25458 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

interested in being placed on a mailing

list for future NPRM’s should also

request a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A, which describes the application

procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify

Class E airspace at Harbor Springs, MI,

for Harbor Springs Airport. Controlled

airspace extending upward from 700

feet or more above the surface of the

earth is needed to contain aircraft

executing instrument approach

procedures. The area would be depicted

on appropriate aeronautical charts.

Class E airspace areas extending upward

from 700 feet or more above the surface

of the earth are published in paragraph

6005 of FAA order 7400.9G dated

September 1, 1999, and effective

September 16, 1999, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E designations listed in

this document would be published

subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

establishment body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current.

Therefore this, proposed regulation—(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. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this proposed rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, the Federal

Aviation Administration proposes to

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9G, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 1, 1999, and effective

September 16, 1999, is amended as

follows:

* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Harbor Springs, MI [Revised]

Harbor Springs Airport, MI

(Lat. 45°25′32′′N., long. 84°54′48′′W.)

Pellston VORTAC

(Lat. 45°37′50′′N., long. 84°39′51′′W.)

Sault Ste Marie, Chippewa County

International Airport, MI

(Lat. 46°14′03′′N., long. 84°28′21′′W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile

radius of the Harbor Springs Airport and the

airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet

above the surface within an area bounded on

the north by latitude 46°03′00′′N, on the

northeast by the 22-mile radius of the

Chippewa County International Airport, on

the southeast by the 16.6-mile radius of the

Pellston VORTAC, on the south by latitude

45°45′00′′N, and on the west by longitude

85°56′00′′W, excluding that airspace within

V78, and the Manistique, MI, Class E airspace

area.

* * * * *

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on April 17,

2000.

David B. Johnson,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.

[FR Doc. 00–10914 Filed 5–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01–00–007]

RIN 2115–AA97

Regulated Navigation Area, Boston,

MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

decrease the safety zone ahead of loaded

Liquefied Natural Gas tank vessels

while the vessels transit Boston North

Channel and Boston Harbor from two (2)

miles ahead to one (1) mile ahead of the

vessel. This action is necessary to bring

the current safety zone into more

realistic boundaries due to the

configuration of the harbor. This

decrease of one mile ahead of the vessel

will have no effect on the safety of the

transits of these vessels, and will serve

to facilitate commerce in Boston Harbor.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Coast Guard on or before

July 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be made

to: Commanding Officer, Marine Safety

Office Boston, Attn: LT Mike Antonellis,

455 Commercial Street, Boston,

Massachusetts 02109. The Inspections

and Investigations Department

maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents indicated in this preamble as

being available in the docket, will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at

the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT

Mike Antonellis, Marine Safety Office,

Boston, Massachusetts 02109; (617)

223–3000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting comments

and related material. Each person

submitting comments should include

their name and address, identify the

docket number for this rulemaking

(CGD1–00–007), indicate the specific

section of this document to which each

comment applies, and give the reason

for each comment. Comments and

related material should be submitted on

81⁄2′′×11′′ paper in a format suitable for

copying. Persons requesting

acknowledgement of receipt of

comments should enclose a stamped,

self-addressed postcard or envelope. All

comments and material submitted

during the comment period will be

considered by the Coast Guard and may

change this proposal.

Public Meeting

The Coast Guard has no plans to hold

a public meeting. Persons may request

a public meeting by writing to Marine

Safety Office, Boston, MA at the address

under ADDRESSES explaining why one

would be beneficial. If the Coast Guard

determines that oral presentations

would aid this rulemaking, it will hold

one at a time and place announced by

a later notice in the Federal Register.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 25459

Background and Purpose

The purpose of this regulation is to

allow for more realistic management of

the current safety zone. The current

safety zone is for two (2) miles ahead of

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tank

vessels when transiting Boston Harbor.

During these transits, two (2) miles

ahead of the vessel is not always visible

from the vessel, due to the physical

configuration of the harbor.

LNG tank vessels transit Boston

Harbor approximately once a week.

Currently, a safety zone is in place two

(2) miles ahead of a loaded LNG vessel

and one (1) mile astern of the vessel

while transiting Boston Harbor. The

current two (2) mile ahead distance

extends beyond the harbor for the

majority of the transit. Reducing this

distance to one (1) mile will allow a

more realistic management of the safety

zone by eliminating areas beyond the

harbor and main ship channel from the

safety zone.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

The existing rule will be amended to

reduce the safety zone from two (2)

miles ahead to one (1) mile ahead of all

Liquefied Natural Gas tank vessels

transiting Boston Harbor. The purpose

of this regulation is to allow for more

realistic management of the current

safety zone due to the physical

configuration of the harbor.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office

of Management and Budget has not

reviewed it under that Order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040,

February 26, 1979).

The Coast Guard expects the

economic impact of this proposed rule

to be so minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is unnecessary.

As this proposed rule will decrease

the boundaries of an already existing

safety zone, the economic impact

should be minimal, as fewer entities

will be affected by the new safety zone.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Coast Guard

considered whether this proposed rule

would have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’

comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are

independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

This proposed rule would affect the

following entities, some of which might

be small entities: the owners or

operators of vessels intending to transit

or anchor in a portion of Boston Harbor

during Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier

transits.

This reduction of the safety zone

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities for the following reasons.

Although the safety zone would apply

to the majority of the harbor, traffic

would be allowed to pass through the

zone with the permission of the Coast

Guard patrol commander. Before the

effective period, maritime advisories

would be made to notify all users of the

harbor.

If you think that your business,

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity

and that this rule would have a

significant economic impact on it,

please submit a comment (see

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it

qualifies and how and to what degree

this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),

we want to assist small entities in

understanding this proposed rule so that

they can better evaluate its effects on

them and participate in the rulemaking.

If the rule would affect your small

business, organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions

concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please contact LT Mike

Antonellis, Marine Safety Office,

Boston, MA 02109; (617) 223–3000.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no

new collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and has

determined that this rule does not have

implications for federalism under that

Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect a

taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under E.O.

12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not concern an environmental risk

to health or risk to safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Environment

We considered the environmental

impact of this proposed rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.lC, this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

A categorical exclusion is not required

for actions that reduce the size of a

safety zone.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Regulation

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–6 and 160.5; 49 CFR

1.46.

25460 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

§ 165.110 [Amended]

2. In § 165.110(a)(1), remove the

words ‘‘two miles’’ and add, in its place,

the words ‘‘one mile’’.

Dated: April 3, 2000.

J.R. Whitehead,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, Boston, Massachusetts.

[FR Doc. 00–10848 Filed 5–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[OK–19–1–7453b; FRL–6582–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: Oklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We propose to approve the

section 111(d) Plan submitted by the

Oklahoma Department of Environmental

Quality on November 17, 1999, to

implement and enforce the Emissions

Guidelines (EG) for existing Hospital/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators

(MWI). The EG require States to develop

plans to reduce toxic air emissions from

all MWIs. In the final rules section of

this Federal Register, we are approving

the State Plan as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because we view

this as a noncontroversial amendment

and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to this rule, no further activity

is contemplated in relation to this rule.

If we receive adverse comments, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn, and

all public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. We will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. Please see the direct final

notice of this action located elsewhere

in today’s Federal Register for a

detailed description of the Oklahoma

State Plan.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You should address

comments on this action to Lt.

Commander Mick Cote, EPA Region 6,

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 1445

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas

75202. Copies of all materials

considered in this rulemaking may be

examined during normal business hours

at the following locations: EPA Region

6 offices, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202, and at the

Oklahoma Department of Environmental

Quality offices, 707 North Robinson,

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101–1677.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt.

Commander Mick Cote at (214) 665–

7219.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: March 31, 2000.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 00–10762 Filed 5–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Inspector General

42 CFR Part 1003

RIN 0991–AB04

Medicare and State Health Care

Programs: Fraud and Abuse; Civil

Money Penalty Safe Harbor To Protect

Payment of Medicare Supplemental

Insurance and Medigap Premiums for

ESRD Beneficiaries

AGENCY: Office of Inspector General

(OIG), HHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

5201 of the Omnibus Consolidated and

Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999,

this proposed rule would set forth in the

OIG’s civil money penalty provisions in

42 CFR part 1003 a new safe harbor for

unlawful inducements to beneficiaries

to provide protection for independent

dialysis facilities that pay, in whole or

in part, premiums for Supplementary

Medical Insurance (Medicare Part B) or

Medicare Supplemental Health

Insurance policies (Medigap) for

financially needy Medicare beneficiaries

with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

This safe harbor would specifically

establish various standards and

guidelines that, if met, would result in

the particular arrangement being

protected from civil sanctions under

section 1128A(a)(5) of the Social

Security Act.

DATES: To assure consideration, public

comments on this proposed rule must

be delivered to the address provided

below by no later than 4:30 p.m. on July

3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please mail or deliver your

written comments to the following

address: Office of Inspector General,

Department of Health and Human

Services, Attention: OIG–699–P, Room

5546, Cohen Building, 330

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20201. We do not

accept comments by facsimile (FAX)

transmission. In commenting, please

refer to code OIG–699–P.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie

Kass (202) 205–9501 or Joel Schaer (202)

619–0089, Office of Counsel to the

Inspector General.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Section 1128A(a)(5) of the Social

Security Act

The Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA),

Public Law 104–191, amended the

Social Security Act (Act) to prohibit

providers from offering patients any

inducement to order or receive items or

services from a particular provider,

practitioner or supplier. Specifically,

section 231(h) of HIPAA established a

new provision—section 1128A(a)(5) of

the Act—to provide for the imposition

of a civil money penalty (CMP) against

any person who:

Offers or transfers remuneration to any

individual eligible for benefits under

[Medicare or Medicaid] that such person

knows or should know is likely to influence

such individual to order or receive from a

particular provider, practitioner, or supplier

any item or service for which payment may

be made, in whole or in part, under

[Medicare or Medicaid].

Section 231(h) of HIPAA also created

a new section 1128A(i)(6) of the Act to

define the term ‘‘remuneration’’ for

purposes of the new CMP. The section

defines ‘‘remuneration,’’ in relevant

part, as ‘‘transfers of items or services

for free or for other than fair market

value.’’ Remuneration does not include

certain enumerated practices, including

waivers of coinsurance and deductible

amounts, if the waiver: (1) Is not

advertised; (2) is not routinely offered;

and (3) is made following an

individualized good faith assessment of

financial need or is made after

reasonable efforts to collect the

coinsurance or deductible amounts have

failed. There is no exception for the

payment of Medicare Part B or Medigap

insurance premiums on behalf of

beneficiaries even when the same

criteria are met.