Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5957

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 

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.

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:

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location 

#Depth in feet above 

ground Elevation in feet 

(NGVD)

*Elevation in feet (NAVD) 

Existing Modified 

Massachusetts ....... Duxbury (Town), 

Plymouth County.

Massachusetts Bay .......... Approximately 1,000 feet southwest of 

the intersection of Plymouth Avenue 

and Bay Avenue.

*10 *11 

Approximately 250 feet east of the intersection of Plymouth Avenue and Bay 

Avenue.

*19 *21 

Duxbury Bay/Bluefish 

River.

Approximately 600 feet west of the intersection of River Lane and Washington 

Street.

*9 *10 

Massachusetts Bay/Kingston Bay.Approximately 500 feet southeast of the 

intersection of Loring Street and Bay 

Road.

*13 *11 

Approximately 850 feet south of the intersection of Bay Road and Landing Road.*14 *15 

Duxbury Bay ..................... Approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Powder Point Avenue and 

King Caesar Road.

*14 *17 

Massachusetts Bay/Duck 

Hill River/The Marsh.

Approximately 1,000 feet north of the 

intersection of St. George Street and 

Strawberry Lane.

*9 *11 

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

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 

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: 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-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. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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

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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

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 http://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