[Federal Register: February 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 23)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5957-5959]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04fe05-24]
================================================================
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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: http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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]
|