Peanuts, Tree Nuts, Milk, Soybeans, Eggs, Fish, Crustacea, and Wheat; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance; Technical Correction, 9231-9232 [05-3684]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 37 / Friday, February 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations II. What Does this Correction Do? ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [OPP–2005–0001; FRL–7698–9] Peanuts, Tree Nuts, Milk, Soybeans, Eggs, Fish, Crustacea, and Wheat; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance; Technical Correction Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; technical correction. AGENCY: FR Doc. 05–344 published in the Federal Register of January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1357) (FRL–7694–5) is corrected as follows: On page 1357, in the second column, under DATES, the sentence by which objections and requests for hearing must be received was inadvertently omitted. It reads: ‘‘Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before March 8, 2005.’’ III. Why is this Correction Issued as a Final Rule? SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1357) (FRL–7694–5), establishing a tolerance exemption for peanuts, tree nuts, milk, soybeans, eggs, fish, crustacea, and wheat. This document is being issued to correct the inadvertent omission of the date by which objections and requests for hearings must be received. DATES: This technical correction is effective on January 7, 2005. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1357). Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today’s technical correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because EPA is merely inserting language that was inadvertently omitted from the previously published final rule. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: IV. Do Any of the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Action? Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–6304; e-mail address: boyle.kathryn@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? The Agency included in the final rule of January 7, 2005, a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? In addition to using EDOCKET at https://www.epa.gov/edocket/, you may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at https:// www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. VerDate jul<14>2003 16:17 Feb 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 This final rule implements a technical amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations, and it does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. As such, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that a technical correction is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104–4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 9231 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since this action does not require the issuance of proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’ as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal implications’’ is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM 25FER1 9232 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 37 / Friday, February 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.’’ This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. V. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: February 9, 2005. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 05–3684 Filed 2–24–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–S SUMMARY: This final rule provides a mechanism for us to expeditiously make changes to the durable medical equipment regional carrier (DMERC) service area boundaries without notice and comment rulemaking. Through this mechanism, we can change the geographical boundaries served by the regional contractors that process durable medical equipment claims through issuance of a Federal Register notice and make other minor changes in the contract administration of the DMERCs. The mechanism provides a method for increasing or decreasing the number of DMERCs, changing the boundaries of DMERCs based on criteria other than the boundaries of the Common Working File sectors, and awarding new contractors to perform statistical analysis or maintain the national supplier clearinghouse. We will publish these changes and their justifications in a Federal Register notice, rather than through notice and comment rulemaking. Although we may change the number and configuration of regional carriers, we are not altering the criteria and factors that we use in awarding contracts. Through this final rule, we are improving the contracting process so that we can swiftly meet the challenges of the changing healthcare industry and address the changing needs of beneficiaries, suppliers, and the Medicare program. DATES: Effective Date: These regulations are effective on March 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Williams, (410) 786–6139. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Federal Register document is available from the Federal Register online database through GPO access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The Web site address is https:// www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/. I. Background DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 421 [CMS–1219–F] RIN 0938–AL76 Medicare Program; Durable Medical Equipment Regional Carrier Service Areas and Related Matters Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: VerDate jul<14>2003 16:17 Feb 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 A. Legislative Overview of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Claims Administration Covering 1966 Through 1992 Medicare has covered medically necessary items of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) under Part B since the inception of the Medicare program in 1966. In the original authorizing legislation for the Medicare program, coverage was provided under sections 1832 and 1861(s) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (Pub. L. 89–97). Since that time, the coverage and payment rules for DMEPOS, which may now be found PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 in sections 1832, 1834, and 1861 of the Act and their implementing regulations, have changed significantly. From 1986 to 1992, the number of complaints about fraud and abuse in the DMEPOS benefit began to increase markedly, and a variety of government investigations identified specific weaknesses in the program. We sought solutions to known claims processing problems, including the increasing level of fraud and abuse in billing. Subsequently, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA 1987) (Pub. L. 100–203), enacted on December 22, 1987, authorized the Secretary to designate, by regulation, regional carriers to process DMEPOS claims. (See sections 1834(a)(12) and 1834(h)(3) of the Act.) Before 1993, Medicare Part B claims for DMEPOS items and services were assigned to each of the more than 30 local Medicare carriers and represented, on average, only 5 percent of each carrier’s overall workload. After further review, we concluded that this was not the most effective structure for administering DMEPOS claims under the Medicare program. It was difficult for carriers to devote significant administrative review resources to this small percentage of claims. In addition, DMEPOS claims were generally complex and time-consuming to process. The protocol for suppliers to obtain a Medicare billing number was ill-defined and required little identifying information or compliance with any particular business or operational standards. Furthermore, carriers’ medical review policies varied significantly and contributed to inconsistent claims processing decisions. Finally, certain DMEPOS suppliers who engaged in unethical practices were able to exploit our local Medicare carriers by electing to submit claims to carriers that provided more generous coverage, paid more than other carriers, or both. As documented in program audits and congressional hearings, fraudulent suppliers manipulated our then existing ‘‘point of sale’’ claims jurisdiction rule; these suppliers could simply locate their business offices where conditions were most favorable. The collective impact of these issues resulted in significant abuse of the Medicare program by a subset of the DMEPOS supplier community, without any measurable improvement in patient care and outcomes. E:\FR\FM\25FER1.SGM 25FER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 37 (Friday, February 25, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9231-9232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3684]



[[Page 9231]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-2005-0001; FRL-7698-9]


Peanuts, Tree Nuts, Milk, Soybeans, Eggs, Fish, Crustacea, and 
Wheat; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance; Technical 
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of January 7, 
2005 (70 FR 1357) (FRL-7694-5), establishing a tolerance exemption for 
peanuts, tree nuts, milk, soybeans, eggs, fish, crustacea, and wheat. 
This document is being issued to correct the inadvertent omission of 
the date by which objections and requests for hearings must be 
received.

DATES: This technical correction is effective on January 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES:  Follow the detailed instructions as provided under 
ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of January 7, 2005 (70 FR 
1357).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division 
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone 
number: (703) 305-6304; e-mail address: boyle.kathryn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    The Agency included in the final rule of January 7, 2005, a list of 
those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other 
Related Information?

    In addition to using EDOCKET at https://www.epa.gov/edocket/, you 
may access this Federal Register document electronically through the 
EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 
CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

II. What Does this Correction Do?

    FR Doc. 05-344 published in the Federal Register of January 7, 2005 
(70 FR 1357) (FRL-7694-5) is corrected as follows: On page 1357, in the 
second column, under DATES, the sentence by which objections and 
requests for hearing must be received was inadvertently omitted. It 
reads:
    ``Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or 
before March 8, 2005.''

III. Why is this Correction Issued as a Final Rule?

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that 
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary 
to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without 
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has 
determined that there is good cause for making today's technical 
correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, 
because EPA is merely inserting language that was inadvertently omitted 
from the previously published final rule. EPA finds that this 
constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

IV. Do Any of the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this 
Action?

    This final rule implements a technical amendment to the Code of 
Federal Regulations, and it does not otherwise impose or amend any 
requirements. As such, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
determined that a technical correction is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled 
Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because 
this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due 
to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB 
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as 
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special 
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any 
Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards 
that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus 
standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer 
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since this action does not require the issuance 
of proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has 
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect 
on States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final 
rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and 
food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the 
relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established 
by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the 
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule 
does not have any ``tribal implications'' as described in Executive 
Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the

[[Page 9232]]

relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial 
direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this rule.

V. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final 
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 9, 2005.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 05-3684 Filed 2-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.