed new
analytical requirements on Federal agencies regarding the preparation
of RIAs for economically significant rulemakings. These new
requirements include an uncertainty analysis, or an analysis of the
``degree of uncertainty'' associated with key variables used in the
analysis (i.e., the percent of all truck-related crashes where
commercial driver fatigue is a factor) and how significantly that
uncertainty affects the benefit and cost estimates derived. A primary
value of uncertainty analysis is its ability to highlight those key
variables where additional data collection (to reduce uncertainty)
would most benefit the decision making process.
Additionally, OMB now requires a cost-effectiveness analysis for
those rulemakings where improved public health and safety are the
primary benefits. The cost effectiveness of a regulatory action is
typically measured as a ratio of the change in costs occasioned by the
action compared to its positive results (i.e., lives saved). A primary
value of cost-effectiveness analysis is its ability to identify
regulatory options that achieve the most effective use of the resources
available without requiring monetization of all of the relevant
benefits or costs. In light of these new requirements, FMCSA has
prepared an addendum to the original RIA containing the two
supplemental analyses and has made it available in Docket FMCSA-2004-
19608.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 10, 2005, which is the end of
the comment period announced January 24, 2005, in the NPRM for hours of
service (70 FR 3339).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
FMCSA-2004-19608 by any of the following methods. Identify your
comments as responding to ``RIA ADDENDUM.'' Do not submit the same
comments by more than one method. However, in order to allow effective
public participation in this rulemaking before the statutory deadline,
we encourage use of the Web site that is listed first below. It will
provide the most efficient and timely method of receiving and
processing your comments.
Web site: https://dms.dot.gov: Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic site.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number (FMCSA-2004-19608) or Regulatory Identification Number
(RIN) for this rulemaking (RIN-2126-AA90). Note that all comments
received will be posted without change to https://dms.dot.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
for further information.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Comments received after the comment closing date will be included
in the docket and we will consider late comments to the extent
practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any time after
the close of the comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tom Yager, Hours-of-Service Team,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 202-366-1425.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 24, 2005, FMCSA published in the Federal Register (70 FR
3339) an NPRM regarding hours of service of commercial motor vehicle
drivers. In that NPRM, FMCSA announced that it is reviewing and
reconsidering the regulations on hours of service of drivers published
on April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22456), and amended on September 30, 2003 (68
FR 56208). These regulations were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 16, 2004. Public Citizen
et al. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 374 F.3d 1209
(D.C. Cir. 2004). Congress subsequently provided that the 2003
regulations will remain in effect until the effective date of a new
final rule addressing the issues raised by the court, or September 30,
2005, whichever occurs first (Section 7(f) of the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V). FMCSA is reconsidering
the 2003 regulations to determine what changes may be necessary to be
consistent with the holdings and dicta of the Public Citizen decision.
To facilitate discussion, the agency is putting forward the 2003 rule
as the ``proposal'' on which public comments are requested.
Accordingly, in the docket of the NPRM published on January 24,
2005, FMCSA has included a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), or
comprehensive analysis of economic benefits and costs of the proposed
rule (Docket Number FMCSA-1997-2350-23302, refiled as FMCSA-2004-19608-
80), which is the same RIA filed in the docket of the April 2003 hours-
of-service rulemaking. However, effective January 1, 2005, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) imposed new analytical requirements on
Federal agencies in the preparation of RIAs for economically
significant rulemakings (OMB Circular No. A-4, Guidelines for the
Conduct of Regulatory Analysis). These new requirements include: (1) a
quantitative analysis of the degree of uncertainty associated with key
inputs to the calculation of benefits and costs (henceforth referred to
as ``uncertainty analysis''), and (2) a cost-effectiveness analysis
(CEA) for major rulemakings for which primary benefits are improved
public health and safety. To meet these new requirements, FMCSA has
prepared an addendum to the original RIA containing the two
supplemental analyses and has made it available in Docket FMCSA-2004-
19608. For instructions to access the docket, see the ``Docket''
heading, above.
Uncertainty Analysis
As stated in OMB Circular A-4, ``The precise consequences (benefits
and costs) of regulatory options are not always known with certainty,''
and the uncertainty associated with key inputs to a regulatory impact
analysis (i.e., the percent of all truck-related crashes where
commercial driver fatigue is a factor) has the potential to affect the
accuracy of the benefit and cost estimates derived. However, while the
[[Page 5959]]
precise consequences of a regulatory option may not be known with
certainty, in many cases the probability of their occurrence can be
developed. By examining the uncertainty of several key variables used
in the analysis (by way of evaluating the probability of their
occurrence), analysts and decision makers can become better informed as
to which variables most significantly affect the benefit and cost
results and where additional information or data collection (to reduce
uncertainty) would be most beneficial.
As such, a primary benefit of an uncertainty analysis is that it
highlights which variables in the analysis are the most important, and
where additional information for given variables would most contribute
to the accuracy of results. In the present analysis, FMCSA developed
uncertainty distributions for 20 key variables. Examples include (1)
the percent of long-haul drivers with ``intense'' schedules (or those
drivers in long-haul operations who are fully utilizing the daily and
weekly driving limits on a consistent basis), (2) the percentage of
hours worked by commercial drivers in excess of allowed hours, and (3)
the percent of all truck-related crashes where commercial driver
fatigue was determined to be a factor. A complete list of the variables
examined is included in the Addendum filed in the docket. It should be
noted here that the original RIA examined the economic impacts of the
2003 final rule from two sets of baseline assumptions: the first,
termed the ``Current Rules/100%'' option, assumed full compliance by
commercial drivers with the pre-2003 HOS rules when estimating the
economic impacts of the regulatory change, while the second, termed the
``Status Quo'' option, assumed less than full compliance with the pre-
2003 rules prior to estimating economic impacts. However, the
uncertainty analysis conducted here was limited only to the ``Status
Quo'' (or less than full compliance) baseline assumption, since only
under this set of assumptions did the annual costs of the rulemaking
rise above the dollar threshold (i.e., greater than $1 billion in
annual costs) outlined in OMB Circular A-4 that requires such an
analysis. As such, when reporting on the range of possible cost,
benefit, and net cost outcomes of this uncertainty analysis, all
results are measured relative to the point estimates derived from the
original RIA under the ``Status Quo'' baseline assumption.
Regarding total costs of the NPRM, the uncertainty analysis
revealed that there was an 80 percent chance that total annual costs of
this rulemaking would fall between $1 and $1.5 billion. Under the
``Status Quo'' baseline, the original RIA derived a point estimate of
total annual costs equal to $1.3 billion. As such, the distribution of
cost results derived from the uncertainty analysis closely tracked the
point estimate of costs derived under the original RIA. Regarding total
annual benefits of the NPRM, the uncertainty analysis revealed that
there is about an 80 percent chance that annual benefits would fall
between $0.5 and $0.8 billion. Under the ``Status Quo'' baseline, the
original RIA had derived a point estimate of total annual benefits
equal to $0.7 billion. Regarding net costs, the uncertainty analysis
indicated about an 80 percent chance that net costs of the NPRM would
fall between $0.3 and $0.8 billion, and about a five percent chance
that net benefits would accrue from implementation of the proposed
rule. Under the ``Status Quo'' baseline, the original RIA had derived a
point estimate of total net annual costs equal to $0.6 billion.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
The cost effectiveness of a regulatory action is typically measured
as a ratio of the change in costs occasioned by the action compared to
its positive results (i.e., lives saved). A primary value of cost-
effectiveness analysis is its ability to identify regulatory options
that achieve the most effective use of the resources available without
requiring monetization of all of the relevant benefits or costs.
Regarding the results of the cost effectiveness analysis, the
implementation of the NPRM was estimated to result in a total annual
cost of $10.8 million for each fatality prevented, and $0.4 million for
each injury prevented. It must be noted here that the CEA results
presented here will tend to exaggerate the costs of preventing injuries
and fatalities, because implementation of the NPRM would not just
prevent injuries and fatalities, but would also prevent truck-related
crashes limited to property-damage only. Additionally, the rule is
expected to result in time savings as a result of the prevention of
truck-related crashes. Full details regarding the results of these
analyses may be found in Docket FMCSA-2004-19608.
Issued on: February 1, 2005.
Annette M. Sandberg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-2185 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P