collection
stringclasses 21
values | id
stringlengths 13
60
| title
stringlengths 5
2.12k
| date
timestamp[s] | author
stringclasses 12
values | text
stringlengths 184
13.9M
| source
stringclasses 1
value | added
stringlengths 26
26
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6522 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6522]
[[Page 25575]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
AGENCY: Department of Education.
SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management
Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for
OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
May 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk
Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395-6974.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an
early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB
may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the
extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat
the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal
law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform
its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory
Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that
notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to
submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information
collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of
review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or
reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4)
Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5)
Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or
Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
Angela C. Arrington,
IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services,
Office of Management.
Office of Postsecondary Education
Type of Review: Revision.
Title: Higher Education Act (HEA) Title II Reporting Forms on
Teacher Quality and Preparation.
Frequency: Annually.
Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; not-
for-profit institutions.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:
Responses: 1,309.
Burden Hours: 121,632.
Abstract: The Higher Education Act of 1998 calls for annual reports
from states and institutions of higher education (IHE) on the quality
of teacher education and related matters (Pub. L. 105-244, section
207:20 U.S.C. 1027). The purpose of the reports is to provide greater
accountability in the preparation of America's teaching forces and to
provide information and incentives for its improvement. Most IHEs that
have teacher preparation programs must report annually to their states
on the performance of their program completers on teacher certification
tests. States, in turn, must report test performance information,
institution by institution, to the Secretary of Education, along with
institution rankings. They must also report on their requirements for
licensing teachers, state standards, alternative routes to
certifications, waivers, and related items.
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for
OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting
the ``Browse Pending Collections'' link and by clicking on link number
2975. When you access the information collection, click on ``Download
Attachments'' to view. Written requests for information should be
addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also
be electronically mailed to IC [email protected] or faxed to 202-245-
6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection
when making your request.
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity
requirements should be electronically mailed to IC [email protected].
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
[FR Doc. E6-6522 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.140892 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6522.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6526 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25575-25577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6526]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests
AGENCY: Department of Education.
SUMMARY: The Director, Regulatory Information Management Services,
Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information
collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
June 30, 2006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an
early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB
may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the
extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat
the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal
law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform
its statutory obligations. The Director, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice
containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission
of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped
by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g.
new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3)
Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and
proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of
collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites
public comment.
The Department of Education is especially interested in public
comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection
necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this
information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the
estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on
the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
Jeanne Van Vlandren,
Director, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of
Management.
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
Type of Review: Regular.
Title: Annual Mandatory Collection of Elementary and Secondary
Education Data for the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN).
Frequency: Annually.
[[Page 25576]]
Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:
Responses: 6,052.
Burden Hours: 476,234.
Abstract: The Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) is in the
implementation phase of a multiple year effort to consolidate the
collection of education information about States, Districts, and
Schools in a way that improves data quality and reduces paperwork
burden for all of the national education partners. To minimize the
burden on the data providers, EDEN seeks the transfer of the proposed
data as soon as it has been processed for State, District, and School
use. These data will then be stored in EDEN and accessed by federal
education program managers and analysts as needed to make program
management decisions. This process will eliminate redundant data
collections while providing for the timeliness of data submission and
use.
Additional Information: The Department of Education (ED) is
specifically requesting the data providers in each the State Education
Agency (SEA) to review the proposed data elements to determine which of
these data can be provided for the upcoming 2006-2007 school year and
which data would be available in later years (2007-2008 or 2008-2009)
and which data, if any, is never expected to be available from the SEA.
If information for a data group is not available, please provide
information beyond the fact that it is not available. Are there
specific impediments to providing this data that you can describe? Is
the definition for the data group unclear or ambiguous? Do the
requested code sets not align with the way your state collects the
data? This is very important information because ED intends to make the
collection of these data mandatory. ED also seeks to know if the SEA
data definitions are consistent and compatible with the EDEN
definitions and accurately reflect the way data is stored and used for
education by the States, Districts, and Schools. The answers to these
questions by the data providers will influence the timing and content
of the final EDEN proposal for the collection of this elementary and
secondary data. In addition to overall public comments, ED would also
like state education data providers to consider and respond to a number
of specific questions that were developed during the recent data
definition cycle for EDEN 2006-07 data. While most of these questions
address the ability of states to provide information, some speak to the
potential burden on states associated with overall changes in EDEN.
When responding to these questions, please include the question number
in your response.
1. Some of the EDEN data groups require additional information in
order to interpret it properly; this is loosely described as metadata.
For example, state proficiency levels and the levels that make up
proficient and higher differ from one state to the next. Similarly,
there are numerous data groups that collect information on state-
defined items such as truants, persistently dangerous schools, and
definition of school year. For all of these examples, additional
information is needed in order to fully understand the reported data as
well as to understand whether comparisons across the state are (or are
not) appropriate. We are currently considering several ways to collect
this information including web-based forms and a separate state-level
submission file. What would be the most convenient way for your state
to initially provide and subsequently update this information?
2. As EDEN matures, we are weighing the costs/benefits of
standardizing the naming conventions of the data groups in order to
align them more closely with the Federal Enterprise Architecture. We
anticipate this effort would result in changes to approximately \1/3\
of data group names and we would provide a crosswalk between the old
name and the new name of each data group. The numbers assigned to the
data groups would not change. What impact would data group name changes
have on the burden associated with producing and submitting EDEN data
files in your state? If we do elect to make these changes, what tools
can ED provide to you to lessen your paperwork burden?
3. For the 2006-07 EDEN data set, we added a new topic area:
Finance. This change was based on an understanding that in many states,
data for files that include financial information come from a source
that is separate from the rest of the EDEN data files. So far, we have
moved the following data groups to this new topic area: 574--Federal
Funding Allocation Table, 614--REAP Alternative Funding Indicator,
615--RLIS Program Table, 616--Transfer Funds Indicator, plus the two
new data groups: Funds Spent on Supplemental Services and Funds Spent
on School Choice. Is this conceptual change helpful in your state? Are
there other data groups that you recommend that we move to this new
topic area?
4. As part of the merge between NCES' Common Core of Data (CCD) and
EDEN, we would like to modify the way the CCD ID code for schools and
districts are submitted in EDEN data files. The CCD ID code is made up
of 3 components (a 2 digit FIPS code, a 5 digit district ID code, and a
5 digit school ID code). CCD collects all 3 of these components
separately meaning that for schools, there are 3 ID codes that,
together, make a unique identifier. EDEN collects a single 7 digit CCD
District ID (FIPS thru District) and a single 12 digit CCD school ID
(FIPS thru District thru School). What impact would there be on your
state's ability to provide EDEN data files if EDEN changed to the CCD
methodology for NCES IDs?
5. For Magnet School Status (at the school level) CCD collects only
(1) Yes and (2) No. EDEN is set up to collect 4 categories of
information regarding Magnet Schools: (1) Magnet All Students, (2)
Magnet Not All Students, (3) Not Magnet, and (4) Not Collected by
State. At what level of detail does your state collect information on
Magnet Schools? What is the burden to your state to provide the data
EDEN is requesting?
6. OSEP has historically collected placement information for school
age children by age ranges (6-11, 12-17, and 18-21). For 2006-07, USED
is proposing to collect this information using discrete ages (instead
of the previously used age ranges). This change would take place in
EDEN data group 74, Children with Disabilities (IDEA), in the
category set that now contains Educational Environment (IDEA),
Disability Category (IDEA), and Age Group (Placement). The comparable
data group for early childhood (Data Group 613) already
collects placement information by discrete age. How does this change
affect your state's reporting ability and burden?
7. How do states track dropouts within each state? Would states be
able to report dropout data by age or is this information only
available by grade?
8. EDEN currently collects dropout data by grade for students in
grades 7-12 but will be adding ungraded as an option for the 2006-07
reporting year. Does your state have a significant number of dropouts
in grades other than 7-12 (e.g., a student in grade 6 who reaches the
age where dropping out is an option)? Can you report this count as a
single number (e.g., total dropouts below 7th grade)?
9. Please examine the two new data groups--Funds Spent on
Supplemental Services and Funds Spent on School Choice. What
information does your state ask LEAs to report on this subject? Can you
provide the information requested? If you cannot provide data for these
new data groups for 2006-07,
[[Page 25577]]
when will you be able to provide this data?
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request
may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the ``Browse
Pending Collections'' link and by clicking on link number 03017. When
you access the information collection, click on ``Download
Attachments'' to view. Written requests for information should be
addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also
be electronically mailed to [email protected] or faxed to 202-245-
6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection
when making your request.
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity
requirements should be electronically mailed to [email protected].
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
[FR Doc. E6-6526 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.151630 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6526.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6528 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25577-25580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6528]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Overview
Information; Enhanced Assessment Instruments; Notice Inviting
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.368.
Dates:
Applications Available: May 1, 2006.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 15, 2006.
Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies (SEAs); consortia
of SEAs.
Estimated Available Funds: $11,680,000 in FY 2005 funds.
Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000 to $2,000,000.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,460,000.
Estimated Number of Awards: 8.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project period: Up to 18 months.
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: To enhance the quality of assessment
instruments and systems used by States for measuring the achievement of
all students.
Priorities: This application includes four absolute and three
competitive preference priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR
75.105(b)(2)(iv), the absolute priorities are from section 6112 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The
competitive preference priorities are from Appendix E to the notice of
final requirements for optional State consolidated applications
submitted under section 9302 of the ESEA, published in the Federal
Register on May 22, 2002 (67 FR 35967).
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2005, these priorities are absolute
priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications
that address one or more of these priorities.
These priorities are:
a. Collaborate with institutions of higher education, other
research institutions, or other organizations to improve the quality,
validity, and reliability of State academic assessments beyond the
requirements for these assessments described in section 1111(b)(3) of
the ESEA;
b. Measure student academic achievement using multiple measures of
student academic achievement from multiple sources;
c. Chart student progress over time; and
d. Evaluate student academic achievement through the development of
comprehensive academic assessment instruments, such as performance and
technology-based academic assessments.
Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2005, these priorities
are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we
will award up to an additional 35 points to an application, depending
on the extent to which the application meets these priorities.
These priorities are: Test accommodations and alternate assessments
(up to 15 points), collaborative efforts (up to 10 points), and
dissemination (up to 10 points).
Note: The full text of these priorities is included in the
notice of final requirements published in the Federal Register on
May 22, 2002 (67 FR 35967) and in the application package.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7842 and 7301a.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81,
82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
(b) The notice of final requirements published in the Federal
Register on May 22, 2002 (67 FR 35967).
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
Estimated Available Funds: $11,680,000 in FY 2005 funds.
Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000 to $2,000,000.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,460,000.
Estimated Number of Awards: 8.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project period: Up to 18 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; consortia of SEAs.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not involve cost
sharing or matching.
3. Other: An application from a consortium of SEAs must designate
one SEA as the fiscal agent.
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Package: Zollie Stevenson, Jr.,
Student Achievement and School Accountability Program, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3W226, Washington, DC
20202-6132. Telephone: (202) 260-1824 or by e-mail:
[email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application
package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact
person listed in this section.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements
concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you
must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application)
is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that
reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to
the equivalent of no more than 40 pages, using the following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only with
1 margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, and captions as well as all text in charts,
tables, figures, and graphs.
Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller
than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet, budget section
(chart and
[[Page 25578]]
narrative), assurances and certifications, response regarding research
activities involving human subjects, GEPA 427 response, one-page
abstract, personnel resumes, and letters of support; however,
discussion of how the application meets the absolute priorities, how
well the application meets the competitive preference priorities, and
how well the application addresses each of the selection criteria must
be included within the page limit.
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application if--
You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or
You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the
page limit.
3. Submission Dates and Times:
Applications Available: May 1, 2006.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 15, 2006.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted
electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For
information (including dates and times) about how to submit your
application electronically or by mail or hand delivery if you qualify
for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer
to section IV. 6. Other Submission Requirements in this notice.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the
deadline requirements.
4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is not subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
6. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under
this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify
for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the
instructions in this section.
a. Electronic Submission of Applications.
Applications for grants under the Enhanced Assessment Instruments-
CFDA Number 84.368 must be submitted electronically using the
Grants.gov Apply site at http://www.grants.gov. Through this site, you
will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it
offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-
mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format
unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of
the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no
later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written
statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these
exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that
is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in
this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
You may access the electronic grant application for Enhanced
Assessment Instruments at: http://www.grants.gov. You must search for
the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA
number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search.
Please note the following:
When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find
information about submitting an application electronically through the
site, as well as the hours of operation.
Applications received by Grants.gov are time and date
stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted, and
must be date/time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as
otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application
if it is date/time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we
retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are
rejecting your application because it was date/time stamped after 4:30
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
The amount of time it can take to upload an application
will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the
application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline
date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
You should review and follow the Education Submission
Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are
included in the application package for this competition to ensure that
you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov
system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures
pertaining to Grants.gov at http://eGrants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.
To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must
complete all of the steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see
http://www.Grants.gov/GetStarted). These steps include (1) registering
your organization, (2) registering yourself as an Authorized
Organization Representative (AOR), and (3) getting authorized as an AOR
by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the
Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see http://www.grants.gov/assets/GrantsgovCoBrandBrochure8X11.pdf). You also must provide on your
application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please
note that the registration process may take five or more business days
to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to
allow you to successfully submit an application via Grants.gov.
You will not receive additional point value because you
submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission
requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your
application in paper format.
You must submit all documents electronically, including
all information typically included on the Application for Federal
Education Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information--Non-Construction
Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. You
must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a
.DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format.
If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified
above or submit a password protected file, we will not review that
material.
Your electronic application must comply with any page
limit requirements described in this notice.
After you electronically submit your application, you will
receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a
Grants.gov tracking number. The Department will retrieve your
application from Grants.gov and send you a second confirmation by e-
mail that will include a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying
number unique to your application).
We may request that you provide us original signatures on
forms at a later date.
Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues
with the Grants.gov System: If you are prevented from electronically
submitting your application on the application deadline date because of
technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an
extension until 4:30 p.m.,
[[Page 25579]]
Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to
transmit your application electronically, or by hand delivery. You may
also mail your application by following the mailing instructions as
described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after
4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the deadline date, please contact
the person listed elsewhere in this notice under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, and provide an explanation of the technical
problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov
Support Desk Case Number (if available). We will accept your
application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with
the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to
submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the
application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a
determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.
Note: Extensions referred to in this section apply only to the
unavailability of or technical problems with the Grants.gov system.
We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register
to submit your application to Grants.gov before the deadline date
and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to
the Grants.gov system.
Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an
exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your
application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application
through the Grants.gov system because--
You do not have access to the Internet; or
You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to
the Grants.gov system; and
No later than two weeks before the application deadline
date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the
application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business
day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement
to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception
prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you
mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no
later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax
your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed
statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Zollie Stevenson, Jr.,
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3W226,
Washington, DC 20202-6132. FAX: (202) 260-7764.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the
mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission
requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a
commercial carrier), your application to the Department. You must mail
the original and two copies of your application, on or before the
application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable
following address:
By mail through the U.S. Postal Service: U.S. Department of
Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.368),
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or
By mail through a commercial carrier: U.S. Department of Education,
Application Control Center--Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.368),
7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506.
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing
consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark,
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the
U.S. Postal Service,
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial
carrier, or
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark, or
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline
date, we will not consider your application.
Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated
postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your
local post office.
c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission
requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper
application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original
and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention:
(CFDA Number 84.368), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center
Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays,
Sundays and Federal holidays.
Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail
or hand deliver your application to the Department:
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and--if not provided by the
Department--in Item 4 of the Application for Federal Education
Assistance (ED 424) the CFDA number--and suffix letter, if any--of the
competition under which you are submitting your application.
(2) The Application Control Center will mail a grant application
receipt acknowledgment to you. If you do not receive the grant
application receipt acknowledgment within 15 business days from the
application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of
Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
V. Application Review Information
Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are
from Appendix E to the notice of final requirements published in the
Federal Register on May 22, 2002 (67 FR 35967) and are listed in the
application package.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notice
(GAN). We may also notify you informally.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy requirements in the application
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Reporting: At the end of your project period, you must submit a
final performance report, including financial information as directed
by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you
[[Page 25580]]
must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current
performance and financial expenditure information as specified by the
Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118.
4. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), the Department has developed three measures for
evaluating the effectiveness of the Enhanced Assessment Instruments
program: (1) The number of States that participated in pilot activities
described in each proposal; (2) the number of States that participated
in Enhanced Assessment grant projects funded by the current or prior
competitions; and (3) the number of presentations at national
conferences sponsored by professional education organizations and
papers submitted for publication in refereed journals.
All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance
report documenting their success in addressing the performance
measures.
VII. Agency Contact
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Rigney, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3C139, Washington, DC 20202-
6132. Telephone: (202) 260-0931, or by e-mail: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the program contact person listed in this
section.
VIII. Other Information
Electronic Access to This Document: You may view this document, as
well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the
Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
Henry L. Johnson,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. E6-6528 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.184505 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6528.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6531 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25580-25584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6531]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Overview
Information; Teacher Incentive Fund; Notice Inviting Applications for
New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.374A.
Dates: Applications Available: May 1, 2006.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: June 15, 2006.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 31, 2006.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 28, 2006.
Eligible Applicants: Local educational agencies (LEAs), including
charter schools that are LEAs in their State; State educational
agencies (SEAs); or partnerships of (a) an LEA, an SEA, or both, and
(b) at least one non-profit organization.
Estimated Available Funds: $94,050,000. The funds appropriated for
this program become available on July 1, 2006 for a period of 15
months. Therefore, we anticipate making awards using FY 2006 funds
early in FY 2007.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a
sufficient number of high-quality applications, we may make additional
awards, using FY 2007 funds, from the rank-ordered list of unfunded
applications from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards: $300,000-$12,000,000.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $8,000,000.
Estimated Number of Awards: 10-15.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Teacher Incentive Fund,
authorized as part of the FY 2006 Department of Education
Appropriations Act, Public Law 109-149, is to support programs that
develop and implement performance-based teacher and principal
compensation systems in high-need schools.
The specific goals of the Teacher Incentive Fund include: Improving
student achievement by increasing teacher and principal effectiveness;
reforming teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers
and principals are rewarded for increases in student achievement;
increasing the number of effective teachers teaching poor, minority,
and disadvantaged students in hard-to-staff subjects; and creating
sustainable performance-based compensation systems.
Priorities: We are establishing these priorities for the FY 2006
grant competition (including any awards we make, using FY 2007 funds,
from the list of unfunded applications from this competition), in
accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions
Act.
Absolute Priority: For the FY 2006 grant competition (including any
awards we make, using FY 2007 funds, from the list of unfunded
applications from this competition), this priority is an absolute
priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that
meet this priority.
Consistent with the program purpose, the grantee must establish a
system that provides teachers and principals, or principals only,
serving in high-need schools with differentiated levels of compensation
based primarily on student achievement gains at the school and
classroom levels. This performance-based compensation system must also
(a) consider classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each
school year and (b) provide educators with incentives to take on
additional responsibilities and leadership roles.
Competitive Preference Priorities: For the FY 2006 grant
competition (including any awards we make, using FY 2007 funds, from
the list of unfunded applications from this competition), these
priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i) we award up to an additional 5 points to an
application, depending on the extent to which the application meets the
priority.
These priorities are:
Competitive Preference Priority 1: We will award up to an
additional 5 points depending on the extent to which the applicant
documents or provides a plan to establish ongoing support for and
commitment to the performance-based compensation system from a
significant proportion of the teachers, the principal, and the
community, including the applicable governing authority or LEA, for
each participating high-need school.
Competitive Preference Priority 2: We will award up to an
additional 5 points depending on the extent to which the applicant will
provide differentiated
[[Page 25581]]
levels of compensation, which may include incentives, to recruit or
retain effective teachers and principals (as measured by student
achievement gains) in high-need urban and rural schools, and/or in
hard-to-staff subject areas such as mathematics and science.
Definitions: The following definitions apply:
A high-need school means a school with more than 30 percent of its
enrollment from low-income families, based on eligibility for free and
reduced price lunch subsidies or other poverty measures that the State
permits the LEAs to use. A middle or high school may be determined to
meet this definition on the basis of poverty data from feeder
elementary schools.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties
the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, definitions, cost-
sharing requirements, selection criteria, and performance measures.
Section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C.
1232(d)(1)), however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking
requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a
new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant
competition for this program authorized as part of the FY 2006
Department of Education Appropriations Act, Public Law 109-149, and
therefore these rules qualify for this exemption. To ensure timely
grant awards, the Secretary has decided, under section 437(d)(1), to
forego public comment on the priorities, definitions, cost-sharing
requirements, selection criteria, and performance measures. These
priorities, definitions, cost-sharing requirements, selection criteria,
and performance measures will apply to the FY 2006 grant competition
(including any awards we make, using FY 2007 funds, from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition).
Program Authority: Pub. L. 109-149, 119 Stat. 2864-65.
Applicable Regulations: The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80,
81, 81, 82, 84, 85, 97, 98, and 99.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grant.
Estimated Available Funds: $94,050,000. The funds appropriated for
this program become available on July 1, 2006 for a period of 15
months. Therefore, we anticipate making awards using FY 2006 funds in
early FY 2007.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a
sufficient number of high-quality applications, we may make additional
awards, using FY 2007 funds, from the rank-ordered list of unfunded
applications from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards: $300,000-$12,000,000.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $8,000,000.
Estimated Number of Awards: 10-15.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: LEAs, including charter schools that are
LEAs in their State; SEAs; or partnerships of (a) an LEA, an SEA, or
both, and (b) at least one non-profit organization.
2. Cost-Sharing: The grantee must ensure that, in each applicable
budget year, an increasing share of funds from sources other than this
grant will be used to pay for earned differential compensation costs as
they are phased in during the performance period. In the final year of
the performance period, the grantee must ensure that at least 75
percent of the differentiated compensation costs are not paid from this
grant.
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Package: Education Publications
Center (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone (toll
free): 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (301) 470-1244. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call (toll free):
1-877-576-7734.
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site: www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html or you may contact ED Pubs at its e-mail address:
[email protected].
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify
this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.374A.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application
package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting one of the individuals
listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII. of this
notice.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements
concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you
must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
Notice of Intent to Apply: We will be able to develop a more
efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we have a better
understanding of the number of entities that intend to apply for
funding.
Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to send a
notification of its intent to apply for funding to the following email
address: [email protected]. The notification of intent to apply for funding is
optional and should not include information regarding the proposed
application.
Page Limit: Applicants are strongly encouraged to limit their
application to 40 pages.
3. Submission Dates and Times: Applications Available: May 1, 2006.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: June 15, 2006.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 31, 2006.
Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted
electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in
paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates
and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or by
mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6. Other Submission
Requirements in this notice.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the
deadline requirements.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 28, 2006.
4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this
competition.
5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section in this notice.
6. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under
this competition may be submitted electronically or in paper format by
mail or hand delivery.
a. Electronic Submission of Applications. We have been accepting
applications electronically through the Department's e-Application
system since FY 2000. In order to expand on those efforts and comply
with the President's Management Agenda, we are continuing to
participate as a partner in the new government-wide Grants.gov Apply
site in FY 2006. Teacher Incentive Fund-CFDA Number 84.374A is one of
the programs included in this
[[Page 25582]]
project. We request your participation in Grants.gov.
If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must
use the Grants.gov Apply site at http://www.Grants.gov. Through this
site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package,
complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You
may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
You may access the electronic grant application for Teacher
Incentive Fund at: http://www.grants.gov. You must search for the
downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number.
Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search.
Please note the following:
Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary.
When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find
information about submitting an application electronically through the
site, as well as the hours of operation.
Applications received by Grants.gov are time and date
stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted, and
must be date/time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as
otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application
if it is date/time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we
retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are
rejecting your application because it was date/time stamped by the
Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the
application deadline date.
The amount of time it can take to upload an application
will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the
application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline
date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
You should review and follow the Education Submission
Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are
included in the application package for this competition to ensure that
you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov
system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures
pertaining to Grants.gov at http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf
To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must
complete all of the steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see
http://www.Grants.gov/GetStarted). These steps include (1) registering
your organization, (2) registering yourself as an Authorized
Organization Representative (AOR), and (3) getting authorized as an AOR
by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the
Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see http://www.grants.gov/assests/GrantsgovCoBrandBrochure8X11.pdf). You must also provide on
your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration.
Please note that the registration process may take five or more
business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration
steps to allow you to successfully submit an application via
Grants.gov.
You will not receive additional point value because you
submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you
if you submit your application in paper format.
You may submit all documents electronically, including all
information typically included on the Application for Federal Education
Assistance (SF 424), Budget Information--Non-Construction Programs (ED
524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. If you choose to
submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative
sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich
text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type
other than the three file types specified above or submit a password
protected file, we will not review that material.
Your electronic application must comply with any page
limit requirements described in this notice.
After you electronically submit your application, you will
receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a
Grants.gov tracking number. The Department will retrieve your
application from Grants.gov and send you a second confirmation by e-
mail that will include a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying
number unique to your application).
We may request that you provide us original signatures on
forms at a later date.
Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of System
Unavailability
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your
application on the application deadline date because of technical
problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension
until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to
enable you to transmit your application electronically, or by hand
delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing
instructions as described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an
application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the deadline date,
please contact the person listed elsewhere in this notice under For
Further Information Contact, and provide an explanation of the
technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the
Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number (if available). We will accept your
application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with
the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to
submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the
application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a
determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.
Note: Extensions referred to in this section apply only to the
unavailability of or technical problems with the Grants.gov system.
We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register
to submit your application to Grants.gov before the deadline date
and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to
the Grants.gov system.
b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail. If you submit your
application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or
a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of
your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the
Department at the applicable following address:
By mail through the U.S. Postal Service: U.S. Department of
Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.374A,
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or
By mail through a commercial carrier: U.S. Department of Education,
Application Control Center--Stop 4260, Attention: CFDA Number 84.374A,
7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506.
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing
consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark,
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the
U.S. Postal Service,
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial
carrier, or
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Education.
[[Page 25583]]
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark, or
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline
date, we will not consider your application.
Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated
postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your
local post office.
c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery. If you submit
your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier
service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application
by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department
at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application
Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.374A, 550 12th Street, SW.,
Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The
Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays and
Federal holidays.
Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail
or hand deliver your application to the Department:
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and--if not provided by the
Department--in Item 4 of the Application for Federal Education
Assistance (SF 424) the CFDA number--and suffix letter, if any--of the
competition under which you are submitting your application.
(2) The Application Control Center will mail a grant application
receipt acknowledgment to you. If you do not receive the grant
application receipt acknowledgment within 15 business days from the
application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of
Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
V. Application Review Information
Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are
as follows:
(a) Need (5 points). The extent to which the applicant describes
the scope and size of the project and the need for the project,
including information on student academic achievement and the quality
of the teachers and principals in the LEA(s) and high-need schools that
will be served by the project.
(b) Project Design (50 points). (1) The extent to which the
performance-based compensation system will reward teachers and
principals who raise student academic achievement.
(2) The extent to which the applicant describes the performance-
based teacher and principal compensation system that the applicant
proposes to develop, implement, or expand, including the extent to
which the applicant will build the capacity of teachers and principals
through activities such as professional development to raise student
achievement and to provide students with greater access to rigorous
coursework.
(3) The extent to which the applicant's proposed project includes
valid and reliable measures of student achievement--including statewide
assessment scores as appropriate for this purpose--as the primary
indicator of teacher and principal effectiveness in the proposed
performance-based compensation system.
(4) The extent to which the applicant proposes to develop and
implement a fair, rigorous and objective process to evaluate teacher
and principal performance multiple times throughout the school year.
(c) Adequacy of Resources (20 points). (1) The extent to which the
applicant provides a thorough explanation of how the applicant will use
funds awarded under the grant together with the required matching funds
to carry out the program purpose.
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides a detailed plan,
including documentation of resources, for sustaining its performance-
based compensation system after the grant period ends.
(3) The extent to which the applicant includes a thorough
description of its current data-management capacity and proposed areas
of data management development in order to implement a performance-
based compensation system in which differentiated compensation is based
primarily on student academic achievement.
(d) Quality of the Management Plan and Key Personnel (15 points).
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of
the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, milestones, and processes for
continuous improvement to accomplish project tasks.
(2) The qualifications, including experience, education, and
training of proposed key personnel.
(e) Evaluation (10 points). (1) The extent to which the applicant's
evaluation plan includes the use of objective measures that are clearly
related to the goals of the project to raise student achievement and
increase teacher effectiveness, including the extent to which the
evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data.
(2) The extent to which the applicant includes adequate evaluation
procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the
operation of the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the applicant commits to participating in a
rigorous national evaluation that will provide a common design
methodology, data collection instruments, and performance measures for
all grantees funded under this competition.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award
Notification (GAN). We may also notify you informally.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy requirements in the application
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Reporting: At the end of the project period, recipients must
submit a final performance report, including financial information, as
directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must
submit an annual performance report that provides the most current
performance and financial expenditure information as specified by the
Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118.
4. Performance Measures: Pursuant to the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), the Department has established the following
performance measures that it will use to evaluate the overall
effectiveness of the grantee's project, as well as the TIF program as a
whole:
(1) Changes in LEA personnel deployment practices, as measured by
changes over time in the percentage of teachers and principals in high-
need schools who have a record of effectiveness; and
(2) Changes in teacher and principal compensation systems in
participating
[[Page 25584]]
LEAs, as measured by the percentage of a district's personnel budget
that is used for performance-related payments to effective (as measured
by student achievement gains) teachers and principals.
All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance
report documenting their success in addressing these performance
measures. The Department will use the applicant's performance data for
program management and administration, in such areas as determining new
and continuation funding and planning technical assistance.
VII. Agency Contacts
For Further Information Contact: Margaret McNeely, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W103, Washington, DC
20202-6200, or Sheila Sjolseth, Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., room 3W237, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Or by phone at
(202) 205-5224. Or by e-mail: [email protected] or by Internet at the
following Web site: http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/index.html.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the individuals listed in this section.
VIII. Other Information
Electronic Access to This Document: You may view this document, as
well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the
Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.
Dated: April 26, 2006.
Henry L. Johnson,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. E6-6531 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.214533 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6531.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6524 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6524]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah
AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that
public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Thursday, May 18, 2006, 5:30 p.m.-9 p.m.
ADDRESSES: 111 Memorial Drive, Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William E. Murphie, Deputy Designated
Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project
Office, 1017 Majestic Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, Kentucky 40513,
(859) 219-4001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make
recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste
management and related activities.
Tentative Agenda:
5:30 p.m.--Informal Discussion
6 p.m.--Call to Order
Introductions
Review of Agenda
Approval of April Minutes
6:15 p.m.--Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments
6:35 p.m.--Federal Coordinator's Comments
6:40 p.m.--Ex-officios' Comments
6:50 p.m.--Public Comments and Questions
7 p.m.--Task Forces/Presentations
Land Acquisition Study Statement of Work
Water Disposition/Water Quality Task Force--End State Maps
8 p.m. Public Comments and Questions
8:10 p.m. Break
8:20 p.m. Administrative Issues
Preparation for June Presentation
Budget Review
Review of Work Plan
Review of Next Agenda
8:30 p.m. Review of Action Items
8:35 p.m. Subcommittee Report
Executive Committee--Chairs Meeting Review
8:50 p.m. Final Comments
9 p.m. Adjourn
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to
agenda items should contact David Dollins at the address listed below
or by telephone at (270) 441-6819. Requests must be received five days
prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include
the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer
is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate
the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public
comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their
comments.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be
available at the Department of Energy's Environmental Information
Center and Reading Room at 115 Memorial Drive, Barkley Centre, Paducah,
Kentucky between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Monday through Friday or by
writing to David Dollins, Department of Energy, Paducah Site Office,
Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001 or by calling him
at (270) 441-6819.
Issued at Washington, DC on April 25, 2006.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-6524 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.240924 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6524.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6527 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25584-25585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6527]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Information Administration
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
AGENCY: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy
(DOE).
ACTION: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EIA is soliciting comments on the proposed three-year
[[Page 25585]]
extension to the DOE-887, ``DOE Customer Surveys,'' to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and a three-year extension under
section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
DATES: Comments must be filed by June 30, 2006. If you anticipate
difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the
person listed below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Kara Norman. To ensure receipt of the
comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-287-1705) or e-mail
([email protected]) is recommended. The mailing address is
Statistics and Methods Group (EI-70), Forrestal Building, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585-0670. Alternatively, Kara
Norman may be contacted by telephone at 202-287-1902.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of any forms and instructions should be directed to Kara Norman
at the address listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Current Actions
III. Request for Comments
I. Background
The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15
U.S.C. 761 et seq.) and the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, 42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) require the EIA to carry out a centralized,
comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program
collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information
on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and
related economic and statistical information. This information is used
to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet near and longer term
domestic demands.
The EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), provides
the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to
comment on collections of energy information conducted by or in
conjunction with the EIA. Any comments received help the EIA to prepare
data requests that maximize the utility of the information collected,
and to assess the impact of collection requirements on the public.
Also, the EIA will later seek approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Section 3507(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
On September 11, 1993, the President signed Executive Order No.
12862 aimed at ``* * * ensuring the Federal government provides the
highest quality service possible to the American people.'' The Order
discusses surveys as a means for determining the kinds and qualities of
service desired by Federal Government customers and for determining
satisfaction levels for existing services. These voluntary customer
surveys will be used to ascertain customer satisfaction with the
Department of Energy in terms of services and products. Respondents
will be individuals and organizations that are the recipients of the
Department's services and products. Previous customer surveys have
provided useful information to the Department for assessing how well
the Department is delivering its services and products and for making
improvements. The results are used internally and summaries are
provided to the Office of Management and Budget on an annual basis, and
are used to satisfy the requirements and the spirit of Executive Order
No. 12862.
II. Current Actions
The request to OMB will be for a three-year extension of the
expiration date of approval for the Form DOE-887 ``DOE Customer
Surveys''. Examples of previously conducted customer surveys are
available upon request. Our planned activities in the next three years
reflect our increased emphasis on and expansion of these activities,
including an increased use of electronic means for obtaining customer
input (World Wide Web).
III. Request for Comments
Prospective respondents and other interested parties should comment
on the actions discussed in item II. The following guidelines are
provided to assist in the preparation of comments.
General Issues
A. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency and does the
information have practical utility? Practical utility is defined as the
actual usefulness of information to or for an agency, taking into
account its accuracy, adequacy, reliability, timeliness, and the
agency's ability to process the information it collects.
B. What enhancements can be made to the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected?
As a Potential Respondent to the Request for Information
A. What actions could be taken to help ensure and maximize the
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information to be
collected?
B. Are the instructions and definitions clear and sufficient? If
not, which instructions need clarification?
C. Can the information be submitted by the due date?
D. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to
average .25 hours per response. The estimated burden includes the total
time necessary to provide the requested information. In your opinion,
how accurate is this estimate?
E. The agency estimates that the only cost to a respondent is for
the time it will take to complete the collection. Will a respondent
incur any start-up costs for reporting, or any recurring annual costs
for operation, maintenance, and purchase of services associated with
the information collection?
F. What additional actions could be taken to minimize the burden of
this collection of information? Such actions may involve the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
G. Does any other Federal, State, or local agency collect similar
information? If so, specify the agency, the data element(s), and the
methods of collection.
As a Potential User of the Information To Be Collected
A. What actions could be taken to help ensure and maximize the
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information
disseminated?
B. Is the information useful at the levels of detail to be
collected?
C. For what purpose(s) would the information be used? Be specific.
D. Are there alternate sources for the information and are they
useful? If so, what are their weaknesses and/or strengths?
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized
and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the form. They also
will become a matter of public record.
Statutory Authority: Section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Issued in Washington, DC, April 19, 2006.
Jay H. Casselberry,
Agency Clearance Officer, Energy Information Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-6527 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.274920 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6527.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6529 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25586-25587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6529]
[[Page 25586]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Information Administration
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
AGENCY: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy
(DOE).
ACTION: Agency information collection activities: proposed collection;
comment request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EIA is soliciting comments on the proposed changes and
three-year extension to the Form EIA-851A, ``Domestic Uranium
Production Report (Annual),'' Form EIA-851Q, ``Domestic Uranium
Production Report (Quarterly),'' and Form EIA-858, ``Uranium Marketing
Annual Survey.''
DATES: Comments must be filed by June 30, 2006. If you anticipate
difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the
person listed below as soon as possible.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Douglas Bonnar. To ensure receipt of the
comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-287-1944) or e-mail
([email protected]) is recommended. The mailing address is
U.S. Department of Energy, EI-52, Forrestal Building, U.S. Department
of Energy, telephone at (202-287-1911).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of any forms and instructions should be directed to Douglas
Bonnar at the address listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Current Actions
III. Request for Comments
I. Background
The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15
U.S.C. 761 et seq.) and the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, 42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) require the EIA to carry out a centralized,
comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program
collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information
on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and
related economic and statistical information. This information is used
to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet near and longer term
domestic demands.
The EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), provides
the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to
comment on collections of energy information conducted by or in
conjunction with the EIA. Any comments received help the EIA to prepare
data requests that maximize the utility of the information collected,
and to assess the impact of collection requirements on the public.
Also, the EIA will later seek approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Section 3507(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
Form EIA-851A collects data on uranium milling and processing,
uranium feed sources, employment, drilling, expenditures (for drilling,
production, and land/other), and uranium mining. Currently, the
reporting burden is estimated to average 2 hours per response. The data
are used by public and private analysts and policy makers to monitor
the domestic uranium mining and milling industry. Form EIA-851A is
completed by uranium producers and firms with uranium exploration,
drilling, mining, and reclamation activities in the U.S. (that is,
within the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions) during the survey year.
Published data appear on the EIA Web site at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/dupr.html.
Form EIA-851Q collects data on monthly uranium production and
sources (mines and other). Currently, the reporting burden is estimated
to average 0.75 hours per response. The data are used by public and
private analysts, the Department of Commerce's International Trade
Administration and policy makers to monitor the domestic uranium mining
industry. U.S. uranium producers report on the EIA-851Q. Published data
appear in the EIA Web site on http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/qupd.html.
Form EIA-858 collects data on contracts, deliveries (during the
report year and projected for the next ten years), enrichment services
purchased, inventories, use in fuel assemblies, feed deliveries to
enrichers (during the report year and projected for the next ten
years), and unfilled market requirements for the next ten years.
Currently, the reporting burden is estimated to average 14 hours per
response. The data are used by public and private analysts and policy
makers to monitor the domestic uranium market. Form EIA-858 is
completed by uranium suppliers and owners and operators of U.S.
civilian nuclear power reactors firms and individuals that were
involved in the U.S. uranium industry (that is, within the 50 States,
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other
U.S. possessions) during the survey year. Published data appear in the
EIA Web site on http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/umar.html.
II. Current Actions
EIA will be requesting a three-year extension of approval to its 3
uranium surveys with the following 2 survey changes.
Form EIA-851A ``Domestic Uranium Production Report (Annual)'': EIA
proposes slightly increasing the collection of details related to four
of the seven current data items, (Item 1: Facility Information; Item 2:
Milling and Processing; Item 3: Feed Source; Item 4: Mine Production;
Item 5: Employment; Item 6: Drilling; and Item 7: Expenditures.) The
annual burden associated with the collection of this additional detail
would be increased by 1 hour for an estimated average 3 hours per
response.
Specifically, EIA proposes the additional detail of mine production
by mine name, by type, by capacity, by State, and by owner in Item 4;
employment by State in Item 5; by exploration drilling and by
development drilling in Item 6; and land, exploration, and reclamation
expenditures in Item 7. These details were not collected previously
because of the small U.S. production industry, and this increase in
burden is minimal. Items 1 through 3 will not collect additional detail
information.
Form EIA-858 ``Uranium Marketing Annual Survey'': EIA proposes
collecting one new data price (Average-Price per Separative Work Unit
(SWU)) in Item 2: Enrichment Services Purchased by Owners and Operators
of Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors. The annual burden would be
increased by 1 hour for an estimated average 15 hours per response.
The term ``SWU'' stands for ``Separative Work Unit''. It is a
measure of the amount of work (energy) that is required to separate raw
uranium into two components--a valuable component (U235) and a waste
component (U238). Generally speaking, the more SWUs that are expended
in the separation process, the greater the degree of efficiency of
separation; and the less valuable material (U235) that is lost in the
U238 waste stream. However, the energy that goes into separating
uranium has a cost associated with it.
EIA already collects information on raw uranium price and
quantities purchased. However, this provides only a partial picture of
the market. EIA now proposes to collect average SWU price data from
nuclear electric utilities on an
[[Page 25587]]
annual basis because this information is critical to understanding the
overall dynamics and underlying fundamentals of the current nuclear
fuels market and utility choices.
III. Request for Comments
Prospective respondents and other interested parties should comment
on the actions discussed in item II. The following guidelines are
provided to assist in the preparation of comments. Please indicate to
which form(s) your comments apply.
General Issues
A. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency and does the
information have practical utility? Practical utility is defined as the
actual usefulness of information to or for an agency, taking into
account its accuracy, adequacy, reliability, timeliness, and the
agency's ability to process the information it collects.
B. What enhancements can be made to the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected?
As a Potential Respondent to the Request for Information
A. What actions could be taken to help ensure and maximize the
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information to be
collected?
B. Are the instructions and definitions clear and sufficient? If
not, which instructions need clarification?
C. Can the information be submitted by the due date?
D. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to
average 3 hours per response for Form EIA-851A, 0.75 hours per response
for Form EIA-851Q, and 15 hours per response for Form EIA-858. The
estimated burden includes the total time necessary to provide the
requested information. In your opinion, how accurate is this estimate?
E. The agency estimates that the only cost to a respondent is for
the time it will take to complete the collection. Will a respondent
incur any start-up costs for reporting, or any recurring annual costs
for operation, maintenance, and purchase of services associated with
the information collection?
F. What additional actions could be taken to minimize the burden of
this collection of information? Such actions may involve the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
G. Does any other Federal, State, or local agency collect similar
information? If so, specify the agency, the data element(s), and the
methods of collection.
As a Potential User of the Information To Be Collected
A. What actions could be taken to help ensure and maximize the
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information
disseminated?
B. Is the information useful at the levels of detail to be
collected?
C. For what purpose(s) would the information be used? Be specific.
D. Are there alternate sources for the information and are they
useful? If so, what are their weaknesses and/or strengths?
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized
and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the form. They also
will become a matter of public record.
Statutory Authority: Section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Issued in Washington, DC, April 19, 2006. .
Jay H. Casselberry,
Agency Clearance Officer, Energy Information Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-6529 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.303026 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6529.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6539 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25587-25589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6539]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8163-9]
Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods:
Designation of Five New Reference or Equivalent Methods
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of the designation of five new reference or equivalent
methods for monitoring ambient air quality.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has designated two new reference methods for measuring
concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and carbon monoxide
(CO) in the ambient air, and three new equivalent methods for measuring
concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and ozone
(O3) in the ambient air.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Hunike, Human Exposure and
Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Phone: (919) 541-3737, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR
part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the
concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set
forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet
specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either
reference methods or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby
permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies
for determining attainment of the NAAQSs.
The EPA hereby announces the designation of two new reference
methods for measuring concentrations of NO2 and CO in the
ambient air, and three new equivalent methods for measuring
concentrations of SO2 and O3 in the ambient air.
These designations are made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as
amended on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38764).
The new reference method for NO2 is an automated method (analyzer)
that utilizes the measurement principle (gas phase chemiluminescence)
and calibration procedure specified in appendix F of 40 CFR part 50.
This newly designated NO2 reference method is identified as
follows:
RFNA-0506-0157, ``Horiba Instruments Incorporated Model APNA-370
Ambient NOX Monitor,'' standard specification, operated
with a full scale fixed measurement range of 0-0.50 ppm with the
automatic range switching off, at any ambient temperature in the
range of 20 [deg]C to 30 [deg]C, and with a 0.3 micrometer sample
particulate filter installed.
The new reference method for CO is an automated method (analyzer)
that utilizes the measurement principle (non-dispersive infra-red
absorption photometry) and calibration procedure specified in appendix
C of 40 CFR part 50. This newly designated CO reference method is
identified as follows:
RFCA-0506-158, ``Horiba Instruments Incorporated Model APMA-370
Ambient CO Monitor,'' operated with a full scale fixed measurement
range of 0-50 ppm, with the automatic range switching off, at any
environmental temperature in the range of 20 [deg]C to 30 [deg]C.
The new equivalent method for SO2 is an automated method
(analyzer) that utilizes a measurement principle based on ultraviolet
fluorescence. This newly designated SO2 equivalent method is
identified as follows:
EQSA-0506-159, ``Horiba Instruments Incorporated Model APSA-370
Ambient SO22 Monitor,'' operated with a full scale fixed
measurement range of 0-0.50 ppm, with the automatic range switching
off, at
[[Page 25588]]
any environmental temperature in the range of 20 [deg]C to 30
[deg]C.
The two new equivalent methods for O3 are automated
methods (analyzers) that utilize a measurement principle based on
absorption of ultraviolet light by ozone at a wavelength of 254 nm.
These newly designated equivalent methods are identified as follows:
EQOA-0506-160, ``Horiba Instruments Incorporated APOA-370
Ambient O3 Monitor,'' standard specification, operated
with a full-scale fixed measurement range of 0-0.5 ppm, with the
automatic range switching off, at any temperature in the range of 20
to 30 [deg]C.
EQOA-0506-161, ``Seres OZ 2000 G Ozone Ambient Air Analyzer,''
operated with a full scale range of 0-0.5 ppm, at any temperature in
the range of 20 [deg]C to 30 [deg]C, and with or without either of
the following options: Internal ozone generator, teletransmission
interface.
Applications for the Horiba reference and equivalent method
determinations were received by the EPA on August 23 (2), September 9,
and September 23, 2005. The Horiba methods are available commercially
from the applicant, Horiba Instruments Incorporated, 17671 Armstrong
Avenue, Irvine, CA 92614 (http://www.horiba.com). The Seres equivalent
method application was received by the EPA on November 9, 2005, and the
Seres method is available commercially from the applicant, Seres, 360,
Rue Louis de Broglie, La Duranne BP 87000, 13793 Aix en Provence, Cedex
3, France (http://www.seres-france.com).
A test analyzer representative of each of these methods has been
tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in
40 CFR part 53 (as amended on July 18, 1997). After reviewing the
results of those tests and other information submitted by the
applicants in the respective applications, EPA has determined, in
accordance with part 53, that each of these methods should be
designated as a reference or equivalent method, as applicable. The
information submitted by the applicants in their respective
applications will be kept on file, either at EPA's National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or in
an approved archive storage facility, and will be available for
inspection (with advance notice) to the extent consistent with 40 CFR
part 2 (EPA's regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act).
As a designated reference or equivalent method, each of these
methods is acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring
agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance. For such purposes, the method must be used in strict
accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with the
method and subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g.,
configuration or operational settings) specified in the applicable
designation method description (see the identifications of the methods
above).
Use of each method should also be in general accordance with the
guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the ``Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,''
EPA/600/R-94/038a and ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Volume II, Part 1,'' EPA-454/R-98-004 (available
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html). Vendor modifications of a
designated reference or equivalent method used for purposes of part 58
are permitted only with prior approval of the EPA, as provided in part
53. Provisions concerning modification of such methods by users are
specified under section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by Users) of
appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.
In general, a method designation applies to any sampler or analyzer
which is identical to the sampler or analyzer described in the
application for designation. In some cases, similar samplers or
analyzers manufactured prior to the designation may be upgraded or
converted (e.g., by minor modification or by substitution of the
approved operation or instruction manual) so as to be identical to the
designated method and thus achieve designated status. The manufacturer
should be consulted to determine the feasibility of such upgrading or
conversion.
Part 53 requires that sellers of designated reference or equivalent
method analyzers or samplers comply with certain conditions. These
conditions are specified in 40 CFR 53.9 and are summarized below:
(a) A copy of the approved operation or instruction manual must
accompany the sampler or analyzer when it is delivered to the ultimate
purchaser.
(b) The sampler or analyzer must not generate any unreasonable
hazard to operators or to the environment.
(c) The sampler or analyzer must function within the limits of the
applicable performance specifications given in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53
for at least one year after delivery when maintained and operated in
accordance with the operation or instruction manual.
(d) Any sampler or analyzer offered for sale as part of a reference
or equivalent method must bear a label or sticker indicating that it
has been designated as part of a reference or equivalent method in
accordance with part 53 and showing its designated method
identification number.
(e) If such an analyzer has two or more selectable ranges, the
label or sticker must be placed in close proximity to the range
selector and indicate which range or ranges have been included in the
reference or equivalent method designation.
(f) An applicant who offers samplers or analyzers for sale as part
of a reference or equivalent method is required to maintain a list of
ultimate purchasers of such samplers or analyzers and to notify them
within 30 days if a reference or equivalent method designation
applicable to the method has been canceled or if adjustment of the
sampler or analyzer is necessary under 40 CFR 53.11(b) to avoid a
cancellation.
(g) An applicant who modifies a sampler or analyzer previously
designated as part of a reference or equivalent method is not permitted
to sell the sampler or analyzer (as modified) as part of a reference or
equivalent method (although it may be sold without such
representation), nor to attach a designation label or sticker to the
sampler or analyzer (as modified) under the provisions described above,
until the applicant has received notice under 40 CFR 53.14(c) that the
original designation or a new designation applies to the method as
modified, or until the applicant has applied for and received notice
under 40 CFR 53.8(b) of a new reference or equivalent method
determination for the sampler or analyzer as modified.
Aside from occasional breakdowns or malfunctions, consistent or
repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions should be reported
to: Director, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD-
E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Designation of these new reference and equivalent methods is
intended to assist the States in establishing and operating their air
quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning
the commercial availability or technical aspects of the
[[Page 25589]]
method should be directed to the applicant.
Lawrence W. Reiter,
Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
[FR Doc. E6-6539 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.338663 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6539.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6540 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6540]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8164-1]
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. 92463, EPA
gives notice of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides advice to
the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy,
technology, and management issues. The Council is a panel of
individuals who represent diverse interests from academia, industry,
non-governmental organizations, and local, state, and tribal
governments. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the FY06-07
NACEPT agenda, including sustainable water infrastructure,
environmental stewardship, cooperative conservation, energy and the
environment, environmental technology, EPA's 2006-2011 Draft Strategic
Plan, and environmental indicators. A copy of the agenda for the
meeting will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ocem/nacept/cal-nacept.htm.
DATES: NACEPT will hold a two day open meeting on Thursday, May 18,
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Friday, May 19, from 9:30 a.m. to 2
p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Madison Hotel, 1177 15th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting is open to the public,
with limited seating on a first-come, first-served basis.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sonia Altieri, Designated Federal
Officer, [email protected], (202) 233-0061, U.S. EPA, Office of
Cooperative Environmental Management (1601E), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Requests to make oral comments or to provide
written comments to the Council should be sent to Sonia Altieri,
Designated Federal Officer, at the contact information above. The
public is welcome to attend all portions of the meeting.
Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Sonia Altieri at 202-233-
0061 or [email protected]. To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Sonia Altieri, preferably at least 10 days
prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process
your request.
Dated: April 17, 2006.
Sonia Altieri,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-6540 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.354571 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6540.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6537 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6537]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8163-6]
SES Performance Review Board; Membership
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the membership of the EPA
Performance Review Board.
DATES: This is effective on May 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith M. King, Director, Executive
Resources Staff, 3611A, Office of Human Resources, Office of
Administration and Resources Management, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 (202) 564-
0400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5,
U.S.C., requires each agency to establish in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or
more SES performance review boards. This board shall review and
evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by
the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointment
authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.
Members of the EPA Performance Review Board are:
William G. Laxton (Chair), Acting Director, Office of Human Resources,
Office of Administration and Resources Management
George W. Alapas, Deputy Director for Management, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development
Gerald M. Clifford, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
International Affairs
Kerrigan G. Clough, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8
Howard F. Corcoran, Director, Office of Grants and Debarment, Office of
Administration and Resources Management
Nanci E. Gelb, Deputy Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, Office of Water
Robin L. Gonzalez, Director, National Technology Services Division-RTP,
Office of Environmental Information
Gregory A. Green, Deputy Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, RTP, Office of Air and Radiation
Sally C. Gutierrez, Director, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Office of Research and Development
Susan B. Hazen, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Karen D. Higgenbotham (Ex-Officio), Director, Office of Civil Rights,
Office of the Administrator
Nancy J. Marvel, Regional Counsel, Region 9, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Kathleen S. O'Brien, Deputy Director, Office of Planning, Analysis, and
Accountability, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
James T. Owens III, Director, Office of Administration and Resources
Management, Region 1
George Pavlou, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
Region 2
Stephen G. Pressman, Associate General Counsel (Civil Rights), Office
of General Counsel
Elizabeth Southerland, Director, Assessment and Remediation Division,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Cecilia M. Tapia, Director, Superfund Division, Region 7
Louise P. Wise, Principal Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy,
Economics and Innovation, Office of the Administrator
Judith King (Executive Secretary), Acting Director, Executive Resources
Staff, Office of Human, Resources, Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Dated: April 21, 2006.
Sherry A. Kaschak,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources
Management.
[FR Doc. E6-6537 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.383820 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6537.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4101 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4101]
[[Page 25590]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES
Sunshine Act Meeting
AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.
ACTION: Cancellation of a Government in the Sunshine Meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Time and Place: Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.
Place: Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States has cancelled the
Government in the Sunshine meeting which was scheduled for April 27,
2006. The Bank will reschedule this meeting at a future date. Earlier
announcement of this cancellation was not possible.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact:
Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571
(Tele. No. 202-565-3957).
Howard A. Schweitzer,
General Counsel (Acting).
[FR Doc. 06-4101 Filed 4-26-06; 4:08 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.395708 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4101.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6530 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6530]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or
Bank Holding Companies
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must
be received not later than May 16, 2006.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1. Biegert Family Trust, Laramie, Wyoming, its trustees, Larry R.
Cox; Henderson, Nebraska, Judith Ackland, Geneva, Nebraska, and Larry
R. Cox, individually; Charles Flaming, individually, and as owner of
Sadle Cattle Company, Inc., both of Paxton, Nebraska; Alan Janzen,
Christopher Vanderneck, Matthew D. Siebert, Fredrick Regier, Arvid
Janzen, and Brian Janzen, all of Henderson, Nebraska; Ronald Preheim,
Aurora, Nebraska; Jeff Pribbeno, Imperial, Nebraska; and Wesley
Kroeker, Enid, Oklahoma; and thereby indirectly acquire shares of
Henderson State Company, Henderson, Nebraska, of Henderson State Bank,
Henderson, Nebraska.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 26,
2006.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E6-6530 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.415777 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6530.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6492 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6492]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Federal Open Market Committee; Domestic Policy Directive of March
27 and 28, 2006
In accordance with Sec. 271.25 of its rules regarding availability
of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic
policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its
meeting held on March 27 and 28, 2006.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Copies of the Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee
Meeting on March 27 and 28, 2006, which includes the domestic policy
directive issued at the meeting, are available upon request to the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC
20551. The minutes are published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin and
in the Board's annual report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial
conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable
growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee in
the immediate future seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent
with increasing the federal funds rate to an average of around 4\3/4\
percent.
The vote encompassed approval of the paragraph below for inclusion
in the statement to be released shortly after the meeting:
``The Committee judges that some further policy firming may be
needed to keep the risks to the attainment of both sustainable economic
growth and price stability roughly in balance. In any event, the
Committee will respond to changes in economic prospects as needed to
foster these objectives.''
By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, April 20, 2006.
Vincent R. Reinhart,
Secretary, Federal Open Market Committee.
[FR Doc. E6-6492 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.437427 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6492.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6501 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25590-25591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6501]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[60Day-06-0222]
Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and
Recommendations
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on
proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects.
To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a
copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960
and send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance
Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail
to [email protected].
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Written comments should be received
within 60 days of this notice.
Proposed Project
Questionnaire Design Research Laboratory (QDRL) 2007-2009, (OMB No.
0920-0222)--Extension--National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS),
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Background and Brief Description
The Questionnaire Design Research Laboratory (QDRL) conducts
questionnaire pre-testing and evaluation activities for CDC surveys
(such as the NCHS National Health Interview
[[Page 25591]]
Survey, OMB No. 0920-0214) and other federally sponsored surveys. The
QDRL conducts cognitive interviews, focus groups, mini field-pretests,
and experimental research in laboratory and field settings, both for
applied questionnaire evaluation and more basic research on response
errors in surveys. The most common questionnaire evaluation method is
the cognitive interview. In a cognitive interview, a questionnaire
design specialist interviews a volunteer participant. The interviewer
administers the draft survey questions as written, but also probes the
participant in depth about interpretations of questions, recall
processes used to answer them, and adequacy of response categories to
express answers, while noting points of confusion and errors in
responding. Interviews are generally conducted in small rounds of 10-15
interviews; ideally, the questionnaire is re-worked between rounds and
revisions are tested iteratively until interviews yield relatively few
new insights. When possible, cognitive interviews are conducted in the
survey's intended mode of administration. For example, when testing
telephone survey questionnaires, participants often respond to the
questions via a telephone in a laboratory room. Under this condition,
the participant answers without face-to-face interaction. QDRL staff
watch for response difficulties from an observation room, and then
conduct a face-to-face debriefing with in-depth probes. Cognitive
interviewing provides useful data on questionnaire performance at
minimal cost and respondent burden. Similar methodology has been
adopted by other federal agencies, as well as by academic and
commercial survey organizations. NCHS is requesting 3 years of OMB
Clearance for the project. There are no costs to respondents other than
their time.
Estimated Annualized Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Avg. burden
Respondents respondents responses/ response (in Total burden
per year respondent hours) hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 test volunteers............................ 500 1 1.2 600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: April 25, 2006.
Joan F. Karr,
Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
[FR Doc. E6-6501 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.454183 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6501.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6457 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6457]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 2003N-0273] (formerly 03N-0273)
Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Research Study Complaint Form
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Research Study Complaint Form''
has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Nelson, Office of Management
Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 16, 2005
(70 FR 74817), the agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0579.
The approval expires on March 31, 2009. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.
Dated: April 24, 2006.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E6-6457 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.472044 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6457.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6461 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25591-25593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6461]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 2006N-0166]
Agency Emergency Processing Under the Office of Management and
Budget Review; MedWatch--The Food and Drug Administration Safety
Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program; Proposal to Survey
MedWatch Partners Organizations
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency processing under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA). This notice solicits
comments on a proposal for the MedWatch program to deploy and conduct a
web-based customer satisfaction survey of certain health care
professional trade and specialty organizations that voluntarily have
chosen to participate in the FDA MedWatch's Partners program. The
survey will solicit information about the utility of the FDA MedWatch
safety alerts and monthly safety labeling changes that are posted on
the MedWatch Web site and disseminated to partner organizations for
sharing with members of the organizations.
DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 31,
2006. FDA is requesting approval of this emergency processing by May
31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular
mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries
are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information
collection are received, OMB recommends that comments be faxed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Fumie Yokota,
Desk Officer for FDA, Fax: 202-395-6974.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nelson, Office of Management
Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA has requested emergency processing of
this
[[Page 25592]]
proposed collection of information under section 3507(j) of the PRA (44
U.S.C. 3507(j)) and 5 CFR 1320.13. This information is needed
immediately so that the agency can effectively assess and re-evaluate
its FDA MedWatch risk communication efforts in drug safety as part of a
broader center level (the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER)) reorganization action to enhance its risk communication
activities for CDER-regulated products, and address public expectations
for timely dissemination of clinically useful safety information to
both providers and their patients at the point of care.
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
MedWatch--The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting
Program; Proposal to Survey MedWatch Partners Organizations
The MedWatch Partners program is an FDA outreach effort directed at
health care provider professional organizations. The effort facilitates
the timely dissemination of clinically important new safety information
on the drugs, devices, and other human medical care products regulated
by FDA and prescribed, dispensed, or used by the membership of these
professional societies. In voluntarily agreeing to work with FDA
MedWatch, these partner organizations disseminate this important safety
information to their members and their members' patients so that
medical products necessary to efforts to improve a patient's health may
be used more safely and reduce the risk of harm.
Risk communication is one of the essential elements in the risk
management paradigm accepted as a framework within CDER since described
in the ``Report to the FDA Commissioner from the Task Force on Risk
Management'' in May 1999. As an agency that regulates a broad range of
clinical medical products--drugs, therapeutic biologics, blood
products, medical devices, and dietary supplements--FDA's public health
mission includes the timely dissemination of new safety information
identified during post-marketing surveillance activities. This
information includes class 1 recalls, public health advisories, notice
of counterfeit drug product, and labeling changes such as new black box
warnings or contraindications to drug product use. In recent years,
there has been a public commitment to actively disseminating this new
safety information, both to health care providers and their patients,
and to leveraging this risk communication activity by developing
partnerships and alliances with non-governmental organizations. This
commitment was explicitly identified as an objective in the strategic
plan for ``Improving Patient Safety'' of former Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, Mark McClellan. That objective states that FDA will ``take
appropriate actions to communicate risks and correct problems
associated with medical products'' and ``will identify new ways to
inform physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and patients about the safety
of FDA-regulated products.''
The MedWatch program is currently located in the Office of Drug
Safety, CDER. MedWatch disseminates safety information on FDA-regulated
medical products to both health care professional and consumer/patient
audiences. MedWatch maintains a comprehensive Web site at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch for this purpose. The FDA MedWatch program has
about 120 Partner organizations that represent clinical care providers
(doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc.). As a ``Partner,'' the
organization has agreed to support the goals of the MedWatch program:
Participating in the dissemination of FDA-approved safety information
and promoting the voluntary reporting to FDA of adverse events. In
order to communicate quickly with MedWatch Partner organizations, a
listserve, supported by the National Institutes of Health, is
maintained, with contacts for each MedWatch Partner group. Partner
organizations have voluntarily agreed to receive these FDA MedWatch
safety alerts and monthly safety labeling changes. Each organization
receives e-mail notification of two types of FDA MedWatch safety
information at the time it is added to the MedWatch Web site--safety
alerts for individual products and, once a month, a listing of the 30
to 60 drugs that have had safety labeling changes for that month.
The FDA MedWatch program, in order to implement this safety
information dissemination process effectively, needs to evaluate
satisfaction of these customer groups so that FDA MedWatch can improve
the dissemination process and content of this safety information and
increase its use and application to direct patient care and to the
public's health.
The purpose of the survey is to fulfill phase one of Executive
Order 12862, ``Setting Customer Service Standards,'' which directs
agencies to continually reform their management practices and
operations to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the
best service available in the private sector. There is no duplication
of effort. The MedWatch program is the only one planning to perform
this survey. By actively gathering this survey information from
MedWatch partner customers, the agency will achieve a better
understanding customer satisfaction with this program, and be able to
direct limited resources to produce an improved program that is most
useful to both health care provider customers and, secondarily, their
patients.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:
Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Annual Frequency Total Annual Hours per
Respondents per Response Responses Response Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Organizations 120 1 120 .5 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
This burden estimate of total hours was developed by using: (1) The
number of known MedWatch partner health care organizations, (2) the
number of times the survey will be deployed, and (3) the expected time
to complete the response
[[Page 25593]]
based on internal pilot testing of the survey instrument at the agency.
Dated: April 24, 2006.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E6-6461 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.498147 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6461.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6508 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6508]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Research Review Subcommittee of the Vaccines and Related
Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one
portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
Name of the Subcommittee: Research Review Subcommittee of the
Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 19, 2006, from 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Location: Hilton Hotel, Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, 620 Perry
Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
Contact Person: Christine Walsh or Denise Royster, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-71), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-0314,
or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-
0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 3014512391. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.
Agenda: On May 19, 2006, the subcommittee will listen to
presentations about the research program at the Office of Vaccines
Research and Review (OVRR), Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research (CBER). The program is intended to provide dynamic,
responsive, cutting edge research to contribute to OVRR's regulatory
mission and facilitate development of safe and effective biological
products. The subcommittee will discuss the program and make
recommendations to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee at a future open meeting of the full committee.
Information regarding CBER's scientific program is outlined in its
Strategic Plan of 2004 and is available to the public on the Internet
at: http://www.fda.gov/cber/inside/mission.htm. Information regarding
FDA's Critical Path to New Medical Products is available to the public
on the Internet at: http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/ criticalpath/.
Procedure: On May 19, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., the meeting is
open to the public. Interested persons may present data, information,
or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person by May 12, 2006.
Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. Time allotted for each presentation may
be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person before May 12, 2006, and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their
presentation.
Closed Committee Deliberations: On May 19, 2006, from 2 p.m. to
4:30 p.m., the meeting will be closed to the public. The meeting will
be closed to permit discussion where disclosure would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6)
and to permit discussion and review of trade secret and/or confidential
information (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The subcommittee will discuss
internal research programs in the Office of Vaccines Research and
Review, CBER.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Christine Walsh or
Denise Royster at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Dated: April 21, 2006.
Jason Brodsky,
Acting Associate Commissioner for External Relations.
[FR Doc. E6-6508 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.536596 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6508.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6509 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25593-25594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6509]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
Name of Committee: Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee.
General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 18, 2006, from 9
a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Location: Hilton Hotel, Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, 620 Perry
Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
Contact Person: Christine Walsh or Denise Royster, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-71), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-0314,
or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-
0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 3014512391. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.
Agenda: The committee will hear presentations and make
recommendations on the safety and efficacy of GARDASIL (Human
Papillomavirus [Types 6,11,16,18] Recombinant Vaccine) manufactured by
Merck.
Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person by May 11, 2006.
Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral
[[Page 25594]]
presentations should notify the contact person before May 11, 2006, and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Christine Walsh or
Denise Royster at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Dated: April 24, 2006.
Jason Brodsky,
Acting Associate Commissioner for External Relations.
[FR Doc. E6-6509 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.550149 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6509.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6458 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25594-25595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6458]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 2005D-0401]
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff:
Compliance With the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of
2002, as amended--Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on
Single-Use Devices; Availability
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``Compliance With Section 301 of
the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002, as amended--
Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use
Devices.'' The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act 2002
(MDUFMA), as amended by the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act
of 2005 (MDUFSA), requires that FDA issue guidance identifying the
circumstances in which the name, abbreviation, or symbol of the
manufacturer of an original device is not ``prominent and
conspicuous.'' MDUFSA requires that FDA issue guidance no later than
180 days after the date of enactment (August 1, 2005).
DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on this guidance at any
time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any
time.
ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies on a 3.5''
diskette of the guidance document entitled ``Compliance With Section
301 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002, as
amended--Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use
Devices'' to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and
Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD
20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request, or fax your request to 301-443-8818. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access
to the guidance.
Submit written comments concerning this guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Casper E. Uldriks, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health (HFZ-300), Food and Drug Administration, 2098
Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-0106.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
MDUFMA (Public Law 107-250) amended section 502 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 352) to require a
device, or an attachment to the device, to bear prominently and
conspicuously the name of the manufacturer, a generally recognized
abbreviation of such name, or a unique and generally recognized symbol
identifying the manufacturer. This labeling provision applied to all
devices and all device manufacturers.
On August 1, 2005, MDUFSA (Public Law 109-43) amended section
502(u) of the act by limiting the provision to reprocessed single-use
devices (SUDs) and the manufacturers who reprocess them. Therefore,
section 502(u) of the act, as amended by MDUFSA, no longer sets forth
requirements for original equipment manufacturers, unless they also
reprocess SUDs. Under the amended provision, if an original device or
an attachment to it does not prominently and conspicuously bear the
name of the manufacturer of the original device, a generally recognized
abbreviation of such name, or a unique and generally recognized symbol
identifying such manufacturer, the manufacturer who reprocesses the SUD
may identify itself using a detachable label on the packaging of the
device.
Section 2(c)(2) of MDUFSA requires that FDA issue guidance not
later than 180 days after the date of its enactment to identify the
circumstances under which the identifying mark of a manufacturer of an
original device is not ``prominent and conspicuous,'' as used in
section 502(u) of the act. On October 11, 2005, FDA issued draft
guidance describing the circumstances under which the agency would not
consider a manufacturer's mark to be prominent and conspicuous. FDA
received several comments on the draft guidance, all of which were
considered in finalizing the guidance.
II. Significance of Guidance
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
agency's current thinking on ``Compliance With Section 301 of the
Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002, as amended--
Prominent and Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use
Devices.'' It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person
and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach
may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statute and regulations.
III. Electronic Access
To receive `` Compliance With Section 301 of the Medical Device
User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002, as amended--Prominent and
Conspicuous Mark of Manufacturers on Single-Use Devices'' by fax, call
the CDRH Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a
touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice
prompt, press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number (1217)
followed by the pound sign (). Follow the remaining voice
prompts to complete your request.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may also do
so by using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for
easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may
be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a
regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts,
[[Page 25595]]
Federal Register reprints, information on premarket submissions
(including lists of approved applications and manufacturers'
addresses), small manufacturer's assistance, information on video
conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other
device-oriented information. The CDRH web site may be accessed at
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh. A search capability for all CDRH guidance
documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html.
Guidance documents are also available on the Division of Dockets
Management Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This guidance contains information collection provisions that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The collection(s) of information in this guidance were approved under
OMB control number 0910-0577.
V. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES), written or electronic comments regarding this
document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper
copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one
paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found
in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments received may be
seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
Dated: April 24, 2006.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E6-6458 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.579833 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6458.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6493 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25595-25597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6493]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information
collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these
documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Project: Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG)
Program--New
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's
(SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) is responsible
for the Evaluation of the Strategic Prevention Framework State
Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) Program. The program is a major national
initiative designed to: (1) Prevent the onset and reduce the
progression of substance abuse, including childhood and underage
drinking; (2) reduce substance abuse-related problems in communities;
and, (3) build prevention capacity and infrastructure at the State/
territory and community levels. Five steps comprise the SPF:
[ssbox] Step 1: Profile population needs, resources, and readiness
to address needs and gaps.
[ssbox] Step 2: Mobilize and/or build capacity to address needs.
[ssbox] Step 3: Develop a comprehensive strategic plan.
[ssbox] Step 4: Implement evidence-based prevention programs,
policies, and practices.
[ssbox] Step 5: Monitor, evaluate, sustain, and improve or replace
those that fail.
Under a contract with CSAP, an evaluation team will implement a
multi-method quasi-experimental evaluation at national, State, and
community levels. Evaluation data will be collected from 26 states
receiving grants in 2004 and 2005 and as many as 32 non-grantee states
that will serve as a comparison group. The primary evaluation objective
is to determine the impact of SPF SIG on the SAMHSA National Outcome
Measures (NOMs).
This notice invites comment on state-level and community-level data
collection instruments. The instruments for assessing state-level
change will be included in an OMB review package submitted immediately
after the expiration of the comment period and are the main focus of
this announcement. These instruments will be reviewed first by OMB to
ensure that state-level data collection occurs as specified in the
evaluation plan (on or before June 30, 2006). Because the states have
not awarded community-level funding, the evaluators will not initiate
community-level data collection until late in 2006. Thus, the
community-level survey will be submitted as an addendum approximately
one month after the comment period expires. However, the instrument is
described in this notice and comments on the instrument are invited.
State-Level Data Collection
Two instruments were developed for assessing state-level effects.
Both instruments are guides for telephone interviews that will be
conducted by trained interviewers three to four times over the life of
the SPF SIG award. The Strategic Prevention Framework Index will be
used to assess the relationship between SPF implementation and change
in the national outcome measures. The State Infrastructure Index will
capture data to assess infrastructure change and to test the
relationship of this change to outcomes. Prevention infrastructure
refers to the organizational features of the system that delivers
prevention services, including all procedures related to planning, data
management systems, workforce development, intervention implementation,
evaluation and monitoring, financial management, and sustainability.
The estimated annual burden for state-level data collection is
displayed below in the table.
State Level Burden Estimate
[Year 1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Hourly burden Total hourly
Interview guide Content description respondents responses per response burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPF Implementation Index....................... SEW activities, indicators for each SPF 26 1 3 78
step, including cultural competence
throughout all five steps.
[[Page 25596]]
State Infrastructure Index..................... Assessment of a state's progress over 26 1 6 156
time toward the implementation of
these best practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total State Level.......................... ....................................... 26 .............. .............. 234
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community-Level Data Collection
The Community Level Index is a two-part, web-based survey for
capturing information about SPF SIG implementation at the community
level. Part 1 of the survey focuses on the five SPF SIG steps and
efforts to ensure cultural competency throughout the SPF SIG process.
Part 2 will capture data on the specific intervention(s) implemented at
the community level including both individual-focused and environmental
prevention strategies. Community partners receiving SPF SIG awards will
be required to complete the survey every six months, using a secure
password system. The survey data will be analyzed in conjunction with
state and community outcome data to determine the relationship, if any,
between the SPF process and substance use outcomes. This survey will be
submitted as an addendum to the forthcoming OMB package approximately
one month after the expiration of the comment period. The estimated
annual burden for community-level data collection is displayed below.
Note that the total burden assumes an average of 15 community-level
sub-grantees per state (a total of 390 respondents) and two survey
administrations per year. Note also that some questions will be
addressed only once and the responses will be used to pre-fill
subsequent surveys. In addition, as community partners work through the
SPF steps, they will report only on step-related activities. For
example, needs assessment activities will likely precede monitoring and
evaluation activities. Thus, respondents will answer questions related
to needs assessment in the first few reports but will not need to
address monitoring and evaluation items until later in the
implementation process.
Community Level Burden Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Responses per Burden per
Community-level instrument section/domain respondents respondent response Total burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I, 1-11 State Responses.................... 26 1 0.08 2.08
Part I, 12-20 Contact Information and Reporting 390 1 0.08 31.20
Period.........................................
Part I, 21-26 Organization Type and Funding..... 390 1 0.08 31.20
Part I, 27-33 Cultural Competence, 390 2 0.17 132.60
Sustainability, and Framework Progress.........
Part I, 34-66 Needs and Resources Assessments... 390 2 0.50 390.00
Part I, 67-159 Capacity Building Activities..... 390 2 0.50 390.00
Part I, 160-178 Strategic Plan Development...... 390 2 0.50 390.00
Part I, 198-216 Systems and Contextual Factors 390 2 1.00 780.00
and Closing Questions..........................
Part I, subform 217-231 Coalition Organizational 390 1 0.17 66.30
Information....................................
Part II 1-40; 45 Intervention Specific 390 3 1.00 1,170.00
Information and Adaptations....................
Review of past responses........................ 390 2 0.50 390.00
Preparation and gathering of supporting 390 2 2.00 1,560.00
materials......................................
State Review of Community Responses............. 26 2 1.00 52.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Year 1 Burden--State-level............ 26 .............. .............. 54.08
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Year 1 Burden--Community-level........ 390 .............. .............. 5,331
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I, 27-33 Cultural Competence, 390 2 0.17 132.60
Sustainability, and Framework Progress.........
Part I, 67-15 Capacity Building Activities...... 390 2 0.50 390.00
Part I, 160-178 Strategic Plan Development...... 390 2 0.50 390.00
Part I, 179-184 Intervention Implementation..... 390 2 0.17 132.60
Part I, 198-216 Systems and Contextual Factors 390 2 1.00 780.00
and Closing Questions..........................
Part II 1-40; 45 Intervention Specific 390 3 1.00 1,170.00
Information and Adaptations....................
Part II 41-44 Intervention Outcomes............. 390 6 0.17 397.80
Part II subforms Intervention Component 390 6 1.00 2,340.00
Information....................................
Review of past responses........................ 390 2 0.50 390.00
Preparation and gathering of supporting 390 2 2.00 1,560.00
materials......................................
State Review of Community Responses............. 26 2 1.00 52.00
Total Year 2 Burden--State-level............ 26 .............. .............. 52.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25597]]
Total Year 2 Burden--Community-level........ 390 .............. .............. 7,683
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I, 27-33 Cultural Competence, 390 2 0.17 132.60
Sustainability, and Framework Progress.........
Part I, 67-159 Capacity Building Activities..... 390 2 0.50 390.00
Part I, 179-184 Intervention Implementation..... 390 2 0.17 132.60
Part I, 185-197 Monitoring and Evaluation....... 390 2 0.33 257.40
Part I, 198-216 Systems and Contextual Factors 390 2 1.00 780.00
and Closing Questions..........................
Part II 1-40; 45 Intervention Specific 390 3 1.00 1,170.00
Information and Adaptations....................
Part II 41-44 Intervention Outcomes............. 390 6 0.17 397.80
Part II subforms Intervention Component 390 6 1.00 2,340.00
Information....................................
Review of past responses........................ 390 2 0.50 390.00
Preparation and gathering of supporting 390 2 2.00 1,560.00
materials......................................
State Review of Community Responses............. 26 2 1.00 52.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Year 3 Burden--State-level............ 26 .............. .............. 52.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Year 3 Burden--Community-level........ 390 .............. .............. 7,550.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Average Annual Burden--Slate-level.... 26 .............. .............. 53.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Average Annual Burden--Community-level 390 .............. .............. 6,855.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed
information collection should be sent by May 31, 2006 to: SAMHSA Desk
Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC
20503; due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail
sent through the U.S. Postal Service, respondents are encouraged to
submit comments by fax to: 202-395-6974.
Dated: April 24, 2006.
Anna Marsh,
Director, Office of Program Services.
[FR Doc. E6-6493 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.598216 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6493.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6496 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25597-25598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6496]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed
collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of
proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects
or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the
SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology.
Proposed Project: Opioid Treatment Data Systems for Disaster Planning
Project (Pilot)--New
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's
(SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), has identified a
critical need for Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs, also commonly known
as Methadone Clinics) to be able to access limited but specific patient
dosage data for patients displaced due to service disruptions affecting
the OTP from which they regularly receive treatment (the patient's
'Home OTP'). Service disruptions in home OTPs have ranged in cause from
events such as the September 11th terrorist attacks or more recently,
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to more common events such as snow storms
or electrical black-outs.
The proposed system will ensure that, in such circumstances,
patients displaced from their home OTPs will still be able to obtain
safe and effective treatment at an alternative OTP (referred to in this
project as a 'Guest OTP'). In reviewing past events involving OTP
service disruptions and their impact on patients, SAMHSA, in tandem
with numerous stakeholders, established four basic principles that
would guide creation of a deliberately simple, centralized Web-based
system to house patient data. Such a system would facilitate guest OTPs
in providing safe and effective continuity of treatment for patients
temporarily unable to obtain treatment from their Home OTPs due to any
form of service disruption. The proposed centralized data system is
known as the Opioid Treatment Data Systems for Disaster. Subsequently,
in a small sample study of five (5) OTPs, SAMHSA tested a protocol and
data collection instrument for use in determining functional
requirements for the proposed system. In Fall 2005, SAMHSA provided
funding for the current project, to support creation of the necessary
infrastructure for a pilot system, to be followed by testing on a
regional basis. This pilot project will focus on creating the means by
which vital dosage data for OTP patients can be made accessible to
guest OTPs called
[[Page 25598]]
upon to treat patients of other programs in the event of service
disruptions, most specifically, in disaster scenarios, so that patients
are not forced during such circumstances to forgo or discontinue
treatment. Ultimately, the pilot system will be reviewed to determine
its effectiveness and ability to support a national implementation,
should funding for such a system become available.
This notice is being provided for a survey to be distributed to
OTPs in the region(s) selected by SAMHSA to gather information
regarding their present data collection and reporting capabilities and
practices. Technical information from the surveys will be used
exclusively for development of the overall system and to help inform
selection of sites best suited for participation as pilot sites for
testing of the Opioid Treatment Data Systems for Disaster Planning. OTP
respondents will have the option of completing an on-line or paper
version of the survey. The survey consists of approximately 25
questions predominantly formatted as yes/no responses with one to two
words fill in the blank responses. The estimated maximum annual
response burden to collect this information is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Responses per Burden/response Annual burden
facilities (OTPs) facility (hours) (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
200 1 1.0 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer,
Room 7-1044, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857. Written
comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
Anna Marsh,
Director, Office of Program Services.
[FR Doc. E6-6496 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.617979 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6496.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6459 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25598-25599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6459]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
[CGD08-06-012]
Implementation of Sector Upper Mississippi River
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of organizational change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the stand-up of Sector Upper
Mississippi River. Sector Upper Mississippi River is an internal
reorganization that combines Group Upper Mississippi River and Marine
Safety Office St. Louis into a single command. The Coast Guard has
established a continuity of operations order whereby all previous
practices and procedures will remain in effect until superseded by an
authorized Coast Guard official or document.
DATES: This notice is effective April 27, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket CGD08-06-012 and are available for
inspection or copying at Commander (dmpl), Eighth Coast Guard District,
500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310 between 7:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Michael Roschel, Eighth
District Planning Office at 504-589-6293.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion of Notice
The single command center for Sector Upper Mississippi River is
located at 1222 Spruce Street, Ste. 8.104E, St. Louis, MO 63103-2825.
Sector Upper Mississippi River is composed of a Response Department,
Prevention Department, and Logistics Department. Effective April 27,
2006, all existing missions and functions performed by Group Upper
Mississippi River and Marine Safety Office St. Louis will be performed
by Sector Upper Mississippi River. Group Upper Mississippi River and
Marine Safety Office St. Louis will no longer exist as organizational
entities.
Sector Upper Mississippi River will be responsible for all Coast
Guard Missions in the Sector Upper Mississippi River Marine Inspection
zone and Captain of the Port zone. This area of responsibility includes
all of Wyoming except for Sweetwater County; Colorado; North Dakota;
South Dakota; Kansas; Nebraska; Iowa; all of Missouri with the
exception of Perry, Cape Girardeau, Scott, Mississippi, New Madrid,
Dunklin, and Pemiscot Counties; that part of Minnesota south of
latitude 46[deg]20' N; that part of Wisconsin south of latitude
46[deg]20' N, and west of longitude 90[deg]00' W; that part of Illinois
west of longitude 90[deg]00' W and north of latitude 41[deg]00' N; and
that part of Illinois south of latitude 41[deg]00' N, except for
Jackson, Williamson, Saline, Gellatin, Union, Johnson, Pope, Hardin,
Alexander, Pulaski, and Massac Counties; that part of the Upper
Mississippi River above mile 109.9, including both banks, and that part
of the Illinois River below latitude 41[deg]00' N.
The boundary changes associated with the implementation of Sector
Upper Mississippi River will not affect any of the rights,
responsibilities, duties, and authorities of the commanders over the
units described in this notice and all previous practices and
procedures will remain in effect.
The Sector Upper Mississippi River Commander is vested with all the
rights, responsibilities, duties, and authority of a Group Commander
and Commanding Officer Marine Safety Office, as provided for in Coast
Guard regulations, and is the successor in command to the Commanding
Officers of Group Upper Mississippi River and Marine Safety Office St.
Louis. The Sector Upper Mississippi River Commander is designated: (a)
Captain of the Port (COTP) for the Upper Mississippi River COTP zone;
(b) Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC); (c) Federal On Scene
Coordinator (FOSC) for the Upper Mississippi River COTP zone,
consistent with the National Contingency Plan; (d) Officer in Charge of
Marine Inspection (OCMI) for the Upper Mississippi River Marine
Inspection Zone; and (e) Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator (SMC).
The Deputy Sector Commander is designated alternate COTP, FMSC, FOSC,
SMC, and Acting OCMI.
A continuity of operations order has been issued ensuring that all
previous Group Upper Mississippi River and Marine Safety Office St.
Louis practices and procedures remain in effect until superseded by
Commander, Sector Upper Mississippi River. This continuity of
operations order addresses existing COTP regulations, orders,
directives, and policies.
Following is a list of updated command titles, addresses and points
of contact to facilitate requests from the public and assist with entry
into security or safety zones:
Name: Sector Upper Mississippi River.
[[Page 25599]]
Address: Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi
River, 1222 Spruce Street, Ste. 8.104E, St. Louis, MO 63103-2825.
Contact: General Number, (314) 269-2500, Sector Commander: Captain
Suzanne Englebert; Deputy Sector Commander: Lieutenant Commander Frank
Kulhawick.
Chief, Prevention Department: (314) 269-2560, Chief, Response
Department: (314) 269-2540, Chief, Logistics Department: (314) 269-
2510.
Dated: April 19, 2006.
R.F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eight Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6-6459 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.629320 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6459.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6467 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6467]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
Proposed Collection; Comment Request Deferral of Duty on Large
Yachts Imported for Sale
AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal
agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning
the Deferral of Duty on Large Yachts Imported for Sale. This request
for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)).
DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 30, 2006,
to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Tracey Denning, Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection, Information Services Group, Room 3.2.C,
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information
should be directed to Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Attn.:
Tracey Denning, Room 3.2.C, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20229, Tel. (202) 344-1429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP invites the general public and other
Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information
collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (1) Whether
the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d)
ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection
techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e)
the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the
collection of information (a total capital/startup costs and operations
and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be
summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public
record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the
following information collection:
Title: Deferral of Duty on Large Yachts Imported for Sale.
OMB Number: 1651-0080.
Form Number: N/A.
Abstract: Section 2406(a) of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical
Corrections Act of 1999 provides that an otherwise dutiable ``large
yacht'' may be imported without the payment of duty if the yacht is
imported with the intention to offer for sale at a boat show in the
U.S.
Current Actions: There are no changes to the information
collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration
date.
Type of Review: Extension (without change).
Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions, and
non-profit institutions.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.
Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1 hour.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 100.
Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public: N/A.
Dated: April 24, 2006.
Tracey Denning,
Agency Clearance Officer, Information Services Branch.
[FR Doc. E6-6467 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.660594 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6467.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6541 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25599-25600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6541]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
[Docket No. USCBP-2006-0023]
Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of
Customs and Border Protection and Related Functions (COAC)
AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations
of Customs and Border Protection and Related Functions (COAC) will meet
in open session.
DATES: Tuesday, May 16, 2006, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Horizon Ballroom of the
Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
If you desire to submit comments, they must be submitted by May 15,
2006. Comments must be identified by USCBP-2006-0023 and may be
submitted by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected] Include docket number in
the subject line of the message.
Mail: Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, Customs
and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC
20229.
Facsimile: 202-344-1969.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received by the COAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade
Relations, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security, Washington, DC 20229, telephone 202-344-1440; facsimile 202-
344-1969.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The sixth meeting of the ninth term of the
Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of Customs and
Border Protection and Related Functions (COAC) will be held at the
date, time and location specified above. This notice also announces the
expected agenda for that meeting below.
[[Page 25600]]
This meeting is open to the public; however, participation in COAC
deliberations is limited to COAC members, Homeland Security and
Treasury Department officials, and persons invited to attend the
meeting for special presentations. Since seating is limited, all
persons attending this meeting should provide notice, preferably by
close of business Thursday, May 11, 2006, to Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of
Trade Relations, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security, Washington, DC 20229, telephone 202-344-1440; facsimile 202-
344-1969.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Ms. Wanda Tate as soon as possible.
Draft Agenda
1. Introductory Remarks.
2. Container Security Issues.
3. WCO (World Customs Organization)/Implementation.
4. Update on HSPD-13/NMSAC (Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-13 & National Maritime Security Advisory Committee).
5. Update on Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
6. Security Subcommittee: C-TPAT (Customs-Trade Partnership Against
Terrorism).
7. Green Lane Task Force.
8. Textiles & Apparel Entry Processing.
9. E-Manifest for Trucks.
10. ACE (Automated Commercial Environment)/ITDS (International
Trade Data System).
11. Radiation Portal Monitoring.
12. Staffing: Import Specialists.
13. Pre-Entry Information.
14. New Action Items.
15. Adjourn.
Dated: April 26, 2006.
Stewart A. Baker,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy , United States Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E6-6541 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.689438 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6541.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6499 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25600-25601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6499]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed continuing information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments on the cancellation of Federal assistance loans to any local
government.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program is
authorized by section 417 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Pub. L.
93-288), as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-707), and implemented by FEMA
regulation 44 CFR, subpart K. Community Disaster Loans, section
206.366. The CDL Program offers loans to local governments that have
suffered a substantial loss of tax or other revenues as a result of a
major disaster or emergency and demonstrates a need for Federal
financial assistance in order to perform their governmental functions.
The loan must be justified on the basis of need and be based on the
actual and projected expenses, as a result of the disaster, for the
fiscal year in which the disaster occurred and the three succeeding
fiscal years.
Collection of Information
Title: Application for Community Disaster Loan Cancellation.
Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved
collection.
OMB Number: 1660-0082.
Form Numbers: FEMA Form 90-5.
Abstract: Local governments may submit an Application for Loan
Cancellation through the Governor's Authorized Representative to the
FEMA Regional Director prior to the expiration date of the loan. FEMA
has the authority to cancel repayment of all or part of a Community
Disaster Loan to the extent that a determination is made that revenues
of the local government during the three fiscal years following the
disaster are insufficient to meet the operating budget of that local
government because of disaster-related revenue losses and additional
unreimbursed disaster-related municipal operating expenses. Operating
budget means actual revenues and expenditures of the local government
as published in the official financial statements of the local
government.
Affected Public: State, local or tribal governments.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1.
Number of Respondents: 1.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Hour Burden Per Response: 1 hour.
Annual Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project/Activity (Survey,
Form(s), Focus Group, Worksheet, Number of Frequency of Burden hours Annual Total annual
etc.) respondents responses per respondent responses burden hours
(A) (B) (C) (A x B) (A x B x C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FF-90-5......................... 1 1 1 1 1
Total....................... 1 1 1 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Cost: $15.00 per hour times 1 burden hour equals $15.00.
Comments: Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether
the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. Comments must be submitted on or before June
30, 2006.
[[Page 25601]]
ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments to Chief,
Records Management Section, Information Resources Management Branch,
Information Technology Services Division, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Room 316, Washington, DC 20472.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Gerald Connelly, (202)
646-3638 for additional information regarding this information
collection. . You may contact the Records Management Branch for copies
of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202)
646-3347 or e-mail address: [email protected].
Dated: April 7, 2006.
Deborah Moradi,
Acting Chief, Information Resources Management Branch, Information
Technology Services Division.
[FR Doc. E6-6499 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.718392 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6499.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6500 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6500]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the following information collection to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission
describes the nature of the information collection, the categories of
respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources
used by respondents to respond) and cost, and includes the actual data
collection instruments FEMA will use.
Title: Flood Mitigation Assistance--Flood Mitigation Plan.
OMB Number: 1660-0075.
Form Numbers: None.
Abstract: States and communities must have a FEMA approved flood
mitigation plan before FEMA will award project grant assistance to a
State or community applicant. FEMA and the States will use local
community flood mitigation plans to identify the need to provide
technical assistance to local governments lacking sufficient resources
to complete FEMA grant applications. Secondly, and more importantly,
the local or State government that develops the plan will use it to
make land use decisions, implement zoning changes, encourage smarter
development, and implement projects to reduce the impact of flooding on
insurable structures.
Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
Number of Respondents: 240.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 2080 hours to develop a new
Mitigation Plan and 8 hours to review submitted plans.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 250,560.
Frequency of Response: Once.
Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs at OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department
of Homeland Security/FEMA, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, or facsimile number (202) 395-7285. Comments
must be submitted on or before May 31, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Chief, Records
Management, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 316, Washington, DC 20472,
facsimile number (202) 646-3347, or e-mail address [email protected].
Dated: April 11, 2006.
Deborah Moradi,
Acting Branch Chief, Information Resources Management Branch,
Information Technology Services Division.
[FR Doc. E6-6500 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110[dash]13-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.743821 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6500.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6471 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25601-25602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6471]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA-1636-DR]
Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1636-DR), dated April 12,
2006, and related determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 12, 2006, the President declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Arkansas resulting from severe storms and tornadoes during the
period of April 1-3, 2006, is of sufficient severity and magnitude
to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206
(the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Arkansas.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Hazard
Mitigation in the designated areas and any other forms of assistance
under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the
requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and
Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later requested and
warranted, Federal funds provided under that program will also be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are
authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent
allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Acting Director,
Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as
amended, Carlos Mitchell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal
Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Arkansas
to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Conway, Cross, Fulton, Greene, Lawrence, Randolph, and White
Counties for Individual Assistance.
[[Page 25602]]
Conway, Cross, Fulton, Greene, Lawrence, Randolph, and White
Counties within the State of Arkansas are eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individual and Household Housing; 97.049,
Individual and Household Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individual and Household Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E6-6471 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.772418 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6471.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6474 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6474]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA-1633-DR]
Illinois; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1633-DR), dated March 28, 2006, and
related determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of March 28, 2006:
Randolph County for Public Assistance.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E6-6474 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.807601 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6474.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6468 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6468]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA-1638-DR]
Kansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA-1638-DR), dated April 13, 2006,
and related determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 13, 2006, the President declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Kansas resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and straight line
winds during the period of March 12-13, 2006, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that
such a major disaster exists in the State of Kansas.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under
section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted,
Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are authorized to
make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Acting Director, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. Costello, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Kansas to
have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Douglas and Wyandotte Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Kansas are eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E6-6468 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.824250 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6468.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6465 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25602-25603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6465]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA-1635-DR]
Missouri; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1635-DR), dated April 5, 2006, and
related determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: April 17, 2006.
[[Page 25603]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of April 5, 2006:
Butler, Dunklin, St. Francois, and Stoddard Counties for Individual
Assistance.
Andrew and Pettis Counties for Individual Assistance (already
designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures
[Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program.)
Pemiscot County for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already
designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures
[Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program.)
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E6-6465 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.833908 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6465.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6473 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6473]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA-1631-DR]
Missouri; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1631-DR), dated March 16, 2006, and
related determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of March 16, 2006:
Bollinger, Daviess, and Ray Counties for Public Assistance.
Benton, Boone, Carroll, Cedar, Greene, Henry, Hickory, Iron, Morgan,
Perry, Pettis, Putnam, Randolph, Saline, St. Clair, Webster, and
Wright Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance.)
Bates, Christian, Howard, Monroe, and Montgomery Counties for Public
Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual
Assistance and debris removal and emergency protective measures
[Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program).
Washington County for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already
designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures
[Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program).
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E6-6473 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.860604 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6473.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6466 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25603-25604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6466]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA-1637-DR]
Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1637-DR), dated April 13,
2006, and related determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated April 13, 2006, the President declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Oklahoma resulting from severe storms and tornadoes on March 12,
2006, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford
Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the
State of Oklahoma.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Hazard
Mitigation in the designated areas and any other forms of assistance
under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the
requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and
Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later requested and
warranted, Federal funds provided under that program will also be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are
authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent
allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Acting Director, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Philip Parr, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Oklahoma
to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Delaware County for Individual Assistance.
Delaware County within the State of Oklahoma is eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
[[Page 25604]]
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E6-6466 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.898615 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6466.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6469 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6469]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA-1634-DR]
Tennessee; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-1634-DR), dated April 5, 2006, and
related determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: April 17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of April 5, 2006:
Benton, Cannon, Carroll, Cheatham, Cumberland, Davidson, Dickson,
Maury, Sumner, Warren, and Weakley Counties for Individual
Assistance.
Fayette County for Individual Assistance (already designated for
Public Assistance.)
Haywood County for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E6-6469 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.916548 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6469.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6470 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6470]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA-1634-DR]
Tennessee; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-1634-DR), dated April 5, 2006, and
related determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: April 12, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Tennessee is hereby amended to include the Public
Assistance Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President
in his declaration of April 5, 2006:
Fayette County for Public Assistance.
Dyer and Gibson Counties for Public Assistance (already designated
for Individual Assistance).
All counties in the State of Tennessee are eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E6-6470 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.933969 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6470.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6472 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25604-25605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6472]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA-1624-DR]
Texas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1624-DR), dated January 11, 2006, and
related determinations.
DATES: Effective Date: April 17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of January 11, 2006:
Potter County for Individual Assistance (already designated for
Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective measures),
subject to subsequent designation by FEMA for reimbursement.)
(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049,
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050,
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public
[[Page 25605]]
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)
R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E6-6472 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.962474 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6472.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6495 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6495]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[AK-964-1410-KC-P; AA-12581]
Alaska Native Claims Selection
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that
an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Chugach Alaska
Corporation for lands located in the vicinity of the Prince William
Sound, Alaska. Notice of the decision will also be published four times
in the Anchorage Daily News.
DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely
affected by the decision shall have until May 31, 2006 to file an
appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have
waived their rights.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, 13,
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at [email protected]. Persons
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.
Dina L. Torres,
Land Law Examiner, Branch of Adjudication II (964).
[FR Doc. E6-6495 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:34.981300 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6495.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6494 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6494]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[AK-964-1410-KC-P; AA-6706-A, AA-6706-E, AA-6706-F, and AA-6706-A2]
Alaska Native Claims Selection
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that
an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Twin Hills Native
Corporation, for lands in the vicinity of Twin Hills, Alaska, and
located in:
Seward Meridian, Alaska
T. 12 S., R. 64 W.,
Secs. 8, 9, and 16;
Secs. 17, 20, and 21.
Containing 2,624.18 acres.
T. 14 S., R. 65 W.,
Secs. 4, 5, and 8;
Secs. 9, 16, and 17;
Secs. 20, 21, and 28;
Sec. 29.
Containing approximately 5,518 acres.
T. 13 S., R. 66 W.,
Sec. 6.
Containing approximately 160 acres.
Total aggregating approximately 8,302 acres.
Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the
Anchorage Daily News.
DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely
affected by the decision shall have until May 31, 2006 to file an
appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have
waived their rights.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, 13,
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at [email protected]. Persons
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.
Eileen Ford,
Land Law Examiner, Branch of Adjudication II.
[FR Doc. E6-6494 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.008399 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6494.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6491 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25605-25606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6491]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[CO-921-06-1320-EL; COC 69631]
Notice of Invitation for Coal Exploration License Application,
CAM-Colorado LLC. COC 69631; Colorado
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as
amended, and to Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 3410,
members of the public are hereby invited to participate with CAM-
Colorado, LLC, in a program for the exploration of unleased coal
deposits owned by the United States of America containing approximately
13,646.04 acres in Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado.
DATES: Written Notice of Intent to Participate should be addressed to
the attention of the following persons and must be received by them by
May 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Karen Zurek, CO-921, Solid Minerals Staff, Division of
Energy, Lands and Minerals, Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land
Management, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215; and, CAM-
Colorado LLC, P.O. Box 98, Loma, Colorado 81524.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Karen Zurek at (303) 239-3795.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The application for coal exploration license
is available for public inspection during normal business hours under
serial number COC 69631 at the Bureau of Land Management, Colorado
State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, and at
the Grand Junction Field Office, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, Colorado
81506. Any party electing to participate in this program must share all
costs on a pro rata basis with CAM-Colorado LLC, and
[[Page 25606]]
with any other party or parties who elect to participate.
Karen Zurek,
Solid Minerals Staff, Division of Energy, Lands and Minerals.
[FR Doc. E6-6491 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.020203 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6491.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6490 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6490]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[MT-921-06-1320-EL-P; MTM 95451]
Notice of Invitation--Coal Exploration License Application MTM
95451
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Members of the public are hereby invited to participate with
Western Energy Company in a program for the exploration of coal
deposits owned by the United States of America in lands located in
Treasure and Rosebud Counties, Montana, encompassing 548.17 acres.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Giovanini, Mining Engineer, or
Connie Schaff, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Solid Minerals (MT-921),
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Montana State Office, Billings,
Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5084 or (406) 896-5060,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lands to be explored for coal deposits
are described as follows:
T. 2 N., R. 38 E., P.M.M.
Sec. 14: E\1/2\.
T. 1 N., R. 39 E., P.M.M.
Sec. 4: Lots 1, 2, 4.
T. 2 N., R. 39 E., P.M.M.
Sec. 34: W\1/2\SW\1/4\
Any party electing to participate in this exploration program shall
notify, in writing, both the State Director, BLM, 5001 Southgate Drive,
Billings, Montana 59101-4669, and Western Energy Company, P.O. Box 99,
Colstrip, Montana 59323. Such written notice must refer to serial
number MTM 95451 and be received no later than 30 calendar days after
publication of this Notice in the Federal Register or 10 calendar days
after the last publication of this Notice in the Independent Press
newspaper, whichever is later. This Notice will be published once a
week for two (2) consecutive weeks in the Independent Press, Forsyth,
Montana.
The proposed exploration program is fully described, and will be
conducted pursuant to an exploration plan to be approved by the Bureau
of Land Management. The exploration plan, as submitted by Western
Energy Company, is available for public inspection at the BLM, 5001
Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana, during regular business hours (9
a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday.
Dated: February 16, 2006.
Rebecca Spurgin,
Acting Chief, Branch of Solid Minerals.
[FR Doc. E6-6490 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.041098 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6490.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6485 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25606-25607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6485]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the
Environmental Impact Statement on the Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
and Land Exchange, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the
Environmental Impact Statement on the Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
and Land Exchange, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of
the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Falls Creek Hydroelectric Project
and Land Exchange, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska.
This ROD documents the decision by the NPS on behalf of the
Secretary of Interior (Secretary) to implement applicable portions of
the Glacier Bay National Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 1998 (Pub. L.
105-317) (Act). The Act mandated the Secretary implement specific
actions once certain provisions were met. In this ROD the NPS addresses
its decision to:
Exchange land presently in Glacier Bay National Park
(Glacier Bay) to the State of Alaska (state);
Add state land to Klondike Gold Rush National Historical
Park (Klondike Gold Rush);
Designate an island in Blue Mouse Cove and Cenotaph Island
in Glacier Bay as wilderness; and
Adjust national park and wilderness boundaries as
necessary to compensate for the land exchange.
By addressing these actions the NPS will fulfill the Department of
Interior's responsibility under the Act.
This ROD follows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC)
October 29, 2004 decision to issue a license to Gustavus Electric
Company allowing the construction and operation of the Falls Creek
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 11659). It also follows the FERC Order
Denying Rehearing on March 24, 2005 and FERC's June 17, 2005 denial of
a request to reconsider the March 24, 2005 Order. This record of
decision does not address any of FERC's responsibility under the Act
nor does it address any aspect of the licensing process and decision as
discussed in the final environmental impact statement (final EIS) and
the FERC Order Issuing License and the subsequent rehearing denials.
The NPS has decided to adopt the Preferred Alternative as presented
in the final EIS. This will result in conveying approximately 1,034
acres in Glacier Bay to the State of Alaska and in exchange receiving
approximately 1,040 acres in Klondike Gold Rush. Included is the
designation of 1,069 acres in Glacier Bay as wilderness and deletion of
1040 acres of wilderness in Glacier Bay. The National Park and National
Wilderness boundaries will be adjusted.
The ROD briefly discusses the Act and background of the
hydroelectric project and land exchange, summarizes public involvement
during the planning process, states the decision and discusses the
basis for it, describes other alternatives considered, specifies the
environmentally preferable alternative, identifies measures adopted to
minimize potential environmental harm, and provides a non-impairment
determination.
ADDRESSES: The ROD can be found online at the http://www.nps.gov/glba.
Copies of the ROD are available on request from: Bruce Greenwood,
National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Avenue,
Anchorage, Alaska 99501. Telephone: (907) 644-3503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Greenwood, Project Manager,
National Park Service, Alaska Region, 240 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501. Telephone: (907) 644-3503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS prepared a final EIS, as required,
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Council of
Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 1500).
A Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement,
published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2002 (67 FR 129), formally
initiated the environmental impact statement (EIS) process. A draft EIS
was issued on November 7, 2003 (68 FR 216) for a 60-day public comment
period, that ended January 6, 2004. A Federal Register notice
announcing the availability of the final EIS was
[[Page 25607]]
published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on July 9, 2004
(69 FR 41476), commencing the required 30-day no-action period. The
final EIS describes and analyzes the environmental impacts of four
action alternatives and a no-action alternative.
The NPS has decided to adopt the Preferred Alternative as presented
in the final EIS. This will result in conveyance of 1,034 acres to the
state of Alaska. The Preferred Alternative is a slight variation of the
final EIS Maximum Boundary Alternative. The Maximum Boundary
Alternative included the entire 1,145 acres of Glacier Bay park land
identified in the Act as potentially available for exchange and the
development of a hydroelectric power project. Because 95 acres in the
upper portion of the Falls Creek area was not needed for construction
of the hydroelectric power project, the Maximum Boundary Alternative
was reduced by this amount. To compensate for the 1,034 acres in
Glacier Bay that will be exchanged to the state of Alaska, the state of
Alaska will transfer to NPS, approximately 1,040 acres of Chilkoot
parcels within Klondike Gold Rush. This land will be administered as
part of the historical park. Upon completion of the exchange of land
under this Act, the Secretary shall adjust, as necessary, the
boundaries of Glacier Bay to exclude the land exchanged to the State of
Alaska and at Klondike Gold Rush to include the land acquired from the
State of Alaska.
In accordance with Section 2(b) of the Boundary Act, to compensate
for the 1,034 acres deleted from the National Wilderness Preservation
System at Glacier Bay, the unnamed island near Blue Mouse Cove and
Cenotaph Island, totaling 1,069 acres, will be designated as
wilderness. The wilderness boundaries in the Falls Creek, Blue Mouse
Cove, and Cenotaph Island areas will be adjusted accordingly.
Dated: March 21, 2006.
Marcia Blaszak,
Regional Director, Alaska.
[FR Doc. E6-6485 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-HX-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.060947 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6485.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4047 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4047]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Inventory Completion: American Museum of Natural
History, New York, NY
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the
completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the
American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY. The human remains
were collected from Morton and Oliver Counties, ND, and Hughes County,
SD.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's
administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3).
The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the
museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native
American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible
for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by American
Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with
representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold
Reservation, North Dakota.
Prior to 1877, human remains representing a minimum of one
individual were collected from a village site, Fort Lincoln, Morton
County, ND, on the Missouri River. The human remains were collected by
an unknown person. It is unclear how the museum received the remains.
No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are
present.
The individual has been identified as Native American based on
museum documentation that describes the remains as ``Hidatsa?'' The
human remains have not been dated, but originated from an area occupied
during the early postcontact period by the Mandan people, who are now
part of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation,
North Dakota. Given the description of their geographic origin, the
human remains may have come from On-a-Slant Village, a Mandan
settlement abandoned in 1781.
In 1916, human remains representing a minimum of one individual
were collected from Old Fort Clark in Oliver County, ND, by Rev.
Gilbert L. Wilson. The American Museum of Natural History purchased the
human remains from Rev. Wilson in 1917. No known individual was
identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The individual has been identified as Native American based on
geographic origin. The location of the human remains is consistent with
the postcontact territory of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort
Berthold Reservation, North Dakota. In 1827, most of the Arikara and
some of the Mandan people settled near Fort Clark. An Arikara cemetery
is present at Fort Clark. Based on the association of the human remains
with historic Fort Clark, the remains are most likely postcontact.
In 1939, human remains representing a minimum of six individuals
were collected from the Arzberger site, Hughes County, SD, by Columbia
University. The American Museum of Natural History acquired the human
remains as a gift from Columbia University in 1964. No known
individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are
present.
The individuals have been identified as Native American based on
geographic origin, mortuary practices, and catalog records. The catalog
indicates the remains are ``probably Arikara.'' Flexed inhumations on
elevated land forms immediately outside villages are consistent with
late precontact and postcontact Arikara mortuary practices.
Officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined
that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described
above represent the physical remains of eight individuals of Native
American ancestry. Officials of the American Museum of Natural History
also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a
relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced
between the Native American human remains and the Three Affiliated
Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to
be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Nell
Murphy, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural
History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192,
telephone (212) 769-5837, before May 31, 2006. Repatriation of the
human remains to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold
Reservation, North Dakota may proceed after that date if no additional
claimants come forward.
The American Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying
the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North
Dakota that this notice has been published.
Dated: March 24, 2006.
Sherry Hutt,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
[FR Doc. 06-4047 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-50-S | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.089397 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4047.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6484 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6484]
[[Page 25608]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Inventory Completion: American Museum of Natural
History, New York, NY
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the
completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the
American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY. The human remains
were collected from Sioux County, ND.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's
administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3).
The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the
museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native
American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible
for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by American
Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with
representatives of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne
River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow
Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South
Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South
Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala
Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Prairie Island
Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the
Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation,
Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-
Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit
Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South
Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of
South Dakota.
In 1885, human remains representing a minimum of one individual
were collected from Fort Yates, Standing Rock Indian Reservation, Sioux
County, ND, by Mr. DeCost Smith. In 1902, the American Museum of
Natural History acquired the human remains as a gift from Mr. Smith. No
known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are
present.
The individual has been identified as Native American based on
museum documentation that describes the human remains as ``Dakota.''
The human remains were collected from the Standing Rock Reservation,
which is inhabited by Standing Rock Sioux Indians.
Although the lands from which the human remains were collected are
currently under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the American Museum of Natural
History has control of the human remains since their removal from
tribal land predates the permit requirements established by the
Antiquities Act of 1906.
Officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined
that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described
above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native
American ancestry. Officials of the American Museum of Natural History
also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a
relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced
between the Native American human remains and the Standing Rock Sioux
Tribe of North & South Dakota.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to
be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Nell
Murphy, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural
History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192,
telephone (212) 769-5837, before May 31, 2006. Repatriation of the
human remains to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota
may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The American Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying
the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,
Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation,
South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation,
South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux
Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the
Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Prairie Island Indian Community
in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian
Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of
the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North
Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Upper Sioux
Community, Minnesota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota that this
notice has been published.
Dated: March 29, 2006.
Sherry Hutt,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
[FR Doc. E6-6484 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-50-S | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.113239 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6484.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4048 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25608-25609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4048]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Inventory Completion: Sheboygan County Historical
Museum, Sheboygan, WI
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the
completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of
Sheboygan County Historical Museum, Sheboygan, WI. The human remains
were removed from Sheboygan County, WI.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's
administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3).
The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the
museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native
American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible
for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Sheboygan
County Historical Museum professional staff in consultation with
representatives of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Forest
County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community,
Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Prairie Band of
Potawatomi Nation, Kansas.
In 1938, human remains representing a minimum of one individual
were removed from the Sheboygan Marsh in Sheboygan County, WI, during
the building of the Sheboygan dam, a Works Progress Administration
project. The human remains were kept in private possession until they
were donated by Mr. Charles Luksis of Sheboygan, WI, to the Sheboygan
County Historical Museum in 1985. It is unknown if Mr. Luksis was the
collector. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary
objects are present.
[[Page 25609]]
The human remains are assumed to be of Native American ancestry
because of the presence of other Native American sites, including a
mound, in the immediate vicinity of the Sheboygan dam where the human
remains were most likely recovered. There are no known historic or
European burials in the area. The Sheboygan County Historical Museum
has determined that the human remains are likely culturally affiliated
with the Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan based on judicially
established land areas of the Indian Claims Commission 1978. Finally,
oral history and historic accounts of the presence of the tribe in the
area by the tribal representative, independently verified by the staff
of the Sheboygan County Historical Museum and the Sheboygan County
Historical Research Center, also support the cultural affiliation to
the Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan.
On an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of four
individuals were removed from the Kraemer property in the Town of
Rhine, Sheboygan County, WI, by an unknown person. The human remains
were taken to the Sheboygan County Historical Museum and donated to the
collection on February 11, 1936, by Mr. Charles E. Broughton, President
of the Sheboygan County Historical Society. No known individuals were
identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
According to museum records, the human remains were excavated from
a mound, which indicates that the human remains are Native American in
origin. The Sheboygan County Historical Museum has determined that the
human remains are most likely culturally affiliated with the
Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan, based on an Indian Claims
Commission decision (Land Claims Map ID 15). Furthermore,
historic accounts of the presence of the tribe in the area by the
tribal representative, independently verified by the staff of the
Sheboygan County Historical Museum and the Sheboygan County Historical
Research Center, also support the cultural affiliation to the
Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan.
Officials of the Sheboygan County Historical Museum have determined
that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described
above represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native
American ancestry. Officials of the Sheboygan County Historical Museum
also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a
relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced
between the Native American human remains and the Hannahville Indian
Community, Michigan.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to
be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Casandra
Karl, Registrar, Sheboygan County Historical Museum, 3110 Erie Avenue,
Sheboygan, WI 53081, telephone (920) 458-1103, before May 31, 2006.
Repatriation of the human remains to the Hannahville Indian Community,
Michigan may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come
forward.
The Sheboygan County Historical Museum is responsible for notifying
the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi
Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Menominee
Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; and Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation,
Kansas that this notice has been published.
Dated: March 22, 2006.
Sherry Hutt,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
[FR Doc. 06-4048 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-50-S | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.138080 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4048.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6361 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25609-25611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6361]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731-TA-702 (Second Review)]
Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium from Russia
AGENCY: International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Institution of a five-year review concerning the antidumping
duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a
review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping
duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia would be
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury.
Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are
requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information
specified below to the Commission; \1\ to be assured of consideration,
the deadline for responses is June 20, 2006. Comments on the adequacy
of responses may be filed with the Commission by July 14, 2006. For
further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of
general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part
207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No response to this request for information is required if a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not
displayed; the OMB number is 3117-0016/USITC No. 06-5-152,
expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting burden for the
request is estimated to average 10 hours per response. Please send
comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the
Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information
on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-
1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the
Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning
the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server
(http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background. On July 10, 1995, the Department
of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of
ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia (60 FR 35550).
Following five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective
June 7, 2001, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty
order on imports of ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia (66
FR 30694). The Commission is now conducting a second review to
determine whether revocation of the order would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry
within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of
interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine
whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The
Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the
facts available, which may include information provided in response to
this notice.
Definitions. The following definitions apply to this review:
[[Page 25610]]
(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is
within the scope of the five-year review, as defined by the Department
of Commerce.
(2) The Subject Country in this review is Russia.
(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product
or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original
determination, the Commission found one Domestic Like Product including
both ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium. Noting in its full five-year
review determination that nitrided vanadium had not been produced in
the United States since 1992, the Commission determined that, based on
the record, the product most like ferrovanadium and most similar in
characteristics and uses to nitrided vanadium that was produced in the
United States at that time was ferrovanadium. Accordingly, the
Commission found one Domestic Like Product consisting of ferrovanadium.
One Commissioner defined the Domestic Like Product differently in the
first five-year review determination.
(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the
Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of
the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total
domestic production of the product. In its original determination, the
Commission found one Domestic Industry consisting of ferrovanadium and
nitrided vanadium producers, including certain toll-producers. In its
full five-year review determination, the Commission found one Domestic
Industry consisting of ferrovanadium producers, including a toll-
producer of the Domestic Like Product. The Commission, however, did not
include tollees Gulf and USV in the Domestic Industry because those
firms produced vanadium pentoxide, an intermediate product, not
ferrovanadium, the Domestic Like Product. Two Commissioners defined the
Domestic Industry differently in the first five-year review
determination.
(5) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or
through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject
Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or
through its selling agent.
Participation in the review and public service list. Persons,
including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the
merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer
organizations, wishing to participate in the review as parties must
file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as
provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later
than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names
and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties
to the review.
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission
five-year reviews are reminded that they are required, pursuant to 19
CFR 201.15, to seek Commission approval if the matter in which they are
seeking to appear was pending in any manner or form during their
Commission employment. The Commission is seeking guidance as to whether
a second transition five-year review is the ``same particular matter''
as the underlying original investigation for purposes of 19 CFR 201.15
and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees.
Former employees may seek informal advice from Commission ethics
officials with respect to this and the related issue of whether the
employee's participation was ``personal and substantial.'' However, any
informal consultation will not relieve former employees of the
obligation to seek approval to appear from the Commission under its
rule 201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy
Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.
Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under
an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list. Pursuant
to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make
BPI submitted in this review available to authorized applicants under
the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made no
later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as
defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A separate
service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties
authorized to receive BPI under the APO.
Certification. Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules,
any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with
this review must certify that the information is accurate and complete
to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification,
the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified,
for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the
information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same
or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of
the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the
programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix
3. Written submissions. Pursuant to section 207.61 of the
Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must
provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such
responses is June 20, 2006. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the
Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule
207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of
responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission
should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing
such comments is July 14, 2006. All written submissions must conform
with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's
rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the
requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The
Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the
Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent
permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR
68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to
the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as
identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate),
and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are
not a party to the review you do not need to serve your response).
Inability to provide requested information. Pursuant to section
207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot
furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form
and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time,
provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested
information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide
equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this
notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the
notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to
this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the
party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determination
in the review.
Information to Be Provided in Response to this Notice of
Institution:
[[Page 25611]]
As used below, the term ``firm'' includes any related firms.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World
Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number,
and E-mail address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S.
producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a
U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or
exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or
business association, or another interested party (including an
explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business
association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or
which are members of your association.
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to
participate in this review by providing information requested by the
Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the
antidumping duty order on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your
firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various
factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a))
including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of
subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on
the Domestic Industry.
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of
the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the
nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act
(19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of
the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in the
Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject
Merchandise to the United States or other countries after 2000.
(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product,
provide the following information on your firm's operations on that
product during calendar year 2005 (report quantity data in pounds of
contained vanadium and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If
you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the
information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers
are employed/which are members of your association.
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the
percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product
accounted for by your firm's(s') production;
(b) The quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and
(c) The quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company
transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s).
(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of
U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Country,
provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that
product during calendar year 2005 (report quantity data in pounds of
contained vanadium and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/
business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis,
for the firms which are members of your association.
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including
antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the
percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the
Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') imports;
(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping
duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported
from the Subject Country; and
(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping
duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject
Merchandise imported from the Subject Country.
(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business
association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the
Subject Country, provide the following information on your firm's(s')
operations on that product during calendar year 2005 (report quantity
data in pounds of contained vanadium and value data in U.S. dollars,
landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping
duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the
information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of
your association.
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the
percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject
Country accounted for by your firm's(s') production; and
(b) The quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United
States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the
percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise
from the Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') exports.
(10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand
conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have
occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject
Merchandise in the Subject Country after 2000, and significant changes,
if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time.
Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods;
development efforts; ability to increase production (including the
shift of production facilities used for other products and the use,
cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors
related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets
(including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in
market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses
and applications; the existence and availability of substitute
products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product
produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the
Subject Country, and such merchandise from other countries.
(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above
definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you
disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why
and provide alternative definitions.
Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
Issued: April 24, 2006.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-6361 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.156699 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6361.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4060 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25611-25612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4060]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comments Requested
ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review:
Reinstatement, without Change of a previously approved collection for
which Approvals has expired. Budget Detail Worksheet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
has submitted the following information collection request to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
[[Page 25612]]
The proposed collection information is published to obtain comments
from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information
collection was previously published in the Federal Register Volume 71,
Number 24, page 6096 on February 6, 2006, allowing for a 60 day comment
period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days
for public comment until May 31, 2006. This process is conducted in
accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained
in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated
response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and
Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention
Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally,
comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more of the following four points:
--Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
--Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
--Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
--Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, without Change
of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Budget Detail Worksheet
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the
Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Forms: Not-applicable
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract: Primary: All potential grantee partners who
are possible recipient of our discretionary grant programs. The
eligible recipients include state and local government, Indian tribes,
profit entities, non-profit entities, educational institutions, and
individuals. The form is not mandatory and is recommended as guide to
assist the recipient in preparing the budget narrative as authorized in
28 CFR parts 66 and 70.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is
estimated that 2,500 respondents will complete a 4-hour form.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated
with the collection: The estimated total public burden hours associated
with this collection is 4,609 hours.
If additional information is required contact: Robert B. Briggs,
Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice,
Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry
Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: April 24, 2006
Robert B. Briggs,
Department Clearance Officer, Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 06-4060 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-M | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.173046 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4060.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6513 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6513]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request
April 19, 2006.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public
information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of
this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by
calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation contact Ira
Mills on 202-693-4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-Mail:
[email protected]. These documents can also be accessed online at:
http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/guidance/OMBControlNumber.cfm.
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a
toll free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in
the Federal Register.
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Agency: Employment and Training Administration (ETA).
Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
Title: Standard Job Corps Request for Proposal and Related
Contractor Information Gathering.
OMB Number: 1205-0219.
Frequency: Annually; quarterly; monthly; and weekly.
Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for profit
institutions; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal gov't.
Type of Response: Recordkeeping and reporting.
Number of Respondents: 122.
Annual Responses: 232,212.
Average Response time: 4 hours 11 minutes.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 62,525.
Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs: 0.
Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing
services): 0.
Description: Standard Request for Proposal for the operation of a
Job Corps Center completed by prospective contractors for competitive
procurement and Federal paperwork requirements for contract operators
of such centers.
Ira L. Mills,
Departmental Clearance Officer, Team Leader.
[FR Doc. E6-6513 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.195611 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6513.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6505 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6505]
[[Page 25613]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030-34437]
Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact for License Amendment for DGI Biotechnologies,
LLC's Facility in Edison, NJ
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nick, Commercial and R&D
Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale
Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, telephone (610) 337-5056,
fax (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of a license amendment to DGI Biotechnologies, LLC (DGI) for
Materials License No. 29-30389-01, to authorize release of its facility
in Edison, New Jersey for unrestricted use and terminate the license.
NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this
proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51.
Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following
the publication of this Notice.
II. EA Summary
The purpose of the proposed action is to authorize the release of
the licensee's Edison, New Jersey facility for unrestricted use and
terminate the license. DGI was authorized by NRC from 1997 to use
radioactive materials for research and development purposes at the
site. In 2003, DGI ceased operations with licensed materials at the
Edison site and the DGI facility was taken over by Antyra, Inc.
(Antyra). On September 28, 2005, Antyra requested that NRC release the
facility for unrestricted use. Antyra has conducted surveys of the
facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the
site meets the license termination criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part
20 for unrestricted release.
The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license
amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the
licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed
the information and final status survey submitted by Antyra. Based on
its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional
remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action.
Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual
radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual
radioactivity meets the requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20, a
Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the
license amendment to terminate the license and release the facility for
unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated Antyra's request and the
results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action
complies with the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20. The staff
has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the action
are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3,
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on
Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed
Facilities'' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Additionally,
no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. On the basis
of the EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant
environmental impacts from the proposed action, and has determined not
to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action, including the application for the
license amendment and supporting documentation, are available
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the
NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS
accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are:
Environmental Assessment Related to Issuance of a License Amendment of
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Materials License No. 29-30389-01,
DGI Biotechnologies, LLC in Edison, New Jesey (ML061070474); and Final
Status Survey Results for DGI Biotechnologies, LLC Facility, 40
Talmadge Road, Edison, New Jersey (ML052840126). Persons who do not
have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff
by telephone at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Documents related to operations conducted under this license not
specifically referenced in this Notice may not be electronically
available and/or may not be publicly available. Persons who have an
interest in reviewing these documents should submit a request to NRC
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instructions for
submitting a FOIA request can be found on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-privacy.html.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 20th day of April,
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James P. Dwyer,
Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region I.
[FR Doc. E6-6505 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.207836 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6505.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4070 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25613-25614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4070]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Executive Office of the President; Acquisition Advisory Panel;
Notification of Upcoming Meetings of the Acquisition Advisory Panel
AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the
President.
ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget announces five meetings of
the Acquisition Advisory Panel (AAP or ``Panel'') established in
accordance with the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003.
DATES: There are five meetings announced in this Federal Register
Notice. Public meetings of the Panel will be held on May 18th, May
31st, June 14th, July 7th and July 21st 2006. All meetings will begin
at 9 a.m. Eastern Time and end no later than 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Except for the July 7th meeting, all public meetings will be
held at the Small Business Administration (SBA), 409 Third Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, 2nd Floor Eisenhower Conference Room (Metro stop at
building: Federal Center Southwest, Orange or Blue Lines). The July 7th
meeting will be held at the new FDIC Building, 3501 N. Fairfax Drive,
Arlington, VA 22226, Room 203. This facility is a quarter of a block
off of the Orange Line metro stop for Virginia Square. The public must
pre-register
[[Page 25614]]
one week in advance for all meetings due to security and/or seating
limitations (see below for information on pre-registration).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public wishing further
information concerning these meetings or the Panel itself, or to pre-
register for the meetings, should contact Ms. Laura Auletta, Designated
Federal Officer (DFO), at: [email protected], phone/voice mail
(202) 208-7279, or mail at: General Services Administration, 1800 F.
Street, NW., Room 4006, Washington, DC 20405. Members of the public
wishing to reserve speaking time must contact Mr. Emile Monette, AAP
Staff Analyst, in writing at: [email protected] or by Fax at 202-
501-3341, or mail at the address given above for the DFO. Requests must
be received no later than one week prior to the meeting for which
speaking time is desired.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(a) Background: The purpose of the Panel is to provide independent
advice and recommendations to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
and Congress pursuant to Section 1423 of the Services Acquisition
Reform Act of 2003. The Panel's statutory charter is to review Federal
contracting laws, regulations, and governmentwide policies, including
the use of commercial practices, performance-based contracting,
performance of acquisition functions across agency lines of
responsibility, and governmentwide contracts. Interested parties are
invited to attend the meetings. Opportunity for public comments will be
provided at the meetings. Any change will be announced in the Federal
Register.
All Meetings--While the Panel may hear from additional invited
speakers, the focus of these meetings will be discussions of and voting
on working group findings and recommendations from selected working
groups, established at the February 28, 2005 and May 17, 2005 public
meetings of the AAP (see http://acquisition.gov/comp/aap/index.html for
a list of working groups). The Panel welcomes oral public comments at
these meetings and has reserved one-half hour for this purpose at each
meeting. Members of the public wishing to address the Panel during the
meeting must contact Mr. Monette, in writing, as soon as possible to
reserve time (see contact information above).
(b) Posting of Draft Reports: Members of the public are encouraged
to regularly visit the Panel's web site for draft reports. Currently,
the working groups are staggering the posting of various sections of
their draft reports at http://acquisition.gov/comp/aap/index.html under
the link for ``Working Group Reports.'' The most recent posting is from
the Commercial Practices Working Group. The public is encouraged to
submit written comments on any and all draft reports.
(c) Adopted Recommendations: The Panel has adopted recommendations
presented by the Small Business, Interagency Contracting, and
Performance-Based Acquisition Working Groups as of the date of this
notice. While additional recommendations from some of these working
groups are likely and adopted recommendations from other working groups
will be posted as recommendations are adopted, the public is encouraged
to review and comment on the recommendations adopted by the Panel to
date by going to http://acquisition.gov/comp/aap/index.html and
selecting the link for ``Panel Recommendations To Date.''
(d) Availability of Meeting Materials: Please see the Panel's Web
site for any available materials, including draft agendas and minutes.
Questions/issues of particular interest to the Panel are also available
to the public on this Web site on its front page, including ``Questions
for Government Buying Agencies,'' ``Questions for Contractors that Sell
Commercial Goods or Services to the Government,'' ``Questions for
Commercial Organizations,'' and an issue raised by one Panel member
regarding the rules of interpretation and performance of contracts and
liabilities of the parties entitled ``Revised Commercial Practices
Proposal for Public Comment.'' The Panel encourages the public to
address any of these questions/issues when presenting either oral
public comments or written statements to the Panel.
(e) Procedures for Providing Public Comments: It is the policy of
the Panel to accept written public comments of any length, and to
accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The Panel Staff
expects that public statements presented at Panel meetings will be
focused on the Panel's statutory charter and working group topics, and
not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements,
and that comments will be relevant to the issues under discussion.
Oral Comments: Speaking times will be confirmed by Panel staff on a
``first-come/first-served'' basis. To accommodate as many speakers as
possible, oral public comments must be no longer than 10 minutes.
Because Panel members may ask questions, reserved times will be
approximate. Interested parties must contact Mr. Emile Monette, in
writing (via mail, e-mail, or fax identified above for Mr. Monette) at
least one week prior to the meeting in order to be placed on the public
speaker list for the meeting. Oral requests for speaking time will not
be taken. Speakers are requested to bring extra copies of their
comments and/or presentation slides for distribution to the Panel at
the meeting. Speakers wishing to use a Power Point presentation must e-
mail the presentation to Mr. Monette one week in advance of the
meeting.
Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted until the
date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should
be received by the Panel Staff at least one week prior to the meeting
date so that the comments may be made available to the Panel for their
consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be supplied
to the DFO at the address/contact information given in this FR Notice
in one of the following formats (Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or
Rich Text files, in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).
Please note: Because the Panel operates under the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all public
presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made
available for public inspection, up to and including being posted on
the Panel's Web site.
(f) Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special
accommodation to access the public meetings listed above should contact
Ms. Auletta at least five business days prior to the meeting so that
appropriate arrangements can be made.
Laura Auletta,
Designated Federal Officer (Executive Director), Acquisition Advisory
Panel.
[FR Doc. 06-4070 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.234580 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4070.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6536 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25614-25615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6536]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice of Closure of
Case 012-CP-05, Protection of Worker Rights in Swaziland and Closure of
Case 015-CP-05, Protection of Intellectual Property in Kazakhstan, in
the 2005 Annual Country Practice Review
AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25615]]
SUMMARY: This notice announces closure of the review for cases 012-CP-
05, Protection of Worker Rights in Swaziland and 015-CP-05, Protection
of Intellectual Property in Kazakhstan.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Marideth Sandler, Executive Director
of the GSP Program, Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR), Room F-220, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The
telephone number is (202) 395-6971 and the facsimile number is (202)
395-9481.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The GSP program provides for the duty-free
importation of designated articles when imported from beneficiary
developing countries. The GSP program is authorized by Title V of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461, et seq.), as amended (the ``Trade
Act''), and is implemented in accordance with Executive Order 11888 of
November 24, 1975, as modified by subsequent Executive Orders and
Presidential Proclamations.
In the 2005 Annual Review, the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy
Staff Committee (TPSC) is reviewing petitions concerning the country
practices of certain beneficiary developing countries of the GSP
program. As a result of that review, the TPSC has decided to close the
review for case 012-CP-05 regarding protection of worker rights in
Swaziland and case 015-CP-05, protection of intellectual property
rights in Kazakhstan. The Petitioners were the AFL-CIO and the
International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), respectively. The
results of other ongoing country practice reviews in the 2005 Annual
Review will be announced in the Federal Register at a later date.
Marideth J. Sandler,
Executive Director, GSP Program.
[FR Doc. E6-6536 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W6-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.246387 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6536.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4049 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25615-25616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4049]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Personnel Demonstration Project; Alternative Personnel Management
System for the U.S. Department of Commerce
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Notice of modification to the Department of Commerce Personnel
Management Demonstration Project.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has authority to
conduct demonstration projects that experiment with new and different
human resources management concepts to determine whether changes in
policies and procedures result in improved Federal human resources
management. OPM approved a demonstration project covering several
operating units of the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC). OPM must
approve modifications to demonstration project plans. This notice
rescinds the demonstration project's independent authority pertaining
to recruitment and retention payments. By so doing, it allows the
demonstration project to take advantage of the expanded recruitment and
retention flexibilities applicable to General Schedule and other
employees.
DATES: This notice modifying the DoC Demonstration Project may be
implemented upon publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department of Commerce:
Joan Jorgenson, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room 5004, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-4233. Office of
Personnel Management: Jill Rajaee, U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-0836.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved the Department of
Commerce (DOC) Demonstration Project and published the final plan in
the Federal Register Volume 62, Number 247, Part II, on Wednesday,
December 24, 1997. The project was implemented on March 29, 1998, and
modified in the Federal Register on Thursday, September 30, 1999,
Volume 64, Number 189 [Notices] [Pages 52810-52812], and on Tuesday,
August 12, 2003, Volume 68, Number 155 [Notices] [Pages 47948-47949].
OPM approved a request to extend the DOC Demonstration Project for five
years as stated in an administrative letter from OPM, dated February
14, 2003. The project was approved for expansion in the Federal
Register Volume 68, Number 180 [Notices] [Pages 54505-54507], on
Wednesday, September 17, 2003, to include an additional 1,505
employees. The demonstration project was again modified on Tuesday,
July 5, 2005, Volume 70, Number 127 [Notices] [Pages 38732-38733]. This
notice rescinds the demonstration project's independent authority
pertaining to recruitment and retention payments. By so doing, it
allows the demonstration project to take advantage of the expanded
recruitment and retention flexibilities under 5 U.S.C. 5753 and 5754,
and subparts A and C of 5 CFR part 575.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4703; 5 CFR 470.315
Office of Personnel Management.
Linda M. Springer,
Director.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Basis for Project Plan Modification
III. Changes to the Project Plan
I. Executive Summary
The Department of Commerce (DOC) Demonstration Project utilizes
many features similar to those implemented by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) Demonstration Project in 1988. The DOC
Demonstration Project supports several key objectives: To simplify the
classification system for greater flexibility in classifying work and
paying employees; to establish a performance management and rewards
system for improving individual and organizational performance; and to
improve recruitment and retention to attract highly qualified
candidates. The project is designed to test whether the interventions
of the NIST project, which is now a permanent alternative personnel
system, could be successful in other DOC environments. The current
participating organizations include the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration (CFO/ASA), the
Technology Administration, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the
Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, and units of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service.
II. Basis for Project Plan Modification
As part of the Commerce Demonstration Project plan, as published in
the Federal Register notice (62 FR 67434), the recruitment bonus and
retention allowance authorities under 5 U.S.C. 5753 and 5754, and
subparts A and C of 5 CFR part 575, were waived for the DOC
Demonstration Project and replaced with an independent authority to pay
recruitment and retention payments. Based on independent evaluations,
the recruitment and retention payment flexibilities have been
underutilized in the demonstration project. The changes in statute made
by section 101 of the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-411, October 30, 2004) provide robust recruitment and retention
incentives in an effort to
[[Page 25616]]
address challenges such as labor market competition and skill gap
issues. However, because of the previous waivers, the demonstration
project is precluded from taking advantage of these tools to address
recruitment and retention concerns. This notice removes the
demonstration project's independent authority to pay recruitment and
retention payments, thereby allowing the project to use the recruitment
and retention incentive authorities in 5 U.S.C. 5753 and 5754, and
subparts A and C of 5 CFR part 575. This will provide managers in the
demonstration project the same flexibilities now available to General
Schedule and other employees under title 5. The demonstration project
needs to be able to take advantage of legislative changes to title 5
when appropriate. It should be noted that since the demonstration
project did not waive 5 U.S.C. 5753 or subpart B of 5 CFR part 575
pertaining to relocation bonuses, the demonstration project could use
the relocation incentive flexibilities provided by the Federal
Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 and implementing regulations prior to
this notice. This notice continues to allow the demonstration project
to use the title 5 relocation incentive authority.
III. Changes to the Project Plan
This notice modifies the Commerce demonstration plan by rescinding
its independent authority related to recruitment and retention
payments, thereby providing authority to use recruitment and retention
incentive authorities under 5 U.S.C. 5753 and 5754, and subparts A and
C of 5 CFR part 575. The following discussion refers readers to the
substantive changes to the project plan. The following page numbers
refer to the pages in the final plan, published in the Federal Register
on December 24, 1997.
(1) Page 67451: Remove Paragraph B.12, ``Recruitment and Retention
Payments,'' and renumber Paragraphs B.13, ``Travel Expenses,'' and
B.14, ``Promotion,'' as Paragraphs B.12 and B.13, respectively.
(2) Page 67463: In section X, ``Authorities and Waiver of Laws and
Regulations Required,'' remove the following waivers:
--``5 U.S.C. 5753-5754 Recruitment and relocation bonuses; Retention
allowances (except that relocation bonuses under Section 5753 continue
to apply),''
--``Part 575, Subpart A, Recruitment bonuses,'' and
--``Part 575, Subpart C, Retention allowances.''
(3) Page 67463: In section X, ``Authorities and Waiver of Laws and
Regulations Required,'' add the following new waivers:
--Before the waiver for ``Section 7512(3),'' insert ``Section 5753 and
5754 Recruitment, Relocation and Retention Incentives. This waiver
applies only to the extent necessary to allow employees and positions
under the demonstration project to be treated as employees and
positions under the General Schedule or the SL/ST pay plan.''
--Before the waiver for ``Section 752.401(a)(3),'' insert ``Part 575,
Subparts A, B and C, Recruitment, Relocation and Retention Incentives.
This waiver applies only to the extent necessary to allow employees and
positions under the demonstration project to be treated as employees
and positions under the General Schedule or the SL/ST pay plan.''
[FR Doc. 06-4049 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-43-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.286777 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4049.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6481 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25616-25620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6481]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Investment Company Act Release No. 27292; 812-13214]
Frank Russell Investment Company, et al.; Notice of Application
April 25, 2006.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').
ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under (a) section 6(c) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') granting an exemption from
sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections
6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1)
and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-
1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of the Application: Applicants request an order that would
permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to
participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
Applicants: Frank Russell Investment Company and Russell Investment
Funds (each, a ``Trust'' and collectively, the ``Trusts''), and Frank
Russell Investment Management Company (``FRIMCo'').
Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 19, 2005 and amended on
April 13, 2006. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the
notice period, the substance of which is reflected in the notice.
Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on May 22, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission's Secretary.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20549-1090. Applicants, c/o Gregory J.
Lyons, Esq., Frank Russell Company, 909 A Street, Tacoma, Washington
98402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Mann, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6813 or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division
of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC,
20549-0102 (tel. (202) 551-5850).
Applicants' Representations
1. Each Trust is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
Frank Russell Investment Company consists of 34 separate series
(``Funds'') and Russell Investment Funds consists of 5 separate Funds.
FRIMCo, a Washington corporation, is registered as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and serves as the
investment adviser to each Fund.\1\ An existing Commission order
permits the Funds to invest uninvested cash balances in money market
Funds that comply with rule 2a-7 under the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the requested
relief have been named as applicants.
\2\ Frank Russell Investment Company, Investment Company Act
Release Nos. 25416 (February 12, 2002) (notice) and 25458 (March 12,
2002) (order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Some Funds may lend money to banks or other entities by entering
into
[[Page 25617]]
repurchase agreements or purchasing other short-term investments. Other
Funds may borrow money from the same or similar banks for temporary
purposes to satisfy redemption requests or to cover unanticipated cash
shortfalls such as a trade ``fail'' in which cash payment for a
security sold by a Fund has been delayed. Currently, the Funds have
entered into a credit agreement with a bank. If a Fund were to borrow
money under the credit agreement, it would pay interest on the loan at
a rate that is significantly higher than the rate that is earned by
other (non-borrowing) Funds on investments in repurchase agreements and
other short-term instruments of the same maturity as the loan under the
credit agreement. Applicants state that this differential represents
the profit the bank would earn on loans under the credit agreement and
is not attributable to any material difference in the credit quality or
risk of such transactions.
3. Applicants request an order that would permit the Funds to enter
into interfund lending agreements (``Interfund Lending Agreements'')
under which the Funds would lend and borrow money for temporary
purposes directly to and from each other through a credit facility
(``Interfund Loan''). Applicants believe that the proposed credit
facility would reduce the Funds' borrowing costs and enhance their
ability to earn higher interest rates on short-term investments.
Although the proposed credit facility would reduce the Funds' need to
borrow from banks, the Funds would be free to establish committed lines
of credit or other borrowing arrangements with banks.
4. Applicants anticipate that the credit facility would provide a
borrowing Fund with significant savings when the cash position of the
Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. This
situation could arise when redemptions exceed anticipated volumes and
certain Funds have insufficient cash on hand to satisfy such
redemptions. When a Fund liquidates portfolio securities to meet
redemption requests which normally are effected immediately, it often
does not receive payment in settlement for up to three days (or longer
for certain foreign transactions). The credit facility would provide a
source of immediate, short-term liquidity pending settlement of the
sale of portfolio securities.
5. Applicants also propose using the credit facility when a sale of
securities ``fails'' due to circumstances such as a delay in the
delivery of cash to a Fund's custodian or improper delivery
instructions by the broker effecting the transaction. Sales fails may
present a cash shortfall if a Fund has undertaken to purchase
securities using the proceeds from the securities sold. Alternatively,
the Fund could fail on its intended purchase due to lack of funds from
the previous sale, resulting in additional cost to the Fund, or sell a
security on a same day settlement basis, earning a lower return on the
investment. Use of the credit facility under these circumstances would
enable the Fund to have access to immediate short-term liquidity.
6. While bank borrowings generally could supply needed cash to
cover unanticipated redemptions and sales fails, under the proposed
credit facility a borrowing Fund would pay lower interest rates than
those offered by banks on short-term loans. In addition, Funds making
short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a
rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash
in repurchase agreements or purchasing shares of a money market Fund.
Thus, applicants believe that the proposed credit facility would
benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
7. The interest rate charged to a Fund on any Interfund Loan
(``Interfund Loan Rate'') would be the average of the ``Repo Rate'' and
the ``Bank Loan Rate,'' both as defined below. The Repo Rate on any day
would be the highest rate available to the Funds from investing in
overnight repurchase agreements. The Bank Loan Rate on any day would be
calculated by FRIMCo each day an Interfund Loan is made according to a
formula established by a Fund's board of trustees (``Board'') intended
to approximate the lowest interest rate at which bank short-term loans
would be available to the Funds. The formula would be based upon a
publicly available rate (e.g., Federal funds plus 25 basis points) and
would vary with this rate so as to reflect changing bank loan rates.
The Board of each Fund would periodically review the continuing
appropriateness of using the publicly available rate to determine the
Bank Loan Rate, as well as the relationship between the Bank Loan Rate
and current bank loan rates that would be available to the Funds. The
initial formula and any subsequent modifications to the formula would
be subject to the approval of each Fund's Board.
8. The credit facility would be administered by FRIMCo's fund
accounting department, an investment professional within FRIMCo who
serves as a portfolio manager of money market Funds and a compliance
professional within FRIMCo (collectively, the ``Credit Facility
Team''). Under the proposed credit facility, the portfolio managers for
each participating Fund could provide standing instructions to
participate daily as a borrower or lender. The Credit Facility Team on
each business day would collect data on the uninvested cash and
borrowing requirements of all participating Funds from the Funds'
custodian. Once it determined the aggregate amount of cash available
for loans and borrowing demand, the Credit Facility Team would allocate
loans among borrowing Funds without any further communication from
portfolio managers other than the money market Fund portfolio manager
on the Credit Facility Team. Applicants expect far more available
uninvested cash each day than borrowing demand. All allocations will
require the approval of at least one member of the Credit Facility Team
who is not a money market Fund portfolio manager. After the Credit
Facility Team has allocated cash for Interfund Loans, the Credit
Facility Team would invest any remaining cash in accordance with the
standing instructions of portfolio managers or return remaining amounts
to the Funds. The money market Funds typically would not participate as
borrowers because they rarely need to borrow cash to meet redemptions.
9. The Credit Facility Team would allocate borrowing demand and
cash available for lending among the Funds on what the Credit Facility
Team believes to be an equitable basis, subject to certain
administrative procedures applicable to all Funds, such as the time of
filing requests to participate, minimum loan lot sizes, and the need to
minimize the number of transactions and associated administrative
costs. To reduce transaction costs, each Interfund Loan normally would
be allocated in a manner intended to minimize the number of
participants necessary to complete the loan transaction. The method of
allocation and related administrative procedures would be approved by
each Fund's Board, including a majority of trustees who are not
``interested persons'' of the Fund, as defined in section 2(a)(19) of
the Act (``Independent Trustees''), to ensure that both borrowing and
lending Funds participate on an equitable basis.
10. FRIMCo would (a) monitor the Interfund Loan Rate and the other
terms and conditions of the loans; (b) limit the borrowings and loans
entered into by each Fund to ensure that they comply with the Fund's
investment policies and limitations; (c) ensure equitable treatment of
each Fund; and (d) make quarterly reports to the Board of each Fund
concerning any transactions by
[[Page 25618]]
the Funds under the credit facility and the Interfund Loan Rate
charged.
11. FRIMCo, through the Credit Facility Team, would administer the
credit facility under its existing management, advisory, or
administrative contract with each Fund and would receive no additional
compensation for its services. FRIMCo may collect fees in connection
with repurchase and lending transactions generally, including
transactions through the credit facility, for pricing and record
keeping, bookkeeping and accounting services. These fees would be no
higher than those applicable for comparable bank loan transactions.
12. No Fund may participate in the credit facility unless: (a) The
Fund has obtained shareholder approval for its participation, if such
approval is required by law; (b) the Fund has fully disclosed all
material facts concerning the credit facility in its prospectus and/or
statement of additional information (``SAI''); and (c) the Fund's
participation in the credit facility is consistent with its investment
objectives, limitations and organizational documents.
13. In connection with the credit facility, applicants request an
order under (a) section 6(c) of the Act granting relief from sections
18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting
relief from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of
the Act granting relief from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Act;
and (d) under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit
certain joint arrangements.
Applicants' Legal Analysis
1. Section 17(a)(3) generally prohibits any affiliated person, or
affiliated person of an affiliated person, from borrowing money or
other property from a registered investment company. Section 21(b)
generally prohibits any registered management company from lending
money or other property to any person if that person controls or is
under common control with the company. Section 2(a)(3)(C) of the Act
defines an ``affiliated person'' of another person, in part, to be any
person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with, the other person. Applicants state that the Funds
may be under common control by virtue of having FRIMCo as their common
investment adviser and having a common Board and officers.
2. Section 6(c) provides that an exemptive order may be granted
where an exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest
and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b)
authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section
17(a) provided that the terms of the transaction, including the
consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do
not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the
transaction is consistent with the policy of the investment company as
recited in its registration statement and with the general purposes of
the Act. Applicants believe that the proposed arrangements satisfy
these standards for the reasons discussed below.
3. Applicants submit that sections 17(a)(3) and 21(b) of the Act
were intended to prevent a party with strong potential adverse
interests to, and some influence over the investment decisions of, a
registered investment company from causing or inducing the investment
company to engage in lending transactions that unfairly inure to the
benefit of such party and that are detrimental to the best interests of
the investment company and its shareholders. Applicants assert that the
proposed credit facility transactions do not raise these concerns
because: (a) FRIMCo, through the Credit Facility Team, would administer
the program as a disinterested fiduciary; (b) all Interfund Loans would
consist only of uninvested cash reserves that the Funds otherwise would
invest in short-term repurchase agreements or other short-term
instruments either directly or through a money market Fund; (c) the
Interfund Loans would not involve a greater risk than such other
investments; (d) the lending Fund would receive interest at a rate
higher than it could obtain through such other investments; and (e) the
borrowing Fund would pay interest at a rate lower than otherwise
available to it under its bank loan agreements and avoid the up-front
commitment fees associated with committed lines of credit. Moreover,
applicants believe that the other terms and conditions in the
application would effectively preclude the possibility of any Fund
obtaining an undue advantage over any other Fund.
4. Section 17(a)(1) generally prohibits an affiliated person of a
registered investment company, or an affiliated person of an affiliated
person, from selling any securities or other property to the company.
Section 12(d)(1) generally makes it unlawful for a registered
investment company to purchase or otherwise acquire any security issued
by any other investment company except in accordance with the
limitations set forth in that section. Applicants state that the
obligation of a borrowing Fund to repay an Interfund Loan may
constitute a security under sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1). Section
12(d)(1)(J) provides that the Commission may exempt persons or
transactions from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if and to the
extent such exemption is consistent with the public interest and the
protection of investors. Applicants contend that the standards under
sections 6(c), 17(b), and 12(d)(1)(J) are satisfied for all the reasons
set forth above in support of their request for relief from sections
17(a)(3) and 21(b) and for the reasons discussed below.
5. Applicants state that section 12(d)(1) was intended to prevent
the pyramiding of investment companies in order to avoid imposing on
investors additional and duplicative costs and fees attendant upon
multiple layers of investment companies. Applicants submit that the
proposed credit facility does not involve these abuses. Applicants note
that there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds or
shareholders, and that FRIMCo will receive no additional compensation
for its services in administering the credit facility. Applicants also
note that the purpose of the proposed credit facility is to provide
economic benefits for all of the participating Funds and their
shareholders.
6. Section 18(f)(1) prohibits open-end investment companies from
issuing any senior security except that a company is permitted to
borrow from any bank; provided, that immediately after the borrowing,
there is asset coverage of at least 300 per centum for all borrowings
of the company. Under section 18(g) of the Act, the term ``senior
security'' includes any bond, debenture, note or similar obligation or
instrument constituting a security and evidencing indebtedness.
Applicants request relief from section 18(f)(1) to the limited extent
necessary to implement the credit facility (because the lending Funds
are not banks).
7. Applicants believe that granting relief under section 6(c) is
appropriate because the Funds would remain subject to the requirement
of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of a Fund, including combined
interfund and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage. Based
on the conditions and safeguards described in the application,
applicants also submit that to allow the Funds to borrow from other
Funds pursuant to the proposed credit facility is consistent with the
purposes and policies of section 18(f)(1).
8. Section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 generally prohibit any affiliated
person of a registered investment company, or affiliated persons of an
affiliated person, when acting as principal, from effecting
[[Page 25619]]
any joint transactions in which the company participates unless the
transaction is approved by the Commission. Rule 17d-1(b) provides that
in passing upon applications filed under the rule, the Commission will
consider whether the participation of a registered investment company
in a joint enterprise on the basis proposed is consistent with the
provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which
the company's participation is on a basis different from or less
advantageous than that of other participants.
9. Applicants submit that the purpose of section 17(d) is to avoid
overreaching by an unfair advantage to investment company insiders.
Applicants believe that the credit facility is consistent with the
provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act in that it offers both
reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all
participating Funds and their shareholders. Applicants note that each
Fund would have an equal opportunity to borrow and lend on equal terms
consistent with its investment policies and fundamental investment
limitations. Applicants therefore believe that each Fund's
participation in the credit facility will be on terms that are no
different from or less advantageous than that of other participating
Funds.
Applicants' Conditions
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
1. The Interfund Loan Rate will be the average of the Repo Rate and
the Bank Loan Rate.
2. On each business day, the Credit Facility Team will compare the
Bank Loan Rate with the Repo Rate and will make cash available for
Interfund Loans only if the Interfund Loan Rate is: (a) More favorable
to the lending Fund than the Repo Rate and, if applicable, the yield of
any money market Fund in which the lending Fund could otherwise invest;
and (b) more favorable to the borrowing Fund than the Bank Loan Rate.
3. If a Fund has outstanding borrowings, any Interfund Loans to the
Fund: (a) Will be at an interest rate equal to or lower than any
outstanding bank loan; (b) will be secured at least on an equal
priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to
loan value as any outstanding bank loan that requires collateral; (c)
will have a maturity no longer than any outstanding bank loan (and in
any event not over seven days); and (d) will provide that, if an event
of default by the Fund occurs under any agreement evidencing an
outstanding bank loan to the Fund, that event of default will
automatically (without need for action or notice by the lending Fund)
constitute an immediate event of default under the Interfund Lending
Agreement entitling the lending Fund to call the Interfund Loan (and
exercise all rights with respect to any collateral) and that such call
will be made if the lending bank exercises its right to call its loan
under its agreement with the borrowing Fund.
4. A Fund may make an unsecured borrowing through the proposed
credit facility if its outstanding borrowings from all sources
immediately after the interfund borrowing total 10% or less of its
total assets, provided that if the Fund has a secured loan outstanding
from any other lender, including but not limited to another Fund, the
Fund's interfund borrowing will be secured on at least an equal
priority basis with at least an equivalent percentage of collateral to
loan value as any outstanding loan that requires collateral. If a
Fund's total outstanding borrowings immediately after an interfund
borrowing would be greater than 10% of its total assets, the Fund may
borrow through the proposed credit facility only on a secured basis. A
Fund may not borrow through the proposed credit facility or from any
other source if its total outstanding borrowings immediately after such
borrowing would be more than 33\1/3\% of its total assets.
5. Before any Fund that has outstanding interfund borrowings may,
through additional borrowings, cause its outstanding borrowings from
all sources to exceed 10% of its total assets, the Fund must first
secure each outstanding Interfund Loan by the pledge of segregated
collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the
outstanding principal value of the loan. If the total outstanding
borrowings of a Fund with outstanding Interfund Loans exceed 10% of its
total assets for any other reason (such as a decline in net asset value
or because of shareholder redemptions), the Fund will within one
business day thereafter: (a) Repay all its outstanding Interfund Loans;
(b) reduce its outstanding indebtedness to 10% or less of its total
assets; or (c) secure each outstanding Interfund Loan by the pledge of
segregated collateral with a market value at least equal to 102% of the
outstanding principal value of the loan until the Fund's total
outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10% of its total assets, at
which time the collateral called for by this condition 5 shall no
longer be required. Until each Interfund Loan that is outstanding at
any time that a Fund's total outstanding borrowings exceeds 10% is
repaid or the Fund's total outstanding borrowings cease to exceed 10%
of its total assets, the Fund will mark the value of the collateral to
market each day and will pledge such additional collateral as is
necessary to maintain the market value of the collateral that secures
each outstanding Interfund Loan at least equal to 102% of the
outstanding principal value of the Interfund Loan.
6. No Fund may lend to another Fund through the proposed credit
facility if the loan would cause its aggregate outstanding loans
through the proposed credit facility to exceed 15% of the lending
Fund's current net assets at the time of the loan.
7. A Fund's Interfund Loans to any one Fund shall not exceed 5% of
the lending Fund's net assets.
8. The duration of Interfund Loans will be limited to the time
required to receive payment for securities sold, but in no event more
than seven days. Loans effected within seven days of each other will be
treated as separate loan transactions for purposes of this condition.
9. The Fund's borrowings through the proposed credit facility, as
measured on the day when the most recent loan was made, will not exceed
the greater of 125% of the Fund's total net cash redemptions or 102% of
sales fails for the preceding seven calendar days.
10. Each Interfund Loan may be called on one business day's notice
by a lending Fund and may be repaid on any day by a borrowing Fund.
11. A Fund's participation in the proposed credit facility must be
consistent with its investment objectives, and limitations and
organizational documents.
12. The Credit Facility Team will calculate total Fund borrowing
and lending demand through the proposed credit facility, and allocate
loans on an equitable basis among the Funds, without the intervention
of any portfolio manager of the Funds (other than the money market Fund
portfolio manager acting in his or her capacity as a member of the
Credit Facility Team). All allocations will require the approval of at
least one member of the Credit Facility Team who is not the money
market Fund portfolio manager. The Credit Facility Team will not
solicit cash for the proposed credit facility from any Fund or
prospectively publish or disseminate loan demand data to portfolio
managers (except to the extent that the money market Fund portfolio
manager on the Credit Facility Team has access to loan demand data).
The Credit Facility Team will invest any amounts remaining after
satisfaction of borrowing demand in accordance with the
[[Page 25620]]
standing instructions of the portfolio managers or return remaining
amounts for investment directly by the portfolio managers of the Funds.
13. FRIMCo will monitor the Interfund Loan Rate and the other terms
and conditions of the Interfund Loans and will make a quarterly report
to the Trustees of each Trust concerning the participation of the Funds
in the proposed credit facility and the terms and other conditions of
any extensions of credit under the credit facility.
14. The Board of each Trust, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, will:
(a) Review, no less frequently than quarterly, each Fund's
participation in the proposed credit facility during the preceding
quarter for compliance with the conditions of any order permitting such
transactions;
(b) Establish the Bank Loan Rate formula used to determine the
interest rate on Interfund Loans and review, no less frequently than
annually, the continuing appropriateness of the Bank Loan Rate formula;
and
(c) Review, no less frequently than annually, the continuing
appropriateness of each Fund's participation in the proposed credit
facility.
15. In the event an Interfund Loan is not paid according to its
terms and such default is not cured within two business days from its
maturity or from the time the lending Fund makes a demand for payment
under the provisions of the Interfund Lending Agreement, FRIMCo will
promptly refer such loan for arbitration to an independent arbitrator
selected by the Board of each Fund involved in the loan who will serve
as arbitrator of disputes concerning Interfund Loans.\3\ The arbitrator
will resolve any problem promptly, and the arbitrator's decision will
be binding on both Funds. The arbitrator will submit, at least
annually, a written report to the Board setting forth a description of
the nature of any dispute and the actions taken by the Funds to resolve
the dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ If the dispute involves Funds with different Trustees, the
respective Trustees of each Fund will select an independent
arbitrator that is satisfactory to each Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Each Fund will maintain and preserve for a period of not less
than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction
by it under the proposed credit facility occurred, the first two years
in an easily accessible place, written records of all such transactions
setting forth a description of the terms of the transactions, including
the amount, the maturity and the Interfund Loan Rate, the rate of
interest available at the time on overnight repurchase agreements and
commercial bank borrowings, the yield of any money market Fund in which
the lending Fund could otherwise invest, and such other information
presented to the Fund's Board in connection with the review required by
conditions 13 and 14.
17. FRIMCo will prepare and submit to the Board for review an
initial report describing the operations of the proposed credit
facility and the procedures to be implemented to ensure that all Funds
are treated fairly. After the commencement of the proposed credit
facility, FRIMCo will report on the operations of the proposed credit
facility at the Board's quarterly meetings.
In addition, for two years following the commencement of the
proposed credit facility, the independent auditors for each Trust shall
prepare an annual report that evaluates FRIMCo's assertion that it has
established procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with
the terms and conditions of the order. The report shall be prepared in
accordance with the Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements
No. 10 and it shall be filed pursuant to Item 77Q3 of Form N-SAR, as
such Statements or Form may be revised, amended, or superseded from
time to time. In particular, the report shall address procedures
designed to achieve the following objectives:
(a) That the Interfund Loan Rate will be higher than the Repo Rate,
and, if applicable, the yield of the money market Funds, but lower than
the Bank Loan Rate;
(b) Compliance with the collateral requirements as set forth in the
application;
(c) Compliance with the percentage limitations on interfund
borrowing and lending;
(d) Allocation of interfund borrowing and lending demand in an
equitable manner and in accordance with procedures established by the
Board; and
(e) That the interest rate on any Interfund Loan does not exceed
the interest rate on any third-party borrowings of a borrowing Fund at
the time of the Interfund Loan. After the final report is filed, each
Trust's independent auditors, in connection with their audit
examinations of the Funds, will continue to review the operation of the
proposed credit facility for compliance with the conditions of the
application and their review will form the basis, in part, of the
auditor's report on internal accounting controls in Form N-SAR.
18. No Fund will participate in the proposed credit facility upon
receipt of requisite regulatory approval unless it has fully disclosed
in its prospectus and/or SAI all material facts about its intended
participation.
19. The Board of each Trust will satisfy the fund governance
standards as defined in rule 0-1(a)(7) under the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6481 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.324883 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6481.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4099 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25620-25621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4099]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week
of May 1, 2006:
A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (9)(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday,
May 4, 2006 will be:
Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature; and
Resolution of litigation claims.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
[[Page 25621]]
Dated: April 26, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-4099 Filed 4-26-06; 4:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.351699 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4099.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6503 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25621-25623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6503]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-53702; File No. SR-NSX-2005-09]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto
to Amend Exchange Delisting Rules to Conform to Recent Amendments to
Commission Rules Regarding Removal from Listing and Withdrawal from
Registration
April 21, 2006.
I. Introduction
On October 24, 2005, the National Stock Exchange (``NSX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange delisting rules
to conform to recent amendments to Commission rules regarding removal
from listing and withdrawal from registration. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006.\3\
No comments were received regarding the proposal. On March 23, 2006,
NSX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ On April 12,
2006, NSX filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\5\ This
order approves the proposed rule change, publishes notice of Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change, and grants accelerated
approval to Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53508 (March 17,
2006), 71 FR 14562.
\4\ In Amendment No. 1, NSX added an interpretation and policy
to Section 3.2A to Article IV of the NSX Bylaws to: (i) Clarify the
effective date of the proposal; (ii) clarify the use of Form 25 as a
delisting application; and (iii) state that an issuer that is below
the continued listing policies and standards of the Exchange and
seeks to voluntarily apply to withdraw a class of securities from
listing must disclose that it is no longer eligible for continued
listing in its statement of material facts relating to the reason
for withdrawal from listing, its public press release, and its Web
site notice.
\5\ In Amendment No. 2, NSX made technical changes to its Form
19b-4, Exhibit 1, and Exhibits that clarify the changes proposed in
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
Section 12 of the Act \6\ and SEC Rule 12d2-2 govern the process
for the delisting and deregistration of securities listed on national
securities exchanges. Recent amendments to SEC Rule 12d2-2 (``amended
SEC Rule 12d2-2'') and other Commission rules require the electronic
filing of revised Form 25 \7\ on the Commission's Electronic Data
Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (``EDGAR'') system by exchanges and
issuers for all delistings, other than delistings of standardized
options and securities futures, which are exempted.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
\7\ 17 CFR 249.25.
\8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14,
2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005) (``SEC Rule 12d2-2 Approval
Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of exchange-initiated delistings, amended SEC Rule
12d2-2(b) states that a national securities exchange may file an
application on Form 25 to strike a class of securities from listing
and/or withdraw the registration of such securities, in accordance with
its rules, if the rules of such exchange, at a minimum, provide for:
(i) Notice to the issuer of the exchange's decision to delist its
securities;
(ii) An opportunity for appeal to the exchange's board of
directors, or to a committee designated by the board; and
(iii) Public notice of the national securities exchange's final
determination to remove the security from listing and/or registration,
by issuing a press release and posting notice on its Web site. Public
notice must be disseminated no fewer than 10 days before the delisting
becomes effective pursuant to amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(d)(1), and must
remain posted on its Web site until the delisting is effective.
The Exchange's current provisions with respect to the delisting of
securities are contained in Article IV, Section 3 of the NSX Bylaws.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.1(b) of the Bylaws to comply
with new requirements set forth in amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b). The
provisions set forth in current Section 3 of the Bylaws, which provide
for notification to the issuer in the event that the Exchange
determines to delist the issuer's securities and the right to appeal
the Exchange's determination, satisfy the minimum provisions set forth
in amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b)(1)(i)-(ii). NSX rules do not currently
provide for public notice of the delisting, as mandated by amended SEC
Rule 12d2-2(b)(1)(iii). Therefore, proposed Section 3.1(b) of the
Bylaws would require the Exchange to provide public notice, in
accordance with amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b)(1)(iii), of a final
determination by the Exchange to strike an issuer's securities from
listing and/or withdraw the registration of such securities on the
Exchange.
The criteria the Exchange would employ for issuers that desire to
delist their security from the Exchange are contained in Section 3.2 of
the NSX Bylaws. Currently, Section 3.2 of the NSX Bylaws requires that
an issuer seeking to voluntarily delist its security submit a certified
copy of the issuer's board resolution authorizing withdrawal from
listing and registration and a statement of the reasons for the
withdrawal and supporting facts. NSX is retaining these provisions. The
Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.2 of the NSX Bylaws to add new
requirements that an issuer certify that it is in compliance with the
Exchange's rules for delisting and applicable state law (in conformity
with amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(i)) and certify that the issuer is
in compliance with the public notice requirements under amended SEC
Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii). The proposed rule filing sets forth a new
requirement separate from those set forth in amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)
that would require the issuer to notify the Exchange in writing that it
has filed Form 25 with the SEC simultaneously with such filing. Such
notification would include the date the issuer expects the delisting to
become effective. In addition, NSX proposes to amend Section 3.2 of the
Bylaws to add provisions requiring the issuer to submit written notice
that is in conformity with the requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-
2(c)(2)(ii) to the Exchange no fewer than ten days before the issuer
files its application to delist with the Commission and another notice
when such application becomes effective. The proposal would also
eliminate the provision in Section 3.2 of the NSX Bylaws that requires
the issuer to submit the proposed voluntary delisting of its security
to the security holders for their vote in a meeting for which proxies
are submitted.
The Exchange also proposes in Interpretations and Policies .01 to
new Section 3.2A to the NSX Bylaws to require any issuer seeking to
voluntarily apply to withdraw a class of securities from listing on the
Exchange pursuant to Section 3.2A that has received notice from the
Exchange, pursuant to Section 3.1A or otherwise, that it is below the
[[Page 25622]]
Exchange's continued listing policies and standards, or that is aware
that it is below such continued listing policies and standards
notwithstanding that it has not received such notice from the Exchange,
must disclose that it is no longer eligible for continued listing
(including the specific continued listing policies and standards that
the issue is below) in: (i) Its statement of all material facts
(pursuant to Section 3.2A(d)) relating to the reasons for withdrawal
from listing provided to the Exchange along with written notice of its
determination to withdraw from listing required by amended SEC
Rule12d2-2(c)(2)(ii) under the Act and; (ii) its public press release
and web site notice required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii)
under the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Exchange has made changes in its rules to clarify that
the Form 25 serves as the application to remove a security from listing
and/or registration and to specify that the proposed changes will be
effective as of April 24, 2006 as required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2.
III. Discussion
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
\10\ and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\11\
Specifically, as discussed below, the Commission finds that the
proposal, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\12\ which requires, in part, that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, and processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Further, as
noted in more detail below, the changes being adopted by the NSX meet
the requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Exchange Delisting
Amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b) states that a national securities
exchange may file an application on Form 25 to strike a class of
securities from listing and/or withdraw the registration of such
securities, in accordance with its rules, if the rules of such
exchange, at a minimum, provide for notice to the issuer of the
exchange's decision to delist, opportunity for appeal, and public
notice of the exchange's final determination to delist. The Commission
believes that NSX's current rules and proposal comply with the dictates
of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b).
NSX rules currently provide the requisite issuer notice as well as
an opportunity to appeal such action by following Chapter X of the
Exchange Rules governing adverse actions.\13\ Specifically, a person
who is or will be aggrieved by any action of the Exchange can submit an
application for hearing and review to the Secretary of the Exchange,
who promptly forwards such request to the Appeals Committee.\14\ The
decision of the Appeals Committee is subject to further review by the
Board of Directors upon its own motion or upon written request by the
aggrieved party.\15\ Finally, the proposed rule change will provide for
public notice of the Exchange's final determination to remove the
security from listing and/or registration. This should ensure that
investors have adequate notice of an exchange delisting and is
consistent with the protection of investors under Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Section 3.1 of the NSX By-Laws.
\14\ NSX Rule 10.3.
\15\ NSX Rule 10.5.
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Issuer Voluntary Delisting
The Exchange proposes to set forth in its Exchange rules the
general requirements of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c) regarding issuer
voluntary delisting. In addition, new Section 3.2 of the NSX Bylaws
would require the issuer to certify its compliance with Exchange rules
for delisting and other applicable laws. Further, the Commission notes
that NSX also proposes to amend Section 3.2 of the Bylaws to conform to
amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c) which requires issuers to notify the
Exchange in case it elects to delist its securities from the Exchange,
and upon such notification, the Exchange would be required to issue a
public notice of such determination. The Commission believes that these
provisions will inform issuers of the requirements for voluntary
delisting of their securities under Exchange rules and federal
securities laws and ensure the Exchange and shareholders are adequately
notified of an issuer delisting.
The proposal also sets forth a new requirement not in amended SEC
Rule 12d2-2 that would require an issuer seeking to voluntarily delist
its security to notify the Exchange in writing that it has filed Form
25 with the Commission simultaneously with such filing. The issuer
would also be required to notify the Exchange in writing immediately
after the delisting actually becomes effective. The Commission believes
that this requirement will allow the Exchange to be fully informed of
the filing of a Form 25 and be prepared to take timely action to delist
the security in accordance with the filing of the Form.
The Exchange also proposes to add an interpretation and policy to
Section 3.2A to the Bylaws to require any issuer seeking to voluntarily
apply to withdraw a class of securities from listing on the Exchange
pursuant to Section 3.2A that has received notice from the Exchange,
pursuant to Section 3.1A or otherwise, that it is below the Exchange's
continued listing policies and standards, or that is aware that it is
below such continued listing policies and standards notwithstanding
that it has not received such notice from the Exchange, must disclose
that it is no longer eligible for continued listing (including the
specific continued listing policies and standards that the issue is
below) in: (i) Its statement of all material facts (pursuant to Section
3.2A (d)) relating to the reasons for withdrawal from listing provided
to the Exchange along with written notice of its determination to
withdraw from listing required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(ii)
under the Act and; (ii) its public press release and web site notice
required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii) under the Act.\17\ The
Commission believes that this requirement will allow shareholders to be
informed and aware that the issuer has failed to meet Exchange listing
standards and is voluntarily delisting with the consent of the
Exchange. Issuers will therefore not be permitted to delist voluntarily
without public disclosure of their noncompliance with Exchange listing
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Accelerated Approval of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\18\ the Commission may not
approve
[[Page 25623]]
any proposed rule change, or amendment thereto, prior to the 30th day
after the date of publication of notice of the filing thereof, unless
the Commission finds good cause for so doing and publishes its reasons
for so finding. The Commission hereby finds good cause for approving
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposal, prior to the 30th day after
publishing notice of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously discussed, the revisions made to the proposal in
Amendment No. 1 \19\ will allow shareholders to be informed and aware
that the issuer has failed to meet Exchange listing standards and is
voluntarily delisting with the consent of the Exchange. The other
revisions in Amendment No. 1 are clarifications. In Amendment No. 2,
the Exchange made technical changes that clarify the revisions set
forth in Amendment No. 1. The Commission believes that granting
accelerated approval of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 will permit the Exchange
to implement these new provisions as expeditiously as possible, to the
benefit of investors. Further, no comments were received on the
original proposal, as published.\20\ The Commission also believes that
accelerating approval of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 is appropriate because
these revisions do not raise new regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4 and Section III.B herein.
\20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53508, supra note
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\21\ the
Commission finds good cause to approve Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 prior to
the thirtieth day after notice of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are published
in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, including whether
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an e-mail to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-NSX-2005-09 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2005-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NSX-2005-09 and should be submitted on or before May 22,
2006.
V. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\22\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSX-2005-09) is
approved, and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change are
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6503 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.369314 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6503.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6488 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6488]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[License No. 09/79-0456]
Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest
Notice is hereby given that Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P., 4 Main
Street, Suite 50, Los Altos, CA 94022, a Federal Licensee under the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the Act''), in
connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an
exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings
which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730).
Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security
financing to Venturi Wireless, Inc., Sunnyvale Research Plaza, 555 N.
Mathilda Avenue, Suite 100, Sunnyvale, California 94085. The financing
is contemplated for working capital and general corporate purposes.
The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1)
of the Regulations because Horizons Ventures Fund I, L.P. and Horizons
Ventures Advisors Fund I, L.P., all Associates of Horizon Ventures Fund
II, L.P., own more than ten percent of Venturi Wireless, Inc., and
therefore Venturi Wireless, Inc. is considered an Associate of Horizon
Ventures Fund II as detailed in Sec. 107.50 of the Regulations.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20416.
Dated: April 3, 2006.
Jaime Guzm[aacute]n-Fournier,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. E6-6488 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.391753 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6488.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6489 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25623-25624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6489]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[License No. 09/79-0456]
Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under
Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest
Notice is hereby given that Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P., 4 Main
Street, Suite 50, Los Altos, CA 94022, a Federal Licensee under the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the Act''), in
connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought
[[Page 25624]]
an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730,
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730).
Horizon Ventures Fund II, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security
financing to Invivodata, Inc. 2100 Wharton Street, Suite 505,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203. The financing is contemplated for
working capital and general corporate purposes.
The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1)
of the Regulations because Horizons Ventures Fund I, L.P. and Horizons
Ventures Advisors Fund I, L.P., all Associates of Horizon Ventures Fund
II, L.P., own more than ten percent of Invivodata, Inc., and therefore
Invivodata is considered an Associate of Horizon Ventures Fund II as
detailed in Sec. 107.50 of the Regulations.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20416.
April 3, 2006.
Jaime Guzman-Fournier,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. E6-6489 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.402023 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6489.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6506 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25624-25628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6506]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
SBA Lender Risk Rating System Notice and Request for Comments
SUMMARY: SBA is proposing for comment a lender risk rating system. The
lender risk rating system is an internal tool to assist SBA in
assessing the risk of each active 7(a) Lender and Certified Development
Company's (``SBA Lender'') SBA loan operations, and loan portfolio, on
a uniform basis and for identifying those institutions whose SBA loan
operations and portfolio require additional SBA monitoring or other
action. It is also a vehicle for assessing the aggregate strength of
SBA's 7(a) and 504 portfolios. Under the lender risk rating system, SBA
would assign each Lender a composite rating based on certain portfolio
performance factors, which may be overridden in some cases due to
Lender specific factors that may be indicative of a higher or lower
level of risk. SBA Lenders would have access to their own ratings
through SBA's Lender Portal.
DATES: SBA must receive comments on or before June 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (1)
E-mail [email protected]; (2) Fax: (202) 205-6831; (3) Mail:
John M. White, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Lender
Oversight, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20416; (4) Hand Delivery/Courier: 409 Third Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20416, c/o John M. White.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John M. White, Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Lender Oversight, U.S. Small Business
Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-
3049.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
SBA is developing an internal risk rating system for assessing an
SBA Lender's 7(a) or 504 loan portfolio (i.e., loan portfolio
performance). The risk rating system will be an internal tool that will
assist SBA in assessing the risk of a Lender's 7(a) and 504 loan
performance on a uniform basis and identify those Lenders whose
portfolio performance demonstrates the need for additional SBA
monitoring or other action. It is not intended to be a Lender grading
system. The lender risk rating system will also serve as a vehicle to
measure the aggregate strength of SBA's overall 7(a) and 504 loan
portfolios and to assist SBA in managing the related risk. SBA will use
Lender risk ratings to make more effective use of its on-site and off-
site lender review and assessments resources. The proposed risk rating
methodology is set forth below. SBA is soliciting comments on the risk
rating methodology. During the comment period, SBA will provide Lenders
access to their own preliminary risk ratings through SBA's Lender
Portal. A more detailed discussion of the risk rating proposal and
portal access follows.
Risk Rating Proposal
Overview
Under SBA's proposed risk rating system, SBA would assign all
Lenders a composite rating. The composite rating would reflect SBA's
assessment of the potential risk to the government of that Lender's SBA
portfolio performance.
For 7(a) Lenders, SBA would base the composite rating on four
common components or factors. The common factors for 7(a) Lenders would
be as follows: (i) 12 month actual purchase rate; (ii) problem loan
rate; (iii) three month change in the small business predictive score
(SBPS), which is a small business credit score on loans in the 7(a)
Lender's portfolio; and (iv) projected purchase rate derived from the
SBPS.
For CDCs, SBA would base the composite rating on three common
components or factors. The common factors for CDCs would be as follows:
(i) 12 month actual purchase rate; (ii) problem loan rate; and (iii)
average SBPS on loans in the 504 Lender's portfolio. The third factor
replaces the third and fourth factors used for 7(a) Lenders because it
was found, during the testing process, to be more predictive of SBA
purchases for 504 Lenders.
In general, these factors reflect both historical lender
performance and projected future performance. The factors are derived
through formulas developed using regression analysis validated and
tested by industry experts. SBA would perform quarterly calculations on
the common factors for each Lender, so that Lenders' composite risk
ratings would be updated on a quarterly basis. Each of the factors is
described in more detail in the Rating Components section below.
The composite risk rating is a measure of how each Lender's loan
performance compares to the loan performance of its peers. Thus, an
individual Lender's overall loan performance (using all common factors)
would be compared to its peers to derive that Lender's composite risk
rating. Lenders whose overall portfolio performance (using all of the
common factors) is worse than their peers will receive a worse, or
higher score, while Lenders whose overall portfolio performance is
better than their peers will receive a better, or lower, score.
SBA recognizes that it may be inequitable to compare all Lenders in
a risk rating system, without separating them into peer groups, because
changes in loan performance would have dramatically different impacts
on the portfolio performance of Lenders of different sizes. For
example, the purchase of one loan from a Lender would have a much
higher impact on the actual purchase rate component of a Lender with a
small portfolio than it would on the actual purchase rate of a Lender
with a large portfolio. Therefore, SBA has established peer groups to
minimize the differences that could result from changes in loan
performance for portfolios of different sizes. The peer groups are as
follows (based on outstanding SBA guaranteed dollars):
[[Page 25625]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7(a) Lender Peer Groups CDC Peer Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$100,000,000 or more............... $100,000,000 or more.
$10,000,000-$99,999,999............ $30,000,000-$99,999,999.
$4,000,000-$9,999,999.............. $10,000,000-$29,999,999.
$1,000,000-$3,999,999.............. $5,000,000-$9,999,999.
$0-$999,999 (lenders disbursed at Less than $5,000,000.
least one loan in past 12 months).
$0-$999,999 (lenders did not
disburse at least one loan in past
12 months).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the common components would be used to derive a
composite risk rating for each 7(a) and 504 Lender. Under the proposal,
no single component factor would normally decide the Lender's composite
rating. However, depending upon the size of the peer group, and the
variation between a Lender's performance and that of its peers, a
single factor could carry a disproportionate weight among the three or
four components.
Composite Rating
SBA would assign a composite rating of 1 to 5 to each Lender based
upon their portfolio performance. A rating of 1 would indicate strong
portfolio performance, least risk, and the least degree of SBA
management oversight is needed (relative to other Lenders in their peer
group), while a 5 rating would indicate weak portfolio performance,
highest risk, and therefore, the highest degree of SBA management
oversight. SBA proposes the following definitions for the composite
ratings.
Composite 1--The SBA operations of a Lender rated 1 would be
considered strong in every respect, and would likely score much better
than SBA averages in all or nearly all of the rating components
described in this notice. A Lender rated 1 would have relatively stable
component factors and overall composite rating from one quarter to the
next. Since the component factors measure previous performance, and
also attempt to predict future performance, a Lender rated 1 would be
more likely to have well below average historical purchase rates, as
well as well below average current problem loan rates that would
predict lower than average future purchase rates. Overall, loans in the
portfolio of a Lender rated 1 would demonstrate highly acceptable
credit quality and/or credit trends as measured by credit scores and
portfolio performance. A Lender rated 1 would typically also have a
well managed SBA loan program as demonstrated through on-site or off-
site reviews and assessments (of mid-size and larger Lenders). Based on
the strengths outlined in this composite rating, Lenders rated a 1
would present SBA with the least amount of risk, and would thus be
subject to the lowest level of SBA oversight compared to other Lenders
in the same peer group.
Composite 2--The SBA operations of a Lender rated 2 would be
considered good, and would likely be above average in all or nearly all
of the rating components described in this notice. A Lender rated a 2
would have component factors and a composite rating that would
typically be relatively stable from one quarter to the next. A Lender
rated 2 would be more likely to have below average previous
(historical) purchase rates, as well as below average current problem
loan rates that would predict lower than average future purchase rates.
Generally, loans in the portfolio of a Lender rated 2 would demonstrate
better-than-acceptable credit quality and/or credit trends as measured
by credit scores and portfolio performance. A Lender rated 2 would
likely have a generally well managed (i.e., a few minor exceptions or
findings) SBA loan program as demonstrated through on-site or off-site
reviews and assessments (of mid-size and large Lenders). Based on the
strengths outlined in this composite rating. Lenders rated a 2 would
present SBA with a lower level of risk, and would thus be subject to a
lower level of SBA oversight compared to other Lenders in the same peer
groups.
Composite 3--The SBA operations of a Lender rated 3 would be
considered about average in all or nearly all of the rating components
described in this notice. A Lender rated a 3 would have, on average,
component factors and an overall composite rating that would generally
be relatively stable from one quarter to the next. A Lender rated 3
would likely have average previous (historical) purchase rates (as
compared to their peers), as well as average current problem loans
rates that would predict future purchase rates in line with SBA
portfolio averages. Generally, loans in the portfolio of a Lender rated
3 would demonstrate acceptable credit quality and/or credit trends as
measured by credit scores and portfolio performance. A Lender rated 3
would have an adequate (i.e., some minor exceptions or findings, but
few if any major exceptions or findings, which can be corrected in the
normal course of business) SBA loan program as demonstrated through on-
site or off-site reviews and assessments (of mid-size and large
Lenders). However, Lenders rated a 3 would have room for improvement,
should monitor their portfolio closely, and consider methods to improve
loan performance. Based on the strengths and weaknesses outlined in
this composite rating, Lenders rated a 3 would present SBA with an
acceptable level of risk, and would thus be subject to standard SBA
oversight compared to other Lenders in the same peer group. Oversight
may include requests for corrective action plans.
Composite 4--The SBA operations of Lender rated 4 would be
considered below average in all or nearly all of the rating components
described in this notice. A Lender rated a 4 may have several changes
in any of its components factor rates; the component factors and
overall composite rating may demonstrate instability or negative
performance from one quarter to the next. A Lender rated 4 would be
likely have above average previous (historical) purchase rates (as
compared to their peers), as well as above average current problem loan
rates that would predict future purchase rates above SBA portfolio
averages. Generally, loans in the portfolio of a Lender rated 4 would
demonstrate somewhat less-than-acceptable credit quality and/or credit
trends as measured by credit scores and portfolio performance. A lender
rated 4 would likely have a poorly managed (i.e., both minor exceptions
or findings, and major exceptions or findings) SBA loan program as
demonstrated through on-site or off-site reviews and assessments (of
mid-size and large Lenders). Based on the weaknesses outlined in this
composite rating, Lenders rated a 4 would present SBA with a less-than-
acceptable level of risk, and would thus be subject to greater than
normal SBA oversight compared to other Lenders in the same peer group.
Oversight measures could include (but are not limited to) additional
reviews or assessments, requests for corrective action plans, and/or
removal from delegated loan programs, depending
[[Page 25626]]
upon the level of activity and peer group.
Composite 5--The SBA operations of a Lender rated 5 would be
considered well below average in all or nearly all of the rating
components described in this notice. A Lender rated a 5 is most likely
to have changes in any of its component factor rates, and have the
greatest likelihood to have their component factors and overall
composite rating demonstrate instability or negative performance from
one quarter to the next. A Lender rated 5 would be probably have well
above average previous (historical) purchase rates, as well as well
above average current problem loan rates that would predict future
purchase rates above SBA portfolio averages. Generally, loans in the
portfolio of a Lender rated 5 would demonstrate less-than-acceptable
credit quality and/or credit trends as measured by credit scores and
portfolio performance. A Lender rated 5 would likely have a record of
significant SBA program compliance issues as demonstrated through on-
site or off-site reviews and assessments (of mid-size and large
Lenders). Based on the substantial weaknesses outlined in this
composite rating, Lenders rated a 5 would present SBA with the highest
level of risk, and would thus be subject to extensive SBA oversight
compared to other Lenders in the same peer group. Oversight measures
could include (but are not limited to) additional reviews or
assessments, requests for corrective action plans, and and/or removal
from delegated loan programs, depending upon the level of activity and
peer group.
The descriptions within each Composite rating are not meant as
definitions of the ratings, but are given to provide, in general, the
characteristics a Lender receiving a particular rating may exhibit.
Consequently, a Lender assigned a particular composite rating may not
exhibit every characteristic described for that rating, nor would SBA's
action be limited to those stated in the descriptions.
In some cases, SBA may have reason to believe that a Lender's
calculated composite rating may not fully reflect the level of risk
that individual Lender presents. In those cases, SBA may override the
composite risk rating (either positively or negatively) and assign a
different composite score. Should a decision be made to override the
composite score, SBA will provide the Lender with an explanation of the
reason(s) for the override. More information on overrides of composite
ratings is provided in the overriding factors section of this notice.
SBA's proposal to base composite ratings on a numeric scale is
similar to rating systems used by bank regulators and other federal
loan guarantors. For example, SBA's composite rating of 1 is similar to
that of a bank regulator in that it is indicative of an institution
with strong performance and requiring little management oversight.
SBA's rating system is similar to those of other federal loan
guarantors because it measures risk and portfolio performance of loan
portfolios guaranteed by SBA, rather than measuring the quality of the
entire institution.
Rating Components
The 4 Common Components for 7(a) Lenders:
SBA's proposed quantitative risk rating system for 7(a) Lenders
features four common component factors. The four common rating
components are defined below.
(i) Past 12 Month Actual Purchase Rate--The Past 12 Month Actual
Purchase Rate is an historical measure of SBA purchases from the Lender
in the preceding 12 months. Thus, this component provides a measure of
Lender performance and risk as indicated by actual SBA purchases. SBA
calculates this ratio by dividing the sum of total gross dollars of the
Lender's loans purchased during the past 12 months (numerator) by the
sum of total gross outstanding dollars of their SBA loans outstanding
at the end of the 12-month period, plus gross dollars purchased during
the past 12 months (denominator).
(ii) Problem Loan Rate--The Problem Loan Rate provides an
indication of current Lender risk. This problem loan indicator helps
measure Lender performance and risk by showing current delinquencies
and liquidations, as well as predicting potential future purchases by
SBA. SBA calculates the problem loan rate by dividing total gross
outstanding dollars of a Lender's loans that are 90 days or more
delinquent plus gross dollars in liquidation, excluding purchases of
active loans, (numerator) by the total gross dollars outstanding
(denominator).
(iii) 3 Month Change in Small Business Predictive Scores (SBPS)--
The SBPS is a portfolio management (not origination) credit score based
upon a borrower's business credit report and principal's consumer
credit report. SBPS is a proprietary calculation provided by Dunn &
Bradstreet, under contract with SBA, and is compatible with Fair, Isaac
& Co.'s ``Liquid Credit'' origination score. This component signals
increasing or declining purchase risk by measuring changes in borrower
credit trends, and acts as a predictor of possible future loan
delinquencies, liquidations, and SBA purchases. The 3 month change in
SBPS is calculated by measuring the percentage change, on a dollar-
weighted average basis, of the SBPS on all outstanding SBA loans held
by the lender, from the previous quarter to the current quarter.
(iv) Projected Purchase Rate--The Projected Purchase Rate is a
predictive measure of the probability of the amount of SBA guaranteed
dollars in a Lender's portfolio that are likely to be purchased by SBA.
This factor uses credit bureau data on a Lender's individual SBA loans
to project the purchase rate of a Lender's SBA portfolio. It is a 12-
month projection of future performance based on the most current credit
data on a borrower's payment history. For each of a Lender's SBA loans
outstanding, SBA multiplies the amount of guaranteed loan dollars
outstanding by the probability of its purchase (as determined by the
SBPS of the individual loan) and totals the sum of each individual loan
outstanding. This total (numerator) is then divided by the Lender's
total SBA-guaranteed dollars outstanding (denominator).
The 3 Common Components for CDCs:
SBA's proposed quantitative risk rating system for 504 Lenders
features three common component factors. The three common rating
components are defined below.
(i) Past 12 Month Actual Purchase Rate--The Past 12 Month Actual
Purchase Rate is an historical measure of SBA purchases from the CDC in
the preceding 12 months. Thus, this component provides a measure of CDC
performance and risk as indicated by actual SBA purchases. SBA
calculates this ratio by dividing the sum of total SBA gross dollars of
the CDC's loans purchased during the past 12 months (numerator) by the
sum of total SBA gross dollars of their SBA loans outstanding at the
end of the 12-month period, plus total SBA gross dollars purchased
during the past 12 months (denominator).
(ii) Problem Loan Rate--The Problem Loan Rate provides an
indication of current CDC risk. This problem loan indicator helps
measure CDC performance and risk by showing current delinquencies and
liquidations, as well as predicting potential future purchases by SBA.
SBA calculates the problem loan rate by dividing the total SBA gross
dollars of a CDC's loans that are 90 days or more delinquent plus total
SBA gross dollars of a CDC's loans
[[Page 25627]]
in liquidation (numerator), by the total SBA gross dollars outstanding
(denominator).
(iii) Average Small Business Predictive Scores (SBPS)--The SBPS is
a portfolio management (not origination) credit score based upon a
borrower's business credit report and principal's consumer credit
report. SBPS is a proprietary calculation provided by Dunn &
Bradstreet, under contract with SBA, and is compatible with Fair, Isaac
& Co.'s ``Liquid Credit'' origination score. This component provides an
indication of the relative credit quality of the loans in a CDC's SBA
portfolio. The score is calculated from the average SBPS score of the
loans in a CDC's portfolio, weighted by each loan's guaranteed loan
dollars outstanding.
Each of the common components described above would reflect a
different means of measuring a Lender's risk to SBA in terms of loan
purchase data. Loan purchase metrics provide a core gauge of SBA
lending success and program risk. SBA believes a risk rating system
emphasizing purchase indicators would be a good measure of SBA lending
risk because purchases are a strong indicator of the cost to SBA, and
predictive of final charge offs and loan recoveries. In addition, loan
purchases are resource intensive and an administrative expense to SBA
that reduces SBA's ability to provide assistance to small businesses.
Finally, SBA is a ``gap'' lender, and purchases are a prime indicator
of the failure of the financing to assist in the growth and development
of small businesses.
Overriding Factors
In addition to the common components calculated through the use of
loan performance factors, the proposed risk rating system allows for
consideration of additional factors. The occurrence of these factors
may lead SBA to conclude that an individual lender's composite rating
is not fully reflective of its true risk. Therefore, the proposed risk
rating system would provide for the consideration of overriding
factors, which may only apply to a particular Lender or group of
Lenders, and permit SBA to adjust a Lender's overall composite rating.
The allowance of overriding factors in helping determine a Lender's
risk rating would enable SBA to use key risk factors that are not
necessarily applicable to all Lenders, but indicate a greater or lower
level of risk from a particular Lender than that which the calculated
score provides.
One of the most important overriding factors would be a Lender's
on-site risk-based reviews/assessments usually performed on SBA's
relatively large Lenders, or that may (under extraordinary
circumstances) be performed on other Lenders whose performance
demonstrates a highly unusual deviation from their peer group. SBA
conducts on-site reviews of large Lenders, performs safety and
soundness reviews of SBA Supervised Lenders, and uses certain off-site
evaluation measures for less active Lenders. Consequently, these
assessments, as a factor, may only be available for a fraction of SBA's
approximately 5200 Lenders. Examples of other overriding factors that
may be considered are: Early loan default trends; purchase rate or
projected purchase rate trends; abnormally high default, purchase or
liquidation rates; denial of liability occurrences; lending
concentrations; rapid growth of SBA lending; inadequate, incomplete, or
untimely reporting to SBA or inaccurate submission of required fees to
SBA; and enforcement actions of regulators or other authority. This
list is not all inclusive; however, SBA does not expect any of the
overriding factors to affect a significant number of composite scores.
Request for Comments
SBA is undertaking a deliberative development of the Lender risk
rating system. The proposed risk rating system utilizes predictive
modeling and behavioral scoring systems developed by private sector
industry leaders in credit risk analysis. SBA has and will continue to
perform annual validation testing on the risk rating system, and will
further refine the system as necessary to improve the predictability of
its risk scoring. SBA is requesting comments from the public on all
aspects of the proposed risk rating system.
To facilitate written comments on the proposed risk rating system,
SBA will provide Lenders access to their own preliminary risk ratings,
as well as average peer and portfolio performance information. SBA will
provide Lenders access to this information through the use of the
Lender Portal developed for SBA's Loan and Lender Monitoring System (L/
LMS). Once the risk rating system is finalized, Lenders will have
access to their final quarterly ratings through the portal. Additional
guidance on portal access follows.
Lender Portal
Overview
SBA intends to communicate Lender performance to Lenders through
the use of SBA's Lender Portal. The portal will allow Lenders to view
their own quarterly performance data, including their most current
composite risk rating. Lenders can also access data on peer group and
portfolio averages. Consequently, a Lender will be able to gauge its
performance relative to its peer group and the portfolio norm. While
Lenders can view their ratings, their performance indicators, and peer
and portfolio averages, they will not be able to view the individual
ratings and performance indicators of other Lenders. The quarterly
performance data will be overwritten on a quarterly basis; therefore,
SBA recommends that Lenders save their performance data for their own
tracking and trend analysis purposes.
Portal Data
SBA plans to update portal data quarterly approximately six to
eight weeks after a calendar quarter ends. Lenders will only be able to
access the most recent quarterly data. Lenders will not be able to
access previous quarters' data following an update.
Correcting Portal Data
Portal data includes both summary performance and credit quality
data. Because summary performance data is largely derived from data
that Lenders provide to SBA through 1502 and 172 Reports, Lenders bear
much of the responsibility for ensuring data accuracy. If a Lender
reviews its performance components and they do not comport with its own
data records, the Lender should confirm the accuracy of the underlying
data. If the Lender determines that the data is inaccurate, it should
seek to amend any incorrect data through SBA's normal processing
channels (for example--for loan performance data, Lender should contact
SBA's fiscal and transfer agent).
Credit quality data used to help establish certain component scores
is derived from credit bureau reports of the borrower business and its
principals/guarantors. To the extent that credit quality data relies on
information that a Lender provides on the business, its principals, and
guarantors contained in the loan application and as required to be
updated by the Lender, the Lender must take responsibility for ensuring
this information is correct, complete, and updated. SBA recognizes that
underlying borrower credit data cannot be changed by SBA or a Lender.
Therefore, any changes to data provided to credit bureaus must be
reported directly to Dunn & Bradstreet or Trans Union, as appropriate,
by the borrower. All corrections to portal data (both summary
performance and credit quality data) will be reflected in the
[[Page 25628]]
quarterly update following the quarter in which the correction is
entered.
Portal Access
Lenders with at least one outstanding SBA loan will be able to
apply for portal access. SBA will issue only one portal user account
per Lender. Lenders must submit initial requests for a portal user
account (or requests to switch or terminate a user) by regular or
overnight mail to SBA at the following address: Office of Lender
Oversight--Capital Access, Suite 8200; Mail Code 7011, ATTN: Lender
Portal, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20416.
Lenders must take the following steps in requesting portal access:
(1) Request must be made by a senior officer of the Lender (Senior
VP or above).
(2) Request must be sent via regular or overnight mail to the
address provided above.
(3) Request must be made using the Lender's stationery.
(4) Request must include the user's business card.
(4) The stationery and business card should include the Lender's
name and address.
(5) The request should include the following data:
(a) SBA FIRS ID Number(s).
(b) Account user's name.
(c) Account user's title.
(d) Account user's mailing address at the Lender.
(e) Account user's telephone number at the Lender.
(f) Account user's e-mail address at the Lender.
(g) Requesting officer's name.
(h) Requesting officer's title.
(i) Requesting officer's mailing address at the Lender.
(j) Requesting officer's telephone number at the Lender.
(k) Requesting officer's e-mail address at the Lender.
Once SBA receives and approves the user request, the Agency will
forward the approval to SBA's portal contractor for issuance of a user
account name and password. The portal contractor will e-mail the user
his or her user name and password within approximately two weeks of
account approval. The user can then access its data by logging into the
Lender portal Web page at https://pdp.dnb.com/pdpsba/pdplogin.asp.
Lender Portal Responsibilities
Lenders are responsible for complying with SBA's requirements in
obtaining and maintaining the portal user accounts and passwords as set
forth below and as published from time to time. Lenders are also
responsible for timely informing SBA to terminate or switch an account
if the person to whom it was issued no longer holds that responsibility
for the Lender. Upon accessing the lender portal, Lenders must take
full responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of the user
password and lender risk rating information and for ensuring the
security of the data.
Confidentiality Agreement
By clicking on the Portal log-in button to access the SBA Lender
Information Portal (``Portal''), Lender will agree to use the
Confidential Information (defined in the Portal) contained in the
Portal only for confidential use within its own immediate corporate
organization, and to hold and maintain the Confidential Information in
confidence in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Lender will
agree to restrict access to the Confidential Information to those of
its officers and employees who have a legitimate need to know such
information for the purpose of assisting the Lender in improving the
Lender's 7(a) or 504 program operations in conjunction with SBA's
Lender Oversight Program and SBA's portfolio management (each referred
to as a ``permitted party''), and to those for whom SBA has approved
access by prior written consent and for whom access is required by
applicable law or legal process. If such law or process requires Lender
to disclose the Confidential Information to any person other than a
permitted party, Lender will agree to promptly notify SBA and SBA's
Information Provider (defined below) in writing so that SBA and the
Information Provider have, within their sole discretion, the
opportunity to seek appropriate relief such as an injunction or
protective order prior to Lender's disclosure. In addition, Lender will
agree to ensure that each permitted party is aware of the requirements
of the Agreement and to ensure that each such permitted party agrees to
the terms and conditions. Lender will agree not to disclose, and will
agree to protect from disclosure, Lender's password to enter the
Portal. Further, any disclosure of Confidential Information other than
as permitted by the Agreement may result in appropriate action as
authorized by law. Lender also will agree to indemnify and hold
harmless each of SBA and any provider of the Confidential Information
from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, and
liabilities to any degree based upon or resulting from the unauthorized
use or disclosure of the Confidential Information. ``Information
Provider'' means Dun & Bradstreet. (Mail Provider Information notice to
Dun & Bradstreet, Legal Department, 103 JFK Parkway, Short Hills, NJ
07078.)
No information contained in the Portal shall be relied upon for any
purpose other than SBA's lender oversight and SBA's portfolio
management purposes. In addition, Lender will acknowledge and agree
that the Confidentiality Agreement is for the benefit not only of the
SBA but also of any party providing the Confidential Information. Any
such party shall have the right and standing to pursue all legal and
equitable remedies against the Lender in the event of unauthorized use
or disclosure.
Portal Inquiries
For general inquiries, a Lender may submit its e-mail to
[email protected]. If a Lender needs to speak to an individual on a
non-technical matter, it may contact Paul Bishop at 202-205-7516. SBA
advises a Lender to state upfront its Lender name, address, FIRS
number, and user name to expedite processing of all inquiries.
Dated: April 26, 2006.
Michael W. Hager,
Associate Deputy Administrator, Office of Capital Access.
[FR Doc. E6-6506 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.436323 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6506.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4037 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25628-25629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4037]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement;
Port Columbus International Airport, Columbus, OH
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
ACTION: Notice of Intent; notice of scoping meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this
Notice of Intent to announce publicly that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be prepared and considered for the proposed
construction of a replacement runway, proposed terminal development,
ancillary development, and air traffic procedures developed in the Part
150 Study for the replacement runway. Associated improvements involved
with the proposed project are described below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Katherine S. Jones, Federal
Aviation Administration, Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 South
Wayne Road, Suite
[[Page 25629]]
107, Romulus, Michigan 48174, (734) 229-2958. Project Web site: http://www.airportsites.net/CMH-EIS.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA, in
cooperation with the Columbus Regional Airport Authority (CRAA), will
prepare an EIS for a proposed project to replace Runway 10R/28L at the
Port Columbus International Airport, approximately 700 feet south of
the existing Runway 10R/28L; new terminal facilities in the midfield
area; ancillary in support of the replacement runway and midfield
terminal; and noise abatement air traffic procedures developed for the
replacement runway.
The replacement runway would be 10,113 feet long. This length would
maintain the airport's ability to accommodate current and projected
airport operations. Existing Runway 10R/28L would be decommissioned as
a runway and converted into a taxiway upon commissioning of the
replacement runway. In addition, a south taxiway and north parallel
taxiways to proposed Runway 10R/28L would be constructed.
To meet future aircraft parking and passenger processing
requirements, new midfield terminal facilities are needed. The EIS will
assess a development envelope that is defined as an area large enough
to encompass Phase I and II of the CRAA terminal development program.
The number of gates, approximate square footage, approximate curb
frontage, and the number of passengers that the terminal would
accommodate will be discussed throughout the process.
Ancillary facilities in support of the replacement runway and
midfield terminal would be constructed . The facilities include roadway
relocations and construction; parking improvements; property
acquisition; and relocation of residences, businesses, and farms, as
necessary.
The CRAA is in the process of preparing a 14 CFR part 150 Noise
Compatibility Study Update (Part 150 Update) to address the current and
future noise conditions. The Part 150 Update will include an analysis
of the potential noise and land use impacts resulting from the proposed
development of relocating Runway 10R/28L to the south, as well as
possible mitigation options. Any noise abatement air traffic options
recommended through the Part 150 Update will be included in the EIS as
part of the part of the proposed project. In addition, any land use
mitigation that is recommended in the Part 150 Update for the proposed
project will be included in the EIS.
The EIS will include the evaluation of a no action alternative and
other reasonable alternatives that may be identified during the agency
and public scoping meetings. The EIS will determine all environmental
impacts, such as and not limited to, noise impacts, impacts on air and
water quality, wetlands, ecological resources, floodplains, historic
resources, hazardous wastes, socioeconomics, and economic factors.
Scoping: To resure that the full range of issues related to the
proposed project is addressed and that all significant issues are
identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested
parties. Public and agency scoping meetings will be conducted to
identify any significant issues associated with the proposed project.
An agency scoping meeting for all Federal, state, and local
environmental regulatory agencies will be held on May 31, 2006. This
meeting will take place at 10 a.m. in the Emergency Operations Center
at the Port Columbus International Airport, 4600 International Gateway,
Columbus, Ohio 43219.
Two public scoping meetings for the general public will be held on
the evenings of May 31, 2006 and June 1, 2006. The meetings will be
conducted at two locations, one at the Holiday Inn, 750 Stelzer Road,
Columbus, OH 43219 and the other at the Ramda Inn, 4801 East Broad
Street, Columbus, Ohio 43213. Both meetings will be held between 5 p.m.
and 8 p.m.
Written comments may be mailed to the Informational contact listed
above within 30 days following the scoping meetings.
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Issued in Romulus, Michigan, April 21, 2006.
Irene R. Porter,
Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 06-4037 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.461611 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4037.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4038 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4038]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Sixth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 203/Minimum Performance
Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Unmanned Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 203, Minimum Performance
Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Unmanned Aircraft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 203, Minimum Performance Standards
for Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Unmanned Aircraft and Working Groups
1-3 and Sub-Groups 1-3.
DATES: The meeting will be held May 16-19, 2006, starting at 9 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite
805, Washington, DC 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street,
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http:www.rtca.org
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 203 meeting. The agenda will
include:
May 16:
Sub-Group 1, 2 & 3 Writing Teams in working sessions.
May 17:
Opening Plenary Session (Welcome and Introductory Remarks,
Approval of Fifth Plenary Summary, Review SC-203 Progress Since Fifth
Plenary, Other Business, Prepare for Plenary 7, Plenary
Adjourns).
Sub-Group Writing Teams in working sessions.
May 18:
Sub-Group 1, 2 & 3 Writing Teams continue in working
sessions.
Working Groups 2 & 3 Teams in working session.
May 19:
Sub-Group 1, 2, & 3 Writing Teams in working sessions.
Working Groups 2 & 3 in working session.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 18, 2006.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 06-4038 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.479337 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4038.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4039 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4039]
[[Page 25630]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Second Meeting: Special Committee 209, Air Traffic Control Radar
Beacon Systems (ATCRBS)Mode S Transponder
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 209, ATCRBS/Mode S
Transponder.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 209, Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon
Systems (ATCRBS)/Mode S Transponder.
DATES: The meeting will be held May 23, 2006, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m., and
May 24, from 9 a.m.-4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at L-3/Titan Group, 5218 Atlantic
Avenue, 3rd floor, Mays Landing, NJ 08330.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org. Host Contact: Gary Furr (609)
625-5669; e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 209 meeting. The agenda will
include:
May 23-24:
Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and
Administrative Remarks, Review/Approval of Agenda, Review/Approval of
Minutes from Meeting 1).
Report from Team reviewing the ADLP MOPS, DO-218B.
Report from Team reworking DO-181C.
Report from Team reviewing the udpate of Text Procedures.
Status of coordination with WG-49 on Comparison Data Base.
Review Status of Action Items.
Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Discussion of
Agenda for Next Meeting, Date, Place and Time of Future Meeting,
Adjourn).
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2006.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 06-4039 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.502083 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4039.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4090 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25630-25631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4090]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highways in
South Carolina
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions
by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other
Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C.
139(l)(1). The actions relate to various proposed highway projects in
the State of South Carolina. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and
approvals for the projects.
DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency
actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review
of the Federal agency actions on any of the listed highway projects
will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before October 30, 2006.
If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides
a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then that
shorter time period still applies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert L. Lee, Division
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 1835 Assembly Street,
Suite 1270, Columbia, SC 29201; Telephone: (803) 765-5411; e-mail:
[email protected]. The FHWA South Carolina Division Office's normal
business hours are 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (eastern time). You may also
contact Mr. J. Berry Still, P.E., South Carolina Department of
Transportation, 955 Park Street, P.O. Box 191, Columbia, SC 29202-0191;
Telephone: (803) 737-9967; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and
other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing
licenses, permits, and approvals for the highway project in the State
of South Carolina that is listed below. The project will improve safety
on US 17 from US 21 in Gardens Corner to SC 64 in Jacksonboro while
preserving community values and protecting the natural and scenic
environment of the ACE Basin. The actions by the Federal agencies on a
project, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are
described in the documented environmental assessment (EA) and Finding
of Significant Impact (FONSI) issued in connection with the project,
and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record for the
project. The EA, FONSI and other documents from the FHWA administrative
record files for the listed project are available by contacting the
FHWA or the SCDOT at the addresses provided above.
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions on the listed
project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which
such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C.
4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109].
2. Air: Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q).
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of
1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers),
23 U.S.C. 319.
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and
Section 1536], Marine Mammal Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 1361],
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 757(a)-757(g)], Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)], Migratory Bird Treaty
Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712], Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.].
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et
seq.]; Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C.
470(aa)-11]; Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C.
469-469(c)]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001-3013].
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.
[2000(d)-2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C.
1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201-4209].
7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act, [33 U.S.C.] 1251-
1377 (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319); Coastal Barrier Resources
Act, 16 U.S.C. 3501-3510; Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451-
1465; Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 16 U.S.C. 4601-4604;
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6); Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 401-406; Wild and Scenic Rivers
[[Page 25631]]
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287; Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, 16 U.S.C.
3921, 3931; TEA-21 Wetlands Mitigation, 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m),
133(b)(11); Flood Disaster Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128.
8. Hazardous Materials: Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675;
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992(k).
9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988
Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural
Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America;
E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species.
The project subject to this notice is:
Project Location: US-17--Beaufort and Colleton Counties, US-17--ACE
Basin Widening between Gardens Corner and Jacksonboro. The project
proposes a combination of alignment shifts to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts as much as practicable while maintaining the
safety and scenic nature of roadway. An EA was issued on September 16,
2005 and a FONSI was issued on April 7, 2006.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulation implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation of
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 1391(l)(1).
Issued on: April 25, 2006.
Robert Lee,
Division Administrator, FHWA-SC Division, Columbia, SC.
[FR Doc. 06-4090 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.538102 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4090.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6515 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6515]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket Number 2006 24619]
Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws
AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative
waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel BLUE ICE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295,
the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-
build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A
request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a
brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The
complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24619 at http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action
may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use
U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law
105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April
30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse
effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag
vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should
refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order
for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state
the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the
waiver criteria given in Sec. 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR
part 388.
DATES: Submit comments on or before May 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2006 24619.
Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket
Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400
7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments
electronically via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All
comments will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic
version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is
available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended
service of the vessel BLUE ICE is:
Intended Use: ``Passenger (6 or fewer).''
Geographic Region: Florida.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-6515 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.561366 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6515.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6514 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25631-25632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6514]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket Number 2006 24620]
Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws
AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative
waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel BLUEBIRD.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295,
the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-
build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A
request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a
brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The
complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24620 at http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action
may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use
U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law
105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April
30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse
effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag
vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should
refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order
for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state
the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the
waiver criteria given in Sec. 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR
part 388.
DATES: Submit comments on or before May 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2006 24620.
Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket
Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400
7th
[[Page 25632]]
St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments
electronically via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All
comments will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic
version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is
available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended
service of the vessel BLUEBIRD is:
Intended Use: ``Carry passengers for hire.''
Geographic Region: Washington, Oregon, Alaska.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-6514 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.586896 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6514.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6523 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6523]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket Number 2006 24617]
Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws
AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative
waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel JOHN W.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295,
the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-
build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A
request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a
brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The
complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24617 at http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action
may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use
U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law
105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April
30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse
effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag
vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should
refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order
for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state
the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the
waiver criteria given in Sec. 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR
part 388.
DATES: Submit comments on or before May 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD 2006 24617.
Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket
Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400
7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments
electronically via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All
comments will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic
version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is
available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended
service of the vessel JOHN W is:
Intended Use: ``day charter, overnight charter.''
Geographic Region: Albemarle Sound, North Carolina and environs.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-6523 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.617552 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6523.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6520 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25632-25633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6520]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket Number 2006 24616]
Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws
AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative
waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel LEA SCOTIA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295,
the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-
build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A
request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a
brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The
complete application is given in DOT docket 2006 24616 at http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action
may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use
U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law
105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April
30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse
effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag
vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should
refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order
for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state
the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the
waiver criteria given in Sec. 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR
part 388.
DATES: Submit comments on or before May 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD 2006 24616.
Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket
Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400
7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments
electronically via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All
comments will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic
version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is
available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 25633]]
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel
LEA SCOTIA is:
Intended Use: ``private charter.''
Geographic Region: Puget Sound, San Juan Islands, West Coast US.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-6520 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.646757 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6520.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6517 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6517]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket Number 2006 24618]
Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws
AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative
waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel SINGAWING.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295,
the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-
build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A
request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a
brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The
complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24618 at http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action
may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use
U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law
105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April
30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse
effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag
vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should
refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order
for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state
the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the
waiver criteria given in Sec. 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR
part 388.
DATES: Submit comments on or before May 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2006 24618.
Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket
Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400
7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments
electronically via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All
comments will become part of this docket and will be available for
inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic
version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is
available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended
service of the vessel SINGAWING is:
Intended Use: ``6-pack charters.''
Geographic Region: Coastal and inland waters of Washington State.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-6517 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.679540 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6517.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6535 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25633-25640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6535]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-06-24304 (Notice No. 06-2)]
Safety Advisory: Manufacture, Marking, and Sale of Untested
Compressed Gas Cylinders
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Safety advisory notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA was recently notified of the manufacture, marking, and
sale of certain high pressure DOT exemption cylinders that were not
tested in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. These
cylinders were manufactured and/or distributed by Luxfer, Inc.
(Luxfer), Riverside, CA. Luxfer and its independent inspection agency,
Arrowhead Industrial Services, Inc. (Arrowhead), reported to PHMSA that
6,325 high pressure cylinders manufactured to the DOT CFFC and FRP-1
standards as authorized in DOT-E 10915, DOT-E 9634, and DOT-E 9894, had
been shipped from Luxfer without undergoing the required autofrettage
and hydrostatic tests. In a joint effort, Luxfer and Arrowhead have
retrieved 2,581 of the untested cylinders. The model numbers and serial
numbers of the remaining 3,744 cylinders are listed in this notice.
Only cylinders with the listed serial numbers listed are affected. A
person with a listed cylinder should discontinue use of the cylinder
and return it to Arrowhead at the address below so the autofrettage and
hydrostatic test can be completed before its next use. Shippers and
compressed gas filling facilities are advised that these cylinders do
not meet the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations and
may not be offered for transportation or transported until the required
testing is completed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne E. Chaney, Cylinder Program
Manager, Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement, (202) 366-4700,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7104, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Luxfer and its independent inspection
agency, Arrowhead Industrial Services, Inc. (Arrowhead), reported to
PHMSA that 6,325 high pressure cylinders manufactured to the DOT CFFC
and FRP-1 standards as authorized in DOT-E 10915, DOT-E 9634, and DOT-E
9894, had been shipped from Luxfer without undergoing the required
autofrettage and hydrostatic tests. In a joint effort, Luxfer and
Arrowhead have retrieved 2,581 of the untested cylinders. PHMSA has
compiled a list of all model and serial number markings of the
remaining cylinders identified by Luxfer and Arrowhead that were not
properly tested prior to distribution. Information provided to PHMSA
indicates many of these cylinders are being used as self-contained
breathing apparatus, in paint ball applications, and in aircraft slide
service. Any person possessing a cylinder manufactured by Luxfer and
marked with exemption number DOT-E 10915, DOT-E 9634, or DOT-E 9894 and
marked with one of the serial numbers listed in this notice should take
the cylinder to a qualified refilling station and have the pressure
relieved from the cylinder. The cylinder should be returned to
Arrowhead Industrial Services for autofrettage and hydrostatic testing
before further use. Refilling stations and cylinder requalification
facilities are advised that any cylinders marked with DOT-E 10915, DOT-
E 9634, or DOT-E 9894 should be checked against the attached
[[Page 25634]]
list of serial numbers before they are filled or requalified for
service. To make arrangements to have an affected cylinder
autofrettaged and hydrostatically tested, contact Arrowhead Industrial
Services, Inc., 3537 South NC 119, P.O. Box 1000, Graham, NC 27253;
telephone (336) 578-2777.
This safety advisory covers only the high-pressure DOT exemption
cylinders manufactured by Luxfer that have a model number and serial
listed on the attached list. Not all cylinders manufactured by Luxfer
under DOT-E 10915, DOT-E 9634, and DOT-E 9894 are affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model No. ( of cylinders) Serial Nos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LI7A MSA (42).......................................... 6276, 6277, 6278, 6279, 6280, 6281, 6282, 6283, 6284,
6285, 6286, 6287, 6288, 6289, 6290, 6291, 6292, 6293,
6294, 6295, 6296, 6297, 6298, 6299, 6300, 6301, 6302,
6303, 6304, 6305, 6306, 6307, 6308, 6309, 6310, 6311,
6312, 6313, 6314, 6315, 6316, 6317
LI7D SURV (12)......................................... 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164,
165
LI7M MSA (3)........................................... 1282, 1287, 1307
L45G-1 SURV (38)....................................... 95899, 95900, 95903, 95904, 95905, 95906, 95907, 95908,
95909, 95910, 95911, 95912, 95913, 95914, 95915,
95917, 95918, 95919, 95921, 95922, 95925, 95927,
95928, 95929, 95930, 95931, 95932, 95933, 95934,
95935, 95936, 95938, 95940, 95941, 95942, 95943,
95944, 95945
L45G-2 Scott IJ (108).................................. 111401, 111561, 113303, 111404, 111562, 113305, 111409,
111565, 113307, 111550, 111567, 113310, 111551,
111576, 113311, 111553, 111577, 113313, 111554,
111579, 113316, 111556, 111580, 113317,, 111557,
111581, 113318, 111558, 111582, 113324, 111560,
111585, 113409, 111586, 113445, 111587, 113450,
111588, 113451, 111589, 113452, 111590, 113453,
112470, 113454, 112475, 113455, 112478, 113456,
112479, 113457, 113201, 113459, 113204, 113460,
113219, 113461, 113230, 113462, 113236, 113464,
113241, 113473, 113248, 113474, 113252, 113480,
113254, 113492, 113258, 113498, 113263,, 113532,
113264, 113533, 113265, 113536, 113267,, 113538,
113269, 113542, 113272, 113544, 113273,, 113547,
113274, 113548, 113277, 113550, 113281, 113555,
113282, 113556, 113284, 113564, 113285, 113569,
113286, 113833, 113288, 113867, 113294, 113905,
113298, 114633, 113299, 114671, 113302
L45J-1 SURV (117)...................................... 29576, 29630, 29838, 29577, 29631, 29840, 29578, 29632,
29841, 29579, 29633, 29844, 29580, 29634, 29845,
29581, 29635, 29846, 29582, 29636, 29848, 29583,
29637, 29849, 29584, 29638, 29850, 29586, 29639,
29853, 29587, 29640, 29858, 29588, 29641, 29860,
29589, 29642, 29861, 29590, 29643, 29862, 29591,
29644, 29863, 29592, 29645, 29864, 29593, 29647,
29865, 29594, 29648, 29866, 29595, 29649, 29867,
29596, 29650, 29597, 29651, 29598, 29652, 29599,
29653, 29600, 29654, 29602, 29655, 29603, 29656,
29604, 29657, 29605, 29658, 29606, 29659, 29607,
29660, 29609, 29661, 29610, 29662, 29611, 29663,
29612, 29665, 29613, 29667, 29615, 29668, 29616,
29670, 29617, 29812, 29618, 29815, 29619, 29816,
29620, 29818, 29621, 29822, 29622, 29823, 29623,
29824, 29624, 29832, 29625, 29833, 29626, 29834,
29628, 29836, 29629, 29837
L45J-14 SURV (1)....................................... 42177
L45J-19 SURV (7)....................................... 42986, 42987, 42988, 42989, 42990, 42991, 42992
L45M-44 SCOTT (54)..................................... 49855, 49904, 49856, 49905, 49857, 49906, 49858, 49907,
49859, 49908, 49860, 49861, 49862, 49863, 49864,
49865, 49866, 49867, 49868, 49869, 49870, 49871,
49872, 49873, 49874, 49875, 49876, 49877, 49878,
49879, 49880, 49881, 49882, 49883, 49884, 49885,
49886, 49887, 49888, 49889, 49890, 49891, 49892,
49893, 49894, 49895, 49896, 49897, 49898, 49899,
49900, 49901, 49902, 49903
L45M-1 MSA (73)........................................ 76785, 76786, 76787, 76788, 76789, 76790, 76791, 76792,
76793, 76794, 76795, 76796, 76797, 76798, 76799,
76800, 76801, 76802, 76803, 76804, 76805, 76806,
76807, 76808, 76809, 76810, 76811, 76812, 76813,
76814, 76815, 76816, 76817, 76818, 76819, 76820,
76821, 76822, 76823, 76824, 76825, 76826, 76827,
76828, 76829, 76830, 76831, 76832, 76833, 76834,
76835, 76836, 76837, 76838, 76839, 76840, 77553,
77559, 77560, 77564, 77565, 77568, 77575, 77579,
77580, 77585, 77589, 77596, 77597, 77615, 77634,
77649, 77650
[[Page 25635]]
L45M-18 SCOTT (888).................................... 136584, 136585, 136586, 136587, 136588, 136589, 136590,
136591, 136592, 136593, 136594, 136595, 136596,
136597, 136598, 136599, 136600, 136601, 136602,
136603, 136604, 136605, 136606, 136607, 136608,
136609, 136610, 136611, 136612, 136613, 136614,
136615, 136616, 136617, 136618, 136619, 136620,
136621, 136622, 136623, 136624, 136625, 136626,
136627, 136628, 136629, 136630, 136631, 136632,
136633, 136634, 136635, 136636, 136637, 136638,
136639, 136640, 136641, 136809, 136810, 136811,
136812, 136813, 136814, 136815, 136816, 136817,
136818, 136819, 136820, 136821, 136822, 136823,
136824, 136825, 136826, 136827, 136828, 136829,
136830, 136831, 136832, 136833, 136834, 136835,
136836, 136837, 136838, 136839, 136840, 136841,
136842, 136843, 136844, 136845, 136846, 136847,
136848, 136849, 136850, 136851, 136852, 136853,
136854, 136855, 136856, 136857, 136858, 136859,
136860, 136861, 136862, 136863, 136864, 136865,
138145, 138146, 138147, 138148, 138149, 138150,
138151, 138152, 138153, 138154, 138155, 138156,
138157, 138158, 138159, 138160, 138161, 138162,
138163, 138164, 138165, 138166, 138167, 138168,
138169, 138170, 138171, 138172, 138173, 138174,
138175, 138176, 138177, 138178, 138179, 138180,
138181, 138182, 138183, 138184, 138185, 138186,
138187, 138188, 138189, 138190, 138191, 138192,
138193, 138194, 138195, 138196, 138197, 138198,
138199, 138200, 138915, 138916, 138917, 138918,
138919, 138920, 138921, 138922, 138923, 138924,
138925, 138926, 138927, 138928, 138929, 138930,
138931, 138932, 138933, 138934, 138935, 138936,
138937, 138938, 138939, 138940, 138941, 138942,
138943, 138944, 138945, 138946, 138947, 138948,
138949, 138950, 138951, 138952, 138953, 138954,
138955, 138956, 138957, 138958, 138959, 138960,
138961, 138962, 138963, 138964, 138965, 138966,
138967, 138968, 138969, 138970, 138971, 138972,
138973, 138974, 138975, 138976, 138977, 138978,
138979, 138980, 138981, 138982, 138983, 138984,
138985, 138986, 138987, 138988, 138989, 138990,
138991, 138992, 138993, 138994, 138995, 138996,
138997, 138998, 138999, 139000, 139001, 139002,
139003, 139004, 139005, 139006, 139007, 139008,
139009, 139010, 139011, 139012, 139013, 139014,
139015, 139016, 139017, 139018, 139019, 139020,
139021, 139022, 139023, 139024, 139025, 139026,
139027, 139028, 139029, 139030, 139031, 139032,
139033, 139034, 139035, 139036, 139037, 139038,
139039, 140757, 140758, 140759, 140760, 140761,
140762, 140763, 140764, 140765, 140766, 140767,
140768, 140769, 140770, 140771, 140772, 140773,
140774, 140775, 140776, 140799, 140800, 140801,
140802, 140803, 140804, 140805, 140806, 140807,
140808, 140809, 140810, 140811, 140812, 140813,
140814, 140815, 140816, 140817, 140818, 140819,
140820, 140821, 140822, 140823, 140824, 140825,
140826, 140827, 140828, 140829, 140830, 140831,
140832, 140833, 140834, 140835, 140836, 140837,
140838, 140839, 140840, 140841, 140842, 140843,
140844, 140845, 140846, 140847, 140848, 140849,
140850, 140851, 141582, 141583, 141584, 141585,
141585, 141587, 141588, 141589, 141590, 141591,
141592, 141593, 141594, 141595, 141596, 141597,
141598, 141599, 141600, 141601, 141602, 141603,
141604, 141605, 141606, 141607, 141608, 141609,
141610, 141611, 141612, 141613, 141614, 141615,
141616, 141617, 141618, 141619, 141620, 141621,
141622, 141623, 141624, 141625, 141626, 141627,
141628, 141629, 141630, 141631, 141632, 141633,
141634, 141635, 141636, 141637, 141638, 141639,
141640, 141641, 141642, 141643, 141644, 141645,
141646, 141647, 141648, 141649, 141650, 141651,
141652, 141653, 141654, 141655, 141656, 141657,
141658, 141659, 141660, 141661, 143205, 143206,
143207, 143208, 143209, 143210, 143211, 143212,
143213, 143214, 143215, 143216, 143217, 143218,
143219, 143220, 143221, 143222, 143223, 143224,
143225, 143226, 143227, 143228, 143229, 143230,
143231, 143232, 143233, 143234, 143235, 143236,
143237, 143238, 143239, 143240, 143241, 143242,
143243, 143244, 143245, 143246, 143247, 143248,
143249, 143250, 143251, 143252, 143253, 143254,
143255, 143256, 143257, 143258, 143259, 143260,
143261, 143262, 143263, 143264, 143265, 143266,
143267, 143268, 143269, 143270, 143271, 143272,
143273, 143274, 143275, 143276, 143277, 143278,
143279, 143280, 143281, 143282, 143283, 143284,
143285, 143286, 143287, 143288, 143289, 143290,
143291, 143292, 143293, 143294, 143295, 143296,
143297, 143298, 143299, 143300, 143301, 143302,
143303, 143304, 143306, 143307, 143308, 143309,
143310, 143311, 143312, 143313, 143314, 143315,
143316, 143318, 143319, 143320, 143321, 143322,
143323, 143324, 143325, 143326, 143327, 143328,
143329, 143330, 143331, 143332, 143333, 143334,
143335, 143336, 143337, 143338, 143339, 143340,
143341, 143342, 143343, 143344, 143345, 143346,
143347, 143348, 143349, 143350, 143351, 143352,
143353, 143354, 143355, 143356, 143357, 143358,
143359, 143360, 143361, 143362, 143363, 143364,
143365, 143366, 143367, 143368, 143369, 143370,
143371, 143372, 144398, 144399, 144400, 144401,
144402, 144403, 144404, 144405, 144406, 144407,
144408, 144409, 144410, 144411, 144412, 144413,
144414, 144415, 144587, 144588, 144589, 144590,
144591, 144592, 144593, 144594, 144595, 144596,
144597, 144598, 144599, 144600, 144601, 144602,
144603, 144604, 144605, 144606, 144607, 144608,
144609, 144610, 144611, 144612, 144613, 144614,
144616, 144617, 144618, 144619, 144620, 144621,
144622, 144623, 144624, 144625, 144626, 144627,
144628, 144629, 144630, 144631, 144632, 144633,
144634, 144635, 144636, 144637, 144638, 144639,
144640, 144641, 144642, 144643, 144644, 144645,
144646, 144647, 144648, 144649, 144650, 144651,
144652, 144653, 144654, 144655, 144656, 144657,
144658, 144659, 144660, 144661, 144662, 144663,
144664, 144665, 144666, 144667, 144668, 144669,
144670, 144671, 144672, 144673, 144674, 144675,
144676, 144677, 144678, 144679, 144680, 144681,
144682, 144683, 144684, 144685, 144686, 144687,
144688, 144689, 144690, 144691, 144692, 144693,
144694, 144695, 144696, 144697, 144698, 144699,
144700, 144701, 144702, 144703, 144704, 144705,
144706, 144707, 144708, 144709, 144710, 144711,
144712, 144713, 144714, 144715, 144717, 144718,
144719, 144720, 144721, 144722, 144723, 144724,
144725, 145262, 145265, 145270, 145274, 145276,
145278, 145282, 145286, 145289, 145290, 145295,
145297, 145298, 145299, 145301, 145303, 145305,
145308, 145310, 145314, 145317, 145319, 145320,
145321, 145324, 145326, 145329, 145332, 145333,
145337, 145342, 145343, 145348, 145351,
[[Page 25636]]
145355, 145360, 145361, 145364, 145365, 145371,
145372, 145375, 145380, 145381, 145383, 145386,
145387, 145388, 145389, 145394, 145395, 145396,
145397, 145398, 145400, 145401, 145402, 145403,
145405, 145407, 145408, 145410, 145411, 145412,
145413, 145416, 145418, 145419, 145420, 145422,
145424, 145425, 145430, 145431, 145432, 145433,
145434, 146104, 146108, 146109, 146110, 146114,
146116, 146120, 146121, 146122, 146127, 146128,
146132, 146134, 146138, 146139, 146140, 146144,
146145, 146146, 146148, 146151, 146152, 146156,
146341, 146352, 146362, 146373, 146374, 146378,
146380, 146386, 146390, 146391, 146392, 146398,
146402, 146403, 146405, 146406, 146408, 146409
L45M-34 MSA (42)....................................... 200900, 200901, 200902, 200903, 200904, 200905, 200906,
200907, 200908, 200909, 200910, 200911, 200912,
200913, 200914, 200915, 200916, 200917, 200918,
200919, 200920, 200921, 200922, 200923, 200924,
200925, 200926, 200927, 200928, 200929, 200930,
200931, 200932, 200933, 200934, 200935, 200936,
200937, 200938, 200939, 200940, 200941
L45S-1 MSA (13)........................................ 112178, 112193, 112212, 114034, 114035, 114042, 114043,
114045, 114048, 114051, 114052, 114055, 114056
L65G-16 MSA (101)...................................... 158662, 158663, 158664, 158665, 158666, 158667, 158668,
158669, 158670, 158673, 158674, 158675, 158677,
158678, 158679, 158680, 158681, 158682, 158683,
158684, 158685, 158686, 158687, 158688, 158689,
158690, 158691, 158692, 158693, 158694, 158695,
158696, 158697, 158698, 158699, 158700, 158865,
158866, 158867, 158868, 158869, 158870, 158871,
158872, 158873, 158874, 158875, 158876, 158877,
158878, 158880, 158881, 158882, 158883, 158884,
158885, 158886, 158887, 158888, 158889, 158890,
158891, 158892, 158894, 158895, 158896, 158897,
158899, 158900, 158901, 158902, 158903, 158904,
158905, 158906, 158907, 158908, 158909, 158911,
158912, 158913, 158914, 158915, 158916, 158918,
158919, 158920, 158921, 158922, 158923, 158924,
159486, 159487, 159495, 159513, 159551, 159558,
159561, 159564, 159585, 159599
L65G-1 SURV (4)........................................ 201492, 201503, 201515, 201526
[[Page 25637]]
L65G-2 SCOTT (757)..................................... 216018, 216019, 216020, 216021, 216022, 216023, 216024,
216025, 216026, 216027, 216028, 216029, 216030,
216031, 216032, 216033, 216034, 216035, 216036,
216037, 216038, 216039, 216040, 216041, 216042,
216043, 216044, 216045, 216046, 216047, 216800,
216801, 216802, 216803, 216804, 216805, 216806,
216807, 216808, 216809, 216810, 216811, 216812,
216813, 216814, 216815, 216816, 216817, 216818,
216819, 216820, 216821, 216822, 216823, 216824,
216825, 216826, 216827, 216828, 216829, 216830,
216831, 216832, 216833, 216834, 216835, 216836,
216837, 216838, 216839, 216840, 216841, 216842,
217753, 217754, 217755, 217756, 217757, 217758,
217759, 217760, 217761, 217762, 217763, 217764,
217765, 217766, 217767, 217768, 217769, 217770,
217771, 217772, 217773, 217774, 217775, 217777,
217778, 217779, 217780, 217781, 217782, 217864,
217865, 217866, 217867, 217868, 217869, 217870,
217871, 217872, 217873, 217874, 217875, 217876,
217877, 217878, 217879, 217880, 217881, 217882,
217883, 217884, 217885, 217886, 217887, 217888,
217889, 217890, 217891, 217892, 217893, 217894,
217895, 217896, 217897, 217898, 217899, 217900,
217901, 217902, 217903, 217904, 217905, 217906,
217907, 217908, 217909, 217910, 217911, 217912,
217913, 217914, 217915, 217916, 217917, 217918,
217919, 217920, 217921, 217922, 217923, 217924,
217925, 217926, 217927, 217928, 217929, 218072,
218073, 218074, 218075, 218076, 218077, 218078,
218079, 218080, 218081, 218082, 218083, 218084,
218085, 218086, 218087, 218088, 218089, 218090,
218091, 218092, 218093, 218094, 218095, 218096,
218097, 218098, 218099, 218100, 218101, 218102,
218103, 218104, 219936, 219937, 219938, 219939,
219940, 219941, 219942, 219943, 219944, 219945,
219946, 219947, 219948, 219949, 219950, 219951,
219952, 219953, 219954, 219955, 219956, 219957,
219958, 219959, 219960, 219961, 219962, 219963,
219964, 219965, 219966, 219967, 219968, 219969,
219970, 219971, 219972, 219973, 219974, 219975,
219976, 219977, 219978, 219979, 219980, 219981,
219982, 219983, 219984, 219985, 219986, 219987,
219988, 219989, 219990, 219991, 219992, 219993,
219994, 219995, 219996, 219997, 219998, 219999,
220000, 220001, 220002, 220003, 220004, 220005,
220006, 220007, 220008, 220009, 220010, 220011,
220012, 220013, 220014, 220015, 220016, 220017,
220018, 220019, 220020, 220021, 220022, 220023,
220024, 220025, 220026, 220027, 220028, 220029,
220030, 220031, 220032, 220033, 220034, 220035,
220036, 220037, 220038, 220039, 220040, 220041,
220042, 220043, 220044, 220045, 220046, 220047,
220048, 220049, 220050, 220051, 220052, 220053,
220054, 220055, 220056, 220057, 220058, 220059,
220060, 220061, 220147, 220148, 220149, 220150,
220151, 220153, 220154, 220155, 220156, 220157,
220158, 220159, 220160, 220161, 220162, 220163,
220164, 220165, 220166, 220167, 220168, 220169,
220170, 220171, 220172, 220173, 220174, 220175,
220176, 220177, 220178, 220179, 220180, 220181,
220182, 220183, 220184, 220185, 220187, 220188,
220225, 220226, 220227, 220228, 220229, 220230,
220231, 220232, 220234, 220235, 220236, 220237,
220238, 220239, 220240, 220241, 220242, 220243,
220244, 220245, 220246, 220247, 220248, 220249,
220250, 220251, 220252, 220253, 220254, 220255,
220256, 220257, 220258, 220259, 220260, 220261,
220262, 220263, 220264, 220266, 220270, 220271,
220272, 220273, 220277, 220278, 220279, 220283,
220284, 220285, 220289, 220290, 220291, 220295,
220296, 220297, 220298, 220299, 220301, 220302,
220303, 220305, 220307, 220435, 220436, 220437,
220438, 220439, 220440, 220441, 220442, 220443,
220444, 220445, 220446, 220447, 220448, 220449,
220450, 220451, 220452, 220453, 220454, 220455,
220456, 220457, 220458, 220459, 220460, 220461,
220462, 220463, 220464, 220465, 220466, 220467,
220468, 220469, 220470, 220471, 220472, 220473,
220474, 220475, 220476, 220477, 220478, 220479,
220480, 220481, 220482, 220483, 220484, 220485,
220486, 220487, 220488, 220489, 220490, 220492,
220493, 220494, 220495, 220496, 220497, 220498,
220499, 220500, 220501, 220502, 220503, 220504,
220505, 220506, 220507, 220508, 220509, 220510,
220511, 220512, 220513, 220514, 220515, 220516,
220517, 220518, 220519, 220520, 220521, 220522,
220523, 220524, 220525, 220526, 220527, 220528,
220529, 220530, 220531, 220533, 220534, 220535,
220536, 220537, 220538, 220539, 220540, 220541,
220542, 220543, 220544, 220545, 220546, 220547,
220548, 220549, 220550, 220551, 220552, 220553,
220554, 220555, 220556, 220557, 220558, 220559,
220560, 220814, 220818, 220828, 220834, 220838,
220841, 221125, 221126, 221127, 221128, 221129,
221130, 221131, 221132, 221133, 221134, 221135,
221136, 221137, 221138, 221139, 221140, 221141,
221142, 221143, 221144, 221145, 221146, 221147,
221148, 221149, 221150, 221151, 221152, 221153,
221154, 221155, 221156, 221157, 221158, 221159,
221160, 221161, 221162, 221163, 221164, 221165,
221166, 221249, 221250, 221251, 221252, 221253,
221254, 221255, 221256, 221257, 221258, 221259,
221260, 221261, 221262, 221263, 221264, 221265,
221266, 221267, 221268, 221269, 221270, 221271,
221272, 221273, 221274, 221275, 221276, 221277,
221278, 221279, 221280, 221281, 221282, 221283,
221284, 221285, 221286, 221287, 221288, 221289,
221290, 221291, 221292, 221293, 221294, 221295,
221296, 221297, 221298, 221299, 221300, 221301,
221302, 221303, 221304, 221305, 221306, 221307,
221308, 221309, 221310, 221311, 221312, 221313,
221314, 221315, 221316, 221317, 221318, 221319,
221320, 221321, 221322, 221323, 221324, 221325,
221326, 221327, 221328, 221329, 221330, 221331,
221332, 221333, 221334, 221335, 221336, 221338,
221339, 221340, 221341, 221342, 221343, 221344,
221345, 221346, 221347, 221348, 221349, 221350,
221351, 221352, 221353, 221354, 221355, 221356,
221357, 221358, 221359, 221360, 221361, 221362,
221363, 221364, 221365, 221366, 221367, 221368,
221369, 225459, 225460, 225461, 225462, 225463,
225464, 225465, 225466, 225467, 225468, 225469,
225470, 225471, 225472, 225473, 225474, 225475,
225476, 225761, 225768, 225788, 225809, 225832,
225872, 225880, 225887, 225890, 225895, 225905,
225908, 225932, 225935, 226137, 226159, 226186
L65G-81 MSA (22)....................................... 301100, 301101, 301102, 301103, 301104, 301105, 301106,
301107, 301108, 301109, 301110, 301111, 301112,
301113, 301114, 301115, 301116, 301117, 301118,
301119, 301120, 301121
L65G-88 SCOTT (42)..................................... 301752, 301753, 301754, 301755, 301756, 301757, 301758,
301759, 301760, 301761, 301762, 301763, 301764,
301765, 301766, 301767, 301768, 301769, 301770,
301771, 301772, 301773, 301774, 301775, 301776,
301777, 301778, 301779, 301780, 301781, 301782,
301783, 301784, 301785, 301786, 301787, 301788,
301789, 301790, 301791, 301792, 301793
[[Page 25638]]
L65M-1 MSA (114)....................................... 57126, 57127, 57128, 57129, 57130, 57131, 57132, 57133,
57134, 57135, 57136, 57137, 57139, 57140, 57141,
57143, 57145, 57146, 57148, 57149, 57150, 57151,
57152, 57153, 57154, 57155, 57156, 57158, 57159,
57161, 57162, 57163, 57164, 57165, 57291, 57292,
57293, 57295, 57296, 57297, 57298, 57299, 57300,
57302, 57303, 57305, 57307, 57308, 57309, 57310,
57311, 57312, 57313, 57314, 57315, 57316, 57317,
57319, 57320, 57321, 57323, 57324, 57326, 57327,
57328, 57329, 57330, 57332, 57333, 57334, 57335,
57336, 57337, 57338, 57340, 57341, 57342, 57343,
57344, 57345, 57346, 57347, 57348, 57349, 57350,
57351, 57352, 57354, 57355, 57356, 57357, 57358,
57359, 57360, 57361, 57362, 57363, 57364, 57366,
57511, 57512, 57518, 57520, 57524, 57526, 57527,
57528, 57531, 57533, 57535, 57537, 57546, 57697, 57698
L65M-4 MSA (3)......................................... 61425, 61426, 61427
L65M-51 SCOTT (81)..................................... 62406, 62407, 62408, 62409, 62410, 62411, 62412, 62413,
62414, 62415, 62416, 62417, 62418, 62419, 62420,
62421, 62422, 62423, 62424, 62425, 62426, 62427,
62428, 62429, 62430, 62431, 62432, 62433, 62434,
62435, 62436, 62437, 62438, 62439, 62440, 62441,
62442, 62443, 62444, 62445, 62446, 62447, 62490,
62491, 62492, 62493, 62494, 62495, 62496, 62497,
62498, 62499, 62500, 62501, 62502, 62503, 62504,
62505, 62506, 62507, 62508, 62509, 62510, 62511,
62512, 62513, 62514, 62515, 62516, 62517, 62518,
62519, 62520, 62521, 62522, 62523, 62524, 62525,
62526, 62527, 62528
L65M-5 SCOTT (35)...................................... 62725, 62726, 62727, 62728, 62729, 62730, 62731, 62732,
62733, 62734, 62735, 62736, 62737, 62738, 62739,
62740, 62741, 62742, 62743, 62744, 62745, 62746,
62747, 62748, 62749, 62750, 62751, 62752, 62753,
62754, 62755, 62756, 62757, 62758, 62759
L65M-5 MSA (14)........................................ 62800, 62801, 62802, 62806, 62807, 62808, 62809, 62812,
62813, 62814, 62815, 62816, 62817, 62818
L87G-2 SCOTT (322)..................................... 149667, 149668, 149669, 149670, 149671, 149672, 149673,
149674, 149675, 149676, 149677, 149678, 149679,
149680, 149681, 149682, 149683, 149684, 149685,
149686, 149687, 149688, 149689, 149690, 149691,
149692, 149693, 149694, 149695, 149696, 149697,
149698, 149699, 149700, 149701, 149702, 149703,
149704, 149705, 149706, 149708, 149709, 149710,
149711, 149712, 149713, 149714, 149715, 149716,
149717, 149718, 149719, 149720, 149721, 149722,
149723, 149724, 149726, 149727, 149728, 149729,
149730, 149731, 149732, 149733, 149801, 149802,
149803, 149804, 149805, 149806, 149807, 149808,
149809, 149810, 149811, 149812, 149813, 149814,
149815, 149816, 149818, 149819, 149820, 149821,
149822, 149823, 149824, 149825, 149826, 149827,
149828, 149829, 149830, 149832, 149833, 149834,
149835, 149836, 149837, 149838, 149839, 149840,
149841, 149842, 149843, 149844, 149845, 149846,
149847, 149848, 149849, 149851, 149852, 149853,
149854, 149855, 149856, 149857, 149858, 149859,
149860, 149861, 149862, 149863, 149864, 149865,
149866, 149869, 149870, 149871, 149872, 149873,
149875, 149876, 149877, 149879, 149880, 149881,
150230, 150231, 150232, 150233, 150234, 150235,
150236, 150237, 150238, 150239, 150240, 150241,
150242, 150243, 150244, 150245, 150246, 150247,
150248, 150249, 150250, 150251, 150252, 150253,
150254, 150255, 150256, 150257, 150258, 150259,
150260, 150261, 150262, 150263, 150264, 150265,
150266, 150267, 151330, 151331, 151332, 151334,
151335, 151336, 151337, 151338, 151339, 151341,
151342, 151343, 151344, 151345, 151346, 151349,
151350, 151353, 151355, 151356, 151357, 151358,
151359, 151738, 151739, 151740, 151742, 151744,
151745, 151746, 151749, 151750, 151751, 151752,
151753, 151754, 151756, 152870, 152871, 152872,
152873, 152874, 152875, 152876, 152877, 152878,
152879, 152880, 152881, 152882, 152883, 152884,
152885, 152886, 152887, 152888, 152889, 152890,
152891, 152892, 152893, 152894, 152895, 152896,
152897, 152898, 152899, 152900, 152901, 152902,
152903, 152904, 152905, 153421, 153425, 153427,
153433, 153437, 153438, 153444, 153445, 153449,
153450, 153461, 153462, 153469, 153474, 153475,
153482, 153484, 153494, 153905, 153909, 153912,
153915, 153919, 153923, 153924, 153930, 153935,
153937, 153938, 153941, 153945, 153946, 153947,
153948, 153952, 153955, 153956, 153957, 153958,
153960, 153961, 153963, 153964, 153966, 153967,
153968, 153970, 153971, 153973, 153974, 153976,
153977, 153984, 153990, 153996, 153998, 154009,
154013, 154022, 154025, 154027, 154047, 154064,
154068, 154070, 154071, 154080, 154083, 154089,
154090, 154095, 154100
L87G-70 SCOTT (271).................................... 170007, 170008, 170009, 170010, 170011, 170012, 170013,
170014, 170015, 170016, 170017, 170018, 170019,
170020, 170021, 170022, 170023, 170024, 170025,
170026, 170027, 170028, 170029, 170030, 170031,
170032, 170033, 170034, 170035, 170036, 170037,
170038, 170039, 170040, 170041, 170042, 170043,
170044, 170045, 170046, 170047, 170048, 170049,
170050, 170051, 170052, 170053, 170054, 170055,
170056, 170057, 170058, 170059, 170060, 170061,
170062, 170063, 170064, 170065, 170066, 170067,
170068, 170069, 170070, 170071, 170072, 170073,
170074, 170075, 170076, 170077, 170078, 170079,
170080, 170081, 170123, 170124, 170125, 170126,
170127, 170128, 170129, 170130, 170131, 170132,
170133, 170134, 170135, 170136, 170137, 170138,
170139, 170140, 170141, 170142, 170143, 170144,
170145, 170146, 170147, 170148, 170149, 170150,
170151, 170152, 170153, 170154, 170155, 170156,
170157, 170158, 170159, 170160, 170161, 170162,
170163, 170164, 170165, 170166, 170167, 170168,
170169, 170170, 170171, 170172, 170173, 170174,
170175, 170176, 170177, 170178, 170179, 170180,
170181, 170182, 170183, 170184, 170185, 170186,
170187, 170188, 170189, 170190, 170191, 170192,
170193, 170194, 170195, 170196, 170197, 170198,
170200, 170201, 170202, 170203, 170204, 170205,
170206, 170207, 170208, 170209, 170210, 170211,
170212, 170213, 170214, 170215, 170216, 170217,
170218, 170219, 170220, 170221, 170222, 170223,
170224, 170225, 170226, 170227, 170228, 170229,
170230, 170231, 170232, 170233, 170234, 170235,
170236, 170237, 170238, 170239, 170240, 170241,
170242, 170243, 170244, 170245, 170246, 170247,
170248, 170249, 170335, 170336, 170337, 170338,
170339, 170340, 170341, 170342, 170343, 170344,
170345, 170346, 170347, 170348, 170349, 170350,
170351, 170352, 170353, 170354, 170355, 170356,
170357, 170358, 170359, 170360, 170361, 170362,
170363, 170364, 170365, 170366, 170367, 170368,
170369, 170370, 170371, 170372, 170373, 170374,
170375, 170376, 170377, 170378, 170379, 170380,
170381, 170382, 170383, 170384, 170385, 170386,
170387, 170388, 170389, 170390, 170391, 170392,
170393, 170394, 170395, 170396, 170397, 170398,
170399, 170400, 170401, 170402, 170403, 170404
[[Page 25639]]
L87G-71 SCOTT (76)..................................... 171000, 171001, 171002, 171003, 171004, 171005, 171006,
171007, 171008, 171009, 171010, 171011, 171012,
171013, 171014, 171015, 171016, 171017, 171018,
171019, 171020, 171021, 171022, 171023, 171024,
171025, 171026, 171027, 171028, 171029, 171030,
171031, 171032, 171033, 171034, 171035, 171036,
171037, 171038, 171039, 171040, 171041, 171042,
171043, 171044, 171045, 171046, 171047, 171048,
171049, 171050, 171051, 171052, 171053, 171054,
171055, 171056, 171057, 171058, 171059, 171060,
171061, 171062, 171063, 171064, 171065, 171066,
171067, 171068, 171069, 171070, 171071, 171072,
171073, 171074, 171075
L87G-73 SCOTT (52)..................................... 173000, 173001, 173002, 173003, 173004, 173005, 173006,
173007, 173008, 173009, 173010, 173011, 173012,
173013, 173014, 173015, 173016, 173017, 173018,
173019, 173020, 173021, 173022, 173023, 173024,
173025, 173026, 173027, 173028, 173029, 173030,
173031, 173032, 173033, 173034, 173035, 173036,
173037, 173038, 173039, 173040, 173111, 173112,
173113, 173114, 173115, 173116, 173117, 173118,
173119, 173120, 173121
L87G-74 SCOTT (57)..................................... 174064, 174065, 174066, 174067, 174068, 174069, 174070,
174071, 174072, 174073, 174074, 174075, 174076,
174077, 174078, 174079, 174080, 174081, 174082,
174083, 174084, 174085, 174086, 174087, 174088,
174089, 174090, 174091, 174092, 174093, 174094,
174095, 174096, 174097, 174098, 174099, 174100,
174101, 174102, 174103, 174105, 174106, 174107,
174108, 174109, 174110, 174111, 174112, 174113,
174114, 174115, 174116, 174117, 174118, 174119,
174120, 174121
L87G-75 SCOTT (50)..................................... 175000, 175001, 175002, 175003, 175004, 175005, 175006,
175007, 175008, 175009, 175010, 175011, 175012,
175013, 175014, 175015, 175016, 175017, 175018,
175019, 175020, 175021, 175022, 175023, 175024,
175025, 175026, 175027, 175028, 175029, 175030,
175031, 175032, 175033, 175034, 175035, 175036,
175037, 175038, 175039, 175040, 175041, 175042,
175043, 175044, 175045, 175046, 175047, 175048, 175049
M15B-1 DRAGER (16)..................................... 2570, 2571, 2572, 2577, 2578, 2580, 2595, 2605, 2611,
2612, 2618, 2619, 2623, 2624, 2629, 2630
P07A-4 PMI (105)....................................... 31650, 31651, 31652, 31653, 31654, 31655, 31656, 31657,
31658, 31659, 31660, 31661, 31662, 31663, 31664,
31665, 31666, 31667, 31668, 31669, 31670, 31671,
31672, 31673, 31674, 31675, 31676, 31677, 31678,
31679, 31680, 31681, 31682, 31683, 31684, 31685,
31686, 31687, 31688, 31689, 31690, 31691, 31692,
31693, 31694, 31695, 31696, 31697, 31698, 31699,
31700, 31701, 31702, 31703, 31704, 31705, 31706,
31707, 31708, 31709, 31710, 31711, 31712, 31713,
31714, 31715, 31716, 31717, 31718, 31719, 31720,
31721, 31722, 31723, 31724, 31725, 31726, 31727,
31728, 31729, 31730, 31731, 31732, 31733, 31734,
31735, 31736, 31737, 31738, 31739, 31740, 31741,
31742, 31743, 31744, 31745, 31746, 31747, 31748,
31749, 31750, 31751, 31752, 31753, 31754
P08F-3 PMI (210)....................................... 100234, 100235, 100236, 100237, 100238, 100239, 100240,
100241, 100242, 100243, 100244, 100246, 100247,
100248, 100249, 100250, 100251, 100252, 100253,
100254, 100255, 100256, 100258, 100259, 100260,
100261, 100262, 100263, 100264, 100265, 100266,
100267, 100268, 100269, 100270, 100271, 100272,
100273, 100274, 100275, 100276, 100514, 100515,
100517, 100519, 100520, 100521, 100522, 100523,
100525, 100527, 100528, 100529, 100530, 100531,
100532, 100534, 100535, 100536, 100537, 100538,
100539, 100540, 100541, 100542, 100543, 100546,
100547, 100548, 100550, 100551, 100552, 100553,
100554, 100555, 100556, 100557, 100558, 100559,
100560, 100561, 100562, 100563, 100564, 100565,
100566, 100567, 100568, 100569, 100570, 100571,
100572, 100573, 100574, 100575, 100576, 100577,
100578, 100579, 100580, 100581, 100582, 100583,
100584, 100585, 100586, 100587, 100588, 100589,
100590, 100591, 100592, 100593, 100594, 100595,
100597, 100598, 100599, 100600, 100601, 100602,
100603, 100604, 100605, 100606, 100607, 100608,
100609, 100610, 100611, 100612, 100613, 100614,
100616, 100617, 100618, 100619, 100620, 100621,
100622, 100623, 100624, 100625, 100626, 100627,
100628, 100629, 100630, 100631, 100632, 100633,
100634, 100635, 100636, 100637, 100638, 100639,
100640, 100641, 100642, 100643, 100644, 100645,
100646, 100647, 100649, 100650, 100651, 100652,
100653, 100654, 100655, 100656, 100657, 103005,
103016, 103018, 103026, 103028, 103045, 103052,
103055, 103056, 103067, 103069, 103070, 103074,
103120, 103180, 103219, 103227, 103234, 103261,
103271, 103290, 103310, 103335, 103342, 103391,
103399, 103412, 103563, 103571, 103572, 103573,
103615, 103626, 103665, 103666, 103675
P11F-2 PMI (2)......................................... 123248, 123249
P12A-2 PMI (11)........................................ 21974, 21976, 21977, 21980, 21981, 21985, 21986, 21992,
21993, 21995, 22078
T109A-1 GOODR (37)..................................... 6565, 6566, 6567, 6568, 6569, 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573,
6574, 6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6692, 6693, 6694, 6695,
6696, 6697, 6699, 6700, 6701, 6702, 6703, 6704, 6705,
6706, 6707, 6708, 6709, 6710, 6711, 6712, 6713, 6714,
6715
T112A-1 GOODR (25)..................................... 1621, 1622, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1626, 1627, 1628, 1629,
1630, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1639,
1640, 1641, 1642, 1643, 1644, 1645, 1646
T123-1 GOODR (53)...................................... 1621, 1622, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1626, 1627, 1628, 1629,
1630, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1639,
1640, 1641, 1642, 1643, 1644, 1645, 1646, 2504, 2505,
2506, 2507, 2508
Total Number (3,858)...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[?USGPO Galley End:?]?>
[[Page 25640]]
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 26, 2006.
Robert A. McGuire,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. E6-6535 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.703864 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6535.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-4093 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25640-25644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4093]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket Nos. PHMSA-98-4470, PHMSA-2004-18938, and PHMSA-2004-18584]
Pipeline Safety: Meetings of the Pipeline Safety Standards
Advisory Committees and Two Public Workshops
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings and two workshops.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces public meetings of PHMSA's Technical
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and Technical Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC). The Committees
will discuss regulatory issues and vote on two rulemaking proposals:
Integrity management program changes and clarifications, and design and
construction standards to reduce internal corrosion in gas transmission
pipelines. In conjunction with the advisory committee meetings, PHMSA
will hold two public workshops.
PHMSA will hold a half day public workshop on Hazardous Liquid Low
Stress Pipelines to solicit comments on a risk-based approach to
protecting unusually sensitive areas from risks associated with low
stress lines. PHMSA also will conduct a public workshop to discuss the
effectiveness of pipeline control room operations and to obtain
comments on ways to enhance the effectiveness of pipeline control room
operations and on findings from the Controller Certification Project
(CCERT).
Dates and Times: PHMSA will hold advisory committee meetings and public
workshops on June 26-28, 2006. The dates and times are:
Monday, June 26 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.--THLPSSC and Public
Workshop on Hazardous Liquid Low Stress Pipelines.
Tuesday, June 27 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.--THLPSSC/TPSSC
Public Workshop on Effectiveness of Pipeline Control Room Operations.
Wednesday, June 28 from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.--THLPSSC Meeting
to vote on the NPRM to address integrity management modifications.
Wednesday, June 28 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.--Joint
meetings of the THLPSSC and TPSSC.
Wednesday, June 28 from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.--TPSSC meeting to
vote on the NPRM to address internal corrosion in gas transmission
pipelines.
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be at the Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767
King Street, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314. Telephone: 1-703-837-0440,
Fax 1-703-837-0454.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Technical Advisory Committee Meetings: Cheryl Whetsel
(202) 366-4431, [email protected];
Hazardous Liquid Low Stress Lines Public Workshop: Dewitt
Burdeaux (405) 954-7220, [email protected] or Chris Hoidal (720)
963-3171, [email protected]; and
Effectiveness of Pipeline Control Room Operations Public
Workshop: Byron Coy (609) 989-2180, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Meeting Details
Attendees staying at the hotel must make reservations by Friday,
May 26. The phone number for reservations at the hotel is 1-800-HILTONS
(445-8667). The hotel will give priority to the Committee members and
State Pipeline Safety Representatives for rooms blocked under ``DOT
Technical Advisory Committee Meetings.''
PHMSA plans to hold panel discussions during the public workshops.
Individuals interested in participating as a panelist/commenter during
the workshops should contact the individual listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Members of the public may make short statements on
the topics under discussion during the advisory committee sessions.
Anyone wishing to make an oral statement should contact one of the
individuals listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by June 9,
with the topic and the estimated time needed to present. The presiding
officer at each meeting may deny a request to present an oral statement
based on time availability.
You may send written comments by mail or deliver them to the
Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The Dockets Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. You also may send written comments to the docket
electronically by logging onto the following Internet Web address:
http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' for instructions on
how to file a document electronically. All written comments should
reference docket number PHMSA-98-4470 for advisory committee issues;
PHMSA-2004-18938 for hazardous liquid low stress line issues; and
PHMSA-2004-18584 for controller certification issues. Anyone who would
like confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-addressed
stamped postcard. These dockets will remain open pending the completion
of a rulemaking.
Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please
contact Cheryl Whetsel at (202) 366-4431 by June 2.
Background of Technical Advisory Committees
The TPSSC and the THLPSSC are statutorily mandated advisory
committees advising PHMSA on proposed safety standards, risk
assessments, and safety policies for natural gas and hazardous liquid
pipelines. These advisory committees are established under section 9(c)
(App. 2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) (5
U.S.C. App. 1). The committees consist of 15 members--five each
representing government, industry, and the public. The TPSSC and the
THLPSSC determine reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and
practicability of PHMSA's regulatory initiatives.
Federal law requires PHMSA to submit cost-benefit analysis and risk
assessment information on each proposed safety standard to the advisory
committees. The committees evaluate the merits of the data and methods
used within the analysis, and when fitting, provide recommendations
about the cost-benefit analysis.
Hazardous Liquid Low Stress Line Public Workshop
June 26 (1 p.m. until 5 p.m.)
On Monday, June 26 in conjunction with the THLPSSC meeting, PHMSA
will hold a half day public workshop on
[[Page 25641]]
protecting unusually sensitive areas from hazardous liquid low stress
lines.
Background on Regulation of Hazardous Liquid Low Stress Lines
The original safety regulations for hazardous liquid pipelines did
not apply to low stress pipelines. Because of their low operating
pressures and minimal accident history, the agency thought low stress
hazardous liquid pipelines posed little risk to public safety.
Following a prominent accident in 1990 involving the spill of about
500,000 gallons of heating oil from an underwater Exxon pipeline in
Arthur Kill Channel in New York, PHMSA began rulemaking on hazardous
liquid low stress lines. Further, in the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992,
Congress provided guidance for the rulemaking by limiting the authority
to exempt a pipeline from regulation solely because it operated at a
low stress level.
In 1990, PHMSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) on low stress pipelines. (55 FR 45822; October 31, 1990.) In
the ANPRM, PHMSA sought information about the costs and benefits of
regulating low stress lines. The analysis of the data received in
response to the ANPRM showed regulation of all low stress pipelines
could impose costs disproportionate to benefits. PHMSA, therefore,
focused on those low stress pipelines that posed a higher risk to
people and the environment. The risk factors identified were the
commodity in transportation and the location of the pipeline.
In 1993, PHMSA published an NPRM proposing to apply parts 195 and
199 to low stress transmission pipelines that transport highly volatile
liquids, traverse a populated area or traverse a navigable waterway (58
FR 12213; March 3, 2003). In 1994, PHMSA committed to consider
regulating rural low stress lines in a future rulemaking based on
locations and other risk factors. The agency said that it was
developing a better concept of what constitutes an environmentally
sensitive area for purposes of pipeline regulation and this would
provide the groundwork for the future rulemaking on rural low stress
lines. PHMSA said it needed the time to learn the extent to which low
stress pipeline spills affect environmentally sensitive areas. It
believed the definition used in the part 194 (Response Plans for
Onshore Oil Pipelines) was too broad for part 195.
In 2000, PHMSA issued a final rule to define unusually sensitive
areas (USAs) (65 FR 246). In this rule, PHMSA noted its 1994 decision
to defer regulating nonvolatile products in low stress pipelines in
rural sensitive areas since there was not a definition. It further
noted its intention to reconsider the issue once there was a sensitive
area definition. In 2000, PHMSA defined protection of USAs for most
hazardous liquid pipelines through its integrity management
regulations. This meeting is a crucial step in gathering information
needed to complete the protection of USAs from risks of spills from
hazardous liquid low stress lines.
PHMSA has gathered data from State agencies and industry and
evaluated several accidents that involve hazardous liquid low stress
lines. Based on its evaluation of data and comments received earlier on
this issue, PHMSA would like to consider a risk-based approach to
addressing unregulated hazardous liquid low stress lines. PHMSA would
require operators of these lines to follow certain safety rules for
design, construction, testing, and maximum operating pressure. It would
also require these operators to protect the lines from corrosion and
excavation damage, provide public education, operator qualification,
and report accident and safety-related conditions.
Preliminary Agenda--Workshop Questions for Hazardous Liquid Low Stress
Lines
During the public workshop, PHMSA plans to present its viewpoint
and then hold panel discussions. The agency seeks comments on its risk-
based approach to addressing unregulated low stress lines. In
discussion of concepts, PHMSA asks interested parties to discuss the
following agenda topics:
Criteria for Applicability of Regulation
PHMSA believes it should regulate any pipeline that affects USAs,
including those not crossing a public domain.
Should low stress lines that remain on leased property or
low stress lines not crossing into a public domain be considered a
transportation pipeline?
Should PHMSA only regulate pipelines that intersect or
could affect USAs?
Use of Buffer Zones
PHMSA is considering using the criteria in part 194 to determine
whether a low stress line could affect a USA.
In determining whether a low stress line could affect a
USA, should PHMSA use criteria similar to the requirements in part 194
or are there other tried and tested criteria, such as buffer zones, we
should consider?
Physical Pipeline Characteristics
PHMSA believes it may be appropriate to regulate pipelines
containing a certain amount of product by volume.
Throughput: What is the average daily throughput, and type
of product transported?
Location: Where are low stress lines geographically
located?
Diameter: What are the diameter ranges for pipelines
transporting products through low stress pipelines other than gathering
lines?
Safety Requirements
PHMSA believes that it may be appropriate to apply a limited subset
of compliance activities, similar to those prescribed in part 192 for
gas gathering lines.
Leak Detection: Do hazardous liquid low stress line
operators currently employ some type of leak detection techniques? If
so, what techniques are used? What is an acceptable margin of error?
Are margins determined daily?
Operator Qualification: Should we apply Subpart N or a
modified approach? If so, what should that modified approach be?
Maintenance: Should federal regulations address
preventative measures, such as the routine use of corrosion prevention
and smart pigs which are capable of detecting corrosion? Do operators
routinely run cleaning pigs on its low stress lines?
Implementation Timeframes: Are 18-month through 2-year
timeframes adequate for operators to address new construction,
corrosion, operator qualification and excavation damage; to provide
public education; and to report accident and safety-related conditions?
Costs/Benefits
PHMSA must address cost and benefits in developing all regulatory
proposals. PHMSA is gathering cost data to justify a proposal.
How many pipelines will be impacted?
What is the mileage?
What is the average length of those lines?
What is the cost of bringing unregulated lines into
compliance with part 195?
Effectiveness of Pipeline Control Room Management Public Workshop
June 27 (8 a.m.-5 p.m.)
In conjunction with the Joint Committee meetings, PHMSA will hold a
public workshop on opportunities to improve the effectiveness of
pipeline
[[Page 25642]]
control room operations. This workshop will provide the public and
industry an opportunity to discuss options for effectiveness of
pipeline control room operations and assessing management processes,
human fatigue issues, qualification, and other programs affecting
pipeline control.
Background of Controller Certification Pilot Program
In addressing the requirements in the Pipeline Safety Improvement
Act (PSIA) of 2002, section 13(b), PHMSA conducted a Controller
Certification Pilot Program (CCERT). The purpose of the pilot program
was to: (1) Review training programs, qualification requirements,
evaluation methods, evaluation criteria, success thresholds, and
reevaluation intervals to determine their adequacy and thoroughness in
the controller qualification process; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of
the practices and administrative processes currently used by operators
in the qualification of controllers; (3) examine the thoroughness of
operating procedures and practices used by controllers which impact
safety and integrity; and (4) explore how these processes and
evaluation criteria could be used to develop uniform protocols and
acceptance criteria for the validation of pipeline operators'
controller qualification processes. Despite differences between natural
gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, PHMSA believes controllers for both
types of pipelines require similar cognitive and analytical skills.
During the same period of time in which PHMSA was conducting the
ongoing CCERT Project, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
was conducting a separate study on hazardous liquid pipeline
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems (2002-2005).
The NTSB study examined how pipeline companies use SCADA systems to
monitor and record operating data and to evaluate the role of SCADA
systems in leak detection. The impetus of the NTSB study was the number
of hazardous liquid accidents the NTSB investigated in which leaks went
undetected after the SCADA system indicated the leak. While the NTSB
SCADA Safety Study specifically addresses hazardous liquid pipelines,
they previously issued about 30 recommendations over the past 30 years
either directly or indirectly related to SCADA systems involving both
hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline systems. The NTSB's SCADA
Safety Study and the CCERT project yielded many similar findings. PHMSA
identified some additional areas of concern. The recommendations from
the NTSB's SCADA Safety Study are as follows:
Require operators of hazardous liquid pipelines to follow
the American Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice 1165 [API RP
1165] for the use of graphics on the SCADA screens.
Require pipeline companies to have a policy for the
review/audit of alarms.
Require controller training to include simulator or non-
computerized simulations for controller recognition of abnormal
operating conditions, in particular, leak events.
Change the liquid accident reporting form (PHMSA F 7000-1)
and require operators to provide data related to controller fatigue.
Require operators to install computer-based leak detection
systems on all lines unless engineering analysis determined that such a
system is not necessary.
PHMSA plans to address the first four recommendations listed above
within the CCERT Project. PHMSA plans to address the leak detection
recommendation separately.
The NTSB previously recommended PHMSA address human factors by
establishing scientifically based hours of service regulations that set
limits on hours of service, provide predictable work and rest
schedules, and consider circadian rhythms and human sleep and rest
requirements. The NTSB also recommended PHMSA assess the potential
safety risks associated with rotating pipeline controller shifts and
establish industry guidelines for the development and implementation of
pipeline controller work schedules to reduce the likelihood of
accidents attributable to controller fatigue. In response, PHMSA held a
meeting on fatigue and issued Advisory Bulletin ADB-05-06,
``Countermeasures to Prevent Human Fatigue in the Control Room'' (70 FR
46917; August 11, 2005).
This workshop will provide information and promote discussion on
the most critical factors emerging from the certification study project
and the NTSB recommendations affecting controlling the operation of
natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. Meetings with state
pipeline regulators, pipeline operators, academia, members of the
public, parallel industry representatives, vendors and simulator
specialists to conduct analyses and evaluations help frame PHMSA's
findings. PHMSA is preparing a Report to Congress summarizing its
findings regarding pipeline controller training, qualification programs
and validation techniques to address the PSIA 2002 section 13(b)(2).
PHMSA plans to submit its findings to Congress by the end of the year.
In the workshop, PHMSA will first present pilot program initial
findings. PHMSA will provide an opportunity to discuss these findings
as a basis for potential future regulatory enhancements and other
actions to provide further assurance about the effectiveness of
pipeline control and the skills and qualifications of controllers.
PHMSA is encouraging public participation on the path forward. PHMSA
will want to discuss what follow-up action is needed for each topic--
for example, regulation, consensus standard, or advisory.
Preliminary Meeting Agenda for CCERT Workshop
This workshop will focus on the topics listed below. PHMSA will
provide a summary on the critical nature of each topic in validating
the effectiveness of pipeline control room operations and controller
programs, followed by panel discussions and an opportunity for
interested parties to provide comments.
Shift Operations
The exchange of information between controllers at shift change is
critical for the controller going on shift who needs to know about
operating conditions that may directly impact pipeline safety. PHMSA
believes operators should have formalized procedures to control shift
rotation schedules and guide shift change-over practices.
What role do shift change procedures have in averting the
development of abnormal and emergency situations?
Do existing shift rotation schedules, shift length, and
hours of service protect against the onset of fatigue?
Effectiveness of Pipeline Control Room Operations
PHMSA believes operators need to provide clear direction regarding
the controller's authority and responsibility to ensure prompt
detection and appropriate response to abnormal and emergency operating
conditions.
Do operators clearly communicate authority and
responsibility expectations to their controllers?
Fatigue
PHMSA believes operators should limit controller shifts and provide
periodic training on fatigue issues to controllers.
What should be done regarding controller work hour
limitations?
[[Page 25643]]
Should we be concerned about employees' non-work hours
that contribute to fatigue?
Should PHMSA modify its reporting criteria on accident
causes to reflect controller issues? If so, what areas should we
address?
Management of Change
PHMSA believes operators should establish programs to: Periodically
audit field data points with SCADA displays; develop integration plans
affecting controllers during acquisition and divestitures; ensure
including consultation with controllers when considering pipeline
hydraulic, SCADA, or configuration changes; and track expedient
resolution of controller-oriented changes and repairs.
When changes occur in the operating environment affecting
controllers, how do we ensure those changes are fully addressed and
conveyed to controllers?
Alarms and Event Displays
Alarms and event displays provide information on potential
precursors or indicators of abnormal operating conditions. Controllers
should clearly understand displayed information and what specific
alarms and event displays indicate. PHMSA believes it is important for
operators to routinely review alarms and event displays to identify the
need for revisions to alarm and event management systems.
How significant are alarm parameters, alarm management,
and the periodic review of alarms to pipeline safety and integrity?
What impacts do alarm descriptors, display parameters, and
the use of color have on providing precise operational information to
controllers?
Access Control
PHMSA believes operators should have measures in place to protect
against unauthorized access to SCADA control consoles; configure SCADA
systems for individual log-ins; and perform background checks on
controllers.
Are there additional measures needed to address controller
room access to SCADA systems?
Qualification of Personnel
PHMSA believes simulators and tabletop exercises are valuable tools
to help familiarize controllers with the hydraulic response of the
pipeline system and improve their recognition of abnormal and emergency
conditions. A controller's thorough knowledge of pipeline system
hydraulic response is critical to recognizing abnormal operating
condition development. PHMSA believes operators should incorporate
tabletop exercises, and/or computerized simulations and field visits to
enhance controller training.
How can computer-based simulator training and tabletop
exercises enhance controller skills?
What are the benefits of training controllers on specific
pipeline hydraulic parameters and response to various abnormal
operating conditions?
What value can controllers get from facility visits and
site-specific emergency issues?
Regulating Operating Conditions
Incidents, accidents, safety-related condition reports and operator
qualification inspections indicate the need for enhanced controller
skills on prompt, appropriate response regarding the recognition of
abnormal operating conditions and emergency conditions. Parallel
industries have identified the need to develop training around
combinations of abnormal operating conditions and operating experience.
PHMSA believes operators should address abnormal operating conditions
occurring frequently and in combinations.
How can we better identify and train operators to handle
abnormal operating events?
What roles can operational events play in identifying
emergency operating conditions?
How do we plan for and identify multiple contributing
causes/factors when incidents and accidents occur?
What role do controllers have in reacting and responding
to incidents/accidents?
Maintaining Personnel Qualifications
Operator qualification inspection summaries and CCERT industry
review indicate operators frequently do not substantiate re-
qualification intervals for controllers. Many operators' programs do
not provide guidance to determine when a controller needs refresher
training, needs more training, or needs to requalify after
disqualification. PHMSA believes these attributes should be
incorporated into operators' qualification programs.
What process best serves to validate controllers' skills
and knowledge?
What forms of justification are adequate to substantiate
requalification intervals?
Should the operator qualification process include
documentation of revocation and restoration criteria?
Monitoring Performance
PHMSA has determined that some operators configure SCADA systems to
portray critical information using color alone without verifying the
controllers' ability to perceive color. Similar circumstances may exist
concerning eyesight and hearing. PHMSA believes that operators should
periodically verify that controllers have adequate color perception,
eyesight, and hearing.
What practical techniques can be used to track ongoing
performance and monitor for performance degradation over time?
How would a pipeline operator determine and test for
adequate color perception, eyesight, and hearing?
Path Forward
PHMSA believes these findings apply in varying degrees to both
hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline operators. The path forward
may include some of the following options: Public workshop discussions,
reinforcement of existing regulations, consensus standards development,
advisory bulletins, revised inspection guidance, accident/incident form
revisions, enhancements to PHMSA incident/accident inspector training,
SCADA inspections, or rulemaking.
Which of these recommendations should apply to both
hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline operators?
What areas should we focus on in addressing the NTSB
recommendations and CCERT Project findings?
What findings need regulatory action, if any? Are there
other types of actions needed, such as consensus standards or
advisories?
The Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Advisory
Committee
Wednesday, June 28 (8 a.m. to 9 a.m.)
The THLPSSC will meet to discuss and vote on the NPRM, Integrity
Management: Program Modifications and Clarifications (70 FR 74265;
December 5, 2005). PHMSA proposes revisions to the current Pipeline
Safety Regulations for Pipeline Integrity Management in High
Consequence Areas. The revisions address a petition from the hazardous
liquid pipeline industry. The proposed revisions are to: (1) Allow more
flexibility in reassessment intervals for hazardous liquid pipelines by
adding an eight-month window to the five-year time frame for operators
to complete reassessment; and (2) require both hazardous liquid
pipeline and transmission pipeline operators to notify PHMSA whenever
they reduce pipeline pressure to make a repair and to provide reasons
for pressure reduction. Another notification,
[[Page 25644]]
including reasons for repair delay, would occur when a pressure
reduction exceeds 365 days. Also, PHMSA proposes to correct existing
provisions for calculating a pressure reduction when making an
immediate repair on a hazardous liquid pipeline. The proposed
correction would allow operators to use another acceptable method to
calculate reduced operating pressure when a specified formula is not
applicable or results in a calculated pressure higher than operating
pressure. Finally, PHMSA seeks the submittal of engineering analyses
and technical data. These submittals are to provide the basis for
modifying the required time periods for remediating certain conditions
found during a hazardous liquid pipeline integrity assessment. PHMSA
will use this data to evaluate the scope and scale of repair issues to
develop an accurate basis for determining if any additional flexibility
is needed in the repair schedules.
Joint Meetings of the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee and the Technical Pipelines Safety Standards
Committee
Wednesday, June 28 (9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
The THLPSSC and TPSSC will hold a joint session from 9:30 am. to
4:30 p.m. to discuss the following regulatory matters.
Preliminary Agenda for the Joint Meetings
The day's agenda includes these topics:
Reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act--Discuss
status.
Data Improvement/Balance Scorecard--Discuss a variety of
data quality improvements. Introduce the concept of a company
performance scorecard to measure and manage company safety and
compliance programs.
Performance Measures/Metrics--Discuss continuing efforts
to improve pipeline safety by concentrating performance measures on
serious incidents as a natural outgrowth of integrity management.
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure--Discuss the waiver
process criteria for reconsideration of the maximum allowable operating
pressure of pipelines in certain class locations.
Operator Qualification--Discuss the comments received from
the public meeting on the subject held on December 15, 2005 (70 FR
62162). The meeting provided an opportunity to discuss progress on the
operator qualification program and to help PHMSA prepare the Report to
Congress and the potential the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
consensus standard offers for strengthening operator qualification
programs.
Controller Certification Pilot Program--Provide a summary
of the comprehensive review of existing controller qualification
procedures and practices in industry and describe the recommendations
drafted for inclusion in the draft report to Congress. Discuss NTSB
recommendations on SCADA and human fatigue and report on solutions
considered in preparation for the public workshop.
Public Education (PANEL)--Discuss the PHMSA Public
Education Policy Statement and the status of a national clearinghouse
to review updated operator plans. Brief members on the status of the
sensitive security information designation of the PHMSA National
Pipeline Mapping System availability to the public. Discuss the Common
Ground Alliances' status of the Dial 811 initiative and promote the
success of the Regional Common Ground Alliances and the need to have
one in every state.
Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee Meeting
Wednesday, June 28 (5 p.m. to 6 p.m.)
The TPSSC will meet from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. to address the following
two topics:
Internal Corrosion--Discuss and vote on ``Design and
Construction Standards to Reduce Internal Corrosion in Gas Transmission
Pipelines'' (70 FR 74262; 12-15-05). This document proposes regulations
on the control of internal corrosion when designing and constructing
new and replaced gas transmission pipelines. The proposed rule would
require an operator to take steps in design and construction to reduce
the risk that liquids collecting within the pipeline could result in
failures because of internal corrosion. These changes would ease steps
an operator must take in operating and maintaining the pipeline to
minimize internal corrosion.
Gas Distribution-DIMP/Excess Flow Valves--Provide an
update on the regulatory proposal and an update on Gas Pipeline
Technology Committee guidance development.
PHMSA will post more detailed agendas and any additional
information or changes on its Web page (http://phmsa.dot.gov)
approximately 15 days before the meeting date.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60102, 60115.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 26, 2006.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 06-4093 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.732438 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-4093.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6511 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25644-25645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6511]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research & Innovative Technology Administration
[Docket No. RITA-2005-23343]
Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Report
of Extension of Credit to Political Candidates
AGENCY: Research & Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau
of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) this notice announces that the
Information Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget for extension of currently approved
reporting requirements. Earlier, a Federal Register Notice with a 60-
day comment period was published on February 3, 2006 (71 FR 5905). The
agency did not receive any comments to its previous notice.
DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 31, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline
Information, RTS-42, Room 4125, RITA, BTS, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4387, Fax Number
(202) 366-3383 or e-mail [email protected].
Comments: Comments should be sent to OMB at the address that
appears below and should identify the associated OMB Approval Number
2138-0016 and Docket Number RITA-2005-23343.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Approval No.: 2138-0016.
Title: Report of Extension of Credit to Political Candidates.
Form No.: 183.
Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved reporting
requirement.
Respondents: Certificated air carriers.
Number of Respondents: 2 (Monthly Average).
Total Annual Burden: 24 hours.
Needs and Uses: The Department uses this form as the means to
fulfill its
[[Page 25645]]
obligation under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (the Act).
The Act's legislative history indicates that one of its statutory goals
is to prevent candidates for Federal political office from incurring
large amounts of unsecured debt with regulated transportation companies
(e.g. airlines). This information collection allows the Department to
monitor and disclose the amount of unsecured credit extended by
airlines to candidates for Federal office. All certificated air
carriers are required to submit this information.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency
Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to
clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes.
BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the
information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical
purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both
Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to
agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in
regulatory and other administrative matters.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 715-17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention RITA Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on whether the proposed retention of records
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department of Transportation.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2006.
Donald W. Bright,
Assistant Director, Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
[FR Doc. E6-6511 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.760967 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6511.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6512 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6512]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research & Innovative Technology Administration
[Docket No. RITA-2005-23342]
Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Part
249 Preservation of Records
AGENCY: Research & Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau
of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) this notice announces that the
Information Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget for extension of currently approved
record retention requirements. Earlier, a Federal Register Notice with
a 60-day comment period was published on February 3, 2006 (71 FR 5903).
The agency did not receive any comments to its previous notice.
DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 31, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline
Information, RTS-42, Room 4125, RITA, BTS, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4387, Fax Number
(202) 366-3383 or e-mail [email protected].
Comments: Comments should be sent to OMB at the address that
appears below and should identify the associated OMB Approval Number
2138-0006 and Docket RITA-2005-23342.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Approval No.: 2138-0006.
Title: Preservation of Air Carrier Records--14 CFR Part 249 .
Form No.: None.
Type Of Review: Extension of a currently approved recordkeeping
requirement.
Respondents: Certificated air carriers and charter operators.
Number of Respondents: 120 certificated air carriers. 300 charter
operators.
Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours per certificated air carrier.
1 hour per charter operator.
Total Annual Burden: 660 hours.
Needs and Uses: Part 249 requires the retention of records such as:
General and subsidiary ledgers, journals and journal vouchers, voucher
distribution registers, accounts receivable and payable journals and
legers, subsidy records documenting underlying financial and
statistical reports to DOT, funds reports, consumer records, sales
reports, auditors' and flight coupons, air waybills, etc. Depending on
the nature of the document, the carrier may be required to retain the
document for a period of 30 days to 3 years. Public charter operators
and overseas military personnel charter operators must retain documents
which evidence or reflect deposits made by each charter participant and
commissions received by, paid to, or deducted by travel agents, and all
statements, invoices, bills and receipts from suppliers or furnishers
of goods and services in connection with the tour or charter. These
records are retained for 6 months after completion of the charter
program.
Not only is it imperative that carriers and charter operators
retain source documentation, but it is critical that we ensure that DOT
has access to these records. Given DOT's established information needs
for such reports, the underlying support documentation must be retained
for a reasonable period of time. Absent the retention requirements, the
support for such reports may or may not exist for audit/validation
purposes and the relevance and usefulness of the carrier submissions
would be impaired, since the data could not be verified to the source
on a test basis.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 715-17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention RITA Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on whether the proposed retention of records
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department of Transportation.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2006.
Donald W. Bright,
Assistant Director, Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
[FR Doc. E6-6512 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.774440 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6512.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6533 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25645-25646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6533]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research & Innovative Technology Administration
[Docket No.: RITA-2005-23755]
Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review;
Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Report
AGENCY: Research & Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau
of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) this notice announces that the
Information Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget for extension of currently approved
reporting requirements. Earlier, a Federal Register Notice with a 60-
day comment period was published on February 3, 2006 (71 FR 5904). The
agency did not receive any comments to its previous notice.
[[Page 25646]]
DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 31, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline
Information, RTS-42, Room 4125, RITA, BTS, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4387, Fax Number
(202) 366-3383 or E-MAIL [email protected].
Comments: Comments should be sent to OMB at the address that
appears below and should identify the associated OMB Number 2139-0001
and Docket Number RITA-2005-23755.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Approval No.: 2139-0001.
Title: Passenger Origin-Destination Survey Report.
Form No.: None.
Type Of Review: Extension of a currently approved reporting
requirement.
Respondents: Large certificated air carriers.
Number of Respondents: 32.
Total Annual Burden: 30,720 hours.
Needs and Uses: Survey data are used in monitoring the airline
industry, negotiating international air agreements, selecting new
international routes, selecting U.S. carriers to operate limited entry
international routes, forecasting future traffic demands, and modeling
the spread of contagious diseases from foreign countries.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency
Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to
clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes.
BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the
information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical
purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both
Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to
agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in
regulatory and other administrative matters.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 715-17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention RITA Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on whether the proposed retention of records
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department of Transportation.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2006.
Donald W. Bright,
Assistant Director, Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
[FR Doc. E6-6533 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.795997 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6533.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6475 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6475]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 944-SS and Form
944-PR
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment
on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning
Form 944-SS, Employer's ANNUAL Federal Tax Return (American Samoa,
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
Form 944-PR, Planilla para la Declaracion ANNUAL de la Cotribucion
Federal del Patrono.
DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 30, 2006
to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal
Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph
Durbala, (202) 622-3634, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet
at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Employer's ANNUAL Federal Tax Return (American Samoa, Guam,
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands and Form 944-
PR, Planilla para la Declaracion ANNUAL de la Cotribucion Federal del
Patrono.
OMB Number: 1545-2010.
Form Number: Form 944-SS and Form 944-PR.
Abstract: Form 944-SS and Form 944-PR are designed so the smallest
employers (those whose annual liability for social security and
Medicare taxes is $1,000 or less) will have to file and pay these taxes
only once a year instead of every quarter.
Current Actions: There is no change in the paperwork burden
previously approved by OMB. This form is being submitted for renewal
purposes only.
Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit organizations,
Farms.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 20,000.
Estimated Time Per Respondent: 9 hours 34 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 191,200.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of
information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records
relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as
their contents may become material in the administration of any
internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information
are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice
will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All
comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited
on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e)
estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation,
maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Approved: April 24, 2006.
Glenn P. Kirkland,
IRS Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-6475 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.811203 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6475.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6479 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 25647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6479]
[[Page 25647]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 637 Questionnaires
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment
on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning
Questionnaires A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, K, M, Q, R, S, T, UP, UV, V,
W, X, and Y, Form 637 Questionnaires.
DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 30, 2006
to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal
Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of Form 637 Questionnaires should be directed to R. Joseph
Durbala, (202) 622-3634, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet
at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Form 637 Questionnaires.
OMB Number: 1545-1835.
Form Number: Questionnaires A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, K, M, Q, R,
S, T, UP, UV, V, W, X, and Y.
Abstract: Form 637 Questionnaires will be used to collect
information about persons who are registered with the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) in accordance with Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section
4104 or 4222. The information will be used to make an informed decision
on whether the applicant/registrant qualifies for registration.
Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the schedules
at this time.
Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,840.
Estimated Average Time Per Respondent: 1 hour, 14 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,479.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of
information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records
relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as
their contents may become material in the administration of any
internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information
are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice
will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All
comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited
on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e)
estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation,
maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Approved: April 25, 2006.
R. Joseph Durbala,
IRS Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-6479 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.840046 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6479.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6480 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25647-25648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6480]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC);
Nominations
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Request for nominations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requests nominations of
individuals to be considered for selection as Information Reporting
Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC) members. Individuals or interested
organizations may nominate themselves and/or a qualified person for
membership. Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies and
should describe and document the applicants qualifications for
membership. IRPAC can be comprised of no more than twenty-three (23)
members. There are six (6) positions open for calendar year 2007. It is
important that the IRPAC continue to represent a diverse taxpayer and
stakeholder base. Accordingly, to maintain membership diversity,
selection is based on applicant's qualifications as well as the segment
or group he/she represents.
The IRPAC advises the IRS on information reporting issues of mutual
concern to the private sector and the federal government. The committee
works with the Commissioner and other IRS executives to provide
recommendations on a wide range of information reporting administration
issues. Membership is balanced to include representation from the tax
professional community, small and large businesses, state tax
administration, colleges and universities, insurance, securities,
payroll and other industries.
DATES: Written nominations must be received on or before July 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent to Ms. Caryl Grant, National
Public Liaison, CL:NPL:SRM, Room 7559 IR, 1111 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20224, Attn: IRPAC Nominations. Applications may be
submitted by mail to the address above or faxed to 202-622-8345.
Application packages are available on the Tax Professional's Page,
which is located on the IRS Internet Web site at http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/index.html. Application packages may also be requested by
telephone from National Public Liaison, 202-927-3641 (not a toll-free
number).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Caryl Grant, at 202-927-3641 (not
a toll-free number) or *[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IRPAC was established in 1991 in response to
an administrative recommendation in the final Conference Report of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989. Since its inception, IRPAC
has worked closely with the Internal Revenue Service (``IRS'') to
provide recommendations on a wide range of issues intended to improve
the information reporting program and achieve fairness to taxpayers.
IRPAC members are drawn from and represent a broad sample of industries
including the payroll community, major
[[Page 25648]]
professional and trade associations, colleges and universities,
insurance, banking, securities, state taxing agencies and other
industries.
Conveying the public's perception of IRS activities to the
Commissioner, the IRPAC is comprised of individuals who bring
substantial, disparate experience and diverse backgrounds on the
Committee's activities.
IRPAC members are appointed by the Commissioner and serve a term of
three years with approximately one third of the member's terms expiring
each year. Working groups address policies and administration issues
specific to information reporting. Members are not paid for their
services. However, travel expenses for working sessions, public
meetings and orientation sessions, such as airfare, per diem, and
transportation to and from airports, train stations, etc., are
reimbursed within prescribed federal travel limitations.
Receipt of applications will be acknowledged, and all individuals
will be notified when selections have been made. In accordance with
Department of Treasury Directive 21-03, a clearance process including,
pre-appointment and annual tax checks, and a Federal Bureau of
Investigation criminal and subversive name check through fingerprinting
will be conducted on the final applicants.
Equal opportunity practices will be followed for all appointments
to the IRPAC in accordance with the Department of Treasury and IRS
policies. To ensure that the recommendations of the IRPAC have taken
into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the IRS,
membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals who
demonstrate the ability to represent minorities, women, and persons
with disabilities. The Secretary of Treasury will review the
recommended candidates and make final selections.
Dated: April 24, 2006.
Cynthia Vanderpool,
Designated Federal Official, National Public Liaison.
[FR Doc. E6-6480 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.878626 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6480.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6478 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25648-25649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6478]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To
Expatriate, as Required by Section 6039G
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with IRC section 6039G,
as amended, by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPPA) of 1996. This listing contains the name of each individual
losing United States citizenship (within the meaning of section 877(a))
with respect to whom the Secretary received information during the
quarter ending March 31, 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last name First name Middle name/initials
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARDINER............................. LINDA........................
HAUSER............................... BERNHARD..................... D.
NAYLOR............................... BRENT........................ G.
NAYLOR............................... K............................ GAYLE
FURBERT.............................. HELEN........................ MARIE
CALACE............................... BARBARA...................... CLARA
BOULLE............................... NATHALIE..................... A.
KATARIA.............................. TARUN........................
COMBS................................ MARIELUISE................... HORBER
DICKERSON............................ WILLIAM...................... J.
DICKERSON............................ JANISE.......................
ESER................................. FLORIDA...................... O.
BALDWIN.............................. WONG......................... KWOK LEARN
NICHOLIS............................. HUMPHREY..................... ..........................................
PETTERSSON........................... JAN.......................... B.
EICHLER.............................. KRISTA.......................
WITT................................. ALEXANDRA....................
KADOORIE............................. NATALIE...................... LOUISE
ESCOUFLAIRE.......................... ANNETTE......................
GILLIAM.............................. TERENCE...................... VANCE
PARK................................. KANG......................... OP
WATKINS.............................. FE........................... ALAAN
BERGERIOUX........................... ANTHONY...................... G.
SAM.................................. CHOON........................ HAN
MCKECHNIE............................ MICHAEL...................... M.
HERMANSON............................ MINA......................... KRISTINE
GREENBERG............................ MARYANA......................
HAMILTON............................. JANET........................
SILVER............................... ROBERT....................... SPENCER
VERWER............................... DANIEL....................... FEDERICO
BIRCHFIELD........................... STEVEN....................... ELLIS
METWALLY............................. MOHAMED......................
ELSAS................................ OSKAR........................ LEO
FERNANDEZ............................ MANUEL....................... URIA
DENG................................. SUK-YEE...................... F.
KIM.................................. ANNE.........................
MCDONALD............................. ELEANOR...................... ANN
JEUN................................. WOOYONG...................... JUDY
NILSSON.............................. KIRSTEN......................
COUILLARD............................ FELICIA...................... DAWN
PARK................................. YONG KON..................... RAPHAEL
MASSETT.............................. ELLEN........................
STRUBEN.............................. RICHARD...................... L.
[[Page 25649]]
HAINAULT............................. TALBOT.......................
RICHWELL............................. RHETT........................ TERRENCE
QUINTANA............................. JYTTE........................
NOWAK................................ ELAINE....................... URSULA
BLANK................................ WALTER....................... GERHARD
BSEISU............................... AMJAD........................
FISHER............................... JOHN.........................
WOUTERS.............................. JOHAN........................
LI................................... KENNETH...................... BENJAMIN
CHOW................................. SAVIO........................ S.
GARDINER............................. ELIZABETH....................
SUSANNE......................
RUDGE................................ PENELOPE..................... JANE
UTZSCHNEIDER......................... SUSANNE......................
KIM.................................. SUNG......................... SOO
LORENCEAU............................ CHARLES...................... ANTOINE
WETTERLIN............................ ALLISON...................... LOUISE
PRESTGARD............................ LOUANN.......................
SUMMITT.............................. HEINRICH..................... JOSEF
SCHOENFELD........................... JOSEPHINE.................... A.
FOSTER............................... STEPHEN...................... M.
SCHOENFELD........................... ARTHUR....................... D.
PAIZ DE ESCOBAR...................... CLAUDIA...................... LUCIA
WU................................... CINDY........................ S.
CHASE................................ ROBERT....................... ROBERTS
RICHARDSON........................... ALMA......................... CATHERINE
CLEVELAND............................ STEVEN....................... WILLIAM
PELHAM............................... CLARE........................ JOHANNA
BAMFORD.............................. JOSEPH.......................
HEIKENFELD........................... MARK......................... IAN
MARCIL............................... ADRIANA...................... GERALDINE
LUNDSDAL............................. OLOF......................... NICKOLAUS
GOODER............................... RICHARD...................... DENNIS
LOPEZ III............................ JOSE......................... JOAQUIN
PHILLIPS............................. ANDREW....................... CORENTON
PRZYBYLSKI........................... AE........................... MARTIN
DRAKE................................ SEAN......................... PATRICK
PRICE................................ MALIYA....................... ANN
LABRIE............................... PETER........................ CHARDON
BOND................................. PETER........................ J.
DORRELL.............................. DAVID........................ R.
DORRELL.............................. ANGELA....................... M.
STRYKER.............................. DEANNA.......................
VASWANI.............................. KIRAN........................ HANEET
SVENSSON............................. INGRID.......................
AUGESTAD............................. LIV.......................... BERIT HIRSCH
COHEN................................ DAN.......................... ALAN
ROLLO................................ TERRENCE..................... RD
KIMMERLE............................. HORST........................
OBERAI............................... ANJUL........................
THIBAUT.............................. DIANE........................ M.
PETERS-BAXSTEVENS.................... KAREN........................ IDA
HILL................................. TRISTRAM..................... W.
HILL................................. SUSAN........................ E.
BEER................................. SUSAN........................ GENE
HARRIS............................... JUDITH....................... M.
BARRUS............................... JOHN......................... P.
KIM.................................. SEONGMOON....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: April 17, 2006.
Angie Kaminski,
Examinations Operations, Philadelphia Compliance Services.
[FR Doc. E6-6478 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.908084 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6478.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/E6-6476 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25649-25650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6476]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (including the
states of Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Nevada)
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 7 committee of the Taxpayer
Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer
Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue
Service. The TAP will use citizen input to make
[[Page 25650]]
recommendations to the Internal Revenue Service.
DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 24, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227, or
206-220-6096.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988)
that an open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held
Wednesday, May 24, 2006 from 2 p.m. Pacific Time to 3 p.m. Pacific Time
via a telephone conference call. The public is invited to make oral
comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you
would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-
888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Dave Coffman, TAP Office, 915
2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Due to limited conference lines, notification of
intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be
made with Dave Coffman. Mr. Coffman can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or
206-220-6096.
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
Dated: April 20, 2006.
Bernard Coston,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E6-6476 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.931704 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/E6-6476.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/C6-3833 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Corrections]
[Pages 25651-25652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C6-3833]
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 2006 /
Corrections
[[Page 25651]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
[CMS-2235-NC]
RIN 0938-AO38
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP); Redistribution
of Unexpended SCHIP Funds From the Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2003;
Additional Allotments to Eliminate SCHIP Fiscal Year 2006 Funding
Shortfalls; and Provisions for Continued Authority for Qualifying
States to Use a Portion of Certain SCHIP Funds for Medicaid
Expenditures
Correction
In notice document 06-3833 beginning on page 20697 in the issue of
Friday, April 21, 2006 make the following correction:
On page 20705 the graphic should appear as follows:
[[Page 25652]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01MY06.000
[FR Doc. C6-3833 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:35.951724 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/C6-3833.htm"
} |
FR | FR-2006-05-01/06-3982 | Federal Register Volume 71 Issue 83 (May 1, 2006) | 2006-05-01T00:00:00 | United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register | [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25654-25704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3982]
[[Page 25653]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 CFR Parts 411, 414, and 424
Medicare Program; Competitive Acquisition for Certain Durable Medical
Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) and Other
Issues; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 2006 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 25654]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Parts 411, 414, and 424
[CMS-1270-P]
RIN 0938-AN14
Medicare Program; Competitive Acquisition for Certain Durable
Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) and
Other Issues
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement competitive bidding
programs for certain covered items of durable medical equipment,
prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) throughout the United
States in accordance with sections 1847(a) and (b) of the Social
Security Act (the Act). These programs would change the way that
Medicare pays for these items under Part B of the Medicare program by
utilizing bids submitted by DMEPOS suppliers to establish applicable
payment amounts. We would phase in these programs over several years.
This proposed rule would also detail requirements for CMS approved
accreditation organizations that will be applying quality standards for
all DMEPOS suppliers, including DMEPOS suppliers that participate in
the DMEPOS competitive bidding program. In addition, this rule proposes
a new fee schedule for home dialysis supplies and equipment still paid
on a reasonable charge basis. This proposed rule would also clarify our
policy on the scope of the statutory eyeglass coverage exclusion. We
are proposing to specify in regulations that the eyeglass exclusion
encompasses all devices that use lenses to aid vision or provide
magnification of images for impaired vision. Further, this proposed
rule would implement a revised methodology for calculating fee schedule
amounts for new DMEPOS items.
DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 30, 2006.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1270-P. Because
of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by
facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates,
please):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on specific
issues in this regulation to http://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking.
(Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel;
however, we prefer Microsoft Word.)
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments (one original and
two copies) to the following address only: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention:
CMS-1270-P, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244-8013.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received
before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments (one
original and two copies) to the following address only: Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services,
Attention: CMS-1270-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or
courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the
close of the comment period to one of the following addresses. If you
intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call
telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival
with one of our staff members. Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building,
200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
(Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily
available to persons without Federal Government identification,
commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots
located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is
available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping
in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand
or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment
period.
Submission of comments on paperwork requirements. You may submit
comments on this document's paperwork requirements by mailing your
comments to the addresses provided at the end of the ``Collection of
Information Requirements'' section in this document.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lorrie Ballantine, (410) 786-7543--Overall implementation.
Joel Kaiser, (410) 786-4499--Overall implementation.
Michael Keane, (410) 786-4495--Overall implementation.
Walter Rutemueller, (410) 786-5395--Overall implementation.
Linda Smith, (410) 786-5650--Quality Standards and Accreditation.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting Comments: We welcome comments from the public on all
issues set forth in this rule to assist us in fully considering issues
and developing policies. You can assist us by referencing the file code
CMS-1270-P and the specific ``issue identifier'' that precedes the
section on which you choose to comment.
Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the
close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public,
including any personally identifiable or confidential business
information that is included in a comment. CMS posts all electronic
comments received before the close of the comment period on its public
Web site as soon as possible after they have been received. Hard copy
comments received timely will be available for public inspection as
they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after
publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore,
Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-
743-3951.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Payment Under Reasonable Charges
B. Payment Under Fee Schedules
C. Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System (HCPCS)
D. Medicare Competitive Bidding Demonstrations
E. Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003
F. Deficit Reduction Act (DRA)
G. Program Advisory and Oversight Committee
H. Quality Standards for Suppliers of (DMEPOS)
I. Accreditation for Suppliers of DMEPOS and Other Items
J. Low Vision Aid Exclusion
K. Establishing Fee Schedule Amounts for New DMEPOS Items
L. New Fee Schedules for Home Dialysis Supplies and Equipment
[[Page 25655]]
M. Covered Item Updates for Class III DME for CYs 2007 and 2008
II. Provisions of the Proposed Regulations
A. Purpose and Definitions (Proposed Sec. 414.400 and Sec.
414.402)
B. Implementation Contractor (Proposed Sec. 414.406)
C. Payment Basis (Proposed Sec. 414.408)
1. Payment Basis (Proposed Sec. 414.408(a))
2. General Payment Rules (Proposed Sec. 414.408(c)-(j))
3. Special Rules for Certain Rented Items of DME and Oxygen
(Grandfathering of Suppliers) (Proposed Sec. 414.408(k))
a. Process for Grandfathering Suppliers
b. Payment Amounts to Grandfathered Suppliers
(1) Grandfathering of Suppliers Furnishing Items Prior to the
First Competitive Bidding Program in an Area (Proposed Sec.
414.408(k))
(2) Suppliers That Lose Their Contract Status in a Subsequent
Competitive Bidding Program
c. Payment for Accessories for Items Subject to Grandfathering
4. Payment Adjustment to Account for Inflation (Proposed Sec.
414.408(b))
5. Authority to Adjust Payments in Other Areas (Proposed Sec.
414.408(e))
6. Requirement to Obtain Competitively Bid Items From a Contract
Supplier (Proposed Sec. 414.408(f))
7. Limitation on Beneficiary Liability for Items Furnished by
Non Contract Suppliers (Proposed Sec. 414.408(f))
D. Competitive Bidding Areas
1. Proposed Methodology for MSA Selection for 2007 and 2009
Competitive Bidding Programs (Proposed Sec. 414.410)
a. MSAs for 2007
b. MSAs for 2009
2. Establishing Competitive Bidding Areas (Proposed Sec.
414.410)
a. Authority to Exempt Rural Areas and Areas With Low Population
Density Within Urban Areas (Proposed Sec. 414.410(c))
b. Establishing the Competitive Bidding Areas for 2007 and 2009
(Proposed Sec. 414.410(b))
c. Nationwide or Regional Mail Order Competitive Bidding Program
(Proposed Sec. 414.410(d)(2))
d. Additional Competitive Bidding Areas After 2009 (Proposed
Sec. 414.410(d))
E. Criteria for Item Selection
F. Submission of Bids Under the Competitive Bidding Program
(Proposed Sec. 414.412)
1. Providers (Proposed Sec. 414.404 and 414.422)
2. Physicians (Proposed Sec. 414.422)
3. Product Categories for Bidding Purposes (Proposed Sec.
414.412)
4. Bidding Requirements (Proposed Sec. 414.408)
a. Inexpensive or Other Routinely Purchased DME Items
b. DME Items Requiring Frequent and Substantial Servicing
c. Oxygen and Oxygen Equipment
d. Capped Rental Items
e. Enteral Equipment and Supplies
f. Maintenance and Servicing of Enteral Infusion Pumps
g. Supplies Used in Conjunction With DME
h. OTS Orthotics
G. Conditions for Awarding Contracts (Proposed Sec. 414.414)
1. Quality Standards and Accreditation (Proposed Sec.
414.414(c))
2. Eligibility (Proposed Sec. 414.414(b))
3. Financial Standards (Proposed Sec. 414.414(d))
4. Evaluation of Bids (Proposed Sec. 414.414(e))
a. Market Demand and Supplier Capacity (Proposed Sec.
414.414(e))
b. Composite Bids (Proposed Sec. 414.414(e))
c. Determine the Pivotal Bid (Proposed Sec. 414.414(e))
d. Assurance of Savings (Proposed Sec. 414.414(f))
e. Assurance of Multiple Contractors (Proposed Sec. 414.414(g))
f. Selection of New Suppliers After Bidding (Proposed Sec.
414.414(h))
H. Determining Single Payment Amounts for Individual Items
(Proposed Sec. 414.416)
1. Setting Single Payment Amounts for Individual Items (Proposed
Sec. 414.416(b))
2. Rebate Program (Proposed Sec. 414.416(c))
I. Terms of Contracts (Proposed Sec. 414.422)
1. Terms and Conditions of Contracts
2. Furnishing of Items (Proposed Sec. 414.422(c))
3. Repairs and Replacements of Patient Owned Items Subject to
Competitive Bidding (Proposed Sec. 414.422(c))
4. Furnishing Items to Beneficiaries Whose Permanent Residence
Is Within a CBA
5. Furnishing Items to Beneficiaries Whose Permanent Residence
Is Outside a CBA
6. Information Collection from the Supplier
7. Change in Ownership (Proposed Sec. 414.422(d))
8. Suspension or Termination of a Contract (Proposed Sec.
414.422(f))
J. Administrative or Judicial Review (Proposed Sec. 414.424)
K. Opportunity for Participation by Small Suppliers
L. Opportunity for Networks (Proposed Sec. 414.418)
M. Education and Outreach
1. Supplier Education
2. Beneficiary Education
N. Monitoring and Complaint Services for the Competitive Bidding
Program
O. Physician Authorization/Treating Practitioner and
Consideration of Clinical Efficiency and Value of Items in
Determining Categories for Bids (Proposed Sec. 414.420)
P. Quality Standards and Accreditation for Suppliers of DMEPOS
1. Special Payment Rules for Items Furnished by DMEPOS Suppliers
and Issuance of DMEPOS Supplier Billing Privileges (Proposed Sec.
424.57)
2. Accreditation (Proposed Sec. 424.58)
3. Ongoing Responsibilities of CMS Approved Accreditation
Organizations
4. Continuing Federal Oversight of Approved Accreditation
Organizations
a. Equivalency Review
b. Validation Review
c. Notice of Intent To Withdraw Approval for Deeming Authority
d. Withdrawal of Approval for Deeming Authority
e. Reconsideration
Q. Low Vision Aid Exclusion (Proposed Sec. 414.15)
R. Establishing Payment Amounts for New DMEPOS (Gap-filling)
(Proposed Sec. 414.210(g))
S. Fee Schedules for Home DialysIs Supplies and Equipment
(Proposed Sec. 414.107)
T. Fee Schedules for Therapeutic Shoes (Proposed Sec.
414.228(c))
III. Collection of Information Requirements
IV. Response to Comments
V. Regulatory Impact AnalysIs
A. Overall Impact
B. Anticipated Affects
C. Implementation Costs
D. Program Savings
E. Effect on Beneficiaries
F. Effect on Suppliers
1. Affected Suppliers
2. Small Suppliers
G. Accounting Statement
Regulation Text
I. Background
A. Payment Under Reasonable Charges
Payment for most DMEPOS items, including supplies and equipment,
furnished under Part B of the Medicare program (Supplementary Medical
Insurance) is made through contractors known as Medicare carriers.
Before January 1, 1989, payment for most of these services was made on
a reasonable charge basis by these carriers. The methodology for
determining reasonable charges is set forth in section 1842(b) of the
Social Security Act (Act) and 42 CFR part 405, subpart E of the
regulations. Reasonable charge determinations are generally based on
customary and prevailing charges derived from historic charge data,
with the ``reasonable charge'' for an item being the lowest of the
following factors:
The supplier's actual charge for the item.
The supplier's customary charge for the item.
The prevailing charge in the locality for the item. The
prevailing charge may not exceed the 75th percentile of the customary
charges of suppliers in the locality.
The inflation indexed charge (IIC). The IIC is defined in
Sec. 405.509(a) as the lowest of the fee screens used to determine
reasonable charges for services, including supplies, and equipment paid
on a reasonable charge basis (excluding physicians' services) that is
in effect on December 31 of the previous fee screen year, updated by
the inflation adjustment factor. The inflation adjustment factor is
based on the current change in the consumer price index for all urban
consumers (CPI-U), as compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for
the 12-month period ending June 30 each year.
[[Page 25656]]
B. Payment Under Fee Schedules
Section 4062 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Pub.
L. 100-203) (OBRA ``87) added section 1834 to the Act and implemented a
fee schedule payment methodology for most durable medical equipment
(DME), prosthetic devices, and orthotic devices furnished after January
1, 1989. Specifically, sections 1834(a)(1)(A) and (B) and 1834(h)(1)(A)
of the Act provide that Medicare payment for these items is equal to 80
percent of the lesser of the actual charge for the item or the fee
schedule amount for the item. We implemented this new payment
methodology at 42 CFR part 414, subpart D of our regulations. Sections
1834(a)(2) through (a)(5) and section 1834(a)(7) of the Act, as well as
Sec. 414.200 through Sec. 414.232 (with the exception of Sec.
414.228) of the regulations, set forth separate payment categories of
DME and describe how the fee schedule for each of the following
categories is established:
Inexpensive or other routinely purchased items (section
1834(a)(2) of the Act and Sec. 414.220 of the regulations);
Items requiring frequent and substantial servicing
(section 1834(a)(3) of the Act and Sec. 414.222);
Customized items (section 1834(a)(4) of the Act and Sec.
414.224);
Oxygen and oxygen equipment (section 1834(a)(5) of the Act
and Sec. 414.226);
Other items of DME (section 1834(a)(7) of the Act and
Sec. 414.229).
Each category has its own unique payment rules. With the exception
of customized items, a fee schedule amount is calculated for each item
or category of DME that is identified by a code in the Healthcare
Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS). The Medicare payment amount for
a customized item of DME is based on the Medicare carrier's individual
consideration of that item. The fee schedule amounts for oxygen and
oxygen equipment are monthly payment amounts. Payment under the DME
benefit is made for supplies necessary for the effective use of DME
(for example, lancets and test strips used with blood glucose
monitors). These supplies are paid for using the same methodology that
we use to pay for inexpensive or routinely purchased items.
The fee schedule amounts for DME are generally adjusted annually by
the change in the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending June 30 of the
preceding year. The fee schedule amounts are also generally limited by
a ceiling (upper limit) and floor (lower limit) equal to 100 percent
and 85 percent, respectively, of the median of the statewide fee
schedule amounts.
Since 1994, Medicare has paid for most surgical dressings in
accordance with section 1834(i) of the Act and Sec. 414.220(g) of the
regulations, using the same methodology as is used for payment of
inexpensive or routinely purchased DME.
Under section 1834(h) of the Act and Sec. 414.228 of the
regulations, payment for prosthetic and orthotic devices is made on a
lump sum basis and is equal to the lower of the fee schedule amount
calculated for the item or the actual charge for the item, less any
unmet deductible. The fee schedule amounts are calculated using a
weighted average of Medicare payments made in the States in each of 10
CMS regions from July 1, 1986 through June 30, 1987, adjusted annually
by the change in the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending June 30 of
the preceding year. The regional fee schedule amounts are limited by a
ceiling (upper limit) and floor (lower limit) equal to 120 percent and
90 percent, respectively, of the average of the regional fee schedule
amounts for each State.
As authorized under section 1842(s) of the Act and 42 CFR, part
414, subpart C of our regulations, Medicare pays for parenteral and
enteral nutrition (PEN) nutrients, equipment and supplies on the basis
of 80 percent of the lesser of the actual charge for the item, or the
fee schedule amount for the item (Sec. 414.102(a)). The fee schedule
amounts for PEN items are calculated on a nationwide basis and are the
lesser of the reasonable charges for 1995, or the reasonable charges
that would have been used in determining payment for these items in
2002 under the former reasonable charge payment methodology (Sec.
414.104(b)). The fee schedule amounts are generally adjusted annually
by the percentage increase in the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending
with June 30 of the preceding year (Sec. 414.102(c)). Under Sec.
414.104(a), payment for PEN nutrients and supplies is made on a
purchase basis, and payment for PEN equipment that is rented is made on
a monthly basis. We are proposing to revise Sec. 414.1 of our
regulations to specify that fee schedules were established for PEN
items in accordance with our authority under section 1842(s) of Act.
Section 627 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) amended section
1833(o)(2) of the Act to require implementation of fee schedule
amounts, effective January 1, 2005, for the purpose of determining
payment for custom molded shoes, extra-depth shoes, and inserts
(collectively, ``therapeutic shoes''). We believe that this section of
the MMA is largely self-implementing because it mandates use of the
methodology set forth in section 1834(h) of the Act for prosthetic and
orthotic devices in determining the fee schedule amounts for
therapeutic shoes. We implemented that methodology through regulations
at part 414, subpart D, and section 627 of the MMA provides that the
same methodology shall apply to therapeutic shoes. Section 627 of the
MMA was implemented through program instructions, and on January 1,
2005, Medicare began paying for therapeutic shoes based on fee schedule
amounts determined in accordance with section 1834(h) of the Act and
part 414, subpart D of our regulations.
C. Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS)
The Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) is a
standardized coding system used to process claims submitted to
Medicare, Medicaid, and other health insurance programs by providers,
physicians, and other suppliers. The HCPCS code set is divided into the
following 2 principal subsystems, referred to as level I and level II
of the HCPCS:
Level I of the HCPCS codes is comprised of Current
Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. CPT codes are a uniform coding
system consisting of descriptive terms and identifying codes that are
used primarily to identify medical services and procedures furnished by
physicians and other health care professionals which are billed to
public or private health insurance programs. CPT codes are developed,
published, and maintained by the American Medical Association. CPT
codes do not include codes needed to separately report medical items
that are regularly billed by suppliers other than physicians.
Level II of the HCPCS codes is a standardized coding
system used primarily to identify products and supplies that are not
included in the CPT codes, such as DME, orthotics, prosthetics, and
supplies when used outside a physician's office.
HCPCS Level II Codes classify like items by category for the
purpose of efficient claims processing. Assignment of a HCPCS code is
not a coverage determination, and does not imply that any payer will
cover the items in the code category. For some DMEPOS items, such as
wheelchairs and wheelchair cushions, minimum performance
[[Page 25657]]
standards must be met before an item can be classified under a HCPCS
code. In October of 2003, the Secretary delegated authority under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to
CMS to maintain and distribute the HCPCS Level II Codes. The HCPCS
Level II Codes will be used to describe the DME, orthotic, and enteral
nutrition items furnished under the competitive bidding programs being
proposed in this proposed rule, both for the purpose of requesting bids
and for establishing payment amounts.
D. Medicare Competitive Bidding Demonstrations
Section 4319 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) authorized
implementation of up to five demonstration projects of competitive
bidding for Medicare Part B items, except physician services. In
accordance with section 4319 of the BBA, we planned and implemented the
DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Demonstration to test the feasibility and
program impacts of using competitive bidding to set prices for DME and
prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies. The demonstration was implemented
at two sites: Polk County, Florida, and in the San Antonio, Texas,
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The competitive bidding
demonstrations, authorized under the BBA, were implemented successfully
in both demonstration sites from 1999 to 2002, resulted in a
substantial savings to the program and offered beneficiaries sufficient
access and a quality product.
At the first site, Polk County, Florida, we conducted the first of
two rounds of bidding in 1999. Five categories of DMEPOS were put up
for bidding: Oxygen equipment and supplies (required by statute),
hospital beds and accessories, enteral nutrition formulas and
equipment, urological supplies, and surgical dressings. A total of 16
contract suppliers began providing demonstration products in Polk
County on October 1, 1999, and continued for 2 years. The second and
final round of bidding in Polk County was conducted in 2001 for the
same product categories minus enteral nutrition. (Enteral nutrition was
dropped to retain only product categories that are overwhelmingly used
in private homes.) The second set of competitively bid payment amounts
took effect in October 2001. As in round one, 16 suppliers were
selected, of whom half had participated as winners previously. The new
fee schedules developed from the bids in each round replaced the
statewide Medicare DMEPOS fees. The second round of the demonstration
in Polk County ended in September 2002.
Texas was the second site for the demonstration. In the San Antonio
MSA's Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe counties we conducted bidding in 2000
for five kinds of DMEPOS: Oxygen equipment and supplies, hospital beds
and accessories, wheelchairs and accessories, general orthotics, and
nebulizer drugs. Fifty-one suppliers were selected and began serving
Medicare beneficiaries under the new fees in February 2001. The San
Antonio site ended operations in December 2002, the statutorily
required termination date in the BBA.
In each area of evaluation, the data indicated mostly favorable
results for the Medicare program. The demonstration led to lower
Medicare fees for almost every item in almost every product category in
each round of bidding. Fee reductions varied by product category and
item, resulting in a nearly 20 percent overall savings at each site.
Statistical and qualitative data indicate that beneficiary access and
quality of services were essentially unchanged.
The DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Demonstration offers valuable
lessons for understanding the impacts of competitive bidding for
Medicare services. These lessons are especially important now because
the MMA mandates a larger role for competitive bidding within the
Medicare program. Specifically, section 302(b) of the MMA requires the
Secretary to establish and implement competitive bidding programs for
the furnishing of certain DME and associated supplies, enteral
nutrition and associated supplies, and off-the-shelf orthotics. In
addition, section 303(d) of the MMA requires the Secretary to implement
a competitive bidding program for certain Medicare Part B drugs not
paid on a cost or prospective payment system basis, and section 302(b)
of the MMA mandates competitive bidding demonstration projects for
clinical laboratory services and managed care.
E. Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (Pub. L. 108-173)
Section 302(b)(1) of the MMA amended section 1847 of the Act to
require the Secretary to establish and implement programs under which
competitive bidding areas are established throughout the United States
for contract award purposes for the furnishing of certain competitively
priced items for which payment is made under Part B (the ``Medicare
DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program''). Competitive bidding provides a
way to harness marketplace dynamics to create incentives for suppliers
to provide quality items in an efficient manner and at a reasonable
cost. In our view, the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program has
five objectives, as follows:
To implement competitive bidding programs for certain
DMEPOS items.
To assure beneficiary access to quality DMEPOS as a result
of the program.
To reduce the amount Medicare pays for DMEPOS and create a
payment structure under competitive bidding that is more reflective of
a competitive market.
To limit the financial burden on beneficiaries by reducing
their out-of-pocket expenses for DMEPOS they obtain through the
program.
To contract with suppliers who conduct business in a
manner that is beneficial for the program and for Medicare
beneficiaries.
F. Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-171)
Section 5101(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) amended
section 1834(a)(7)(A) of the Act to change the way Medicare pays for
capped rental items. This section revised the period of payment for
capped rental from 15 to 13 months. After rental payments are made for
a 13 month period of continuous use, title to the capped rental items
transfers from the supplier to the beneficiary. Once the title has
transferred, amended section 1834(a)(7)(A)(iv) provides that reasonable
and necessary maintenance and servicing payments (for parts and labor
not covered by the supplier's or manufacturer's warranty, as determined
by the Secretary to be appropriate for the particular item) will be
made. These statutory changes apply only to capped rental items whose
first rental month occurs on or after January 1, 2006.
Section 5101(b) of the DRA also amended section 1834(a)(5) of the
Act to limit monthly payments for oxygen equipment to a 36 month period
of continuous use. Then ownership of the oxygen equipment will be
transferred from the supplier to the beneficiary. Medicare will
continue making monthly payments for oxygen contents when appropriate
for beneficiary owned stationary and portable systems in the amounts
recognized under section 1834(a)(9) after title to the equipment
transfers to the beneficiary. However, under new section
1834(a)(5)(F)(II)(bb), maintenance and servicing payments for
beneficiary owned oxygen equipment (for parts and labor not covered by
the supplier's or manufacturer's warranty)
[[Page 25658]]
will be made only if they are reasonable and necessary. These statutory
changes went into effect on January 1, 2006. For beneficiaries
receiving Medicare covered oxygen equipment as of December 31, 2005,
the 36-month rental period begins January 1, 2006. In a future
rulemaking, we will propose to revise regulations found in part 414,
subpart D to incorporate these DRA provisions.
G. Program Advisory and Oversight Committee
Section 1847(c) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish a
Program Advisory and Oversight Committee (PAOC) that will provide
advice to the Secretary with respect to the following functions,
including--
The implementation of the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program;
The establishment of financial standards for entities
seeking contracts under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program, taking into account the needs of small providers;
The establishment of requirements for collection of data
for the efficient management of the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program;
The development of proposals for efficient interaction
among manufacturers, providers of services, suppliers (as defined in
section 1861(d) of the Act) and individuals; and
The establishment of quality standards for DMEPOS
suppliers under section 1834(a)(20) of the Act.
In addition, section 1847(c)(3)(B) of the Act authorizes the PAOC
to perform additional functions to assist the Secretary in carrying out
the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program as the Secretary may
specify.
As authorized under section 1847(c)(2) of the Act, the PAOC members
were appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and
represent a broad mix of relevant industry, consumer, and government
parties. Specifically, the membership roster includes two beneficiary/
consumer representatives, four manufacturer representatives, five
supplier representatives, three certification/standards
representatives, six Federal and State program representatives, one
physician and one pharmacist. The representatives have expertise in a
variety of subject matter areas, including DMEPOS, competitive bidding
methodologies and processes, and rural and urban marketplace dynamics.
The first PAOC meeting was announced in a Federal Register notice (CMS-
1279-N2, 69 FR 31125) and was held at CMS on October 6, 2004.
We have held two additional PAOC meetings where we, along with our
contractor RTI, presented material to both the PAOC and the public
relating to the provisions that are outlined in this proposed rule. The
topics that we presented include--
Medicare's timeline for implementation of the Medicare
DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program;
Results of the Medicare competitive bidding demonstration
projects authorized by section 4319 of the BBA;
Structure of the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program being proposed in this proposed rule;
Existing non-Medicare competitive bidding programs for
DMEPOS items;
Program design options for the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program being proposed in this proposed rule;
Criteria for selecting Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs) in which competition under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program will occur in both 2007 and 2009;
Criteria for selecting items for competitive bidding;
Bidding process overview;
Methodology for setting single payment amounts for
competitively bid items;
Capacity of DMEPOS suppliers and beneficiary utilization
of DMEPOS items;
Financial capabilities of bidding suppliers;
Exception authority under section 1847(a)(3) of the Act
for rural areas and areas with low population density within urban
areas that are not competitive; and
Quality standards and accreditation procedures applicable
to all DMEPOS suppliers.
In addition to the PAOC meetings, we have designed and implemented
a CMS Web site (http://cms.hhs.gov/suppliers/dmepos/compbid/paoc.asp)
specifically for the public to have access to all PAOC presentations,
minutes, and updates for the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program. In accordance with section 1847(c)(5) of the Act, the PAOC
will continue to operate until December 31, 2009. Future PAOC meeting
dates, as well as other information pertinent to the Medicare DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program, can be found on our Web site.
H. Quality Standards for Suppliers of (DMEPOS)
Section 302(a)(1) of the MMA added section 1834(a)(20) to the Act,
which requires the Secretary to establish and implement quality
standards for suppliers of certain items, including consumer service
standards, to be applied by recognized independent accreditation
organizations. Suppliers of DMEPOS must comply with the quality
standards in order to furnish any item for which payment is made under
Part B, and to receive and retain a provider or supplier billing number
used to submit claims for reimbursement for any such item for which
payment may be made under Medicare. Section 1834(a)(20)(D) of the Act
requires us to apply these quality standards to suppliers of the
following items for which we deem the standards to be appropriate:
Covered items, as that term is defined in section
1834(a)(13), for which payment may be made under section 1834(a);
Prosthetic devices and orthotics and prosthetics described
in section 1834(h)(4); and
Items described in section 1842(s)(2) of the Act, which
include medical supplies, home dialysis supplies and equipment,
therapeutic shoes, parenteral and enteral nutrients, equipment, and
supplies, electromyogram devices, salivation devices, blood products,
and transfusion medicine.
Section 1834(a)(20)(E) of the Act explicitly authorizes the
Secretary to establish the quality standards by program instruction or
otherwise after consultation with representatives of relevant parties.
We consulted with the PAOC and determined that it is in the best
interest of the industry and beneficiaries to publish the quality
standards through program instructions and select the accreditation
organizations in order to ensure that suppliers that wish to
participate in competitive bidding will know what standards they must
meet in order to be awarded a contract. The standards will be applied
prospectively and will be published on our website. All suppliers of
DMEPOS and other items to which section 1834(a)(20) of the Act applies
will be required to meet the quality standards established under that
section. Finally, section 1847(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act requires an
entity (a DMEPOS supplier) to meet the quality standards specified by
the Secretary under section 1834(a)(20) of the Act before being awarded
a contract under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program.
Since December 11, 2000, suppliers have been required to meet the
Medicare enrollment standards at Sec. 424.57, satisfaction of which is
required for these suppliers to participate in the Medicare program and
[[Page 25659]]
receive Medicare payments for DMEPOS and other items. Even with the
implementation of the enrollment standards at Sec. 424.57, we believe
there has not been sufficient oversight of suppliers of DMEPOS and
other items related to the quality and provision of their products. The
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General
(OIG), has conducted several investigations of suppliers of DMEPOS and
other items to determine the legitimacy of their businesses and has
uncovered many examples of fraud and abuse. Examples of the types of
fraud and abuse that were discovered include--
Billing for services not performed;
Billing for a more expensive service than was rendered;
Billing separately for several services that should be
combined into one billing;
Billing twice for the same service;
Billing for more expensive equipment or supplies than were
used;
Offering or receiving kickbacks (that is, offering or
accepting something in return for services);
Offering or accepting a bribe to use a particular service
or company;
Providing unnecessary services; and
Submitting false cost reports.
The OIG began publicizing fraud alerts as a vehicle to identify
fraudulent and abusive practices being committed by DMEPOS suppliers
within the health care industry.
To enhance the quality of services provided by suppliers of DMEPOS
and further reduce fraudulent practices, we are developing quality
standards, as required by section 1834(a)(20) of the Act, to address
suppliers' accountability, business integrity, provision of quality
products to beneficiaries, and performance management. These standards
will measure the effect of suppliers' services on beneficiaries. The
supplier quality standards will include product specific requirements
that will focus on a consumer-directed model of service delivery for
suppliers to improve beneficiary access to information about DMEPOS. We
believe these requirements will empower beneficiaries to make better-
informed choices regarding equipment selection and the proper and safe
use of DMEPOS, which we believe will lead to increased beneficiary
satisfaction, safe and appropriate use of purchased equipment, and
positive health outcomes. The supplier quality standards will provide
more efficient processes and standardized materials for suppliers to
increase consistency and continuity for supplier services to
beneficiaries, beneficiary education, and responsiveness to beneficiary
requests for equipment options. We are using contractor support and
input from industry suppliers and national associations to develop the
quality standards. Additionally, the contractors will meet with
beneficiaries who use the specific products to solicit their input and
assurance that their needs are being addressed by the quality standards
requirements.
The quality standards will include performance management
requirements to ensure the development, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation of policies, procedures, and products so that suppliers can
maintain compliance with regulatory requirements and our policy
instructions. The quality standards will include language from current
CMS standards and industry best practice standards for the following
areas: Administration; financial management; human resource management;
beneficiary services; performance management; environment and safety;
beneficiary rights/ethics; and information management. Additionally,
the supplier quality standards will include requirements for monitoring
beneficiary satisfaction with products and suppliers' responses to
beneficiary complaints. As is authorized under section 1834(a)(20)(E),
we will be establishing the supplier quality standards through program
instructions and will publish them on our Web site. Additionally, in a
future rule, we will propose to address DMEPOS supplier requirements
for enrollment and enforcement procedures.
I. Accreditation for Suppliers of DMEPOS and Other Items
Section 1834(a)(20)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary,
notwithstanding section 1865(b) of the Act, to designate and approve
one or more independent accreditation organizations to apply the
quality standards to suppliers of DMEPOS and other items. The Medicare
program currently contracts with State Agencies to perform survey and
review functions for providers and suppliers to approve their
participation in or coverage under the Medicare program. Additionally,
section 1865(b) of the Act sets forth the general procedures for CMS to
designate national accreditation organizations to deem providers or
suppliers to meet Medicare conditions of participation or coverage if
they are accredited by a national accreditation organization approved
by CMS. Many types of providers and suppliers have a choice between
having the State Agency or the CMS approved accreditation organization
survey them. If the provider or supplier selects the CMS-approved
accreditation organization and is in compliance with the accreditation
organization standards, it is generally deemed to meet the Medicare
conditions of participation or coverage. CMS is responsible for the
oversight and monitoring of the State Agencies and the approved
accreditation organizations. The procedures, implemented by the
Secretary, for designating private and national accreditation
organizations and the Federal review process for accreditation
organizations are located at 42 CFR parts 422 (for Medicare Advantage
organizations) and 488 (for most providers and suppliers). Although,
the statute itself does not require us to issue a rulemaking or provide
notice in the Federal Register in order to designate and approve DMEPOS
accreditation organizations, we believe that the Administrative
Procedure Act does require us to give notice and an opportunity for
comment before we institute our procedures for designating and
supervising these organizations. To accommodate suppliers that wish to
participate in the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program, we will
phase-in the accreditation process and require accreditation
organizations to prioritize their surveys to accredit suppliers in the
selected MSAs and competitive bidding areas. We will provide further
guidance in a Federal Register notice on the grandfathering-in of
suppliers that have already been accredited, and the submission
procedures for accreditation after this rule is finalized.
J. Low Vision Aid Exclusion
Section 1862(a)(7) of the Act excludes payment where ``expenses are
for * * * eyeglasses (other than eyewear described in section
1861(s)(8)) or eye examinations for the purpose of prescribing,
fitting, or changing eyeglasses, procedures performed (during the
course of any eye examination) to determine the refractive state of the
eyes * * *.'' The Medicare regulations at Sec. 411.15(b) exclude from
coverage eyeglasses and contact lenses, except for--
Post-surgical prosthetic lenses customarily used during
convalescence for eye surgery in which the lens of the eye was removed
(for example, cataract surgery);
Prosthetic lenses for patients who lack the lens of the
eye because of congenital absence or surgical removal; and
One pair of conventional eyeglasses or conventional
contact lenses furnished
[[Page 25660]]
after each cataract surgery during which an intraocular lens is
inserted.
From as early as 1980, we have clarified that we viewed closed
circuit visual aid systems and other low vision devices to be subject
to the eyeglass coverage exclusion at section 1862(a)(7) of the Act. We
have also concurred with carrier policies that have excluded payment
for low vision aids because of the eyeglass exclusion. Moreover, the
Medicare Appeals Council has recognized that video magnifiers, or
closed circuit televisions (CCTVs), are excluded from coverage by
section 1862(a)(7) of the Act. However, we have never issued a
regulation or national coverage decision that specifically states that
the eyeglass exclusion at section 1862(a)(7) of the Act applies to low
vision aids. We are proposing to revise Sec. 411.15(b), with certain
specific exceptions, to expressly state that the eyeglass exclusion
applies to all devices that use one or more lens for the primary
purpose of aiding vision. In proposing this revision, we are mindful
that three United States district courts have found that section
1862(a)(7) of the Act does not prohibit payment for video magnifiers.
(Collins v. Thompson, No 2:03-cv-265-FtM-29SPC (M.D. Fla. June 4,
2004); Davidson v. Thompson, No. Civ. 04-32 LFG (D.N.M. 2004); Currier
v. Thompson, 369 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D. Me. 2005).) The Currier court,
however, recognized that the statute was ambiguous. Moreover, the
Supreme Court has recently recognized that a prior judicial
construction of an ambiguous statute does not categorically control an
agency's contrary construction. (National Cable & Telecommunications
Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 125 S. Ct. 2688, 2701
(2005).) In section II.O. of this proposed rule, we explain the reasons
for our interpretation of the statute that the eyeglass exclusion does
apply to low vision aids.
K. Establishing Fee Schedule Amounts for New DMEPOS Items
Since 1989, CMS and its contractors have used an administrative
process known as gap-filling to establish fee schedule amounts for
DMEPOS items when fee schedule base data is not available, such as when
a new code is added to Level II of the HCPCS to describe a new category
of items. For example, section 1834(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires that
the fee schedules for inexpensive or routinely purchased DME (for
example, canes) be based on average reasonable charges for the item
from July 1, 1986 through June 30, 1987. When a new code for an item
(for example, a new category of canes) falling under this category is
added to the HCPCS, reasonable charge data from 1986/87 is not
available and the gap-filling process is used to estimate 1986/87
reasonable charges. Since 1989, fee schedule amounts have been gap-
filled using either--
Fee schedule amounts for comparable items;
Supplier or retail prices; or
Wholesale or manufacturer prices plus a reasonable mark-
up.
There is currently no methodology set forth in regulations for
establishing fee schedule amounts for DMEPOS items in these situations.
Therefore, in Sec. 414.210, we are proposing a modified version of our
existing gap-filling process to be used in establishing fee schedule
amounts for DMEPOS items to which are assigned new HCPCS Level II
Codes. This process will be used to set payment amounts for all new
DMEPOS items, even if those items fall within a product category that
is subject to competitive bidding, until bids for those items are
available for establishing payments in accordance with section
1847(b)(5) of the Act.
L. New Fee Schedules for Home Dialysis Supplies and Equipment
Section 1842(s)(1) of the Act gives the Secretary the authority to
implement fee schedules to be used for payment under Medicare of
specific items (listed in section 1842(s)(2) of the Act) still paid
using the reasonable charge payment methodology described in section
I.A. of this proposed rule. In Sec. 414.107, we are proposing to use
this authority to implement a fee schedule payment methodology for home
dialysis supplies and equipment, one of these specified items.
M. Covered Item Updates for Class III DME for CYs 2007 and 2008
Sections 1834(a)(14)(H) and (I) of the Act give the Secretary
discretion in determining the appropriate fee schedule update
percentages for CYs 2007 and 2008, respectively, for DME which are
``class III medical devices described in section 513(a)(1)(C) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360(c)(1)(C)).'' In
making these determinations, the Secretary must take into account
recommendations contained in a report from the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the appropriate update
percentages for these devices. The GAO report is mandated by section
302(c)(1)(B) of the MMA and must be submitted to the Congress and
transmitted to the Secretary by no later than March 1, 2006. Class III
devices paid in accordance with the DME fee schedule payment
methodology include osteogenesis or bone growth stimulators,
implantable infusion pumps, external defibrillators, and ultraviolet
light therapy systems. We are soliciting comments on how to determine
the appropriate fee schedule percentage change for these devices for
2007 and 2008 and will consider these comments in conjunction with the
recommendations in the GAO report in determining the appropriate update
percentage for these devices for 2007 and 2008.
II. Provisions of the Proposed Regulation
We are proposing to add a new subpart F to part 414 to specify the
requirements for the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program.
Subpart F would set forth policies and procedures relating to the
program in Sec. Sec. 414.400 through 414.446.
A. Purpose and Definitions (Proposed Sec. 414.400 and Sec. 414.402)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Use of terms'' at the beginning of your comments.]
We propose in Sec. 414.400 to state that the purpose of proposed
new subpart F would be to implement the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program for certain DMEPOS items as required by sections
1847(a) and (b) of the Act.
As set forth in proposed Sec. 414.402, we are proposing to define
certain frequently occurring terms that will be used in competitive
bidding. Specifically, we are proposing to define the following terms:
Bid means an offer to furnish an item for a particular price and
time period that includes, where appropriate, any services that are
directly related to the furnishing of the item.
Competitive bidding area (CBA) means an area established by the
Secretary under this proposed rule.
Composite bid means the sum of a bidding supplier's weighted bids
for all items within a product category for purposes of allowing a
comparison across bidding suppliers.
Competitive bidding program means a program established under this
proposed rule.
Contract supplier means an entity that is awarded a contract by CMS
to furnish items under a competitive bidding program.
DMEPOS stands for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics
and supplies.
Grandfathered item means any one of the following items for which
payment is made on a rental basis prior to the
[[Page 25661]]
implementation of a competitive bidding program.
(1) An inexpensive or routinely purchased item described in Sec.
414.220;
(2) An item requiring frequent and substantial servicing as
described in Sec. 414.222;
(3) Oxygen and oxygen equipment described in Sec. 414.226; and
(4) A capped rental item described in Sec. 414.229.
Grandfathered supplier means a noncontract supplier that furnishes
a grandfathered item.
Item means one of the following products identified by a HCPCS
code, other than class III devices under the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act and inhalation drugs, and includes the services directly
related to the furnishing of that product to the beneficiary:
(1) Durable medical equipment (DME), as defined in Sec. 414.202
and further classified into the following categories:
(a) Inexpensive or routinely purchased items, as specified in Sec.
414.220(a);
(b) Items requiring frequent and substantial servicing, as
specified in Sec. 414.222(a);
(c) Oxygen and oxygen equipment, as specified in Sec. 414.226(b);
and
(d) Other DME (capped rental items), as specified in Sec. 414.229.
(2) Supplies necessary for the effective use of DME.
(3) Enteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies.
(4) Off-the-shelf orthotics, which are orthotics described in
section 1861(s)(9) of the Act that require minimal self-adjustment for
appropriate use and do not require expertise in trimming, bending,
molding, assembling, or customizing to fit a beneficiary.
Item weight is a number assigned to an item based on its
beneficiary utilization rate in a competitive bidding area when
compared to other items in the same product category.
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has the same meaning as that
given by the Office of Management and Budget.
Nationwide competitive bidding area means a competitive bidding
area that includes the United States and its territories.
Noncontract supplier means a supplier that is located in a
competitive bidding area or that furnishes items through the mail to
beneficiaries in a competitive bidding area but that is not awarded a
contract by CMS to furnish items included in the competitive bidding
program for that area.
Physician has the same meaning as in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act.
Pivotal bid means the highest composite bid based on bids submitted
by suppliers for a product category that will include a sufficient
number of suppliers to meet beneficiary demand for the items in that
product category.
Product category means a grouping of related items that are
included in a competitive bidding program.
Single payment amount means the allowed payment for an item
furnished under a competitive bidding program.
Supplier means an entity with a valid Medicare supplier number,
including an entity that furnishes items through the mail.
Treating practitioner means a physician assistant, nurse
practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist, as those terms are defined
in section 1861(aa)(5) of the Act.
Weighted bid means the item weight multiplied by the bid price
submitted for that item.
B. Implementation Contractor (Proposed Sec. 414.406)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Implementation Contractor'' at the beginning of your
comments.]
Section 1847(b)(9) of the Act provides that the Secretary may
contract with appropriate entities to implement the Medicare DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program. Therefore, in proposed Sec. 414.406(a),
we would designate one or more competitive bidding implementation
contractors (CBICs) for the purpose of implementing the Medicare
Competitive Bidding Program. Section 1847(a)(1)(C) of the Act also
authorizes the Secretary to waive such provisions of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) as are necessary for the efficient
implementation of this section, other than provisions relating to
confidentiality of information and such other provisions as the
Secretary determines appropriate. The Secretary is exercising this
authority to waive all requirements of the FAR, other than provisions
dealing with confidentiality, because of the need for expeditious
implementation of a program of this significance and magnitude.
However, this does not preclude us from voluntarily using or adapting
certain provisions of the FAR for purposes of the competitive bidding
contracts.
We envision that the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program
will have six primary functions, including overall oversight and
decision making, operation design functions (including the design of
both bidding and outreach material templates, as well as program
processes), bidding and evaluation, access and quality monitoring,
outreach and education, and claims processing. We considered the
organizational structure and requirements necessary to conduct these
functions, and have chosen to exercise our contracting authority under
section 1847(b)(9) of the Act and contract with one or more CBICs to
assist us with many of these functions.
We considered several options in designing the most appropriate
framework for implementing the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program. Since the implementation of competitive bidding involves many
functions that are time limited and require specialized skills, for
example, setting up bidding areas, reviewing bids, and setting single
payment amounts, we believe that it would be prudent to initially
implement most aspects of the Medicare Competitive Bidding Program
through one or more CBICs. Processing of Medicare claims for most
DMEPOS is currently done by four DME regional carriers (DMERCs). These
DMERCs would continue to process claims for DMEPOS items subject to
competitive bidding and would continue to perform other existing DMERC
functions. We have evaluated the anticipated feasibility and cost of
using one or more implementation contractor(s) to assist us with
implementing the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program,
concentrating on the potential for capturing economies of scale and
scope, program consistency, existing resources and infrastructure, and
the viability of implementation under the timeframe mandated by section
1847(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
We would contract with one or more CBICs to conduct some program
functions at a national level and interact with the DMERC contractors.
Specifically, we envision that the CBIC(s) would conduct certain
functions related to competitive bidding, such as preparing the request
for bids (RFB), performing bid evaluations, selecting qualified
suppliers, and setting single payment amounts for all competitive
bidding areas. Additionally, the CBIC(s) would be charged with
educating the DMERCs on the bidding process and procedures. The CBIC(s)
would also assist CMS and the DMERCs in monitoring program
effectiveness, access, and quality. The DMERCs would continue to
provide outreach and education to beneficiaries and suppliers in their
regions, process claims, apply the single payment amounts set by the
CBIC(s) for each competitive bidding area, and continue to be
responsible for complaints related to claims processing. We would
continue to be responsible for overall
[[Page 25662]]
oversight and decision making, as well as policy related outreach and
education to the CBIC(s), DMERCs, suppliers, and beneficiaries.
In our view, this approach would achieve economies of scale since
the responsibility for producing program materials and evaluating bids
would rest with the CBIC(s). As a result, we believe that this approach
would both lower costs and ensure regional consistency in that the
responsibility would not be divided between various entities.
We considered two other alternatives for implementation of the
Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program. The first was to have each
DMERC conduct competitive bidding in its respective area and be
responsible for all activities related to competitive bidding. The
second alternative was to have the CMS Consortium Contractor Management
Officer (CCMO)/ Regional Offices (RO) and the DMERCs implement the
program. However, we believe that by using one or more specialized
CBICs, we can successfully implement and effectively manage this
program.
C. Payment Basis (Proposed Sec. 414.408)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Payment Basis'' at the beginning of your comments.]
1. Payment Basis (Sec. 414.408(a))
Section 1847(b)(5) of the Act mandates that a single payment amount
be established for each item in each competitive bidding area based on
the bids submitted and accepted for that item. Medicare payment for the
item is then made on an assignment-related basis equal to 80 percent of
the applicable single payment amount, less any unmet Part B deductible
described in section 1833(b) of the Act. Section 1847(a)(6) of the Act
requires that this payment basis be substituted for the payment basis
otherwise applied under section 1834(a) of the Act for DME, section
1834(h) of the Act for Off-The-Shelf (OTS) orthotics, or section
1842(s) of the Act for enteral nutrition, as appropriate.
We are proposing in Sec. 414.408 that payment to the contract
supplier would be based on the single payment amount for the item in
the competitive bidding area where the beneficiary maintains a
permanent residence. If an item that is included in a competitive
bidding program is furnished to a beneficiary who does not maintain a
permanent residence in a competitive bidding area, the payment basis
for the item would be 80 percent of the lesser of the actual charge for
the item, or the applicable fee schedule amount for the item. We are
also proposing that implementation of a competitive bidding program
would not preclude the use of an Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) to
allow beneficiaries to make informed consumer choices regarding whether
to obtain items for which Medicare might not make payment.
2. General Payment Rules (Proposed Sec. 414.408 (c-j))
Section 1834(a) of the Act and Sec. 414.200 through Sec. 414.232
(with the exception of Sec. 414.228) set forth the Medicare Part B
payment methodology we use to pay for the rental or purchase of new and
used DME. Each item of DME that is paid for under these sections is
classified into a payment category, and each category has its own
unique payment rules. Section 1842(s) of the Act provides authority for
establishing a statewide or area wide fee schedule to be used for the
payment of items described in section 1842(s)(2) of the Act. Under this
authority, we implemented fee schedules for the payment of purchased
and rented enteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies (see Sec.
414.100 through Sec. 414.104). Section 1834(h) of the Act and Sec.
414.228 of our regulations set forth the Medicare Part B payment
methodology we use to pay for orthotics and prosthetics.
Other than the rules governing calculation of the single payment
amount and other proposed modifications to existing policies that are
addressed in this regulation, we propose that the current requirements
regarding the rental or purchase of DMEPOS items would continue to
apply under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program. While we
believe that we have discretion under section 1847(a)(6) of the Act to
adopt new rules that would govern these requirements, at this time we
are proposing only to change the payment basis for these items.
3. Special Rules for Certain Rented Items of DME and Oxygen
(Grandfathering of Suppliers) (Proposed Sec. 414.408(k))
a. Process for Grandfathering Suppliers
Section 1847(a)(4) of the Act requires that in the case of covered
DME items for which payment is made on a rental basis under section
1834(a) of the Act, and in the case of oxygen for which payment is made
under section 1834(a)(5) of the Act, the Secretary shall establish a
``grandfathering'' process by which rental agreements for those covered
items and supply arrangements with oxygen suppliers entered into before
the start of a competitive bidding program may be continued. DME paid
on a rental basis under section 1834(a) of the Act includes inexpensive
or routinely purchased items furnished on a rental basis, items
requiring frequent and substantial servicing, and capped rental items.
Section 1834(a)(5) of the Act mandates that payment be made for oxygen
and oxygen equipment on the basis of monthly payment amounts for oxygen
and oxygen equipment (other than portable oxygen equipment) with
separate add-on payments for portable oxygen equipment. We are
proposing the grandfathering process described below for rented DME and
oxygen and oxygen equipment when these items are included under a
competitive bidding program. This process would apply only to suppliers
that began furnishing the items described above to beneficiaries who
maintain a permanent residence in an area prior to the implementation
of a competitive bidding program in that area that includes the same
items.
In the case of the specific items identified in this section, we
are proposing in Sec. 414.408 to give beneficiaries the choice of
deciding whether they would like to continue renting the item from the
grandfathered supplier or a contract supplier, unless the grandfathered
supplier is not willing to continue furnishing the item under the terms
we have specified below. If the grandfathered supplier is not willing
to continue furnishing the item under these terms, then a contract
supplier would assume responsibility for continuing to furnish the item
and be paid based on the single payment amount determined for that item
under the competitive bidding program. In addition, the beneficiary
could elect, at any time, to transition to a contract supplier and the
contract supplier would be required to accept the beneficiary as a
customer. Suppliers who agree to be grandfathered suppliers for a
specific item must agree to be a grandfathered supplier for all
beneficiaries who request to continue to use their service for that
item.
b. Payment Amounts to Grandfathered Suppliers (Sec. 414.408(k))
(1) Grandfathering of Suppliers Furnishing Items Prior to the First
Competitive Bidding Program in an Area
For items requiring frequent and substantial servicing, as well as
oxygen and oxygen equipment, we are proposing that a grandfathered
supplier may continue furnishing these items to beneficiaries in
accordance with
[[Page 25663]]
existing rental agreements or supply arrangements. However, we are also
proposing that the grandfathered supplier be paid the single payment
amounts determined for those items under the competitive bidding
program since beneficiaries rent these items for extended time periods
as long as the items remain medically necessary. We believe that this
payment proposal is consistent with section 1847(a)(4), which requires
us to establish a ``process'' under which rental agreements and supply
arrangements ``may be continued,'' but is silent regarding the terms of
that process. Since the rental payments are not calculated based on or
limited to the purchase fee for that item as is the case for other
rented DME items, we do not believe that it is not reasonable to
continue paying the fee schedule amounts for these items and that
payment at the competitively determined rates will comport with an
overarching goal of competitive bidding to achieve savings for the
Medicare program.
Unlike items requiring frequent and substantial servicing, the
duration of the rental payments for capped rental items and inexpensive
or routinely purchased items are limited. In addition, unlike oxygen
equipment, the payment amounts made for capped rental items and
inexpensive or routinely purchased items are limited to the approximate
purchase fee for the item. For items that are furnished on a rental
basis under Sec. 414.220 or Sec. 414.229, we are proposing in Sec.
414.408 that the grandfathered supplier could continue furnishing the
items in accordance with existing rental agreements and continue to be
paid in accordance with section 1834(a) of the Act. We believe that
continuing to pay for these grandfathered items at the fee schedule
rates is authorized under section 1862(a)(17) of the Act, which allows
the Secretary to specify ``other circumstances'' in which Medicare will
make payment where the expenses for a competitively bid item furnished
in a competitive bidding area were incurred by a supplier other than a
contract supplier. In our view, the limited duration of the rental
agreements for capped rental items and inexpensive or routinely
purchased items furnished on a rental basis, in addition to the fact
that payments for these items are based on or limited to the purchase
fees for the items, constitute appropriate circumstances under which we
would allow these rental agreements, including their payment terms, to
continue until their conclusion. The rental fee schedule amounts that
we would pay for grandfathered items in the capped rental or
inexpensive or routinely purchased categories would be those fee
schedule amounts established for the State in which the beneficiary
maintains a permanent residence.
(2) Suppliers That Lose Their Contract Status in a Subsequent
Competitive Bidding Program
There may be instances when a supplier that was awarded a contract
to furnish rental items or oxygen and oxygen equipment under a
competitive bidding program is not awarded a contract to furnish the
same rental items under a subsequent competitive bidding program in the
same area. We are concerned that if this occurs, beneficiaries will
need to switch suppliers in the middle of the rental period and could
experience a disruption of service as a result. In order to minimize
this possibility, we are proposing to apply section 1847(a)(4) not only
in an area where we implement a competitive bidding program for the
first time, but also in the same area when we implement a subsequent
competitive bidding program. We believe this proposal is consistent
with section 1847(a)(4), which we interpret as applying to each
competitive bidding ``program'' that we implement in an area, since
each program will be unique in terms of bidders, contract suppliers,
items included in the program, and prices. Our proposed policy would
allow beneficiaries to continue renting medically necessary items from
their existing supplier, even if that supplier has lost its contract
status under a subsequent competitive bidding program.
However, where a supplier that is no longer a contract supplier
continues to furnish a rental item or oxygen and oxygen equipment on a
grandfathered basis, we are proposing that Medicare make payment for
the item in the amount established for that item under the new
competitive bidding program for that area. We believe that section
1847(a)(4) gives us this discretion, since that section only requires
us to establish a ``process'' under which these rental agreements or
supply arrangements ``may continue'' but does not specify a payment
methodology that must be used under that process. In addition, we do
not believe that the alternative, which would be to make payment for
the item under the fee schedule, is reasonable since the rental
agreement or supply arrangement began under a competitive bidding
program.
c. Payment for Accessories for Items Subject to Grandfathering
We propose that accessories and supplies used in conjunction with
an item which is furnished under a grandfathering process described
above may also be furnished by the grandfathered supplier. Payment
would be based on the single payment amount established for the
accessories and supplies if the item is oxygen or oxygen equipment or
one that requires frequent and substantial servicing. For accessories
and supplies used in conjunction with capped rental and inexpensive or
routinely purchased items, the payment amounts would be based on the
fee schedule amounts for the accessories and supplies furnished prior
to the implementation of the first competitive bidding program in an
area, or on the newly established competitively bid single payment
amounts if the items are furnished by a grandfathered supplier that was
a contract supplier for a competitive bidding program, but is no longer
a contract supplier for a subsequent competitive bidding program in the
same area.
Our proposal is similar to the grandfathering approach that was
used in the DME competitive bidding demonstrations in that we paid
grandfathered suppliers the competitively bid amount for certain items
and the fee schedule amounts for other items. We specifically solicit
comments on our grandfathering proposals.
4. Payment Adjustment to Account for Inflation (proposed Sec.
414.408(b))
The fee schedule payment amounts for DMEPOS items are updated by
annual update factors described in part 414, subparts C and D. In
general, the update factors are established based on the percentage
change in the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending June of each year
and preceding the calendar year to which the update applies. In
accordance with section 1847(b)(3)(B) of the Act, the term of a
competitive bidding contract may not exceed three years. We propose
applying an annual inflation update to the single payment amounts
established for a competitive bidding program. Specifically, beginning
with the second year of a contract entered into under a competitive
bidding program, we would update the single payment amounts by the
percentage increase in the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending with
June of the preceding calendar year. Using the CPI-U index is
consistent with Medicare using this index to update the
[[Page 25664]]
DME fee schedule. This will obviate the need for the supplier to
consider inflation in the cost of business when submitting its bids for
furnishing competitively bid items under a multi-year contract.
5. Authority To Adjust Payments in Other Areas (Sec. 414.408(e))
Section 1834(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the Act provides authority, effective
for covered items furnished on or after January 1, 2009 that are
included in a competitive bidding program, for us to use the payment
information determined under that competitive bidding program to adjust
the payment amounts otherwise recognized under section
1834(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act for the same DMEPOS in areas not included
in a competitive bidding program. Sections 1834(h)(1)(H)(ii) and
1842(s)(3)(B) of the Act provide the same authority for orthotic and
prosthetic devices, and enteral nutrition, respectively. We are
proposing to use this authority but have not yet developed a detailed
methodology for doing so. Therefore, we specifically invite comments
and recommendations on this issue. We believe that our methodology will
be informed by our experience and information gained from the
competitive bidding programs in 2007 and 2009. When submitting
recommendations on a methodology for using this authority, commenters
should keep in mind the following factors that are likely to be
incorporated in the methodology:
The threshold or amount or level of savings that the
Medicare program must realize for an item or group of items before we
would use payment information from a competitive bidding program to
adjust payment amounts for those items in other areas.
Whether adjustments of payment amounts in other areas
would be on a local, regional, or national basis, depending on the
extent to which the single payment amounts and price indexes (for
example, local prices used in calculating the CPI-U) for an item or
group of items varied across different areas of the country.
Whether adjustments of payment amounts in other areas
would be based on a certain percentage of the single payment amount(s)
from the competitive bidding area(s).
We will fully consider all comments and recommendations we receive
on this subject.
6. Requirement To Obtain Competitively Bid Items From a Contract
Supplier (Sec. 414.408(f))
Beneficiaries often travel to visit family members or to reside in
a State with a warmer climate during the winter months. So that these
beneficiaries do not have to return home to obtain needed DMPEOS items,
in Sec. 414.408(f)(2)(ii), we are proposing that beneficiaries on
travel status be allowed to obtain items that they would ordinarily be
required to obtain from a contract supplier for their competitive
bidding area from a supplier that has not been awarded a contract to
furnish items for that area. If the area that the beneficiary is
visiting is also a competitive bidding area and the item is subject to
the competitive bidding program in that area, he or she would be
required to obtain the item from a contract supplier for that area. If
the area that the beneficiary is visiting is not a competitive bidding
area, or if the area is a competitive bidding area but the item needed
by the beneficiary is not included in the competitive bidding program
for that area, he or she would be required to obtain the item from a
supplier that has a valid Medicare supplier number. In either case,
payment to the supplier would be paid based on the single payment
amount for the item in the competitive bidding area where the
beneficiary maintains a permanent residence. We propose that if a
beneficiary is not visiting another area, but is merely receiving
competitively bid items from a supplier located outside but near the
boundary of the competitive bidding area, the proposed travel status
exemption would not apply. We plan to closely monitor the programs to
ensure that this type of abuse or circumvention of the competitive
bidding process and requirements to obtain items from a contract
supplier does not occur.
We are also proposing to base claims jurisdiction and the payment
amount on the beneficiary's permanent residence as we have done since
the early 1990s with the current DMEPOS program under Sec. 421.210(e).
Under this proposal, the DMERC responsible for the area where the
beneficiary maintains a permanent residence would process all claims
submitted for items furnished to that beneficiary, whether or not the
beneficiary obtained the item in that area. If the beneficiary
maintained a permanent residence in a competitive bidding area and
obtained an item included in the competitive bidding program for that
area, Medicare would pay the supplier the single payment amount for the
item determined under the competitive bidding program for that area. If
the beneficiary did not maintain a permanent residence in a competitive
bidding area, Medicare would pay the supplier the fee schedule amount
for the area in which the beneficiary maintains a permanent residence.
We believe that this proposal is consistent with our current policy,
under which suppliers across the country are paid the same amount for
similar products obtained by beneficiaries who maintain their permanent
residence within the same geographic area.
We are proposing that Medicare beneficiaries who maintain their
permanent residence in a competitive bidding area be required to obtain
competitively bid items from a contract supplier for that area with the
following two exceptions:
A beneficiary may obtain an item from a supplier or a
noncontract supplier in accordance with the competitive bidding program
grandfathering provisions described in section II.C.3. above.
A beneficiary who is outside of the competitive bidding
area where he or she maintains a permanent residence may obtain an item
from a contract supplier, if he or she is in another competitive
bidding area and the same item is included under a competitive bidding
program for that area, or from a supplier with a valid Medicare
supplier number, if he or she is either in another competitive bidding
area that does not include the item in its program or is in an area
that is not a competitive bidding area.
Unless one of the exceptions discussed above applies, Medicare
would not pay for the item.
7. Limitation on Beneficiary Liability for Items Furnished by
Noncontract Suppliers (Sec. 414.408(f))
We are proposing that if a noncontract supplier located in a
competitive bidding area furnishes an item included in the competitive
bidding program for that area to a beneficiary who maintains a
permanent residence in that area, the beneficiary would have no
financial liability to the noncontract supplier unless the
grandfathering exception discussed in section II.C.3. of this preamble
applies. This rule would not apply if the noncontract supplier
furnished items that are not included in the competitive bidding
program for the area. We are proposing to specially designate the
supplier numbers of all noncontract suppliers so that we will be able
to easily identify whether a noncontract supplier has furnished a
competitively bid item to a beneficiary who maintains a permanent
residence in a CBA.
[[Page 25665]]
D. Competitive Bidding Areas
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Competitive Bidding Areas'' at the beginning of your
comments.]
Section 1847(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires that competitive bidding
programs be established and implemented in areas throughout the United
States. We are interpreting the term ``United States'' to include all
states, territories, and the District of Columbia. Section
1847(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides us with the authority to phase-in
competitive bidding programs so that the competition under the programs
occurs in--
10 of the largest MSAs in 2007;
80 of the largest MSAs in 2009; and
Additional areas after 2009.
Section 1847(a)(1)(B) of the Act also authorizes us to phase-in
competitive bidding programs first among the highest cost and volume
items or those items that we determine have the largest savings
potential. Our proposed methodologies for selecting the MSAs for 2007
and 2009 are described in section II.D.1. of this preamble. Once the
MSAs are selected for 2007 and 2009, we would define the competitive
bidding areas for 2007 and 2009. The process we propose to use in
establishing competitive bidding areas in future years is provided in
section II.D.2. of this preamble.
1. Proposed Methodology for MSA Selection for 2007 and 2009 Competitive
Bidding Programs (Sec. 414.410)
Based on sections 1847(a)(1)(B)(i)(I) and (II) of the Act, we have
the authority to select from among the largest MSAs during the first
two implementation phases in order to phase-in the programs in the most
successful way, thereby achieving the greatest savings while
maintaining quality and beneficiary access to care. In phasing in the
competitive bidding programs, we would adopt a definition of the term
``metropolitan statistical area'' consistent with that issued by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and applicable for the years 2007
and 2009. OMB is the Federal agency responsible for establishing the
standards for defining MSAs for the purpose of providing nationally
consistent definitions for collecting, tabulating, and publishing
Federal statistics for a set of geographic areas. OMB most recently
revised its standards for defining MSAs in 2000 (65 FR 82228-82238).
Under these standards, an MSA is defined as a core based statistical
area (a statistical geographic area consisting of the county or
counties associated with at least one core (urbanized area or urban
cluster) of at least 10,000 population, plus adjacent counties having a
high degree of social and economic integration as measured through
commuting ties with the counties containing the core) associated with
at least one urbanized area that has a population of at least 50,000,
and is comprised of the central county or counties containing the core,
plus adjacent outlying counties having a high degree of social and
economic integration with the central county as measured through
commuting. The OMB issues periodic updates of the MSAs between
decennial censuses based on United States Census Bureau estimates, but
other than identifying certain MSAs having a population core of at
least 2.5 million, does not rank MSAs based on population size. The
U.S. Census Bureau, however, periodically publishes a Statistical
Abstract of the United States, which contains a table listing large
MSAs, or MSAs having a population of 250,000 and over. For the purpose
of this rule, we are proposing to use this data to identify the largest
MSAs.
In this section, we propose formula driven methodology for
selecting the MSAs for competitive bidding in 2007 and 2009. After we
select the MSAs, we would define the competitive bidding areas. For the
purpose of this section, DMEPOS allowed charges are the Medicare fee-
for-service (FFS) allowed charge data for DMEPOS items that we have
authority to include in a competitive bidding program. This data does
not include Medicare expenditures for DMEPOS items under the Medicare
Advantage Program.
a. MSAs for 2007
We propose to use a multiple step process in selecting the MSAs for
2007. First, we propose to identify the 50 largest MSAs in terms of
total population in 2005 using population estimates published by the
U.S. Census Bureau in its table of large MSAs from the Statistical
Abstract of the United States. Second, the 25 MSAs out of the 50 MSAs
identified in step one would be eliminated from consideration based on
our determination that they have the lowest totals of DMEPOS allowed
charges for items furnished in calendar year (CY) 2004. This step would
allow us to focus on the 25 MSAs that have the highest totals of DMEPOS
allowed charges which, we believe, would produce a greater chance of
savings as a result of competitive bidding than MSAs with lower total
DMEPOS allowed charges. For illustration purposes only, based on DMEPOS
allowed charge data for items furnished in CY 2003 and Census Bureau
population estimates as of July 1, 2003, the 25 MSAs that would be left
for consideration after step two is completed are shown in Table 1.
However, we would propose to select the actual MSAs for 2007 using U.S.
Census Bureau population data published as of July 1, 2005, and DMEPOS
allowed charge data for items furnished in CY 2004. We would propose
using population data for 2005 and DMEPOS allowed charge data for 2004
since this data will be the most recently available data at the time
that the MSAs are selected for 2007 implementation.
Table 1.--Top 25 MSAs Based on Total DMEPOS Medicare Allowed Charges for
2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Allowed charges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA $312,124,291
(New York)..........................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA (Los Angeles)... 253,382,483
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL (Miami)........ 221,660,443
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (Chicago)........ 173,922,952
Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX (Houston)............. 149,060,607
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (Dallas)............. 139,910,862
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI (Detroit)................. 121,444,298
San Juan, PR......................................... 108,478,208
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 97,487,063
(Philadelphia)......................................
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA (Atlanta)......... 75,860,276
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (Tampa).......... 71,309,635
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH (Boston).............. 62,467,094
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (DC).... 61,416,109
[[Page 25666]]
Baltimore-Towson, MD (Baltimore)..................... 59,714,310
Pittsburgh, PA....................................... 56,612,095
St. Louis, MO-IL..................................... 55,931,373
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (Riverside)..... 52,910,209
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH (Cleveland).............. 52,237,312
Orlando, FL.......................................... 51,982,164
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA (San Francisco).... 45,565,320
San Antonio, TX...................................... 44,113,886
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN (Cincinnati)......... 41,582,961
Kansas City, MO-KS................................... 41,310,326
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC (Virginia 41,016,726
Beach)..............................................
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC (Charlotte)........ 37,874,144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, we propose to score the MSAs based on combined rankings of
DMEPOS allowed charges per FFS beneficiary (charges per beneficiary)
and the number of DMEPOS suppliers per number of beneficiaries
receiving DMEPOS items (suppliers per beneficiary) in CY 2004, with
equal weight (50 percent) being given to each factor. The MSAs would be
ranked from 1 to 25 in terms of DMEPOS allowed charges per FFS
beneficiary (for example, the MSA with the highest DMEPOS allowed
charges per FFS beneficiary would be ranked number 1). Similarly, areas
having more suppliers per beneficiary are more likely to be competitive
and would be ranked higher than MSAs having fewer suppliers per
beneficiary. Based on our experience from the DMEPOS competitive
bidding demonstrations, the number of suppliers would be based on
suppliers with at least $10,000 in allowed charges attributed to them
for DMEPOS items furnished in the MSA in CY 2004. The number of
beneficiaries would be based on the number of beneficiaries receiving
DMEPOS items in the MSA in CY 2004. If more than one MSA receives the
same score, we would propose to use total DMEPOS allowed charges for
items that we have authority to include in a competitive bidding in
each MSA as the tiebreaker since this would be an indicator of where
more program funds would be spent on DMEPOS items subject to
competitive bidding. Table 2 illustrates how the 25 MSAs from Table 1
above would be scored based on data for CY 2003. The MSA rankings for
charges per beneficiary and suppliers per beneficiary are listed in
parentheses. We propose that the final scoring be based on utilization
data for CY 2004 and population data for CY 2005.
Table 2.--Scoring of Top 25 MSAs Based on Data for 2003
[Scoring based on combined rank from columns 3 and 4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges per Suppliers per
MSA Score beneficiary beneficiary Allowed charges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miami..................................... 3 $428.44 (1) 0.01121 (2) $221,660,443
Houston................................... 6 348.83 (2) 0.00864 (4) 149,060,607
Dallas.................................... 8 297.33 (3) 0.00749 (5) 139,910,862
Riverside................................. 9 220.93 (8) 0.01144 (1) 52,910,209
San Antonio............................... 9 243.03 (6) 0.00897 (3) 44,113,886
Los Angeles............................... 11 277.16 (5) 0.00692 (6) 253,382,483
Charlotte................................. 14 226.09 (7) 0.00661 (7) 37,874,144
Orlando................................... 18 212.57 (9) 0.00569 (9) 51,982,164
San Juan.................................. 25 291.97 (4) 0.00388 (21) 108,478,208
Atlanta................................... 25 185.80 (15) 0.00569 (10) 75,860,276
Tampa..................................... 25 190.30 (13) 0.00529 (12) 71,309,635
Kansas City............................... 25 186.39 (14) 0.00555 (11) 41,310,326
Pittsburgh................................ 26 197.95 (11) 0.00484 (15) 56,612,095
Virginia Beach............................ 26 207.28 (10) 0.00477 (16) 41,016,726
St. Louis................................. 32 169.81 (18) 0.00488 (14) 55,931,373
San Francisco............................. 32 127.56 (24) 0.00632 (8) 45,565,320
Cincinnati................................ 32 167.06 (19) 0.00528 (13) 41,582,961
Cleveland................................. 33 182.01 (16) 0.00470 (17) 52,237,312
Detroit................................... 37 195.99 (12) 0.00290 (25) 121,444,298
Baltimore................................. 37 174.38 (17) 0.00396 (20) 59,714,310
Philadelphia.............................. 40 152.38 (21) 0.00443 (19) 97,487,063
DC........................................ 41 128.97 (23) 0.00449 (18) 61,416,109
Chicago................................... 44 160.26 (20) 0.00327 (24) 173,922,952
New York.................................. 45 139.81 (22) 0.00342 (23) 312,124,291
Boston.................................... 47 113.99 (25) 0.00371 (22) 62,467,094
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of phasing-in the programs, we would propose to
exclude from consideration for competitive bidding until 2009 the three
largest MSAs in terms of population, as well as any MSA that is
geographically located in an area served by two DMERCs. The three
largest MSAs based on total population (based on 2003 data) are New
York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. We believe that these MSAs should not
be phased in until 2009 because of the
[[Page 25667]]
logistics associated with the start-up of this new and complex program.
As of 2000, these three MSAs all had total populations of over 9
million. By comparison, the largest area in which the demonstrations
were conducted was San Antonio (total population of 1.7 million in
2000). We want to gain experience with the competitive bidding process
in MSAs larger than San Antonio before moving on to the three largest
MSAs. After we have gained experience operating competitive bidding
programs in CBAs that encompass smaller MSAs in 2007 and 2008, we would
propose to implement programs that include New York, Los Angeles and
Chicago in 2009.
However, we are considering an alternative under which we would
establish CBAs that include portions of one or more of these MSAs (for
example, by county). We believe that this alternative is authorized by
section 1847(a)(1)(B)(II), which states that competition under the
programs shall occur in 80 of the largest MSAs in 2009 but does not
require the competition to occur in the entire MSA. In addition,
section 1847 does not prohibit us from implementing a competitive
bidding program in an area that is larger than a MSA. We welcome
comments on these alternatives.
We are proposing not to include competitive bidding areas that
cross DMERC regions because this could complicate implementation by
having two DMERCs processing claims from one competitive bidding area.
The next step we propose would entail ensuring that there is at
least one competitive bidding area in each DMERC region by first
selecting the highest scoring MSA in each DMERC region (other than New
York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or MSAs that cross DMERC boundaries). This
would ensure that each DMERC gains some experience with competitive
bidding prior to 2009, when competitive bidding would be implemented in
CBAs that include eighty MSAs. We would also propose to select no more
than two MSAs per State among the initial competitive bidding areas
selected for 2007 in order to learn how competitive bidding works in
more states and regions of the country. In summary, we are proposing to
select the ten MSAs in which competition under the programs would occur
in 2007 using the following steps:
Identify the top 50 MSAs in terms of general population.
Focus on the 25 MSAs from step one with the greatest total
of DMEPOS allowed charges.
Score the MSAs from step two based on combined rankings of
DMEPOS allowed charges per beneficiary and suppliers per beneficiary,
with lower scores indicating a greater potential for savings if
programs are implemented in those areas.
Exclude the 3 largest MSAs in terms of population (New
York, Los Angeles, Chicago) and any MSA that crosses DMERC boundaries.
Select the lowest scoring MSA from each DMERC region.
Select the next 6 lowest scoring MSAs regardless of DMERC
region, but not more than 2 MSAs from 1 State.
Break ties in scores using DMEPOS allowed charges,
selecting MSAs with higher total DMEPOS allowed charges.
There are a number of alternative methods for selecting the MSAs
for 2007 that we considered. The MSAs could have been selected based on
a combination of one or more variables or measures including, but not
limited to--
General population;
Medicare FFS beneficiary population; Number of
beneficiaries receiving DMEPOS items that we have authority to include
in a competitive bidding; Total Medicare allowed charges for DMEPOS
items subject to competitive bidding; and
Number of suppliers of DMEPOS items that we have authority
to include in a competitive bidding program.
In evaluating this alternative, we defined the general population
as all individuals residing in an MSA, whether or not they were
enrolled in Medicare. One advantage of this variable is that total
population is a widely accepted measure of gauging MSA size and the
data are readily accessible to the general public through the U.S.
Census Bureau webpage. Another advantage of this option is that total
population takes into account the demand for DMEPOS items and other
supplies from population groups other than the Medicare population.
DMEPOS demand from non-Medicare individuals might make it less likely
that a supplier not selected for competitive bidding would exit the
market. This could help increase the likelihood of competition in
future rounds of competitive bidding within that MSA. However, we
recognize that the MSAs with the largest total populations may not have
the most Medicare beneficiaries or the greatest potential for savings.
One reason is that the age distribution is not uniform across MSAs.
MSAs located in states that have either large immigrant populations or
have experienced rapid recent growth often have younger than average
age profiles. Another reason is that DMEPOS utilization and potential
profits are not uniform across MSAs. It is quite possible that some of
the smaller population MSAs may have a greater potential for savings
than MSAs with much larger populations. We believe that the
disadvantages of selecting MSAs based on general population are greater
than the advantages of using this method and, therefore, do not propose
using general population as the sole variable in selecting the MSAs for
2007.
An advantage of selecting MSAs based on the Medicare FFS population
is that this population represents the number of individuals who could
potentially be affected by competitive bidding. A disadvantage of
selecting MSAs based solely on this variable is that it does not
reflect actual DMEPOS utilization; therefore, we do not propose using
FFS population as the sole variable in selecting the MSAs for 2007. Per
capita DMEPOS utilization rates vary across MSAs. As a result, MSAs
with fewer Medicare beneficiaries could have a greater potential for
savings from competitive bidding. The advantage of using the number of
Medicare beneficiaries receiving DMEPOS items to select the MSAs is
that MSAs would be selected based on the number of individual
beneficiaries that are most likely to be directly affected by
competitive bidding because they already have a need for these items. A
disadvantage of this option is that the number of specific
beneficiaries receiving DMEPOS items is only a static measure. The
number of beneficiaries who would be receiving DMEPOS products in the
future could be substantially different from the current number.
Treatment patterns within the MSA could change or the number of
beneficiaries receiving DMEPOS items could fluctuate if beneficiaries
switch from FFS to a Medicare Advantage plan. For these reasons, we do
not propose using number of beneficiaries receiving DMEPOS items as the
sole variable in selecting the MSAs for 2007.
Selecting the MSAs using the steps we propose utilizes a variety of
variables that we believe will help us predict which MSAs will offer
the largest savings potential under a competitive bidding program. In
step 2 above, we would focus on a subset of large MSAs with higher
allowed charges for DMEPOS items, which is consistent with section
1847(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, which would allow us to phase in the
Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program first for those items that
have the highest cost and highest volume, or those items that have the
largest savings potential. This step would directly address the
question of which MSAs have the highest costs. In step 3 above,
[[Page 25668]]
we would use allowed DMEPOS charges per beneficiary and the number of
suppliers per beneficiary to further measure the savings potential for
each MSA. Allowed DMEPOS charges per beneficiary is a measure of per
capita DMEPOS utilization in terms of the overall DMEPOS cost per
beneficiary. We believe that areas with higher utilization rates and
costs would have a greater potential for savings under the programs,
which will rely on competition among suppliers to lower costs in the
area. Competition among suppliers is necessary for competitive bidding
to be successful. Without sufficient competition among suppliers,
suppliers have little incentive to submit low bids in response to the
request for bids for DMEPOS products. In addition, we believe that
competition for market share among winning suppliers will act as a
market force to maintain a high level of quality products. The number
of suppliers per beneficiary is a direct measure of how many suppliers
are competing for each beneficiary's business. We expect that the
higher the number of suppliers per beneficiary, the higher the degree
of competition will be.
We welcome comments about the selection method for the original ten
MSAs in 2007. We welcome recommendations of other options and criteria
for consideration. After further consideration of comments, in the
final rule, we may adopt other criteria regarding issues described
above or other criteria and options brought to our attention through
the comment process.
b. MSAs for 2009
In selecting the 70 additional MSAs in which competition will occur
in 2009, we propose using generally the same criteria used to select
the MSAs for 2007. Since the number of MSAs in which competition must
occur in 2009 is much higher than the number for 2007, the steps in the
selection process would change as follows:
We would score all of the MSAs included in the table of
large MSAs in the most recent publication of the U.S. Census Bureau s
Statistical Abstract of the United States.
We would propose using the same criteria to score the MSAs
as we would use in selecting the MSAs for 2007, but use data from CY
2006.
One option we are considering and on which we are requesting
comments is whether we should modify the ranking of MSAs based on
allowed DMEPOS charges per beneficiary so that it focuses on charges in
each MSA for the items that experienced the largest payment reductions
or savings under the initial round of competitive bidding in 2007.
In selecting the MSAs for 2009, we do not propose excluding the 3
largest MSAs in terms of population size or MSAs that cross DMERC
boundaries from the 80 largest MSAs to be included in the CBAs. In
addition, we do not propose limiting the number of MSAs that can be
selected from any one state.
2. Establishing Competitive Bidding Areas (Sec. 414.410)
Section 1847(a)(1) of the Act requires that we phase in competitive
bidding programs and establish competitive bidding areas throughout the
United States over several years beginning in 2007. Section 1847(a)(3)
of the Act gives us the authority to ``exempt rural areas and areas
with low population density within urban areas that are not
competitive, unless there is a significant national market through mail
order for a particular item.'' Our proposed methodology for
establishing competitive bidding areas under the Medicare DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program is presented below.
a. Authority To Exempt Rural Areas and Areas With Low Population
Density Within Urban Areas (Sec. 414.410(c))
Section 1847(a)(3) of the Act allows us to exempt from the Medicare
DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program rural areas and areas with low
population density within urban areas that are not competitive, unless
there is a significant national market through mail order for a
particular item. We propose to use this authority to exempt areas from
competitive bidding if data for the areas indicate that they are not
competitive based on a combination of the following indicators:
Low utilization of items in terms of number of items and/
or allowed charges for DMEPOS in the area relative to other similar
geographic areas.
Low number of suppliers of DMEPOS items subject to
competitive bidding serving the area relative to other similar
geographic areas; and/or
Low number of Medicare FFS beneficiaries in the area
relative to other similar geographic areas.
We would propose to make decisions regarding what constitutes low
(non-competitive) levels of utilization, suppliers, and beneficiaries
on the basis of our analysis of the data for allowed charges, allowed
services for items that may be subject to competitive bidding, and the
number of Medicare FFS beneficiaries and DMEPOS suppliers in specific
geographic areas. In defining urban and rural areas, we propose to use
the definitions currently in Sec. 412.64(b)(1)(ii) of the regulations.
We invite comments on the methodologies we have proposed for
determining whether an area within an urban area that has a low
population density is not competitive. We will be reviewing the total
allowed charges, number of beneficiaries, and number of suppliers to
determine whether a rural area should be exempted from competitive
bidding. In addition, we also are inviting comments on standards for
exempting particular rural areas from competitive bidding.
b. Establishing the Competitive Bidding Areas for 2007 and 2009 (Sec.
414.410(b))
Section 1847(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires that the competition
``occurs in'' 10 of the largest MSAs in 2007, and in 80 of the largest
MSAs in 2009, but does not require us to define the competition
boundaries concurrently with the MSA boundaries, as long as 10 MSAs are
involved in 2007 and 80 MSAs are involved in 2009. Therefore, we do not
believe that section 1847(a)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits us from
extending individual competition areas beyond the MSA boundaries in
2007 or 2009. We propose that an area (for example, a county, parish,
zip code, etc.) outside the boundaries of an MSA be considered for
inclusion in a competitive bidding area for 2007 and/or 2009 if all of
the following apply:
The area adjoins an MSA in which a competitive bidding
program will be operating in 2007 or 2009.
The area is not part of an MSA in which a competitive
bidding program will be operating in 2007 or 2009.
The area is competitive, as explained below.
The area is part of the normal service area or market for
suppliers who also serve the MSA market or areas within the boundaries
of an MSA in which a competitive bidding program will be operating in
2007 or 2009.
As explained in section D.1. above, we are defining an MSA as a
core based statistical area associated with at least one urbanized area
that has a population of at least 50,000, and comprised of the central
county or counties containing the core, plus adjacent outlying counties
having a high degree of social and economic integration with the
central county as measured through commuting. However, when using this
definition to establish the boundaries of an MSA, the OMB would not
consider whether an area or areas adjoining an MSA are served by the
same DMEPOS suppliers that furnish items to beneficiaries residing in
the MSA. If an area has a high level of utilization, significant
expenditures, and/or a large number of
[[Page 25669]]
suppliers of DMEPOS items included in the competitive bidding program
for the adjoining MSA, we believe that it would be practical and
beneficial to include this area in the competitive bidding area. The
savings to the program associated with adding the area to the
competitive bidding area would likely offset any incremental
administrative costs incurred by the implementation contractor
associated with including the area in the competitive bidding program
for the MSA. Finally, we are not proposing to consider counties that do
not adjoin an MSA for inclusion in a competitive bidding area for 2007
or 2009 because we believe that these outlying counties are too far
removed from the areas that OMB has determined to be economically
integrated. We are proposing that we have the discretion to define a
CBA to be either concurrent with an MSA, larger than an MSA, or smaller
than an MSA. We will detail in the request for bids the exact
boundaries of each CBA. We invite comments on the criteria to be used
in considering whether to include counties outside MSAs in a
competitive bidding area in 2007 or 2009.
c. Nationwide or Regional Mail Order Competitive Bidding Program (Sec.
414.410(d)(2))
Our data shows that a significant percentage of certain items such
as diabetic testing supplies (blood glucose test strips and lancets)
are furnished to beneficiaries by national mail order suppliers.
Therefore, we propose to establish a nationwide or regional competitive
bidding program, effective for items furnished on or after January 1,
2010, for the purpose of awarding contracts to suppliers to furnish
these items across the nation or region to beneficiaries who elect to
obtain them through the mail order outlet. The national or regional
competitive bidding areas under this program would be phased in after
2009, and payment would be based on the bids submitted and accepted for
the furnishing of items through mail order throughout the nation or
region. Suppliers that furnish these items through mail order on either
a national or regional basis would be required to submit bids to
participate in any competitive bidding program implemented for the
furnishing of mail order items.
We propose that prior to the establishment of a nationwide or
regional competitive bidding program in 2010, mail order suppliers
would be eligible to submit bids for furnishing items in one or more of
the CBAs we establish for purposes of the 2007 and 2009 implementation
phases. In addition, beginning with programs implemented in 2010, mail
order suppliers would be eligible to submit bids in one or more CBAs to
furnish items that are not included in a nationwide or regional
competitive bidding program. National or regional mail order suppliers
would be required to submit bids and be selected as contract suppliers
for each CBA in which they seek to furnish these items. They would,
however, have the choice of either submitting the same bid amounts for
each CBA or submitting separate bids.
For items that are subject to a nationwide or regional mail order
competitive bidding program, we propose that suppliers who furnish
these same items in the local market and do not furnish them via mail
order would not be required to participate in the national or regional
mail order competitive bidding program. However, we would only allow
these suppliers to continue furnishing the items in areas if they were
selected as a contract supplier.
We propose to allow these non-mail order suppliers to continue
furnishing these items in areas subject to a competitive bidding
program if the supplier has been selected as a contract supplier. When
furnishing items to beneficiaries that do not maintain a permanent
residence in a competitive bidding area, non-mail order suppliers would
be paid based on the payment amount applicable to the area where the
beneficiary maintains his or her permanent residence.
In its September 2004 report (GAO-04-765), the GAO recommended that
we consider using mail delivery for items that can be provided directly
to beneficiaries in the home as a way to implement a DMEPOS competitive
bidding strategy. We are asking for comments on our proposal to
implement this recommendation, as well as for comments on the types of
items that would be suitable for a mail order competitive bidding
program. In addition, we are requesting public comment on an
alternative that would require replacement of all supplies such as test
strips and lancets for Medicare beneficiaries to be furnished by mail
order suppliers under a nationwide or regional mail order program. For
example, there are services paid under the physician fee schedule that
are associated with the furnishing of blood glucose testing equipment
(for example, home blood glucose monitors) such as training, education,
assistance with product selection, maintenance and servicing, that do
not relate to the furnishing of replacement supplies used with the
equipment. Once the brand of monitor has been selected by the patient,
the services associated with furnishing the supplies must be provided
on a timely basis and the patient must receive the brand of test strips
needed for his or her monitor. We invite public comment on whether the
service of furnishing replacement test strips, lancets or other
supplies can easily, effectively, and conveniently be performed by
national mail order suppliers.
d. Additional Competitive Bidding Areas After 2009 (Sec. 414.410(d))
Section 1847(a)(1)(B)(III) of the Act requires that competition
under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program occur in
additional areas after 2009. Beginning in 2010, we would designate
through program instructions additional competitive bidding areas based
on our determination that the implementation of a competitive bidding
program in a particular area would be likely to result in significant
savings to the Medicare program.
E. Criteria for Item Selection
If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Criteria for Item Selection'' at the beginning of your
comments.>
Section 1847(a)(2) of the Act describes the items subject to
competitive bidding as follows:
Durable Medical Equipment and Medical Supplies--Covered
items (as defined in section 1834(a)(13) of the Act) for which payment
would otherwise be made under section 1834(a) of the Act, including
items used in infusion and drugs (other than inhalation drugs) and
supplies used in conjunction with DME, but excluding class III devices
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. ?>
Other Equipment and Supplies (enteral nutrition, equipment
and supplies)--items described in section 1842(s)(2)(D) of the Act,
other than parenteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies.
Off-The-Shelf (OTS) Orthotics--orthotics described in
section 1861(s)(9) of the Act for which payment would otherwise be made
under section 1834(h) of the Act, which require minimal self-adjustment
for appropriate use and do not require expertise in trimming, bending,
molding, assembling, or customizing to fit the individual.
We are proposing that minimal self-adjustment would mean
adjustments that the beneficiary, caretaker for the beneficiary, or
supplier of the device can perform without the assistance of a
[[Page 25670]]
certified orthotist (that is, an individual certified by either the
American Board for Certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics, Inc. or
the Board for Orthotist/Prosthetist Certification). By contrast, we
would consider any adjustments that can only be made by a certified
orthotist to be adjustments that require an expertise in trimming,
bending, molding, assembling, or customizing to fit the individual. We
are proposing to consult with a variety of individuals including
experts in orthotics to determine which items and/or HCPCS codes would
be classified as OTS orthotics. We welcome comments on a process for
identifying OTS orthotics subject to competitive bidding.
Section 1847(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act gives us the authority to
phase in competitive bidding ``first among the highest cost and highest
volume items or those items that the Secretary determines have the
largest savings potential.'' In addition, section 1847(a)(3)(B) of the
Act grants us the authority to exempt items for which the application
of competitive bidding is not likely to result in significant savings.
In exercising this authority, we propose to exempt items outright or on
an area by area basis using area-specific utilization data. For
example, if we found that utilization (that is, allowed services or
allowed charges) for commode chairs was low (or the number of commode
chair suppliers was low) in a given area compared to other areas, we
might choose to exempt commode chairs from the competitive bidding
program in the CBA where significant savings would not be likely while
including commode chairs in the competitive bidding programs for other
CBAs. This decision would be based on area-specific utilization data.
We are proposing to use the authority provided by section
1847(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act to phase in only those items that we
determine are among the highest cost and highest volume items during
each phase of the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program. In
section II.F. of this preamble, we propose to conduct competitive
bidding for product categories that would be described in each RFB.
Suppliers will submit a separate bid for each item under a defined
product category, unless specifically excluded in the RFB. We propose
to include a ``core'' set of product categories in each competitive
bidding area. We may elect to phase in some individual product
categories in a limited number of competitive bidding areas in order to
test and learn about their suitability for competitive bidding.
Because we have not yet identified the product categories for
competitive bidding, we are using policy groups developed by the
statistical analysis durable medical equipment regional carrier
(SADMERC) for purposes of illustration. The SADMERC has defined a set
of 64 DMERC policy groups for analytical purposes in its role as the
statistical analysis contractor for DMEPOS. A policy group is a set of
HCPCS codes that describe related items that are addressed in a DMERC
medical review policy. For example, the policy group, oxygen and
supplies, consists of approximately 20 HCPCS codes. Although the
product categories subject to competitive bidding will not necessarily
correspond to these policy groups, we present data for these policy
groups and items contained in these policy groups for the purpose of
identifying the highest cost and highest volume DMEPOS items that may
be subject to competitive bidding. In other words, we propose using
SADMERC data for ``policy groups'' to identify groups of items we will
consider phasing in first under the competitive bidding programs, but
the actual ``product categories'' for which we would request bids could
be a subset of items from a ``policy group'' or a combination of items
from different ``policy groups.'' The highest volume items (HCPCS
codes) fall into a relatively small number of policy groups as
illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3.--2003 High Volume Items
[HCPCS Codes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCPCS Allowed charges Product description Product group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E1390.................................. $2,033,123,147 Oxygen concentrator...... Oxygen.
K0011*................................. 1,176,277,899 Power wheelchair with Wheelchairs.
programmable features.
A4253.................................. 779,756,243 Blood glucose/reagent Diabetic Supplies &
strips, box of 50. Equipment.
E0260.................................. 331,457,962 Semi-electric hospital Hospital Beds/
bed. Accessories.
E0431.................................. 228,066,037 Portable gaseous oxygen Oxygen.
equipment.
B4150*................................. 206,396,813 Enteral formula, category Enteral Nutrition.
I.
B4035.................................. 197,057,150 Enteral feeding supply Enteral Nutrition.
kit, pump fed, per day.
E0277.................................. 156,762,241 Powered air mattress..... Support Surfaces.
E0439.................................. 141,268,474 Stationary liquid oxygen. Oxygen.
E0601.................................. 123,865,463 Continuous positive CPAP Devices.
airway pressure device
(CPAP).
K0001.................................. 103,217,209 Standard manual Wheelchairs.
wheelchair.
K0004.................................. 87,208,486 High strength lightweight Wheelchairs.
manual wheelchair.
A4259.................................. 79,575,166 Lancets, box of 100...... Diabetic Supplies &
Equipment.
E0570.................................. 76,588,088 Nebulizer with compressor Nebulizers.
B4154*................................. 76,326,903 Enteral formula, category Enteral Nutrition.
IV.
E0143.................................. 75,950,410 Folding wheeled walker w/ Walkers.
o seat.
K0533*................................. 75,136,517 Respiratory assist device Respiratory Assist
with backup rate feature. Devices.
K0538*................................. 65,603,531 Negative pressure wound Negative Pressure Wound
therapy electrical pump. Therapy (NPWT) Devices.
K0532*................................. 56,046,930 Respiratory assist device Respiratory Assist
without backup rate Devices.
feature.
K0003.................................. 55,318,959 Lightweight manual Wheelchairs.
wheelchair.
K0108.................................. 52,139,979 Miscellaneous wheelchair Wheelchairs.
accessory.
E0192*................................. 48,413,938 Wheelchair cushion....... Support Surfaces.
E0163.................................. 48,216,855 Stationary commode chair Commodes.
with fixed arms.
B4034.................................. 42,277,968 Enteral feeding supply Enteral Nutrition.
kit syringe, per day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Due to HCPCS coding changes made since 1993, the descriptions or code numbers for several codes above have
been modified. We expect that power wheelchairs (K0011) will be billed under several new HCPCS codes in the
near future.
[[Page 25671]]
Because we propose that we will conduct competitive bidding for
items grouped into product categories, we will consider DMEPOS allowed
charges and volume at the product category level for the purpose of
selecting which items to phase in first under the competitive bidding
programs. The table below provides data for the top 20 policy groups
based on Medicare allowed charges for the items within each policy
group that we may choose to include in a competitive bidding program.
Data from the SADMERC for claims received in 2003 is used for all
policy groups except those for nebulizers and OTS orthotics. For the
nebulizer and OTS orthotics groups, data is included from the CMS BESS
(Part B Extract and Summary System) database for items furnished in
2003. The percentage of total allowed Medicare charges for DMEPOS that
each policy group makes up is included in Table 4.
Table 4.--2003 DMEPOS Allowed Charges by Policy Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Rank Policy group 2003 DMEPOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................ Oxygen Supplies/Equipment...... $2,433,713,269 21.3
2........................................ Wheelchairs/POVs**............. 1,926,210,675 16.9
3........................................ Diabetic Supplies & Equipment.. 1,110,934,736 9.7
4........................................ Enteral Nutrition.............. 676,122,703 5.9
5........................................ Hospital Beds/Accessories...... 373,973,207 3.3
6........................................ CPAP Devices................... 204,774,837 1.8
7........................................ Support Surfaces............... 193,659,248 1.7
8........................................ Infusion Pumps & Related Drugs. 149,208,088 1.3
9........................................ Respiratory Assist Devices..... 133,645,918 1.2
10....................................... Lower Limb Orthoses*........... 122,813,555 1.1
11....................................... Nebulizers*.................... 98,951,212 0.9
12....................................... Walkers........................ 96,654,035 0.8
13....................................... NPWT Devices................... 88,530,828 0.8
14....................................... Commodes/Bed Pans/Urinals...... 51,372,352 0.5
15....................................... Ventilators.................... 42,890,761 0.4
16....................................... Spinal Orthoses*............... 40,731,646 0.4
17....................................... Upper Limb Orthoses*........... 29,069,027 0.3
18....................................... Patient Lifts.................. 26,551,310 0.2
19....................................... Seat Lift Mechanisms........... 15,318,552 0.1
20....................................... TENS Devices**................. 15,258,579 0.1
-------------------------------------
Total for 20 Groups........... 7,830,384,538 68.6
-------------------------------------
Total for DMEPOS.............. 11,410,019,351 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data is from BESS (Date of Service). Data for orthoses policy groups excludes data for custom fabricated
orthotics, but may include data for other items that will not be considered OTS orthotics.
** POVs are power operated vehicles (scooters) and TENS devices are transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
devices.
Section 1847(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that the items we
phase in first under competitive bidding may include products having
the greatest potential for savings. We are proposing to use a
combination of the following variables when making determinations about
an item's potential savings as a result of the application of
competitive bidding.
Annual Medicare DMEPOS Allowed Charges
Annual Growth in Expenditures
Number of Suppliers
Savings in the DMEPOS Demonstrations
Reports and Studies
Items with high allowed charges or rapidly increasing allowed
charges would be our highest priority in selecting items for
competitive bidding.
The number of suppliers furnishing a particular item or group of
items would also be an important variable in identifying items with
high savings potential. We believe that a relatively large number of
suppliers for a particular group of items would likely increase the
degree of competition among suppliers and increase the probability that
suppliers would compete on quality for business and market share. We
saw evidence in the competitive bidding demonstrations that products
furnished by a large number of suppliers had large savings rates and
fewer problems with quality. We understand that having a large number
of suppliers is not always a necessary condition for competition. A
competitive bidding area could be more concentrated and less
competitive than the number of suppliers would predict if the market is
dominated by only a few suppliers and the remaining suppliers have only
minimal charges.
The DMEPOS demonstration took place from 1999 to 2002 in two MSAs:
Polk County, Florida and San Antonio, Texas. Five product categories
containing items we might include in the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program were included in at least one round of the DMEPOS
demonstration: Oxygen equipment and supplies; hospital beds and
accessories; enteral nutrition; wheelchairs and accessories; and
general orthotics.
The demonstration results provide useful information because they
are based on actual Medicare competitive bidding and the amounts
suppliers actually were willing to accept as payment from Medicare.
However, we recognize that these results should be used with caution.
The demonstration occurred more than three years ago and the fee
schedule has changed as a result of certain provisions in the MMA, such
as, section 302(c)(2) (codified at 1834(a)(21) of the Act), which
requires that CMS adjust the fee schedules for certain items based on a
comparison to other payers such as the Federal employee health plan
(FEHP).
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the GAO frequently
conduct studies that analyze the extent to which Medicare overpays for
specific items, and we believe that these studies could assist with
determining the saving potential for an item(s) if it were included in
competitive bidding. Examples of relevant studies from the OIG include
the following:
[[Page 25672]]
Medicare Allowed Charges for Orthotic Body Jackets, March
2000 (OEI-04-97-00391);
Medicare Payments for Enteral Nutrition, February 2004
(OEI-03-02-00700); and
A Comparison of Prices for Power Wheelchairs in the
Medicare Program, April 2004 (OEI-03-03-00460).
In addition, CMS and the DMERCs obtain retail pricing information
for items in the course of establishing fee schedule amounts and
considering whether payment adjustments are warranted for items using
the inherent reasonableness authority in section 1842(b)(8) of the Act.
We could use these studies to identify products where CMS pays
excessively and where we could potentially achieve savings.
Excessive payments are only one factor to consider when evaluating
whether savings will be realized by the application of competitive
bidding to an item. However, these studies do offer us a guide
regarding which items may have the greatest potential for savings. We
also recognize that some studies are older than others and that recent
MMA and FEHP reductions in fees may affect the results of these
studies.
F. Submission of Bids Under the Competitive Bidding Program (Proposed
Sec. 414.412)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Submission of Bids Under the Competitive Bidding Program'' at
the beginning of your comments.]
Sections 1847(b)(6)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act state that payment
will not be made for items furnished under a competitive bidding
program unless the supplier has submitted a bid to furnish those items
and has been selected as a contract supplier. Therefore, in order for a
supplier that furnishes competitively bid items in a competitive
bidding area to receive payment for those items, the supplier must have
submitted a bid to furnish those particular items and must have been
awarded a contract to do so by CMS. There are limited exceptions to
this requirement for beneficiaries who reside in a competitive bidding
area but are out of the area and need items. There is also an exception
for suppliers that are grandfathered to continue to provide and service
certain items, as discussed in section II.C.3. of this preamble.
1. Providers (Proposed Sec. 414.404, Sec. 414.422)
We are proposing that providers that furnish Part B items and are
located in a competitively bidding area and are also DMEPOS suppliers,
must submit bids in order to furnish competitively bid items to
Medicare beneficiaries. Providers that are not awarded contracts must
use a contract supplier to furnish these items to the Medicare
beneficiaries to whom they provide services. However, a skilled nursing
facility (SNF) defined in section 1819(a) of the Act would not be
required to furnish competitively bid items to beneficiaries outside of
the SNF, if it elected not to function as a commercial supplier. This
is consistent with the current practice of some SNFs to furnish Part B
services only to their own residents.
2. Physicians (Proposed Sec. 414.404, Sec. 414.422)
We are proposing that physicians that are also DMEPOS suppliers
must submit bids and be awarded contracts in order to furnish items
included in the competitive biding program for the area in which they
provide medical services. Physicians that do not become contract
suppliers must use a contract supplier to furnish competitively bid
items to their Medicare patients. However, they will not be required to
furnish these items to beneficiaries who are not their patients if they
choose not to function as commercial suppliers. In proposing this
policy for physicians who are also DMEPOS suppliers, we recognize that
the physician self-referral law (section 1877 of the Act) generally
prohibits physicians from furnishing to their office patients a variety
of common DMEPOS items. Physicians who choose to participate in the
competitive bidding process must ensure that their arrangements for
referring for and furnishing DMEPOS items under a competitive bidding
program comply with the physician self-referral law as well as any
other Federal or State law or regulation governing billing or claims
submission.
We have established a Web site where requests for bids (RFBs) and
other pertinent program information will be posted, and we plan to
alert the supplier community by e-mail of all postings on this site. In
addition, we will be providing education and outreach to suppliers on
requirements for submitting RFBs. Suppliers must fully complete the RFB
in order to be considered for participation in a competitive bidding
program. The RFBs will require suppliers to complete at a minimum such
documents as an application, bidding sheet, bank and financial
information and referral source references. We will establish an
administrative process to ensure that all information that the supplier
submitted is accurately captured and considered in the bid evaluation
process. This process will ensure that all the information submitted by
the supplier is included as part of the bid evaluation process.
We considered requiring all suppliers to be physically located
within a competitive bidding area in order to submit a bid to furnish
items in that area. However, we feel that this requirement would be too
proscriptive. We believe that suppliers that are located outside of a
competitive bidding area, but do business in the competitive bidding
area and are able to service beneficiaries residing within the CBA
should be permitted to submit bids and participate in the competitive
bidding program for that area.
3. Product Categories for Bidding Purposes (Proposed Sec. 414.412)
We propose to conduct bidding for items that are grouped into
product categories. Suppliers would be required to submit a separate
bid for all items that we specify in a product category. The submitted
bid must include all costs related to the furnishing of each item such
as delivery, set-up, training, and proper maintenance for rental items.
However, suppliers would only be required to submit bids for the
product categories that they are seeking to furnish under the program.
All items that would be included in a product category for bidding
purposes would be detailed in the RFB. We propose to define the term
``product category'' as a group of similar items used in the treatment
of a related medical condition (for example, hospital beds and
accessories). We believe that the use of product categories will allow
Medicare beneficiaries to receive all of their related products (for
example, hospital beds and accessories) from one supplier, which will
minimize disruption to the beneficiary.
There were other design options that we considered but did not
propose. One option was to require suppliers to submit a bid for all
items in every defined product category. Another option was for
suppliers to bid at the HCPCS level and submit a bid only for the
individual items that they were seeking to furnish under the program.
There are currently approximately 55 separate policy groups already
established by the DMERCs. However, these policy groups were not
established for the purpose of competitive bidding. We are proposing to
specifically develop product categories for the purpose of competitive
bidding. We anticipate that the product categories will range from
Breast Prosthesis, Dialysis Equipment and Supplies, to Oxygen and Power
Wheelchairs. Each
[[Page 25673]]
group would be defined and comprised of individual HCPCS codes.
Section 1847(a)(3)(B) of the Act gives us the authority to exempt
items for which the application of competitive bidding is unlikely to
result in significant savings. We would propose not to include items in
a product category if they are rarely used or billed to the program. In
addition, we would not include items within a product category if we
believed that these were items for which we might not realize a
savings. Therefore, under this approach, we propose to establish
product categories to identify those items included in competitive
bidding and may establish different product categories from one CBA to
another, as well as in different rounds of competitive bidding in the
same CBA.
We chose to allow suppliers to submit bids only for the product
categories they are seeking to furnish under a competitive bidding
program because this option accommodates DMEPOS suppliers who want to
specialize in one or a few product categories. For example, if a
supplier wants to specialize in the treatment of respiratory
conditions, the supplier can choose to bid on all items that fall
within the Oxygen product category, the Continuous Positive Airway
Pressure product category, or the Respiratory Assist Device product
category. We believe that specialization at the product category level
will make it easier for referral agents (entities that refer
beneficiaries to health care practitioners or suppliers to obtain
DMEPOS items) and other practitioners to order related products from
the same supplier.
Establishing a bidding process that promotes specialization would
allow suppliers to realize economies of scope within a product
category, which means that a supplier may be able to furnish a bundle
of items at a lower cost than it can produce each individual item. This
approach is also more favorable to small suppliers because they can
choose to specialize in only one product category. It would be more
difficult for a small supplier rather than a large supplier to furnish
all product categories. This approach is also more convenient for
Medicare beneficiaries, as they can choose to receive all their related
supplies from one supplier and would not have to deal with multiple
suppliers to obtain the proper items for their condition. We recognize
the importance of the relationship between a DMEPOS supplier and the
Medicare beneficiary. The supplier delivers the item to the
beneficiary, sets up the equipment and also educates the beneficiary on
the proper use of the equipment. The use of product categories will
facilitate the transition for those beneficiaries who have to change
suppliers. It is also our goal to establish a productive relationship
between the supplier and the beneficiary, and we believe we can
accomplish this goal by designing the competitive bidding program so
the beneficiary has the option of selecting one supplier that would be
responsible for the delivery of all medically necessary items that fall
within a product category.
4. Bidding Requirements (Sec. 414.408)
In preparing a bid in response to the request for bids, we would
propose that suppliers look to our existing regulations at part 414,
subparts C and D to determine whether a rental or purchase payment
would be made for the item and whether other requirements would apply
to the furnishing of that item, as further explained below.
a. Inexpensive or Other Routinely Purchased DME Items
The current fee schedule amounts for these items are based on
average reasonable charges for the purchase of new items, purchase of
used items, and rental of items from July 1, 1986 through June 30,
1987. In those cases where reasonable charge data from 1986/87 is not
available, the fee schedule amounts for the purchase of new items are
generally based on retail purchase prices deflated to the 1986/1987
base period by the percentage change in the CPI-U, the fee schedule
amounts for the purchase of used items are generally based on 75
percent of the fee schedule amounts for the purchase of new items, and
the fee schedule amounts for the monthly rental of items are generally
based on 10 percent of the fee schedule amounts for purchase of new
items. This method of establishing fee schedule amounts in the absence
of reasonable charge data has been in use since 1989. Under the
Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program, we propose that bids be
submitted only for the furnishing of new items in this category that
are included in a competitive bidding program. Based on the bids
submitted and accepted for these new items, we would propose to also
calculate a single payment amount for used items based on 75 percent of
the single payment amount for new items. In addition, we would propose
to calculate a single payment amount for the rental of these items
based on 10 percent of the single payment amount for new items. We
believe that calculating single payment amounts for used items and
items rented on a monthly basis based on bids submitted and accepted
for new items will simplify the bidding process and will not create
problems with access to used items or rented items in this category.
b. DME Items Requiring Frequent and Substantial Servicing
We propose that bids be submitted for the monthly rental of items
in this payment category with the exception of continuous passive
motion exercise devices. We propose that bids be submitted for the
daily rental of continuous passive motion exercise devices. For items
in this category other than continuous passive motion exercise devices,
this is consistent with Sec. 414.222(b) our regulations. Coverage of
continuous passive motion exercise devices is limited to 21 days of use
in the home following knee replacement surgery; therefore, payment can
only be made on a daily basis as opposed to a monthly basis for this
item.
Based on the bids submitted and accepted for these items, we would
calculate single payment amounts for the furnishing of these items on a
rental basis.
c. Oxygen and Oxygen Equipment
If included under a competitive bidding program, we would propose
that the single payment amounts for oxygen and oxygen equipment be
calculated based on separate bids submitted and accepted for furnishing
on a monthly basis of each of the oxygen and oxygen equipment
categories of services described in Sec. 414.226(b)(1)(i) through
(b)(1)(iv).
d. Capped Rental Items
With the exception of power wheelchairs, payment for items that
fall into this payment category is currently made on a rental basis
only. The rental fee schedule payments for months 1 through 3 are based
on 10 percent of the purchase price for the item as determined under
Sec. 414.229(c). The rental fee schedule payments for months 4 through
15 are based on 7.5 percent of the purchase price for the item as
determined under Sec. 414.229(c). Since the DRA change does not apply
to beneficiaries using a capped rental item prior to January 1, 2006,
these beneficiaries may still elect either to take ownership of the
item after 13 months of continuous use or to continue renting the item
beyond 13 months of continuous use. In addition, the DRA leaves in tact
the rule under which a supplier must offer the beneficiary the option
to purchase a power wheelchair
[[Page 25674]]
at the time the supplier initially furnishes the item (in which case
payment would be made for the item on a lump-sum basis). However, with
regard to all other capped rental items for which the rental period
begins after January 1, 2006, the DRA requires suppliers to transfer
title to the item to the beneficiary after 13 months of continuous use.
Under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program, we propose that
separate payment for reasonable and necessary maintenance and servicing
only be made for beneficiary-owned DME. Payment for maintenance and
servicing of rented equipment would be included in the single payment
amount for rental of the item. We propose that the lump sum purchase
option in Sec. 414.229(d) for power wheelchairs be retained under the
Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program.
Under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program, we propose
that ``purchase'' bids be submitted for the furnishing of new items in
this category. Based on these bids, a single payment amount for
purchase of a new item will be calculated for each item in this
category for the purpose of determining both the single payment amount
for the lump sum purchase of a new power wheelchair, and for
calculating the single payment amounts for the rental of all items in
this category. In cases where the beneficiary elects to purchase a used
power wheelchair the single payment amount for the lump sum purchase of
the used power wheelchair would be based on 75 percent of the single
payment amount for a new power wheelchair. In the case of all items in
this category that are furnished on a rental basis, the single payment
amount for rental of the item for months 1 through 3 would be based on
10 percent of the single payment amount for purchase of the item, and
the single payment amount for rental of the item for months 4 through
13 would be based on 7.5 percent of the single payment amount for
purchase of the item. We believe that calculating single payment
amounts for used items and items rented on a monthly basis based on
bids submitted and accepted for new items will simplify the bidding
process and will not result in problems with access to used items or
rented items in this category.
e. Enteral Nutrition Equipment and Supplies
Enteral nutrition equipment is currently paid on a purchase or
rental basis. Section 6112(b)(2)(A) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-239) (OBRA 89) limits the
rental payments to 15 months. To be consistent with the bidding
requirements proposed above for capped rental DME, we propose that bids
be submitted for the purchase of new items in this category. Based on
the bids submitted and accepted for new items, we would calculate a
single payment amount for rented items for months 1 through 3 based on
10 percent of the single payment amount for new items. The single
payment amount for rented items for months 4 through 15 would be based
on 7.5 percent of the single payment amount for new items. In cases
where the beneficiary elects to purchase enteral nutrition equipment,
the single payment amount for new enteral nutrition equipment would be
based on the bids submitted and accepted for new enteral nutrition
equipment, and the single payment amount for used enteral nutrition
equipment would be based on 75 percent of the single payment amount for
the purchase of new enteral nutrition equipment.
Based on the bids submitted and accepted for new items, we would
calculate a single payment amount for purchase of enteral nutrients and
supplies.
f. Maintenance and Servicing of Enteral Nutrition Equipment
Section 6112(b)(2)(B) of OBRA 89 requires payment for maintenance
and servicing of enteral nutrition equipment after monthly rental
payments have been made for 15 months. The maintenance and servicing
payments are to be made in amounts that we determine are reasonable and
necessary to ensure the proper operation of the equipment. Since
October 1, 1990, program instructions have specified when and how these
payments are made. These program instructions are currently found at
section 40.3 of chapter 20 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual
(pub. 100-04). These instructions provide that maintenance and
servicing payments may be made beginning 6 months after the last rental
payment for the equipment and no more often than once every 6 months
for actual incidents of maintenance where the equipment requires
repairs and/or extensive maintenance. Extensive maintenance involves
the breaking down of sealed components or performance of tests that
require specialized testing equipment not available to the beneficiary
or nursing facility. The program instructions also state that the
maintenance and servicing payments cannot exceed one-half of the rental
payment amounts for the equipment. Under the Medicare DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program, we propose that the monthly rental
payments for enteral nutrition equipment for months 1 through 3 be
equal to 10 percent of the single payment amounts for the purchase of
the new enteral nutrition equipment. We propose that for months 4
through 15, the monthly rental payment amounts would be equal to 7.5
percent of the single payment amounts for the purchase of new items. In
addition, we propose to establish the maintenance and service payments
for enteral nutrition equipment so that they are equal to 5 percent of
the single payment amounts for the purchase of new enteral nutrition
equipment. This would limit the payment rate for maintenance and
service to one-half of the rental payment amount for the first month of
rental, which is similar to the program instructions mentioned above.
We are proposing that the contract supplier to which payment is made in
month 15 for furnishing enteral nutrition equipment on a rental basis
must continue to furnish, maintain and service the pump for as long as
the equipment is medically necessary. This proposed policy is similar
to current Medicare payment rules in Chapter 20 of the claims
processing manual, section 40.3.
g. Supplies Used in Conjunction With DME
We propose that bids be submitted for the purchase of supplies
necessary for the effective use of DME, including drugs (other than
inhalation drugs). Based on the bids submitted and accepted for these
items, we would calculate single payment amounts for the furnishing of
these items on a purchase basis.
h. OTS Orthotics
We propose that bids be submitted for the purchase of OTS
orthotics. Based on the bids submitted and accepted for these items, we
would calculate single payment amounts for the furnishing of these
items on a purchase basis.
G. Conditions for Awarding Contracts (Proposed Sec. 414.414)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Conditions for Awarding Contracts'' at the beginning of your
comments.]
1. Quality Standards and Accreditation (Proposed Sec. 414.414(c))
Section 1847(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act specifies that a contract may
not be awarded to any entity unless the entity meets applicable quality
standards specified by the Secretary under section
[[Page 25675]]
1834(a)(20) of the Act. Section 1834(a)(20) instructs the Secretary to
establish and implement quality standards for all DMEPOS suppliers in
the Medicare program, not just for suppliers in the competitive bidding
areas. All suppliers will have to meet these quality standards to be
eligible to submit claims to the Medicare program, irrespective of the
competitive bidding program. The quality standards are to be applied by
recognized independent accreditation organizations designated by the
Secretary under section 1834(a)(20)(B) of the Act. A grace period may
be granted for suppliers that have not had sufficient time to obtain
accreditation before submitting a bid. If a supplier does not then
successfully attain accreditation, we will suspend or terminate the
supplier contract. The length of time for the grace period will be
determined by the accrediting organizations' ability to complete the
accrediting process within each competitive bidding area. The length of
time of the grace period will be specified in the RFB for each
competitive bidding program. We solicit public comments on the length
of time for the grace period.
Suppliers that received a valid accreditation before CMS-approved
accreditation organizations are designated will be considered to be
grandfathered if the accreditation was granted by an organization that
we designate through the process described in proposed Sec. 424.58.
These suppliers will not need to be re-accredited until their next
regularly scheduled accreditation.
2. Eligibility (Proposed Sec. 414.414(b))
We propose that all bidders must meet eligibility rules to be
considered for selection under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program. The eligibility rules are included in the supplier standards
regulation at Sec. 424.57. Also, each bidder must be enrolled with
Medicare and be a current supplier, in good standing with the Medicare
program, and not under any current Medicare sanctions. Each bidding
supplier must certify in its bid that it, its high level employees,
chief corporate officers, members of board of directors, affiliated
companies and subcontractors are not now and have not been sanctioned
by any governmental agency or accreditation or licensing organization.
In the alternative, the bidding supplier must disclose information
about any prior or current legal actions, sanctions, or debarments by
any Federal, State or local program, including actions against any
members of the board of directors, chief corporate officers, high-level
employees, affiliated companies, and subcontractors.
Sanctions would include, but are not limited to, debarment from any
Federal program, sanctions issued by the Office of Inspector General,
or sanctions issued at the State or local level. In addition, the
bidder must have all State and local licenses required to furnish the
items that are being bid. Finally, the supplier must agree to all of
the terms in the contract outlined in the RFBs. We would suspend or
terminate a contract if a supplier loses its good standing with us or
any other government agency.
3. Financial Standards (Proposed Sec. 414.414(d))
Section 1847(b)(2)(A)(ii) specifies that we may not award a
contract to an entity unless the entity meets applicable financial
standards specified by the Secretary. Evaluation of financial standards
for suppliers assists us in assessing the expected quality of
suppliers, estimating the total potential capacity of selected
suppliers, and ensuring that selected suppliers are able to continue to
serve market demand for the duration of their contracts. Ultimately, we
believe that financial standards for suppliers will help maintain
beneficiary access to quality services.
Therefore, as part of the bid selection process, the RFBs will
identify the specific information we will require to evaluate
suppliers, which may include: a supplier's bank reference that reports
general financial condition, credit history, insurance documentation,
business capacity and line of credit to successfully fulfill the
contract, net worth, and solvency. We welcome comments on the financial
standards, in particular the most appropriate documents that will
support these standards.
We found that in the demonstration, general financial condition,
adequate financial ratios, positive credit history, adequate insurance
documentation, adequate business capacity and line of credit, net
worth, and solvency, were important considerations for evaluating
financial stability.
As we develop our methodology for financial standards, we will
further consider which individual measures should be required so that
we can obtain as much information as possible while minimizing the
burden on bidding suppliers and the bid evaluation process.
4. Evaluation of Bids (Proposed Sec. 414.414(e))
We are proposing to select the product categories that include
individual items for which we will require competitive bidding.
Individual products will be identified by the Healthcare Common
Procedure Coding System (HCPCS Codes) and will be further described in
the RFB. Suppliers will be required to submit bids for each individual
item within each product category they are seeking to furnish under the
program, but will not be required to bid for every product category.
a. Market Demand and Supplier Capacity (Proposed Sec. 414.414(e))
Section 1847(b)(4)(A) of the Act requires that in awarding
competitive bidding contracts, the Secretary must select the number of
contract suppliers necessary to furnish items to meet the projected
demand in the geographic area. Therefore, the first step is for us to
determine the expected demand for an item in a competitive bidding
area. We propose to calculate expected demand in each competitive
bidding area in a relatively straightforward way using existing
Medicare claims. We will examine claims data to determine the number of
units of each item supplied to Medicare beneficiaries during the past 2
years, and then determine the number of new beneficiaries that have
entered the market during the last 2 years. We feel that 2 years worth
of data is sufficient to allow us to identify trend analyses and
utilization measurements. We will also gather data on the number of new
fee-for-service Medicare enrollees coming into a competitive bidding
area and use this number to project the number of new enrollees.
We propose to calculate two years worth of claims on a monthly
basis to determine beneficiary demand. We will take into consideration
the expected demand over the total duration of the contract and the
seasonal effects (for example, an increase in beneficiary population in
Florida during the winter), and propose to use 2 years of data to
identify any time trends. If there are no seasonal effects or time
trends, we propose to use the average monthly total and new patient
figures as the market demand measures. If there are seasonal effects or
changes identified only during certain months, the maximum monthly
total and new patient figures would be used as the market demand
measures. If trends show that there is noticeable growth or reduction
in beneficiary demand for products in an area, we would take these
factors into consideration when developing estimates of beneficiary
demand for competitively bid items.
We propose to adopt the following approach to estimate supplier
capacity
[[Page 25676]]
to meet the projected demand in a CBA. First, we propose to analyze
Medicare claims to determine how many items a supplier is currently
providing in the competitive bidding area, as well as in total. Second,
as part of the bid, we would ask suppliers to say how many units they
are willing and capable of supplying at the bid price in the CBA. We
would compare this information to what the supplier has dispensed to
Medicare beneficiaries in the past and what it specified in its
response to the RFB as its projected capacity. We would require
evidence of financial resources to support market expansion, such as
letters from investors or lending agents. We would use this information
to evaluate the capacity of the bidder. Third, we would compare
expected capacity and Medicare volume to determine how many suppliers
we would need in an area. For new suppliers, we would ask them for
their expected capacity, look at trend data for new suppliers in that
area, and examine the capacity of other suppliers in that area. We
would need to use this data to make estimates about capacity because
suppliers may have more capacity potential than they are currently
exhibiting. During the DMEPOS demonstration, demonstration suppliers
were able to expand their output to meet market demand and replace
market share previously provided by non-demonstration suppliers;
indeed, some demonstration suppliers were disappointed that they did
not gain more market share during the demonstration. We presented
numerous issues to the PAOC where we requested advice on issues such as
market capacity and demands. During the February 28, 2005 PAOC meeting,
we asked the panel to discuss the issue of demand and capacity. Several
members of the committee, based upon their expertise and knowledge of
the industry, suggested that most DMEPOS suppliers would be able to
easily increase their total capacity to furnish items by up to 20
percent and the increase could be even larger for products like
diabetes supplies that require relatively little labor.
We welcome comments on our proposed approach for calculating market
demand and estimating supplier capacity. We are especially interested
in any information that would help us compare current Medicare volume
with potential capacity, including potential formulas we could apply to
determine capacity.
b. Composite Bids (Proposed Sec. 414.414(e))
When suppliers are bidding for multiple items in a product
category, the lowest bid for each item will not always be submitted by
the same supplier. In this case, looking at the bids for individual
items would not tell us which supplier should be selected since
different suppliers may submit the lowest bids for different items.
Therefore, we propose to use a composite bid to compare all of the
suppliers' bids submitted for an entire product category in a CBA.
Using a composite bid is a way to aggregate a supplier's bids for
individual items within a product category into a single bid for the
whole product category. This will allow us to determine which suppliers
can offer the lowest expected costs to Medicare for all items in a
product category. To compute the composite bid for a product category,
we would multiply a supplier's bid for each item in a product category
by the item's weight and sum these numbers across items. The weight of
an item would be based on the utilization of the individual item
compared to other items within that product category based on historic
Medicare claims. Item weights would be used to reflect the relative
market importance of each item in the product category. We would select
item weights that ensure that the composite bid is directly comparable
to the costs that Medicare would pay if it bought the expected bundle
of items in the product category from the supplier. The sum of each
supplier's weighted bids for every item in a product category would
become the supplier's composite bid for that product category.
We seek comment on the best method of weighting individual items
within a product category to determine the composite bid. One approach
we are considering is to set the weight for each item based on the
volume of the individual item's share compared to the total utilization
of the product category. Under this weighting system, the composite bid
would be exactly proportional to the expected cost of furnishing the
entire bundle of items. Therefore, if supplier 1 had a lower composite
bid than supplier 2, it would also have a lower expected cost of
furnishing the entire product bundle that makes up the product
category. Another approach we are considering is to set the weight
based on the payment amounts attributable to each DMEPOS fee schedule
item relative to the overall payment amount for the total product
category. This approach may better reflect the relative value of each
item because it is based on how much we actually pay for an item. This
is the approach that we used in the round 1 bidding in Polk County
under the competitive bidding demonstration program. However, we found
that this approach could result in too much weight being placed on low
volume and high-priced items. The first year evaluation report also
found that using the allowed charges as the weights could result in a
supplier who offered lower bids having a higher composite bid than a
supplier who offered a higher bid for individual items.
We use volume of items or units as the basis of the following
examples but we are requesting comments on which weighting method
should be used in calculating the composite. We also request comments
on other methods of weighting that could be applied to individual
items.
Table 5.--Item Weights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item A B C All
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units............................................................ 5 3 2 10
Item Weight...................................................... 0.5 0.3 0.2 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The example above shows how a proposed weight setting methodology
would work. The expected volume for Items A, B, and C are 5, 3, and 2
units, respectively, for a total volume of 10 units. The item weight
for Item A is 0.5 (5/10), the weight for Item B is 0.3 (3/10), etc.
As explained above, the composite bid for a supplier would equal
the item weight times the item bid summed across all items in the
product category. The item weights would be the same for bidders for
the same product categories. In our example, supplier 1 bid $1.00 for
item A, $4.00 for item B and $1.00 for item C. The composite bid for
Supplier 1 = (0.5 * $1.00) + (0.3 * $4.00) + (0.2 * $1.00) = 1.90. The
table shows the expected cost of the bundle based on
[[Page 25677]]
each supplier's bids. The expected costs are directly proportional to
the composite bids; the factor of proportionality is equal to the total
number of units (10) in the product category. We used the composite bid
to determine the expected costs for all of the items in the product
category based upon expected volume.
Table 6.--Composite Bids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected
Item A B C Composite cost of
bid bundle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units............................................... 5 3 2 .......... ..........
Item weight......................................... 0.5 0.3 0.2 .......... ..........
Supplier 1 bid...................................... $1.00 $4.00 $1.00 $1.90 $19.00
Supplier 2 bid...................................... $3.00 $3.00 $2.00 2.80 28.00
Supplier 3 bid...................................... $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 2.00 20.00
Supplier 4 bid...................................... $1.00 $2.00 $2.00 1.50 15.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this proposed methodology, bid selection would proceed by
ranking the composite bids from lowest to highest (Table 6). In order
to ensure that we would pay less under competitive bidding than we
would under the current fee schedule, as is required under section
1847(b)(2)(A)(iii), we would compute the expected cost of the bundle of
goods for comparison purposes. This would require us to calculate the
bid amount times the expected number of units that we expect suppliers
will furnish based on the most current Medicare claims data and sum
across each item by supplier. For example, if supplier 1 bid $1.00 for
item A and we expected to purchase 5 units--$1.00 x 5 units = $5.00,
item B--$4.00 x 3 units = $12.00, item C--$1.00 x 2 units = $2.00, the
sum for these 3 items would be $19.00. As previously noted, prior to
bid selection we would first ensure that suppliers meet quality and
financial standards prior to arraying the bids and selecting suppliers.
c. Determine the Pivotal Bid (Proposed Sec. 414.414(e))
We propose that the pivotal bid would be the point where expected
combined capacity of the bidders is sufficient to meet expected demands
of beneficiaries for items in a product category. In the example below,
the projected demand would be for 1000 units, therefore supplier 10's
composite bid would represent the pivotal bid, since the cumulative
capacity of 1100 would exceed the projected demand of 1000. The statute
requires multiple winners, so in all cases where we award bids, we
would need to accept at least two winning bidders. All bidders who are
eligible for selection and whose composite bid for the product category
is less than or equal to the pivotal bid would be selected as winning
bidders. In the table below, for example, $135.00 would be the pivotal
bid. Suppliers 2, 3, 1, and 10 would then be selected as winning
bidders with supplier 10's composite bid becoming the pivotal bid. We
realize that this approach may leave out other suppliers with very
close, but slightly higher bids.
Table 7.--Determine the Pivotal Bid
[Point where beneficiary demand is met by supplier capacity--for this example, beneficiary expected demand is
1000 units--supplier 10's bid is the pivotal bid]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composite Supplier Cumulative
Supplier number Eligible for selection bid capacity capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2......................................... Yes.......................... $100 100 100
3......................................... Yes.......................... 115 300 400
1......................................... Yes.......................... 120 400 800
10........................................ Yes.......................... 135 300 1100
4......................................... Yes.......................... 140 500 1600
7......................................... Yes.......................... 150 100 1700
No longer being considered:
5......................................... No........................... 120 n.c. n.c.
6......................................... No........................... 130 n.c. n.c.
8......................................... No........................... 175 n.c. n.c.
9......................................... No........................... 200 n.c. n.c.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n.c. = not calculated.
We also considered the use of a competitive range to determine the
contract suppliers. In this approach we would determine a competitive
range for the composite bid. We would array all suppliers by their bids
and eliminate all suppliers whose composite bid is greater than the
competitive range. We would then evaluate the quality and financial
standards only for those remaining suppliers.
During the demonstration, evaluating quality and financial
standards was time-consuming for the bid evaluation panel and required
bidders to provide extensive information on quality and finances. The
last two rounds of the demonstration used a competitive range to reduce
the burden on the bid evaluation panel and bidders. After evaluating
basic eligibility requirements, the composite bids were calculated and
arrayed, and a competitive range was selected with more than enough
suppliers to serve the market. Suppliers whose composite bids were
clearly outside of this range were not required to provide detailed
financial information, and the bid panel was not required to evaluate
the eligibility of these suppliers to participate. Suppliers within the
competitive range provided detailed financial information and had their
quality rigorously evaluated. The
[[Page 25678]]
remaining suppliers were only selected as contract suppliers if they
met the quality and financial standards and their composite bids were
at or below the pivotal bid.
There are other options that we have considered to determine the
pivotal bid. One of these options would be to make the pivotal bid
depend on one of the summary statistics (for example, mean, median,
45th percentile) associated with the distribution of bids from eligible
suppliers. For example, the pivotal bid could be set equal to the
median bid from eligible suppliers. This option has the advantage that
the pivotal bid could be set near the central distribution of bids. We
considered including additional suppliers who are close to the central
distribution as being eligible to become a contract supplier. Both
options would likely affect the number of contract suppliers. Finally,
the exact summary statistic or percentile can be increased or decreased
to reflect our trade-off between the number of winners and program
costs. One negative aspect of this approach would be that winners may
have insufficient capacity. In addition, with a given percentile
cutoff, the pivotal bid might include an excessive number of winning
bidders. As the number of eligible bidders increases, so does the
number of winners. If additional bidders have higher costs, and their
bids fall into the upper half of the distribution, the pivotal bid will
increase, resulting in greater payments by the Medicare program and a
loss of savings.
Another option would be to base the pivotal bid on a target number
of winners. For example, we may decide to select 5 winners in each
product category. Suppliers may respond to this approach by bidding
aggressively, knowing that only a fixed number of winners are
guaranteed to be selected. A negative aspect of this approach is that
there is no assurance that a predetermined target number of winners
would have sufficient capacity to meet projected market demand. In
addition, the target number of winners must somehow be selected and
this could result in selecting an arbitrary number. If too high,
suppliers may have little incentive to bid aggressively.
We also considered an option to base the pivotal bid on a target
composite bid, for example, we would choose a target that was 20
percent below the DMEPOS fee schedule amount for that product category.
A possible advantage of this approach is that the target composite bid
can be set to ensure savings for the program. On the other hand, we
believed that suppliers might perceive this approach to be
anticompetitive. Rather than letting bidding and the market forces
determine the pivotal bid and fee schedule we might have been viewed as
pre-ordaining the outcome. In addition, suppliers that bid below the
target composite bid might have had insufficient capacity to meet
projected market demand.
We are proposing that the pivotal bid be at the point where we have
a sufficient number of suppliers to ensure we have enough capacity to
meet projected demand and that beneficiaries have adequate access to
quality items.
d. Assurance of Savings (Proposed Sec. 414.414(f))
Section 1847(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act prohibits awarding contracts
to any entity for furnishing items unless the total amounts to be paid
to contractors in a competitive bidding area are expected to be less
than the total amounts that would otherwise be paid. We are proposing
to interpret this requirement to mean that contracts will not be
awarded to any entity unless the amounts to be paid to contract
suppliers in a competitive bidding area are expected to be less for a
competitively bid item than would have otherwise been paid. Therefore,
we would not accept any bid for an item that is higher than the current
fee schedule amount for that item. This approach would require that
single payment amounts for each item in a product category be equal to
or less than our current fee schedule amount for that item.
An alternative interpretation of ``less than the total amounts that
would otherwise be paid'' could mean contracts will not be awarded to
an entity unless the amounts paid to contract suppliers in a CBA for
the product category are expected to be less than that would have
otherwise been paid. During the demonstration, several product
categories received overall savings, whereas payment amounts increased
for a few individual items within those product categories. This
approach may not result in adequate savings, and we believe a
reasonable interpretation of the Act would be one in which ``the total
amounts'' mean payment at the item level. One concern with this
approach is that there may be a greater potential for shifting of
utilizations from one item to another higher priced item.
We specifically request comments on the various methods for
assuring savings under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program.
e. Assurance of Multiple Contractors (Proposed Sec. 414.414(g))
Section 1847(b)(4)(B) of the Act specifies that the Secretary will
award contracts to multiple entities submitting bids in each area for
an item. In addition, section 1847(b)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act specifies
that contracts may not be awarded unless access of individuals to a
choice of multiple suppliers is maintained. As a result, we will have
multiple contract suppliers in each competitive bidding area for each
product category if at least two suppliers meet all requirements for
participation, and the single payment amounts to be paid to those
suppliers do not exceed the fee schedule amounts for the items that
were bid. We know that offering choices to beneficiaries, referral
agents, and treating practitioners that order DMEPOS for Medicare
beneficiaries is important to maintain competition among suppliers
based on quality of items. We have to weigh that advantage against the
disincentive for a supplier to submit its best bid if we select too
many suppliers to service a competitive bidding area. Therefore, we
believe that having multiple suppliers servicing one product category
in a competitive bidding area will allow us to accomplish these goals.
f. Selection of New Suppliers After Bidding (Proposed Sec. 414.414(h))
We are proposing to select only as many suppliers as necessary to
ensure we have enough capacity to meet projected demand. However, we
may have to suspend or terminate a contract supplier's contract if that
supplier falls out of compliance with any of the requirements
identified in the regulation and in the bidding contract.
Alternatively, we could determine that the number of contract suppliers
we selected to furnish a product category under a competitive bidding
program was insufficient to meet beneficiary demand for those items. In
situations where CMS determines that there is an unmet demand for
items, for example, if CMS terminates a contract supplier's contract,
we would propose to contact the remaining contract suppliers for that
product category to determine if they could absorb the unmet demand. If
the remaining contract suppliers could not absorb the unmet demand in a
timely manner, we would propose to then refer to the list of suppliers
that submitted bids for that product category in that round of
competitive bidding in that competitive bidding area, use the list of
composite bids that we arrayed from lowest to highest, and proceed to
the next supplier on the list. We would
[[Page 25679]]
contact that supplier to determine if it would be interested in
becoming a contract supplier. If the supplier was interested, we would
require the supplier to provide updated information to ensure its
continued eligibility for participation. A condition for acceptance of
a contract would be that the supplier must agree to accept the already
determined single payment amounts for the individual items within the
product category in the competitive bidding area. We would continue to
go down the list until we were satisfied that the expected demand would
be met and beneficiary access to the items in the product category
would not be a problem. After consultation with the DMEPOS industry and
PAOC, CMS was told that additional capacity should not be a problem as
suppliers would be willing and able to handle the expected demand.
Another option that we considered, but are not proposing, was to
conduct a new round of bidding to select additional suppliers. However,
we did not choose this option because it would delay the resolution of
an access problem and place an additional administrative burden on the
program.
H. Determining Single Payment Amounts for Individual Items (Proposed
Sec. 414.416)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Determining Single Payment Amounts for Individual Items'' at
the beginning of your comments.]
1. Setting Single Payment Amounts for Individual Items (Proposed Sec.
414.416(b))
Section 1847(b)(5)(A) of the Act requires that the Secretary
determine a single payment amount for each item in each competitive
bidding area based on the bids submitted and accepted for that item.
Once contract suppliers are selected for a product category based on
their composite bid and the pivotal bid, single payment amounts for
individual items in the product category must be determined. We are
considering several different methodologies for determining the single
payment amounts. Each of the options under consideration are discussed
in detail in this section. After careful consideration of these
options, we are proposing to adopt the following principles to
determine the single payment amounts for individual items in a product
category:
Principle 1
Bid amounts from all winning bids for an item in a CBA will be used
to set the single payment amount for that item in the CBA.
Principle 2
We must expect to pay less for each individual item than we would
have otherwise paid for that item under the current fee schedule.
Single payment amounts cannot be higher than our current fee schedule
amounts for individual items within a product category.
To satisfy these principles, we evaluated several different
approaches to setting payment amounts. As a result of our review, we
have decided on a preferred approach that would determine the single
payment amounts for individual items by using the median of the
supplier bids that are at or below the pivotal bid for each individual
item within each product category. The individual items would be
identified by the appropriate HCPCS codes. The median of the bids
submitted by the contract suppliers for a particular item would be the
single payment amount that we would establish under the competitive
bidding program for the HCPCS code that describes that item. In cases
where there is an even number of winning bidders for an item, we would
employ the average (mean) of the two bid prices in the middle of the
array to set the single payment amount.
We believe that setting the single payment amount based on the
median of the contract suppliers' bids satisfies the statutory
requirement that single payment amounts are to be based on bids
submitted and accepted. This will result in a single payment for an
item under a competitive bidding program that is representative of the
winning bids for that item. This methodology also has the advantage of
being easily understood by suppliers and implemented by our
contractors. It also results in what we consider to be a reasonable
payment amount based on prices available in the marketplace. As
illustrated in Table 8, this methodology would reduce the effect of
excessively high or excessively low bids and would also help to ensure
savings for the Medicare program. We believe it is also consistent with
the intent of competitive bidding.
Table 8.--Median of the Winning Bids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual
Item A B C composite
bid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplier 4 bid.............................................. $1.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.50
Supplier 1 bid.............................................. 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.90
Supplier 3 bid.............................................. 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Median of winning bids--Single payment amount............... 1.00 2.00 2.00 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this is our proposed approach, we are soliciting comments on
other methodologies for setting the single payment amount, including
using an adjustment factor as part of the methodology for setting the
single payment amount. This was the methodology we used for the
competitive bidding demonstrations, and it would require the following
steps. The first step of this methodology would be to calculate the
average of the winning bids per individual item. The second step would
be to calculate the average of the composite bids by taking the sum of
the composite bids for all contract suppliers in the applicable CBA and
dividing that number by the number of contract suppliers. The third
step would be to determine an adjustment factor, the purpose of which
would be to bring every winner's overall bids for a product category up
to the pivotal bidder's composite bid. Once we determined the
adjustment factor, we would take the average of the winning bids per
item and multiply that by the adjustment factor to adjust all bids up
to the point of the pivotal bid, so that all winners would be paid by
Medicare as much for the total product category as the pivotal bidder.
This amount would become the single payment amount for the individual
item. This is the price that all contract suppliers within a
competitive bidding area would be paid for that product as illustrated
in Table 9.
[[Page 25680]]
Table 9.--Adjusting the Average Winning Bids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Actual
Item A B C composite composite
bid bid
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplier 4 bid................................. $1.00 $2.00 $2.00 ........... $1.50
Supplier 1 bid................................. 1.00 4.00 1.00 ........... 1.90
Supplier 3 bid................................. 2.00 2.00 2.00 ........... 2.00
Supplier 2 bid................................. N/A N/A N/A ........... N/A
Average of winning bids........................ 1.33 2.67 1.67 1.80 ...........
Adjustment factor = (Pivotal Composite Bid) / 1.11 1.11 1.11 ........... ...........
(Average Composite Bid).......................
Adjusted average bids--single payment amount 1.48 2.96 1.85 ........... ...........
per item......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This approach would ensure that the overall payment amounts that
contract suppliers received was at least as much as their bids. As a
result, this may have guarded against suppliers leaving the Medicare
program because the payment amounts are not sufficient. However, we do
not favor this alternative because, in general, most payment amounts
would be higher than the actual bids as a result of the adjustment
factor being greater than zero. This is true because the purpose of the
adjustment factor would have been to make the composite bid of all
winning suppliers equivalent to the composite bid of the pivotal
supplier. While this approach is still under consideration, we are
considering whether this approach is reflective of the actual winning
bids accepted. Also, we are concerned that this methodology may be
confusing and overly complicated.
We also considered taking the minimum winning bid for each item in
a CBA and not applying an adjustment factor. We do not favor this
alternative because we also do not consider it as being reflective of
the actual bids accepted because it is only reflective of the lowest
bid. The lowest bid would not be reflective of what suppliers would
sell the item for since most of them bid higher.
Finally, we considered taking the maximum winning bid for each
item. However, this approach would have led to program payment amounts
that were higher than necessary because some suppliers were willing to
provide these items to beneficiaries at a lower cost.
We are still in the process of determining the appropriate approach
for setting payment amounts, as well as the alternatives considered and
outlined above and invite comments on our proposed methodology. We will
consider all comments in the final regulation.
2. Rebate Program (Proposed Sec. 414.416(c))
We are proposing to allow contract suppliers that submitted bids
for an individual item below the single payment amount to provide the
beneficiary with a rebate. The rebate would be equal to the difference
between their actual bid amount and the single payment amount. The
following example illustrates how the rebates would be applied:
If, based on the bids received and accepted for an item, we
determined that the single payment amount for the item was $100,
Medicare payment for the item would be 80 percent of that amount, or
$80, and the co-insurance amount for the item would be 20 percent, or
$20. However, if a contract supplier submitted a bid of $90 for this
item and chose to offer a rebate, the rebate amount would be equal to
the difference between the single payment amount ($100) and the
contract supplier's actual bid ($90), or $10. Therefore, after the
contract supplier received the Medicare payment of $80 and the $20 co-
insurance, the contract supplier would be responsible for providing the
beneficiary with a $10 rebate. We are soliciting comments on how to
handle those cases in which the rebates would exceed the co-payment
amount.
Before deciding to propose this methodology, we considered whether
to make the rebates mandatory or optional. We are proposing that the
rebates be voluntary but that contract suppliers cannot implement them
on a case by case basis. If a contract supplier submits a bid below the
single payment amount and chooses to offer a rebate, it must offer the
rebate to all Medicare beneficiaries receiving the competitively bid
item to which the rebate applies. This commitment would be incorporated
into the contract supplier's contract. Stated another way, while the
decision to offer rebates may be voluntary, once a contract supplier
decides to provide rebates, the rebates become a binding contractual
condition for payment during the term of the contract with CMS.
Moreover, the contract supplier may not amend or otherwise alter the
provision of rebates during the term of the contract. Contract
suppliers would also be prohibited from directly or indirectly
advertising these rebates to beneficiaries, referral sources, or
prescribing health care professionals. However, this would not preclude
CMS from providing to beneficiaries comparative information about
contract suppliers that offer rebates.
Only contract suppliers that submitted bids below the single
payment amount for a competitively bid item would have the choice to
offer rebates. Contract suppliers that submitted bids above the single
payment amount would not be allowed to issue rebates because their
actual bids for an individual item would be above this amount.
Our reasons for allowing these contract suppliers to offer rebates
is to allow beneficiaries the ability to realize additional savings and
the full benefits of the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program.
We are asking for comments concerning the rebate process outlined
in this proposed rule. CMS will continue to evaluate the fraud and
abuse risks of the proposed rebate program, and we are specifically
soliciting comments on such risks.
I. Terms of Contracts (Proposed Sec. 414.422)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Terms of Contract'' at the beginning of your comments.]
Section 1847(b)(3)(A) of the Act gives the Secretary the authority
to specify the terms and conditions of the contracts used for
competitive bidding. Section 1847(b)(3)(B) requires the Secretary to
recompete contracts under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program at least every 3 years. The length of the contracts may be
different for different product categories, and we propose to specify
the length of each contract in the Request for Bids.
1. Terms and Conditions of Contracts
We propose that the competitive bidding contracts will contain, at
a
[[Page 25681]]
minimum, provisions relating to the following:
Covered product categories and covered beneficiaries,
operating policies.
Subcontracting rules.
Cooperation with us and our agents.
Potential onsite inspections.
Minimum length of participation.
Terms of contract suspension or termination.
Our discretion not to proceed if we find that the Medicare
program will not realize significant savings as a result of the
program.
Compliance with changes in Federal laws and regulations
during the course of the agreement.
Non-discrimination against beneficiaries in a competitive
bidding area (so that all beneficiaries inside and outside of a
competitive bidding area receive the same products that the contract
supplier would provide to other customers).
Supplier enrollment and quality standards.
The single payment amounts for covered items.
Other terms as we may specify.
2. Furnishing of Items (Proposed Sec. 414.422(c))
A contract supplier must agree to furnish the items included in its
contract to all beneficiaries who maintain a permanent residence or who
visit the competitive bidding area and request those items from the
contract supplier. However, as explained in sections II.F.1 and II.F.2
above, a skilled nursing facility defined in section 1819(a) of the Act
that is also a contract supplier must only agree to furnish the items
included in its contract to patients to whom it would otherwise furnish
Part B services. In addition, a physician that is also a contract
supplier must only agree to furnish the items included in its contract
to his or her patients.
3. Repairs and Replacements of Patient Owned Items Subject to
Competitive Bidding. (Proposed Sec. 414.422(c))
Repair or replacement of patient-owned DME, enteral nutrition
equipment or off-the-shelf orthotics, that are subject to the
competitive bidding program, must be furnished by a contract supplier
because only winning suppliers can provide these items in a competitive
bidding area. The contract supplier cannot refuse to repair or replace
patient-owned items subject to competitive bidding. This proposed
policy will help ensure that the beneficiaries will get the items from
qualified suppliers, and it is consistent with the competitive bidding
program in that it directs business to contract suppliers.
Therefore, we propose that repair or replacement of patient-owned
items subject to a competitive bidding program must be furnished by a
contract supplier. This requirement does not apply to beneficiaries who
are outside of a competitive bidding area.
4. Furnishing Items to Beneficiaries Whose Permanent Residence Is
Within a CBA
We propose that a contract supplier cannot refuse to furnish items
and services to a beneficiary residing in a CBA based on the
beneficiary's geographic location within the CBA. This policy will
prohibit contract suppliers from refusing to furnish items to
beneficiaries because they are not in close proximity to that supplier.
In order to ensure beneficiary access to competitively bid items that
are rented, we are proposing that the contract supplier must agree to
accept as a customer a beneficiary who began renting the item from a
different supplier regardless of how many months the item has already
been rented. This is particularly important in those cases where a
supplier or noncontract supplier does not elect to continue furnishing
the item in accordance with the grandfathering provisions discussed in
section II.C.3. above. Suppliers must factor the cost of furnishing
items in these situations into their bid submissions. Also, in order to
ensure beneficiary access to the competitively bid items in the
inexpensive or routinely purchased DME payment category or to a
competitively bid power wheelchair, the contract supplier must agree to
give the beneficiary or his or her caregiver the choice of either
renting or purchasing the item and must furnish the item on a rental or
purchase basis as directed by the beneficiary or the beneficiary's
caregiver. Suppliers must factor the cost of furnishing these items on
both a rental and purchase basis into their bid submissions.
5. Furnishing Items to Beneficiaries Whose Permanent Residence Is
Outside a CBA
In order to obtain medically necessary DMEPOS or other equipment, a
beneficiary whose permanent residence is located outside of a CBA must
use a contract supplier to obtain all items subject to competitive
bidding in the competitive bidding area that he or she visits. We
considered allowing beneficiaries whose residence is outside of a
competitive bidding area to obtain these items from noncontract
suppliers when coming into a competitive bidding area. However,
consistent with section 1847(b)(6), we are proposing that they be
required to use a contract supplier because we believe that new
business for competitively bid items should be directed only to
contract suppliers. Noncontract suppliers would be allowed to continue
servicing current beneficiaries who maintain a permanent residence in a
competitive bidding area if they qualified for the grandfathering
program discussed in section II.C.3 above.
6. Information Collection From the Supplier
The following is a list of some of the terms, conditions and
information that we propose a supplier must agree to provide to CMS for
purposes of assessment prior to becoming a contract supplier:
Information on product integrity.
Information on business integrity.
Organizational conflicts of interest.
Name.
Physical address.
Billing address.
Phone number.
NSC number.
Names of all owners.
NSC number of any affiliated company.
Address and phone number of any affiliated company.
Employee information.
Number of employees.
Training and qualifications.
Customer service protocol.
Information on any bankruptcy proceedings involving the
bidding company or any affiliated company.
We invite comments on what terms and conditions should be included
in a contract for the competitive bidding program. We are interested
both in terms and conditions that should be omitted as well as terms
and conditions that should be added.
7. Change in Ownership (Proposed Sec. 414.422(d))
We propose to evaluate a company's ownership information, its
compliance with appropriate quality standards, its financial status,
and its compliance status with government programs before we determine
that a supplier can qualify as a contract supplier if there is a change
of ownership. For this reason, we are proposing that suppliers would
not be granted winning status by merely merging with or acquiring a
contract supplier's business. We do not want to allow suppliers to
adopt a strategy of circumventing the regular bidding process by
gaining winning status through acquisitions of or mergers with
[[Page 25682]]
contract suppliers or to violate any anti-competition prohibitions.
Therefore, contract suppliers must notify CMS in writing 60 days prior
to any changes of ownership, mergers or acquisitions being finalized.
We have the discretion to allow a successor entity after a merger
with or acquisition of a contract supplier to function as contract
supplier when--
There is a need for the successor entity as a contractor
to ensure Medicare s capacity to meet expected beneficiary demand for a
competitively bid item; and
We determine that the successor entity meets all the
requirements applicable to contract suppliers.
The successor entity must agree to assume the contract
supplier s contract, including all contract obligations and liabilities
that may have occurred after the awarding of the contract to the
previous supplier. The successor entity is legally liable for the non-
fulfillment of obligations of the original contract supplier.
In addition, we would only allow the successor entity to function
as a contract supplier if it executed a novation agreement.
8. Suspension or Termination of a Contract (Proposed Sec. 414.422(f))
Contract suppliers are held to all the terms of their contracts for
the full length of the contract period. Any deviation from contract
requirements, including a failure to comply with governmental agency or
licensing organization requirements, would constitute a breach of
contract. If we conclude that the contract supplier has breached its
contract, the actions we might take include, but are not limited to,
asking the contract supplier to correct the breach condition,
suspending the contract, terminating the contract for default (that may
include reprocurement costs), precluding the supplier from
participating in the competitive bidding program, or availing ourselves
of other remedies permitted by law. We would also have the right to
terminate the contract for convenience.
J. Administrative or Judicial Review (Sec. 414.424)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Administrative or Judicial Review'' at the beginning of your
comments.]
Section 1847(b)(10) of the Act provides that there will be no
administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or
any other section of the Act, for the:
Establishment of payment amounts under a competitive
bidding program;
Awarding of contracts under a competitive bidding program;
Designation of competitive bidding areas for the Medicare
DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program;
Phased-in implementation of the Medicare DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program;
Selection of items for a competitive bidding program.
Bidding structure and number of contract suppliers
selected under a competitive bidding program.
This proposed regulation has no impact on the current beneficiary
or supplier right to appeal denied claims. However, neither the
beneficiary nor the supplier would be able to bring such an appeal if a
competitively bid item was furnished in a competitive bidding area in a
manner not authorized by this rule.
K. Opportunity for Participation by Small Suppliers
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Opportunity for Participation by Small Suppliers'' at the
beginning of your comments.]
In developing bidding and contract award procedures, section
1847(b)(6)(D) of the Act requires us to take appropriate steps to
ensure that small suppliers of items have an opportunity to be
considered for participation in the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding
Program. Section 1847(b)(2)(A)(ii)) of the Act also states that the
needs of small suppliers must be taken into account when evaluating
whether an entity meets applicable financial standards.
Size definitions for small businesses are, for some purposes,
developed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) based on annual
receipts or employees, using the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). Based on the advice from the SBA, we expect that most
DME suppliers will fall into either NAICS Code 532291, Home Health
Equipment Rental, or NAICS Code 446110, Pharmacies, since the SBA
defines these small businesses as businesses having less than $6
million in annual receipts.
We propose using the SBA small business definition when evaluating
whether a DMEPOS supplier is a small supplier. We are relying on the
expertise of the SBA to determine what constitutes the appropriate
definition of a small supplier. All contract suppliers are expected to
service the whole competitive bidding area. However, we considered
allowing a small supplier that has fewer than 10 full-time equivalent
employees to designate a geographic service area that is smaller than
the entire competitive bidding area. However, we are not proposing this
approach because we want to ensure that beneficiaries have the choice
of going to any contract supplier in their respective CBA. Carve out
areas could lead to confusion for the beneficiary faced with multiple
competitive bidding sub-areas. Further, we believe such an approach
would allow selection of more favorable market areas by smaller
businesses potentially leading to an unfair market advantage. We seek
comments on this issue.
Information available to us on the size distribution of businesses
that provide DMEPOS indicates that the majority of suppliers in the
DMEPOS industry qualify as small businesses according to the SBA
definitions. Our analysis of DMEPOS claims data suggests that at least
90 percent of DMEPOS suppliers had Medicare allowed charges of less
than $1 million in 2003. The figure of $1 million could be an
underestimate of total receipts, since it does not include non-Medicare
receipts and non-DMEPOS receipts, but it does suggest that most DMEPOS
suppliers are small.
Although section 1847(b)(6)(D) of the Act focuses on ensuring
participation in the bidding, and not on bidding outcomes, we believe
that it is worth noting how small suppliers fared in the bidding in the
demonstration. Both small and large suppliers were selected as
demonstration suppliers. Some small suppliers that were selected as
demonstration suppliers were able to increase their market share
substantially during the demonstration. Others experienced little
change in market share.
We recognize the importance, benefits and convenience offered by
the local presence of small suppliers. We propose to take the following
steps to ensure that small suppliers have the opportunity to be
considered for participation in the program.
First, as required by section 1847(b)(4)(B) of the Act, we will
select multiple winners in each CBA. If a single winner was selected in
an area, a small supplier would have difficulty participating in the
competition because the supplier would have to somehow demonstrate that
it could rapidly expand to serve the entire projected demand in the
area. Selecting multiple suppliers should make it easier for small
suppliers to participate in the program.
Second, we propose to conduct separate bidding competitions for
product categories, allowing suppliers to decide how many product
categories
[[Page 25683]]
for which they want to submit bids, rather than conduct a single
bidding competition for all DMEPOS items and other equipment. We
believe that separate competitions for product categories will
encourage participation by small suppliers that specialize in one or a
few product categories. If a single competition was held for all DMEPOS
items and other equipment, small, specialized suppliers would have to
either significantly expand their product and service offerings or
submit bids for items they currently do not provide.
We recognize the importance of small suppliers in the DMEPOS
industry, and we welcome comments on any the options identified above.
We are also interested in other ways to ensure that small suppliers
have opportunities to be considered for participation in the program.
To collect additional information on this issue, we contracted with
RTI International to conduct focus groups with small suppliers. The
purpose of the focus groups was to gather input on ways to facilitate
participation by small suppliers in the program. The focus groups also
discussed the impact of the requirement for the quality standards and
accreditation, which will affect all small suppliers, regardless of
whether they seek to participate in a competitive bidding program. We
will review our efforts to ensure participation by small suppliers in
the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program after we review
comments to this proposed rule and the results of the focus groups. We
will consider the findings of the focus groups along with additional
options and comments presented on this proposed rule.
L. Opportunity for Networks (Proposed Sec. 414.418)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Opportunity for Networks'' at the beginning of your
comments.]
We propose allowing suppliers the option to form networks for
bidding purposes. Networks are several companies joining together via
some type of legal contractual relationship to submit bids for a
product category under competitive bidding. This option will allow
suppliers to band together to lower bidding costs, expand service
options, or attain more favorable purchasing terms. We recognize that
forming a network may be challenging for suppliers, and it also poses
challenges for bid evaluation and program monitoring. Networking was
included as an option in the demonstration project, but no networks
submitted bids. Still, we believe that networking may be a useful
option for suppliers in some cases, so we propose to offer it as an
option. If suppliers do decide to form networks, we propose that the
following rules must be met:
A legal entity must be formed for the purpose of
competitive bidding, such as a joint venture, limited partnership, or
contractor/subcontractor relationship which would act as the applicant
and submit the bid. We are specifically requesting comments regarding
other types of suitable arrangements that would not require suppliers
to form a new legal entity but would allow them to form a network for
purposes of submitting bids. For example, one supplier could be
designated as a primary contractor and the other suppliers in the group
would function as subcontractors. In this example, if the contract with
the primary contractor was terminated, the contracts with the
subcontractors would also be terminated, thus nullifying the entire
contract.
All legal contracts must be in place and signed before the
network entity can submit a bid for the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive
Bidding Program.
Each member of the network must be independently eligible
to bid. If a member of the network is determined to be ineligible to
bid, the network will be notified and given 10 business days to
resubmit its application.
Each member must meet any accreditation and quality
standards that are required. Each member is equally responsible for the
quality of care, service and items that it delivers to Medicare
beneficiaries. If any member of the network falls out of compliance
with this requirement, we would have the option of terminating the
network contract.
The network cannot be anti-competitive. We propose that
the network members' market shares for competitive bid item(s) when
added together, cannot exceed 20 percent of the Medicare market within
a competitive bidding area. We believe that by setting the maximum size
of the network's market shares at 20 percent of the marketplace, firms
will be able to gain the potential efficiencies of networking while at
the same time ensure that there would continue to be competition in the
area. If the 20 percent rule were adopted and suppliers joined
networks, there would still be at least 5 networks competing in a
DMEPOS competitive bidding program, which we believe would allow for
sufficient competition among suppliers. In particular, we are
requesting comment about what percentage of the marketplace would be
appropriate for networks for suppliers.
A supplier may only join one network and cannot submit
individual bids if part of a network. The network must identify itself
as a network and identify all members in the network.
The legal entity would be responsible for billing Medicare
and receiving payment on behalf of the network suppliers. The legal
entity would also be responsible for appropriately distributing
reimbursements to the other network members.
M. Education and Outreach
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Education and Outreach'' at the beginning of your comments.]
1. Supplier Education
We would also propose to undertake a proactive education campaign
to provide all suppliers with information about the Medicare DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program, bidding timelines, and bidding and program
requirements. The goal of this campaign would be to make it as easy as
possible for suppliers to submit bids.
To ensure that suppliers have timely access to accurate information
on competitive bidding, we are proposing to instruct the CBIC and the
DMERCs to provide early education and resources to all suppliers,
referral agents, beneficiaries and other providers who service a
competitive bidding area. Customer service support, ombudsmen networks,
and the claims processing system would all be used to notify and
educate all parties regarding competitive bidding. The CBIC(s) would be
instructed to utilize data analysis in tailoring outreach to those that
will be directly affected by competitive bidding.
After the release of bidding instructions, we would also propose to
hold bidders conferences that would provide an open forum for suppliers
and allow us to disseminate additional information. More information on
the bidders conferences and other competitive bidding activities will
be available on our Web site at http://cms.hhs.gov/suppliers/dmepos/compbid/paoc.asp.
We are also proposing that each DMERC include discussions and
updates on competitive bidding as part of its existing outreach
mechanisms. The fundamental goal of our supplier educational outreach
is to ensure that those who supply DMEPOS products to Medicare
beneficiaries receive information they need in a timely
[[Page 25684]]
manner so they have an understanding of the program and our
expectations.
2. Beneficiary Education
The competitive bidding program will have an impact on the
beneficiaries who receive DMEPOS items in a competitive bidding area.
Competitive bidding represents a new way for Medicare beneficiaries to
receive their DMEPOS products, so we believe that education is
important to the success of the program.
We propose to educate beneficiaries utilizing numerous approaches.
For example, our press office may consider creating press releases and
fact sheets for each CBA. Notices would provide summaries of
competitive bidding, background information, and objectives of the
competitive bidding program. Publications may also be available on CMS
Web sites, and from local contractors and the DMERCS.
We believe that it is important for beneficiaries to learn about
the benefits of the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program, such
as lower out-of-pocket expenses and increased quality of products, from
suppliers that have completed the detailed selection process that CMS
will require under the program. Enforcement of supplier standards and
the threat of exclusion from the Medicare program will encourage
suppliers to maintain a high level of service. These factors make an
extensive outreach approach critical to the program's success.
Although we are not proposing at this time any additional education
requirements, we are interested in seeking comments on other mechanisms
that might be utilized to inform beneficiaries and suppliers about the
competitive bidding program.
N. Monitoring and Complaint Services for the Competitive Bidding
Program
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Monitoring and Complaint Services for the Competitive Bidding
Program'' at the beginning of your comments.]
Moving to a competitive bidding environment will not adversely
affect CMS'' program integrity efforts in reviewing claims and rooting
out fraud, waste, or abuse. Claims will still be reviewed for medical
necessity, coordination of benefits status, and benefits integrity. Any
suspected instances of DMEPOS competitive bidding market manipulation
and collusion will be referred to the appropriate federal agencies that
are responsible for addressing these issues.
We are proposing to establish a formal complaint monitoring system
to address complaints in each competitive bidding area. Beneficiaries,
referral agents, providers, and suppliers, including physicians,
hospitals, nurses, and home health agencies, will be able to report
problems or difficulties that they encounter regarding the ordering and
furnishing of DMEPOS in a competitive bidding area. Some examples of
problems that we would consider to be serious include: Contract
suppliers refusing to furnish items to beneficiaries in the competitive
bidding area for which they were awarded a contract; contract suppliers
furnishing items of inferior quality than those that they bid to
furnish; or contract suppliers violating assignment and billing
requirements.
We also propose to monitor Medicare claims data to ensure that
competitive bidding does not negatively impact beneficiary access to
medically necessary items. Claims data will be monitored to identify
trends, spikes or decreases in utilization and changes in utilization
patterns within a product category.
O. Physician Authorization/Treating Practitioner and Consideration of
Clinical Efficiency and Value of Items in Determining Categories for
Bids (Proposed Sec. 414.420)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Physician Authorization/Treating Practitioner'' at the
beginning of your comments.]
Section 1847(a)(5)(A) of the Act provides authorization to the
Secretary to establish a process for certain items under which a
physician may prescribe a particular brand or mode of delivery of an
item within a particular HCPCS code if the physician determines that
use of the particular item would avoid an adverse medical outcome on
the individual. We are proposing to implement this section in proposed
Sec. 414.440, and to also apply it to certain treating practitioners,
including physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse
specialists, since these practitioners also order DMEPOS for which
Medicare makes payment. Since a HCPCS code may contain many brand
products made by a wide range of manufacturers, we expect that
suppliers will choose to only offer certain brands of products within a
HCPCS code. This is a common practice used by suppliers to reduce the
amount of inventory they maintain. However, we are proposing that the
physician or treating practitioner would be able to determine that a
particular item would avoid an adverse medical outcome, and that the
physician or treating practitioner would have discretion to specify a
particular product brand or mode of delivery.
When a physician or other treating practitioner requests a specific
item, brand, or mode of delivery, contract suppliers would be required
to furnish that item or mode of delivery, assist the beneficiary in
finding another contract supplier in the CBA that can provide that
item, or consult with the physician or treating practitioner to find a
suitable alternative product or mode of delivery for the beneficiary.
If, after consulting with the contract supplier, the physician or
treating practitioner is willing to revise his or her order, that
decision must be reflected in a revised written prescription. However,
if the contract supplier decides to provide an item that does not match
the written prescription from the physician or treating practitioner,
the contract supplier should not bill Medicare as this would be
considered a non-covered item.
For the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program, we would not
require a contract supplier to provide every brand of products included
in a HCPCS code. However, regardless of what brands the contract
supplier furnishes, the single payment amount for the HCPCS code would
apply. This issue will be studied in more detail by the Office of the
Inspector General in 2009. At that time, we will evaluate the need for
a specific process for certain brand names or modes of delivery.
In addition, section 1847(b)(7) of the Act provides authority to
establish separate categories for items within HCPCS codes if the
clinical efficiency and value of items within a given code warrants a
separate category for bidding purposes. Currently, HCPCS codes are
developed for items that are similar in function and purpose. For this
reason, items within the same code are paid at the same rate. We
believe that the HCPCS process has worked well in the past, and we
believe that it adequately separates items based on their function. We
welcome public comment on this issue.
P. Quality Standards and Accreditation for Suppliers of DMEPOS
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Quality Standards and Accreditation for Supplies of DMEPOS''
at the beginning of your comments.]
Section 1847(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act specifies that a contract may
not be awarded to any entity unless the entity meets applicable quality
standards specified by the Secretary under section
[[Page 25685]]
1834(a)(20) of the Act. Any supplier seeking to participate in the
Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program will need to satisfy the
quality standards issued under section 1834(a)(20) of the Act.
Additionally, section 1834(a)(20) of the Act gives us the authority to
establish through program instructions or otherwise quality standards
for all suppliers of DMEPOS and other items, including those who do not
participate in competitive bidding, and to designate one or more
independent accreditation organizations to implement the quality
standards. Therefore, to ensure the integrity of suppliers' businesses,
products, we are proposing to revise Sec. 424.57 and add a new Sec.
424.58.
1. Special Payment Rules for Items Furnished by DMEPOS Suppliers and
Issuance of DMEPOS Supplier Billing Privileges (Sec. 424.57)
In accordance with sections 1834(a)(20) and 1834(j)(1)(B)(ii)(IV)
of the Act, we propose to amend Sec. 424.57 as discussed in this
section of the proposed rule. In paragraph (a), Definitions, we would
propose to define the following terms:
CMS-approved accreditation organization is an independent
accreditation organization selected by CMS to apply the supplier
quality standards established by CMS;
Accredited DMEPOS supplier means a supplier that has been
accredited by an independent accreditation organization meeting the
requirements of and approved by CMS in accordance with Sec. 424.58;
and
Independent accreditation organization means an
accreditation organization that accredits a supplier of DMEPOS and
other items and services for a specific DMEPOS product category or a
full line of DMEPOS product categories.
Proposed new paragraph (c)(22) would specify that all suppliers of
DMEPOS and other items be accredited by a CMS approved accreditation
organization before receiving a supplier billing number.
2. Accreditation (Sec. 424.58)
Under section 1834(a)(20) of the Act, we would add a new section
Sec. 424.58 to address the requirements for CMS approved accreditation
organizations in the application of the quality standards to suppliers
of DMEPOS and other items.
To promote consistency in accrediting providers and suppliers
throughout the Medicare program, we would use existing procedures for
the application, reapplication, selection, and oversight of
accreditation organizations detailed at Part 488 and apply them to
organizations accrediting suppliers of DMEPOS and other items. We would
make modifications to the existing requirements for accreditation
organizations to meet the specialized needs of the DMEPOS industry.
These modifications may require an independent accreditation
organization applying for approval or re-approval of deeming authority
to--
Identify the product-specific types of DMEPOS suppliers
for which the organization is requesting approval or re-approval;
Provide CMS with a detailed comparison of the
organization's accreditation requirements and standards with the
applicable Medicare quality standards (for example, a crosswalk);
Provide a detailed description of the organization's
survey processes including procedures for performing unannounced
surveys, frequency of the surveys performed, copies of the
organization's survey forms, guidelines and instructions to surveyors,
quality review processes for deficiencies identified with accreditation
requirements;
Describe the decision-making processes; describe
procedures used to notify suppliers of compliance or noncompliance with
the accreditation requirements;
Describe procedures used to monitor the correction of
deficiencies found during the survey; and
Describe procedures for coordinating surveys with another
accrediting organization if the organization does not accredit all
products the supplier provides.
We also propose to use the application procedure currently
specified in Sec. 488.4(c) through (i) as the application process for
DMEPOS accreditation organizations.
We may request detailed information about the professional
background of the individuals who perform surveys for the accreditation
organization including: The size and composition of accreditation
survey teams for each type of supplier accredited; the education and
experience requirements surveyors must meet; the content and frequency
of the continuing education training provided to survey personnel; the
evaluation systems used to monitor the performance of individual
surveyors and survey teams; and policies and procedures for a surveyor
or institutional affiliate of an accrediting organization that
participates in a survey or accreditation decision regarding a DMEPOS
supplier with which this individual or institution is professionally or
financially affiliated.
We may request a description of the organization's data management,
analysis, and reporting system for its surveys and accreditation
decisions, including the kinds of reports, tables, and other displays
generated by that system. We may require a description of the
organization's procedures for responding to and investigating
complaints against accredited facilities including policies and
procedures regarding coordination of these activities with appropriate
licensing bodies, ombudsmen programs, National Supplier Clearinghouse,
and with CMS; a description of the organization's policies and
procedures for notifying CMS of facilities that fail to meet the
requirements of the accrediting organization; a description of all
types, categories, and duration of accreditation decisions offered by
the organization; a list of all currently accredited DMEPOS suppliers;
a list of the types and categories of accreditation currently held by
each supplier; a list of the expiration date of each supplier's current
accreditation; and a list of the next survey cycles for all DMEPOS
suppliers accreditation surveys scheduled to be performed by the
organization.
We may require the accreditation organization to submit the
following supporting documentation:
A written presentation that would demonstrate the
organization's ability to furnish CMS with electronic data in ASCII-
comparable code;
A resource analysis that would demonstrate that the
organization's staffing, funding and other resources are sufficient to
perform the required surveys and related activities; and
An acknowledgement that the organization would permit its
surveyors to serve as witnesses if CMS took an adverse action against
the DMEPOS supplier based on the accreditation organization's findings.
We propose to survey accredited suppliers from time to time to
validate the survey process of a DMEPOS accreditation organization
(validation survey). These surveys would be conducted on a
representative sample basis, or in response to allegations of supplier
noncompliance with quality standards. When conducted on a
representative sample basis, the survey would be comprehensive and
address all Medicare supplier quality standards or would focus on a
specific standard. When conducted in response to an allegation, the CMS
survey team would survey for any standard that CMS determined was
related to the
[[Page 25686]]
allegations. If the CMS survey team substantiated a deficiency and
determined that the supplier was out of compliance with Medicare
supplier quality standards, we would revoke the supplier's billing
number and re-evaluate the accreditation organization's approved
status. A supplier selected for a validation survey would be required
to authorize the validation survey to occur and authorize the CMS
survey team to monitor the correction of any deficiencies found through
the validation survey. If a supplier selected for a validation survey
failed to comply with the requirements at Sec. 424.58, it would no
longer meet the Medicare supplier quality standards and its supplier
billing number would be revoked.
3. Ongoing Responsibilities of CMS Approved Accreditation Organizations
A DMEPOS independent accreditation organization approved by CMS
would be required to undertake the following activities on an ongoing
basis:
Provide to CMS in written form and on a monthly basis all
of the following:
++ Copies of all accreditation surveys along with any survey-
related information that CMS may require (including corrective action
plans and summaries of CMS requirements that were not met).
++ Notice of all accreditation decisions.
++ Notice of all complaints related to suppliers of DMEPOS and
other items.
++ Information about any suppliers of DMEPOS and other items for
which the accrediting organization has denied the supplier's
accreditation status.
++ Notice of any proposed changes in its accreditation standards or
requirements or survey process. If the organization implemented the
changes before or without CMS approval, CMS could withdraw its approval
of the accreditation organization.
Submit to CMS (within 30 days of a change in CMS
requirements):
++ An acknowledgment of CMS's notification of the change;
++ A revised cross-walk reflecting the new requirements; and
++ An explanation of how the accreditation organization would alter
its standards to conform to CMS' new requirements, within the time
frames specified by CMS in the notification of change it received.
Permit its surveyors to serve as witnesses if CMS takes an
adverse action based on accreditation findings.
Provide CMS with written notice of any deficiencies and
adverse actions implemented by the independent accreditation
organization against an accredited DMEPOS supplier within 2 days of
identifying such deficiencies, if such deficiencies pose immediate
jeopardy to a beneficiary or to the general public.
Provide written notice of the withdrawal to all accredited
suppliers within 10 days of CMS's notice to withdraw approval of the
accreditation organization.
Provide, on an annual basis, summary data specified by CMS
that related to the past year's accreditation activities and trends.
4. Continuing Federal Oversight of Approved Accreditation Organizations
This paragraph would establish specific criteria and procedures for
continuing oversight and for withdrawing approval of an accreditation
organization.
a. Equivalency Review
We would compare the accreditation organization's standards and its
application and enforcement of those standards to the comparable CMS
requirements and processes when: CMS imposed new requirements or
changed its survey process; an accreditation organization proposed to
adopt new standards or changes in its survey process; or the term of an
accreditation organization's approval expired.
b. Validation Review
A CMS survey team would conduct a survey of an accredited
organization, examine the results of the accreditation organization's
own survey procedure onsite, or observe the accreditation
organization's survey, in order to validate the organization's
accreditation process. At the conclusion of the review, we would
identify any accreditation programs for which validation survey results
indicated:
A 10 percent rate of disparity between findings by the
accreditation organization and findings by CMS on standards that did
not constitute immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety if not
met;
Any disparity between findings by the accreditation
organization and findings by CMS on standards that constituted
immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety if not met; or
There were widespread or systemic problems in the
organization's accreditation process such that the accreditation no
longer provided assurance that suppliers met or exceeded the Medicare
requirements, irrespective of the rate of disparity.
c. Notice of Intent To Withdraw Approval for Deeming Authority
If an equivalency review, validation review, onsite observation, or
our concerns with the ethical conduct of the accreditation organization
suggest that the accreditation organization is not meeting the
requirements of proposed Sec. 424.58, we would provide the
organization written notice of its intent to withdraw approval of the
accreditation organization's deeming authority.
d. Withdrawal of Approval for Deeming Authority
We could withdraw approval of an accreditation organization at any
time if we determine that: Accreditation by the organization no longer
guaranteed that the suppliers of DMEPOS and other items met the
supplier quality standards and the failure to meet those requirements
could pose an immediate jeopardy to the health or safety of Medicare
beneficiaries or constitute a significant hazard to the public health;
or the accreditation organization failed to meet its obligations for
application and reapplication procedures.
e. Reconsideration
An accreditation organization dissatisfied with a determination
that its accreditation requirements did not provide or do not continue
to provide reasonable assurance that the entities accredited by the
accreditation organization met the applicable supplier quality
standards would be entitled to a reconsideration. We would reconsider
any determination to deny, remove, or not renew the approval of deeming
authority to accreditation organizations if the accreditation
organization filed a written request for a reconsideration through its
authorized officials or through its legal representative.
The request would have to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of
CMS notice of an adverse determination or nonrenewal. The request for
reconsideration would be required to specify the findings or issues
with which the accreditation organization disagreed and the reasons for
the disagreement. A requestor could withdraw its request for
reconsideration at any time before the issuance of a reconsideration
determination. In response to a request for reconsideration, we would
provide the accrediting organization the opportunity for an informal
hearing that would be conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the
Administrator of CMS and provide the accrediting organization the
opportunity to present, in writing
[[Page 25687]]
and in person, evidence or documentation to refute the determination to
deny approval, or to withdraw or not renew deeming authority.
We would provide written notice of the time and place of the
informal hearing at least 10 days before the scheduled date. The
informal reconsideration hearing would be open to CMS and the
organization requesting the reconsideration, including authorized
representatives, technical advisors (individuals with knowledge of the
facts of the case or presenting interpretation of the facts), and legal
counsel. The hearing would be conducted by the hearing officer who
would receive testimony and documents related to the proposed action.
Testimony and other evidence could be accepted by the hearing officer.
However, it would be inadmissible under the usual rules of court
procedures. The hearing officer would not have the authority to compel
by subpoena the production of witnesses, papers, or other evidence.
Within 45 days of the close of the hearing, the hearing officer would
present the findings and recommendations to the accrediting
organization that requested the reconsideration. The written report of
the hearing officer would include separate numbered findings of fact
and the legal conclusions of the hearing officer. The hearing officer's
decision would be final.
Q. Low Vision Aid Exclusion (Proposed Sec. 414.15)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Low vision aid exclusion'' at the beginning of your
comments.]
We are proposing to clarify that the scope of the eyeglass coverage
exclusion encompasses all devices irrespective of their size, form, or
technological features that use one or more lens to aid vision or
provide magnification of images for impaired vision. This proposed
regulatory provision clarifies that the statute does not support the
interpretation that the term eyeglasses only applies to lenses
supported by frames that pass around the nose and ears. The underlying
technology and the function of eyeglasses are to use lenses to assist
persons with impaired vision. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary
(28th Ed. 1994) defines ``eyeglass'' simply as a ``lens for aiding
sight.'' We interpret the eyeglass exclusion at section 1862(a)(7) of
the Act as encompassing all of the various types of devices that use
lenses for the correction of vision unless there is a statutory
provision that provides for coverage. For example, section 1861(s)(8)
of the Act provides for intraocular lenses, conventional eyeglasses and
contact lenses after each cataract surgery with insertion of an
intraocular lens. We specifically invite public comment on this issue.
We note that if the term ``eyeglasses'' as used at section
1862(a)(7) of the Act only refers to the exclusion of payment for
lenses supported by frames that pass around the nose and ears, then the
eyeglass exclusion would not apply to contact lenses and there would
have been no reason for the Congress to make an exception to section
1862(a)(7) of the Act for contact lenses. However, the Congress did
make such an exception to section 1862(a)(7) of the Act for
conventional contact lenses after cataract surgery.
A comparison of sections 1862(a) and 1861(s) of the Act indicate
that the eyeglass exclusion also applies to contact lenses except for
one pair after cataract surgery. By applying the eyeglass exclusion to
contact lenses, the statute reinforces the interpretation that the use
of lenses to aid impaired vision is the scope of what is excluded by
the eyeglass exclusion and not just lenses supported by frames that
pass around the nose and ears. Also, when referring to ``conventional
eyeglasses,'' section 1861(s)(8) of the Act is affirming that the term
``eyeglasses'' has a wider application than ``conventional eyeglasses''
and the terms ``conventional eyeglasses'' and ``eyeglasses'' are not
synonymous in the statute.
This interpretation of the term eyeglasses is consistent with the
regulatory language used for the optional benefit in the Medicaid
program under Sec. 440.120(d) for eyeglasses, which is ``lenses,
including frames, and other aids to vision * * *'' This language gives
States that cover eyeglasses the flexibility to adopt a reasonable
definition that includes low vision aids that are determined medically
necessary. The definition used by the Medicaid program demonstrates
that the term eyeglasses can appropriately be defined to include low
vision aids. Consistent with this framework, we consider the eyeglass
exclusion for the Medicare program to apply to eyepieces, hand-held
magnifying glasses, contact lenses and other instruments, such as
closed-circuit televisions and video magnifiers that use lenses to aid
vision.
Although the technology of using lenses to aid low vision may be
improved with new innovations, such as contact lenses, progressive
lenses and low vision aids, this does not exempt the new technology
from the eyeglass exclusion. The adaptation of the vision aid
technology does not change the essential nature of the device: A video
magnifier is still a device that utilizes a lens to enhance vision. We
believe this interpretation is consistent with the decision in Warder
v. Shalala, 149 F 3d73 (1st Cir. 1998), in which the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held, in part, that the
Secretary's classification of a technologically advanced seating system
as DME, and not as an orthotic, was supported by the Medicare statute
and regulations. In reaching this conclusion, the court stated that the
Secretary could conclude that the seating system met the definition of
DME, which ``unequivocally includes `wheelchairs', '' since the system
served the same (as well as additional) functions as a wheelchair. We
believe this case affirms the principle that the Secretary has the
discretion to interpret the statute and to assign a product to a
particular Medicare category even when this will result in non-coverage
determinations by Medicare.
R. Establishing Payment Amounts for New DMEPOS Items (Gap-Filling)
(Proposed Sec. 414.210(g))
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Gap-filling'' at the beginning of your comments.]
There is no process set forth in the statute or regulations for
calculating fee schedule amounts for new DMEPOS items (that is, new
HCPCS codes representing categories of items for which there is no
historic Medicare pricing information). Since 1989, CMS and its
contractors have used a process referred to as ``gap filling'' to
establish fee schedule amounts for items for which fee schedule base
data is not available. In the past, the gap-filling process was
described in the Medicare Carriers Manual. The process is now contained
in the Medicare Claims Processing Manual and provides that fee schedule
amounts are to be gap-filled using fee schedule amounts already
established for comparable items; properly calculated fee schedule
amounts from a neighboring carrier; or supplier price lists with prices
in effect during the database year.
If the only available price information is from a period other than
the fee schedule base period (for example, 1992 for surgical
dressings), a deflation factor is applied to the price in order to
approximate the base year price for gap-filling purposes. The deflation
factors are based on the percentage change in
[[Page 25688]]
the CPI-U from the mid-point of the fee schedule base period (for
example, June 1992 for surgical dressings) to the mid-point (that is,
June) of the calendar year that the gap-filling source price is in
effect. When gap-filling base fees for capped rental items, it is
necessary to first gap-fill the purchase fee and then compute the
rental fee based on 10 percent of the gap-filled purchase fee. For used
equipment, base fees are gap-filled using 75 percent of the gap-filled
fee for new equipment.
The process of gap-filling essentially estimates what the average
reasonable charges would be for an item if it was paid for under
Medicare during the fee schedule base period. The gap-filled base fees
are updated by the covered item updates and are subject to regional
fees, and ceiling and floor limitations, if applicable. We have
consistently used the gap-filling process as the method for replicating
historical charge data. However, this method can lead to very high or
very low fee schedule amounts without validation that these amounts are
realistic and equitable relative to the cost of furnishing the item.
Since the gap-filling process began in 1989, most base fees have been
gap-filled using either supplier price lists or manufacturers'
suggested retail prices. Many manufacturers are aware of the process
and realize that if a unique HCPCS code is added for their device, they
can establish inflated suggested retail prices that would be used to
establish the Medicare fee schedule payment amounts. We also view the
continued use of deflation factors to replicate historic prices or
charges to be an imperfect method of establishing base fee schedule
amounts. Under the Medicare DMEPOS benefits, there is an inherent
responsibility to pay enough for beneficial new technologies to ensure
beneficiary access to care, while also being a prudent payer. To
increase the Medicare program's ability to ensure fair treatment across
technologies, we have focused on developing strategies that recognize
those technologies that provide a demonstrated clinical benefit and
clearly identify the additional benefits over existing technologies.
This initiative has been endorsed by the Council on Technology and
Innovation (CTI), which was established under section 942 of the MMA to
coordinate the activities of coverage, coding, and payment processes
affecting new technologies and procedures and to coordinate the
exchange of information on new technologies between CMS and other
entities that make similar decisions.
We procured two contractors to conduct a pilot study on the
benefits, effectiveness, and costs of several products. These projects
were very successful in compiling the technical information that is
necessary to evaluate technologies for the purpose of making payment
and HCPCS coding decisions for new items. The products studied were
assessed in terms of three main areas as follows:
Functional Assessment--This step involved evaluating the
device's operations, safety, and user documentation relative to the
Medicare population. Interviews were conducted with health care
providers to determine how and under what circumstances they would
prescribe the product for a Medicare beneficiary.
Price Comparison Analysis--A comparative cost analysis
determined how the cost of this product compared to similar products on
the market or alternative treatment modalities.
Medical Benefit Assessment--This step focused on the
effectiveness of the product in doing what it claims to do. Scientific
literature reviews and interviews with health care providers were
conducted to determine if the product significantly improved clinical
outcomes compared to other products and treatment modalities.
Competitive bidding will allow market forces to determine the price
Medicare pays for certain DMEPOS items. In order to ensure that only
quality products are provided to our beneficiaries, we are proposing to
use the three types of assessments described above to assist us in
ensuring that the HCPCS codes for DMEPOS items reflect current
technology and functional differences in items and that new products
are included within the appropriate HCPCS code. The functional
technology assessment will allow us to compare older, similar products
already on the market and newer more expensive products. The functional
assessment and medical benefit assessment of devices will greatly aid
our decision-making process regarding the need to create unique HCPCS
code categories. The price comparison analysis of devices will help us
determine if manufacturers' suggested retail prices are overly
inflated, will provide a basis for establishing adequate payment
amounts for new items, and will assist in establishing payment amounts
for new items that are introduced after a bidding cycle has begun.
Sections 1834(a), (h), (i) and 1833(o) of the Act require the
establishment of fee schedule amounts to pay for DME, prosthetic
devices, orthotics, prosthetics, surgical dressings, and therapeutic
shoes. In addition, payment for PEN is also based on fee schedule
amounts authorized by section 1842(s) of the Act. The fee schedule
amounts are based on average payments made under the previous
reasonable charge payment methodology as mandated by the statute. When
a new HCPCS code is created for a category of items, the gap-filling
process outlined in this section is used to establish the fee schedule
amounts for the new code. We are proposing that this gap-filling
process be revised as follows:
We would continue to make every effort to utilize existing
fee schedule amounts or historic Medicare payment amounts, if
applicable, in establishing payment amounts for new HCPCS codes. In
addition, the method of using payment amounts for comparable items
would be retained under the revised process for establishing payment
amounts for new HCPCS codes.
We would discontinue the practice of deflating supplier
prices and manufacturers suggested retail prices to the fee schedule
base period. When fee schedule amounts are established based on pricing
information, prices in effect at the time that the fee schedule amounts
are established would be used. For subsequent years, the fee schedule
amounts established using supplier or manufacturer pricing information
would be updated as required by the statute as it is applicable to each
category of items. In the past, when retail pricing information is not
available, wholesale prices plus an appropriate mark-up are used to
establish the fee schedule amounts.
We would use the functional technology assessment process,
in part or in whole, as another method for establishing payment amounts
for new items. Based on the results of the technology assessment, the
fee schedule amounts would be established using fee schedule amounts
for items determined to be comparable to the new item or an amount
determined to be appropriate for the new item based on the cost
comparison analysis. We can use the technology assessment process at
any time to adjust prices on or after January 1, 2007 that were
previously established using the gap-filling methodology if it is
determined that those pricing methods resulted in payment amounts that
do not reflect the cost of furnishing the item. Fee schedule amounts
established using this process would be updated as required by the
statute as it is applicable to each category of items.
In those cases where the addition of the HCPCS code for a new item
occurs in the middle of a bidding cycle and a Medicare pricing history
or profile does not exist for the item or is not applicable
[[Page 25689]]
for the new code category, we propose that the revised gap-filling
process for establishing fee schedule payment amounts for new DMEPOS
items would also be used in establishing payment amounts for new items
until they are added to a product category subject to competitive
bidding. Any qualified Medicare supplier will be allowed to supply one
of these items until the next bidding cycle. The next bidding cycle
will set a new single payment amounts for this item.
We propose that other revisions to HCPCS codes for items under a
competitive bidding program that occur in the middle of a bidding cycle
will be handled as follows:
If a single HCPCS code for an item is divided into
multiple codes for the components of that item, the sum of payments for
these new codes will not be higher than the payment for the original
item. Suppliers selected through competitive bidding to provide the
item will also provide the components of the item. During the
subsequent competitive bidding cycle, suppliers will bid on each new
code for the components of the item, and we will determine new single
payment amounts for these components.
If a single HCPCS code for two or more similar items is
divided into two or more separate codes, the payment amount applied to
these codes will continue to be the same payment amount applied to the
single code until the next competitive bidding cycle. During the next
cycle, suppliers will bid on the new separate and distinct codes.
If the HCPCS codes for several components of one item are
merged into one new code for the single item, the payment amount of the
new code will be equal to the total of the separate payment amounts for
the components. Suppliers that were selected through competitive
bidding to supply the various components of the item will continue to
supply the item using the new code. During the subsequent bidding
cycle, suppliers will bid on the new code for the single item to
determine a new single payment amount for this new code.
If multiple codes for different, but related or similar
items are placed into a single code, the payment amount for the new
single code will be the average (arithmetic mean) weighted by frequency
of payments for the formerly separate codes. Suppliers providing the
items originally will also provide the item under the new single code.
During the subsequent bidding cycle, suppliers will bid on the new
single code and determine a new single payment amounts for this code.
S. Fee Schedules for Home Dialysis Supplies and Equipment (Proposed
Sec. 414.107)
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Fee Schedules for Home Dialysis Supplies and Equipment'' at
the beginning of your comments.]
Section 1842(s) of the Act provides authority for implementing
statewide or other area wide fee schedules to be used for payment of
home dialysis supplies and equipment. Section 1842(s)(1) of the Act
provides that the fee schedules are to be updated on an annual basis by
the percentage increase in the CPI-U (United States city average) for
the 12-month period ending with June of the preceding year. Section
4315(d) of the BBA requires that the fee schedules that are established
using this authority are set initially so that total payments under the
fee schedules are approximately equal to the estimated total payments
that would be made under the reasonable charge payment methodology.
On July 27, 1999, we published a proposed rule, Replacement of
Reasonable Charge Methodology by Fee Schedules (64 FR 40534), to
establish fee schedules for these items. Fee schedules were established
for PEN items and services in 2002 following the publication of the
final rule, Replacement of Reasonable Charge Methodology by Fee
Schedules for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrients, Equipment, and
Supplies, on August 28, 2001 (66 FR 45173). However, fee schedule
amounts were not established for home dialysis supplies and equipment
because the data needed to establish budget neutral fee schedule
amounts was not available at the time that final rule was published. We
are now proposing to establish fee schedule amounts for home dialysis
supplies and equipment because the data needed to establish budget
neutral fee schedule amounts are now available.
Sections 1832(a)(1) and 1861(s)(2)(F) of the Act establish that
home dialysis supplies and equipment are a covered benefit under Part B
of the Medicare program. Home dialysis supplies and equipment are
defined under section 1881(b)(8) of the Act as ``medically necessary
supplies and equipment (including supportive equipment) required by an
individual suffering from end stage renal disease in connection with
renal dialysis carried out in his home (as defined in regulations),
including obtaining, installing, and maintaining such equipment.'' We
implemented these provisions in title 42, part 414 subpart E of the
regulations.
Total monthly payments to a supplier for home dialysis supplies and
equipment may not exceed the limit for equipment and supplies
established in Sec. 414.330(c)(2). We have determined that total
monthly payments for these items per supplier were equal to the monthly
limit 79 percent of the time for items furnished from January 1, 2004
through November 30, 2004. This means that suppliers billed up to or in
excess of the monthly payment limit in 79 percent of the claims
submitted during this 11-month period. We are proposing that nationwide
fee schedule amounts be implemented for these items effective January
1, 2007. These amounts would be based on the average allowed charges
calculated using data for allowed services furnished from January 1,
2005 through December 31, 2005, increased by the percentage change in
the CPI-U for the 24-month period ending June of 2006. We expect that
the total payments made under the fee schedule will be approximately
equal to the total payments that would be made under the reasonable
charge payment methodology because the overall payment limit for
equipment and supplies established in Sec. 414.330(c)(2) is not
affected by implementation of the fee schedules for these items. By
using the average, we do not anticipate a significant impact on
utilization of home dialysis, supplies and equipment.
Beginning with 2008, the fee schedule amounts for home dialysis
supplies and equipment will be updated on an annual basis by the
percentage increase in the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending with
June of the preceding year under section 1842(s)(1) of the Act.
T. Fee Schedules for Therapeutic Shoes (Proposed Sec. 414.228(c))
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Fee Schedules for Therapeutic Shoes'' at the beginning of
your comments.]
We are proposing to add Sec. 414.228(c) to part 414, subpart D of
the regulations to specify that the Medicare fee schedule amounts for
therapeutic shoes, inserts, and shoe modifications are established in
accordance with the methodology specified in sections 1833(o) and
1834(h) of the Act.
III. Collection of Information Requirements
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are required to
provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register and solicit public
comment before a collection of information requirement is submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. In
order to fairly evaluate
[[Page 25690]]
whether an information collection should be approved by OMB, section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires that we
solicit comment on the following issues:
The need for the information collection and its usefulness
in carrying out the proper functions of our agency.
The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection
burden.
The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected.
Recommendations to minimize the information collection
burden on the affected public, including automated collection
techniques.
We are soliciting public comment on each of these issues for the
following sections of this document that contain information collection
requirements.
Section 414.412 Submission of Bids Under the Competitive Bidding
Program
Section 414.412 establishes the requirements for the submission of
bids under the competitive bidding process. The burden associated with
these requirements is the time and effort necessary to prepare and
submit a bid. The burden is estimated to be 70 hours per bid. In the
competitive bidding demonstration, suppliers estimated that they spent
between 40 and 100 hours to complete the bids. We therefore use the
median of 70 hours per bid. In connection with the competitive bidding
programs that we are proposing to begin implementing in 2006, we assume
that 90 percent of suppliers of potentially eligible products in the
designated competitive bidding areas will submit bids resulting in
16,545 bids. Therefore, we estimate it would take 1,158,150 total
annual hours to complete the bids in 2006. In later years, as
additional CBAs are added, the number of bids will increase as will the
estimated total annual number of hours to complete the bids. By 2008,
if 90 percent of suppliers of eligible products in the bidding CBAs
submit bids there will be 72,865 bids. We estimate that the annual
hours to complete the bids will rise to 5,100,550 total annual hours in
connection with the competitive bidding round that we expect to occur
in 2008, which will involve 70 of the largest MSAs. However, the number
of hours necessary to complete the bids may fall over time as suppliers
become more familiar with the forms and the competitive bidding
process. The number of hours may also be lower if additional suppliers
do not submit bids. As a result, it is possible that the above figures
overestimate the number of hours required to fill out the bidding
forms.
The cost associated with the requirements pertaining to the
accreditation program are not included as part of the cost or burden
for the competitive bidding program.
If you comment on these information collection and recordkeeping
requirements, please mail copies directly to the following:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of Strategic
Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Regulations Development and
Issuances Group, Attn: William Parham, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850; and
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503, Attn: Carolyn Lovett, CMS Desk Officer, [email protected]. Fax (202) 395-6974.
IV. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive
on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or
respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive
by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble,
and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the
comments in the preamble to that document.
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the
caption ``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' at the beginning of your
comments.]
A. Overall Impact
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive
Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354),
section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 13258, which
merely reassigns responsibility of duties) directs agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with
economically significant effects (that is, a final rule that would have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year,
or would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector or
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or communities).
Since this rule is considered to be a major rule because it is
economically significant, we have prepared a regulatory impact
analysis. We expect that this rule will have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small suppliers. The RFA requires that we analyze
regulatory options for small businesses and other entities. The
analysis must include a justification concerning the reason action is
being taken, the kinds and numbers of small entities the rule affects,
and an explanation of any meaningful options that achieve the
objectives with less significant adverse economic impact on the small
entities.
B. Anticipated Affects
We can anticipate the probable effects of the regulation, but the
actual effects will vary depending on which competitive bidding areas
and product categories are ultimately selected for competitive bidding.
The analysis which follows, taken together with the rest of this
preamble, constitutes both a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) and an
initial regulation flexibility analysis (IRFA).
Therefore, for the purpose of this impact analysis, because of the
uncertainty concerning the actual number of suppliers who will
participate, the bid amounts and the specific items and areas for which
competitive bidding will be conducted, it is necessary to make several
assumptions.
First, we assume that the first round of bidding will occur in 2006
with prices taking effect in October, 2007, and the second round of
bidding will occur in 2008 with prices taking effect in January, 2009.
We also assume rebidding will only occur every three years.
Second, we assume that competitive bidding will occur in 10 of the
largest MSAs in 2006, excluding New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. We
exclude the three largest MSAs in 2006 because we are proposing not to
include them in the initial phase implementation. We are excluding the
three largest MSAs because they are significantly larger than any of
the areas in which we implemented the competitive bidding
demonstrations and we would like to gain more experience in smaller
markets before we enter into the largest markets.
[[Page 25691]]
Competitive bidding will take place in 70 of the largest MSAs in 2008
and an additional 10 competitive bidding areas (CBAs) will be added in
both 2009 and 2010 for a total of 100 CBAs. For the initial
competition, we assume that bidding will take place in fall 2006, bids
will be evaluated in 2007, and prices will go into effect in October
2007. We also assume that the same timeframes will apply when bidding
takes place in the initial 10 MSAs in fall 2009. In all other cases, we
assume that competitive bidding will take place in the fall and prices
will go into effect on January 1 of the following year in the relevant
CBAs.
Third, we make some assumptions about which product categories
would be selected for competitive bidding. We recognize that potential
savings, implementation costs, the number of affected suppliers, and
supplier bid costs all depend on which product groups are ultimately
selected. The product categories have yet to be decided. We estimate
that approximately 10 product categories will be selected for
competitive bidding for 2006 and as many as 7 or 8 of the selected
product categories will be among the 10 largest in terms of allowed
charges. The remaining 2 or 3 product categories will come from the top
20 product groups ranked by allowed charges. Table 10 shows the top 20
eligible DMEPOS policy groups and their 2003 allowed charges.
Table 10.--2003 Allowed Charges: Top 20 Eligible DME Policy Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Rank Policy group 2003 eligible DMEPOS
charges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................ Oxygen Supplies/Equipment...... $2,433,713,269 29
2........................................ Wheelchairs/POVs............... 1,926,210,675 23
3........................................ Diabetic Supplies & Equipment.. 1,110,934,736 13
4........................................ Enteral Nutrition.............. 676,122,703 8
5........................................ Hospital Beds/Accessories...... 373,973,207 4
6........................................ CPAP........................... 204,774,837 2
7........................................ Support Surfaces............... 193,659,248 2
8........................................ Infusion Pumps & Related Drugs. 149,208,088 2
9........................................ Respiratory Assist Device...... 133,645,918 2
10....................................... Lower Limb Orthoses*........... 122,813,555 1
11....................................... Nebulizers..................... 98,951,212 1
12....................................... Walkers........................ 96,654,035 1
13....................................... Negative Pressure Wound Therapy 88,530,828 1
14....................................... Commodes/Bed Pans/Urinals...... 51,372,352 1
15....................................... Ventilators.................... 42,890,761 0
16....................................... Spinal Orthoses*............... 40,731,646 0
17....................................... Upper Limb Orthoses*........... 29,069,027 0
18....................................... Patient Lift................... 26,551,310 0
19....................................... Seat Lift Mechanism............ 15,318,552 0
20....................................... TENS........................... 15,258,579 0
Total for 20 Groups........... 7,830,384,538 92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Excludes Custom Fabricated Items; but does not exclude all items that might require more than minimal self-
adjustment or expertise in trimming, bending, molding, assembling, or customizing to fit the individual.
However, we reiterate that our selection for the impact analysis
should in no way be interpreted as signifying which product categories
will be selected for the actual competitive bidding program. Our
product category selection for this impact analysis is only to assist
us in estimating the potential savings, costs of implementation, and
supplier impact.
Fourth, we assume that the Medicare DMEPOS fee schedule will
increase at the rate of inflation for those years in which a statutory
freeze has not been put in place by the MMA, and that total charges
will increase at the same rate as Part A and Part B Medicare
expenditures. We exclude Part D expenditure growth because this data is
not currently available. We base our estimates on the expected growth
in Part A and Part B expenditures from the Trustees Reports. (Tables
IV.F.2 and IV.F.3 of the 2004 Medicare Trustees Report).
This proposed rule is expected to affect Medicare and its
beneficiaries, certain CMS contractors including the four current
DMERCs, the SADMERC, the NSC, one or more proposed CBICs, and DMEPOS
suppliers. Although the work-load of referral agents, including
hospital discharge planners and some healthcare providers, appeared to
increase during implementation of the demonstration, we do not
anticipate that competitive bidding will result in an appreciable,
ongoing burden on referral agents. In addition, rural healthcare
facilities should not be significantly impacted as the program is
expected to operate primarily within relatively large MSAs.
The DMEPOS supplier industry is expected to be significantly
impacted by this rule when finalized. However, not all suppliers will
be affected directly by the competitive bidding program. Only suppliers
who furnish products in at least one product category eligible for
competitive bidding and in areas selected for competitive bidding could
potentially be affected. A customized orthotics supplier in Manhattan
that does not supply off-the-shelf orthotics will not be affected. We
estimate that approximately 30,000 suppliers offer at least one product
eligible for competitive bidding and are located in one of the largest
100 MSAs and could therefore be impacted by the program. Some of these
suppliers will be affected in multiple CBAs if they offer products in
more than one CBA.
Based on our analysis of 2003 claims data, we also estimate that
approximately 90 percent of registered DMEPOS suppliers are considered
small according to the SBA definition. According to the SBA, ``A small
business is a concern that is organized for profit, with a place of
business in the United States, and which operates primarily within the
United States or makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy
through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or
labor. Further, the concern cannot be dominant in its field, on a
national basis. Finally, the concern must meet the numerical small
business size
[[Page 25692]]
standard for its industry. SBA has established a size standard for most
industries in the U.S. economy.'' The size standard for NAICS code,
532291, Home Health Equipment Rental is $6 million. (see http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html, read May 9, 2005.)
Many of these suppliers provide minimal amounts of DMEPOS, and thus
the remaining larger suppliers control significant market share. We
anticipate that the bidding process will be designed to neither reward
nor penalize small suppliers, however the fixed costs required to
undergo the bidding process may be a larger deterrent to small
businesses than larger firms. We do not expect that the regulation will
result in direct costs that exceed $120 million per year, and thus the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) would not apply. Since suppliers
can choose whether to submit a bid for the competitive bid program, the
regulation imposes no direct costs and therefore does not reach the
$120 million direct cost threshold under UMRA. While not included in
this regulation, it is expected that the separate MMA requirement for
accreditation will result in added supplier costs beyond those included
in this regulation.
The proposed rule will also impact CMS and its contractors. There
are four DMERCs currently contracted by CMS to process claims for the
DMEPOS benefit. The Statistical Analysis DME Regional Carrier,
(SADMERC), the existing contractor assigned to perform statistical
support and the National Supplier Clearinghouse, (NSC), which maintains
a registry of approved suppliers, will need to adapt to the competitive
bidding environment. Finally, we will need to devote resources
necessary for overseeing program operations.
C. Implementation Costs
We will incur administrative costs in connection with the
implementation and operation of competitive bidding, which can affect
the net savings that can be expected under the proposed rule. However,
many of the variable costs associated with bid solicitation and
evaluation will ultimately depend on how many suppliers choose to
participate in competitive bidding. Because of this uncertainty, we do
not estimate bid solicitation and evaluation costs at this time.
We will incur initial start up costs. We estimate the costs to CMS
and its contractors will include approximately $1 million in immediate
fixed costs for contractor startup and system changes for the initial
competitive bidding phase in 2006. In addition to the initial start up
costs, we will also incur maintenance costs and bid solicitation and
evaluation costs. We will need to pay maintenance costs every year for
the running of the program; however, we will only need to pay bid costs
in the years in which competitive bidding is conducted. Yearly
maintenance costs will depend on the number of CBAs where the program
has been implemented, while bid solicitation and evaluation costs will
depend on the number of sites which have bidding that year.
Our maintenance costs will include a small staff to oversee the
program, office costs for the staff, as well as staff travel costs, and
overhead. In addition, we propose that the CBIC(s) will be responsible
for much of the program maintenance. The maintenance costs could also
include the costs for an Ombudsman(s) per DMERC region to assist
suppliers, beneficiaries, and referral agents with the competitive
bidding process and questions. We also expect to incur costs for
education and outreach expenses such as staff resources and material
costs for producing education materials and supplier directories.
We will incur bid costs in the years in which we conduct
competitive bidding and when we evaluate bids. These costs will be a
direct result of the bid solicitation and evaluation process. Bid
solicitation costs include costs associated with mailing necessary
information to beneficiaries, printing, and duplicating. The actual
costs will vary by CBA and will depend on the number of potential
suppliers. We will incur bid evaluation costs whenever bidding occurs
in a CBA. We are proposing that the bid evaluation will be done by the
CBIC(s). According to the DMEPOS evaluation report, it took about 9.4
hours to evaluate each bid during the demonstration. However, since the
Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program entails Quality Standards/
Accreditation as a separate process, we expect that the time required
to evaluate bids will be lower than in the demonstration. The total bid
evaluation costs will ultimately depend on the number of suppliers that
choose to submit bids.
D. Program Savings
We estimate large savings from the competitive bidding program. Our
estimates of gross savings utilize as a starting point the savings
results in the demonstration. Excluding surgical dressings that are not
eligible for competitive bidding, the average product group savings
rate in the demonstration ranged from 9 to 30 percent in a CBA round
with most product groups around a 20 percent savings. Table 11 shows
the savings rate for selected product groups and CBAs by round during
the DMEPOS demonstration.
Table 11.--DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Demonstration Savings Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polk County Polk County
Product group round 1 round 2 San Antonio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxygen Equipment and Supplies................................... $2,364,811 $1,525,490 $2,096,707
(17%) (20%) (19%)
Hospital Beds and Accessories................................... $290,715 $195,140 $644,514
(23%) (31%) (19%)
Urological Supplies............................................. $36,169 $12,585 (\1\)
(18%) (9%)
Surgical Dressings.............................................. -$30,321 -$637 (\1\)
(-12%) (-1%)
Enteral Nutrition............................................... $342,251 (\1\) (\1\)
(17%)
Wheelchairs and Accessories..................................... (\1\) (\1\) $796,617
(19%)
General Orthotics............................................... (\1\) (\1\) $89,462
(23%)
[[Page 25693]]
Nebulizer Drugs................................................. (\1\) (\1\) $1,020,072
(26%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Evaluation of Medicare's Competitive Bidding Demonstration for DMEPOS, Final Evaluation Report (November
2003), pages 90 and 92.
\1\ Not included.
In our estimates, we have taken into account that some DMEPOS
prices have been adjusted downward since 2000. We assume that if prices
for an individual item have already been reduced by 10 percent after
the demonstrations were completed, then prices would most likely fall
10 percent rather than 20 percent. We, therefore, netted out any
statutory reductions in prices that had already occurred such as the
2005 reductions in oxygen supplies.
Table 12 shows the fee-for-service program impact for the 10 policy
groups. In the table, savings are reported as negative values. The
savings are attributable to the lower prices anticipated from
competitive bidding. The table shows the reduction in Medicare allowed
charges, without any impact on Medicare Advantage, associated with the
program for the calendar year. The impact includes reductions in
Medicare payments (80 percent) and reductions in beneficiary co-
insurance (20 percent).
Table 12.--Program Impact for 10 Policy Groups in Millions*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowed Charges......................... -$0 -$38 -$120 -$844 -$1000 -$1,199
Medicare share of allowed charges (80% -0 -30 -96 -675 -800 -959
of allowed charges)....................
Beneficiary Costs (20% of allowed 0 -8 -24 -169 -200 -240
charges)...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Table 13 presents the impact differently than Table 12. In contrast
to Table 12, which is on a Medicare-allowed-charge-incurred basis and
is without considering the Medicare Advantage impact, Table 13
considers fiscal year cash impact on the entire Medicare Program
including Medicare Advantage for the fiscal year rather than calendar
year. The fiscal year--calendar year distinction is an important one
when comparing savings. For example, the prices for the Medicare DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding program will be in effect for 0 months of fiscal
year 2007, but for 3 months of calendar year 2007.\1\ Table 13
considers the impact on program expenditures, and does not include
beneficiary coinsurance. Finally, the estimates in Table 13 incorporate
spillover effects from the competitive acquisition program onto the MA
program. The expectation is that lower prices for DME products in FFS
will lead to lower prices in the MA market.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2007 will end September 30, 2007, and the
Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program will begin on October 1,
2007.
\2\ In addition, most managed care plan rates are linked to FFS
expenditures, so a decrease in FFS expenditures should translate
into a decrease in Medicare Advantage plan payment rates.
Table 13.--Fiscal Year Cost on the Medicare Program
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 10 products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006.................................................... $0
2007.................................................... 0
2008.................................................... -110
2009.................................................... -620
2010.................................................... -990
2011.................................................... -1,230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Effect on Beneficiaries
Possible impacts on beneficiaries are a primary concern during the
design and implementation of the program. While there may be some
decrease in choice of suppliers, there will be a sufficient number of
suppliers to ensure adequate access. We also expect there will be an
improvement in quality because we will more closely scrutinize the
suppliers before, during, and after implementation of the program. The
analysis of the impact of the DMEPOS competitive bidding demonstration
on patient access to care and quality showed minimal adverse results.
Therefore, we assume that there will be no negative impacts on
beneficiary access as a sufficient number of quality suppliers will be
selected to serve the entire market.
We acknowledge that implementation of competitive bidding may
result in some beneficiaries needing to switch from their current
supplier if their current supplier is not selected for competitive
bidding. However, we anticipate that the necessity of switching
suppliers will be minimal in many product categories because of the
existence of grandfather policies for products such as capped rentals.
We assume that beneficiary out of pocket expenses will decrease by
20 percent of program gross savings for those products for which we do
competitive bidding.
Table 14.--Beneficiary Co-Insurance Savings Estimates for 10 Products
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 10 products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................................... $8
2008.................................................... 24
2009.................................................... 169
2010.................................................... 200
2011.................................................... 240
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Effect on Suppliers
We expect DME suppliers to be significantly impacted by the
implementation of the proposed rule. We assume that suppliers may be
affected in one of 3 ways as follows:
[[Page 25694]]
Suppliers that wish to participate in competitive bidding
will have to incur the cost of submitting a bid.
Noncontract suppliers (including suppliers who do not
submit bids) will see a decrease in revenues because they will no
longer receive payment from Medicare for competitively bid items.
Contract suppliers will see a decrease in expected revenue
per item as a result of lower allowed charges from lower bid prices.
However, because there will be fewer suppliers, a supplier's volume
could increase. As a result, because we do not know which effect will
dominate, the net effect on an individual contract supplier's revenue
is uncertain prior to bidding. The increase in the supplier's volume
could offset the decrease in revenue per item.
1. Affected Suppliers
Based on 2003 claims data, the average MSA in the top 25 MSAs,
excluding New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, has 2754 DMEPOS suppliers
that furnish any DMEPOS product and 1838 suppliers that furnish
products subject to competitive bidding and could potentially be
affected by competitive bidding.
We estimate that 27,540 suppliers will provide DMEPOS items in the
CBAs that we initially designate. If suppliers furnish products in more
than one MSA, we counted them more than once because they are affected
in more than one MSA. Not all products are subject to competitive
bidding; we estimate that only 18,383 suppliers will furnish products
subject to competitive bidding and will be affected by competitive
bidding. This means in 2006, the remaining 9157 suppliers in the 10
selected MSAs will not be affected by competitive bidding because they
do not furnish products subject to competitive bidding. However, the
actual number of affected suppliers may be smaller if we do not select
all eligible product categories for competitive bidding.
Deciding whether or not to submit a bid is a business decision that
will be made by each DMEPOS supplier. We expect that most suppliers
providing covered services will choose to participate in order to
maintain and expand their businesses. For the calculations below, we
assume that 90 percent of suppliers will submit a bid. We assume the
remaining 10 percent of suppliers will not have received the necessary
accreditation to submit a bid. Based on this assumption, 16,545
suppliers will submit a bid because they will want the opportunity to
continue to provide these products to Medicare beneficiaries and to
expand their business base. We also assume, based on the results of the
demonstration, that 50 percent of bidding suppliers will be selected as
winners because approximately 50 percent of those who submitted bids
during the demonstration were selected as contract suppliers. As a
result, we expect that there will be 8272 contract suppliers and 10,111
non contract suppliers in the competitive bidding areas that we
initially designate. The 10,111 suppliers that are not awarded a
contract, either because they chose not to submit a bid or did not
submit a winning bid would represent about 37 percent of the total
DMEPOS suppliers in these CBAs. We expect that losing bidders will be
distributed roughly proportionately across the selected CBAs, but the
exact distribution will depend on the distribution of bids received and
the number of winners selected in each CBA. It is important to note
that there will be a revenue shift from the non contract suppliers to
the contract suppliers, and that although some suppliers may be worse
off, it is because they did not offer competitive prices or quality. We
also note that if a supplier submitted a bid in multiple product
categories, its probability of winning would increase, so that the
total number of wining suppliers would be higher, and the number of non
contract suppliers would be lower.
It is difficult to estimate how much revenue a losing supplier will
lose because of the DMEPOS competitive acquisition program. The amount
will depend on how much revenue the supplier previously received from
Medicare and whether the supplier continues to provide services to
existing patients under transition policies. Estimates can be made by
making assumptions about these factors. For example, if bidding
occurred in 10 product categories, losing suppliers previously provided
50 percent of allowed charges in these product categories, and losing
suppliers did not continue to serve any existing patients, then the
average lost Medicare allowed charges per losing supplier per CBA would
be between $35,000 and $40,000. Under these assumptions, the total
allowed charges lost by losing suppliers would be $275 million in 2008,
the first full year after the prices take effect, and increase to
almost $2 billion in 2011. These estimates reflect our best
assumptions. As noted, because of the nature of competitive bidding,
winning bidders will absorb much of the allowed charges lost by losing
suppliers.
Suppliers who submit bids will incur a cost of bidding. In the
demonstration, bidders in Polk County, Florida reported spending 40 to
100 hours submitting bids. We therefore assume that suppliers will use
the midpoint number of hours, 70 hours, to complete their bids.
According to 2003 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, the average
hourly wage for an accountant and auditor was $24.35. Accounting for
inflation and overhead, we assume suppliers will incur $31.25 per hour
in wage and overhead costs. Based on this information, we assume that a
supplier that bids will spend $2,187.50 ($31.25*70) to prepare its bid.
We calculate the total cost for all supplier bids, including those of
both future winning and future losing suppliers. Therefore, we expect
that 2006 total supplier bidding costs for 16,545 bids will be
$36,192,187 ($2187.50*16545). This estimate is clearly dependent on our
assumption that all eligible suppliers will bid.
In 2008, we will conduct competitive bidding in 80 MSAs, which may
include New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago; and in 2009 and 2010 we
will add additional areas. This will increase the number of affected
suppliers, contract suppliers, and non contract suppliers. For the
purposes of the impact analysis, we assume that there will be at least
10 additional large CBAs added in both 2009 and 2010. We also assume
bid cycles will be three years in length. Under our assumptions, we
will conduct bidding for programs that involve the initial 10 MSAs in
2006 and 2009, for programs that involve 70 additional MSAs in 2008 and
2011, and for programs that involve additional areas in 2009 and 2010.
It is interesting to note that the average number of suppliers per CBA
decreases over time. This is because smaller CBAs with fewer
beneficiaries and lower allowed charges have fewer suppliers. Table 15
summarizes the effect on suppliers for 2006 through 2011.
[[Page 25695]]
Table 15.--Suppliers Bidding Years: 2006-2011
[10 product categories]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bidding year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average number of suppliers per CBA..................... 2754 2754 1863 1776 1687 1863
Average number of affected suppliers per CBA............ 1838 1838 1242 1183 1125 1242
Total number of suppliers............................... 27540 27540 149035 159864 168702 149035
Total number of affected suppliers...................... 18383 18383 99344 106439 112471 99344
Number of bidding suppliers............................. 16545 0 72865 22930 5429 72865
Cost of bidding......................................... $36,192,188 $0 $159,392,188 $50,159,375 $11,875,938 $159,392,188
Number of contract suppliers............................ 8272 8272 44705 47898 50612 44705
Number of non contract suppliers........................ 10111 10111 54639 58541 61859 54639
Non contract suppliers as a percent of total suppliers.. 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actual numbers will depend on CBAs selected, product groups selected, number of suppliers that choose to submit a bid, the prices bid, and the
number of contract suppliers selected.
\2\ Some suppliers furnish products in more than one selected CBA. Consequently, some suppliers may be counted more than once.
\3\ Numbers in the table are rounded.
2. Small Suppliers
We use the Small Business Administration definition of a small
supplier. The SBA defines a small supplier in Home Health Equipment
(NAICS Code 532291) as having less than $6 million in revenues. We do
not have information on each supplier's total revenue. We only have
information on suppliers' Medicare revenues. As a result, we had to
make an assumption about what percent of a supplier's revenues come
from Medicare. We looked at filings by public DMEPOS companies and
based on that information, we assume one-half of the average supplier's
revenues come from Medicare DEMPOS. We therefore classified a small
supplier as any supplier with fewer than $3 million in Medicare allowed
charges for all DMEPOS products whether or not they are eligible for
competitive bidding. For example, an orthotics supplier's allowed
charges could include charges for both customized and off-the-shelf
orthotics, but customized orthotics are not subject to competitive
bidding. By this definition, the majority of DMEPOS suppliers are
small. Table 16 shows our estimate of the number of affected small
suppliers and total affected suppliers. Some suppliers are counted more
than once if they are affected in more than one CBA.
Table 16.--Number of Small Suppliers \1\
[$3 million or less in Medicare allowed charges]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Total number
Bidding year affected small of affected Percent
suppliers suppliers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006............................................................ 16,741 18,383 91
2007............................................................ 16,741 18,383 91
2008............................................................ 88,912 99,344 90
2009............................................................ 94,969 106,439 89
2010............................................................ 100,083 112,471 89
2011............................................................ 100,083 112,471 89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some suppliers furnish products in more than one selected CBA. Consequently, some suppliers may be counted
more than once.
Small suppliers are likely to have similar costs for submitting
bids as large suppliers. As discussed in the previous section, the
average cost of submitting a bid in one CBA is $2187.50. The cost of
bidding as a share of Medicare revenue will depend on the size of the
small supplier's Medicare revenue. The share for a supplier with
$50,000 in Medicare revenue would be 4.4 percent; the totals for
suppliers with $100,000, $1,000,000, and $3,000,000 would be 2.2
percent, 0.2 percent, and less than 0.01 percent, respectively.
We considered the following options for minimizing the burden of
competitive bidding on small businesses:
Networking: As stated in section L of the preamble we
discuss our proposal for allowing suppliers the option to form networks
for bidding purposes. Networks are several companies joining together
to submit bids for a product category under competitive bidding. This
option will allow small suppliers to band together to lower bidding
costs, expand service options, or attain more favorable purchasing
terms. We recognize that forming a network may be challenging for
suppliers, and it also poses challenges for bid evaluation and program
monitoring.
Not requiring bids for every product category: As
discussed previously in the preamble, we are proposing to conduct
separate bidding for items grouped together in product categories
rather than conduct a single bidding program for all items. Therefore,
small suppliers will have the option of deciding how many product
categories for which they want to submit bids. We believe this will
help minimize the burden on small suppliers.
Another option we considered but did not accept would have
allowed small suppliers to be exempted from the requirement that a
contract supplier must service an entire CBA. This option
[[Page 25696]]
is also discussed in further detail in the preamble.
We also considered the option to allow a small supplier to
not submit a bid and then decide after the bidding whether or not they
would accept the new competitive bidding single payment amounts. We are
not accepting this option because the statue is clear about the
requirement that suppliers must have submitted a bid in order to be a
contract supplier. We believe that to allow this option would be an
inappropriate interpretation of the statute.
G. Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table
below, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this proposed rule. This table provides our best estimate of the
decreased expenditures in Medicare payments under the Medicare DMEPOS
Competitive Bidding Program as a result of the changes presented in
this proposed rule. All expenditures are classified as transfers to the
Federal Government from DMEPOS suppliers.
Table 17.--Accounting Statement--Classification of Estimated
Expenditures, From FY 2007 to FY 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers......... $570.3 (in Millions).
From Whom To Whom?..................... To Federal Government From
Medicare DMEPOS Suppliers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this
regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 411
Kidney diseases, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 414
Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Health
professions, Kidney diseases, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
42 CFR Part 424
Emergency medical services, Health facilities, Health professions,
Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth
below:
PART 411--EXCLUSIONS FOR MEDICARE AND LIMITATIONS ON MEDICARE
PAYMENT
1. The authority for part 411 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
Subpart A--General Exclusions and Exclusions of Particular Services
2. Section 411.15 is amended by--
A. Revising paragraph (b).
B. Adding new paragraph (s).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 411.15 Particular services excluded from coverage.
* * * * *
(b) Low vision aid exclusion. (1) Scope. The scope of the eyeglass
exclusion encompasses all devices irrespective of their size, form, or
technological features that use one or more lens to aid vision or
provide magnification of images for impaired vision.
(2) Exceptions. (i) Post-surgical prosthetic lenses customarily
used during convalescence for eye surgery in which the lens of the eye
was removed (for example, cataract surgery).
(ii) Prosthetic intraocular lenses and one pair of conventional
eyeglasses or contact lenses furnished subsequent to each cataract
surgery with insertion of an intraocular lens.
(iii) Prosthetic lenses used by Medicare beneficiaries who are
lacking the natural lens of the eye and who were not furnished with an
intraocular lens.
* * * * *
(s) Unless Sec. 414.408(f)(2) of this chapter applies, Medicare
does not make payment if an item or service that is included in a
competitive bidding program (as described in part 414, subpart F of
this chapter) is furnished by a supplier other than a contract supplier
(as defined in Sec. 414.402).
PART 414--PAYMENT FOR PART B MEDICAL AND OTHER HEALTH SERVICES
3. The authority citation for part 414 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102, 1871, and 1881(b)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395hh, and 1395rr(b)(1)).
Subpart A--General Provisions
4. Section 414.1 is amended by adding in numerical order the
statutory sections to read as follows:
Sec. 414.1 Basis and scope.
* * * * *
1842(s)--Fee schedules for parenteral and enteral nutrition (PEN)
nutrients, equipment, and supplies and home dialysis supplies and
equipment.
1847(a) and (b)--Competitive bidding for certain durable medical
equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS).
* * * * *
4a. The heading for subpart C is revised to read as follows:
Subpart C--Fee Schedules for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (PEN)
Nutrients, Equipment, and Supplies, and Home Dialysis Supplies and
Equipment
5. Section 414.100 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 414.100 Purpose.
This subpart implements fee schedules for parenteral and enteral
nutrition (PEN) items and services and home dialysis supplies and
equipment as authorized by section 1842(s) of the Act.
6. Section 414.102 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 414.102 General payment rules.
(a) General rule. For PEN items and services specified under
paragraph (b) of this section and furnished on or after January 1,
2002, and for home dialysis supplies and equipment specified under
paragraph (b) of this section and furnished on or after January 1,
2007, Medicare pays for the items and services on the basis of 80
percent of the lesser of--
(1) The actual charge for the item or service; or
(2) The fee schedule amount for the item or service, as determined
in accordance with Sec. 414.104 or Sec. 414.107.
(b) Payment classification. (1) CMS or the carrier determines fee
schedules for PEN nutrients, equipment, and supplies
[[Page 25697]]
in accordance with Sec. 414.104, and the fee schedules for home
dialysis supplies and equipment in accordance with Sec. 414.107.
(2) CMS designates the specific items and services in each category
through program instructions.
(c) Updating the fee schedule amounts. (1) For each calendar year
subsequent to CY 2002, the fee schedule amounts of the preceding year
for PEN items and services are updated by the percentage increase in
the CPI-U for the 12-month period ending with June of the preceding
calendar year.
(2) For each calendar year subsequent to CY 2007, the fee schedule
amounts of the preceding year for home dialysis supplies and equipment
are updated by the percentage increase in the CPI-U for the 12-month
period ending with June of the preceding calendar year.
(d) Establishing payment amounts for new items. (1) The DMERC or
local carrier uses the process described in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section to establish the fee schedule amounts for the items and
services included in a new HCPCS code created for a category of items
and services payable under this subpart, but only if reasonable charge
data are not available to calculate a fee schedule amount.
(2) The fee schedule amounts are updated in accordance with this
subpart.
(3) CMS calculates the Medicare fee schedule amounts for the items
and services described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section taking into
account one or more of the following:
(i) The median retail price for items and services classified under
the new HCPCS code. CMS determines the retail price for an individual
item and service based on supplier price lists, manufacturer suggested
retail prices, or wholesale prices plus an appropriate mark-up;
(ii) Fee schedule amounts for comparable items; or
(iii) A functional technology assessment of the items or services
classified under the new HCPCS code that takes into account one or more
of the following factors:
(A) Functional assessment.
(B) Price comparison analysis.
(C) Medical benefit assessment.
(4) A functional technology assessment described in paragraph
(d)(2)(iii) of this section is also used to adjust fee schedule amounts
calculated under paragraph (d)(2) of this section if CMS determines
that these amounts do no reflect the costs of furnishing the item or
service.
7. A new Sec. 414.107 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 414.107 Home dialysis supplies and equipment.
(a) Payment rules. Payment for home dialysis supplies and equipment
defined in Sec. 410.52(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this chapter is made in a
lump sum for supplies and equipment that are purchased, and on a
monthly basis for supplies and equipment that are rented. Total
payments per month for supplies and equipment may not exceed the
payment limits described in Sec. 414.330(c)(2) of this part.
(b) Fee schedule amount. The fee schedule amount for payment of
home dialysis supplies and equipment defined in Sec. 410.52(a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this chapter and furnished in CY 2007 is the average
reasonable charge for the supplies and equipment furnished from January
1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, increased by the percentage change
in the CPI-U for the 24-month period ending June 2006.
Subpart D--Payment for Durable Medical Equipment and Prosthetic and
Orthotic Devices
8. Section 414.210 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to read
as follows:
Sec. 414.210 General payment rules.
* * * * *
(g) Establishing fee schedule amounts for new items and services.
(1) The DMERC or local carrier uses the process described in paragraph
(g)(2) of this section to establish the fee schedule amounts for the
items and services included in a new HCPCS code created for a category
of items and services payable under this subpart, but only if
reasonable charge data are not available to calculate a fee schedule
amount.
(i) The fee schedule amounts are updated in accordance with this
subpart.
(ii) Items described in Sec. 414.224 are not subject to paragraph
(g)(1) of this section.
(2) CMS calculates the Medicare fee schedule amounts for the items
and services described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section taking into
account one or more of the following:
(i) The median retail price for items and services classified under
the new HCPCS code (CMS determines the retail price for an individual
item and service based on supplier price lists, manufacturer suggested
retail prices, or wholesale prices plus an appropriate mark-up);
(ii) Existing fee schedule amounts for comparable items; or
(iii) A functional technology assessment of the items or services
classified under the new HCPCS code that takes into account one or more
of the following factors:
(A) Functional assessment.
(B) Price comparison analysis.
(C) Medical benefit assessment.
(3) A functional technology assessment described in paragraph
(g)(2)(iii) of this section is also used to adjust fee schedule amounts
calculated under paragraph (g)(2) of this section if CMS determines
that these amounts do not reflect the costs of furnishing the item or
service.
9. Section 414.228 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 414.228 Prosthetic and orthotic devices.
* * * * *
(c) Payment for therapeutic shoes. The payment rules specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are applicable to custom molded
and extra depth shoes, modifications, and inserts (therapeutic shoes)
furnished after December 31, 2004.
Subpart E--Determination of Reasonable Charges Under the ESRD
Program
10. Section 414.330 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 414.330 Payment for home dialysis equipment, supplies, and
support services.
(a) * * *
(2) Exception. If the conditions in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through
(a)(2)(iv) of this section are met, Medicare pays for home dialysis
equipment and supplies on a fee schedule basis in accordance with Sec.
414.102, but the amount of payment may not exceed the limit for
equipment and supplies described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
11. A new subpart F is added to read as follows:
Subpart F--Competitive Bidding for Certain Durable Medical Equipment,
Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS)
Sec.
414.400 Purpose.
414.402 Definitions.
414.404 Basis, scope, and applicability.
414.406 Implementation of programs.
414.408 Payment rules.
414.410 Phased-in implementation of competitive bidding programs.
414.412 Submission of bids under a competitive bidding program.
414.414 Conditions for awarding contracts.
414.416 Determination of competitive bidding payment amounts.
414.418 Opportunity for networks.
414.420 Physician or treating practitioner authorization and
consideration of clinical efficiency and value of items.
414.422 Terms of contracts.
[[Page 25698]]
414.424 Administrative or judicial review.
414.426 Adjustments to competitive bidding payment amounts to
reflect changes in the HCPCS.
Subpart F--Competitive Bidding for Certain Durable Medical
Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS)
Sec. 414.400 Purpose.
This subpart implements competitive bidding programs for certain
DMEPOS items as required by sections 1847(a) and (b) of the Act.
Sec. 414.402 Definitions.
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:
Bid means an offer to furnish an item for a particular price and
time period that includes, where appropriate, any services that are
directly related to the furnishing of the item.
Competitive bidding area (CBA) means an area established by the
Secretary under this subpart.
Composite bid means the sum of a supplier's weighted bids for all
items within a product category for purposes of allowing a comparison
across bidding suppliers.
Competitive bidding program means a program established under this
subpart.
Contract supplier means an entity that is awarded a contract by CMS
to furnish items under a competitive bidding program.
DMEPOS stands for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics
and supplies.
Grandfathered item means any one of the following items for which
payment is made on a rental basis prior to the implementation of a
competitive bidding program under this subpart:
(1) An inexpensive or routinely purchased item described in Sec.
414.220.
(2) An item requiring frequent and substantial servicing, as
described in Sec. 414.222.
(3) Oxygen and oxygen equipment described in Sec. 414.226.
(4) A capped rental item described in Sec. 414.229.
Grandfathered supplier means a noncontract supplier that furnishes
a grandfathered item.
Item means one of the following products identified by a HCPCS
code, other than class III devices under the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act and inhalation drugs, and includes the services directly
related to the furnishing of that product to the beneficiary:
(1) Durable medical equipment (DME), as defined in Sec. 414.202 of
this part and further classified into the following categories:
(i) Inexpensive or routinely purchased items, as specified in Sec.
414.220(a).
(ii) Items requiring frequent and substantial servicing, as
specified in Sec. 414.222(a).
(iii) Oxygen and oxygen equipment, as specified in Sec.
414.226(b).
(iv) Other durable medical equipment (capped rental items), as
specified in Sec. 414.229.
(2) Supplies necessary for the effective use of DME.
(3) Enteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies.
(4) Off-the-shelf orthotics, which are orthotics described in
section 1861(s)(9) of the Act that require minimal self-adjustment for
appropriate use and do not require expertise in trimming, bending,
molding, assembling, or customizing to fit a beneficiary.
Item weight is a number assigned to an item based on its
beneficiary utilization rate in a competitive bidding area when
compared to other items in the same product category.
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has the same meaning as that
given by the Office of Management and Budget.
Nationwide competitive bidding area means a competitive bidding
area that includes the United States and its territories.
Noncontract supplier means a supplier that is located in a
competitive bidding area or that furnishes items through the mail to
beneficiaries in a competitive bidding area but that is not awarded a
contract by CMS to furnish items included in a competitive bidding
program for that area.
Physician has the same meaning as in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act.
Pivotal bid means the highest composite bid based on bids submitted
by a suppliers for a product category that will include a sufficient
number of suppliers to meet beneficiary demand for the items in that
product category.
Product category means a grouping of related items that are
included in a competitive bidding program.
Single payment amount means the allowed payment for an item
furnished under a competitive bidding program.
Supplier means an entity with a valid Medicare supplier number,
including an entity that furnishes an item through the mail.
Treating practitioner means a physician assistant, nurse
practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist, as those terms are defined
in section 1861(aa)(5) of the Act.
Weighted bid means the item weight multiplied by the bid price
submitted for that item.
Sec. 414.404 Basis, scope, and applicability.
This subpart applies to the following entities that furnish the
items described in Sec. 414.402 to beneficiaries under a competitive
bidding program:
(a) Suppliers.
(b) Providers that furnish items under Medicare Part B as
suppliers.
(c) Physicians that furnish items under Medicare Part B as
suppliers.
Sec. 414.406 Implementation of programs.
(a) Implementation contractor. CMS designates one or more
implementation contractors for the purpose of implementing this
subpart.
(b) Competitive bidding areas. CMS designates through program
instructions each competitive bidding area in which a competitive
bidding program may be implemented under this subpart.
(c) Revisions to competitive bid. CMS may revise the competitive
bidding areas designated under paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Competitively bid items. CMS designates the items that are
included in a competitive bidding program through program instructions.
(e) Claims processing. The regional carrier designated under Sec.
421.210 of this chapter to process DMEPOS claims for a particular
geographic region also processes claims for items furnished under a
competitive bidding program in the same geographic region.
Sec. 414.408 Payment rules.
(a) Payment basis. (1) The payment basis for an item furnished
under a competitive bidding program is 80 percent of the single payment
amount calculated for the item under Sec. 414.416 for the competitive
bidding area in which the beneficiary maintains a permanent residence.
(2) If an item that is included in a competitive bidding program is
furnished to a beneficiary who does not maintain a permanent residence
in a competitive bidding area, the payment basis for the item is 80
percent of the lesser of the actual charge for the item, or the
applicable fee schedule amount for the item, as determined under
subparts C or D of this part.
(b) Updating the single payment amounts. Beginning with the second
year of a contract entered into under this subpart, the single payment
amounts are updated by the percentage increase in the CPI-U for the 12-
month period ending with June of the preceding calendar year.
(c) Payment on an assignment-related basis. Payment for an item
furnished under this subpart is made on an assignment-related basis.
(d) Applicability of advanced beneficiary notice. Implementation of
a
[[Page 25699]]
program in accordance with this subpart does not preclude the use of an
advanced beneficiary notice.
(e) Adjustment of payment amounts in other areas. For items
furnished to Medicare beneficiaries on or after January 1, 2009 for
which payment is made under this subpart, CMS may use the single
payment amounts determined under Sec. 414.416 of this subpart to
adjust the amounts Medicare pays for the same items in areas that are
not designated as competitive bidding areas.
(f) Requirement to obtain competitively bid items from a contract
supplier. (1) General rule. All items that are included in a
competitive bidding program must be furnished by a contract supplier
for that program.
(2) Exceptions. (i) A grandfathered supplier may furnish a
grandfathered item to a beneficiary in accordance with paragraph (k) of
this section.
(ii) If a beneficiary is outside of the competitive bidding area in
which he or she maintains a permanent residence, he or she may obtain
an item included in the competitive bidding program for that area from
a--
(A) Contract supplier, if the beneficiary is in another competitive
bidding area and the item is included in the competitive bidding
program for that area; or
(B) Supplier, if the beneficiary is not in another competitive
bidding area.
(iii) Unless paragraph (f)(2) of this section applies, a
beneficiary who maintains a permanent residence in a competitive
bidding area has no financial liability to a supplier that furnishes an
item included in the competitive bidding program for that area in
violation of paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(3) CMS separately designates the supplier numbers of all
noncontract suppliers to monitor compliance with paragraph (f)(1) of
this section.
(g) Purchased equipment. (1) The single payment amounts for new
purchased durable medical equipment, including power wheelchairs that
are purchased when the equipment is initially furnished, and enteral
nutrition equipment, if included under a competitive bidding program,
are calculated based on the bids submitted and accepted for these
items. (2) Payment for used purchased durable medical equipment and
enteral nutrition equipment, if included under a competitive bidding
program, is made in an amount equal to 75 percent of the single payment
amounts calculated for new purchased equipment under paragraph (g)(1)
of this section.
(h) Purchased supplies and orthotics. The single payment amounts
for the following purchased items, if included under a competitive
bidding program, are calculated based on the bids submitted and
accepted for the following items:
(1) Supplies used in conjunction with durable medical equipment.
(2) Enteral nutrients.
(3) Enteral nutrition supplies.
(4) Orthotics.
(i) Rented equipment. (1) Payment for capped rental durable medical
equipment, if included under a competitive bidding program, is made in
an amount equal to 10 percent of the single payment amounts calculated
for new durable medical equipment under paragraph (g)(1) of this
section for each of the first 3 months, and 7.5 percent of the single
payment amounts calculated for these items for each of the remaining
months 4 through 13.
(2) Separate maintenance and servicing payments will not be made
for any rented equipment. Payment for maintenance and servicing of
rented equipment is included in the single payment amount for rental of
the item.
(3) Payment for enteral nutrition equipment, if included under a
competitive bidding program, is made in an amount equal to 10 percent
of the single payment amounts calculated for new enteral nutrition
equipment under paragraph (g)(1) of this section for each of the first
3 months, and 7.5 percent of the single payment amount calculated for
these items under paragraph (g)(1) of this section for each of the
remaining months 4 through 15. The contract supplier to which payment
is made in month 15 for furnishing enteral nutrition equipment on a
rental basis must continue to furnish, maintain and service the
equipment until a determination is made by the beneficiary's physician
or treating practitioner that the equipment is no longer medically
necessary.
(4) Payment for the maintenance and servicing of rented enteral
nutrition equipment, if included under a competitive bidding program,
is made in an amount equal to 5 percent of the single payment amounts
calculated for these items under paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(5) Payment for inexpensive or routinely purchased durable medical
equipment furnished on a rental basis, if included under a competitive
bidding program, is made in an amount equal to 10 percent of the single
payment amount calculated for new purchased equipment.
(6) The single payment amounts for rented durable medical equipment
requiring frequent and substantial servicing, if included under a
competitive bidding program, are calculated based on the bids submitted
and accepted for these items.
(j) Monthly payment amounts for oxygen and oxygen equipment. The
single payment amounts for oxygen and oxygen equipment, if included
under a competitive bidding program, are calculated based on the
separate bids submitted and accepted for the furnishing on a monthly
basis of each of the four categories of oxygen and oxygen equipment
described in Sec. 414.226(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv).
(k) Special rules for certain rented durable medical equipment and
oxygen and oxygen equipment. (1) Supplier election. (i) A supplier that
is furnishing DME on a rental basis or is furnishing oxygen and oxygen
equipment on a monthly basis to a beneficiary prior to the
implementation of a competitive bidding program in the area where the
beneficiary maintains a permanent residence may elect to continue
furnishing the item as a grandfathered supplier.
(ii) A supplier that elects to be a grandfathered supplier must
continue to furnish a grandfathered item to all beneficiaries who elect
to continue receiving the grandfathered item from that supplier.
(2) Payment for grandfathered items furnished during the first
competitive bidding program implemented in an area. Medicare pays for
grandfathered items furnished during the first competitive bidding
program implemented in an area as follows:
(i) For items described in Sec. 414.220, payment is made in the
amount determined under Sec. 414.220(b).
(ii) For items that meet the definition of a capped rental item in
Sec. 414.229, payment is made in the amount determined under Sec.
414.229(b).
(iii) For items described in Sec. 414.222, payment is made in the
amount determined under Sec. 414.416.
(iv) For items described in Sec. 414.226, payment is made in the
amount determined under Sec. 414.416.
(3) Payment for grandfathered items furnished during all subsequent
competitive bidding programs in an area. Beginning with the second
competitive bidding program implemented in an area, payment is made for
grandfathered items in the amounts determined under Sec. 414.416.
(4) Choice of suppliers. (i) Beneficiaries described in paragraph
(k)(1) of this section may elect to obtain a grandfathered item from a
grandfathered supplier.
(ii) A beneficiary who is otherwise entitled to obtain an item from
a grandfathered supplier under paragraph
[[Page 25700]]
(k) of this section may elect to obtain the same item from a contract
supplier at any time after a competitive bidding program is
implemented.
(iii) If a beneficiary elects to obtain the item from a contract
supplier, payment is made for the item in the amount determined under
Sec. 414.416.
Sec. 414.410 Phased-in implementation of competitive bidding
programs.
(a) Phase-in of MSA for CY 2007, CY 2009, and subsequent calendar
years. CMS phases in competitive bidding programs so that competition
under the programs occurs in--
(1) Ten of the largest MSAs in CY 2007;
(2) Eighty of the largest MSAs in CY 2009;
(3) Additional areas after CY 2009.
(b) Selection of MSAs for CY 2007 and CY 2009. CMS selects the MSAs
for purposes of designating competitive bidding areas in CY 2007 and CY
2009 by considering the following variables:
(1) The total population of an MSA.
(2) The Medicare allowed charges for DMEPOS items per fee-for-
service (FFS) beneficiary in an MSA.
(3) The total number of DMEPOS suppliers per FFS beneficiary that
received DMEPOS items in an MSA.
(4) An MSA's geographic location.
(c) Exclusions from a competitive bidding area. CMS may exclude
from a competitive bidding area a rural area (as defined in Sec.
412.64(b)(1)(ii)(C) of this chapter), or an area with low population
density based on the following factors--
(1) Low utilization of DMEPOS items by Medicare FFS beneficiaries
relative to similar geographic areas;
(2) Low number of DMEPOS suppliers relative to similar geographic
areas; or
(3) Low number of Medicare FFS beneficiaries relative to similar
geographic areas.
(d) Selection of additional areas after CY 2009. (1) Beginning in
CY 2010, CMS designates additional competitive bidding areas based on
CMS' determination that the implementation of a competitive bidding
program in an area is likely to result in significant savings to the
Medicare program.
(2) CMS may designate one or more regional or nationwide
competitive bidding areas for purposes of implementing competitive
bidding programs for items that are furnished through the mail.
Sec. 414.412 Submission of bids under a competitive bidding program.
(a) In order for a supplier to receive payment for items furnished
to beneficiaries under a competitive bidding program, the supplier must
submit a bid to furnish those items and be awarded a contract under
this subpart.
(b) Bids are submitted for items grouped into product categories.
(c) Product categories include items that are used to treat a
related medical condition. The list of product categories, and the
items included in each product category that is included in a
particular competitive bidding program, are identified in the request
for bids for that competitive bidding program.
(d) Suppliers must submit a separate bid for every item included in
each product category that they are seeking to furnish under a
competitive bidding program.
(e) A bid must include all costs related to furnishing an item,
including all services directly related to the furnishing of the item.
(f) Mail order suppliers. (1) Suppliers that furnish items through
the mail must submit a bid to furnish these items in any area in which
a competitive bidding program is implemented which includes the items.
(2) Suppliers that submit one or more bids under paragraph (f)(1)
of this section may submit the same bid amount for each item under each
competitive bidding program for which it submits a bid.
(g) Applicability of the mail order program. Suppliers that do not
furnish items through the mail are not required to participate in a
national or regional mail order competitive bidding program that
includes the same items. Suppliers may continue to furnish these items
in--
(1) A competitive bidding area, if the supplier is awarded a
contract under this subpart; or
(2) An area not designated as a competitive bidding area.
Sec. 414.414 Conditions for awarding contracts.
(a) General rule. The rules set forth in this section govern the
evaluation and selection of suppliers for contract award purposes under
a competitive bidding program.
(b) Basic supplier eligibility. (1) Each bidding supplier must meet
the enrollment standards specified in Sec. 424.57 of this chapter.
(2) Each bidding supplier must--
(i) Certify in its bid that it, its high level employees, chief
corporate officers, members of its board of directors, its affiliated
companies, and its subcontractors are not now and was not sanctioned by
any governmental agency or accreditation or licensing organization, or
(ii) Disclose information about any prior or current legal actions,
sanctions, or debarments by any Federal, State or local program,
including actions against any members of the board of directors, chief
corporate officers, high-level employees, affiliated companies, and
subcontractors.
(3) Each bidding supplier must submit with its bid evidence of all
State and local licenses required to perform the services identified in
its response to the request for bids.
(4) Each bidding supplier must agree to all the terms contained in
the request for bids and the supplier contract.
(c) Quality standards and accreditation. (1) Quality standards. All
bidding suppliers must meet applicable quality standards developed by
CMS in accordance with section 1834(a)(20) of the Act.
(2) Accreditation. (i) All bidding suppliers must be accredited by
a CMS approved accreditation organization, as defined under Sec.
424.57(a) of this chapter.
(ii) A supplier satisfies paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section if it
was accredited by an organization that CMS designates as a CMS-approved
accreditation organization under Sec. 424.58 of this chapter.
(d) Financial standards. All suppliers must meet the applicable
financial standards specified in the request for bids.
(e) Evaluation of bids. CMS evaluates bids submitted for a product
category by--
(1) Calculating the expected beneficiary demand in a competitive
bidding area for items in a product category;
(2) Establishing a composite bid for each supplier that submitted a
bid for the product category;
(3) Arraying the composite bids from the lowest to the highest;
(4) Calculating the pivotal bid for the product category; and
(5) Selecting all bidding suppliers whose composite bids are less
than or equal to the pivotal bid for that product category, and that
meet the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(f) Expected savings. CMS does not award a contract under this
subpart unless CMS determines that the amounts to be paid to a contract
supplier for an item under a competitive bidding program are expected
to be less than the amounts that would otherwise be paid for the same
item under subparts C or D of this part.
(g) Sufficient number of suppliers. If the requirements in
paragraphs (e)(5) and (f) of this section are satisfied by two or more
suppliers for a product category under a competitive bidding
[[Page 25701]]
program, then CMS awards at least two contracts for the furnishing of
that product category under a competitive bidding program.
(h) Selection of new suppliers after bidding. (1) Subsequent to the
awarding of contracts under this subpart, CMS may award additional
contracts if it determines that additional contract suppliers are
needed to meet beneficiary demand for items under a competitive bidding
program. CMS selects additional contract suppliers by--
(i) Referring to the arrayed list of suppliers that submitted bids
for the product category included in the competitive bidding program
for which beneficiary demand is not being met; and
(ii) Beginning with the supplier whose composite bid is the first
composite bid above the pivotal bid for that product category,
determining if that supplier is willing to become a contract supplier
under the same terms and conditions that apply to other contract
suppliers in the competitive bidding area.
(2) Before CMS awards additional contracts under paragraph (h)(1)
of this section, a supplier must submit updated eligibility
information, and CMS must determine that the supplier continues to meet
the requirements under paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
Sec. 414.416 Determination of competitive bidding payment amounts.
(a) General rule. CMS establishes a single payment amount for each
item furnished under a competitive bidding program.
(b) Methodology for setting payment amount. (1) The single payment
amount for an item furnished under a competitive bidding program is
equal to the median of the accepted bids for that item that are at or
below the pivotal bid for the product category that includes the item.
(2) The single payment amount for an item must be less than the
amount that would otherwise be paid for the same item under subparts C
or D of this part.
(c) Rebate. (1) A contract supplier that submitted a bid for an
item in an amount that is below the single payment amount calculated by
CMS for that item may elect to issue a rebate.
(2) A contract supplier that elects to offer a rebate under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section must agree to issue the same rebate to
all beneficiaries to whom it furnishes an item to which a rebate
applies.
(3) A contract supplier's election to offer a rebate will be
included as an express term in the contract supplier's contract to
furnish items under this subpart.
(4) The rebate election cannot be amended or otherwise modified
during the term of the contract.
(5) A contract supplier may not advertise that it issues a rebate
for any item furnished under this subpart.
Sec. 414.418 Opportunity for networks.
(a) For purposes of this section, a network is comprised of at
least two suppliers that collectively submit a single bid to furnish
the items included in a product category under a competitive bidding
program.
(b) The following rules apply to networks that seek contracts under
this subpart:
(1) Each network must form a single legal entity that acts as the
bidder and submits the bid. Any agreement entered into for purposes of
forming a network must be submitted to CMS.
(2) Each member of the network must be independently eligible to
bid. If CMS determines that a member of the network is ineligible to
bid, CMS notifies the network, and the network has 10 business days to
resubmit its bid.
(3) Each network member must meet all accreditation and quality
standards that are required. Each member is responsible for the quality
of care, service, and items that it furnishes to Medicare
beneficiaries. If any network member does not comply with this
requirement, CMS may terminate its contract with the network.
(4) The network cannot be anticompetitive. The network members'
market shares for a product category, when added together, cannot
exceed 20 percent of the Medicare market within a competitive bidding
area.
(5) A supplier may only join one network and cannot submit
individual bids if part of a network. The network must identify itself
as a network and identify all of its members.
(6) The network must designate a primary contract supplier among
its members. The primary contract supplier bills and receives payment
on behalf of the network members. The primary contract supplier is
responsible for appropriately distributing reimbursement to other
network members.
Sec. 414.420 Physician or treating practitioner authorization and
consideration of clinical efficiency and value of items.
(a) A physician or treating practitioner may prescribe in writing a
particular brand of an item for which payment is made under a
competitive bidding program, or a particular mode of delivery for an
item, if he or she determines that the particular brand or mode of
delivery would avoid an adverse medical outcome for the beneficiary.
(b)(1) The contract supplier must make a reasonable effort to
furnish the particular brand or mode of delivery of an item as
prescribed by the physician or treating practitioner.
(2) A contract supplier that, despite making a reasonable effort
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, cannot furnish an item as
prescribed under paragraph (a) of this section, must consult with the
physician or treating practitioner to find an appropriate item, or mode
of delivery, for the beneficiary.
(3) Any change to a prescription made in accordance with paragraph
(b)(2) of this section must be memorialized in a revised written
prescription.
(c) Medicare does not make an additional payment to a contract
supplier that furnishes a particular item or provides a particular mode
of delivery for an item, as directed by a prescription written by the
beneficiary's physician or treating practitioner.
(d) A contract supplier is prohibited from billing Medicare if it
furnishes an item different from that specified in the written
prescription received from the beneficiary's physician or treating
practitioner.
Sec. 414.422 Terms of contracts.
(a) A contract supplier must comply with all terms of its contract,
including any option exercised by CMS, for the full duration of the
contract period.
(b) Recompeting competitive bidding contracts. CMS recompetes
competitive bidding contracts at least once every 3 years.
(c) Repair and replacement of patient owned equipment. (1)
Beneficiary owned items furnished under a competitive bidding program
must be serviced by a contract supplier for that competitive bidding
program, and a contract supplier must agree to service all items
included in its contract and furnished to any beneficiary who maintains
a permanent residence in that contract supplier's competitive bidding
area.
(2) Paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not apply if the
beneficiary is outside the competitive bidding area.
(d) Change of ownership. (1) A contract supplier must notify CMS in
writing 60 days prior to any change of ownership, mergers or
acquisitions.
(2) CMS may award a contract to an entity that merges with, or
acquires, a contract supplier if--
(i) CMS determines that awarding a contract to the successor entity
is necessary to ensure that beneficiary
[[Page 25702]]
demand for the items furnished by the contract supplier continues to be
met;
(ii) The successor entity meets all requirements applicable to
contract suppliers for the applicable competitive bidding program;
(iii) The successor entity agrees to assume all obligations and
liabilities borne by the prior contract supplier under the contract;
(iv) The successor entity executes a novation agreement.
(e) Furnishing of items. (1) A contract supplier must agree to
furnish items under a competitive bidding program to any beneficiary
who maintains a permanent residence in, or who visits, the competitive
bidding area and who requests those items from that contract supplier.
(2) Exceptions. (i) A skilled nursing facility defined under
section 1819(a) of the Act that is also a contract supplier must agree
to furnish items under a competitive bidding program to patients to
whom it would otherwise furnish Part B services.
(ii) A physician that is also a contract supplier must agree to
furnish items under the competitive bidding program to his or her
patients.
(f) Breach of contract. (1) Any deviation from contract
requirements, including a failure to comply with governmental agency or
licensing organization requirements, constitutes a breach of contract.
(2) In the event a contract supplier breaches the contract, CMS may
take one or more of the following actions:
(i) Require the contract supplier to correct the breach condition;
(ii) Suspend performance under the contract;
(iii) Terminate the contract for default (which may include
requiring the contract supplier to reimburse CMS' reprocurement costs);
(iv) Preclude the contract supplier from participating in the
competitive bidding program;
(v) Revoke the supplier number of the contract supplier; or
(vi) Avail itself of other remedies allowed by law.
(g) CMS has the right to terminate performance under the contract
in whole or in part when termination would be in CMS' interest.
Sec. 414.424 Administrative or judicial review.
(a) There is no administrative or judicial review under this
subpart of the following:
(1) Establishment of payment amounts.
(2) Awarding of contracts.
(3) Designation of competitive bidding areas.
(4) Phase-in of the competitive bidding programs.
(5) Selection of items for competitive bidding.
(6) Bidding structure and number of contract suppliers selected for
a competitive bidding program.
(b) A denied claim is not appealable if CMS determines that a
competitively bid item was furnished in a competitive bidding area in a
manner not authorized by this subpart.
Sec. 414.426 Adjustments to competitively bid payment amounts to
reflect changes in the HCPCS.
If a HCPCS code for a competitively bid item is revised during a
competitive bidding program, CMS adjusts the single payment amount for
that item as follows:
(a) If a single HCPCS code for an item is divided into multiple
codes for the components of that item, the sum of single payment
amounts for the new codes equals the single payment amount for the
original item, and contract suppliers must furnish the components of
the item in accordance with the new codes.
(b) If a single HCPCS code for two or more similar items is divided
into two or more separate codes, the single payment amount applied to
these codes is the same single payment amount applied to the single
code, and contract suppliers must furnish the items in accordance with
the new codes.
(c) If the HCPCS codes for components of an item are merged into a
single code for the item, the single payment amount for the new code is
equal to the total of the separate single payment amounts for the
components, and contract suppliers must furnish the item in accordance
with the new code.
(d) If multiple codes for similar items are merged into a single
code, the single payment amount for the new single code is the average
(arithmetic mean) weighted by the frequency of payments for the
formerly separate codes, and contract suppliers must furnish the item
under the new single code.
PART 424--CONDITIONS FOR MEDICARE PAYMENT
12. The authority citation for part 424 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
Subpart A--General Provisions
13. Section 424.1 is amended by adding in numerical order the
statutory sections to read as follows:
Sec. 424.1 Basis and scope.
* * * * *
1834(a)--Payment for durable medical equipment.
1834(j)--Requirements for suppliers of medical equipment and
supplies.
* * * * *
Subpart D--To Whom Payment is Ordinarily Made
14. Section 424.57 is amended by--
A. Adding the definitions ``Accredited DMEPOS supplier,'' ``CMS
approved accreditation organization'' and ``Independent accreditation
organization'' in alphabetical order in paragraph (a).
B. Adding a new paragraph (c)(22).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 424.57 Special payment rules for items furnished by DMEPOS
suppliers and issuance of DMEPOS supplier billing privileges.
(a) Definitions. * * *
* * * * *
Accredited DMEPOS supplier means a supplier that has been
accredited by a recognized independent accreditation organization
meeting the requirements of and approved by CMS in accordance with
Sec. 424.58.
CMS approved accreditation organization means a recognized
independent accreditation organization approved by CMS under Sec.
424.58.
* * * * *
Independent accreditation organization means an accreditation
organization that accredits a supplier of DMEPOS and other items and
services for a specific DMEPOS product category or a full line of
DMEPOS product categories.
* * * * *
(c) Application certification standards. * * *
(22) All suppliers of DMEPOS and other items and services must be
accredited by a CMS approved accreditation organization before
receiving a supplier billing number.
* * * * *
15. A new Sec. 424.58 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 424.58 Accreditation.
(a) Scope and purpose. This part implements section 1834(a)(20)(B)
of the Act, which requires the Secretary to designate and approve one
or more independent accreditation organizations for purposes of
enforcing the quality standards for suppliers of DMEPOS and other items
of service. Section 1847(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act requires a DMEPOS
supplier to meet the quality standards under section 1834(a)(20) of
[[Page 25703]]
the Act before being awarded a contract under part 414, subpart F of
this chapter.
(b) Application and reapplication procedures for accreditation
organizations. (1) An independent accreditation organization applying
for approval or reapproval of authority to survey suppliers for
compliance with Medicare DMEPOS supplier quality standards is required
to furnish the following to CMS:
(i) A list of the product-specific types of DMEPOS suppliers for
which the organization is requesting approval.
(ii) A detailed comparison of the organization's accreditation
requirements and standards with the applicable Medicare quality
standards, such as a crosswalk.
(iii) A detailed description of the organization's survey process,
including procedures for performing unannounced surveys, frequency of
the surveys performed, copies of the organization's survey forms,
guidelines and instructions to surveyors, accreditation survey review
process and the accreditation status decision-making process.
(iv) Procedures used to notify suppliers of compliance or
noncompliance with the accreditation requirements.
(v) Procedures used to monitor the correction of deficiencies found
during an accreditation survey.
(vi) Procedures for coordinating surveys with another accrediting
organization if the organization does not accredit all products the
supplier provides.
(vii) Detailed professional information about the individuals who
perform surveys for the accreditation organization, including the size
and composition of accreditation survey teams for each type of supplier
accredited, and the education and experience requirements surveyors
must meet. The information must include the following:
(A) The content and frequency of the continuing education training
provided to survey personnel.
(B) The evaluation systems used to monitor the performance of
individual surveyors and survey teams.
(C) Policies and procedures for a surveyor or institutional
affiliate of the independent accrediting organization that participates
in a survey or accreditation decision regarding a DMEPOS supplier with
which that individual or institution is professionally or financially
affiliated.
(viii) A description of the organization's data management,
analysis and reporting system for its surveys and accreditation
decisions, including the kinds of reports, tables, and other displays
generated by that system.
(ix) Procedures for responding to, and investigating complaints
against, accredited facilities, including policies and procedures
regarding coordination of these activities with appropriate licensing
bodies, ombudsmen programs, the National Supplier Clearinghouse, and
CMS.
(x) The organization's policies and procedures for notifying CMS of
facilities that fail to meet the accreditation organization's
requirements.
(xi) A description of all types, categories, and durations of
accreditations offered by the organization.
(xii) A list of the following:
(A) All currently accredited DMEPOS suppliers.
(B) The types and categories of accreditation currently held by
each supplier.
(C) The expiration date of each supplier's current accreditation.
(D) The upcoming survey cycles for all DMEPOS suppliers'
accreditation surveys scheduled to be performed by the organization.
(xiii) A written presentation that demonstrates the organization's
ability to furnish CMS with electronic data in ASCII comparable code.
(xiv) A resource analysis that demonstrates that the organization's
staffing, funding and other resources are adequate to perform fully the
required surveys and related activities.
(xv) An agreement that makes surveyors available as witnesses if
CMS takes an adverse action based on accreditation findings.
(2) Validation survey. CMS surveys suppliers of DMEPOS and other
items and services accredited under this section on a representative
sample basis, or in response to substantial allegations of
noncompliance, in order to validate the accreditation organization's
survey process. When conducted--
(i) On a representative sample basis, the CMS survey may be
comprehensive or focus on a specific standard;
(ii) In response to a substantial allegation, CMS surveys for any
standard that CMS determines is related to the allegations.
(3) Discovery of a deficiency. If CMS discovers a deficiency and
determines that the DMEPOS supplier is out of compliance with Medicare
supplier quality standards, CMS may revoke the suppliers' billing
number or require the accreditation organization to perform a
subsequent full accreditation survey at the accreditation
organization's expense.
(4) A supplier selected for a validation survey. A supplier
selected for a validation survey must authorize the--
(i) Validation survey to take place; and
(ii) CMS survey team to monitor the correction of any deficiencies
found through the validation survey.
(5) Refusal to cooperate with survey. If a supplier selected for a
validation survey fails to comply with the requirements specified at
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, it is deemed to no longer meet the
Medicare supplier quality standards and may have its supplier billing
number revoked.
(6) Validation survey findings. If a validation survey results in a
finding that the supplier is out of compliance with one or more
Medicare supplier quality standards, the supplier no longer meets the
Medicare standards and may have its supplier billing number revoked.
(c) Ongoing responsibilities of a CMS approved accreditation
organization. An accreditation organization approved by CMS must
undertake the following activities on an ongoing basis:
(1) Provide to CMS all of the following in written format and on a
monthly basis all of the following:
(i) Copies of all accreditation surveys, together with any survey-
related information that CMS may require (including corrective action
plans and summaries of unmet CMS requirements).
(ii) Notice of all accreditation decisions.
(iii) Notice of all complaints related to suppliers of DMEPOS and
other items and services.
(iv) Information about any suppliers of DMEPOS and other items and
services against which the CMS approved accreditation organization has
taken remedial or adverse action, including revocation, withdrawal, or
revision of the supplier's accreditation.
(v) Notice of any proposed changes in its accreditation standards
or requirements or survey process. If the organization implements the
changes before or without CMS' approval, CMS may withdraw its approval
of the accreditation organization.
(2) Within 30 days of a change in CMS requirements, submit to CMS:
(i) An acknowledgment of CMS' notification of the change.
(ii) A revised cross-walk reflecting the new requirements.
(iii) An explanation of how the accreditation organization plans to
alter its standards to conform to CMS's new requirements, within the
timeframes
[[Page 25704]]
specified in the notification of change it receives from CMS.
(3) Permit its surveyors to serve as witnesses if CMS takes an
adverse action based on accreditation findings.
(4) Within 2 calendar days of identifying a deficiency of an
accredited DMEPOS supplier that poses immediate jeopardy to a
beneficiary or to the general public, provide CMS with written notice
of the deficiency and any adverse action implemented by the
accreditation organization.
(5) Within 10 days after CMS's notice to a CMS approved
accreditation organization that CMS intends to withdraw approval of the
accreditation organization, provide written notice of the withdrawal to
all the CMS approved accreditation organization's accredited suppliers.
(6) Provide, on an annual basis, summary data specified by CMS that
relate to the past year's accreditation activities and trends.
(d) Continuing Federal oversight of approved accreditation
organizations. This paragraph establishes specific criteria and
procedures for continuing oversight and for withdrawing approval of a
CMS approved accreditation organization.
(1) Equivalency review. CMS compares the accreditation
organization's standards and its application and enforcement of those
standards to the comparable CMS requirements and processes when--
(i) CMS imposes new requirements or changes its survey process;
(ii) An accreditation organization proposes to adopt new standards
or changes in its survey process; or
(iii) The term of an accreditation organization's approval expires.
(2) Validation survey. CMS or its designated survey team may
conduct a survey of an accredited DMEPOS supplier, examine the results
of a CMS approved accreditation organization's survey of a supplier, or
observe a CMS approved accreditation organization's onsite survey of a
DMEPOS supplier, in order to validate the CMS approved accreditation
organization's accreditation process. At the conclusion of the review,
CMS identifies any accreditation programs for which validation survey
results indicate--
(i) A 10 percent rate of disparity between findings by the
accreditation organization and findings by CMS or its designated survey
team on standards that do not constitute immediate jeopardy to patient
health and safety if unmet;
(ii) Any disparity between findings by the accreditation
organization and findings by CMS on standards that constitute immediate
jeopardy to patient health and safety if unmet; or
(iii) That, irrespective of the rate of disparity, there are
widespread or systemic problems in an organization's accreditation
process such that accreditation by that accreditation organization no
longer provides CMS with adequate assurance that suppliers meet or
exceed the Medicare requirements.
(3) Notice of intent to withdraw approval. CMS provides the
organization written notice of its intent to withdraw approval if an
equivalency review, validation review, onsite observation, or CMS's
daily experience with the accreditation organization suggests that the
accreditation organization is not meeting the requirements of this
section.
(4) Withdrawal of approval. CMS may withdraw its approval of an
accreditation organization at any time if CMS determines that--
(i) Accreditation by the organization no longer guarantees that the
suppliers of DMEPOS and other items and services are meeting the
supplier quality standards, and that failure to meet those requirements
could jeopardize the health or safety of Medicare beneficiaries and
could constitute a significant hazard to the public health; or
(ii) The accreditation organization has failed to meet its
obligations with respect to application or reapplication procedures.
(e) Reconsideration. (1) An accreditation organization dissatisfied
with a determination that its accreditation requirements do not provide
or do not continue to provide reasonable assurance that the entities
accredited by the accreditation organization meet the applicable
supplier quality standards is entitled to a reconsideration. CMS
reconsiders any determination to deny, remove, or not renew the
approval of deeming authority to accreditation organizations if the
accreditation organization files a written request for reconsideration
by its authorized officials or through its legal representative.
(2) The request must be filed within 30 days of the receipt of CMS
notice of an adverse determination or non renewal.
(3) The request for reconsideration must specify the findings or
issues with which the accreditation organization disagrees and the
reasons for the disagreement.
(4) A requestor may withdraw its request for reconsideration at any
time before the issuance of a reconsideration determination.
(5) In response to a request for reconsideration, CMS provides the
accreditation organization the opportunity for an informal hearing to
be conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the Administrator of CMS
and provide the accreditation organization the opportunity to present,
in writing and in person, evidence or documentation to refute the
determination to deny approval, or to withdraw or not renew deeming
authority.
(6) CMS provides written notice of the time and place of the
informal hearing at least 10 days before the scheduled date.
(7) The informal reconsideration hearing is open to CMS and the
organization requesting the reconsideration, including authorized
representatives; technical advisors (individuals with knowledge of the
facts of the case or presenting interpretation of the facts); and legal
counsel.
(i) The hearing is conducted by the hearing officer who receives
testimony and documents related to the proposed action.
(ii) Testimony and other evidence may be accepted by the hearing
officer even though it is inadmissible under the rules of court
procedures.
(iii) The hearing officer does not have the authority to compel by
subpoena the production of witnesses, papers, or other evidence.
(8) Within 45 days of the close of the hearing, the hearing officer
presents the findings and recommendations to the accreditation
organization that requested the reconsideration.
(9) The written report of the hearing officer includes separate
numbered findings of fact and the legal conclusions of the hearing
officer. The hearing officer's decision is final.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.778, Medical
Assistance Program; 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, 2005.
Mark B. McClellan,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Approved: April 3, 2006.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-3982 Filed 4-24-06; 4:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P | usgpo | 2024-10-08T14:08:36.030274 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-05-01/html/06-3982.htm"
} |