Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 2939

the appropriate amount at the time of

their initial application in order to have

the application approved. The company

issuing a surety bond must be listed in

the Treasury Department Circular 570,

‘‘Companies Holding Certificates of

Authority as Acceptable Sureties on

Federal Bonds and as Acceptable

Reinsuring Companies.’’ This list

appears in the Federal Register on or

about July 1 of each year. Copies of the

Circular and interim changes may be

obtained directly from the Government

Printing Office (202) 512–1800, or

contact the U.S. Department of the

Treasury, Financial Management

Service, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East

West Highway, Room 6F04, Hyattsville,

Maryland 20782, telephone (202) 874–

6850 or Fax (202) 874–9978.

(2) The surety bond must be for a term

of 12 months and must be renewed

annually. The surety bond must be in an

amount equal to at least 15 percent of

the amount paid to the supplier by the

Medicare program for claims for

Medicare covered items provided in the

previous year, as reflected in a

supplier’s IRS Form No. 1099, or by the

historic payment information from the

durable medical equipment regional

carrier provider payment history file.

The minimum surety bond amount for

a supplier billing number, regardless of

its Medicare revenues, is $50,000

annually. The maximum surety bond

amount for a supplier billing number,

regardless of its Medicare revenues, is

$3,000,000 annually.

(3) For a supplier that has not

previously participated in the Medicare

program, the amount of the surety bond

for each billing number must be equal

to the sum of $50,000 for the first year

of participation in the Medicare

program. Thereafter, the rules set forth

in § 424.57(e)(1) and (2) apply.

(4) As the obligee of the bond, HCFA

may seek recovery by resorting to the

surety bond if there are outstanding

debts to the Medicare program,

including overpayments, interest, civil

money penalties and assessments or if a

supplier’s number is revoked.

(f) A supplier number will expire and

a supplier must renew its application

for a billing number 3 years after the

billing number is first issued. Each

supplier must complete an application

for a billing number 3 years after its last

number is issued.

(g) A supplier must have a complaint

resolution protocol to address

beneficiary complaints that relate to

supplier standards in paragraph (c) of

this section and to keep written

complaints and related correspondence

and any notes of actions taken in

response to written and oral complaints.

Failure to maintain such information

may be considered evidence that

supplier standards have not been met.

Such information must be kept at its

physical facility and made available to

HCFA, upon request. A supplier must

maintain the following information on

all written and oral beneficiary

complaints, including telephone

complaints, it receives:

(1) The name, address, telephone

number, and health insurance claim

number of the beneficiary.

(2) A summary of the complaint and

the date it was made; the name of the

person taking the complaint; and a

summary of any actions taken to resolve

the complaint.

(3) If an investigation was not

conducted, the name of the person

making the decision and the reason for

the decision.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital

Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,

Medicare—Supplementary Medical

Insurance Program)

Dated: January 24, 1997.

Bruce C. Vladeck,

Administrator, Health Care Financing

Administration.

Dated: August 14, 1997.

Donna Shalala

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–963 Filed 1–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 15

[USCG 98–3323]

RIN 2115–AF57

Federal Pilotage for Vessels in Foreign

Trade

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

require that foreign-trade vessels, under

way on the Cape Fear River and the

Northeast Cape Fear River in North

Carolina, be under the direction and

control of Federal pilots when not under

the direction and control of State pilots.

This measure is necessary to ensure that

vessels are navigated by competent,

qualified persons, knowledgeable in the

local area and accountable to either the

State or the Coast Guard. This measure

would promote navigational safety by

increasing the level of accountability

and reducing the risk of accidents and

the discharge of oil and other hazardous

substances into these waters.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast

Guard on or before February 19, 1998.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

the Docket Management Facility, USCG

98–3323, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001, or deliver them to room

PL–401, located on the Plaza Level of

the Nassif Building at the same address

between 10:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments, and documents

as indicated in this preamble, will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at

room PL–401, located on the Plaza Level

of the Nassif Building at the above

address between 10:00 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paulette Twine, Chief, Documentary

Services Division, U.S. Department of

Transportation, telephone 202–366–

9329 or Mr. Stewart Walker, Licensing

and Manning Division, Office of

Compliance (G–MOC–1), room 1116,

202–267–0745.

SUPPLELMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written data,

views, or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this rulemaking

USCG 98–3323 and the specific section

of this document to which each

comment applies, and give the reason

for each comment. Please submit two

copies of all comments and attachments

in an unbound format, larger than 81⁄2

by 11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments

should enclose stamped, self-addressed

postcards or envelopes.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this proposed rule

in view of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no public

hearing. Persons may request a public

hearing by writing to the Marine Safety

Council at the address under

ADDRESSES. The request should include

the reasons why a hearing would be

beneficial. If it determines that the

opportunity for oral presentations

would aid this rulemaking, the Coast
2940 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Guard will hold a public hearing at a

time and place announced by a later

notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

Under subsection 8503(a) of title 46,

United States Code, the Secretary of

Transportation may require a Federallylicensed pilot to be aboard a selfpropelled vessel engaged in foreign

trade and operating on the navigable

waters of the United States when State

law does not require a pilot. Under this

authority, on May 10, 1995 [60 FR

24793], the Coast Guard amended 46

CFR part 15 and required Federal pilots

to be aboard vessels engaged in foreign

trade and operating on certain navigable

waters of the United States, within

California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and

New York and New Jersey. At the same

time, subsection 8503(b) provides that

Federal authority to require Federallylicensed pilots on vessels in foreign

trade terminates when the State having

jurisdiction establishes a superseding

requirement for a State pilot and notifies

the Secretary of that fact.

Commercial vessels transit the Cape

Fear River and Northeast Cape Fear

River carrying various types of freight,

oil, and hazardous substances and

hazardous materials, as well as large

quantities of bunkers. Under North

Carolina law [General Statutes of North

Carolina, 76A–16], every foreign vessel

and every domestic vessel sailing under

register must use a State-licensed pilot,

except that the vessel need not use a

State-licensed pilot if it is under the

control of a docking master for certain

movements on the Cape Fear River.

These movements include berthing and

unberthing, passing through bridges,

and shifting within a port or terminal.

North Carolina does not license,

establish qualifications for, or regulate

the competency of, docking masters.

Although all docking masters currently

operating on the Cape Fear River and

Northeast Cape Fear River already hold

valid Federal pilots’ licenses (or pilotage

endorsements on Federal licenses),

holding these is voluntary and is

currently neither a State nor a Federal

requirement. Anyone may serve as

docking master, and no one need

demonstrate proficiency.

Recently, a foreign-flag bulk carrier

under the control of a docking master

was caught by the wind and current

when leaving a pier above the Cape Fear

Memorial Bridge. The vessel was set

down river, perpendicular to the

channel, while the docking master tried

to rotate its bow downstream. Its stern

struck and destroyed about 30 meters of

the pier that it had just left. The docking

master was not operating under the

authority of either a Federal or a State

pilot’s license. North Carolina did not

investigate this incident; and, in such a

case, unless the person is operating

under the authority of a Federal pilots’

license (or endorsement), or the Coast

Guard has some other basis for

jurisdiction, the Coast Guard could not

suspend or revoke his or her Federal

license (or endorsement) for violations

of statutes or rules intended either to

promote marine safety or to protect the

navigable waters, for misconduct, or for

negligence [46 U.S.C. Chapter 77]. Even

if the Coast Guard considered him or

her professionally or medically

incompetent, its ability to deny him or

her the opportunity to serve as a

docking master on foreign-trade vessels

would be severely restricted.

The Coast Guard has determined that

it is unsafe for vessels to undertake

intra-port transits, undertake transits

when not bound to or departing from

ports, or otherwise navigate in the

waters of the Cape Fear River or

Northeast Cape Fear River except when

under the direction and control of pilots

accountable to the State or to the Coast

Guard. These vessels represent an

unacceptable risk to human life,

property, and the environment.

Therefore, the Coast Guard has

determined that to require persons to

serve under the authority of Federal

first-class pilots’ licenses (or

endorsements), and so be accountable

for their actions and competency, would

increase maritime safety.

Currently, to obtain a Federal pilot’s

license (or endorsement), a person must

pass a comprehensive examination,

which includes, but is not limited to,

performing a chart sketch of the area,

demonstrating proficiency in the use of

navigational aids, and maneuvering and

handling ships in high winds, tides, and

currents. Further, a person must

complete a specific number of round

trips and demonstrate specialized

knowledge of the waters for which the

license (or endorsement) is issued.

Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes a

Federal pilots’ requirement for foreigntrade vessels operating in the designated

waters of the Cape Fear River and

Northeast Cape Fear River, unless the

vessels are under the direction and

control of State-licensed pilots operating

under the authority of valid State pilots’

licenses.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

This proposed rule would add a new

section to 46 CFR part 15, subpart I, to

require that every foreign-trade vessel

operating on the Cape Fear River and

Northeast Cape Fear River be under the

direction and control of a Federallylicensed pilot except when under the

direction and control of a State-licensed

pilot operating under the authority of a

valid State license. This rule would

apply only to the Cape Fear River and

Northeast Cape Fear River, since North

Carolina allows docking masters to take

control of foreign-trade vessels only in

these waters.

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. It has not been reviewed 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 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.

Foreign-trade vessels are normally

under the direction and control of

docking masters or State pilots when

making intra-port transits or transits in

congested waters. Those persons

currently serving as docking masters do

hold Federal pilots’ licenses, although

not required to do so by State or Federal

regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule

would not impose any immediate

additional costs on the persons acting as

docking masters. However, those

persons entering this profession in the

future would now be required to hold

Federal pilots’ licenses. Historically,

persons filling these vacancies have

already obtained Federal pilots’ licenses

and necessary endorsements in the

normal course of advancement in this

profession. Nevertheless, this rule

would require an initial expense to

obtain the license, in addition to a

yearly physical and the five-year

renewal fees. These costs should be

insignificant as those persons currently

acting as docking masters already have,

and those likely to enter this profession

would already have, the required

license. This rule would promote

responsibility and safety by requiring a

Federal pilot, where the State requires

no pilot, for foreign-trade vessels

transiting or making intra-port transits

within the waters of the Cape Fear River

or Northeast Cape Fear River. The Coast

Guard believes that the benefits of

requiring licensed, qualified persons

aboard these vessels significantly

outweigh the small costs associated

with implementing this rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 2941

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

[5 U.S.C. 601–612], the Coast Guard

considers whether this proposed rule, if

adopted, would have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. These include

independently owned and operated

small businesses, that are not dominant

in their fields, and governmental

jurisdictions with populations of less

than 50,000.

The Coast Guard expects that this

proposed rule would have minimal

economic impact on small entities. The

Coast Guard doubts whether vessels

affected by this rule are owned or

operated by small entities. However,

State pilots’ associations may qualify as

small entities. The Coast Guard

understands that persons now providing

pilotage to foreign-trade vessels calling

at ports on the Cape Fear River and

Northeast Cape Fear River already hold

Federal first-class pilots’ licenses (or

endorsements) for those waters.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule, if

adopted, would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. If, however,

you think that your business or

organization qualifies as a small entity

and that this rule would have a

significant economic impact on your

business or organization, please submit

a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining

why you think it qualifies and in what

way and to what degree this rule would

economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

In accordance with section 213(a) of

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub.

L. 104–121], the Coast Guard wants to

assist small entities in understanding

this proposed rule so that they can

better evaluate its effects on them and

participate in the rulemaking process. If

this rule would affect your small

business or organization, and if you

have questions concerning its

provisions or options for compliance,

please contact Mr. Stewart Walker,

Licensing and Manning Division, Office

of Compliance (G–MOC–1), Room 1116,

202–267–0745.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule contains no

collection of information requirements

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501–3520].

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposed rule under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and has determined that this rule

does not have sufficient implications for

federalism to warrant the preparation of

a Federalism Assessment.

Congress specifically, under 46 U.S.C.

8503(a), authorized the Federal

Government to require a Federally

licensed pilot where State law requires

no pilot. North Carolina permits a

docking master, not licensed by the

State, to serve as pilot on certain waters

of the State. Therefore, the Federal

Government may require Federallylicensed pilots on those waters. The

Federal authority to require that pilots

hold Federal licenses is effective only

until the State establishes a superseding

requirement that pilots hold State

licenses and notifies the Coast Guard of

that fact according to 46 U.S.C. 8503(b).

Since this proposed rule aims

primarily at requiring Federal pilots to

supplement State pilots, the Coast

Guard does not believe that the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment

is warranted. This rule would not

impinge upon existing State laws. If

North Carolina adopted superseding

legislation requiring foreign vessels, and

domestic vessels sailing on registry, to

be under the direction and control of

State-licensed pilots, the Coast Guard

would withdraw its requirement, Thus,

the Federal statute itself lets North

Carolina preempt Federal authority.

Still, the Coast Guard specifically seeks

public comment on the implications of

this rule for Federalism.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

rule and concluded that, under

paragraph 2.B.2.e.(34)(a) of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1B,

this rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

The Coast Guard has determined that

most people now providing pilotage to

foreign-trade vessels within the Cape

Fear River and Northeast Cape Fear

River would continue to provide it since

most pilots already hold Federal firstclass pilots’ licenses for these waters.

Therefore, this rule would let affected

vessels continue to operate according to

current industry practices. The Coast

Guard also recognizes that this rule may

minimize the risk of environmental

harm that may result from collisions

and groundings of vessels. Nevertheless,

this impact should not be significant

enough to warrant further

documentation. The ‘‘Categorical

Exclusion Determination’’ is available in

the docket for inspection or copying

where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 15

Crewmembers, Marine safety,

Navigation (water), Seamen, Vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 46 CFR part 15 as follows:

PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS

1. The authority citation for part 15

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 3306,

3703, 8101, 8102, 8104, 8105, 8301, 8304,

8502, 8503, 8701, 8702, 8901, 8902, 8903,

8904, 8905(b), 9102; 49 CFR 1.45 and 1.46.

2. Add § 15.1050 to read as follows:

§ 15.1050 North Carolina.

(a) The following navigable waters of

the United States within the State of

North Carolina when the vessel is

maneuvering while berthing or

unberthing, is approaching or passing

through a bridge, or is making any intraport transit, which transit may include

but is not limited to movement from a

dock to a dock, from a dock to an

anchorage, from an anchorage to a dock,

or from an anchorage to an anchorage,

within either of the following areas:

(1) The waters of the Cape Fear River

from the boundary line established by

46 CFR 7.60 to Latitude 34°–15.7′ N.

(2) The waters of the Northeast Cape

Fear River from its confluence with the

Cape Fear River at Point Peter to

Latitude 34°–17′ N.

(b) This subpart does not apply to the

waters specified in paragraph (a) of this

section if a vessel is under the direction

and control of a State-licensed pilot

operating under the authority of a valid

State pilot’s license.

Dated: January 7, 1998.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 98–1271 Filed 1–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M