Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/353465/Federal-Register-02-28083
Timestamp: 2020-05-30 16:05:18
Document Index: 214841076

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 62', '§ 62', '§ 62', 'art 60', 'arts 410', 'art 2']

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2002 / Rules and Regulations | Medicare (United States) | Clean Air Act (United States)
Federal Register-02-28083
saveSave Federal Register-02-28083 For Later
powerengineering201705-dl.pdf
MEDICARD PHILIPPINES v CIR DIGEST.docx
Rule: Air programs: Ambient air quality standards, national&#8212; Nevada
Diesel and Bio-diesel Fuels
110518_dental_implants.pdf
Updated Health Care Comparison Chart
Coalition Against Columbus Center Selma Arnold Ross Graham Al Hehn Columbus Center Travel, Ltd. Coalition Against Lincoln West, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. City of New York the Board of Estimate of the City of New York Department of Housing Preservation & Development of New York City Metropolitan Transportation Agency Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority the New York City Industrial Development Agency Coliseum Associates, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 967 F.2d 764, 2d Cir. (1992)
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 6, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Municipal waste combustion units, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: October 24, 2002. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
1. The authority citation for part 62
2. Subpart Z is amended by adding an
undesignated center heading and § 62.6126 to read as follows:
§ 62.6126
Letter from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality submitted March 27, 2002, certifying that there are no small municipal waste
Identification of plan—negative
combustion units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB.
[FR Doc. 02–28079 Filed 11–4–02; 8:45 am]
[AMS–FRL–7404–5]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency will be holding a Clean Diesel
Fuel Implementation Workshop November 20 and 21 in Houston, Texas. The clean diesel fuel program (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001) establishes a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm for highway diesel fuel beginning in June
2006 to enable the advanced emission
control devices that will be used on
2007 and later model year heavy-duty
diesel vehicles. The purpose of this workshop is to assist regulated entities, including refiners, fuel distributors, and fuel marketers, with program
implementation and compliance. The workshop is being sponsored by the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) in conjunction with the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA), the Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL), the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), the Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA), and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA). EPA will present a summary of the clean diesel program, including recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and enforcement provisions. The workshop will also include a series of industry panel sessions on developing solutions to program implementation challenges. An agenda for the workshop will be available in early November on the clean diesel Web Page: http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm. If you plan to attend the workshop, please register at https://www.b-there.com/
breg/diw02/index.cfm?x=1.
DATES: Wednesday, November 20, 2002, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Thursday, November 21, 2002, from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The Westin Galleria Hotel,
5060 W. Alabama Street, Houston,
Texas 77056, (713) 960–8100, (713)
960–6553 (fax), http:// www.starwood.com/westin/index.html.
Mary Manners, Chemical Engineer, U.S. EPA, National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, Assessment and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone: (734) 214–4873, fax: (734) 214–4051, e-mail:
manners.mary@epa.gov.
Dated: October 30, 2002. Donald E. Zinger, Acting Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. [FR Doc. 02–28083 Filed 11–4–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6561–7–M
42 CFR Parts 410 and 414
[CMS–1204–N]
RIN 0938–AL21
Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 2003, Notice of Delay of Final Rule
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Notice of delay of final rule.
SUMMARY: This document gives notice of a delay in publication of the physician fee schedule for calendar year 2003 due to concerns about data used to establish the physician fees and the need to further assess the accuracy of the data.
Terry Kay (410) 786–4497.
Medicare physician fee schedule specifies payments to physicians for more than 7,000 health care services and procedures ranging from routine office visits to complex surgical procedures. In calendar year (CY) 2003, Medicare is expected to pay approximately $44.7 billion to over 750,000 physicians and other practitioners for services paid under the physician fee schedule. On June 28, 2002, we published a proposed rule to refine the resource- based ST practice expense relative value units (RVUs) and make other changes to Medicare Part B payment policy, which affect the Medicare physician fee schedule for CY 2003. The policy changes proposed concerned: the Medicare Economic Index, pricing of the technical component for positron
emission tomography (PET) scans, Medicare qualifications for clinical nurse specialists, a process to add or delete services to the definition of telehealth, definition for ZZZ global periods, global period for surface radiation, and an endoscopic base for urology codes. We also discuss the refinement of anesthesia work values, clinical social worker services, and how drugs are accounted for in the sustainable growth rate. Under the formula set for in section 1848(b)(1) of the Social Security Act, the payment amount for each service paid under the physician fee schedule is the product of three factors: (1) A nationally uniform RVU for the service; (2) a geographic adjustment factor for each physician; and (3) a nationally uniform conversion factor (CF) for the service. The CF converts the RVUs into payment amounts. For each physician fee schedule service there are three RVUs:
(1) An RVU for physician work; (2) an RVU for practice expense; and (3) an RVU for malpractice expense. We are concerned about information and data used in establishing RVUs for certain physicians’ services that would apply under the Medicare physician fee schedule for CY 2003. In reviewing the information and data used to establish RVUs (including data and information obtained from outside sources) we discovered that the data and information were incomplete, and we could not, therefore, make an accurate evaluation and establishment of RVUs, which form in part the basis of payment under the physician fee schedule. The effects of the incomplete data and information that we have identified are of such a magnitude to affect significantly the rates paid under the physician fee schedule for all physicians, non-physician practitioners, suppliers and providers paid physician fee schedule rates. Because changes in RVUs are done in a budget-neutral manner, RVU changes have redistributive implications for all physicians, non-physician practitioners, suppliers, and providers paid physician fee schedule rates. Using the data and information as currently constituted without refinement would result in inappropriate and uneven payments to physicians, non-physician practitioners, suppliers, and providers. Because it would be impossible to avoid such uneven payments at this point based on the current state of information, it would be inappropriate to proceed to publication of a final rule with a physician fee schedule for CY 2003 until the subject data and information can be re-evaluated and then utilized to
assign the proper number of units under our relative value system. In order to thoroughly assess the accuracy of the data and information and to assure that they do not contain further inaccuracies that might also have significant implications, an intensive review of the data and information will be necessary. Because of the time needed for this review, we cannot complete this review and recalculate the physician fee schedule rates for CY 2003 before November 1, 2002. Once our review has been completed and data and information assessed and rates revised, we will publish a final rule. We will announce the effective date of the physician fee schedule for CY 2003 in that rule.
Dated: October 31, 2002. Thomas A. Scully, Administrator, , Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Approved: October 31, 2002. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary. [FR Doc. 02–28147 Filed 11–1–02; 11:57 am]
[Gen Docket No. 86–285; FCC 02–202]
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: In this document the Commission has amended its Schedule of Application Fees to adjust the fees for processing applications and other filings. Section 8(b) of the Communications Act requires the Commission to adjust its application fees every two years after October 1, 1991 to reflect the net change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The increased fees reflect the net change in the CPI-U of 40 percent, calculated from December 1989 to October 2001. DATES: Effective December 5, 2002.
Claudette Pride, Office of the Managing Director at (202) 418–1995.
17:23 Nov 04, 2002
Documents Similar To Federal Register-02-28083
insurance comparison chart 2nd
Deadline Citizen Suits: An Idea Whose Time Has Expired
Primary Care Infrastructure Investment SIM TA Paper 7-1-14
Research Template for Projects (1)
Aldwi Sukainternazionalemilano
Low SAP Oils Short [Compatibility Mode]
170207_eMISK-Waste_Launch_f2
Ecocem Brochure
3Bortho MSDS 201710
02 Sustainable+Architecture+ +Theory+04wm
NRIC Flip Chart Final Printing
Arail 1344424413-Testing Ankleshwar
FYP Presentation-Done.pptx