Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31129

decisions in the real world. More

specifically, under what circumstances

can clinical trial findings be generalized

from the study population to the

Medicare population? In addition,

under what circumstances can the

controlled delivery setting of the

clinical trial be generalized and

reproduced in the current health care

delivery setting or to a different health

care delivery setting?

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires

that agencies assess anticipated costs

and benefits before issuing any rule that

may result in an expenditure in any year

by State, local, or tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million. The notice would not

have any unfunded mandates.

Executive Order 13132 establishes

certain requirements that an agency

must meet when it promulgates a notice

that imposes substantial direct

compliance costs on State and local

governments, preempts State law, or

otherwise has Federalism implications.

The notice would not impose

compliance costs on the governments

mentioned.

In accordance with the provisions of

Executive Order 12866, this notice was

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget.

Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and

1395hh).

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital

Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,

Medicare—Supplementary Medical

Insurance Program)

Dated: April 5, 2000.

Nancy-Ann Min DeParle,

Administrator, Health Care Financing

Administration.

Approved: April 20, 2000.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–12237 Filed 5–11–00; 12:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 206

RIN 3067–AD08

Disaster Assistance; Debris Removal

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We (FEMA) propose to

change the scope of activities that are

determined to be in the public interest

following a declared disaster. We

propose to provide funding for the

removal of debris and wreckage when

communities convert property acquired

through a FEMA program for hazard

mitigation purposes to uses compatible

with open space, recreational, or

wetlands management practices.

DATES: We invite your comments and

will accept them until June 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please send any comments

to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the

General Counsel, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, room 840, 500 C

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(facsimile) 202–646–4536, or (email)

rules@fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa M. Howard, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, room 713, 500 C

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202) 646–4240, or (email)

melissa.howard@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We

consider that it is in the public interest

to remove substantially damaged

structures and related slabs, driveways,

fencing, garages, sheds, and similar

appurtenances from properties that are

part of a FEMA-funded hazard

mitigation buyout and relocation

project. When the principal structure

has been substantially damaged by a

major disaster, the removal of such

items will help mitigate the risk to life

and property by converting the property

to uses that are compatible with open

space, recreational and wetland

management practices. Federal

assistance used in this way supports the

effort to break the cycle of repetitive

damage and repair and is in the public

interest because it is less costly to

taxpayers than the cycle of repetitive

damage and repair. Mitigation through

buyout and relocation also substantially

reduces the risk of future infrastructure

damage and personal hardship, loss and

suffering.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is excluded from the

preparation of an environmental

assessment or environmental impact

statement under 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii),

where the rule is related to actions that

qualify for categorical exclusion under

44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(vii).

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

This proposed rule would not

adversely affect the availability of

disaster assistance funding to small

entities, would not have significant

secondary or incidental effects on a

substantial number of small entities,

and would not create any additional

burden on small entities. It adds a

category of property eligible to receive

public assistance following a declared

disaster, and will thus benefit those

small entities that qualify for this

assistance.

As Director I certify that this proposed

rule is not a significant regulatory action

within the meaning of section 2(f) of

E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, 58

FR 51735, and that it attempts to adhere

to the regulatory principles set forth in

E.O. 12866. The Office of Management

and Budget has reviewed this rule under

E.O. 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule does not contain

a collection of information and therefore

is not subject to the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

In publishing this proposed rule, we

considered the President’s Executive

Order 13132 on Federalism. This

proposed rule makes no changes in the

division of governmental

responsibilities between the Federal

government and the States, but adds a

category of property eligible to receive

public assistance following a declared

disaster. We have determined that

Executive Order 13132 does not apply

to this regulatory action, and we have

not prepared a Federalism assessment.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206

Disaster assistance.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 44

CFR part 206 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 206

continues to read as follows:

Authority: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42

U.S.C. 5121 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No.

3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.,

p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979

Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3

CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; and E.O. 12673, 54

FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 214.

PART 206—FEDERAL DISASTER

ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERS

DECLARED ON OR AFTER

NOVEMBER 23, 1988

2. Amend § 206.224 by revising

paragraph (a)(3) and adding paragraph

(a)(4) to read as follows:

§ 206.224 Debris removal.

(a) * * *

(3) Ensure economic recovery of the

affected community to the benefit of the

community-at-large; or

(4) Mitigate the risk to life and

property by removing substantially

damaged structures and associated

31130 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1Most common carriers and conferences have

delegated the responsibility for public accessibility,

and the authority to assess charges for such access,

to their agents, the tariff publishers. Nevertheless,

the Commission will continue to look to common

carriers and conferences, as the regulated entities,

to ensure compliance with applicable laws and

regulations.

2On the other hand, our review indicates that of

the top ten publishers, two tariff publishers have no

access charges.

appurtenances as needed to convert

property acquired through a FEMA

hazard mitigation program to uses

compatible with open space,

recreational, or wetland management

practices.

* * * * *

Dated: May 8, 2000.

James L. Witt,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–12284 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

46 CFR Part 520

[Docket No. 00–07]

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking Concerning Public Access

Charges to Carrier Automated Tariffs

and Tariff Systems Under the Ocean

Shipping Reform Act of 1998

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime

Commission is concerned that certain

tariff access charges and minimum

monthly subscription requirements may

limit the public’s ability to access tariffs

and tariff systems, contrary to the

requirements of the Ocean Shipping

Reform Act of 1998. The Commission,

therefore, is seeking public comments to

address the reasonableness of tariff

access charges.

DATES: Comments on or before June 15,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments (original and 15

copies) are to be submitted to: Bryant L.

VanBrakle, Secretary, Federal Maritime

Commission, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20573, (202) 523–

5725.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Austin L. Schmitt, Director, Bureau of

Trade Analysis, Federal Maritime

Commission, Washington, DC 20573,

(202) 523–5796.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective

May 1, 1999, the Ocean Shipping

Reform Act of 1998 (‘‘OSRA’’), Pub. L.

105–258, 112 Stat. 1902, modified the

Shipping Act of 1984 (‘‘1984 Act’’), 46

U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq. to require

common carriers and conferences to

publish their rates in private, automated

tariff systems. OSRA requires these

tariffs to be made available

electronically to any person, without

limits on time, quantity, or other such

limitation, through appropriate access

from remote locations, and authorizes

that ‘‘a reasonable charge’’ may be

assessed for access (except for access by

Federal agencies). 46 U.S.C. app.

1707(a)(2)). In addition, the legislative

history concerning public access to

tariffs provides the following guidance:

The Act’s requirement that common carrier

tariffs be kept open to public inspection is

retained. . . . . . . . There should be no

government constraints on the design of a

private tariff publication system as long as

that system assures the integrity of the

common carrier’s tariff and the tariff

system as a whole, and the system provides

the appropriate level of public access to

the common carrier’s tariff information. S.

Rep. No. 61, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. at 23

(1997) (emphasis added).

The Commission believes that in

passing OSRA, Congress intended to

provide the general public access to

tariff information at a nominal cost.

Moreover, most businesses have now

embraced the Internet as an important

and user-friendly means of conveying

information to potential customers at

little or no cost to the customer. The

Commission is concerned that certain

access charges and minimum

subscription requirements may limit the

public’s ability to access the carriers’

tariff information that is now available

on the Internet, contrary to the

intentions of OSRA. Several informal

complaints have been received by the

Commission regarding carrier tariff

systems 1 and the level of access

charges, while others have questioned

the propriety of time and quantity

restrictions. A Commission staff review

of tariff access charges indicates the

existence of a wide range of charges

and/or monthly minimums. For

example, it has been brought to the

Commission’s attention that in some

tariff systems, a public user desiring to

check one term of a bill of lading or one

rate, would have to subscribe to the

system for a minimum of three months

at a cost as high as $1,500.2

Because the charges of some carriers

may limit public availability and access

to tariffs contrary to the intentions of

OSRA, the Commission is initiating this

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to address the issue of a

‘‘reasonable charge’’ for tariff access.

The Commission is seeking comments

from interested parties on any aspect of

this issue, and particularly on the

following questions:

(1) Should the Commission

promulgate any regulations or

guidelines on the subject of ‘‘reasonable

charges’’ for access to tariffs or tariff

systems?

(2) Should a determination of the

reasonableness of an access charge be

based only on whatever additional costs

may be incurred by carriers in making

their tariffs accessible to the public and

not include any costs for developing or

maintaining tariffs that are the result of

the carriers’ responsibilities under

OSRA?

(3) Should the public’s cost to access

carrier tariffs be similar to that

encountered in accessing information

made available on the Internet by other

businesses?

(4) Should the public’s cost to access

carrier tariffs be comparable to that

afforded to the public for the entire

universe of carriers’ tariffs under the

Commission’s former ATFI system?

(5) Should the number of tariffs

accessible within any one system be

considered in determining a ‘‘reasonable

charge’’?

In addition to soliciting the comments

of regulated entities and tariff

publishers, the Commission encourages

any interested party to comment on

these questions and on any experiences

associated with the costs of accessing

carrier tariffs.

By the Commission.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–12191 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–918; MM Docket No. 99–206; RM–

9625]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Kimberly, ID

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; denial.

SUMMARY: This document denies a

petition for rule making filed by

Mountain West Broadcasting proposing

the allotment of FM Channel 291C3 to

Kimberly, Idaho, as that locality’s first

local aural transmission service. See 64

FR 31176, June 10, 1999. Evidence

presented established that the proposed

transmitter site at coordinates 42–30–22

NL and 114–21–45 WL to accommodate