Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block-Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands, 26363-26364 [2019-11047]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
method can simply create an illusion of
accuracy instead of actual
improvements in accuracy.
In light of all these complexities, it
was not evident to us in the FY 2004
calculation that any particular
adjustment to cost-to-charge ratios
would improve our projections. Since
we believe we acted appropriately and
in accordance with statutory
requirements, we are not recalculating
the FY 2004 threshold.
2. FY 2005
In our FY 2005 projections, we again
chose not to introduce a new adjustment
to attempt to account for the updating
of cost-to-charge ratios during the year
as new tentative cost reports were
settled. Most of the factors discussed
previously were still present: The
fundamental differences in the nature
and properties of charges and cost-tocharge ratios; the complexity of
simulating the updating of cost-tocharge ratios through either application
of a uniform update factor or a more
complex adjustment; and our lack of
experience with that task.
Also, at the time of the FY 2005
rulemaking, we were still focusing our
efforts on the task that we believed had
the most significant potential impact on
our projections: Monitoring the effects
of the June 2003 rule changes and
related changes in hospital behavior. We
again chose to defer closer examination
of the possibility of an adjustment to
capture the effect of updates to cost-tocharge ratios.
Also, again, it is important not to
overestimate the likely impact of
updates to cost-to-charge ratios on the
overall robustness of our projections.
First, the effect typically comes into
play only for part of the year. In our FY
2005 projections, we did not use
estimated cost-to-charge ratios as we
had done in the FY 2004 rulemaking.
Rather, for the FY 2005 final rule, we
used CCRs from the March 2004 update
of the Provider Specific File, the latest
data available (the proposed FY 2005
IPPS rule refers to the same data as the
‘‘April 2004’’ update (69 FR 49277)).
CCRs are typically in use for 1 year or
more, so, for many hospitals, the CCR in
the March 2004 update of the Provider
Specific File would be the same CCR
used for payment at the beginning of FY
2005, which began in October 2004.
Also, the effect of updates to cost-tocharge ratios is just one of many
factors—many of them highly
unpredictable—that affect our
projections. We note that several
commenters on the proposed FY 2005
IPPS rule (69 FR 49276 and 49277)
advocated for adjustments to account for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:44 Jun 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
CCR updates. Three commenters in
particular provided us with analyses
that purported to include such
adjustments. One of these commenters
advocated for a FY 2005 threshold of
$26,600, another commenter suggested a
threshold of $28,455, and a third
advocated for a threshold ‘‘no higher
than $27,000.’’ In other words, each of
these three commenters purported to
incorporate adjustments designed to
account for the effect of updated CCRs,
among many other factors, yet each
arrived at a fixed-loss threshold estimate
considerably higher than the $25,800
level we ultimately set.
Because we believe we acted
appropriately and in accordance with
statutory requirements, we are not
recalculating the FY 2005 threshold.
3. FY 2006
The factors discussed previously were
all still present for FY 2006: (1) The
fundamental differences in the nature
and properties of charges and cost-tocharge ratios; (2) the complexity of
simulating the updating of cost-tocharge ratios; and (3) our desire to focus
on monitoring the aftermath of the 2003
rule changes.
While we carefully analyzed
comments suggesting we make a
separate adjustment to the CCRs, we
again declined to do so, noting that the
CCRs we were using from the March
2005 Provider-Specific File were the
most recent available, were the CCRs
that in many instances Medicare
contractors would be using to make
outlier payments in FY 2006, and were
approximately 3 percent lower than the
CCRs used in the FY 2006 proposed rule
(70 FR 47494).
As had been the case in FY 2005, two
commenters submitted
recommendations based on an analysis
that purported to account for updates to
CCRs, and those recommendations were
in turn endorsed by many other
comments. These commenters
advocated for a threshold of $24,050,
higher than the $23,600 level that we
computed. This lent further support to
our decision to defer closer study of the
effect of updates to cost-to-charge ratios.
Because we believe we acted
appropriately and in accordance with
statutory requirements, we are not
recalculating the FY 2006 threshold.
III. Collection of Information
Requirements
This document does not impose
information collection requirements,
that is, reporting, recordkeeping or
third-party disclosure requirements.
Consequently, there is no need for
review by the Office of Management and
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26363
Budget under the authority of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Dated: May 14, 2019.
Seema Verma,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Dated: May 28, 2019.
Alex M. Azar II,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2019–11796 Filed 6–3–19; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 27
[WT Docket No. 12–357; FCC 19–29]
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services H Block—Implementing
Section 6401 of the Middle-Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
Related to the 1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz Bands
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notification of order on
reconsideration.
AGENCY:
The Commission denied in
part and dismissed in part the Petition
for Reconsideration filed by the Rural
Wireless Association, Inc. on September
16, 2013.
DATES: June 6, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Malmud at the Wireless
Telecommunication Bureau, at (202)
418–0006 or paul.malmud@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order on
Reconsideration, FCC 19–29, adopted
on April 10, 2019 and released on April
12, 2019. The complete text of this
document is available for public
inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday
through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC
Reference Information Center, 445 12th
Street SW, Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text is also available on the
Commission’s website at https://
www.fcc.gov/edocs. Alternative formats
are available to persons with disabilities
by calling the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (tty).
SUMMARY:
Synopsis
1. In 2013, the Commission released
the H Block Report and Order 78 FR
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
26364
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
50214 (Aug. 16, 2013), which adopted
licensing and technical rules as well as
a band plan for the 1915–1920 MHz and
1995–2000 MHz bands (the ‘‘H Block’’)
and procedures for assigning H Block
licenses through a system of competitive
bidding. The Rural Wireless
Association, Inc. (RWA) filed a Petition
for Reconsideration later that year
asking the Commission to reconsider its
decisions to license H Block spectrum
using Economic Areas (EAs) and to
adopt population-based performance
requirements. The Commission
disagrees with RWA’s contention that
the Commission should have: (1)
Licensed H Block spectrum using CMAs
rather than EAs, and (2) adopted
geographic-based, rather than
population-based, performance
requirements.
2. In this document, the Commission
dismisses in part and denies in part
RWA’s Petition for Reconsideration
because the Commission acted well
within its discretion, struck a reasonable
and well-justified balance among
multiple statutory goals. RWA also
asked the Commission not to use
package bidding, particularly
Hierarchical Package Bidding, in the H
Block Auction. The Commission
dismissed this request as moot because
package bidding was rejected in a
related proceeding. 28 FCC Rcd 13019.
Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to
section 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j),
303(r), and 309(j), as well as § 1.429 of
the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429,
that the Petition for Reconsideration
filed by the Rural Wireless Association,
Inc., on September 16, 2013, is
dismissed to the extent specified in this
Order on Reconsideration and,
alternatively and independently, denied
as specified in the Order on
Reconsideration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–11047 Filed 6–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and 03–123; FCC
19–39]
Improving Video Relay Service and
Direct Video Calling
Federal Communications
Commission.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:44 Jun 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
ACTION:
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) takes actions to: Enable
direct video calling between sign
language users and customer support
call centers, by adopting procedures for
qualified entities to register customer
support telephone numbers in the
telecommunications relay service (TRS)
Numbering Directory; facilitate per-call
validation of video relay service (VRS)
user registrations via the TRS
Numbering Directory querying system;
require VRS providers to register
enterprise and public videophones in
the TRS user registration database (User
Database or Database); prohibit VRS
providers from offering or providing
non-service related inducements to
entice consumers to sign up for or use
a VRS provider’s service; and make
technical corrections to the
Commission’s TRS rules. These actions
will improve VRS and direct video
calling for people with disabilities and
help protect against waste, fraud, and
abuse to the TRS program.
DATES: Effective Date: These rules are
effective July 8, 2019, except for the
amendments to §§ 64.611, 64.613, and
64.615, which are delayed. The
Commission will publish a document in
the Federal Register announcing the
effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Scott, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202)
418–1264, or email Michael.Scott@
fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order, document FCC 19–39,
adopted on May 9, 2019, released on
May 15, 2019, in CG Docket Nos. 10–51
and 03–123. The Commission
previously sought comment on these
issues in the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (2017 VRS Improvements
FNPRM), published at 82 FR 17613,
April 12, 2017. A Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)
contained in document FCC 19–39 is
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. The full text of
document FCC 19–39 will be available
for public inspection and copying via
the Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), and during
regular business hours at the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II,
445 12th Street SW, Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov, or call
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or
(202) 418–0432 (TTY).
Congressional Review Act
The Commission sent a copy of
document FCC 19–39 to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Analysis
The Report and Order in document
FCC 19–39 contains modified
information collection requirements,
which are not effective until approval is
obtained from OMB. The Commission,
as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, will invite the
general public to comment on these
information collection requirements as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104–13.
The Commission will publish a separate
document in the Federal Register
announcing approval of the information
collection requirements. Pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously
sought comment on how the
Commission might ‘‘further reduce the
information burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’ 2017 VRS Improvements
FNPRM.
Amendments to §§ 64.611, 64.613,
and 64.615 of the Commission’s rules,
which contain modified information
collection requirements, shall be
effective on the date specified in a
document to be published in the
Federal Register announcing Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approval of the information collection
requirements of such rules pursuant to
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Synopsis
1. VRS is a form of TRS that enables
people with hearing or speech
disabilities who use sign language to
make telephone calls over broadband
with a videophone. In addition to
enabling communication between ASL
users and voice users, the VRS system
also enables ASL users to communicate
directly with other ASL users via video.
Direct Video Access to the TRS
Numbering Directory
2. In order to facilitate direct video
calling between sign language users and
customer support call centers, the
Commission allows telephone numbers
and routing information for qualifying
call centers to be entered in the TRS
Numbering Directory (Numbering
E:\FR\FM\06JNR1.SGM
06JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26363-26364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11047]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 27
[WT Docket No. 12-357; FCC 19-29]
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block--
Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
Bands
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notification of order on reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission denied in part and dismissed in part the
Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Rural Wireless Association,
Inc. on September 16, 2013.
DATES: June 6, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Malmud at the Wireless
Telecommunication Bureau, at (202) 418-0006 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
on Reconsideration, FCC 19-29, adopted on April 10, 2019 and released
on April 12, 2019. The complete text of this document is available for
public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time
(ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays
in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is also available on the
Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. Alternative formats
are available to persons with disabilities by calling the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(tty).
Synopsis
1. In 2013, the Commission released the H Block Report and Order 78
FR
[[Page 26364]]
50214 (Aug. 16, 2013), which adopted licensing and technical rules as
well as a band plan for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (the
``H Block'') and procedures for assigning H Block licenses through a
system of competitive bidding. The Rural Wireless Association, Inc.
(RWA) filed a Petition for Reconsideration later that year asking the
Commission to reconsider its decisions to license H Block spectrum
using Economic Areas (EAs) and to adopt population-based performance
requirements. The Commission disagrees with RWA's contention that the
Commission should have: (1) Licensed H Block spectrum using CMAs rather
than EAs, and (2) adopted geographic-based, rather than population-
based, performance requirements.
2. In this document, the Commission dismisses in part and denies in
part RWA's Petition for Reconsideration because the Commission acted
well within its discretion, struck a reasonable and well-justified
balance among multiple statutory goals. RWA also asked the Commission
not to use package bidding, particularly Hierarchical Package Bidding,
in the H Block Auction. The Commission dismissed this request as moot
because package bidding was rejected in a related proceeding. 28 FCC
Rcd 13019. Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to section 4(i), 4(j),
303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 309(j), as well as Sec. 1.429 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by the Rural Wireless Association, Inc., on
September 16, 2013, is dismissed to the extent specified in this Order
on Reconsideration and, alternatively and independently, denied as
specified in the Order on Reconsideration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11047 Filed 6-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
