—Wess Rouse, Small Airplane Project Manager, ACE-117C, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone: 847-294-8113; facsimile: (847) 294-7834; email: Wess.Rouse@faa.gov; or —Angie Kostopoulos, Composite Technical Specialist, ACE-116C, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone: (847) 294-7426; facsimile: (847) 294-7834; e-mail: Evangelia.Kostopoulos@Faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What events have caused this AD? The Cirrus Design Corporation (CDC) performed dynamic seat testing on Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes. CDC found that, under emergency landing dynamic loads, the crew seats may fold forward at less than the 26 g required by 14 CFR Section 23.562(b)(2).

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If not prevented, the crew seats folding forward during emergency landing dynamic loads could result in occupant injury.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Cirrus Design Corporation (CDC) Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on January 13, 2005 (70 FR 2370). The NPRM proposed to measure and adjust the crew seat break-over bolts and to replace the crew seat recline locks on both crew seats. Since issuing the earlier NPRM, FAA received and evaluated new service information that increases the serial number effectivity of the earlier NPRM. Since the change imposed an additional burden over that proposed in the earlier NPRM, we reopened the comment period to allow the public additional time to comment on the proposed AD. The supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2005 (70 FR 33724).

Was the public invited to comment? We again provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the supplemental NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this AD? On July 10, 2002, the FAA published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the 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.

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 1,501 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? CDC will provide warranty credit for service bulletins SB A2X-25-08, dated June 22, 2004, and SB 2X-25-06 R4, dated May 5, 2005. This AD will not have a labor or parts cost for the owner or operator.

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 Impact) 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 “Docket No. FAA-2004-19694; Directorate Identifier 2004-CE-41-AD” in your request.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed airworthiness directive (AD). The proposed AD applies to PW PW2000 series turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51198). That action proposed to require modifying the TLS of the manufacturer's manual and an air carrier's approved continuous airworthiness maintenance program to incorporate the additional inspection requirements.

You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8 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 have considered the comments received.

Several commenters express concern about the capital investment required to eddy-current inspect the bolt holes of the HPT stage 2 hub. They suggest the NPRM fails to recognize the substantial up-front investment to get the equipment needed for the eddy current inspection. In addition, one commenter states we should increase the Costs of Compliance because the complex inspections will require several full-time, specially trained operators. We don't agree. The AD doesn't require air carriers to invest in tooling and equipment or hire more personnel to comply with the proposed AD. The AD requires adding the new eddy current inspection to the TLS of the engine manufacturer's manual, and to the air carriers' approved maintenance manuals. Operators can choose to buy equipment to perform the inspection, or they may send the disk to an approved service provider.

One commenter states that the NPRM implies a onetime cost for the inspection, but that it is actually a recurring cost. We don't agree. The Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM states the estimated cost for each inspection on each engine. We used the current shop visit rate for the PW2000 engine to calculate the recurring cost for each engine on a yearly basis. The air carriers can use their own specific costs for their individual PW2000 fleet to calculate their inspection cost.

One commenter states that the actual costs for the inspections are significantly different from the costs we specified in the NPRM. We don't agree. We based our cost estimate on actual inspection times provided by the engine manufacturer. We understand that cost estimates can vary depending on the service provider. However, we consider basing our estimate on inspection times provided by the engine manufacturer to be the most accurate approach to estimating the cost to comply with the AD.

One commenter suggests that quoted turnaround time for the inspection will make air carriers increase inventory levels for the affected parts. The commenter also feels the cost estimate doesn't reflect the cost of the increased inventory. We don't agree. The proposed AD requires adding the new eddy current inspection for the bolt holes in the HPT stage 2 hub to the TLS of the engine manufacturer's manual, and to the air carrier's approved maintenance manuals. The AD doesn't require air carriers to increase spare parts inventory levels or specify the logistics of performing the inspections.

Two commenters ask that we allow them to use equipment that is equivalent to the inspection equipment specified by the engine manufacturer. The commenters ask us to allow them to use equipment they already use for other mandated inspections. The commenters suggest that using the single-source equipment specified by the manufacturer will cause an undue burden. We don't agree. We don't intend that this proposed AD specify only one method, or limit the inspection to one method of inspection. This AD requires the operators to revise the ALS to include a mandatory opportunistic inspection. The engine manufacturer developed a validated inspection procedure using specific tooling and equipment that provides an acceptable inspection technique. However, operators may still seek approval from the manufacturer to use alternative tools or methods of inspections other than those specified in the engine manual. Providing flexibility for the engine manufacturers to revise their engine manuals as they fine-tuned their inspection methods and developed alternatives is part of the outcome of working with the Air Transportation Association, operators, and manufacturers.

Two commenters ask that we extend the compliance of the AD to allow an additional six to eight months to procure the eddy current inspection equipment and train personnel. We agree. We changed the effective date from 30 days after publication in the Federal Register to 180 days after publication in the Federal Register .

Two commenters ask that we provide clear instructions regarding special handling of the parts and the complexity and sensitivity of the eddy current inspection equipment. We partially agree. We agree that eddy current inspections of aircraft engine parts require special inspection procedures to perform the inspections. However, this AD only requires the operators add eddy current inspection of the bolt holes of HPT stage 2 hub bolt holes to the ALS of the manufacturer's engine manual as a mandatory inspection. The engine manufacturer and the suppliers of the eddy current inspection equipment will provide the special procedures and requirements for the actual inspections.

On January 6, 2005, we removed PW engine models PW2240 and PW2337 from the type certificate data sheet for the PW2000 series engine type certificate. We removed reference to them from paragraph (c) of this AD.

One commenter found a typographical error in paragraph (f)(1)(b). We specified inspection 72-52-00. The inspection should be 72-52-16. We corrected paragraph (f)(1)(b) in the final rule.

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

There are about 938 Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series turbofan engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that this AD will affect 777 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work hours per engine to perform the inspections, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Since this is an added inspection requirement, included as part of the normal maintenance cycle, no additional part costs are involved. Based on these figures, we estimate the total additional cost per engine per shop visit to be $260. Based on the current PW2000 engine shop visit rate, we estimate the total additional cost for the PW2000 fleet to be $80,860 per year.

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. 98-ANE-61-AD” in your request.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to PW JT8D-209, -217, -217A, -217C, and -219 turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51196). That action proposed to require modifying the time limitations section of the manufacturer's manual and an air carrier's approved continuous airworthiness maintenance program to incorporate additional inspection requirements.

You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8 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 have considered the comments received.

Two commenters ask us to reconsider the necessary equipment and cost to do the automated eddy current inspections and to revise the Costs of Compliance to include the necessary tooling. The commenters suggest the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) fails to recognize the large investment to get the equipment needed for the eddy current inspection. We don't agree. The AD doesn't require air carriers to invest in tooling and equipment or hire more personnel to comply with the proposed AD. The AD requires adding the new eddy current inspection to the TLS of the engine manufacturer's manual, and to the air carriers' approved maintenance manuals. Operators can choose to buy equipment to perform the inspection, or they may send the disk to an approved service provider.

One commenter states the NPRM implies a onetime cost for the inspection, but that it is a recurring cost. We don't agree. The Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM states the estimated cost for each inspection on each engine. We used the current shop visit rate for the JT8D engine to calculate the yearly recurring cost for each engine. The air carriers can use their own specific costs for their individual JT8D fleet to calculate their inspection cost.

One commenter states the costs for the inspections are significantly different from the costs we specified in the NPRM. We don't agree. We based our cost estimate on inspection times provided by the engine manufacturer. We understand that cost estimates can vary depending on the service provider. However, we consider basing our cost estimate on inspection times provided by the engine manufacturer to be the most accurate approach to estimating the cost to comply with the AD.

The same commenter suggests that quoted turnaround time for the inspection will make air carriers increase inventory levels for the affected parts. The commenter also suggests the cost estimate doesn't reflect the cost of the increased inventory. We don't agree. The AD requires adding the new eddy current inspection to the TLS of the engine manufacturer's manual, and to the air carrier's approved maintenance manuals. The AD doesn't require air carriers to increase spare parts inventory levels or specify the logistics of performing the inspections.

Three commenters ask that we allow them to use equipment that equals the inspection equipment specified by the engine manufacturer. The commenters ask us to allow them to use equipment they already use for other mandated inspections. The commenters suggest that using the single-source equipment specified by the manufacturer will cause an undue burden. We don't agree. We don't intend that this proposed AD specify only one method, or limit the inspection to one method of inspection. This AD requires the operators to revise the TLS to include a mandatory opportunistic inspection. The engine manufacturer developed a validated inspection procedure using specific tooling and equipment that provides an acceptable inspection technique. However, operators may still seek approval from the manufacturer to use alternative tools or methods of inspections other than those specified in the engine manual. Providing flexibility for the engine manufacturers to revise their engine manuals as they fine-tuned their inspection methods and developed alternatives is part of the outcome of working with the Air Transportation Association, operators, and manufacturers.

One commenter states the last sentence in paragraph (i), under “Maintaining Records of the Mandatory Inspections” does not seem complete. The commenter states the current sentence reads: “For air carriers operating under part 121, you may use either the system established to comply with the compliance times unless specified unless the actions have already been done.” We don't agree the sentence is incomplete. The sentence reads “For air carriers operating under part 121, you may use either the system established to comply with section 121.369 or use an alternative system that your principal maintenance inspector has accepted if that alternative system”.

Two commenters ask that we extend the effective date of the AD to allow an additional six to eight months. The commenters suggest the extension is necessary to procure the eddy current inspection equipment, train personnel, and to allow PW to revise their engine manuals to define clearly the approval procedure for alternate equipment. We agree. We changed the effective date from 30 days after publication in the Federal Register to 180 days after publication in the Federal Register .

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

There are about 2,345 Pratt & Whitney JT8D-209, -217, -217A, -217C, and -219 turbofan engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that this AD will affect 1,143 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 8 work hours per engine to perform the proposed inspections, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Since this is an added inspection requirement, included as part of the normal maintenance cycle, no additional part costs are involved. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $594,360.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:

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. Would 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 proposal 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. 98-ANE-43-AD” in your request.

You may examine the airworthiness directive (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 supersedes AD 2002-19-07, amendment 39-12887 (67 FR 60117, September 25, 2002). The existing AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2005 (70 FR 36067). That NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of the existing AD ( i.e. , airplane flight manual (AFM) revisions). That NPRM also proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions of Continued Airworthiness to incorporate certain repetitive tasks for the aileron control system and briefing flightcrews that certain aileron control checks are no longer required. After accomplishing the applicable initial tasks, the existing AFM revisions for the aileron control check may be removed from the AFM.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received 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.

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://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 supersedes AD 98-04-08, amendment 39-10321 (63 FR 7640, February 17, 1998). The existing AD applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2005 (70 FR 36075). That NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive ultrasonic inspections to detect cracking of the lower caps of the wing front spar and rear spar, and corrective action if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require reducing the threshold in the existing AD for doing the initial inspections and revising the repetitive inspection interval, and to add a repetitive ultrasonic inspection of the wing lower skin.

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

We have revised the applicability of the final rule 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.

This AD affects about 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 98-04-08 and retained in this AD take about 16 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $1,040 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new inspections required by this AD will take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new inspections specified in this AD for U.S. operators is $195 per inspection cycle, or $65 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.

FAA Order 7400.9M, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, listed Class A, B, C, D and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points. Due to the length of these descriptions, the FAA requested approval from the Office of the Federal Register to incorporate the material by reference in the Federal Regulations section 71.1, effective September 16, 2004, through September 15, 2005. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA processed all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.9M in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register . Likewise, all amendments of these listings were published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register . This rule reflects the periodic integration of these final rule amendments into a revised edition of Order 7400.9N, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. The Director of the Federal Register has approved the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.9N in § 71.1, as of September 16, 2005, through September 15, 2006. This rule also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the airspace designations incorporated by reference in part 71. Sections 71.5, 71.15, 71.31, 71.33, 71.41, 71.51, 71.61, 71.71, and 71.901 are also updated to reflect the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.9N.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.9N, effective September 16, 2005, through September 15, 2006. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA will continue to process all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.9N in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register . Likewise, all amendments of these listings will be published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register . The FAA will periodically integrate all final rule amendments into a revised edition of the order, and submit the revised edition to the Director of the Federal Register for approval for incorporation by reference in § 71.1.

The FAA has determined 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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. This action neither places any new restrictions or requirements on the public, nor changes the dimensions or operation requirements of the airspace listings incorporated by reference in part 71. Consequently, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Because this action will continue to update the changes to the airspace designations, which are depicted on aeronautical charts, and to avoid any unnecessary pilot confusion, I find that good cause exists, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

On August 2, 2005 final rule was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 44278). This rule amended part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) by amending, suspending, or revoking IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95. In these amendments, the FAA inadverdantly listed seven High Altitude RNAV Q Routes with GNSS MEAs only, failing to include DME/DME IRU RNAV MEAs. This action corrects that error.

On June 29, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) published in the Federal Register its release adopting Regulation NMS  1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). In connection with the adoption of Regulation NMS, the Commission amended Rule 301(b)(5) of Regulation ATS  2 under the Exchange Act (“Fair Access Rule”). The Fair Access Rule provides, among other things, that, if an alternative trading system accounts for a certain percentage of the average daily volume in a security over four of the preceding six months, it: (1) Must establish written standards for granting access to trading on its system, and (2) must not unreasonably prohibit or limit any person in respect to access to services offered by such system by applying these written standards in an unfair or discriminatory manner. 3 In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission amended the Fair Access Rule to lower the fair access threshold from 20% of the average daily volume in a security to 5%. The Regulation NMS Adopting Release established an effective date and a compliance date of August 29, 2005 for the amended Fair Access Rule.

A number of questions have been raised during the implementation period regarding the application of the amended Fair Access Rule to different business models. The Commission and its staff are continuing to consider these issues as well as requests for exemptive relief. Delaying the compliance date for thirty days will permit the Commission and its staff additional time to respond to the questions and exemptive requests.

For the reasons cited above and given the impending August 29, 2005 compliance date, the Commission, for good cause, finds that notice and solicitation of comment regarding the extension of the compliance date for the amended Fair Access Rule is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 4 The Commission notes that the compliance date is a few days away, and that a limited extension of the compliance date will provide the Commission and its staff with needed time to resolve implementation issues with respect to various market participants.

Further, the Commission notes that, in light of these time constraints, full notice and comment could not be completed prior to the August 29, 2005 compliance date. The change to the compliance date for amended Rule 301(b)(5) is effective immediately. This date is less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register , in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows effectiveness in less than 30 days after publication for “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” 5

VA's regulation 38 CFR 14.501, “Functions and responsibilities of Regional Counsels,” has the jurisdictions and addresses of Regional Counsels in paragraph (f). This amendment removes obsolete information in that paragraph, regarding the jurisdictions and addresses of Regional Counsels and replaces it with current information. The rule provides updated addresses for several Regional Counsels. Additionally, it reflects a reorganization of the jurisdictions of some Regional Counsels. The 23 regions previously referenced in § 14.501(f) have been consolidated into 22 regions. Accordingly, this rule removes reference to former Region 17 and reflects the revised jurisdictions of Regions 18 and 19 as a result of that reorganization.

These changes to 38 CFR 14.501(f) are being published without regard to notice-and-comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because they involve only matters of agency organization, which are exempted from such procedures by virtue of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Further, because these changes do not involve substantive rules, they are not subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) providing for a 30-day delay in the effective date of substantive rules.

This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This rule would have no such effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this regulatory amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This regulation deals with the internal organization of the VA Regional Counsels and primarily impacts VA and beneficiaries. To the extent that any small entities deal with VA Regional Counsels, this rule merely provides information to assist such entities in identifying and locating the proper Regional Counsel and thus will not have any significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number associated with this rulemaking.

The Postal Service is revising the format required for requests from process servers for change of address or boxholder information, and the format required for requests from government agencies for address information.

Comprehensive information about the Site is available for viewing and copying at the Site information repositories located at:

Electronic Copies: An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software. Internet users may reach CMS's Web page at

• http://www.cms.hhs.gov/regulations ;

• http://www.regulations.gov; or

• http://www.gpoaccess.gpo/nara/index.html.

Order Copies: To order copies of the Federal Register containing this document, send your request to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954.

Specify the date of the issue requested and enclose a check or money order payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or enclose your Visa or Master Card number and expiration date. Credit card orders can also be placed by calling the order desk at (202) 512-1800 (or toll-free at 1-888-293-6498) or by faxing to (202) 512-2250. The cost for each copy is $10.

Photocopies: As an alternative, you can view and photocopy the Federal Register document at most libraries designated as Federal Depository Libraries and at many other public and academic libraries throughout the country that receive the Federal Register .

The Medicare drug discount card program was established by section 101, subpart 4, of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 and is codified in section 1860D-31 of the Social Security Act (the “Act”). On December 15, 2003, in accordance with section 105(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we published the interim final rule with comment period (hereafter referred to as “interim final rule”) for the Medicare drug discount card program on December 15, 2003 (68 FR 69840).

The interim final rule at § 403.813(a) addresses marketing limitations applicable to endorsed discount card sponsors in accordance with section 1860D-31(h)(7)(B) of the Act. Under these marketing limitations, an endorsed sponsor may only market those products and services offered under its endorsed program that are inside the scope of endorsement and permitted under the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

After considering the public comments on these issues we agree with the commenters that this policy does not comply with the intent of the Medicare Modernization Act which directs the Secretary to facilitate efficient enrollment into Part D plans. This final rule allows an endorsed card sponsor to market information to its Medicare drug card enrollees concerning its Part D plans offered by the endorsed card sponsor or an affiliated organization. This change will increase Medicare beneficiaries' awareness and knowledge of Part D plans, thereby facilitating a smooth transition from the Medicare Prescription Drug Discount Card Program to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.

Section 902 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) amended section 1871(a) of the Act and requires, in part, that the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget establish and publish timelines for the publication of Medicare final regulations based on the previous publication of a Medicare proposed or interim final regulation. Section 902(a)(1) of the MMA also states that the timelines for these regulations may vary but shall not exceed 3 years after publication of the preceding proposed or interim final regulation except under exceptional circumstances.

Therefore, we believe that the final rule is in accordance with the Congress's intent to ensure timely publication of final regulations.

Section 403.813(a)(1) of the December 15, 2003 interim final rule provides that an endorsed sponsor may only market those products and services offered under its endorsed program that are inside the scope of endorsement as defined in § 403.806(h) and permitted under § 403.812(b) (pertaining to the HIPAA privacy requirements). Section 403.806(h)(2) defines products and services inside the scope of the Medicare endorsement as products and services that are: (1) Directly related to covered discount card drugs or discounts for over-the-counter drugs; and (2) offered for no additional fee (other than the enrollment fee).

Section 403.813(a) of the interim final rule provides that an endorsed sponsor may not request that a drug card enrollee or an individual seeking to enroll in its endorsed discount card program authorize the endorsed sponsor to use or disclose individually identifiable health information for marketing other products or services not otherwise allowed under § 403.813(a)(1) (§ 403.813(a)(2)); that an endorsed sponsor may not commingle any materials related to the marketing of products or services allowed under § 403.813(a)(1) with other marketing materials (§ 403.813(a)(3)); and that following termination of an endorsed sponsor's endorsement under § 403.820(c), (d) or (e) or termination of the Medicare Drug Discount Card and Transitional Assistance Program, a drug card enrollee's individually identifiable health information collected or maintained by an endorsed sponsor may not be used or disclosed for purposes of marketing any product or service (§ 403.813(a)(4)).

These provisions on marketing limitations are based on section 1860D-31(h)(7)(B) of the Act, which states that an endorsed sponsor may market a product or service under the program only if the product or service is directly related to a covered discount card drug or a discount price for a non-prescription drug, and on section 1860D-31(h)(8) of the Act, which charges us with protecting and promoting the interests of discount card eligible individuals.

In addition to the specific requirements of the Act that the product or services be directly related to a covered discount card drug or a discount on a non-prescription drug, § 403.806(h)(2) of the interim final regulation further requires that products and services inside the scope of endorsement are limited to products or services offered for no additional charge because, as we stated in the preamble, we were concerned that beneficiaries would be unable to access negotiated prices and transitional assistance, as intended by the Congress, if endorsed sponsors required that they pay additional fees for optional products and services. Further, we believed that permitting endorsed sponsors to charge additional fees could be confusing to beneficiaries. Also, if we were to allow endorsed sponsors to charge additional fees, we believe beneficiaries might, in effect, be charged annual enrollment fees higher than the $30 limit mandated by section 1860D-31(c)(2)(B) of the Act, especially if endorsed sponsors were to condition enrollment in their endorsed programs on beneficiaries paying these additional fees.

We received 49 public comments concerning the Medicare drug discount card program. Of these comments, 8 timely comments were received that addressed issues on marketing and information and outreach in two separate areas. A summary of the major issues and our responses are as follows:

Comment: Of the 8 comments related to marketing, 4 of the comments expressed the need to minimize the potential for beneficiary confusion and encouraged us to allow sponsors to provide enrollees with valuable health education and other information. One commenter encouraged us to ensure that the regulation reflect the intent of the conferees that there be a seamless transition between the drug card program and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. The other commenters encouraged us to create guidelines concerning marketing materials and fairness in marketing. None of the comments were opposed to us issuing additional guidelines.

Response: We agree with the commenters' concerns regarding the need to minimize beneficiary confusion by allowing endorsed sponsors to distribute certain important and valuable information to beneficiaries, including information which will promote a smoother transition for drug card enrollees from the Medicare-approved prescription drug discount card program to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 Conference Report clearly articulates this intent where the report discusses the history of the drug card program and its original purpose as an interim step toward prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. Furthermore, a separate discussion appearing in the Conference Report addressing Part D emphasizes the need to facilitate outreach to beneficiaries to ensure participation in Medicare prescription drug coverage and to reduce barriers associated with marketing to minimize the potential for confusion and to facilitate enrollment into the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.

We agree with the commenter that encouraged us to ensure that the regulation reflect the intent of the conferees that there be a seamless transition between the drug card program and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. As we move toward implementation of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, it has become evident that certain aspects of the interim final rule are creating unintended consequences for Medicare beneficiaries and endorsed card sponsors. Specifically the marketing limitations at § 403.813(a) contradict Congressional intent for the Medicare prescription drug discount card program to serve as a transitional program to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. As previously mentioned, the provisions in the interim final rule prevent an endorsed drug card sponsor from marketing its Part D plans to its drug card enrollees. Moreover, we agree that clarifications and modifications to the marketing limitation rules would reduce beneficiary confusion as the drug card program concludes and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit begins. Finally, it is crucial that Medicare beneficiaries have complete and accurate information on the forthcoming Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. We agree with all comments that expressed an important aspect of ensuring that beneficiaries receive this information is by allowing a beneficiary's drug card sponsor, an entity with which the beneficiary is familiar and has an existing relationship to provide educational and related information about the transition to the Medicare prescription drug benefit and the Part D plans that will be offered by the endorsed sponsor or its affiliated organizations. Allowing endorsed sponsors to provide information to their members about certain Part D plans available to them is a component of the Secretary's strategy for meeting his obligation under sections 1851(d)(1) and 1860D-1(c) of the Act to promote an active, informed selection by beneficiaries among their Medicare coverage options.

As a result, this final rule amends § 403.813(a)(1) to allow an endorsed card sponsor to market to its drug card enrollees not only items and products offered within the scope of endorsement, but also Part D plans offered by the endorsed sponsor or an affiliated organization of the endorsed sponsor.

Section 1860D-31(h)(7)(B) of the Act provides that endorsed sponsors may only market products or services “under the program” if they directly relate to either a covered discount card drug or discount prices available for over-the-counter drugs. We believe products or services marketed “under the program” include not only those within the scope of endorsement, but also Part D plans. Because information about Part D plans offered by an endorsed sponsor or its affiliated organizations would reinforce the purpose of the Medicare prescription drug discount card program to serve as a transitional program to the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we believe marketing of such Part D plans constitutes marketing of a product or service under the Medicare prescription drug discount card program. In addition, we believe Part D plans are directly related to covered discount card drugs, as evidenced by the fact that the statutory definition of a covered drug under section 1860D-31(a)(4)(a) of the Act cross-references the definition of covered Part D drug under section 1860D-2(e) of the Act, and thus is identical to the definition of covered Part D drug.

Therefore, we amend the marketing limitations in § 403.813(a)(1) by explicitly stating that Part D plans offered by an endorsed sponsor or its affiliated organization may be directly marketed by the endorsed sponsor to its enrollees. We will not otherwise change the marketing limitation provisions of the interim final rule because we maintain that section 1860D-31(h)(8) of the Act charges us with protecting and promoting the interests of Medicare beneficiaries who may be unable to access negotiated prices and transitional assistance, as intended by the Congress, if endorsed sponsors require that they pay additional fees for optional products and services, such as Part B supplies. Furthermore, permitting endorsed sponsors to charge additional fees for products and services outside the scope of the endorsement could be confusing to beneficiaries. Also, if we were to allow endorsed sponsors to charge additional fees, we believe beneficiaries might, in effect, be charged annual enrollment fees higher than the $30 limit mandated by section 1860D-31(c)(2)(B) of the Act, especially if endorsed sponsors were to condition enrollment in their endorsed programs on beneficiaries paying these additional fees. The amendment to allow marketing of Part D plans makes sense in this instance because in this context it does not negate the intent or practice of the original restriction (for example, regarding Part B supplies). We believe that this amendment is consistent with the intent of the Congress, which would reduce confusion and facilitate a smooth transition to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit which protects and promotes interests of all Medicare beneficiaries. Also, this exception will not affect the enrollment fee.

We will require information and outreach (marketing) materials discussing Part D plans that are disseminated by endorsed drug card sponsors or their affiliated organizations to the endorsed sponsors' drug card enrollees to be approved through the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit review process as described under § 423.50 as opposed to the drug card review process. This change addresses comments that CMS should create guidelines concerning marketing materials and fairness in marketing, and comments that we should endeavor to reduce beneficiary confusion. Using a single review process, with consistent guidelines specifically developed for Part D materials, is the optimal process for ensuring adherence to guidelines and reducing beneficiary confusion. Therefore, we are amending § 403.806(g)(5) to state that all materials related to Part D plans being offered by the same endorsed sponsor or its affiliated organization must comply with the requirements described in § 423.50.

We are cognizant that constraints and clarifications must be made about whose products an endorsed card sponsor may provide marketing materials about to its drug card enrollees. An endorsed drug card sponsor may market a Part D plan offered by it or its affiliated organization. By allowing an endorsed card sponsor to market Part D plans offered by an affiliated organization of the endorsed sponsor, we are treating Part D plans offered by an affiliated organization of the endorsed sponsor as a product or service under the program. Allowing such treatment gives practical effect to the Congressional intent of a smooth transition between the drug card program and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit because it recognizes that rather than offer Part D plans through the same legal entity, organizations may have legitimate business and legal reasons for offering Part D plans through another legal entity, or may offer Part D plans through different legal entities based on geography (for example, Part D plans in region A offered through legal entity A, Part D plans in region B offered through legal entity B). We do not want to constrain an organization's ability to offer its Part D plans through the legal entities that make the most sense given other business and legal considerations. A Part D Plan is not offered under the program, however, if the plan is offered by an organization that is not the endorsed sponsor or an affiliated organization of the endorsed sponsor.

Therefore, we are adding a definition of affiliated organization to § 403.802. This definition would allow an endorsed drug card sponsor to market to its enrollees a Part D plan of an affiliated organization if the organization is legally separate and at least one of the following conditions is met:

(1) Both the affiliated organization and the endorsed drug card sponsor are under common control (common control exists if another entity has the power, directly or indirectly, to significantly influence or direct the actions or policies of the affiliated organization and the endorsed drug card sponsor);

(2) The affiliated organization is under the control of the endorsed drug card sponsor or the affiliated organization controls the endorsed drug card sponsor (control exists if an entity has the power, directly or indirectly, to significantly influence or direct the actions or policies of another entity); or

(3) The affiliated organization possesses an ownership or equity interest of 5 percent or more in the endorsed drug card sponsor on both: The date on which the endorsed drug card sponsor markets the affiliated organization's Part D plan; and the date on which the endorsed drug card sponsor signed its endorsement contract with us. This is to ensure that the entity is currently affiliated with the endorsed sponsor and ensures that a Part D plan does not acquire a drug card sponsor after publication of this rule in order to gain access to the sponsors' drug card enrollees.

We will not permit endorsed sponsors to market to their drug card enrollees Part D plans offered by unaffiliated third parties (as described by this new section) because an endorsed sponsor's marketing of a Part D plan offered by a third party generally is prohibited by the HIPAA privacy rule absent authorization from the individual.

As important, information that is provided by a drug card sponsor about its or its affiliate's Part D plan will, we believe, be more likely to promote a smoother transition to Part D since the beneficiary is familiar with the endorsed sponsor, and we anticipate that there will be similarities between the Medicare drug discount card and the Part D plan (for example, similar pharmacy network, similar formulary).

Furthermore, under certain circumstances, HIPAA may prohibit an endorsed sponsor's marketing of Part D plans offered by certain affiliated entities. Thus, any use or disclosure of enrollee's protected health information by an endorsed card sponsor must comply with all Federal laws, including the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

Except as mentioned below, this final rule incorporates the marketing and information and outreach provisions of the interim final rule. This rule creates a definition at section 403.802 pertaining to the requirements that must be met before an organization will be considered an affiliated organization to an endorsed drug card sponsor.

We are also revising § 403.813 to permit an endorsed card sponsor to market to its drug card enrollees a Part D plan offered by the endorsed sponsor or an affiliated organization of the endorsed sponsor.

We will require information and outreach (marketing) materials provided by an endorsed drug card sponsor that are discussing Part D plan offerings to be approved through the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit review process as described under § 423.50.

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).

We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) and Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental agencies. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6 million to $29 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $110 million. This rule will have no consequential effect on the governments mentioned or on the private sector.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not applicable.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

I. Background

In FR Doc. 05-1322 of January 28, 2005 (70 FR 4588), there were several errors that we identify in the “Summary of Errors” section and correct in the “Correction of Errors” section below. The provisions in this correcting amendment are effective as if they were included in the final rule published January 28, 2005. Accordingly, the corrections are effective retroactive to March 22, 2005, the effective date of most of the provisions of the January 28, 2005 final rule, except for those provisions that are specifically designated in the EFFECTIVE DATES section as being stayed effective September 1, 2005 until January 1, 2006.

In the January 28, 2005 final rule, on page 4588, we inadvertently omitted from the list of provisions that will become effective January 1, 2006, the following provisions relating to changes in the quality improvement provisions in subpart D: §§ 422.152(a)(1) and (c), and 422.156(b)(7). These provisions implement changes to section 1852(e) of the Social Security Act (the Act) that, under section 722(c) of the MMA, apply to contract years beginning on and after January 1, 2006. Sections 422.152(a)(1) and (c) concern the requirement that an MA organization must have a chronic care improvement program for each plan it offers. In order to clarify that these provisions of the quality improvement requirements do not apply to contracts previous to contract periods beginning January 1, 2006, and to comply with the Act, we are staying the effective dates of §§ 422.152(a)(1) and (c) until January 1, 2006. We are also staying § 422.156(b)(7), a quality improvement provision concerning deemable requirements and Part D prescription drug programs offered by MA programs. We also inadvertently omitted from the list of provisions that will become effective January 1, 2006, the following provisions relating to arrangements with federally qualified health centers: §§ 422.316 and 422.527. Section 237(c) of the MMA provides that these changes apply to services provided on or after January 1, 2006, and contract years beginning on or after that date. In order to clarify the effective dates of these provisions and to bring our regulations into conformance with the statute, we are also staying the effective dates of §§ 422.316 and 422.527 until January 1, 2006.

On page 4676, we clarify that an MA organization and not a practitioner is responsible for providing a written notice to the beneficiary when an adverse decision is made in an office setting. In other words, if an enrollee requests an explanation of a practitioner's denial of an item or service, in whole or in part, the MA organization is responsible for giving the enrollee a written notice. We are making a corresponding change to § 422.568(d) of the regulation text.

On page 4681, we inadvertently specified 72 hours as the timeline for the expedited grievance process MA organizations must establish for complaints involving certain procedural matters in the appeals process. In that discussion, we were referring to 42 CFR 422.564(d), which we redesignated in the final rule as § 422.564(f), but did not otherwise change. The timeline, as specified in redesignated § 422.564(f), is actually 24 hours. Our correction now specifies this.

On page 4685, we retained language based on, and references to the proposed rule. As a result, we incorrectly referred to the possibility of public comment, and referred to a table of information collection requirements instead of the section of the final rule specifying such requirements.

In addition to correcting errors in the preamble, in section III of this correcting amendment, we also correct several sections of the regulation text. In the summary of the regulation text corrections, we first discuss, in numerical order, changes that are primarily limited to a specific section of the regulation text. We then discuss changes with a broader scope.

In § 422.2 of the final rule, in the definition of “Provider network,” we inadvertently retained a reference to a “network MSA plan” that is no longer valid.

Also in § 422.2 of the final rule, in the definitions of “Prescription drug plan (PDP)” and “Prescription drug plan (PDP) sponsor,” we incorrectly referred to the pertinent definitions section of the prescription drug regulations. In both instances the references should be to “§ 423.4,” the corresponding definitions section for the prescription drug benefit requirements under Part 423.

In the heading for § 422.6, we are replacing the term “MA user fee” with “Cost-sharing in enrollment-related costs,” as well as removing the first reference in § 422.6(d)(2)(ii) to “200 million” in order to avoid repetition and confusion.

In § 422.6(f)(1)(ii) of the final rule, in our requirements concerning cost-sharing of enrollment-related costs for prescription drug plans (PDPs), we inadvertently did not include the text introducing the assessment formula for PDPs.

In § 422.132, we are replacing the incorrect reference to § 422.502(g) with § 422.504(g). The error came about as a result of our reorganization and revision of these contract-related sections of subpart K for the final rule.

In § 422.152(b)(3)(ii), we replace the incorrect reference to “§ 422.64(c)(10),” a non-existent provision, with the reference, “§ 422.64.”

In § 422.208(c)(2) of the final rule, we retained a reference to periodic surveys that are no longer required as a result of section 222(h) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization and Improvement Act of 2003 (MMA).

In § 422.210, we inadvertently deleted paragraph (b), Disclosure to Medicare beneficiaries, which we intended to retain, with the exception of a reference to surveys no longer required.

In § 422.252, in the definition of “MA monthly supplemental beneficiary premium,” we are correcting the cross reference to § 422.266(b)(2)(i), which does not exist, and replacing it with the correct reference, § 422.266(b)(1).

In § 422.254, paragraph (b)(1)(i), we are removing “statutory non-drug bid amount” and adding “unadjusted MA statutory non-drug monthly bid amount,” the defined term, in its place, which was our original intent.

We are amending § 422.314(c)(1)(i) to remove an inadvertent reference to § 422.306. Section 422.306 concerns the capitation rate but not the calculated payment for deposit in the MA MSA, the requirement that is the subject of § 422.314(c).

We are amending § 422.320(c)(1) by removing “prescription drug beneficiary premium (described at § 422.252)” and replacing this with “prescription drug payment described in § 423.315 (if any)” since § 422.252 refers to the basic definition while § 423.315 describes the actual payment to which § 422.320 is referring. Likewise, we are amending paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of § 422.320 by removing “beneficiary premium (if any)” and adding “payment described in § 423.315 (if any).”

We are amending § 422.458 to include the correct reference to § 422.504(d)(1)(iii), a section specifying contract provisions. Although we revised several sections for the final rule, we inadvertently referred to the previous organization of the managed care regulations and § 422.502(d)(1)(iii) of those regulations.

We are amending § 422.504(h) to reflect the correct reference to the False Claims Act. In the final rule we inadvertently cited “32 U.S.C. 3729 et seq. ,” whereas the correct reference is “31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq. ”

In § 422.510(a)(4), we are replacing the term “PDP sponsor” with “MA organization” as we inadvertently used the term “PDP sponsor” in this section.

In § 422.552(a)(3)(iii), we inadvertently did not make a conforming change to the cross reference and, instead of referring to “subpart J,” we should have referred to “subpart K,” the subpart containing the application and contract requirements.

In § 422.553(b)(2), we inadvertently referred to “subpart L,” when intending to refer to “subpart K,” and the requirements for applications and contracts.

In §§ 422.562(c)(1)(ii) and 422.622(b)(1)(i), which concern the requirements for appeals of quality improvement organization (QIO) determinations, we incorrectly referenced the CFR Parts governing such appeals. As a result, we are amending these sections by replacing the incorrect references with “Parts 476 and 478 of Chapter 42 of the CFR”, the correct references.

In the August 3, 2004 proposed rule (69 FR 46866), we proposed to reorganize and revise subparts F and G due to the substantial revisions that the MMA made to pricing and payment rules for MA organization. In reorganizing and revising these subparts to reflect the new MA bidding and payment procedures, we reversed the order of the subparts and reorganized several of the provisions within the subparts. However, in the final rule, we made several errors as a result of this reorganization. Errors primarily consist of cross-references to subparts F and G or sections of the subparts, and other technical changes resulting from our reference to the previous organization of the subparts. Because there are several related errors involving subparts F and G, we address these together, below.

As a result of reorganizing and revising subparts F and G, we incorrectly referred to, or identified several specific sections of these subparts. In the table of contents for subpart G, we incorrectly identified a section of the subpart. Instead of identifying the Announcement of annual capitation rate, benchmarks, and methodology changes as section § 422.312, we incorrectly identified the section as § 422.311. Other sections in which we incorrectly identified or referred to sections in subparts F and G include §§ 422.60(f), 422.66(f)(1), 422.101 (introductory text), 422.101(b)(3)(i), 422, 100(d)(2), 422.103(d)(2), 422.109(a)(1)(ii), 422.216(b)(2), 422.322(b), 422.500(b), and 422.504(a)(8).

Sections in which we revise incorrect references to the subparts F and G themselves include § 422.504(a)(9) through (a)(10), and the introductory text of § 422.504(l), and § 422.752(a)(2).

In another general change related to revision of the payment provisions, we are replacing incorrect terminology and references to the previous payment system. The changes, which replace the “adjusted community rate” (ACR), an element of the previous payment rate for MA organizations, with language reflecting the new bidding process, affect several sections of the regulation. As we do in our discussion of the cross references to subparts F and G, we are discussing these payment language corrections together.

Sections in which we replace the term “ACR” with “bid” to reflect the new process include §§ 422.206(b)(2)(i) and § 422.503(d)(1). Several of the contract requirements specified in subpart K are also affected. Thus, in § 422.504 we make corrections to reflect the correct payment language in paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(iv), (d)(1)(v) and (l)(4). The changes to remove references to ACR are consistent with § 422.2 of the final rule, where we correctly deleted the definition of ACR.

In another correction affecting several sections of the regulations, we replace incorrect references referring to “encounter data.” Just as we changed the term “ACR” to “bid” in order to be consistent with the statute, we are also changing the term “encounter data” to “data.” Sections affected include § 422.504(a)(8), (l)(2) through (l)(3), and § 422.510(a)(7). In both the proposed and final rules we discussed that we were no longer requiring encounter data and, instead, are requiring other data, to include risk adjustment data. Although we discussed this change in the preamble (see 70 FR 4661), we inadvertently did not revise the regulation text to reflect this.

In our final rule, we stated that MA organizations, like PDP sponsors, are required to maintain data for the current contract period and 10 prior periods. We discussed this requirement in the comments section of the preamble of the final rule and correctly stated the requirement in the published regulation text. Several other sections of the regulation text should have been amended to reflect the data retention requirement. In this correcting amendment we are making conforming change to those sections (see § 422.504(d), (e)(1)(iii), and (i)(2)(ii)).

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporate a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register . This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued. In addition, section 1871(e)(1)(B) of the Act, as amended by section 903(b) of Pub. L. 108-173, provides that substantive changes may take effect before the end of the 30-day period that begins on the date that the Secretary has issued the substantive change only if the waiver of the 30-day period is necessary to comply with statutory requirements or the application of the 30-day delay is contrary to the public interest.

Most of the revisions contained in this rule concern conforming changes, cross references, and typographical errors, and therefore, are not substantive. Because they are not substantive, we find that public comment on these revisions is not necessary. The revisions do not represent changes to our policy, and the public interest would, as a result, be best served by timely correction of these technical errors. A delay in the applicability of the non-substantive changes would be contrary to public interest in that such corrections are necessary for, especially, plans transitioning to the new Medicare Advantage program.

Several of the changes, however, are corrections that could be viewed as substantive. We are staying the effectiveness of certain quality improvement requirements to clarify that MA plans need not meet them until January 1, 2006. Similarly, we are staying the effectiveness of the provisions pertaining to Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) payments. In the case of these substantive corrections, we find that public comment is unnecessary because the corrections are being made to bring the regulations into conformity with the statutory requirements, which themselves do not apply until January 1, 2006. We also find that the 30-day delay ordinarily called for under the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B) of the Act is contrary to the public interest because there is no statutory authority for these regulatory provisions until January 1, 2006, the effective date of the statutory provisions.

Section 1871(e)(1)(A) of the Act, as amended by section 903(a) of Pub. L. 108-173, provides that a substantive change in regulations shall not be applied retroactively to items and services furnished before the effective date of the change, unless the Secretary finds that such retroactive application is necessary to comply with statutory requirements or failure to apply the change retroactively would be contrary to the public interest.

The provisions of this correcting amendment that apply retroactively make no substantive changes, but merely correct minor technical errors. Failure to make these changes retroactive to March 22, 2005, is contrary to the public interest because of the confusion that could result from the technical errors identified above. It is in the public interest to make the corrections retroactive in that it will help prevent confusion among plans that must now follow these requirements for plans offered in January 1, 2006, the year the new MA program requirements are implemented.

Make the following corrections to the January 28, 2005 final rule (70 FR 4588):

1. On page 4676 in column 3, at the end of the first full paragraph add the following: “Thus, we are making a conforming change to § 422.568(d) to provide that if an enrollee requests an MA organization to provide an explanation of a practitioner's denial of an item or service, in whole or in part, the MA organization must give the enrollee a written notice. This change eliminates the practitioner's requirement to deliver a general notice to an enrollee whenever an adverse decision is made in an office setting. An enrollee retains the right to obtain a detailed notice from an MA organization upon an enrollee's request for an explanation of a practitioner's denial.”

2. On page 4681, column 1, line 7, delete “72-hour” and add “24-hour” in its place.

3. On page 4685, column 2—

A. In line 8, remove the word “proposed.”

B. In line 13, remove the word “Table” and add the word “section” in its place.

C. Remove the paragraph beginning line 15.

On July 1, 2004, the Department of the Interior adjusted the location and maintenance fees for mining claims and sites based upon the CPI, as required by the Mining Law. See 69 FR 40294. The Department increased the location fee from $25 to $30 and increased the annual maintenance fee from $100 to $125. The Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005, Division E, Title I, Section 120 of Public Law 108-447 of December 8, 2004, directed the Department of the Interior to roll back these location and maintenance fees for mining claims and sites to their pre-July 2004 level. This meant that, as of December 8, 2004, the location fee was rolled back from $30 to $25 per new location and the annual maintenance fee was rolled back from $125 to $100 per mining claim or site.

However, the 2005 Appropriations Act also provided that the fees would return to their increased levels when the Department met certain conditions, including establishing a plan of operations tracking system and filing a report with Congress regarding the length of time it takes the Department to approve proposed mining plans of operations and recommending steps to reduce current delays. As described in the Federal Register on July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38192) the Department met these conditions on June 30, 2005. Therefore, in accordance with the terms of the 2005 Appropriations Act, the fees returned to the rates established in 2004 on June 30, 2005. Mining claim holders must pay a $30 location fee and a $125 maintenance fee for all mining claims and sites recorded on or after June 30, 2005. In addition, the annual maintenance fee due on or before September 1, 2005, is $125 per mining claim or site.

BLM noted in the July 1, 2005, Federal Register notice that the regulation at 43 CFR 3834.23(c) provides that, if a mining claimant timely pays pre-increase fees, the BLM will provide notice to the claimant and an opportunity to pay the difference. BLM noted that although the fee increase at issue in the July 1, 2005, Federal Register notice was not directly a CPI-based increase, the 2004 increase that has been restored was CPI-based. Therefore, BLM noted that it believed that the cure provisions of the rule will apply if a claimant timely pays at least $100 for a claim or site on or before September 1, 2005. However, the BLM noted that it would publish an additional rule before September 1, 2005, further clarifying that mining claimants may cure the filing of an insufficient payment of fees when the fees have changed through any means, including a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment or other statutorily required adjustment. The purpose of this interim rule is to amend the regulations found at 43 CFR part 3834, subpart B, to make this clarification.

BLM is adopting this interim rule to clarify that mining claimants may cure the filing of an insufficient payment of fees when the fees have changed through means other than a CPI adjustment. The existing provision found at 43 CFR 3834.23(b) provides that, after BLM adjusts the fees to reflect a change in the CPI, as required by the Mining Law, claimants who pay the fees timely, but pay the pre-adjustment amount, will be given an opportunity to cure that insufficient payment. This rule will make this curing provision applicable whenever Congress enacts any other statutes that require an adjustment of the fees.

The Department of the Interior, for good cause, finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that notice and public procedure are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The clarification to the curing provision is a reasonable and equitable administrative way in which to handle fee adjustments and to avoid inadvertent loss of mining claims due to lack of actual notice of an adjustment. It is in the public interest to provide such equitable means for a mining claimant to be able to cure an underpayment of the fees when the claimant has shown an intent to maintain the claim by paying the pre-adjusted fee amount in a timely manner. This will avoid the disruption of mining operations that would be caused if the mining claimant unintentionally loses their mining claim or site due to a minimal underpayment of fees.

We also determine under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) that there is good cause to place the rule into effect on the date of publication, because a fee adjustment has already occurred and the deadline for filing the adjusted fees for all existing mining claims and sites is September 1, 2005. This rule will make it clear that the BLM will give any claimant who pays the pre-adjusted fee amount in a timely fashion an opportunity to pay the additional amount within 30 days. As such, it grants temporary exemption to the immediate forfeiture of a mining claim due to failure to timely pay fees.

This interim rule amends existing regulations at Subpart B of Part 3834. The existing regulations apply to fee adjustments made in accordance with the CPI, as required by the Mining Law. The amendment will apply to fee adjustments made in accordance with other statutes.

In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, BLM has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes the final determination under Executive Order 12866.

• The rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The cure provision does not change the substance of current mining claim administration within BLM.

• This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. It does not change the relationships of BLM to other agencies and their actions.

• This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. The rule does not address any of these programs.

• This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues because it makes no major substantive changes in the regulations. The cure provision avoids any potential takings liability to BLM due to a fee adjustment beyond the control of the BLM.

We certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The rule will have a minor impact because underpaid fees by small entities will be a curable defect. A final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.

For the purposes of this section a “small entity” is an individual, limited partnership, or small company, at “arm's length” from the control of any parent companies, with fewer than 500 employees or less than $5 million in revenue. This definition accords with Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR 121.201.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

• Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. As explained in section I above, the revised regulations will not materially alter current BLM policy. The cure provision avoids any potential adverse effects on the economy.

• Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. This rule may affect the cost to locate, record, or maintain a mining claim or site.

• Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ):

• This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is unnecessary.

• This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year. It is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The changes implemented in this rule do not require anything of any non-Federal governmental entity.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. Nothing in this rule constitutes a taking. This rule will avoid any takings liability that would otherwise arise by not making an underpayment curable. This rule does not substantially change BLM policy.

In accordance with Executive Order 12612, BLM finds that the rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. This rule does not change the role or responsibilities between Federal, State, and local governmental entities, nor does it relate to the structure and role of States or have direct, substantive, or significant effects on States.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, BLM finds that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and therefore meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. BLM consulted with the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor throughout the drafting process.

The BLM has determined this rulemaking does not contain any new information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). The OMB has approved the information collection requirements in the regulations under OMB control number 1004-0114, which expires December 31, 2006.

We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and 318 DM 2.2(g) and 6.3(D). The amended cure provision in this rule is in response to an Act of Congress and allows mining claimants to cure their underpayment of fees that have been adjusted according to the CPI or an Act of Congress. The full effects of the rulemaking that this provision amends are discussed at 68 FR 61063 and those conclusions are adopted here. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded from the need to prepare an Environmental Analysis. Because this rule does not substantially change BLM's overall management objectives or environmental compliance requirements, it would have no impact on, or only marginally affect, the following critical elements of the human environment as defined in Appendix 5 of the BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H-1790-1): air quality, areas of critical environmental concern, cultural resources, Native American religious concerns, threatened or endangered species, hazardous or solid waste, water quality, prime and unique farmlands, wetlands, riparian zones, wild and scenic rivers, environmental justice, and wilderness.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have considered the impact of this rule on the interests of Tribal governments. Because Indian reservation lands are not available for the location of mining claims or sites, this rule does not specifically involve government-to-government relationships. These relationships will remain unaffected.

This rule is not a significant energy action. It will not have an adverse effect on energy supplies. To the extent that the rule affects the mining of energy minerals ( i.e. , uranium and other fissionable metals), the rule may save mining claims or sites that would otherwise be forfeited for the late payment of insufficient location and/or maintenance fees. It will not change financial obligations of the mining industry.

The principal author of this interim rule is Roger Haskins in the Solid Minerals Group, assisted by Frank Bruno in the Regulatory Affairs Group, Washington Office, BLM.

This final rule removes DFARS 225.7008, Restrictions on totally enclosed lifeboat survival systems, and the corresponding contract clause at DFARS 252.225-7039. These restrictions implement Section 8124 of the Fiscal Year 1994 DoD Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 103-139), Section 8093 of the Fiscal Year 1995 DoD Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 103-335), and 10 U.S.C. 2534. The fiscal year 1994 and 1995 appropriations act restrictions are no longer considered applicable. 10 U.S.C. 2534 applies to the acquisition of totally enclosed lifeboats that are components of naval vessels. Since this restriction impacts only the Navy, and 10 U.S.C. 2534(h) specifies that DoD may not use contract clauses or certifications, but must use management and oversight techniques, to implement this restriction, DFARS coverage for implementation of this restriction is considered unnecessary.

DoD published a proposed rule at 70 FR 14628 on March 23, 2005. DoD received no comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the proposed rule as a final rule without change.

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

DoD certifies that this final rule will not 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 domestic source restrictions of 10 U.S.C. 2534 still apply to the acquisition of totally enclosed lifeboats that are components of naval vessels. 10 U.S.C. 2534 requires that DoD acquire such lifeboats only if the manufacturer is part of the national technology and industrial base.

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

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 authorized a centralized program for the offset of Federal payments, including contract payments to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed to the Federal Government. To implement this authority, the Department of the Treasury created the Treasury Offset Program (TOP). The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 authorized the Internal Revenue Service to continuously levy up to 15 percent of certain Federal payments, including contract payments. To implement this authority, the Federal Payment Levy Program (FPLP) was created. The FPLP is an automated process that uses the TOP system to match delinquent tax debts with Federal payments. When a match occurs, the payment is levied and applied to the tax debt. The FPLP process works in tandem with a manual “paper” levy process outlined in 26 U.S.C. 6331-6332.

Section 887, Modification of Continuing Levy on Payments to Federal Vendors, of Public Law 108-357 amends Section 6331(h) of the Internal Revenue Code by raising the amount of levy the Government may withhold on Federal payments for goods or services sold or leased to the Federal Government, from 15 percent to 100 percent.

This interim DFARS rule is intended to address contract non-performance that may result from application of a levy.

While DoD has been participating in the levy program for a number of years, neither the FAR nor the DFARS includes a clause addressing levies. DoD believes that such a clause, along with implementing DFARS language in Part 232, is needed to ensure that all parties understand their rights and obligations related to the assessment of a levy.

DoD is concerned that situations may arise in which the levy of a contract payment could jeopardize contract performance. As such, the DFARS needs to include coverage addressing the process to be followed when such situations arise.

The levy process makes it impractical, in most cases, to identify whether a levy will jeopardize contract performance prior to a contract payment being levied. While the contractor may have received a notice of potential levy, that notice does not identify which contract or contracts to which the levy will be applied. Furthermore, it is the contractor's responsibility for identifying a levy that will significantly impact contract performance, since it is the contractor's liability that has created the situation. Therefore, this interim rule requires that the contractor notify the contracting officer when a levy is imposed on a DoD contract payment and that the contractor state whether it believes the levy jeopardizes contract performance. In addition, the contractor is required to advise the contracting officer if the contractor is aware of any adverse effect on national security that may result from the inability to perform the contract. The contracting officer will take appropriate action on the instant contract.

When the contractor believes the levy jeopardizes contract performance, it is important that DoD have a timely process for addressing those cases. The interim rule requires the Government to promptly review the contractor's assessment and either agree or disagree that contract performance will be jeopardized. When the Government disagrees with the contractor's assessment, the Government will notify the contractor and no further action will be taken. When the Government agrees with the contractor's assessment that the levy will jeopardize contract performance and also believes that the lack of performance will adversely affect national security, some or all of the monies collected will be returned to the contractor. When the Government agrees with the contractor's assessment that the levy will jeopardize contract performance but does not believe that the lack of performance will impact national security, the Government will notify the contractor and will recommend that the contractor promptly contact the IRS to attempt to resolve the tax situation.

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 rule only applies to those contractors that have a delinquent tax debt. 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-D033.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Although the rule requires contractors to provide certain information to the Government when levies are imposed on DoD contract payments, the number of contractors that will be subject to this requirement is expected to be less than 10 per year.

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 establishes DoD policy regarding levies on contract payments. The IRS has begun implementing its legislative authority to levy up to 100 percent of contract payments, up to the amount of tax debt. Such levies could jeopardize contract performance and adversely affect national security. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that all parties understand their rights and obligations related to the assessment of a levy. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.

A. Background

This interim rule adds policy at DFARS 237.171 and a contract clause at DFARS 252.237-7019, Training for Contractor Personnel Interacting with Detainees, to implement Section 1092 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-375). Section 1092 requires DoD to prescribe policies to ensure that members of the Armed Forces, and all persons acting on behalf of the Armed Forces or within facilities of the Armed Forces, treat persons detained by the U.S. Government in a humane manner consistent with the international obligations and laws of the United States. These policies must include requirements for training of DoD contractor personnel interacting with detainees.

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 Government will provide the training required by the rule. 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 2005-D007.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not contain 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 1092 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-375), enacted on October 28, 2004. Section 1092 requires that DoD contractor personnel who interact with detainees receive appropriate training. Such training is needed to ensure that all persons acting on behalf of the Armed Forces treat persons detained by the U.S. Government in a humane manner consistent with the international obligations and laws of the United States. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.

DFARS 242.202(a)(i) specifies that, with certain exceptions, DoD activities shall not retain any contract for administration that requires performance of contract administration functions at or near contractor facilities. This final rule adds a new exception to the policy at DFARS 242.202(a)(i) to reflect a memorandum of agreement between the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Energy Support Center, which provides for the Defense Energy Support Center to perform contract administration functions for all contracts it awards. This arrangement eliminates duplication of effort in the bulk fuel quality management program.

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-D007.

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.

The NMFS Regional Administrator (RA) has adjusted the recreational fishery from U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Alava, WA (Neah Bay Subarea), with one regulatory modification. Effective Tuesday, August 16, 2005, the Neah Bay Subarea was modified to a have a daily bag limit as follows: “All salmon, two fish per day, and all retained coho must have a healed adipose fin clip.” All other restrictions remain in effect as announced for 2005 Ocean Salmon Fisheries. On August 11, 2005, the Regional Administrator had determined that the catch was less than anticipated preseason and that provisions designed to slow the catch of Chinook could be modified.

All other restrictions remained in effect as announced for 2005 Ocean Salmon Fisheries. This action was necessary to conform to the 2005 management goals, and the intended effect is to allow the fishery to operate within the seasons and quotas specified in the 2005 annual management measures. Modification in recreational bag limits and recreational fishing days per calendar week is authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(iii).

In the 2005 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (70 FR 23054, May 4, 2005), NMFS announced the recreational fisheries: the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Alava, WA (Neah Bay Subarea) opened July 1 through the earlier of September 18 or a 12,667 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 4,300 Chinook; the area from Cape Alava to Queets River, WA (La Push Subarea) opened July 1 through the earlier of September 18 or a 3,067 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 1,900 Chinook; the area from Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA (Westport Subarea) opened June 26 through the earlier of September 18 or a 45,066 marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 28,750 Chinook; the area from Leadbetter Point, WA to Cape Falcon, OR (Columbia River Subarea) opened July 3 through the earlier of September 30 or a 60,900-marked coho subarea quota with a subarea guideline of 8,200 Chinook. The Neah Bay and La Push Subareas were opened Tuesday through Saturday, and the Westport and Columbia River Subareas were opened Sunday through Thursday. All subareas had a provision that there may be a conference call no later than July 27 to consider opening seven days per week. All subareas were restricted to a Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches (61.0 cm) total length. In addition, all of the subarea bag limits were for all salmon, two fish per day, no more than one of which may be a Chinook, with all retained coho required to have a healed adipose fin clip.

The recreational fisheries in the area from Cape Alava, WA, to Cape Falcon, OR (La Push, Westport, and Columbia River Subareas), were modified by Inseason Action #5, effective Friday, July 29, 2005, to be open seven days per week, with a modified daily bag limit as follows: “All salmon, two fish per day, and all retained coho must have a healed adipose fin clip.” All other restrictions remain in effect as announced for 2005 Ocean Salmon Fisheries (70 FR 47727, August 15, 2005).

On August 11, 2005, the RA consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife by conference call. Information related to catch to date, the Chinook and coho catch rates, and effort data indicated that the catch was less than anticipated preseason and that the provision designed to slow the catch of Chinook could be modified by relaxing the bag limit. As a result, on August 11, 2005, the states recommended, and the RA concurred, that effective Tuesday, August 16, 2005, the Neah Bay Subarea would be modified to a have a daily bag limit as follows: “All salmon, two fish per day, and all retained coho must have a healed adipose fin clip.” All other restrictions remained in effect as announced for 2005 Ocean Salmon Fisheries.

The RA determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason action recommended by the states. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with this Federal action. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice to fishers of the already described regulatory action was given, prior to the date the action was effective, by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.

This action does not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory action was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. This action complies with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (70 FR 23054, May 4, 2005), the West Coast Salmon Plan, and regulations implementing the West Coast Salmon Plan 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the fishery catch and effort data were collected to determine the extent of the fisheries, and the time the fishery modification had to be implemented in order to allow fishers access to the available fish at the time the fish were available. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of this action would limit fishers appropriately controlled access to available fish during the scheduled fishing season by unnecessarily maintaining the restriction. The action allowed fishers to land up to two of any species of salmon, previously only one of the two fish bag limit could be a Chinook salmon.

This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.