The FAA proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with an AD for certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310-200 and -300 series airplanes. That proposed AD was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28491). The supplemental NPRM proposed to require modifying the thermal insulation system of certain fuselage frames, and modifying the fuselage drainage system. The supplemental NPRM also proposed to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include inspections for corrosion or cracking in the subject areas.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been submitted on the supplemental NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Comments submitted on the original NPRM were addressed in the supplemental NPRM.

We have revised the applicability of this AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an AD for certain Boeing Model 747-100B SUD, -200B, -300, -400, and -400D series airplanes. That action, published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2004 (69 FR 57884), proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking in fuselage stringers 8L, 8R, 10L, and 10R at body stations 460, 480, and 500 frame locations; and repair if necessary.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been submitted on the proposed AD.

One commenter concurs with the FAA's compliance recommendations specified in the proposed AD. A second commenter, the manufacturer, requested that the compliance time be changed to match the referenced service bulletin; the commenter later submitted a comment stating that it reanalyzed the data and now concurs with the compliance time specified in the proposed AD.

One commenter states that paragraph (f) of the proposed AD specifies repeating the inspection at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until the optional terminating action is accomplished. The commenter adds that the referenced service bulletin recommends inspections at specific thresholds that equate to a 3,000-flight-cycle interval, until the airplane accumulates 25,000 flight cycles. The commenter also notes that the referenced service bulletin recommends that airplanes having more than 25,000 total flight cycles be inspected at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles, and adds that the proposed AD does not seem to address this situation. The commenter asks that the preamble in the proposed AD clearly specify that the 3,000-flight-cycle interval cited in paragraph (f) replaces the threshold values in the referenced service bulletin.

Although we acknowledge the commenter's concern, the difference in compliance times was explained in the proposed AD. In the section titled “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information” of the preamble of the proposed AD, we define the difference in compliance times, as follows: “The manufacturer reanalyzed the service problem and has advised the FAA that the reanalysis has resulted in threshold and repetitive inspection intervals different from the service bulletin. This resulted in simplified initial thresholds and an increased number of flight cycles between repetitive inspections.” That section of the preamble of the proposed AD is not restated in the final rule; therefore, we made no change to the final rule in this regard.

One commenter states that, subsequent to the release of the referenced service bulletin, Boeing advised the commenter of optional open-hole and surface HFEC inspections that could be performed in addition to the specified detailed inspections. The commenter adds that these optional inspections would allow extending the repetitive inspection interval to 4,000 flight cycles, until the accumulation of 25,000 total flight cycles on the airplane. The commenter asks that the FAA consult with Boeing about this alternative inspection process and, if appropriate, include that option in the final rule.

Although we acknowledge that the optional inspections may be a viable alternative to the detailed inspections, we have confirmed with the manufacturer that while an open-hole and surface HFEC inspection may be accomplished, there are no existing procedures available. Therefore, we do not agree to add the optional inspections and extend the repetitive inspection interval in this final rule. Paragraph (i) of this AD provides affected operators the opportunity to apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) and to present data to justify adding the optional inspections and extending the repetitive inspection interval. In addition, if the referenced service information is revised to add the optional inspections, we may approve it as an AMOC to the final rule, if appropriate. We have made no change to the final rule in this regard.

One commenter states that the proposed AD cites 3 work hours for accomplishing the inspection, and uses this estimate to determine the cost of compliance. The commenter notes that although 3 hours to accomplish the inspection is valid, no consideration is given for access and restoration, which can require up to 61 work hours for each airplane per the referenced service information. The commenter adds that it is inappropriate and unrealistic to cite a cost of compliance that fails to account for access and restoration when such tasks do not occur frequently enough to warrant them as negligible. The commenter asks that the cost of compliance be recalculated to include the work hours for access and restoration.

We do not agree to change the work hours in this AD. This number represents the time necessary to perform only the action actually required by the AD. The action in this final rule reflects only the direct costs of the specific required action (inspection) based on the best data available from the manufacturer. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically does not include incidental costs such as the time required to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which may vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. We have made no change to the final rule in this regard.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

This AD will affect about 243 Boeing Model 747-100B SUD, -200B, -300, -400, and -400D series airplanes worldwide. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on April 22, 2005 (70 FR 20842). That action proposed to require performing a functional test of the exterior emergency control handle assemblies of the forward passenger doors, and corrective actions, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

One commenter requests that we revise certain criteria in the functional test description from “noisy operation or binding” to “binding.” The commenter asserts that “noisy operation” is not quantifiable and should not be used to define acceptable parameters of door operation. The commenter states that “binding” is a quantifiable metric that is sufficient to determine satisfactory door operation.

We do not agree with this request. Despite the commenter's assertion, “noisy operation” is a test parameter that is widely used to determine proper operation of mechanisms. If a mechanism is soundless or has a sound that is typical when operating in an acceptable manner, any such mechanism which produces an unusual sound when operated requires investigation to determine if it is in need of repair. In this case, the check for “noisy operation” within the functional test procedure is intended to reveal whether or not a door is approaching a binding condition and requires replacing the steel bearings with bearings made from corrosion-resistant material as specified in the service information. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

The table in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD was erroneously identified as “Table 2—Boeing Service Bulletins.” In fact, there is only one table in the proposed AD; therefore, we have reidentified this table as “Table 1—Boeing Service Bulletins” in paragraph (c) of the final rule. This change has no effect on the technical content of this AD or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The Boeing service information was not cited properly in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD; those citations were incomplete. Therefore, so operators can determine which service bulletin applies to which affected airplanes, we have included complete citations for Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-52-046, Revision 3, dated October 27, 2004; and Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-52-221, Revision 2, dated October 27, 2004; in paragraph (a) of the final rule.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed, except with the changes discussed above.

There are approximately 604 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 396 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $25,740, or $65 per airplane, per operation.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A320-111 airplanes and Model A320-200 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2005 (70 FR 20724). That NPRM proposed to require installing insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment that has been received on the NPRM.

One commenter supports the NPRM.

We have revised the applicability of this AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment that has been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described above.

This AD affects about 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions take about 35 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts cost about $0 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $122,850, or $2,275 per airplane.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24326). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed and specialized inspections to detect fatigue damage in the fuselage, replacement of certain bolt assemblies, and corrective actions if necessary.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

In summary, required actions will take about 223 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is up to $826,215, or $14,495 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

What events have caused this AD? Several reports of fuel leakage (resulting from a quality control problem) from the combustion heater fuel pumps installed on Piper Models PA-34-200T, PA-34-220T, PA-44-180, and PA-44-180T airplanes caused us to issue AD 2003-11-14, Amendment 39-13173 (68 FR 33356, June 4, 2003). AD 2003-11-14 currently requires you to do a one-time (quality control) inspection of the combustion heater fuel pumps for fuel leakage. If leakage is found, repair or replace the fuel pump.

Since AD 2003-11-14 was issued, there has been an investigation of two reports of fuel leakage from the combustion heater fuel pumps in December 2004. These two reports of fuel leakage were similar to those that led to the issuance of AD 2003-11-14. Improper torque was applied to the mounting screws of the fuel pump filter cover and resulted in sealing surface abnormalities such as nicks, gouges, or warping. This condition is a result of a quality control problem.

The findings of the investigation concluded that after issuance of AD 2003-11-14 additional fuel pumps that did not meet the quality control (inspection or design) requirements of the AD have been installed in Piper Models PA-34-220T and PA-44-180 airplanes. Other fuel pumps that do not meet the quality control (inspection or design) requirements may be held as spares.

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? Quality control problems with the heater fuel pump could result in failure of the heater fuel pump. Such failure could lead to fire or explosion in the cockpit.

Is there service information that applies to this subject? Piper has issued:

What are the provisions of this service information? These service bulletins include procedures for:

What has FAA decided? We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design.

Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Piper Models PA-34-200T, PA-34-220T, PA-44-180, and PA-44-180T airplanes of the same type design, we are issuing this AD to correct quality control problems with the heater fuel pump, which could result in failure of the heater fuel pump. Such failure could lead to fire or explosion in the cockpit.

What does this AD require? This AD requires you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service bulletins.

In preparing this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to get technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We did not receive any information through these contacts. If received, we would have included a discussion of any information that may have influenced this action in the rulemaking docket.

How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this AD? On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

Will I have the opportunity to comment before you issue the rule? This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-21590; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-33-AD” in the subject line of your comments. If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your mailed comments, send us a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the docket number written on it; we will date-stamp your postcard and mail it back to you. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. If a person contacts us through a nonwritten communication, and that contact relates to a substantive part of this AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.

What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.

Will this AD impact various entities? We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Will this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “AD Docket FAA-2005-21590; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-33-AD” in your request.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24331). (A correction of the rule was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2005 (70 FR 28988)). That NPRM proposed to require operators to assign serial numbers or part numbers to certain landing gear parts and to establish the number of landings on the parts, if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require operators to revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to reflect the new life limits of the landing gear parts.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have revised the applicability to reflect the model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to assign serial numbers or part numbers to certain landing gear parts to comply with this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to (RR) RB211-524 series turbofan engines with certain P/N IP compressor stage 5 disks installed. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5390). That action proposed to require:

• Establishing new reduced IP compressor stage 5 disk cyclic limits.

• Removing from service affected disks that already exceed the new reduced cyclic limit.

• Removing other affected disks before exceeding their cyclic limits, using a drawdown schedule.

• Allowing optional inspections at each shop visit or an on-wing eddy current inspection to extend the disk life beyond the specified life.

You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. See ADDRESSES for the location.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

There are about 939 RR RB211-524 series turbofan engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that this AD will affect about 35 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 8 work hours per engine to perform an inspection, and 300 work hours per engine to replace an IP compressor stage 5 disk. The average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $49,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $2,415,700.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “AD Docket No. 2002-NE-40-AD” in your request.

This amendment to title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5 and 8260-15A. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.

The large number of SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums but refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP, and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This document corrects two errors contained in the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) final rule published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2005 (70 FR 41094). The July 15 final rule amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement the agreement reached at the December 2004 plenary meeting of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar Arrangement). Specifically, the July 15 final rule made the necessary changes to the Commerce Control List (CCL), definitions of terms used in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and Wassenaar reporting requirements to implement Wassenaar List revisions that were agreed upon in the December 2004 Wassenaar Arrangement Plenary Meeting. In addition, the rule adds Slovenia to the list of Wassenaar member countries in the EAR. The rule also added or expanded unilateral U.S. controls on certain items consistent with the amendments made to implement the Wassenaar Arrangement's decisions.

This document corrects an inadvertent typographical error contained in Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 3A002 (General purpose electronic equipment, as follows (see List of Items Controlled)) on the CCL. Specifically, this document corrects paragraph 3A002.b by removing a comma that appears between the terms “Frequency synthesizer” and “electronic assemblies”. The removal of the comma corrects paragraph 3A002.b in conformity with language agreed upon in the December 2004 Wassenaar Arrangement Plenary Meeting.

This document also corrects a statement of the license requirements for deemed export license applications found in the Background section of the July 15 final rule. Specifically, the Background section of the July 15 final rule included an explanation of amendments to Section 740.7 (License Exception Computers (CTP)) of the EAR. That explanation included the following statement, “Applications for foreign nationals with temporary or permanent residence status of a third country ( i.e. , non-U.S. and a temporary or permanent residence status other than a foreign national's country of origin) should be based on the foreign national's country of citizenship.” This is not correctly stated; such license applications should be based on the most recently established residency.

1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule involves two collections of information subject to the PRA. One of the collections has been approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” and carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. The other of the collections has been approved by OMB under control number 0694-0106, “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the Wassenaar Arrangement,” and carries a burden hour estimate of 21 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of these collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to OMB Desk Officer, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and to the Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 6883, Washington, DC 20230.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132.

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Sheila Quarterman, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, PO Box 273, Washington, DC 20044.

In a notice published in the Federal Register of October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54773), FDA announced that a color additive petition (CAP 1C0273) had been filed by LycoRed Natural Products Industries, c/o TC Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 285, West Boxford, MA 01885 (current address, c/o Mark R. Kaster, suite 1500, 50 South Sixth St., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1498). The petition proposed to amend the color additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73) to provide for the safe use of tomato lycopene extract to color foods generally. The petition included information on two forms of tomato lycopene extract that differ primarily in concentration. The agency is listing the less concentrated form as tomato lycopene extract and the more concentrated form as tomato lycopene concentrate.

Tomato lycopene extract is a red to dark brown viscous oleoresin containing lycopene. Lycopene is the pigment responsible for the red color of tomatoes. Tomato lycopene extract is manufactured as follows: (1) Fresh, edible varieties of tomatoes are crushed and heated at 70 to 120° C, and then centrifuged to separate the pulp from the liquid portion; (2) the tomato pulp is extracted with ethyl acetate; and (3) ethyl acetate is evaporated from the extracts, resulting in tomato lycopene extract. Tomato lycopene extract manufactured by the petitioner contains not less than 5.5 percent lycopene, which comprises not less than 70 percent of total carotenoids. Tomato lycopene concentrate is a mixture of crystalline and amorphous powder prepared from tomato lycopene extract by removing most of the tomato lipids with ethyl acetate followed by evaporating the solvent. Tomato lycopene concentrate manufactured by the petitioner contains not less than 60 percent lycopene.

Lycopene is a commonly consumed food ingredient present in fresh tomatoes and in tomato-containing foods. The intake of lycopene from the petitioned use of the color additives in foods is similar to that from the consumption of tomatoes and tomato-containing foods. The agency reviewed the results of toxicological studies submitted in the petition. Based on this review, the agency concludes that there was no treatment-related toxicity from lycopene. The agency also conducted a comprehensive literature search that found no evidence of any significant toxicological effects of lycopene when consumed by humans. To further assure the purity and safety of the subject color additives, the agency is specifying in new § 73.585 that tomato lycopene extract be obtained from fresh, edible varieties of tomato and is establishing specifications for both color additives.

Based on the data in the petition and other relevant material, FDA concludes the following: (1) The petitioned use of tomato lycopene extract and tomato lycopene concentrate as color additives in foods is safe, (2) the additives will achieve their intended technical effects, and thus, (3) the additives are suitable for this use. The agency concludes that part 73 should be amended as set forth in this document. In addition, based upon the factors listed in § 71.20(b) (21 CFR 71.20(b)), the agency concludes that certification of tomato lycopene extract and tomato lycopene concentrate is not necessary for the protection of the public health.

In accordance with § 71.15 (21 CFR 71.15), the petition and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the information contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). As provided in § 71.15, the agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure before making the documents available for inspection.

The agency has previously considered the environmental effects of this rule as announced in the notice of filing for CAP 1C0273 (66 FR 54773, October 30, 2001). No new information or comments have been received that would affect the agency's previous determination that there is no significant impact on the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required.

This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

This rule is effective as shown in the DATES section of this document, except as to any provisions that may be stayed by the filing of proper objections. Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic objections. Each objection shall be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information intended to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents are to be submitted and are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA will publish notice of the objections that the agency has received or lack thereof in the Federal Register .

Phoenix Scientific, Inc., 3915 South 48th Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503, filed ANADA 200-360 that provides for use of Tiamulin Liquid Concentrate to prepare medicated drinking water for the treatment of swine dysentery and swine pneumonia. Phoenix Scientific, Inc.'s Tiamulin Liquid Concentrate is approved as a generic copy of Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc.'s DENAGARD (tiamulin) Liquid Concentrate approved under NADA 140-916. The ANADA is approved as of June 24, 2005, and the regulations are amended in § 520.2456 (21 CFR 520.2456) to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.

The regulations are also amended in § 520.2456 to reflect a more recent genus name for the causative pathogen for swine dysentery. This action is being taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Pfizer, Inc., 235 East 42d St., New York, NY 10017, filed a supplement to NADA 141-095 for DECTOMAX (doramectin) Pour-On Solution for Cattle. The supplemental application provides for a period of protection from reinfestation with two species of external parasites following topical administration of doramectin solution on cattle. Specifically, the period of persistent effectiveness is 42 days for Linognathus vituli and 77 days for Bovicola (Damalinia) bovis . The supplemental NADA is approved as of June 23, 2005, and 21 CFR 524.770 is amended to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.

In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning June 23, 2005. Exclusivity applies only to the persistent effectiveness claims for the two species of external parasites listed previously in this document.

FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Under the Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-294, October 12, 2000, 114 Stat 1038, codified at 18 U.S.C. 4048) (Act), the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) may assess and collect a fee for health care services provided in connection with certain kinds of inmate health care visits. In this document, we finalize our proposed rule which was published on October 10, 2002 (67 FR 63059) describing procedures we will follow for charging inmates health service fees for certain kinds of health care services.

We received 42 comments on our proposed rules. One commenter supported the rule. Eight of the comments were copies of one form letter, and another thirteen comments were copies of a second form letter. These and the other twenty commenters raised identical or similar issues. We will therefore address each issue raised.

Four commenters expressed concern that the fee would unduly burden family members of inmates.

These comments failed to specify how family members of inmates would bear the “burden” of health service fees. If an inmate is classified as indigent and has no funds with which to pay the fee, no fee will be imposed, even though the inmate will still receive necessary health services. There is no apparent cost, therefore, to the inmate's family, who are not required to replenish the inmate's account for the purpose of paying health service fees.

Twenty-six commenters felt that the $2 fee amount is too high for inmates. One commenter suggested that, since the statute requires that the fee be “not less than $1.00,” the fee should be only $1 instead of $2.

The Committee Report accompanying the Act states that “[t]he amount of the fee is to be determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons through regulation.” H.R. Rep. No. 106-851, at 12 (2000). Determination of the fee amount is in the Director's discretion. The Director has determined that a $2 fee is reasonable and is the smallest fee practicable when accounting for the technicalities of processing fees collected for health services.

The Bureau had initially considered a $10 fee. However, when determining the fee amount, the Bureau surveyed amounts charged by states adopting similar policies. Most states that charge a fee for health services impose between $3 and $10 for an inmate-initiated visit, such as Arizona ( Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-161 (2003)), New Hampshire ( N.H. Rev. stat. Ann. § 622:31-a (2003)), California ( Cal. Penal Code § 5002.5 (2003)), Delaware ( Del. Code Ann. tit.1, § 6536 (2003)), Maryland ( Md. Code Ann. , Corr. Serv. § 2-118 (2003)), Ohio ( Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 5120.56 (2002)), and North Dakota ( N.D. Cent. Code § 12-44.1-12.1 (2003)). In fact, the Bureau's fee is less than the majority of state fees charged for similar purposes.

One commenter recommended that we allow one inmate-initiated health care visit per month with no fee to defray the impact of the fee. This suggestion misunderstands the intent of the rule. Outside of institutions, individuals are not permitted one free health care visit per month. We intend this rule to more accurately reflect life outside the institution, thereby encouraging inmate fiscal responsibility.

Nine commenters argued that the cost to the Bureau of recordkeeping and transferring funds related to the health service fee outweighs the savings resulting from decreased sick-call visits through fee imposition.

The purpose of the rules is to decrease inmate misuse of health services and to encourage fiscal responsibility, not to increase Bureau funding. Any money gained through fees will not be retained by the Bureau. 18 U.S.C. 4048(g)(2) indicates that 75% of amounts collected must “be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601)” and the remaining 25% must “be available to the Attorney General for administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this section.” The 25% reserved for administrative expenses under this subsection goes towards administrative costs associated with dispensing fee amounts to the Crime Victims Fund, and is not kept by the Bureau.

Also, among States and localities that have imposed these fees, reductions in sick call visits from 16 to 50 percent have been realized. In a report included with the legislative history of the Act, the GAO concluded that use of a health care co-payment fee system would reduce the number of unnecessary medical visits in the Federal prison system, perhaps reducing overall visits by as much as 25 percent. H.R. Rep. No. 106-851, at 6 (2000), referencing Federal Prisons: Containing Health Care Costs for an Increasing Inmate Population , No. GAO/T GGD 00 112, at 3 (April 6, 2000).

Further, according to the legislative history of the Act, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that imposing such fees would reduce the demand for health care services from Federal prisoners. CBO determined that the reduction in demand would result in possible net savings of up to $5 million annually over the 2001-2005 period, assuming that future appropriations are reduced to reflect the lower health care costs. H.R. Rep. No. 106-851, at 9 (2000).

One commenter felt that the administrative remedy process is ineffective (because of length of time required and the nature of medical problems) to contest a $2 health service fee.

If the nature of an inmate's medical problem requires immediate care, such as for an emergency, or if an inmate is found to be indigent, that inmate will still receive the health care he or she needs. We will not refuse to provide care for an inmate in any situation, even if the inmate contests the applicability of the fee. If an inmate decides to contest the fee through the administrative remedy process, we will not withhold health care services while the administrative remedy claim is pending resolution.

An inmate commenter stated that there was no written or oral notice of this rule given, “as required by statute”.

Notice to inmates of this proposed rulemaking under 18 U.S.C. 4048(j) was given to inmates, as required by the statute, as evidenced by this commenter's ability to comment. Also, we accepted comments to the proposed rulemaking approximately 2 months after the official close of the comment period on December 9, 2002. Further, we will issue the notice required by 18 U.S.C. 4048(i) 30 days before implementing the rules and policy requiring a health service fee.

Twenty-eight commenters stated that if an inmate with a contagious disease fails to seek medical attention, simply to save the $2 health service fee, the Bureau may incur more healthcare costs when other inmates and staff become infected.

An inmate who is sick but chooses not to seek medical attention because he or she does not wish to pay the fee does not pose a significant health risk to other inmates or staff, nor does it pose a significant financial risk to the Bureau. The Bureau already has screening mechanisms in place that would prevent the spread of serious contagious diseases. For example, the Bureau has initial intake screening for acute, chronic, mental health and infectious diseases. Also, we require mandatory annual screening for tuberculosis and annual medical examinations for inmates employed in the food service area. Inmates with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension, thyroid disease, psychiatric illness, etc., are examined at least four times a year as a non-inmate-initiated visit which would not necessitate imposition of a health service fee.

In the Bureau's health care delivery system, each inmate is assigned to a specific health care provider who is responsible for the inmate's on-going health care needs. Each inmate is periodically evaluated by the provider, who is responsible for knowing the circumstances and situation of each of his/her patients. These periodic evaluations are staff-initiated visits which do not trigger the $2 copay fee. Also, as an example of infectious disease detection, an inmate who has been exposed to TB but does not actually have active TB will be evaluated every 90 days.

It would be difficult for an inmate to have an infectious disease for a long time without detection by either the provider assigned to that inmate or staff who interact on a daily basis with that inmate. All staff receive mandatory annual training on the signs and symptoms of infectious diseases. Any staff member can refer an inmate to health services if there appears to be a problem with the inmate's health. If a staff member notices that an inmate looks unhealthy and refers that inmate to the doctor, that visit does not trigger the $2 copay fee under the new regulations.

One commenter stated that to deny inmates health care without a hearing is violating their right to due process. The commenter alleges that the rules violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

We believe that this commenter means to allege a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which constrains the power of the Federal Government to deprive any person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” just as the Fourteenth Amendment imposes comparable constraints on the power of the States. See U.S. v. Balsys , 118 S.Ct. 2218, at 2236 (1998); Bolling v. Sharpe , 74 S.Ct. 693 (1958). We therefore respond as though the comment alleged a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Although inmates have a property interest in the funds in their inmate account, the “process due,” for health service fees has been found by many courts to be minimal. Courts have found that as long as inmates are notified that there will be deductions from their accounts for these types of health service fees and that there is an avenue to appeal the fees, no further process is required. Johnson v. Department of Public Safety , 885 F.Supp. 817 at 821 (D.MD. 1995); Scott v. Angelone , 771 F.Supp. 1064, 1067-68 (D. Nev.1991) (inmate was not denied due process of law when his account was charged for medical visits because he had prior notice of the policy, authorized the charges and was reimbursed for erroneous charges), aff'd , 980 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1992); Gardner v. Wilson , 959 F.Supp. 1224 at 1229 (C.D. CA. 1997); Bailey v. Carter , No. 99-4282, 2001 WL 845446 (6th Cir. 2001).

Also, inmates are not “deprived” of health care. If they cannot pay the fee because they are indigent, or if they require emergency treatment or otherwise fall within the exceptions listed in § 549.72, we will still provide them with necessary health services.

Fifteen commenters felt that it is unconstitutional to be charged for health services while under the Bureau's care. One stated that 18 U.S.C. 4032 guarantees Federal inmates free medical treatment, and that this rule violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. With respect to prison medical care, this provision requires that the government and its actors refrain from “deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Courts typically define “deliberate indifference” as treatment “so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Miltier v. Beorn , 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990). See also Rogers v. Evans , 792 F.2d 1052, 1058 (11th Cir. 1986).

The Bureau's co-pay rules do not represent treatment that “shocks the conscience.” The rules contain several exceptions to avoid imposing unnecessary hardship on indigent, or seriously ill inmates. Our intent is that the rules will only repeatedly affect those inmates who abuse prison medical services with frequent visits for minor complaints. Also, because no inmate will be refused treatment for an inability to pay, our rules will not result in a denial of care, even for inmates who abuse the system.

Several courts have concluded that co-pay requirements for prison medical services are constitutional. Similar policies have been challenged and upheld under the Eighth Amendment. See Johnson v. Department of Public Safety , 885 F.Supp. 817 at 820-821 (D.MD. 1995); Gardner v. Wilson , 959 F.Supp. 1224 at 1227-1228 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Martin v. DeBruyn , 880 F.Supp. 610 at 612 (N.D. Ind. 1995); Bailey v. Carter , No. 99-4282, 2001 WL 845446 (6th Cir. 2001); Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs , 766 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir. 1985).

One commenter stated that the rule should not apply retroactively (to inmates already sentenced) but only to new inmates, because it amounts to additional punishment. This commenter appears to allege that the rules violate Article I of the Constitution, which provides that neither Congress nor any state shall pass an ex post facto law. Art. I, section 9, cl. 3; Art. I, section 10, cl. 1.

Courts have stated that “the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to penal statutes which disadvantage the offender affected by them.” Collins v. Youngblood , 497 U.S. 37, 41, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2718, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990). Generally, an ex post facto law “punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed * * *.” Collins , 497 U.S. at 42, 110 S.Ct. at 2719 (quoting Beazell v. Ohio , 269 U.S. 167, 169-70, 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69, 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925)); see also Gardner v. Wilson , 959 F.Supp. 1224 at 1230 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

Our rule is not an ex post facto law. It is not a criminal statute which disadvantages a criminal offender. These rules do not redefine inmates' crimes or increase inmates' punishment for criminal acts. Also, we do not intend to apply this rule retroactively to events occurring before the date of effectiveness; instead, we will apply the rule only to qualifying health care visits that occur well after inmates have been given notice of this rule, as required by the Act (18 U.S.C. 4048(i)).

Twenty-two commenters complained that the current level of medical care is unsatisfactory.

The healthcare mission of the Bureau of Prisons is to provide appropriate and necessary medical, dental and mental health services to inmates by professional staff. All BOP institutions operate outpatient ambulatory care clinics which are accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), the nation's predominant standards-setting and accrediting body in health care.

Each BOP facility has a Health Services Department, typically staffed with a physician(s) and several mid-level providers, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, along with technical and administrative staff. Most Health Services Departments conduct “sick-call” four or more days per week for the entire inmate population, and all have 24 hour emergency coverage. All inmates entering our facilities are thoroughly screened by medical staff for physical and mental health conditions, and are monitored thereafter through follow-up appointments and chronic care clinics, as necessary. Inmates who cannot be medically managed as outpatients in our correctional facilities may be designated to one of the BOP's Federal Medical Centers, located throughout the country.

Two commenters argued that there is potential for staff to abuse the rules by refusing to refer an inmate for a health service visit or by charging them even when they are exempt from the fee under the rule.

Bureau staff are held to the highest standard of professionalism. Although it is arguable that there is always potential for abuse of any rule or staff requirement, the Bureau conducts program reviews and quality control inspections frequently to ensure staff compliance with rules and policy. If an inmate is aggrieved by what he or she perceives as staff abuse of the rules, that inmate should take advantage of our administrative remedy procedures (28 CFR part 542).

Thirteen commenters felt that imposing fees on D.C. Code felony offenders violates the Interstate Corrections Compact, D.C. Code § 24.1001, Article I, Article III(A)(1)-(6).

The Interstate Corrections Compact, Article III(a)(1)-(6) does not apply to the Bureau. The Compact addresses arrangements made between the District of Columbia or the Federal Government and any State, and does not impose direct obligations on the Federal Government. Instead, it describes that such arrangements must provide for several points of inmate care, such as “payments to be made to the receiving State or to the Federal government, by the sending State for inmate maintenance, extraordinary medical and dental expenses, and any participation in or receipt by inmates of rehabilitative or correctional services, facilities, programs, or treatment not reasonably included as part of normal maintenance.”

The Compact, therefore, does not require that the Federal Government pay the cost of inmate maintenance, nor does it preclude inmate health service fees. The Compact only requires that any contract between the State and the Federal Government for the care of State inmates must address the subject of payment for health care. Therefore, this rule does not violate the Compact.

Four commenters stated that there is no definition of “indigent” for the purposes of this rule. Bureau policy will define “indigent” inmates as those who had a trust fund account balance of less than $6 for the thirty days before the date of the health service provided.

One commenter complained that the rules do not specifically address dental care. The Bureau's policy that will accompany these rules and be accessible in inmate law libraries will state that health services include medical, mental health and dental care services.

Another commenter stated that there is no definition of “emergency” situations in which no fee is imposed. Bureau policy defines “emergency” situations as the delivery of care that is “medically mandatory,” deemed necessary to maintain or treat a life-threatening illness or injury. Health Services employees are aware of that longstanding definition and will use it to determine whether to charge a fee.

The same commenter stated that there is no definition of “chronic infectious disease” for which no health service fee is paid. Again, Bureau policy will state that examples of health care services based on staff referrals, follow-up treatment for chronic conditions, and preventive health care include: Blood pressure checks, glucose monitoring, insulin injections, TB testing, vaccinations, and patient education, etc. We do not place this definition in the rule text because any illness defined as “chronic infectious disease” may at any time be no longer considered chronic or infectious, due to frequent breakthroughs in medical research.

For the aforementioned reasons, we adopt the proposed rule, published on October 10, 2002, at 67 FR 63059, as final without change. Please note that this rule is effective and we will begin to implement it on October 3, 2005. We will not implement the provisions of this rule until 30 days after we have given notice of these rules to inmates in our custody, as required by 18 U.S.C. 4048(i)

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Director, Bureau of Prisons has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

BOP has assessed the costs and benefits of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 Section 1(b)(6) and has made a reasoned determination that the benefits of this rule justify its costs. The benefits of encouraging inmates to be more responsible for their own health care and reducing inmate abuse of the Bureau's health care system outweigh any perceived costs of imposing the health service fees.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications for which we would prepare a Federalism Assessment.

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation. By approving it, the Director certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities because: This rule is about the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.

This rule will not cause State, local and tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. We do not need to take action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM would be contrary to public interest. The event will begin on August 12, 2005. Because of the danger posed by high-speed powerboats racing in a closed circuit, special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area in Mill Creek. However, advance notifications will be made to affected users of the river via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers.

On August 12, 13 and 14, 2005, the American Power Boat Association will sanction the “Hampton Cup Regatta” powerboat races, on Mill Creek, near Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia. The event will consist of approximately 100 hydroplanes and jersey speed skiffs racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval racecourse. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated. Due to the need for vessel control during the races, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of Mill Creek near Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on August 12, August 13, and August 14, 2005. The effect of the temporary special local regulations will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the races. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Non-participating vessels will be allowed to transit the regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this temporary final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of Mill Creek during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portion of Mill Creek during the event.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area between races. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial and direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Governments and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under those sections. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.

The EPA, Region VII, is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of the Red Oak City Landfill Superfund site from the NPL.

The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions at a deleted site warrant such action.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of intent to delete. This action will be effective September 26, 2005 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 25, 2005 on this document. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. The EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Red Oak City Landfill Superfund site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V states EPA's action to delete the site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the comment period.

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a site from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met.

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required.

ii. All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the deleted site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) requires that a subsequent review of the site be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the remedy remains protective of public health and the environment. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the site shall be restored to the NPL without the application of the Hazard Ranking System.

The following procedures apply to deletion of the site.

i. The EPA, Region VII, issued a Record of Decision which documented the required remedial action.

ii. All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented as documented in the Final Close-Out Report dated June 13, 2005.

iii. The state of Iowa concurred with deletion of the site from the NPL. The EPA consulted with the state of Iowa on the deletion of the site from the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of deletion. Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice of deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of intent to delete published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register is being published in a major local newspaper of general circulation at or near the site and is being distributed to appropriate Federal, state, and local government officials and other interested parties; the newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the site from the NPL.

iv. The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in the Deletion Docket at the site information repositories identified above.

v. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of the site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the site from the NPL.

The Red Oak City Landfill site is located in Montgomery County, Iowa, and is a 40-acre site which lies about 1.5 miles northwest of the city of Red Oak on the west bank of the East Nishnabotna River and on the east side of Parkwest Road, now known as G Avenue. Red Oak is a community of approximately 6,300 residents.

The site was originally a limestone quarry which operated from the late 1940s to the early 1960s. The city of Red Oak purchased the property in 1962 and operated it as a landfill until it closed in April 1974. Wastes disposed of at the site reportedly included construction and demolition debris, tree pruning waste, municipal refuse, and industrial waste from facilities in the Red Oak area. These industrial wastes included toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, tetrachloroethylene, mineral spirits, diacetone alcohol, laminated paper containing approximately three percent mercurous chloride from battery production, and drummed filter cake containing lead.

The site was proposed to the National Priorities List in June 1986 and became final in March 1989 (54 FR 13296). The site posed a threat to the public health through direct contact, slope erosion, and potential leaching and migration of contaminants into surface water and groundwater.

In June 1989, the EPA issued an administrative order to the responsible parties at the site to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) at the site to determine the nature and extent of the contamination problem. The responsible parties conducted the RI/FS under EPA oversight. Field activities were conducted in two phases; the first was conducted from December 1989 to April 1990, and the second was conducted from May 1991 to July 1992. These activities included sampling and analysis of surface and subsurface soils and wastes, surface water, groundwater, and leachate seeps. Five monitoring wells were installed for this effort. Data from these wells indicated groundwater flow was toward the East Nishnabotna River, to the east of the site. Hazardous substances that have been released at the site include aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, acetone, 1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These contaminants were of concern primarily in the surface soils and exposed wastes. Exposure to contaminated groundwater at the site was determined not to represent a significant exposure pathway. A final RI report was completed in 1992, and a final FS submitted to EPA in July 1992.

In March 1993, EPA decided on a cleanup plan which was explained in a Record of Decision (ROD). The cleanup plan included installation of an engineered low-permeability cap over the surface of the landfill, construction of diversion and drainage structures to manage surface drainage resulting from the reduced permeability of the landfill cover, stabilization of the river bank slope by contouring and revegetation, along with further study of the stability of the slope, access control provided by a perimeter fence around the landfill area, institutional controls, including deed and access restrictions, to control future land use at the site, and long-term groundwater monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy and ensure groundwater contaminant levels remain protective. Subsequently, EPA determined that river bank slope shaping could be limited, the landfill cap could be reduced in thickness, the slope study and further stabilization measures could be eliminated, and costs could be re-estimated. These changes were incorporated into an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) memorandum issued by EPA in January 1996.

A baseline risk assessment was prepared for the site and was described in the 1993 ROD. The exposure assumptions used to develop the Human Health Risk Assessment included both current exposures (adult hunter/trespasser scenario) and potential future exposures (future child resident, future adult resident, and future adult excavation worker). In the ROD, the ecological risks at the site were judged to be minimal.

Hazardous substances that have been released at the site include aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, acetone, 1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and PAHs. These contaminants were of concern primarily in the surface soils and exposed wastes. Exposures to soil and exposed wastes were associated with significant human health risks, due to exceedance of EPA's risk management criteria for either the average or the reasonable maximum exposure scenarios. The carcinogenic risks were highest for exposure to soils and waste due to the concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs. Non-carcinogenic hazards were highest for exposure to soils and waste due to lead, manganese, and cadmium. Exposure to contaminated groundwater at the site was determined not to represent a significant exposure pathway.

In a Consent Decree (CD) signed with EPA on November 27, 1996, the responsible parties agreed to perform the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) and pay past costs for cleaning up the site. The RD was conducted in conformance with the ROD as modified by the ESD. The RD was approved by EPA on July 28, 1997. The RA was initiated on August 16, 1997, and the initial construction activities were completed on November 21, 1997.

The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) were divided into three groups according to the obligations they took on: The construction parties, consisting of Eveready Battery and its parent; a group of operation and maintenance (O&M) parties consisting of Magna International and the city of Red Oak; and a group of cashout parties. Construction of the remedy was initially thought to be completed in November 1997. However, areas of failure of both landfill cap and riverbank slope were discovered in the spring of 1998. The cap was repaired in May 1998, and the slope was repaired in September 1998. A May 1999 site visit was set to inspect both slope and cap, but before this meeting occurred, a second failure of the slope was discovered in spring 1999. Additional lab analysis was conducted to find the cause, and repairs were made in July and September 1999.

The EPA conducted a pre-final inspection on October 27, 1999, which resulted in a “punch list” of identified construction deficiencies, mostly minor in nature. Those punch list items pertaining to the cap were satisfactorily completed, and EPA notified the construction and O&M parties in October 2000 that the cap portion of the remedy was now operational and ready to be maintained by the O&M parties. The remaining items on the punch list of concern to EPA were slope revegetation and slope stability. Additional repairs and monitoring were conducted and on June 21, 2001, the EPA determined that construction of the remedy as embodied in the RD had been completed.

On December 12, 2002, a RA Report was completed, demonstrating successful completion of construction activities. The site is listed on the state of Iowa's Registry of Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites, which prevent changes in land ownership or use without state approval. Institutional controls have also been applied to the site through language in the CD and on the deed requiring that the property only be used for purposes compatible with the RD and O&M specifications. The institutional controls cover all contaminated media that cannot support unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

Cleanup standards were developed in the ROD to prevent exposure to wastes and contaminated soils on the surface of the site. The chosen remedy was capping, to prevent this exposure. The cleanup goals were achieved in the site remediation work. All facets of the ROD and ESD have been met as well. Because wastes remain at the site in a capped landfill, some residual risks remain at the site that require continued O&M activities, institutional controls, and five-year reviews. There is no significant threat to public health or the environment from the site, however, and additional remedial measures are not appropriate.

The O&M parties are currently conducting O&M activities pursuant to the Monitoring, Operation, and Maintenance Plan that was approved by EPA on September 29, 1999. The O&M of the landfill cap, drainage structures, riverbank slope, and fences is required along with regular groundwater and surface water monitoring and will continue after site deletion, since waste was left in place as part of the final source control remedy. The final plan, dated February 2000, lists the activities to be performed, including annual inspections to ensure erosion control, drainage structure maintenance, mowing, monitoring, and fence maintenance. Institutional controls will also be maintained. No major problems have been encountered. Results from the groundwater and surface water monitoring have not indicated any concerns with contamination, and the continuing monitoring is not needed to determine any future response measures.

A statutory five-year review report was completed on September 10, 2002, pursuant to CERCLA 121(c) and to § 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP. The report concluded that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment, and that all threats at the site have been addressed. Another five-year review report is scheduled for 2007.

Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. A mailing list was developed, fact sheets mailed out, and a public notice placed in a newspaper in August 1992 to support the Proposed Plan. A public meeting was held on August 20, 1992. In addition, a public notice for the five-year review was placed in May 2002. Documents in the Deletion Docket which EPA relied on for recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories. A public notice for this action will also be published in the Red Oak Express.

The EPA, with concurrence of the state of Iowa, has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and that no further response actions, under CERCLA, are necessary. The state concurrence letter dated May 11, 2005, states that IDNR concurs with the proposed removal of the site from the NPL. Therefore, EPA is deleting the site from the NPL.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective September 26, 2005 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 25, 2005. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion and it will not take effect and, EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration must be based upon knowledge of changed conditions, or upon new scientific or technical data.

The modifications are made pursuant to Section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. , and with 44 CFR Part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities.

The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

This interim 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.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

FEMA makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67.

The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.

The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act. This 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 rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final 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. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

Regulatory Classification. This final 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 rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

FEMA makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR Part 67.

The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.

The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final 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. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.

This final 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.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.

During the public comment period, the Foundation received one comment on an existing section of the regulation to which no change was proposed. No comments were received on the proposed addition of subsection 613.5(g). The NSF publishes its Final Regulation as proposed.

Section 8021 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-87) and Section 8021 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-287) provide funding for the DoD Indian Incentive Program, which is implemented in DFARS Subpart 226.1. The appropriations act provisions also require that small business concerns owned by Native Hawaiian Organizations be provided the same status as Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations with regard to contract awards under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) Program. Under the 8(a) Program, as implemented in FAR Subpart 19.8, competition is required for manufacturing contracts exceeding $5,000,000 and non-manufacturing contracts exceeding $3,000,000, unless (1) there is not a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) firms will submit offers at a fair market price, or (2) SBA accepts the requirement on behalf of a concern owned by an Indian tribe or an Alaska Native Corporation. This interim rule expands the competition exceptions to include requirements accepted on behalf of a small business concern owned by a Native Hawaiian Organization.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603. The analysis is summarized as follows:

This interim rule amends the DFARS to implement DoD appropriations act provisions permitting the award of sole source contracts to small business concerns owned by Native Hawaiian Organizations. The rule applies to manufacturing contacts exceeding $5,000,000 and non-manufacturing contracts exceeding $3,000,000 that are awarded under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) Program. The objective of the rule is to provide small business concerns owned by Native Hawaiian Organizations the same status that is provided to Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations under the 8(a) Program. Awards to these entities are exempted from the competition requirements that would otherwise apply to award of manufacturing contacts exceeding $5,000,000 and non-manufacturing contracts exceeding $3,000,000 under the Program. The legal basis for the rule is Section 8021 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-87) and Section 8021 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-287). The rule will benefit small business concerns that are owned by Native Hawaiian Organizations by permitting sole source contract awards to these concerns.

A copy of the analysis may be obtained from the point of contact specified herein. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2004-D031.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements Section 8021 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-87) and Section 8021 of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-287). These statutes require that small business concerns owned by Native Hawaiian Organizations be provided the same status as Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations with regard to contract awards under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) Program. Application of this status will permit small business concerns owned by Native Hawaiian Organizations to receive sole source contract awards under the 8(a) Program, in amounts exceeding the thresholds at which competition would otherwise be required. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.

10 U.S.C. 2533a (the Berry Amendment) requires DoD to acquire certain items from domestic sources. 10 U.S.C. 2533a(c) provides an exception to this requirement if the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of such items cannot be procured as and when needed at U.S. market prices. DoD has issued the following memoranda regarding domestic nonavailability determinations under 10 U.S.C. 2533a(c):

The Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum of May 1, 2001, provides that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Secretaries of the military departments may make domestic nonavailability determinations under the Berry Amendment, but may not redelegate this authority. The memorandum also requires an analysis of alternatives, and a certification as to why such alternatives are unacceptable.

The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) memorandum of October 22, 2004, requires Congressional notification of any domestic nonavailability determinations involving titanium or products containing titanium.

This final rule amends DFARS 225.7002-2(b) to reflect the requirements of the DoD memoranda.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

This rule will not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors, or a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD. Therefore, publication for public comment is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2004-D035.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A. Background

10 U.S.C. 2325(a)(1), Limitation on Payment of Restructuring Costs, prohibits DoD from reimbursing a defense contractor for restructuring costs arising from a business combination that occurs after November 18, 1997, unless the Secretary of Defense determines in writing either: (i) That the amount of projected savings for DoD associated with the restructuring will be at least twice the amount of the costs allowed; or (ii) that the amount of projected savings for DoD associated with the restructuring will exceed the amount of the costs allowed and that the business combination will result in the preservation of a critical capability that otherwise might be lost to DoD.

10 U.S.C. 2325(a)(2) previously prohibited the Secretary of Defense from delegating the authority to make such written savings determinations below the level of an Assistant Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense delegated the authority to make such determinations to the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) (USD(AT&L)), or his Principal Deputy. Section 819 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) amended 10 U.S.C. 2325(a)(2) to permit the Director of the Defense Contract Management Agency to make the required written determination of savings when restructuring costs are expected to be less than $25 million over a 5-year period.

To implement Section 819, this interim rule adds paragraph (c)(4)(ii) to DFARS 231.205-70, External restructuring costs. The rule also makes changes to DFARS 231.205-70(b)(4), (c), and (e)(6) to remove unnecessary references to USD(AT&L) certifications for pre-November 19, 1997, business combinations; and makes editorial changes to DFARS 231.205-70(e)(6) to clarify the existing requirement for projected restructuring costs and savings to be computed on a present value basis.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , because the cost principle addressed in this rule applies only to DoD contractors that incur restructuring costs for external restructuring activities. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2004-D026.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements Section 819 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-375). Section 819 amended 10 U.S.C. 2325 to permit delegation of authority to the Director of the Defense Contract Management Agency for determinations relating to payment of defense contractors for business restructuring costs. Section 819 became effective upon enactment on October 28, 2004. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.

Several of the background documents for the ALWTRP and the take reduction planning process can be downloaded from the ALWTRP web site at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/ .

The ALWTRP was developed pursuant to section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of three endangered species of whales (right, fin, and humpback) due to incidental interaction with commercial fishing activities. In addition, the measures identified in the ALWTRP would provide conservation benefits to a fourth species (minke), which are neither listed as endangered nor threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ALWTRP, implemented through regulations codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a combination of fishing gear modifications and time/area closures to reduce the risk of whales becoming entangled in commercial fishing gear (and potentially suffering serious injury or mortality as a result).

On January 9, 2002, NMFS published the final rule to implement the ALWTRP′s DAM program (67 FR 1133). On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended the regulations by publishing a final rule, which specifically identified gear modifications that may be allowed in a DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM program provides specific authority for NMFS to restrict temporarily on an expedited basis the use of lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right whales. Under the DAM program, NMFS may: (1) require the removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear for a 15-day period; (2) allow lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing within a DAM zone with gear modifications determined by NMFS to sufficiently reduce the risk of entanglement; and/or (3) issue an alert to fishermen requesting the voluntary removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear for a 15-day period and asking fishermen not to set any additional gear in the DAM zone during the 15-day period.

A DAM zone is triggered when NMFS receives a reliable report from a qualified individual of three or more right whales sighted within an area (75 nm 2 (139 km 2 )) such that right whale density is equal to or greater than 0.04 right whales per nm2 (1.85 km 2 ). A qualified individual is an individual ascertained by NMFS to be reasonably able, through training or experience, to identify a right whale. Such individuals include, but are not limited to, NMFS staff, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy personnel trained in whale identification, scientific research survey personnel, whale watch operators and naturalists, and mariners trained in whale species identification through disentanglement training or some other training program deemed adequate by NMFS. A reliable report would be a credible right whale sighting.

On July 12, 2005, an aerial survey reported a sighting of 31 right whales in two areas. A group of 28 right whales was reported in the proximity 41 15.3′ N. lat. and 68° 58.4′ W. long. Another group of three right whales was reported in the proximity of 41° 45.2′ N. lat. and 68° 34.4′ W. long. These positions lie southeast of Chatham, MA in an area known as the Great South Channel. After conducting an investigation, NMFS ascertained that the report came from a qualified individual and determined that the report was reliable. Thus, NMFS has received a reliable report from a qualified individual of the requisite right whale density to trigger the DAM provisions of the ALWTRP.

Once a DAM zone is triggered, NMFS determines whether to impose restrictions on fishing and/or fishing gear in the zone. This determination is based on the following factors, including but not limited to: the location of the DAM zone with respect to other fishery closure areas, weather conditions as they relate to the safety of human life at sea, the type and amount of gear already present in the area, and a review of recent right whale entanglement and mortality data.

NMFS has reviewed the factors and management options noted above relative to the DAM under consideration. As a result of this review, NMFS prohibits lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear in this area during the 15-day restricted period unless it is modified in the manner described in this temporary rule.

In July, the DAM Zone overlaps SAM East and is bound by the following coordinates:

41° 40′N., 69° 29′W. (NW Corner)

41° 40′N., 69° 00′W.

41° 59′N., 69° 00′W.

42° 04′N., 68° 46′W.

42° 04′N., 68° 27′W.

41° 45′N., 68° 17′W.

41° 45′N., 68° 09′W. 41 26′N., 68 09′W.

41° 26′N., 68° 30′W.

40° 53′N., 68° 30′W.

40° 53′N., 69° 29′W.

On August 1, the SAM East area expires and the DAM Zone expands to the following coordinates:

41° 40′N., 69°29′W. (NW Corner)

41° 40′N., 69° 00′W.

42° 04′N., 69° 00′W.

42° 04′N, 68° 09′W

41° 26′N., 68° 09′W.

41° 26′N., 68° 30′W.

40° 53′N., 68° 09′W.

40° 53′N., 69° 29′W.

In addition to those gear modifications currently implemented under the ALWTRP at 50 CFR 229.32, the following gear modifications are required in the DAM zone. If the requirements and exceptions for gear modification in the DAM zone, as described below, differ from other ALWTRP requirements for any overlapping areas and times, then the more restrictive requirements will apply in the DAM zone. Special note for gillnet fisherman: During July and August, a portion of this DAM zone overlaps the Northeast multispecies year round Closed Area 1 found at 50 CFR 648.80(a). Due to this closure, sink gillnet gear is prohibited from this portion of the DAM zone.

Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:

1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;

2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;

3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and

4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 600 lb (272.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.

Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Offshore Lobster Waters Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:

1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;

2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;

3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and

4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.

Fishermen utilizing anchored gillnet gear within the portion of the Other Northeast Gillnet Waters that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:

1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;

2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;

3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per string;

4. Each net panel must have a total of five weak links with a maximum breaking strength of 1,100 lb (498.8 kg). Net panels are typically 50 fathoms (91.4 m) in length, but the weak link requirements would apply to all variations in panel size. These weak links must include three floatline weak links. The placement of the weak links on the floatline must be: one at the center of the net panel and one each as close as possible to each of the bridle ends of the net panel. The remaining two weak links must be placed in the center of each of the up and down lines at the panel ends;