Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 49355 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing the entry under 

OK for ‘‘Fourth Street Abandoned 

Refinery’’, ‘‘Oklahoma City’’. 

[FR Doc. E8–19419 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 405, 413, and 417 

[CMS–1727–CN] 

RIN 0938–AL54 

Medicare Program; Provider 

Reimbursement Determinations and 

Appeals; Correction 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Correction of final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical errors that appeared in the 

final rule with comment period 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 23, 2008 entitled ‘‘Provider 

Reimbursement Determinations and 

Appeals.’’

DATES: Effective Date: August 21, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Morton Marcus, (410) 786–4477. Donald 

Romano, (410) 786–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. E8–11227 of May 23, 2008 

(73 FR 30190), there were a number of 

typographical and technical errors that 

are identified and corrected in the 

Correction of Errors section in section 

III. of this notice. The provisions of this 

correction notice are effective as if they 

had been included in the final rule 

published on May 23, 2008. 

Accordingly, the corrections are 

effective August 21, 2008. 

II. Summary of Errors 

We note that in section III. of this 

notice, we correct a number of 

typographical and technical errors. We 

note that the following are the more 

significant corrections: 

On pages 30211 and 30250, we are 

correcting an error relating to the usage 

and filing of mandatory group appeals. 

We stated in the preamble and 

regulations text of § 405.1835(b)(4)(i) 

that a commonly-owned provider must 

state in its request for Board hearing 

that: ‘‘* * * sano other provider related 

to it by common ownership or control 

has an individual or group appeal 

pending before the Board on the same 

issue for a cost reporting period that 

falls within the same calendar year.’’

This statement was incorrect. To 

provide consistency with the 

regulations text at § 405.1837(b)(1)(i), 

the word ‘‘falls’’ needs to be replaced 

with the word ‘‘ends.’’

On page 30243, we are correcting a 

technical error in the regulations text at 

§ 405.1801(b)(2). Following the 

publication of the final rule, we 

discovered that the regulations at 

§ 405.1801(b)(2) failed to reference the 

longstanding exception at § 413.200(g). 

In the regulations text at 

§ 405.1801(b)(2), we stated that a 

nonprovider entity is not entitled to an 

intermediary hearing or a Board hearing. 

(We discussed this issue in the 

preamble to the proposed rule 

published on June 25, 2004 (69 FR 

35721).) However, the current text at 

§ 413.200(g) reflects that an OPO (organ 

procurement organization) or 

histocompatibility laboratory is entitled 

to an intermediary hearing in 

accordance with the intermediary 

hearing procedures contained in subpart 

R. While OPOs (formerly referred to as 

organ procurement agencies or OPAs ) 

and histocompatibility laboratories are 

nonprovider entities and not entitled to 

a hearing under section 1878 of the Act, 

they have always been an exception to 

the rule with respect to intermediary 

hearings and historically have received 

intermediary hearings under subpart R 

of the regulations. (See December 14, 

1978, 43 FR 58370 through 58371, 

referencing the legislative history of 

Public Law 95–292 that Congress 

intended to provide an intermediary 

hearing for the OPOs and 

histocompatibility laboratories, and S. 

Rep. No. 95–714, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., 

12–13 (1978); H. Rep. No. 95–549, 95th 

Cong. 1st Sess. 14 (1977)). We wanted 

to assure OPOs that they will continue 

to have intermediary hearing rights as 

they have always had in the past. 

Therefore, we are correcting 

§ 405.1801(b)(2) by adding a reference to 

the exception for OPOs and 

histocompatibility laboratories at 

§ 413.200(g) and thus clarifying that 

OPO hearing rights do not derive from 

section 1878 of the Act. 

On page 30263, we are correcting an 

error in the regulations text for 

§ 405.1875(d). In the final rule, we 

inadvertently included the sentence 

‘‘[T]he Administrator does not consider 

any communication that does not meet 

these requirements or is not submitted 

with the required time limits’’ as the last 

sentence of paragraph (d)(3)(ii). 

However this statement is applicable to 

all of the provisions of paragraph (d). 

Therefore, we have removed the 

sentence from paragraph (d)(3)(ii) and 

after changing the word ‘‘these’’ to ‘‘the 

following’’ have added the sentence to 

the introductory text of paragraph (d). 

We also note that the May 23, 2008 

final rule referenced a First Circuit 

Court of Appeals decision, 

MaineGeneral Medical Center v. 

Shalala, 205 F. 3d 493 (1st Cir. 2000). 

In a number of instances throughout the 

preamble of the final rule, we 

misspelled ‘‘MaineGeneral’’ as ‘‘Maine 

General.’’ We are acknowledging these 

errors without specifically itemizing 

each error in the Correction of Errors 

section of this notice. 

III. Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. E8–11227 of May 23, 2008 

(73 FR 30190), make the following 

corrections: 

A. Correction of Errors in the Preamble 

1. On page 30192, second column, 

second paragraph, line 3, the phrase, 

‘‘CMS Reviewing official procedure’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘CMS reviewing 

official procedure.’’

2. On page 30197, third column, 

a. First partial paragraph, line 4, the 

phrase ‘‘are more appropriately borne by 

fiscal intermediaries’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘are more appropriately borne by 

intermediaries.’’

b. First full paragraph, lines 9 through 

11, the phrase ‘‘In Maine General 

Medical Center v. Shalala, 205 F. 3d 493 

(1st Cir. 2000), the majority’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘In MaineGeneral, the 

majority.’’

3. On page 30206, first column, 

second paragraph, line 19, the phrase 

‘‘determinations are governed’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘determinations is 

governed.’’

4. On page 30208, first column, fourth 

paragraph, line 17, the phrase ‘‘Rather, 

we believe that intermediary officers’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘Rather, we believe 

that intermediary hearing officers.’’

5. On page 30211, first column, first 

partial paragraph, line 32, the phrase ‘‘a 

cost reporting period that falls within’’

is corrected to read ‘‘a cost reporting 

period that ends within.’’

6. On page 30214, second column, 

first full paragraph, paragraph heading, 

‘‘K. Expediting Judicial Review 

(§ 405.1842)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘K. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
49356 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Expedited Judicial Review 

(§ 405.1842).’’

7. On page 30216, second column, 

third paragraph, line 6, the phrase 

‘‘which provides agency review of an’’

is corrected to read ‘‘which provides for 

agency review of an.’’

8. On page 30219, first column, 

second paragraph, line 3, the phrase 

‘‘the requirement in section 

§ 405.1853(a)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘the 

requirement in § 405.1853(a).’’

9. On page 30222, second column, 

second paragraph, line 11, the phrase 

‘‘to 120 days of the’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘to 120 days before the.’’

10. On page 30237, 

a. First column, second paragraph 

heading, that reads ‘‘D. Provider Hearing 

Rights (§ 405.1803(d), § 405.1811, and 

§ 405.1835))’’ is corrected to read ‘‘D. 

Provider Rights (§ 405.1803(d), 

§ 405.1811, and § 405.1835).’’

b. Third column, fifth bullet, line 2, 

the phrase ‘‘revised § 405.1834(e)(1) to 

state’’ is corrected to read ‘‘revised 

§ 405.1834(e)(1)(i) to state.’’

11. On page 30239, 

a. First column, first bulleted 

paragraph, line 3, the phrase ‘‘(unless 

the time is extended by the Board)’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘unless the time is 

extended by the Board.’’

b. Third column, last bulleted 

paragraph, lines 1 and 2, the phrase 

‘‘Clarifying language has been added’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘We added clarifying 

language’’

12. On page 30240, second column, 

third bulleted paragraph, beginning 

with the phrase ‘‘++Sixty days after’’

and ending with the phrase 

‘‘§ 405.1835(c) apply’’ is corrected to 

read as follows: 

‘‘++Sixty days after the expiration of 

the applicable 180-day period 

prescribed in § 405.1811(a)(3) (for 

intermediary hearing officer hearings) or 

§ 405.1835(a)(3) (for Board hearings). 

++Sixty days after the effective date of 

this rule. 

• For appeals filed on or after the 

effective date of this rule, the provisions 

of § 405.1811(c) and § 405.1835(c) 

apply.’’

B. Correction of Errors in Regulations 

Text 

■ 1. On page 30243, third column, last 

paragraph, 

■ a. Line 1, the phrase ‘‘non-provider’’

is corrected to read ‘‘nonprovider.’’

■ b. Line 5, the phrase ‘‘These 

nonprovider entities’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘Except as provided at 

§ 413.200(g), these nonprovider 

entities.’’

■ 2. On page 30246, 

■ a. Third column, first paragraph, line 

6, the word ‘‘extend’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘extends.’’

■ b. Third column, seventh paragraph, 

line 3, the phrase ‘‘the Secretary’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘HHS.’’

■ 3. On page 30247, 

■ a. First column, last paragraph, line 5, 

the phrase ‘‘or in part if applicable,’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘or in part; if 

applicable.’’

■ 4. On page 30248, 

■ a. First column, third paragraph, line 

4, the phrase ‘‘conducts a hearing the 

intermediary’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘conducts a hearing, the intermediary.’’

■ b. Second column, first partial 

paragraph, lines 2 and 3, the phrase 

‘‘hearing and the intermediary unless’’

is corrected to read ‘‘hearing and on the 

intermediary, unless.’’

■ c. Third column, third paragraph, line 

6, the phrase ‘‘section or 

§ 405.1821(d)(2)’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘section or in § 405.1821(d)(2).’’

■ 5. On page 30250, 

a. First column, 

(1) Eighth paragraph, line 9, the 

phrase ‘‘reporting period that falls 

within the’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘reporting period that ends within the.’’

(2) Ninth paragraph, lines 1 and 2, the 

phrase ‘‘Such a pending appeal(s) 

exist(s), the’’ is corrected to read ‘‘Such 

a pending appeal(s) exist(s), and the.’’

■ b. Second column, fifth paragraph, 

line 3, the phrase ‘‘in writing it can’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘in writing it could.’’

■ 6. On page 30252, third column, sixth 

paragraph, line 12, the phrase ‘‘appeal 

increases’’ is corrected to read ‘‘appeal 

would increase.’’

■ 7. On page 30253, 

■ a. First column, first partial 

paragraph, line 8, the phrase ‘‘issue 

recurs in the appeal’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘issue in the appeal recurs.’’

■ b. First column, first paragraph, line 9, 

the phrase ‘‘appeal increases’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘appeal would 

increase.’’

■ 8. On page 30254, second column, 

■ a. First partial paragraph, line 6, the 

phrase ‘‘this subpart explains’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘this subpart, which 

explains.’’

■ b. First full paragraph, line 5, the 

word ‘‘Board’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘Board.’’

■ 9. On page 30255, 

■ a. Second column, 11th paragraph, 

line 6, the phrase ‘‘§ 405.1875(a)(2)(iii) 

and § 405.1875(e) or’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘405.1875(a)(2)(iii), § 405.1875(e), 

and.’’

■ b. Third column, 

(1) Second paragraph, line 11, the 

phrase ‘‘rendered nonfinal’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘nonfinal.’’

(2) Seventh paragraph, lines 4 and 5, 

the phrase ‘‘Board (or the 

Administrator) is corrected to read 

‘‘Board or the Administrator.’’

■ 10. On page 30258, first column, 

■ a. Sixth paragraph, line 9, the phrase 

‘‘is directed or’’ is corrected to read ‘‘is 

directed, or.’’

■ b. Seventh paragraph, line 4, the 

phrase ‘‘of documents must’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘of documents, must.’’

■ c. Eighth paragraph, line 5, the phrase 

‘‘appeal and any nonparty subject to a 

discovery request a’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘appeal, and any nonparty subject to a 

discovery request, a.’’

11. On page 30259, 

■ a. First column, 

(1) First paragraph, the phrase ‘‘for 

purposes of a—’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘for purposes of—.’’

(2) Second paragraph, the phrase ‘‘(i) 

Discovery subpoena, 90 days’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘(i) Discovery, 90 

days.’’

(3) Third paragraph, the phrase ‘‘(ii) 

Hearing subpoena, whether’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘(ii) An oral hearing, 

whether.’’

■ c. Third column, last paragraph, line 

5, the phrase ‘‘until the time’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘until such time.’’

■ 12. On page 30260, 

■ a. Second column, 

(1) First paragraph, 

(a) Line 5, the phrase ‘‘materials to 

the’’ is corrected to read ‘‘materials 

submitted to the.’’

(b) Line 11, the phrase ‘‘ Attorney 

Advisor and’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘Attorney Advisor, and.’’

(2) Third paragraph, lines 5 and 6, the 

phrase ‘‘as well as, CMS Rulings’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘as well as CMS 

Rulings.’’

■ b. Third column, last paragraph, line 

7, the phrase ‘‘of this subpart or’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘of this subpart, or.’’

■ 13. On page 30261, first column, 

second paragraph, line 4, the phrase 

‘‘Board information’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘Board, information.’’

■ 14. On page 30262, second column, 

sixth paragraph, line 4, the phrase 

‘‘policy, and rules’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘policy, or rules.’’

■ 15. On page 30263, first column, 

■ a. Tenth paragraph, ‘‘(d) Ex parte 

communications prohibited. All 

communications from any party, CMS, 

or other affected nonparty, concerning a 

Board decision (or other reviewable 

action) that is being reviewed or may be 

reviewed by the Administrator must—’’

is corrected to read ‘‘(d) Ex parte 

communications prohibited. The 

Administrator does not consider any 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 49357 

communication that does not meet the 

following requirements or is not 

submitted within the required time 

limits. All communications from any 

party, CMS, or other affected nonparty, 

concerning a Board decision (or other 

reviewable action) that is being 

reviewed or may be reviewed by the 

Administrator must—’’

■ b. Last paragraph, lines 1 through 3, 

through the second column, first 

paragraph, lines 1 through 4, the 

paragraph ‘‘(ii) Written submissions 

regarding review submitted under 

paragraph (c)(4) of this section. The 

Administrator does not consider any 

communication that does not meet these 

requirements or is not submitted within 

the required time limits.’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘(ii) Written submissions regarding 

review submitted under paragraph (c)(4) 

of this section.’’

■ 16. On page 30267, first column, sixth 

full paragraph, lines 2 and 3, the phrase 

‘‘revising the last sentence in each of 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘removing the last two sentences 

in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) and 

adding one sentence in their place in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2).’’

IV. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking 

and 30-Day Delay in Effective Date 

We ordinarily publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register to provide a period for public 

comment before the provisions of a rule 

take effect in accordance with section 

553(b) of the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, 

we can waive this notice and comment 

procedure if the Secretary finds, for 

good cause, that the notice and 

comment process is impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, and incorporates a statement of 

the finding and the reasons therefore in 

the notice. 

We find it unnecessary to undertake 

notice and comment rulemaking 

because this notice merely provides 

typographical and technical corrections. 

The revisions do not represent changes 

in policy, nor do they have a substantive 

effect, and the public interest would be 

best served by timely correction of these 

technical and typographical errors. 

Therefore, we find good cause to waive 

notice and comment procedures. 

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily 

requires a 30-day delay in effective date 

of final rules after the date of their 

publication in the Federal Register. 

This 30-day delay in effective date can 

be waived, however, if an agency finds 

for good cause that the delay is 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, and the agency 

incorporates a statement of the findings 

and its reasons in the rule issued. 

Because this correction notice does 

not make substantive changes to the 

final rule, and the public interest is 

served by quickly correcting these 

technical errors in order to improve the 

clarity of the regulation, we find good 

cause under section 553(d)(3) of the 

APA to waive the 30-day delay in 

effective date. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital 

Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, 

Medicare—Supplementary Medical 

Insurance Program) 

Dated: August 15, 2008. 

Ann C. Agnew, 

Executive Secretary to the Department. 

[FR Doc. E8–19295 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

46 CFR Part 315 

[Docket No. MARAD 2008 0076] 

RIN 2133–AB73 

U.S. Citizenship for Contracts on RRF 

Vessels 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking clarifies 

Maritime Administration regulations 

which require that Agents (including 

Ship Managers) for the National Defense 

Reserve Fleet (NDRF) appointed by the 

Maritime Administration be United 

States citizens. 

DATES: Effective August 21, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay 

Gordon, Office of the Chief Counsel, at 

(202) 366–5173, via e-mail at 

Jay.Gordon@dot.gov, or by writing to: 

Jay Gordon, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Maritime Administration, MAR–221, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This rulemaking clarifies title 46 CFR 

part 315.5, Appointment of an Agent, 

which requires that Agents (including 

Ship Managers) for the National Defense 

Reserve Fleet (NDRF) appointed by the 

Maritime Administration be United 

States citizens, as defined in § 315.3(b). 

This action is taken on the Maritime 

Administration’s initiative. 

Under existing authority, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) transfers 

vessels to the custody of the Maritime 

Administration for inclusion in the 

NDRF. Pursuant to that authority, eight 

Fast Sealift Ships (FSS) are being 

transferred from the Military Sealift 

Command (MSC) into the Ready Reserve 

Force (RRF) component of the NDRF, 

effective October 1, 2008. The eight FSS 

vessels are currently operated by Maersk 

Lines Limited (MLL) under contract 

with MSC. Under the terms of this 

transfer, MSC has delegated procuring 

contracting officer authority for the FSS 

contract to the Maritime 

Administration, which will provide 

oversight and direction for the 

remainder of the contract. Since the 

transferred vessels are being maintained 

and operated under a contract awarded 

by another federal agency, 

administration of that contract does not 

constitute the appointment of an Agent 

by the Maritime Administration under 

46 CFR part 315.5. 

This regulation clarifies the limited 

duration of performance under such 

contracts. 

Program Description 

In this rulemaking, the Maritime 

Administration is clarifying the U.S. 

citizenship requirements for certain 

contacts between the owners of vessels 

in the RRF program of the NDRF and the 

Maritime Administration, by the 

addition of a new section to 46 CFR part 

315. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking is not significant 

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866, and as a consequence, OMB did 

not review the rule. This rulemaking is 

also not significant under the Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures of the 

Department of Transportation (44 FR 

11034; February 26, 1979). It is also not 

considered a major rule for purposes of 

Congressional review under Public Law 

104–121. We believe that the economic 

impact of this rulemaking does not 

warrant the preparation of a full 

regulatory evaluation since the 

rulemaking clarifies existing regulations 

set forth in 46 CFR part 315. 

Executive Order 13132 

We analyzed this rulemaking in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’) and have 

determined that it does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement. The 

regulations herein have no substantial 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES