Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 13021

Urban area

(constituent counties)

Wage

index GAF

7485 ..................... Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA ............................................................................................................. 1.4040 1.2616

7600 ..................... Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA1 .......................................................................................................... 1.1018 1.0686

1 Large Urban Area.

2 Hospitals geographically located in the area are assigned the statewide rural wage index for FY 2001.

3. On page 47156, in Table 4B—Wage

Index and Capital Geographic

Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Rural

Areas, the wage indexes and GAFs for

the specified nonurban are corrected to

read as follows:

Nonurban area Wage

index GAF

Michigan ................... 0.9003 0.9306

4. On page 47156 through 47157, in

Table 4C—Wage Index and Capital

Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for

Hospitals that are Reclassified, the wage

indexes and GAFs for the specified

areas are added or corrected to read as

follows:

Area reclassified to Wage

index GAF

Benton Harbor, MI ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.9003 0.9306

Green Bay, WI ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.9339 0.9542

Jackson, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.8679 0.9075

Jersey City, NJ 1 ...................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................

Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN–VA ................................................................................................................................... 0.8318 0.8815

Kansas City, KS–MO ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.9527 0.9674

Las Cruces, NM1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................

Salinas, CA1 ............................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA .................................................................................................................................................... 1.3861 1.2505

Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA .................................................................................................................................................. 1.1018 1.0686

Sioux City, IA–NE1 .................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................

Sioux Falls, SD ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.8790 0.9155

Rural Michigan ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.9003 0.9306

1 No hospitals are reclassified to the area.

5. On page 47158, in Table 4D—

Average Hourly Wage for Urban Areas,

the hourly wage for the specified urban

area is corrected to read as follows:

Urban area

Average

hourly

wage

Kansas City, KS–MO ................ 20.7416

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.773 Medicare—Hospital

Insurance)

Dated: February 22, 2001.

William E. Clark,

Acting, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Information Resource Management.

[FR Doc. 01–5108 Filed 3–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Parts 410, 412, 413, and 485

[HCFA–1118–CN1]

RIN 0938–AK09

Medicare Program; Changes to the

Hospital Inpatient Prospective

Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2001

Rates; Correction

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction notice.

SUMMARY: In the August 1, 2000 issue of

the Federal Register (65 FR 47054), we

published a final rule that revised the

Medicare hospital inpatient prospective

payment systems for operating costs and

capital-related costs to implement

necessary changes arising from our

continuing experience with the system.

This document corrects errors made in

that final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne Tayloe, (410) 786–4546.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document corrects a limited number of

values to address technical errors in

preparing tables 3C and 4A through 4D

for publication in the August 1, 2000

Federal Register. Table 3C reflects

changes to the wage data and tables 4A

through 4D reflect changes in the actual

payments due to hospital

reclassification with the exception of

the change in table 4A for MSA 0240

(Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA).

The August 1, 2000 final rule also

contained other technical and

typographical errors. Therefore, we are

making the following corrections:

1. On page 47144, in Table 3C—

Hospital Case Mix Indexes for

Discharges Occurring in Federal Fiscal

Year 1999; Hospital Average Hourly

Wage for Federal Fiscal Year 2001 Wage

Index, the average hourly wages for the

specified providers is corrected to read

as follows:

Provider Case mix

index

Average

hourly

wage

390263 ...................... 1.3571 20.69

2. On pages 47149 and 47151, in

Table 4A—Wage Index and Capital

Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for

Urban Areas, the wage indexes and

GAFs for the specified urban areas are

corrected to read as follows:

13022 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Urban area

(constituent counties)

Wage

index GAF

0240 ...................... Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA; Carbon, PA; Lehigh, PA ............................................................... 0.9925 0.9949

3040 ...................... Great Falls, MT; Cascade, MT ............................................................................................................. 0.9330 0.9536

3. On page 47156, in Table 4B—Wage

Index and Capital Geographic

Adjustment Factor (GAF) for Rural

Areas, the wage index and GAF for the

specified nonurban area is corrected to

read as follows:

Nonurban area Wage

index GAF

Vermont .................... 0.9409 0.9591

4. On page 47156 through 47157, in

Table 4C—Wage Index and Capital

Geographic Adjustment Factor (GAF) for

Hospitals that are Reclassified, the wage

indexes and GAFs for the specified

areas are added or corrected to read as

follows:

Area Wage

index GAF

Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.3583 1.2333

Burlington, VT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.0236 1.0161

Great Falls, MT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.9330 0.9536

Kalamazoo-Battlecreek, MI ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.0291 1.0198

Newburgh, NY–PA ................................................................................................................................................................... 1.0317 1.0216

5. On page 47157, in Table 4D—

Average Hourly Wage for Urban Areas,

the average hourly wage for the

specified urban area is corrected to read

as follows:

Urban area

Average

hourly

wage

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton,

PA ......................................... 21.6065

6. On pages 47160 and 47167, in

Table 5—List of Diagnosis Related

Groups (DRGs), Relative Weighting

Factors, Geometric and Arithmetic

Mean Length of Stay, the fourth column

(DRG title) is amended as follows:

a. DRG 27, ‘‘Traumatic Stupor &

Coma, Coma <1 hr’’ is corrected to read

‘‘Traumatic Stupor & Coma, Coma >1

hr.’’

b. DRG 29, ‘‘Traumatic Stupor &

Coma, Coma <1 hr Age ≤17 W/O CC’’ is

corrected to read ‘‘Traumatic Stupor &

Coma, Coma <1 hr Age> 17 W/O CC.’’

c. DRG 425, ‘‘Acute Adjustment

Reaction & Psychological Dysfunction’’

is corrected to read ‘‘Acute Adjustment

Reaction & Psychosocial Dysfunction.’’

7. On page 47171, in Table 6C—

Invalid Diagnosis Codes the following

entry is added before the first line of the

table to read as follows:

Diagnosis code Description CC MDC DRG

282.5 ................................. Anemia in chronic illness ..................................................................................... N 16 395, 396

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.773 Medicare—Hospital

Insurance)

Dated: February 22, 2001.

William E. Clark,

Acting, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Information Resource Management.

[FR Doc. 01–5107 Filed 3–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 90

[PR Docket No. 93–144; RM 8117; RM 8029;

RM 8030; GN Docket No. 93–252; PP Docket

No. 93–253; FCC 01–33]

Future Development of SMR Systems

in the 800 MHz Frequency Band,

Regulatory Treatment of Mobile

Services, and Competitive Bidding

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In this Third Order on

Reconsideration, the Commission

answers petitions for reconsideration

filed by the American Mobile

Telecommunications Association

(‘‘AMTA’’) and Petroleum

Communications, Inc. (‘‘Petrocom’’) of

the Commission’s Memorandum

Opinion and Order on Reconsideration.

In that document, the Commission

completed the implementation of a new

licensing framework for the 800 MHz

Specialized Mobile Radio Service

(‘‘SMR’’). In this document, the

Commission denies the petition filed by

AMTA seeking interim payments for

incumbent 800 MHz licensees being

involuntarily relocated to new

frequencies by geographic licensees.

Additionally, the Commission denies

the Petrocom petition requesting that

the Commission include the Gulf of

Mexico as an additional Economic Area

(‘‘EA’’) in the then-upcoming 800 MHz

auctions for the 150 General Category

channels (Auction 34) and the Lower 80

channels (Auction 36).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don

Johnson, Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division

at (202) 418–7240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Federal

Communications Commission’s (‘‘the

Commission’’) Third Order on

Reconsideration, FCC 01–33, in PR

Docket No. 93–144; RM–8117; RM–

8029; RM–8030; GN Docket No. 93–252;

PP Docket No. 93–253 was adopted

January 26, 2001, and was released

February, 2, 2001. The full text of this

Third Order on Reconsideration is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257,

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC.

The complete text may be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,