Procedures and Policies, 29711-29712 [E8-11238]

Download as PDF rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 100 / Thursday, May 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations (g) of this section are determined using the methodology specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section except that 75 percent is substituted for 50 percent. * * * * * (h) Effective date of policies in this section for certain co-located LTCH hospitals and satellites of LTCHs. The policies set forth in this section apply to Medicare patient discharges that were admitted from a hospital located in the same building or on the same campus as a long-term care hospital described in § 412.23(e)(2)(i) that meets the criteria in § 412.22(f) and a satellite facility of a long-term care hospital as described at § 412.22(h)(3)(i) for discharges occurring in cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 2007. (1) Except as specified in paragraph (h)(4) of this section, in the case of a long-term care hospital or long-term care hospital satellite facility that is described under paragraph (h) of this section, the thresholds applied at paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section are not less than the following percentages: (i) For cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 2007 and before July 1, 2008, the lesser of 75 percent of the total number of Medicare discharges that were admitted to the long-term care hospital or long-term care hospital satellite facility from its co-located hospital during the cost reporting period or the percentage of Medicare discharges that had been admitted to the long-term care hospital or satellite from that co-located hospital during the long-term care hospital’s or satellite’s RY 2005 cost reporting period. (ii) For cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 2008 and before July 1, 2009, the lesser of 50 percent of the total number of Medicare discharges that were admitted to the long-term care hospital or the long-term care hospital satellite facility from its co-located hospital or the percentage of Medicare discharges that had been admitted from that co-located hospital during the long-term care hospital’s or satellite’s RY 2005 cost reporting period. (iii) For cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 2009, 25 percent of the total number of Medicare discharges that were admitted to the long-term care hospital or satellite from its co-located hospital during the cost reporting period. (2) In determining the percentage of Medicare discharges admitted from the co-located hospital under this paragraph, patients on whose behalf a Medicare high cost outlier payment was made at the co-located referring hospital are not counted toward this threshold. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:18 May 21, 2008 Jkt 214001 (3) Except as specified in paragraph (h)(4) of this section, for cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 2007, payments to long term care hospitals described in § 412.23(e)(2)(i) that meet the criteria in § 412.22(f) and satellite facilities of long-term care hospitals described at § 412.22(h)(3)(i) are subject to the provisions of § 412.536 for discharges of Medicare patients who are admitted from a hospital not located in the same building or on the same campus as the LTCH or LTCH satellite facility. (4) For a long-term care hospital described in § 412.23(e)(2)(i) that meets the criteria in § 412.22(f), the policies set forth in this paragraph and in § 412.536 of this part do not apply for discharges occurring in cost reporting periods beginning on or after December 29, 2007 and before December 29, 2010. 5. Section 412.536 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: I § 412.536 Special payment provisions for long-term care hospitals and satellites of long-term care hospitals that discharged Medicare patients admitted from a hospital not located in the same building or on the same campus as the long-term care hospital or satellite of the long-term care hospital. (a) Scope. (1) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, for cost reporting periods beginning on or after July 1, 2007, the policies set forth in this section apply to discharges from the following: (i) Long-term care hospitals as described in § 412.23(e)(2)(i) that meet the criteria in § 412.22(e). (ii) Long-term care hospitals as described in § 412.23(e)(2)(i) and that meet the criteria in § 412.22(f). (iii) Long-term care hospital satellite facilities as described in § 412.23(e)(2)(i) and that meet the criteria in § 412.22(h). (iv) Long-term care hospitals as described in § 412.23(e)(5). (2) For cost reporting periods beginning on or after December 29, 2007 and before December 29, 2010, the policies set forth in this section are not applicable to discharges from a longterm care hospital described in § 412.23(e)(5) of this part or described in § 412.23(e)(2)(i) of this part and that meet the criteria specified in § 412.22(f) of this part. * * * * * (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program) PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 29711 Dated: May 8, 2008. Kerry Weems, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Approved: May 15, 2008. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary. [FR Doc. 08–1285 Filed 5–16–08; 4:00 pm] BILLING CODE 4120–01–P COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS 45 CFR Part 2102 Procedures and Policies The Commission of Fine Arts. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: This document amends the procedures and policies governing the administration of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. It serves to modify the time limit on a recommendation for concept approval for projects submitted to the Commission under the Old Georgetown Act and the Shipstead-Luce Act in order to address more consistently the requirements and procedures of the District of Columbia government. DATES: Effective June 16, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Luebke, Secretary, (202) 504– 2200. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As established by Congress in 1910, the Commission of Fine Arts is a small independent advisory body made up of seven Presidentially appointed ‘‘well qualified judges of the arts’’ whose primary role is architectural review of designs for buildings, parks, monuments and memorials erected by the Federal or District of Columbia governments in Washington, DC. In addition to architectural review, the Commission considers and advises on the designs for coins, medals, and U.S. memorials on foreign soil. The Commission also advises the District of Columbia government on private building projects within the Georgetown Historic District, the Rock Creek Park perimeter, and the Monumental Core area. The Commission advises Congress, the President, Federal agencies, and the District of Columbia government on the general subjects of design, historic preservation, and on orderly planning on matters within its jurisdiction. Specific items this document amends clarify the procedure. Therefore, as these changes clarify established procedures and are minor in nature, the Commission determines that notice and comment are unnecessary and that, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), E:\FR\FM\22MYR1.SGM 22MYR1 29712 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 100 / Thursday, May 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations good cause to waive notice and comment is established. * List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 2102 Administrative practice and procedure, Sunshine Act. This document was prepared under the direction of Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, 401 F Street, NW., Suite 312, Washington, DC 20001. I For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission of Fine Arts hereby amends 45 CFR part 2102 to read as follows: PART 2102—MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION 1. The authority citation for part 2102 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 5 U.S.C., App. 1. 2. In § 2102.12 revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: I § 2102.12 Responses of Commission to submissions. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES * * * * * (b) In the case of plans submitted with a permit application subject to the Old Georgetown Act (§ 2101.1(c)), if the Commission does not respond with a report on such plans within forty-five days after their receipt by the Commission, its approval shall be assumed and a permit may be issued by the government of the District of Columbia. (1) In the case of a concept application submitted for a project subject to the Old Georgetown Act (§ 2101.1(c)), the Commission’s approval is valid for two years. At the end of the two years, the original owner for the project may submit a new concept application requesting to extend the approval for one more year. The Commission, however, may decline to extend its approval. (2) [Reserved] (c) In the case of plans submitted with a permit application subject to the Shipstead-Luce Act (§ 2101.1(b)), if the Commission does not respond with a report on such plans within thirty days after their receipt by the Commission, its approval shall be assumed and a permit may be issued by the government of the District of Columbia. (1) In the case of a concept application for a project subject to the Shipstead-Luce Act (§ 2101.1(b)), the Commission’s approval is valid for two years. At the end of the two years, the original owner for the project may submit a concept application requesting to extend the approval for one more year. The Commission, however, may decline to extend its approval. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:18 May 21, 2008 Jkt 214001 (2) [Reserved] * * * * Dated: May 12, 2008. Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. [FR Doc. E8–11238 Filed 5–21–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6330–01–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [CC Docket Nos. 96–45, 96–262, 97–121; WC Docket No. 06–122; FCC 08–101] Universal Service Fund Contribution Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; petition on reconsideration. AGENCY: SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission denies the petitions filed by BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth), Arya International Communications Corporation (Arya), Cable Plus L.P. and MultiTechnology Services, L.P., Pan Am Wireless, Inc., and USA Global Link with respect to the Commission’s Fifth Circuit Remand Order, and confirms the conclusions by the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) in the Fifth Circuit Clarification Order. DATES: Effective June 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Buckley, Senior Deputy Chief or Carol Pomponio, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division at (202) 418–7400 (voice), (202) 418–0484 (TTY). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission’s Order on Reconsideration, in CC Docket Nos. 96– 45, 96–262, 97–121 and WC Docket No. 06–122, released April 11, 2008. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. I. Introduction 1. In this Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denies the petitions for reconsideration filed by BellSouth and Arya with respect to the Commission’s Fifth Circuit Remand Order, 64 FR 60349–01, November 5, 1999 and confirms the conclusions by the Bureau in the Fifth Circuit Clarification Order. Specifically, the Commission reconfirms that Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) providers may recover their universal service contributions through PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 rates charged for all of their services; rejects the suggestion that the Commission’s eight percent Limited International Revenues Exception (LIRE) is arbitrary and capricious; and denies petitioners’ request for refund of universal service contributions remitted from January 1, 1998 to October 31, 1999, that were based on intrastate telecommunications revenues or international telecommunications revenues in excess of the eight percent LIRE. In addition to the petitions filed by BellSouth and Arya, several carriers sought refunds or excuse from payment for universal service fund contributions following the Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel (TOPUC) decision, 183 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999), by filing appeals with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) or directly with the Commission. In the Cable Plus L.P. and MultiTechnology Services, L.P., and Pan Am Wireless, Inc. appeals, the petitioners, like BellSouth in its petition for reconsideration, seek refund of their universal service contributions based on intrastate revenues. In the USA Global Link appeal, the petitioner, like Arya in its petition for reconsideration, seeks refund of its universal service contribution based on international revenues. The Commission denies these requests as well. II. Discussion 2. In response to BellSouth’s petition requesting clarification of the Commission’s rules, the Commission clarified previously that the TOPUC decision did not undermine the validity of the Commission’s decision that CMRS providers may recover their contributions from customers through rates charged for all services. The relevant portion of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in TOPUC related to the manner in which the Commission may require carriers to contribute to the universal service fund (USF). The manner in which carriers may recover their universal service contributions through assessments on customers was not before the court. Thus, the Bureau clarified that the TOPUC decision did not affect the Commission’s finding in the Fourth Reconsideration Order, 63 FR 2094–01, January 13, 1998, that CMRS providers may ‘‘recover their contributions through rates charged for all their services.’’ In fact, the Commission has made clear that carriers have significant flexibility in the manner in which they may recover universal service contribution costs. Carriers are not required to recover their universal service costs from subscribers at all. If they choose to do so, carriers E:\FR\FM\22MYR1.SGM 22MYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 100 (Thursday, May 22, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29711-29712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11238]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

45 CFR Part 2102


Procedures and Policies

AGENCY: The Commission of Fine Arts.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends the procedures and policies governing the 
administration of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. It serves to modify 
the time limit on a recommendation for concept approval for projects 
submitted to the Commission under the Old Georgetown Act and the 
Shipstead-Luce Act in order to address more consistently the 
requirements and procedures of the District of Columbia government.

DATES: Effective June 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Luebke, Secretary, (202) 504-
2200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As established by Congress in 1910, the 
Commission of Fine Arts is a small independent advisory body made up of 
seven Presidentially appointed ``well qualified judges of the arts'' 
whose primary role is architectural review of designs for buildings, 
parks, monuments and memorials erected by the Federal or District of 
Columbia governments in Washington, DC. In addition to architectural 
review, the Commission considers and advises on the designs for coins, 
medals, and U.S. memorials on foreign soil. The Commission also advises 
the District of Columbia government on private building projects within 
the Georgetown Historic District, the Rock Creek Park perimeter, and 
the Monumental Core area. The Commission advises Congress, the 
President, Federal agencies, and the District of Columbia government on 
the general subjects of design, historic preservation, and on orderly 
planning on matters within its jurisdiction.
    Specific items this document amends clarify the procedure. 
Therefore, as these changes clarify established procedures and are 
minor in nature, the Commission determines that notice and comment are 
unnecessary and that, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),

[[Page 29712]]

good cause to waive notice and comment is established.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 2102

    Administrative practice and procedure, Sunshine Act.

    This document was prepared under the direction of Thomas Luebke, 
Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, 401 F Street, NW., Suite 312, 
Washington, DC 20001.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission of Fine Arts 
hereby amends 45 CFR part 2102 to read as follows:

PART 2102--MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION

0
1. The authority citation for part 2102 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C., App. 1.


0
2. In Sec.  2102.12 revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  2102.12  Responses of Commission to submissions.

* * * * *
    (b) In the case of plans submitted with a permit application 
subject to the Old Georgetown Act (Sec.  2101.1(c)), if the Commission 
does not respond with a report on such plans within forty-five days 
after their receipt by the Commission, its approval shall be assumed 
and a permit may be issued by the government of the District of 
Columbia.
    (1) In the case of a concept application submitted for a project 
subject to the Old Georgetown Act (Sec.  2101.1(c)), the Commission's 
approval is valid for two years. At the end of the two years, the 
original owner for the project may submit a new concept application 
requesting to extend the approval for one more year. The Commission, 
however, may decline to extend its approval.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) In the case of plans submitted with a permit application 
subject to the Shipstead-Luce Act (Sec.  2101.1(b)), if the Commission 
does not respond with a report on such plans within thirty days after 
their receipt by the Commission, its approval shall be assumed and a 
permit may be issued by the government of the District of Columbia.
    (1) In the case of a concept application for a project subject to 
the Shipstead-Luce Act (Sec.  2101.1(b)), the Commission's approval is 
valid for two years. At the end of the two years, the original owner 
for the project may submit a concept application requesting to extend 
the approval for one more year. The Commission, however, may decline to 
extend its approval.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

    Dated: May 12, 2008.
Thomas Luebke,
Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.
[FR Doc. E8-11238 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-P