p.1 

OAR Box 1813 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

165) F.R. June 27, 1995 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 11/5/2008 1:25:06 PM Sheet 165 of 166 
P.2 

Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 123 / Tuesday. June 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 33121 

Drafting Information 

The drafters of this notice are LCDR 

J. A. Bigley, Project Officer, and LCDR 

John Odell, Project Attorney. Thirteenth 

Coast Guard District Legal Office. 

Discussion of Regulation 

In the past, the U.S. Navy has relied 

on Naval Restricted Area (NRA) 

regulations established by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to meet 

the needs of national security and 

public safety on the waters of Sinclair 

Inlet adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval 

Shipyard (PSNY). These NRA 

regulations are codified at 33 CFR 

334.1240. A recent Federal court 

decision indicates that these regulations 

do not apply to swimmers, divers, and 

other individuals not embarked on 

vessels. 

In light of this court decision, the 

Commanding Officer, Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard, reviewed the physical 

security and safety conditions around 

the shipyard's active piers and 

drydocks. Based in this review, the 

Commanding Officer concluded that 

swimmers, divers, and other individuals 

not embarked in vessels may pose a 

serious threat to the security of the 

shipyard if these individuals are 

allowed to enter the waters of Sinclair 

Inlet adjacent to the shipyard. Moreover, 

persons swimming or diving in these 

waters may be exposed to numerous 

dangers associated with the industrial 

waterfront facilities at the shipyard. 

These dangers include maneuvering 

U.S. Navy vessels, underwater pump 

suctions and discharges, rotating 

propellers, and rigging and crane 

operations over the water. Based on this 

review of the security and safety 

conditions at the shipyard, the U.S. 

Navy requested the Coast Guard to 

establish a limited access area in the 

waters surrounding the shipyard. 

In response to the U.S. Navy's request, 

the Coast Guard is establishing a 

combined security and safety zone on 

the waters of Sinclair Inlet adjacent to 

the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. This 

combined security and safety zone 

approximates and overlaps the existing 

NRA. 

The Coast Guard has determined that 

a security zone is warranted and 

appropriate becau.se a security zone is 

intended for the protection of assets 

which are vital to the national interest. 

Vessels moored or drydocked at the 

pyard can easily be approached Et 

the water and are vulnerable to acts of 

sabotage. Regulating access to the water 

areas around tha shipyard provides a 

means of countering this threat without 

unnecessarily interfering with the 

public's use of the u 

security zone will keep unauthorized 

persons and vessel 

and facilities al the nnd will 

allow early dei unauthorized 

entry. 

The Coast Guard has determined 

v zone is also warrant*"' 

a safety zone is intended to ensure the 

safety of the public on I ible 

waters of the United States. Persons and 

vessels operating in and on the waters 

of Sinclair Inlet adjacent to the shipyard 

are exposed to the numerous haz.: 

associated with a waterfront industrial 

iv. Excluding unauthorized 

persons and ve i of 

Sinclair Inlet will redm k of 

ients and injuries involving 

members of the public without 

unnecessarily interfering with the 

public's use of the waterway. 

These regulations exempt certain 

categories of persons and vessels from 

some or all of the restrictions imposed 

by the security and safety zone. Other 

exemptions may be granted where the 

Captain of the Port, Puget Sound. 

Commanding Officer, Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard, have agreed that access 

to the shipyard does not pose a threat 

to security or safety at the shipyard ai 

it is in the national interest. Persons and 

vessels requesting an exemption to enter 

the security and safety zone must 

request and receive authority from the 

Captain of the Port. Puget Sound, via the 

Security Officer, Puget Sound Na 

Shipyard. Bremerton, Washington. 

This combined security and safety 

zone will be enforced by the Captain of 

the Port, Puget Sound, and by his 

designated representatives. Designated 

representatives of the Captain of the 

Port may include Coast Guard 

commissioned officers and p* 

officers. The U.S. Navy may assist 

Coast Guard in the patrol, monitoring, 

and enforcement of the security and 

safety zone. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This action 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 th al 

order. It has been exempted from review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under that order. It is not 

significant under the regulatory poi ii 

and procedures of the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) (44 CFR 11040; 

February 26.1979). The ard 

expects the economic impact ol I 

proposal to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 

if the regulatory policies and 

procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This 

;t the 

NRA regulations al. 

comm 

tin- watei 

Small Entities 

(5 U.S 

must ci will 

substantial nun 

"Small 

busine 

organizations that are indent 

dominant in thi 

governmental juria with 

populations of less than 

For the n 

Guard 

to be minimal on a I 

the Coast (• 

605(b)lhal thi 

significant 

initial number ol small • 

Collection of Information 

This temporary fin 

collection-of-inform 

under the Paperwork Reduction A 

U.S.C. 3501 etsi 

Federalism 

The Coa 

action under the princip 

contained i 

have sufficient federal i 

warrant the prepai 

Assessment. 

Environment 

The Coast Gu. tin; 

environmental lmpa< t oi 

and concluded 

2.B.2 of Commandant Ins 

M16475.1B. this pit 

categorically excluded from fun 

environmental i 

"Categoric 

is available 

py ing were in i FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors. Mar 

r), Report i 

Vessels. Watt 

Regulation 

In considerate 

165 of Title 33 

Regul 

conth 
P.3 

33122 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 

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

33 CFR 1.05-l(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; 

49 CFR 1.46. 

2. A new Section 165T. 13-026 is 

added to read as follows: 

§165.T13-026 Security and Safety Zone; 

Sinclair Inlet, WA 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

combined security and safety zone: 

All waters of Sinclair Inlet, Puget 

Sound, Bremerton, Washington, 

bounded by a line commencing at 

latitude 47°33'04" N, longitude 

122°39'41" W; thence to latitude 

47°33'04" N, longitude 122°39'07" W; 

thence to latitude 47°33'07" N, 

longitude 122°38'59" W; thence to 

latitude 47°33'07" N, longitude 

122°38'29" W; thence to latitude 

47°33'23" N, longitude 122°37'45" W; 

thence to latitude 47°33'3'9" N, 

longitude 122°37'27" W; thence to 

latitude 47°33'42" N, longitude 

122°37'28" W; and thence along the 

shoreline to the point of origin. 

This combined security and safety 

zone roughly conforms to the 

configuration of the shoreline of the 

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, measuring 

approximately 3500 yards along the 

shoreline and extending approximately 

150 yards into Sinclair Inlet. 

[Datum: NAD 83] 

(b) Regulations. (1) In accordance 

with the general regulations in Sections 

165.23 and 165.33 of this part, no 

person or vessel may enter or remain in 

this zone unless specifically listed in 

subparagraph (b)(2) of this section or 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Puget Sound, or his designated 

representatives. 

(2) The general regulations in Sections 

165.23 and 165.33 of this part do not 

apply to the following persons or 

vessels; 

(i) Public vessels of the United States. 

(ii) Vessels performing work at Puget 

Sound Naval Shipyard under contract 

with the United States Navy. 

(iii) Any other vessel or person 

mutually agreed upon in advance by the 

Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, and 

Commanding Officer, Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard. Vessels or persons 

entering the security and safety zone 

under this exemption must have 

previously obtained a copy of a 

certificate of exemption permitting their 

entry in the zone from the Security 

Office, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, 

Bremerton, Washington. This written 

exemption shall state the date(s) on 

which it is effective and may contain 

any further restrictions on movement 

and activities within the zone as have 

been previously agreed upon by the 

Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, and 

Commanding Officer, Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard. The certificate of 

exemption shall be maintained onboard 

the exempted vessel or on the person of 

the exempted individual at all times 

when present in the zone. 

(c) Enforcement. This combined 

security and safety zone will be 

enforced by the Captain of the Port, 

Puget Sound, and by his designated 

representatives. Designated 

representatives of the Captain of the 

Port may include Coast Guard 

commissioned officers and petty 

officers. The U.S. Navy may assist the 

Coast Guard in the patrol, monitoring, 

and enforcement of the security and 

safety zone. 

(d) Effective dates. This section 

becomes effective on June 12,1995 at 5 

p.m. (PDT) and terminates on 

September 9,1995 at 4:30 p.m. unless 

sooner terminated by the Captain of The 

Port. 

Dated: June 12,1995. 

J. A. Pierson, 

Capt., U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

Thirteenth Coast Guard District, Acting. 

[FR Doc. 95-15757 Filed 6-26-95; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-14-M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[AD-fRL-5226-1] 

National Emission Standards for 

Chromium Emissions From Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects errors 

and clarifies regulatory text in the final 

rule published on January 25,1995, at 

60 FR 4948 concerning national 

emission standards for chromium 

emissions from hard and decorative 

chromium electroplating and chromium 

anodizing tanks. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: These corrections 

become effective June 27,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lalit Banker, Emission Standards 

Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541-5420. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 25,1995, the EPA promulgated 

in the Federal Register (60 FR 4948) 

final national emission standards for 

chromium emissions from hard and 

decorative chromium electroplating and 

chromium anodizing tanks. These 

standards were promulgated as subpart 

N in 40 CFR part 63. As published, the 

final regulations contain errors which 

may prove to be misleading and are in 

need of clarification. This document 

contains corrections to editorial errors 

in the final standards. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental Protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 15,1995. 

Richard D. Wilson, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 

subpart N of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is corrected as follows: 

PART 63—[CORRECTED] 

1. On page 4963, in the first column, 

the designations (b)(4) and (5) are 

corrected to read (b)(5) and (6) in § 63.14 

and amendatory instruction number 2 is 

corrected to read: 

"2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) to read 

as follows:" 

2. On page 4966, in the second 

column, § 63.342 in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) 

line 8, is corrected to read "for that even 

and shall report by phone such". 

3. On page 4966, in the third column, 

§ 63.343 in paragraph (a)(2) last line, is 

corrected to read "schedule of § 63.6 

(b)(1)." 

4. On page 4967, in the second 

column, § 63.343 in paragraph (a)(5) last 

line, is corrected to read "that the large 

designation is met, or by the compliance 

date specified in paragraph (a)(l)(ii) of 

this section, whichever is later." 

5. On page 4979, in the first column, 

paragraph 1.2, after the first sentence 

add the sentence "The sample time has 

to be at least 2 hours." 

6. On page 4986, in the third column, 

paragraph 3.1.1, in line 2, the word 

"inner" is corrected to read "inside." 

7. On page 4988, in the first column, 

paragraph 3.1.4, in line 4, the word 

"absorbing" is corrected to read 

"pollutant in the absorbing." Also, in 

line 8, the word "bleak-tight" is 

corrected to read "leak-tight." 

8. On page 4988, in the third column, 

paragraph 5.1.1.1, in line 9, the word 

"velocity" is corrected to read "velocity 

pressure." 

9. On page 4990, in the second 

column, paragraph 5.1.1.3, in lines 4 

and 5, remove the words "using velocity 
3312 2 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 

P.4 

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

33 CFR 1.05-l(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; 

49 CFR 1.46. 

2. A new Section 165T.13-026 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 1S5.T13-026 Security and Safety Zone; 

Sinclair Inlet, WA 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

combined security and safety zone: 

All waters of Sinclair Inlet, Puget 

Sound, Bremerton, Washington, 

bounded by a line commencing at 

latitude 47°33'04" N, longitude 

122°39'41" W; thence to latitude 

47°33'04" N, longitude 122°39'07" W; 

thence to latitude 47°33'07" N, 

longitude 122°38'59" W; thence to 

latitude 47°33'07" N, longitude 

122°38'29" W; thence to latitude 

47°33'23" N, longitude 122°37'45" W; 

thence to latitude 47°33'39" N, 

longitude 122°37'27" W; thence to 

latitude 47°33'42" N, longitude 

122°37'28" W; and thence along the 

shoreline to the point of origin. 

This combined security and safety 

zone roughly conforms to the 

configuration of the shoreline of the 

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, measuring 

approximately 3500 yards along the 

shoreline and extending approximately 

150 yards into Sinclair Inlet. 

[Datum: NAD 83] 

(b) Regulations. (1) In accordance 

with the general regulations in Sections 

165.23 and 165.33 of this part, no 

person or vessel may enter or remain in 

this zone unless specifically listed in 

subparagraph (b)(2) of this section or 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Puget Sound, or his designated 

representatives. 

(2) The general regulations in Sections 

165.23 and 165.33 of this part do not 

apply to the following persons or 

vessels; 

(i) Public vessels of the United States. 

(ii) Vessels performing work at Puget 

Sound Naval Shipyard under contract 

with the United States Navy. 

(iii) Any other vessel or person 

mutually agreed upon in advance by the 

Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, and 

Commanding Officer, Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard. Vessels or persons 

entering the security and safety zone 

under this exemption must have 

previously obtained a copy of a 

certificate of exemption permitting their 

entry in the zone from the Security 

Office, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, 

Bremerton, Washington. This written 

exemption shall state the date(s) on 

which it is effective and may contain 

any further restrictions on movement 

and activities within the zone as have 

been previously agreed upon by the 

Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, and 

Commanding Officer, Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard. The certificate of 

exemption shall be maintained onboard 

the exempted vessel or on the person of 

the exempted individual at all times 

when present in the zone. 

(c) Enforcement. This combined 

security and safety zone will be 

enforced by the Captain of the Port, 

Puget Sound, and by his designated 

representatives. Designated 

representatives of the Captain of the 

Port may include Coast Guard 

commissioned officers and petty 

officers. The U.S. Navy may assist the 

Coast Guard in the patrol, monitoring, 

and enforcement of the security and 

safety zone. 

(d) Effective dates. This section 

becomes effective on June 12,1995 at 5 

p.m. (PDT) and terminates on 

September 9,1995 at 4:30 p.m. unless 

sooner terminated by the Captain of The 

Port. 

Dated: June 12,1995. 

J. A. Pierson, 

Capt., U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

Thirteenth Coast Guard District, Acting. 

[FR Doc. 95-15757 Filed 6-26-95; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-14-M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOM 

AGEMCV 

/ 

40 CFR Part S3 

[AD-FRL-5226-1] 

National Emission Standards for 

Chromium Emissions From [-lard and 

Decorative CD.iroinr.iun. Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects errors 

and clarifies regulatory text in the final 

rule published on January 25,1995, at 

60 FR 4948 concerning national 

emission standards for chromium 

emissions from hard and decorative 

chromium electroplating and chromium 

anodizing tanks. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: These corrections 

become effective June 27,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lalit Banker, Emission Standards 

Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541-5420. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 25,1995, the EPA promulgated 

in the Federal Register (60 FR 4948) 

final national emission standards for 

chromium emissions from hard and 

decorative chromium electroplating and 

chromium anodizing tanks. These 

standards were promulgated as subpart 

N in 40 CFR part 63. As published, the 

final regulations contain errors which 

may prove to be misleading and are in 

need of clarification. This document 

contains corrections to editorial errors 

in the final standards. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental Protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 15,1995. 

Richard D. Wilson, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 

subpart N of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is corrected as follows: 

PART 63—[CORRECTED] 

1. On page 4963, in the first column, 

the designations (b)(4) and (5) are 

corrected to read (b)(5) and (6) in §63.14 

and amendatory instruction number 2 is 

corrected to read: 

"2. Section 63.14 is amended bv 

adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) to read 

as follows:" 

2. On page 4966, in the second 

column, §63.342 in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) 

line 8, is corrected to read "for that even 

and shall report by phone such". 

3. On page 4966, in the third column, 

§63.343 in paragraph (a)(2) last line, is 

corrected to read "schedule of § 63.6 

(b)(1)." 

4. On page 4967, in the second 

column, §63.343 in paragraph (a)(5) last 

line, is corrected to read "that the large 

designation is met, or by the compliance 

date specified in paragraph (a)(l)(ii) of 

this section, whichever is later." 

5. On page 4979, in the first column, 

paragraph 1.2, after the first sentence 

add the sentence "The sample time has 

to be at least 2 hours." 

6. On page 4986, in the third column, 

paragraph 3.1.1, in line 2, the word 

"inner" is corrected to read "inside." 

7. On page 4988, in the first column, 

paragraph 3.1.4, in line 4, the word 

"absorbing" is corrected to read 

"pollutant in the absorbing." Also, in 

line 8, the word "bleak-tight" is 

corrected to read "leak-tight." 

8. On page 4988, in the third column, 

paragraph 5.1.1.1, in line 9, the word 

"velocity" is corrected to read "velocity 

pressure." 

9. On page 4990, in the second 

column, paragraph 5.1.1.3, in lines 4 

and 5, remove the words "using velocity 
P.5 

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 123 /Tuesday , June 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3312 1 

Drafting Information 

The drafters of this notice are LCDR 

J. A. Bigley, Project Officer, and LCDR 

John Odell, Project Attorney, Thirteenth 

Coast Guard District Legal Office. 

Discussion of Regulation 

In the past, the U.S. Navy has relied 

on Naval Restricted Area (NRA) 

regulations established by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to meet 

the needs of national security and 

public safety on the waters of Sinclair 

Inlet adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval 

Shipyard (PSNY). These NRA 

regulations are codified at 33 CFR 

334.1240. A recent Federal court 

decision indicates that these regulations 

do not apply to swimmers, divers, and 

other individuals not embarked on 

vessels. 

In light of this court decision, the 

Commanding Officer, Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard, reviewed the physical 

security and safety conditions around 

the shipyard's active piers and 

drydocks. Based in this review, the 

Commanding Officer concluded that 

swimmers, divers, and other individuals 

not embarked in vessels may pose a 

serious threat to the security of the 

shipyard if these individuals are 

-allowed to enter the waters of Sinclair 

Inlet adjacent to the shipyard. Moreover, 

persons swimming or diving in these 

waters may be exposed to numerous 

dangers associated with the industrial 

waterfront facilities at the shipyard. 

These dangers include maneuvering 

U.S. Navy vessels, underwater pump 

suctions and discharges, rotating 

propellers, and rigging and crane 

operations over the water. Based on this 

review of the security and safety 

conditions at the shipyard, the U.S. 

Navy requested the Coast Guard to 

establish a limited access area in the 

waters surrounding the shipyard. 

In response to the U.S. Navy's request, 

the Coast Guard is establishing a 

combined security and safety zone on 

the waters of Sinclair Inlet adjacent to 

the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. This 

combined security and safety zone 

approximates and overlaps the existing 

NRA. 

The Coast Guard has determined that 

a security zone is warranted and 

appropriate because a security zone is 

intended for the protection of assets 

which are vital to the national interest. 

Vessels moored or drydocked at the 

shipyard can easily be approached from 

the water and are vulnerable to acts of 

sabotage. Regulating access to the water 

areas around the shipyard provides a 

means of countering this threat without 

unnecessarily interfering with the 

public's use of the waterway. The 

security zone will keep unauthorized 

persons and vessel away from vessels 

and facilities at the shipyard and will 

allow early detection of unauthorized 

entry. 

The Coast Guard has determined that 

a safety zone is also warranted because 

a safety zone is intended to ensure the 

safety of the public on the navigable 

waters of the United States. Persons and 

vessels operating in and on the waters 

of Sinclair Inlet adjacent to the shipyard 

are exposed to the numerous hazards 

associated with a waterfront industrial 

facility. Excluding unauthorized 

persons and vessels from this area of 

Sinclair Inlet will reduce the risk of 

accidents and injuries involving 

members of the public without 

unnecessarily interfering with the 

public's use of the waterway. 

These regulations exempt certain 

categories of persons and vessels from 

some or all of the restrictions imposed 

by the security and safety zone. Other 

exemptions may be granted where the 

Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, and 

Commanding Officer, Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard, have agreed that access 

to the shipyard does not pose a threat 

to security or safety at the shipyard and' 

it is in the national interest. Persons and 

vessels requesting an exemption to enter 

the security and safety zone must 

request and receive authority from the 

Captain of the Port, Puget Sound, via the 

Security Officer, Puget Sound Naval 

Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. 

This combined security and safety 

zone will be enforced by the Captain of 

the Port, Puget Sound, and by his 

designated representatives. Designated 

representatives of the Captain of the 

Port may include Coast Guard 

commissioned officers and petty 

officers. The U.S. Navy may assist the 

Coast Guard in the patrol, monitoring, 

and enforcement of the security and 

safety zone. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This action 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. It has been exempted from review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under that order. It is not 

significant under the regulatory policies 

and procedures of the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) (44 CFR 11040; 

February 26,1979). The Coast Guard 

expects the economic impact of this 

proposal to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 

lOe of the regulatory policies and 

procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This 

expectation is based on the fact that the 

NRA regulations already prohibit 

commercial navigation from entering 

the waters adjacent to the shipyard. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)„the Coast Guard 

must consider whether this action will 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

"Small entities" may include (1) small 

businesses and not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently ' 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields and (2) 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

For the reasons stated under the 

Regulatory Evaluation above, the Coast 

Guard expects the impact of this action 

to be minimal on all entities. Therefore, 

the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b)i that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Collection of Information 

This temporary final rule contains no 

collection-of-information requirements 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 etseq.). 

Federalism 

The Coast Guard has analyzed this 

action under the principals and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 12612 and 

has determined that this action does not 

have sufficient federal implications to 

warrant the preparation of a Federal 

Assessment. 

Environment 

The Coast Guard considered the 

environmental impactof this proposal 

and concluded that under paragraph 

2.B.2 of Commandant Instruction 

M16475.1B, this proposal is 

categorically excluded from further 

environmental documentation. A 

"Categorical Exclusion Determination" 

is available in the docket for inspection 

or copying were indicated under FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Vessels, Waterways. 

Regulation 

In consideration of the foregoing, Part 

165 of Title 33, Code of Federal 

Regulations, is amended as follows: 1. 

The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 
P.6 

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3312 3 

traverse data obtained earlier in the 

day." 

10. On page 4990, in the third 

column, paragraph 5.1.1.3, in line 1, 

remove the word "velocity." 

11. On page 4990, in the second 

column, paragraph 5.1.1.5, in lines 2 

and 3, remove the words "before 

sampling." 

12. On page 4992, in the first column, 

paragraph 5.1.2.2, in line 2, the words 

"and turn" are corrected to read "and 

seal the port. Turn." 

13. On page 4993, in the second 

column, paragraph 1.2, in line 7, the 

word "bathreduces" is corrected to read 

"bath reduces." 

14. On page 4993, in the second 

column, paragraph 2.2, in line 1, the 

words "Preciser Tensiometer: A 

Preciser" are corrected to read 

"Tensiometer: A." 

15. On page 4993, in the second 

column, paragraph 3.1, in lines 2 and 5, 

remove the words "Preciser." 

16. On page 4993, in the third 

column, paragraph 3.2.(b), in line 2, thefigure ."40" is corrected to read "45." 

17. On page 4993, in the third 

column, paragraph 4.2, in line 6, remove 

the word "Preciser." 

[FR Doc. 95-15430 Filed 6-26-95; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES 

Health Care Financing Administration 

42 CFR Part 413 

[BPD^-689-F] 

RIN 0938-AE80 

Medicare Program; Uniform Electronic 

Cost Reporting-System for Hospitals 

AGENCY: Health Care Financing 

Administration (HCFA), HHS. 

ACTION:'Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule responds to 

comments on the May 25, 1994, final 

rule with comment period that 

implemented a standardized electronic 

cost reporting system for all hospitals 

under the Medicare program. In that 

rule, we solicited comments on the 

requirement that cost reporting software 

be able to detect changes made to the 

electronic file after the provider has 

submitted it to the fiscal intermediary. 

This final rule responds to comments on 

that requirement and clarifies that 

although changes to the "as-filed" 

electronic cost report are prohibited, an 

intermediary makes a working copy of 

the as-filed electronic cost report for use 

in the settlement process. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations are 

effective on July 27,1995. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Talbott (410) 966-4592. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. General 

Under Medicare, hospitals are paid 

for inpatient hospital services that they 

furnish to beneficiaries under Part A 

(Hospital Insurance). Currently, most 

hospitals are" paid for their inpatient 

hospital services under the prospective 

payment systems for operating and 

capital costs in accordance with 

sections 1886(d) and (g) of the Social 

Security Act (the Act) and 42 CFR Part 

412. Under these systems, Medicare 

payment is made at a predetermined, 

specific rate for each hospital discharge 

based on the information contained on 

actual bills submitted. 

Section 1886(f)(1)(A) of the Act 

provides that the Secretary will 

maintain a system for reporting costs of 

hospitals paid under the prospective 

payment systems. Section 412.52 

requires all hospitals participating in 

the prospective payment systems to 

meet the recordkeeping and cost 

reporting requirements of §§ 413.20 and 

413.24, which include submitting a cost 

report for each 12-month period. 

The hospitals and hospital units that 

are excluded from the prospective 

payment systems are generally paid an 

amount based on the reasonable cost of 

services furnished to beneficiaries. The 

inpatient operating costs of these 

hospitals and hospital units are subject 

to the ceiling on the rate of hospital cost 

increases in accordance with section 

1886(b) of the Act and § 413.40. 

Sections 1815(a) andl833(e) of the 

Act provide that no payments will be 

made to a hospital unless it has 

furnished the information, requested by 

the Secretary, needed to determine the 

amount of payments due the. hospital 

under the Medicare program. In general, 

hospitals submit this information 

through cost reports that cover a 12-

month period. 

All hospitals participating in the 

Medicare program, whether they are 

paid on a reasonable cost basis or under 

the prospective payment systems, are 

required under § 413.20(a) to "maintain 

sufficient financial records and 

statistical data for proper determination 

of costs payable under the program." In 

addition, hospitals must use 

standardized definitions and follow 

accepted accounting, statistical, and 

reporting practices. Under the 

provisions of §§ 413.20(b) and 413.24(f), 

hospitals are required to submit cost 

reports annually, with the reporting 

period based on the hospital's 

accounting year. 

Section 1886(f)(l)(B)(i) of the Act 

provides that the Secretary will place 

into effect a standardized electronic cost 

reporting format for hospitals under 

Medicare. This standardized electronic 

cost reporting format does not require 

any additional data from hospitals. 

Section 1886(f)(l)(B)(ii) of the Act 

provides that the Secretary may delay or 

waive the implementation of the 

electronic format in instances where 

such implementation would result in 

financial hardship for a hospital (for 

example, a hospital with a small 

percentage of inpatients entitled to 

Medicare benefits). These provisions 

apply to hospital cost reporting periods 

beginning on or after October 1, 1989. 

B. Provisions of the August 19, 1991 

Proposed Rule 

On August 19,1991, we published a 

proposed rule (56 FR 41110) to 

implement sections 1886(f)(l)(B)(i) and 

(ii) of the Act..We proposed that cost 

reports be submitted in a standardized 

electronic format. We proposed that the 

hospitals cost report software must be 

able to produce a standardized output 

file in American Standard Code for 

Information Interchange (ASCII) format. 

We proposed that all intermediaries 

have the ability to read this 

standardized file and produce an 

accurate cost report. We proposed rules 

for suspension of Medicare payment if 

a hospital refuses to submit the cost 

report electronically. We also specified 

that if a hospital believes that 

implementation of the electronic 

submission requirement would cause a 

financial hardship, the hospital should 

submit a written request for a waiver or 

a delay of these requirements, with 

supporting documentation, to the 

hospital's intermediary. See section III 

of the proposed xule (56 FR 41111 

through 41112). 

C. Provisions of the May 25, 1994 Final 

Rule With Comment Period 

On May 25,1994, we published a 

final rule with comment period to 

confirm the proposed regulations and 

respond to public comments on the 

proposed rule (59 FR 26960). As a result 

of public comments on the proposed 

rule, we eliminated the requirement that 

providers file a hard copy cost report in 

addition to the electronic file. Instead, 

we required that, in addition to the 

electronic file, a hospital must submit 

hard copies of a settlement summary, a 

statement of certain worksheet totals 

found in the electronic file, and a signed 

statement certifying the accuracy of the 
P.7 

3312 4 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 

electronic file or the manually prepared 

cost report. 

The purpose of these changes was to 

reduce the burden on providers and 

ensure the accuracy of the data 

contained in the electronic file. 

However, we also needed to ensure the 

electronic cost report is not altered once 

it leaves the provider^ Thus, in 

conjunction with the changes made 

based on public comments, we 

implemented several changes designed 

to preserve the integrity of the electronic 

cost report once the provider files it 

with the intermediary. We required in 

§413.24(f)(4)(ii) that the provider's 

software must be capable of disclosing 

that changes have been made to the cost 

report file after the provider has 

submitted it to the intermediary. We 

stated that electronic cost reporting 

software will be modified so that the 

cost report will calculate a "hash total," 

that is, a number representing the sum 

of the worksheet totals contained in the 

provider's as-filed cost report. If any 

data in the electronic file are changed 

after the hash total is calculated, the 

electronic file will disclose that a 

change has been made. We also required 

that an intermediary may not alter a cost 

report once it has been filed by a 

hospital and must reject any cost report 

that doesjiot pass all specified edits and 

return it to the provider for correction. 

Because providers may not have 

anticipated the changes needed to 

preserve the integrity of the cost report, 

we solicited comments on the 

requirement in § 413.24(f)(4)(h) that all 

cost reporting software must be able to 

disclose changes made to the electronic 

file after the provider has submitted its 

cost report to the intermediary. 

II. Discussion of Public Comments 

In response to the May 25,1994 final 

rule with comment period, we received 

three timely items of correspondence 

related to the requirement that cost 

reporting software be able to detect 

changes to the electronic cost report 

after the provider has submitted it to the 

intermediary. 

Comment: One commenter pointed 

out that a strict interpretation of the 

requirement in § 413.24(f)(4)(ii) that the 

"intermediary may not alter the cost 

report once it has been filed by the 

hospital" would mean that the 

intermediary could not make audit 

adjustments to the provider's as-filed 

electronic cost report. Another 

commenter asked whether, the 

intermediary can adjust the cost report 

for additional information not required 

for acceptability but needed in such 

cases as Hospital Cost Report 

Information System (HCRIS), 

preparation. 

Response: We did not intend to imply 

that the intermediary may not make 

audit adjustments to a provider's cost 

report. To clarify this point, we are 

revising § 413.24(f)(4)(ii) to state that the 

as-filed cost report may not be altered, 

but the intermediary must make a 

working copy of the as-filed cost report, 

to be used for the settlement process. 

Specifically, we are. revising 

§ 413.24(f)(4)(ii) to require that— 

• The fiscal intermediary store the 

hospital's as-filed electronic cost report 

and not alter that file for any reason. 

• The fiscal intermediary make a 

working copy of the as-filed electronic 

cost report to be used, as necessary, 

throughout the settlement process (that 

is, desk review, processing audit 

adjustments, final settlement, etc). 

The fiscal intermediary may also 

employ a working copy of the as-filed 

electronic cost report for making any 

adjustments needed for HCRIS 

purposes. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that, to maintain the integrity of the 

provider's electronic file, HCFA should 

require the establishment of a print file 

submitted on diskette as a substitute for 

the hard copy cost report. Another 

commenter supported the use of "hash 

totals" in the electronic cost report 

(ECR) if the vendors are able to create 

ECR files that cannot be edited without 

detection. The commenter suggested 

that the "hash totals" in the ECR be 

printed in cost report text and on the 

hard copy certification page. The 

commenter also indicated that time and 

date stamps on the ECR file and printed 

cost report are not useful. 

Response: As stated in the final rule 

with comment period, hospitals are no 

longer required to submit hard copies of 

the cost report in addition to the 

electronic file. We agree with the 

commenters' suggestion that an 

electronic file containing the complete 

printed text of the provider's cost report 

should be submitted in place of the hard 

copy. Since the ASCII file contains 

input data only, the print file will be 

helpful in settling discrepancies 

between the fiscal intermediary's 

settlement amounts and the provider's 

settlement amounts. Therefore, we 

intend to publish in the Provider 

Reimbursement Manual (HCFA Pub. 

15-11) the requirement that providers 

submit an electronic file containing the 

entire printed text and an encryption 

file (hash totals) of the provider's cost 

report in addition to the ASCII file used 

for electronic cost reporting. 

We disagree that the time and date 

stamps on the electronic cost report are 

not useful. The time and date stamps on 

the electronic cost report file must agree 

with the certification page that 

accompanies the electronic cost report 

file. This requirement assures us that 

the cost report has been reviewed and 

accepted and has not been altered after 

certification by the signing officer. This' 

requirement coupled with the 

encryption file will ensure that the 

integrity of the file has been maintained. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the regulation mention what the 

responsibility of each of the 11 vendors 

will be to maintain consistency between 

software programs, particularly in the 

implementation of edits. The 

eommenter indicated that if the ADR 

vendor establishes additional edits not 

specified by HCFA, the electronic cost 

report file created by the provider's 

software vendor system may result in 

rejection by the intermediary. This 

possibility places an undue burden on 

the provider who filed under the 

assumption that all errors were detected 

and corrected before submission. 

Response: All vendors will be 

responsible for providing their clients 

with the software to create a print file, 

an encryption file, and the electronic 

cost report file. In addition, the three 

Automated Desk Review (ADR) vendors 

are responsible for developing a 

software program that will accept the 

filing of all three files, as mentioned 

above, with the intermediary. All of the 

software programs will maintain 

consistent edits that, when specified 

edits are failed, will result in the 

intermediary rejecting the cost report. 

These edits are established by HCFA 

and published in section 130 of the 

Provider Reimbursement Manual (HCFA 

Pub. 15-11). An ADR vendor may 

establish additional edits, but failure to 

meet such edits may not result in 

rejection of the cost report by the 

intermediary. 

III. Technical Changes 

We received several inquiries 

implying that it is unclear in the 

regulations when an electronic cost 

report is considered timely filed. 

Therefore, in § 413.24(f)(4)(ii), we are 

clarifying that, for purposes of the due 

date requirements specified in 

§413.24(f)(2), an electronic cost report 

is not considered to be filed until it is 

accepted by the intermediary. 

In the May 25,1994 final rule with 

comment period, we eliminated the 

requirement that providers file a hard 

copy of the cost report. We stated that 

effective.for cost reporting periods 

ending on or after October 1,1994, this 

requirement is replaced with the 

submittal of a hard copy of a settlement