Simplification of the Grant Appeals Process, 33053-33054 [05-11262]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
within 100 yards of a large cruise ship
that is underway, moored, positionkeeping, or at anchor, unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port or his or her
designated representatives.
(2) When conditions permit, the
Captain of the Port, or his or her
designated representatives, may permit
vessels that are at anchor, restricted in
their ability to maneuver, or constrained
by draft to remain within an LCS
security zone in order to ensure
navigational safety.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the
areas of the security zones in this
section may contact the Captain of the
Port at Command Center telephone
number (808) 842–2600 or on VHF
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) to seek
permission to transit the area. Written
requests may be submitted to the
Captain of Port, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Honolulu, Sand Island Access Road,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96819, or faxed to
(808) 842–2622. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels must
comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port or his or her
designated representatives. For all
seaplane traffic entering or transiting the
security zones, compliance with all
Federal Aviation Administration
regulations regarding flight-plan
approval is deemed adequate
permission to transit the waterway
security zones described in this section.
(d) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer,
and any other Captain of the Port
representative permitted by law, may
enforce the rules in this section.
(e) Waiver. The Captain of the Port,
Honolulu may waive any of the
requirements of this section for any
vessel or class of vessels upon his or her
determination that application of this
section is unnecessary or impractical for
the purpose of port and maritime
security.
(f) Penalties. Vessels or persons
violating this section are subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and
50 U.S.C. 192.
5. Add § 165.1410 to read as follows:
§ 165.1410
Security Zones; Kauai, HI.
(a) Location. The following areas,
from the surface of the water to the
ocean floor, are security zones that are
activated and enforced subject to the
provisions in paragraph (c) of this
section:
(1) Nawiliwili Harbor, Lihue, Kauai.
All waters extending 100 yards in all
directions from each large cruise ship in
Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai, HI or within
3 nautical miles seaward of the
Nawiliwili Harbor COLREGS
DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR 80.1450).
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:08 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
This is a moving security zone when the
LCS is in transit and becomes a fixed
zone when the LCS is anchored,
position-keeping, or moored.
(2) Port Allen, Kauai. All waters
extending 100 yards in all directions
from each large cruise ship in Port
Allen, Kauai, HI or within 3 nautical
miles seaward of the Port Allen
COLREGS DEMARCATION (See 33 CFR
80.1440). This is a moving security zone
when the LCS is in transit and becomes
a fixed zone when the LCS is anchored,
position-keeping, or moored.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, Large cruise ship or LCS means
a passenger vessel over 300 feet in
length that carries passengers for hire.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under 33 CFR
165.33, entry into the security zones
created by this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port, Honolulu or his or
her designated representatives. When
authorized passage through an LCS
security zone, all vessels must operate at
the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course and must
proceed as directed by the Captain of
the Port or his or her designated
representatives. No person is allowed
within 100 yards of a large cruise ship
that is underway, moored, positionkeeping, or at anchor, unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port or his or her
designated representatives.
(2) When conditions permit, the
Captain of the Port, or his or her
designated representatives, may permit
vessels that are at anchor, restricted in
their ability to maneuver, or constrained
by draft to remain within an LCS
security zone in order to ensure
navigational safety.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the
areas of the security zones may contact
the Captain of the Port at Command
Center telephone number (808) 842–
2600 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 Mhz)
to seek permission to transit the area.
Written requests may be submitted to
the Captain of Port, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Honolulu, Sand Island Access
Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819, or faxed
to (808) 842–2622. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels must
comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port or his or her
designated representatives. For all
seaplane traffic entering or transiting the
security zones, compliance with all
Federal Aviation Administration
regulations regarding flight-plan
approval is deemed adequate
permission to transit the waterway
security zones described in this section.
(d) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer,
and any other Captain of the Port
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33053
representative permitted by law, may
enforce the rules in this section.
(e) Waiver. The Captain of the Port,
Honolulu may waive any of the
requirements of this section for any
vessel or class of vessels upon his or her
determination that application of this
section is unnecessary or impractical for
the purpose of port and maritime
security.
(f) Penalties. Vessels or persons
violating this section are subject to the
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and
50 U.S.C. 192.
Dated: May 23, 2005.
C.D. Wurster,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fourteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–11168 Filed 6–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services
Administration
42 CFR Part 50
RIN 0906–AA69
Simplification of the Grant Appeals
Process
Health Resources and Services
Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 42 CFR part 50,
subpart D, the Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA),
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), has provided an
informal level of appeal on those grant
related disputes subject to the
departmental appeal procedures
codified at 45 CFR Part 16. HHS is
proposing to amend 42 CFR part 50,
subpart D, to remove HRSA from the list
of agencies to which these informal
appeal procedures apply. This would
permit aggrieved HRSA grantees direct
access to the Departmental Grant
Appeals Board and that Board’s original
jurisdiction.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 8, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN number 0906–AA69,
by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Submit written comments by mail
to the attention of Gail Lipton, Director,
Division of Grants Policy, Room 11A–
55, Parklawn Bldg., 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857.
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
33054
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules
3. E-mail: glipton@hrsa.gov.
4. FAX: 301–443–5461.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gail
Lipton, 301–443–6509.
When
HHS first established its Departmental
Grant Appeals Board (now the
Departmental Appeals Board), there was
no provision for the Department’s
subordinate agencies to first review the
disputed actions of officials prior to
appeal at the Departmental level.
However, it quickly became apparent
that a number of disputes could, and
would, be resolved quickly by informal
means if the grantees’ complaints were
surfaced to management levels within
the HHS subordinate agencies. As a
result, the regulations at 45 CFR part 16
were revised to permit subordinate
agencies to interpose an ‘‘informal’’
level of appeal prior to submission of an
appeal to the Departmental Appeals
Board. Various agencies in the Public
Health Service (which has since been
reorganized) chose to institute an
intermediate informal review process as
is currently described in 42 CFR part 50,
subpart D. The intermediate level of
appeal provided these agencies with an
opportunity to relatively quickly and
economically reverse erroneous
decisions, or to reassure grantees that a
decision adverse to them was indeed an
‘‘agency’’ decision. At the time these
regulations were instituted, this
informal process was of significant
benefit to both grantees and the
subordinate agencies. Based on the
lessons learned from this process and
other means, HRSA instituted a policy
of reviewing carefully the adverse
determinations of their employees prior
to permitting them to be issued so as to
avoid erroneous determinations which
would be subject to reversal upon
appeal at the informal level. HRSA
believes that it has reached the point
where the adverse determinations being
issued in recent years generally
represent the Agency’s best judgment.
HHS therefore believes that, for HRSA
and its grantees, this information
process is no longer of benefit, and the
cost in time and expense to the grantee
is no longer warranted. Consequently,
HHS is proposing to amend 42 CFR part
50, subpart D, to remove HRSA from the
list of agencies to which the regulations
apply. As a result, under this proposal,
grantees wishing to appeal HRSA’s
eligible adverse determinations would
be entitled to appeal such
determinations directly to the
Departmental Appeals Board.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:08 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order (EO) 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
when rulemaking is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that provide the
greatest net benefits. We have
determined that the rule is not a
significant regulatory action under
Section 3(f) of the EO and does not
require an assessment of the potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3)
of that EO. Under the EO, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted it from review. This
regulation was reviewed by OMB.
Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. Chapter 6) requires that
regulatory actions be analyzed to
determine whether they will have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. We have
determined that this is not a ‘‘major’’
role under this Act and therefore does
not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis. The elimination of the
informal appeals process will represent
a cost savings for aggrieved HRSA
grantees regardless of whether the
organizations are large or small entities,
as the affected grantees will now have
direct access to the Departmental
Appeals Board to petition for
reconsideration of adverse findings
rather than first presenting their cases to
an informally constituted HRSA review
committee. As a result, aggrieved
grantees will only incur costs related to
the preparation and presentation of their
petitions to the Departmental Appeals
Board, and not the costs which might be
incurred for preparation and submission
to both an ad-hoc committee and the
Departmental Appeals Board.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
requires that agencies prepare an
assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits before developing any rule that
may result in an expenditure by States,
local or tribal governments, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any given year. This rule does not
have cost implications for the economy
of $100 million or more, nor otherwise
meet the criteria for a major rule under
Executive Order 12291, and therefore
does not require a regulation impact
analysis.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 requires that
Federal agencies consult with State and
local government officials in the
development of regulatory policies with
federalism implications. In the event
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that this rule may have such
implications, we solicit comment from
State and local government officials.
Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175 requires the
Department to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by tribal officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.’’ Although it is
not clear that the proposed rule will
have tribal implications, we solicit
comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new paperwork
requirements subject to OMB approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 50
Administrative practice and
procedure, Grant programs—health,
Health care.
Elizabeth M. Duke,
Administrator, Health Resources and Services
Administration.
Approved: May 27, 2005.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Department proposes to
amend subpart D of part 50 of Title 42
of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 50—[AMENDED]
Subpart D—Public Health Service
Grant Appeals Procedure
1. The authority citation for Part 50,
Subpart D, continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 215, Public Health Service
Act, 58 Stat. 690 (42 U.S.C. 216); 45 CFR
16.3(c).
2. Section 50.402 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 50.402 To what programs do these
regulations apply?
This subpart applies to all grant and
cooperative agreement programs, except
block grants, which are administered by
the National Institutes of Health. The
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry; the
Food and Drug Administration; and the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Public Health and Sciences. For
purposes of this regulation, these
entities are hereinafter referred to as
‘‘agencies.’’
[FR Doc. 05–11262 Filed 6–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165–15–M
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33053-33054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11262]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services Administration
42 CFR Part 50
RIN 0906-AA69
Simplification of the Grant Appeals Process
AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 42 CFR part 50, subpart D, the Health Resources
and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), has provided an informal level of appeal on those grant
related disputes subject to the departmental appeal procedures codified
at 45 CFR Part 16. HHS is proposing to amend 42 CFR part 50, subpart D,
to remove HRSA from the list of agencies to which these informal appeal
procedures apply. This would permit aggrieved HRSA grantees direct
access to the Departmental Grant Appeals Board and that Board's
original jurisdiction.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 8, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN number 0906-AA69,
by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Submit written comments by mail to the attention of Gail Lipton,
Director, Division of Grants Policy, Room 11A-55, Parklawn Bldg., 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
[[Page 33054]]
3. E-mail: glipton@hrsa.gov.
4. FAX: 301-443-5461.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Lipton, 301-443-6509.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When HHS first established its Departmental
Grant Appeals Board (now the Departmental Appeals Board), there was no
provision for the Department's subordinate agencies to first review the
disputed actions of officials prior to appeal at the Departmental
level. However, it quickly became apparent that a number of disputes
could, and would, be resolved quickly by informal means if the
grantees' complaints were surfaced to management levels within the HHS
subordinate agencies. As a result, the regulations at 45 CFR part 16
were revised to permit subordinate agencies to interpose an
``informal'' level of appeal prior to submission of an appeal to the
Departmental Appeals Board. Various agencies in the Public Health
Service (which has since been reorganized) chose to institute an
intermediate informal review process as is currently described in 42
CFR part 50, subpart D. The intermediate level of appeal provided these
agencies with an opportunity to relatively quickly and economically
reverse erroneous decisions, or to reassure grantees that a decision
adverse to them was indeed an ``agency'' decision. At the time these
regulations were instituted, this informal process was of significant
benefit to both grantees and the subordinate agencies. Based on the
lessons learned from this process and other means, HRSA instituted a
policy of reviewing carefully the adverse determinations of their
employees prior to permitting them to be issued so as to avoid
erroneous determinations which would be subject to reversal upon appeal
at the informal level. HRSA believes that it has reached the point
where the adverse determinations being issued in recent years generally
represent the Agency's best judgment.
HHS therefore believes that, for HRSA and its grantees, this
information process is no longer of benefit, and the cost in time and
expense to the grantee is no longer warranted. Consequently, HHS is
proposing to amend 42 CFR part 50, subpart D, to remove HRSA from the
list of agencies to which the regulations apply. As a result, under
this proposal, grantees wishing to appeal HRSA's eligible adverse
determinations would be entitled to appeal such determinations directly
to the Departmental Appeals Board.
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order (EO) 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when rulemaking is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that provide the greatest
net benefits. We have determined that the rule is not a significant
regulatory action under Section 3(f) of the EO and does not require an
assessment of the potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that EO. Under the EO, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted it from review. This regulation was reviewed by OMB.
Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) requires that
regulatory actions be analyzed to determine whether they will have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
determined that this is not a ``major'' role under this Act and
therefore does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. The
elimination of the informal appeals process will represent a cost
savings for aggrieved HRSA grantees regardless of whether the
organizations are large or small entities, as the affected grantees
will now have direct access to the Departmental Appeals Board to
petition for reconsideration of adverse findings rather than first
presenting their cases to an informally constituted HRSA review
committee. As a result, aggrieved grantees will only incur costs
related to the preparation and presentation of their petitions to the
Departmental Appeals Board, and not the costs which might be incurred
for preparation and submission to both an ad-hoc committee and the
Departmental Appeals Board.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires that agencies prepare an
assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule
that may result in an expenditure by States, local or tribal
governments, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any
given year. This rule does not have cost implications for the economy
of $100 million or more, nor otherwise meet the criteria for a major
rule under Executive Order 12291, and therefore does not require a
regulation impact analysis.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 requires that Federal agencies consult with
State and local government officials in the development of regulatory
policies with federalism implications. In the event that this rule may
have such implications, we solicit comment from State and local
government officials.
Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175 requires the Department to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.'' Although it is not clear that the proposed rule will
have tribal implications, we solicit comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new paperwork requirements subject to OMB approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 50
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs--health,
Health care.
Elizabeth M. Duke,
Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration.
Approved: May 27, 2005.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes
to amend subpart D of part 50 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 50--[AMENDED]
Subpart D--Public Health Service Grant Appeals Procedure
1. The authority citation for Part 50, Subpart D, continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Sec. 215, Public Health Service Act, 58 Stat. 690 (42
U.S.C. 216); 45 CFR 16.3(c).
2. Section 50.402 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.402 To what programs do these regulations apply?
This subpart applies to all grant and cooperative agreement
programs, except block grants, which are administered by the National
Institutes of Health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; the Food and Drug
Administration; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public
Health and Sciences. For purposes of this regulation, these entities
are hereinafter referred to as ``agencies.''
[FR Doc. 05-11262 Filed 6-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-M