Small Business Administration: Office of Advocacy - Letter dated 6/15/98 - Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration - Final rule for the schedule of per-beneficial limitations on home health agency costs (a.k.a., interim payment system final rule)

July 19, 1996

VIA FACSIMILE
&
REGULAR MAIL

Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg
Director
Northeast Regional Office
NMFS
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
Facsimile (508) 281-9135

Dear Dr. Rosenberg:

The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) was established by Congress under Pub. L. No. 94-305 to advocate the views of small business before federal agencies and Congress. Advocacy is also required by §612 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) to monitor agency compliance with the RFA.

On June 3, 1996, the National Marines Fishery Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published the proposed rule for the Summer Flounder and Scup Fisheries; Amendment 8 on page 27851 of the Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 107. In the proposed rule, the agency certifies to the Office of Advocacy that although the rule may have a significant impact on a number of small entities, the impact will not be substantial. This conclusion is supported by bald assertions that the majority of the entities already have the required mesh size and would not be affected. There are no numbers regarding the number of entities that will be affected, the size of the industry, or the number of entities that already have the requisite equipment. Advocacy submits that without the requisite information, the certification is inadequate.

In addition to the certification being vague, and at times nebulous, Advocacy also questions the accuracy of the conclusion that the impact may be significant, but not substantial. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility that is found on page RIR-47 of the Amendment to the Summer Fishery Management Plan: Fishery Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Scup Fishery states that "...proposed action will affect many of these vessels, the "substantial number" criteria will be met." This statement obviously contradicts the conclusion found on page RIR-50 of the Initial Regulatory Flexiability Analysis which states that it does not have a significant impact on small entities. It also contradicts the certification found in the proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, Advocacy submits that the agency should clarify the proposed ruling and determine which conclusion is correct.

Without clarification, it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the true economic impact that this amendment may have on the small businesses operating under Amendment 8. Moreover, a comprehensible analysis of the proposed action is necessary for the members of the industry and the community to access fully the economic benefits of the proposed action. As such, the Office of Advocacy requests that the National Marine Fisheries Service provide the necessary information to clarify the proposed amendment.

If you would like to discuss this matter or if this office can be of any further assistance, please contact Jennifer A. Smith. She may be reached either by mail at the above address or by telephone at (202) 205-6943. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jere W. Glover
Chief Counsel

Jennifer A. Smith
Assistant Chief Counsel