34986 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

whether satisfactory progress has been

made are specified in the terms and

conditions included in the notice of

grant award sent to each State. HCFA

advises each State as to when to make

application, what to include in the

application, and provides information

as to the timing of the grant award and

the duration of the grant award. HCFA

also provides an estimate of the amount

of funds that may be available to the

State.

3. In § 403.504, paragraph (a) and the

introductory text of paragraph (b), are

revised to read as follows:

§ 403.504 Number and size of grants.

(a) General. For available grant funds,

up to and including $10,000,000, grants

will be made to States according to the

terms and formula in paragraphs (b) and

(c) of this section. For any available

grant funds in excess of $10,000,000,

distribution of grants will be at the

discretion of HCFA, and will be made

according to criteria that HCFA will

communicate to the States via grant

solicitation. HCFA will provide

information to each State as to what

must be included in the application for

grant funds. HCFA awards the following

type of grants:

(1) New program grants.

(2) Existing program enhancement

grants.

(b) Grant Award. Subject to the

availability of funds, each eligible State

that submits an acceptable application

receives a grant that includes a fixed

amount (minimum funding level) and a

variable amount.

* * * * *

4. Section 403.508(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 403.508 Limitations.

(a) Use of grants. Except as specified

in paragraph (b) of this section, and in

the terms and conditions in the notice

of grant award, a State that receives a

grant under this subpart may use the

grant for any reasonable expenses for

planning, developing, implementing,

and/or operating the program for which

the grant is made as described in the

solicitation for application for the grant.

* * * * *

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—

Hospital Insurance; and Program No.

93.774, Medicare—Supplementary

Medical Insurance Program)

Dated: December 3, 1999.

Nancy-Ann Min DeParle,

Administrator, Health Care Financing

Administration.

Approved: March 27, 2000.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–13601 Filed 5–31–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Office of Inspector General

45 CFR Part 5b

RIN 0991–AA99

Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Office of Inspector General

(OIG), HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule exempts the

new system of records, the Healthcare

Integrity and Protection Data Bank

(HIPDB), from certain provisions of the

Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). The

establishment of the HIPDB is required

by section 1128E of the Social Security

Act (the Act), as added by section 221(a)

of the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.

Section 1128E of the Act directed the

Secretary to establish a national health

care fraud and abuse data collection

program for the reporting and disclosing

of certain final adverse actions taken

against health care providers, suppliers

or practitioners, and to maintain a data

base of final adverse actions taken

against health care providers, suppliers

and practitioners. Regulations

implementing the new HIPDB were

published in the Federal Register on

October 26, 1999 (64 FR 57740). The

exemption being set forth in this rule

applies to investigative materials

compiled for law enforcement purposes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

June 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick

Burguieres, Investigative Policy and

Information Management Staff, Office of

Investigations, (202) 205–5200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Healthcare Integrity and

Protection Data Bank

The Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996,

Public Law 104–191, requires the

Secretary, acting through the Office of

Inspector General (OIG) and the United

States Attorney General, to establish a

new health care fraud and abuse control

program to combat health care fraud and

abuse (see section 1128C of the Act, as

enacted by section 201(a) of HIPAA).

Among the major steps in this program

is the establishment of a national data

bank to receive and disclose certain

final adverse actions against health care

providers, suppliers, or practitioners

(see section 1128C(a)(1)(E) of the Act).

The establishment of the data bank is

required by section 1128E of the Act

(added by section 221(a) of HIPAA),

which directs the Secretary to maintain

a data base of such final adverse actions.

Final adverse actions include: (1) Civil

judgments against a health care

provider, supplier, or practitioner in

Federal or State court related to the

delivery of a health care item or service;

(2) Federal or State criminal convictions

against a health care provider, supplier,

or practitioner related to the delivery of

a health care item or service; (3) actions

by Federal or State agencies responsible

for the licensing and certification of

health care providers, suppliers, or

practitioners; (4) exclusion of a health

care provider, supplier, or practitioner

from participation in Federal or State

health care programs; and (5) any other

adjudicated actions or decisions that the

Secretary establishes by regulations.

Settlements in which no findings or

admissions of liability have been made

will be excluded from reporting.

However, any final adverse action that

emanates from such settlements, and

that would otherwise be reportable

under the statute, is to be reported to the

data bank. Final adverse actions are to

be reported, regardless of whether such

actions are being appealed by the

subject of the report (see section

1128E(b)(2)(C) of the Act). Final

regulations implementing the statutory

requirements of section 1128E of the Act

and establishing the new HIPDB were

published in the Federal Register on

October 26, 1999 (64 FR 57740).

Groups that have access to this new

data bank system include Federal and

State government agencies; health plans;

and self queries from health care

suppliers, providers and practitioners.

Reporting is limited to the same groups

that have access to the information. One

of the primary purposes of these data

will be use of this information by a

Federal or State government agency

charged with the responsibility of

investigating or prosecuting a case

where there is an indication of a

violation or potential violation of law,

whether civil, criminal or regulatory in

nature. The information in this system

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34987

1Subsections (c)(3), (d)(1)–(4), and (e)(4)(G) and

(H) of the Privacy Act, in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

522a(k)(2) and 45 CFR 5b.11(b)(ii)(F).

2The HIPAA, which mandates that the HIPDB

information be available to law enforcement

agencies, requires that the HIPDB be established to

function in coordination with the existing National

Practitioner Data Bank—a computerized system that

functions exclusively by electronic reporting and

on-line access by users (42 U.S.C. 1320a07e(f)).

Further, section IV of the Health Care Fraud and

Abuse Control Program and Guidelines, issued by

the Attorney General and the Secretary of HHS

under HIPAA, calls for the establishment of an

adverse action data bank with electronic reporting

and on-line access by authorized users to minimize

costs and maximize response times.

may also be used in the preparation for

a trial or hearing for such violation.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

On October 26, 1999, the Department

also published, through the Office of

Inspector General, a proposed rule (64

FR 57619) to exempt this new records

system from certain provisions of the

Privacy Act.1 This proposed exemption

was intended to protect, from release to

the record subject, information on law

enforcement queries to the data bank, to

exempt the data bank from Privacy Act

access and amendment procedures in

order to establish access and

amendment procedures in the HIPDB

regulations. The proposed rule

specifically sought public comments on

the proposed exemption.

In accordance with the rulemaking,

record subjects would be guaranteed

access to, and correction rights for,

substantive information reported to the

HIPDB. The procedures, set out in 45

CFR part 61, use the Privacy Act access

and correction procedures as a basic

framework while, at the same time,

providing significant additional rights

(such as automatic notification to the

record subject of any report filed with

the data bank). Data bank subjects

would also have broader rights on

HIPDB correction procedures, including

the right to file a statement of

disagreement as soon as a report is filed

with the data bank.

III. Response to Public Comments

In response to the proposed rule, we

received timely-filed public comments

from two health professional

organizations. Set forth below is a

summary of those comments and our

response to those concerns.

Comment: One commenter believed

that the provisions to exempt the HIPDB

from provisions of the Privacy Act were

duplicative and unnecessary. The

commenter believed that this waiver

was not necessary since the Privacy Act

already contains an exemption for law

enforcement queries.

Response: The commenter is correct

that a law enforcement agency may

request information from the HIPDB by

having an appropriate official formally

file a written request under 5 U.S.C.

552a(b)(7). Such queries are not

available to the subject of the Privacy

Act record under 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3).

However, requiring law enforcement

agencies to use the more cumbersome

process of submitting requests in

writing defeats one of the primary

purposes of the HIPDB, which is to

provide for instant, online access to data

for its designated users, including law

enforcement agencies.2 Therefore,

disclosures to law enforcement agencies

will generally be made in accordance

with the routine use provision of the

Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3), and

this exemption is necessary to protect

the queries from release to the record

subject.

Comment: One commenter stated that

the proposed modification to 45 CFR

5b.11(b)(2)(ii) appeared to exempt all

queries from the history disclosure

requirement of the Privacy Act, rather

than just those that are made by law

enforcement agencies. The commenter

indicated, however, that nothing in

proposed subparagraph (F) of this

section would limit the exemption to

law enforcement queries.

Response: As stated in the proposed

rule, subjects will have access to

information on all other queries to the

data bank. The exemption is only

intended to protect against harm to

ongoing investigations. Under the

HIPDB implementing regulations

(October 26, 1999; 64 FR 57740),

information reports made available to

the report subjects will include all other

query information.

Comment: One association indicated

their support of the proposed

modification regarding the exemption of

law enforcement agencies from the

Privacy Act, but recommended that the

regulatory agencies, such as dental

boards, also be included in the

exemption.

Response: As indicated above, the

exemption is designed to protect only

law enforcement queries permitted by

the statute. If a governmental agency is

entitled to access the HIPDB for law

enforcement purposes, that query would

be covered by the exemption. Questions

on what types of queries are ‘‘law

enforcement’’ queries can always be

raised with the OIG’s Office of

Investigations’ Investigative Policy and

Information Management Staff at (202)

205–5200.

IV. Regulatory Impact Statement

The Office of Management and Budget

has reviewed this final rule in

accordance with the provisions of

Executive Order 12866, the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act and Executive

Order 13132, and has determined that

this rule does not meet the criteria for

an economically siginificant regulatory

action.

Specifically, Executive Order 12866

directs agencies to assess all costs and

benefits of available regulatory

alternatives and, when rulemaking is

necessary, to select regulatory

approaches that maximize net benefits,

including potential economic,

environmental, public health, safety

distributive and equity effects. Section

202 of the Unfunded Mandates reform

Act, Public Law 104–4, requires that

agencies prepare an assessment of

anticipated costs and benefits on any

rule that may result in an expenditure

by State, local or tribe governments, or

by the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any given year. In addition,

under the Small Business Enforcement

Act (SBEA) of 1996, if a rule has a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small businesses,

the Secretary must specifically consider

the economic effect of a rule on small

business entities and analyze regulatory

options that could lessen the impact of

the rule. Further, Executive Order

13132, Federalism, requires agencies to

determine if a rule will have a

significant effect on States, on their

relationship with the Federal

Government, and on the distribution of

power and responsibility among the

various levels of government.

In accordance with the exemption

being set forth in this rule, while the

reports of adverse actions to the HIPDB

will be known to the subjects of the

records in the data bank, the access and

use of such information by law

enforcement agencies would not be

known to the subjects of the records. As

indicated above, we believe that

disclosure of this information could

have a negative impact and compromise

ongoing law enforcement activities.

We believe that the aggregate

economic impact of this final rule is

minimal and will have no effect of the

economy or on Federal or State

expenditures. Similarly, we believe that

there are no significant costs associated

with this Privacy Act exemption that

will impose any mandates on State,

local or tribal governments or on the

private sector that will result in an

expenditure of $100 million or more in

any given year. In addition, in

accordance with the provisions of the

34988 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

SEBA and the threshold criteria of

Executive Order 13132, the Secretary

certifies that this exemption will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

and will not significantly affect the

rights, roles and responsibilities of

States, and that a full analysis under

these Acts is not necessary.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 5b

Privacy.

Accordingly, the Department’s

Privacy Act regulations at 45 CFR part

5b are amended as set forth below:

PART 5b—[AMENDED]

Part 5b are amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 5b

continue to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a.

2. Section 5b.11 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(F) to

read as follows:

§ 5b.11 Exempt systems.

* * * * *

(b) Specific systems of records

exempt. ***

(2) * * *

(ii) * * *

(F) Investigative materials compiled

for law enforcement purposes for the

Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data

Bank (HIPDB), of the Office of Inspector

General. (See § 61.15 of this title for

access and correction rights under the

HIPDB by subjects of the Data Bank.)

* * * * *

Dated: March 7, 2000.

June Gibbs Brown,

Inspector General.

Approved: March 20, 2000.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–13602 Filed 5–31–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4152–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–1122; MM Docket No. 98–198; RM–

9304, RM–9492, RM–9548, RM–9547]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Cross

Plains, Allen, Benbrook, Brownwood,

Burkburnett, Campbell, Clifton,

Coleman, Commerce, Detroit, Graham,

Granbury, Haskell, Kerens, Mason,

Jacksboro, McKinney, Muenster, San

Saba, Snyder, Terrell, Vernon, Waco,

and Wichita Falls, TX; Alva, Anadarko,

Antlers, Ardmore, Atoka, Comanche,

Dickson, Duncan, Durant, Eldorado,

Hugo, and Lone Grove, OK

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule, petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

Jayson D. Fritz and Janice M. Fritz, this

document dismisses a Petition for

Partial Reconsideration directed to the

Report and Order in this proceeding.

See 63 FR 63016, November 10, 1998.

With this action, this docketed

proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau (202)

418–2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Order in MM Docket No.

98–198 adopted May 18, 2000, and

released May 19, 2000. The full text of

this decision is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center at

Portals ll, CY–A257, 445 12th Street,

SW, Washington, D.C. The complete

text of this decision may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., (202) 857–3805, 1231 20th

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–13595 Filed 5–31–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–1062; MM Docket No. 99–341; RM–

9776]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Gwinn,

MI

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel

262C3 to Gwinn, Michigan, in response

to a petition filed by AFB/Gwinn

Broadcasting. See 64 FR 68665,

December 8, 1999. The coordinates for

Channel 262C3 at Gwinn are 46–17–20

NL and 87–21–10 WL. There is a site

restriction 6.8 kilometers (4.3 miles) east

of the community. Canadian

concurrence has been received for the

allotment of Channel 262C3 at Gwinn.

With this action, this docketed

proceeding is terminated. A filing

window for Channel 262C3 at Gwinn

will not be opened at this time. Instead,

the issue of opening a filing window for

this channel will be addressed by the

Commission in a subsequent order.

DATES: Effective June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 99–341,

adopted May 3, 2000, and released May

12, 2000. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the Commission’s

Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy

contractors, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Michigan, is amended

by adding Gwinn, Channel 262C3.