52056 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore, we believe that 

this rule should be categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(h), of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), 

of the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ is not required for 

this rule. Comments on this section will 

be considered before we make the final 

decision on whether to categorically 

exclude this rule from further 

environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 100.534 to read as follows: 

§ 100.534 Tug-of-War; Spa Creek, 

Annapolis, Maryland. 

(a) Regulated area. A regulated area is 

established for the waters of Spa Creek 

from shoreline to shoreline, extending 

400 feet from either side of a rope 

spanning Spa Creek from a position at 

latitude 38°58′36.9′′ N, longitude 

076°29′03.8′′ W on the Annapolis 

shoreline to a position at latitude 

38°58′26.4′′ N, longitude 076°28′53.7′′ W 

on the Eastport shoreline. All 

coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983. 

(b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the Coast 

Guard who has been designated by the 

Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

Baltimore. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

on board and displaying a Coast Guard 

ensign. 

(3) Participant means all vessels 

participating in the ‘‘Tug of War’’ under 

the auspices of the Marine Event Permit 

issued to the event sponsor and 

approved by Commander, Coast Guard 

Sector Baltimore. 

(c) Special local regulations. (1) 

Except for event participants and 

persons or vessels authorized by the 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no 

person or vessel may enter or remain in 

the regulated area. 

(2) The operator of any vessel in the 

regulated area must: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately when 

directed to do so by any official patrol. 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any official 

patrol. 

(iii) Unless otherwise directed by the 

official patrol, operate at a minimum 

wake speed not to exceed six (6) knots. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced annually from 10:30 

a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the first Saturday 

in November. In 2005 the section will be 

enforced on the last Saturday in October 

instead of the first Saturday in 

November. 

Dated: August 18, 2005. 

L.L. Hereth, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 05–17427 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 405, 410, 411, 413, 414, 

and 426 

[CMS–1502–CN] 

RIN 0938–AN84 

Medicare Program; Revisions to 

Payment Policies Under the Physician 

Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 2006; 

Corrections 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors 

in the proposed rule that appeared in 

the Federal Register on August 8, 2005 

entitled ‘‘Medicare Program; Revisions 

to Payment Policies Under the 

Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar 

Year 2006.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diane Milstead, (410) 786–3355. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

FR Doc. 05–15370, of August 8, 2005, 

contains the proposed rule to update the 

physician fee schedule for CY 2006 (70 

FR 45764). We identified several errors 

and are correcting them in the 

‘‘Correction of Errors’’ section below. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 52057 

II. Summary of Errors 

On page 45769, in the first column, 

under ‘‘Step 1—Calculation of the SMS 

Cost Pool for Each Specialty’’ in the first 

bullet, the last sentence inadvertently 

included the word ‘‘seconds.’’

On page 45775, Table 14-PRACTICE 

EXPENSE PER HOUR FIGURES 

inadvertently included incorrect 

practice expense per hour figures. 

On page 45779, in the third column, 

in the second bullet titled ‘‘Supply Item 

for Percutaneous Vertebroplasty 

Procedures (CPT Codes 22520 and 

22525)’’, the second CPT code 

referenced is incorrect. The reference to 

CPT code 22525 at the end of the first 

sentence should also be corrected. 

On page 45784, in the middle column, 

in the third complete paragraph, the 

GAF for ‘‘Rest of California’’ was listed 

incorrectly twice and in the fourth 

sentence of this paragraph, ‘‘0.01 

percent below’’ should read ‘‘equal to.’’

On page 45786, in the first column, in 

the third complete paragraph, the last 

set of CPT codes were listed incorrectly 

in the last sentence of this paragraph, 

‘‘93617 to 93641’’ should read ‘‘93618 to 

93641.’’

On page 45791, in the third column, 

in the second complete sentence the 

references to $2.850 and $1.960 million 

are incorrect. 

On page 45792, the footnote to Table 

22 should be deleted; the headings for 

the second and third columns should be 

corrected. Also, in the middle column of 

page 45792, in the last paragraph, in the 

fifth sentence, $3.107 and $2.137 

million are incorrect. 

On page 45855, in the first column, in 

footnote 4, the Web site address should 

be corrected. 

On page 45864, in Table 33, ‘‘Impact 

of Practice Expense, Malpractice RVUs, 

Multiple Imaging Discount, and 

Physician Fee Schedule Update on Total 

Medicare Allowed Charges by 

Physician, Practitioner and Supplier 

Sub-category,’’ in the column labeled 

‘‘Medicare allowed charges for 2004 ($ 

in millions),’’ incorrect figures were 

listed for Hematology/Oncology, 

Infectious Disease, and Rheumatology. 

On page 45866, in the discussion 

labeled ‘‘B. Geographic Practice Cost 

Indices (GPCI) Payment Localities,’’ in 

the first line of the third column, the 

GAF for Rest of California was 

incorrectly referenced as ‘‘1.011.’’

In Table 36, ‘‘Impacts on California 

Payment Localities,’’ on page 45867, the 

2006 Proposed MP GPCI was incorrectly 

published as ‘‘0.717’’ for Santa Cruz, 

Sonoma, and Rest of California. 

On page 45872, in the middle column 

in the regulation text under ‘‘§ 411.351 

Definitions,’’ the second term defined is 

listed incorrectly as ‘‘Radiation and 

certain other imaging services.’’

On pages 45876 and 45877 in 

Addendum B, we incorrectly indicated 

that the practice expense RVUS reflect 

the fully implemented practice expense 

RVUs rather than the transitional PE 

RVUs for 2006; therefore, in the third 

column of page 45876 and the first 

column of page 45877, items 6, 7, 9, and 

10 need to be corrected. Also, we 

incorrectly indicated in the third 

column of page 45876 and the first 

column on page 45877 that item 9 

reflected ‘‘Facility’’ totals and item 10 

reflected ‘‘Non-facility’’ totals. 

In Addendum B, on pages 45937 and 

45996, the incorrect practice expense 

RVUs were listed for CPT code 58356 

(Endometrial cryoablation) and 96567 

(photodynamic tx, skin), respectively. In 

addition, on page 46004, in Addendum 

B, we failed to include the PE RVUs for 

two HCPCS codes, G0375 (Smoke/ 

Tobacco counseling 3–10) and G0376 

(Smoke/Tobacco counseling >10). 

On page 46007, in Addendum D, 

‘‘2006 Georgraphic Practice Cost Indices 

(GPCI) By Medicare Carrier and 

Locality,’’ the MP GPCI for Santa Cruz, 

Sonoma, and Rest of California was 

listed incorrectly as ‘‘0.717.’’ In 

Addendum E, ‘‘Proposed 2006 

Geographic Adjustment Factors 

(GAFs)’’, on page 46008, the 2006 GAF 

for Santa Clara, CA was listed 

incorrectly and should be corrected to 

read ‘‘1.265.’’

II. Correction of Errors 

A. Preamble Corrections 

We are making the following 

corrections to the August 8, 2005 

proposed rule. 

1. On page 45769, in the first column, 

under ‘‘Step 1—Calculation of the SMS 

Cost Pool for Each Specialty,’’ in the 

first bullet, the last sentence 

inadvertently included the word 

‘‘seconds.’’ The sentence is corrected to 

read as follows: ‘‘The PE/HR is divided 

by 60 to obtain the PE per minute (PE/ 

MIN).’’

2. On Page 45775, Table 14—

PRACTICE EXPENSE PER HOUR 

FIGURES inadvertently included 

incorrect practice expense per hour 

figures. The practice expenses per hour 

figures are corrected as follows: 

TABLE 14.—PRACTICE EXPENSE PER HOUR FIGURES

Specialty Clinical 

staff 

Admin. 

staff 

Office 

expense 

Medical 

supplies 

Medical 

equipment Other Total 

Radiology ................................................. 22.8 29.7 18.8 8.8 21.4 35.2 136.7 

Cardiology ................................................ 46.7 41.8 41.3 20.3 14.6 19.6 184.3 

Radiation Oncology .................................. 39.0 20.4 31.1 3.8 21.7 22.0 138.0 

Urology ..................................................... 26.3 39.9 50.7 13.6 10.6 22.1 163.2 

Dermatology ............................................. 38.3 48.5 74.3 14.5 10.4 26.6 212.5 

Allergy/Immunology .................................. 62.1 53.1 62.1 21.2 5.9 29.3 233.7 

Gastroenterology ...................................... 27.6 36.2 44.3 7.5 5.4 12.2 133.2 

3. On page 45779, in the third 

column, in the second bullet titled 

‘‘Supply Item for Percutaneous 

Vertebroplasty Procedure (CPT Codes 

22520 and 22525)’’, the second CPT 

code reference is incorrect. This code is 

corrected to read ‘‘22521.’’ The 

reference to CPT code 22525 at the end 

of the first sentence is also corrected to 

read ‘‘22521.’’

4. On Page 45784, in the middle 

column, in the fourth complete 

paragraph, the reference to the GAF for 

‘‘Rest of California’’ was listed 

incorrectly. The fourth sentence is 

corrected as follows: ‘‘The Rest of 

California GAF would be 1.012, a value 

equal to the 2005 Rest of California 

GAF.’’ In addition, the last sentence of 

this paragraph is corrected to read as 

follows: ‘‘The proposed Rest of 

California GAF of 1.012 fully reflects 

incorporating the updated data.’’

5. On page 45786, in the first column, 

in the third complete paragraph, the last 

set of CPT codes listed in the last 

sentence of this paragraph were 

incorrect. The last sentence is corrected 

as follows: ‘‘We agree with the RUC PLI 

Workgroup recommendation and 

52058 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

propose that the following CPT codes be 

added to the existing list of codes under 

the exception: 92975; 92980 to 92998; 

and 93618 to 93641.’’

6. On page 45791, in the third 

column, in the second complete 

sentence the references to $2.850 and 

$1.960 million are incorrect. This 

sentence is corrected to read as follows: 

‘‘For CY 2005, we estimate that total 

spending, after the deduction of 

payments for syringes, will reach $246 

million for Epogen provided in hospitalbased facilities, and $2,850 million for 

drugs provided in independent facilities 

($1,960 million for Epogen and $890 

million for other drugs).’’

7. On page 45792, make the following 

corrections to Table 22: the footnote ‘‘* 

Compared to the $10.00 statutory 

price.’’ is removed as this footnote is 

only pertinent to table 23; the heading 

for the second column is corrected to 

read ‘‘CY 2005 Estimated Drug 

Payments as a Percentage of Top Ten 

ESRD Drug Payments (percent),’’ and 

the heading for the third column of the 

table is corrected to read ‘‘CY 2002 OIG 

Drug Payments as a Percentage of Top 

Ten ESRD Drug Payments (percent).’’ In 

the middle column of page 45792, in the 

third complete paragraph, the fourth 

sentence is corrected to read as follows 

‘‘This procedure resulted in projected 

expenditures of $268 million for Epogen 

provided in hospital-based facilities and 

$3,107 million for drugs provided in 

independent facilities ($2,137 million 

for Epogen and $970 million for other 

drugs).’’

8. On page 45855, in the first column 

in footnote 4, the last sentence of the 

Web site address is corrected to read as 

follows: http://search.ed.com/ed/ 

article?tocid=9062423. 

9. On page 45864, in Table 33, 

‘‘Impact of Practice Expense, 

Malpractice RVUs, Multiple Imaging 

Discount and Physician Fee Schedule 

Update on Total Medicare Allowed 

Charges by Physician, Practitioner and 

Supplier Sub-category’’, in the column 

labeled ‘‘Medicare allowed charges for 

2004 ($ in millions),’’ incorrect figures 

were listed for Hematology/Oncology, 

Infectious Disease, and Rheumatology. 

These figures are corrected as follows: 

Hematology/Oncology ..................... 2,041 

Infectious Disease ............................ 491 

Rheumatology .................................. 462 

10. On page 45866, in the discussion 

labeled ‘‘B. Geographic Practice Cost 

Indices (GPCI) Payment Localities,’’ in 

the first line of the third column, the 

GAF for Rest of California was 

incorrectly referenced as ‘‘1.011.’’ This 

is corrected to read ‘‘1.012.’’

11. In Table 36, ‘‘Impacts on 

California Payment Localities’’ on page 

45867, the 2006 Proposed MP GPCI was 

published as ‘‘0.717’’ for Santa Cruz, 

Sonoma, and Rest of California. This 

figure is corrected to read ‘‘0.733’’ for 

these localities. 

B. Regulations Text 

On page 45872, in the middle column 

in the regulation text under ‘‘§ 411.351 

Definitions,’’ the second term defined is 

listed incorrectly as ‘‘Radiation and 

certain other imaging services.’’ This is 

corrected to read ‘‘Radiology and certain 

other imaging services.’’

C. Addenda 

1. On pages 45876 and 45877, in 

Addendum B, we incorrectly indicated 

that the practice expense RVUS reflect 

the fully implemented PE RVUs rather 

than the transitional PE RVUs for 2006. 

We also incorrectly indicated in the 

third column of page 45876 and the first 

column of page 45877 that item 9 

reflected ‘‘Facility’’ totals and item 10 

reflected ‘‘Non-facility’’ totals. 

Therefore, items 6, 7, 9, and 10 are 

corrected to read as follows: 

‘‘6. Non-facility practice expense 

RVUs. These are the transitional 2006 

resource-based practice expense RVUs 

for non-facility settings.’’

‘‘7. Facility practice expense RVUs. 

These are the transitional 2006 resourcebased practice expense RVUs for facility 

settings.’’

‘‘9. Non-facility total. This is the sum 

of the work, the transitional 2006 nonfacility practice expense, and 

malpractice expense RVUs.’’

‘‘10. Facility total. This is the sum of 

the work, the transitional 2006 facility 

practice expense, and malpractice 

expense RVUs.’’

2. In Addendum B, on pages 45937 

and 45996, the incorrect PE RVUs were 

listed for CPT codes 58356 and 96567, 

respectively. In addition, on page 46004 

in Addendum B, we failed to include 

the PE RVUs for two HCPCS codes, 

G0375 and G0376. The RVUs for these 

codes are corrected as follows: 

CPT 1/ 

HCPCS2 Mod Status Description Physician work RVUs 

Non-facility 

PE RVUs 

Facility PE 

RVUs 

Malpractice 

RVUs 

Non-facility 

total 

Facility 

total Global 

58356 ..... ....... A .......... Endometrial 

cryoablation.

6.37 56.84 2.60 0.82 64.03 9.79 010 

96567 ..... ....... A .......... Photodynamic tx, 

skin.

0.00 2.29 NA 0.04 2.33 NA XXX 

G0375 .... ....... A .......... Smoke/Tobacco 

counseling 3–10.

0.24 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.34 0.34 XXX 

G0376 .... ....... A .......... Smoke/Tobacco 

counseling >10.

0.48 0.18 0.17 0.01 0.67 0.66 XXX 

1 CPT codes and descriptions only are copyright 2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS apply. 2 Copyright 2005 American Dental Association. All rights reserved. 

3 +Indicates RVUs are not used for Medicare payment. 

3. On page 46007, in Addendum D, 

‘‘2006 Geographic Practice Cost Indices 

(GPCI) By Medicare Carrier and 

Locality,’’ the MP GPCI for Santa Cruz, 

Sonoma, and Rest of California was 

listed incorrectly as ‘‘0.717.’’ This figure 

is corrected to read ‘‘0.733’’ for these 

localities. 

4. In Addendum E, ‘‘Proposed 2006 

Geographic Adjustment Factors 

(GAFs)’’, on page 46008, the 2006 GAF 

for Santa Clara, CA was listed 

incorrectly and is corrected to read 

‘‘1.265.’’

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.774, Medicare—

Supplementary Medical Insurance Program) 

Dated: August 25, 2005. 

Ann C. Agnew, 

Executive Secretary to the Department. 

[FR Doc. 05–17279 Filed 8–26–05; 9:46 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P