February 4, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The NCUA Board is continuing its review of its regulations to identify outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulatory requirements imposed on federally-insured credit unions pursuant to the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA). Today, NCUA requests comments and suggestions on ways to reduce burden in rules that govern safety and soundness and anti-money laundering, consistent with our statutory obligations. All comments are welcome. We will analyze the comments received and propose burden reducing changes to our regulations where appropriate. Some suggestions for burden reduction might require legislative changes. Where legislative changes would be required, we will consider the suggestions in recommending appropriate changes to Congress.

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 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.

This rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Prune Marketing Committee (committee) under Marketing Order No. 993 for the 2004-05 and subsequent crop years from $4.00 to $6.00 per ton of salable dried prunes. The committee locally administers the marketing order which regulates the handling of dried prunes grown in California. Authorization to assess dried prune handlers enables the committee to incur expenses that are reasonable and necessary to administer the program. The committee recommended a higher assessment rate because the 2004-05 crop is very small, and the higher assessment rate is needed to generate funds to meet program expenses and provide an adequate financial reserve. The crop year begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

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.

Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents.

Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The EPA is conditionally approving a revision to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of a new Florida statute and implementing regulations that set emission limits for existing and new equipment at existing citrus juice processing facilities in Florida. This approval is conditioned upon a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable measures, as stated in the proposed rule published January 30, 2004 (69 FR 4459), within one year from the effective date of this rule. If the State fails to meet its commitment by adopting and submitting to EPA the necessary revisions within the one-year period, the approval is treated as a disapproval.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is issuing a notice of intent to delete the Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site (Site) located in Hollywood, Maryland from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this notice of intent. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), is found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of Maryland, through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under CERCLA. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a direct final rule of deletion of the Southern Maryland Wood Treating Site without prior notice of intent to delete because EPA views this as a noncontroversial deletion and anticipates no adverse comment. EPA has explained its reasons for this deletion in the direct final rule of deletion. If EPA receives no adverse comment(s) on this notice of intent to delete or the direct final rule of deletion, EPA will not take further action. If EPA receives adverse comment(s), EPA will withdraw the direct final rule of deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final deletion notice based on this notice of intent to delete. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this notice of intent to delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For additional information, see the Direct Final Rule of Deletion which is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register.

The FAA is revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 airplanes. This AD requires a one-time general visual inspection to detect wire chafing damage and to determine adequate clearance between the disconnect panel structure and the wires above the aft left lavatory; and corrective actions, if necessary. This new AD revises the applicability of the existing AD. This AD is prompted by the determination that certain airplanes unaffected by the existing AD are subject to the unsafe condition, and certain other airplanes should be removed from the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to certain wires due to contact between the wires and the adjacent structure, which could result in electrical arcing and consequent smoke and fire in the cabin.

The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to all Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. That AD currently requires examination of maintenance records to determine if Titanine JC5A (also known as Desoto 823E508) corrosion inhibiting compound (``C.I.C.'') was ever used; inspection for cracks or corrosion and corrective action, if applicable; repetitive inspections and C.I.C. applications; and modification of the aft trunnion area of the outer cylinder, which terminates the need for the repetitive inspections and C.I.C. applications. This new AD also requires, for certain other airplanes, repetitive inspections for cracks or corrosion, corrective action if necessary, and repetitive C.I.C. applications. This AD is prompted by a report that JC5A was used on more airplanes during production than previously identified. We are issuing this AD to prevent severe corrosion in the main landing gear (MLG) outer cylinder at the aft trunnion, which could develop into stress corrosion cracking and consequent collapse of the MLG.

This proposed rule would set forth the requirements that heart, heart-lung, intestine, kidney, lung, and pancreas transplant centers must meet to participate as Medicare-approved transplant centers. These proposed revised requirements focus on an organ transplant center's ability to perform successful transplants and deliver quality patient care as evidenced by good outcomes and sound policies and procedures. We are proposing that approval, as determined by a center's compliance with the proposed data submission, outcome, and process requirements would be granted for 3 years. Every 3 years, approvals would be renewed for transplant centers that continue to meet these requirements. We are proposing these revised requirements to ensure that transplant centers continually provide high-quality transplantation services in a safe and efficient manner.

This proposed rule would revise the requirements that end stage renal disease (ESRD) dialysis facilities must meet to be certified under the Medicare program. The revised requirements focus on the patient and the results of the care provided to the patient, establish performance expectations for facilities, encourage patients to participate in their care plan and treatment, eliminate many procedural requirements from the current conditions for coverage, and preserve strong process measures when necessary to promote patient well being and continuous quality improvement. These changes are necessary to reflect the advances in dialysis technology and standard care practices since the requirements were last revised in their entirety in 1976.