Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76865 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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 action 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 the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by February 9, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations. 

Dated: November 23, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Section 52.1237 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1237 Control strategy: Carbon 

monoxide. 

* * * * * 

(f) Approval—On July 16, 2015, the 

State of Minnesota submitted a revision 

to their Particulate Matter State 

Implementation Plan. The submittal 

establishes transportation conformity 

criteria and procedures related to 

interagency consultation, and the 

enforceability of certain transportation 

related control and mitigation measures. 

[FR Doc. 2015–31075 Filed 12–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0298; FRL–9939–66– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality 

Designation; SC; Redesignation of the 

Charlotte-Rock Hill, 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking three separate 

final actions related to a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of South 

Carolina, through the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on 

April 17, 2015. These final actions are 

for the York County, South Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Rock 

Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 

2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) 

nonattainment area (the entire area is 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-State 

Charlotte Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’ and the 

South Carolina portion is hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘York County Area’’). 

In these three final actions, EPA 

determines that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area is continuing to attain the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS; approves and 

incorporates South Carolina’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the 2008 8- 

hour ozone standard in the York County 

Area, including the 2014 and 2026 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) for 

the York County Area, into the SIP; and 

redesignates the York County Area to 

attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 

2014 and 2026 MVEBs for the York 

County Area adequate for the purposes 

of transportation conformity. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

January 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2015–0298. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Sheckler of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mrs. 

Sheckler may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9992 or via electronic mail at 

sheckler.kelly@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background for Final Actions 

On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), EPA 

designated areas as unclassifiable/

attainment or nonattainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was 

promulgated on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 


tkelley on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
76866 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1South Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion 

of the available safety margin to the NOX and VOC 

MVEBs for 2026. SC DEHC has allocated 7.63 tons per day (tpd) (6,922 kg/day) to the 2026 NOX MVEB 

and 1.52 tpd (1,379 kg/day) to the 2026 VOC MVEB. 

16436). The bi-state Charlotte Area was 

designated as nonattainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

classified as a marginal nonattainment 

area. The bi-state Charlotte Area 

consists of York County, South Carolina, 

within the Rock Hill Fort Hill Area 

Transportation Study (RFATS) 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO); Mecklenburg County, North 

Carolina; and portions of Cabarrus, 

Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and 

Union Counties in North Carolina. EPA 

previously addressed North Carolina’s 

request to redesignate the North 

Carolina portion of the Area and its 

maintenance plan for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in a separate rulemaking. 

See 80 FR 44873 (July 28, 2015). 

On April 17, 2015, SC DHEC 

requested that EPA redesignate the 

South Carolina portion of the Area to 

attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and submitted a SIP revision 

containing the State’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the 2008 8- 

hour ozone standard in the Area, 

including the 2014 and 2026 MVEBs for 

NOX and VOC for the York County Area. 

In a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR) published on October 14, 2015, 

EPA proposed to determine that the bistate Charlotte Area is continuing to 

attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; to 

approve and incorporate into the South 

Carolina SIP the State’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the 2008 8- 

hour ozone standard in the Area, 

including the 2014 and 2026 MVEBs for 

NOX and VOC for the South Carolina 

potion of the bi-state Charlotte Area; 

and to redesignate the South Carolina 

portion of the Area to attainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 

61775. In that notice, EPA also notified 

the public of the status of the Agency’s 

adequacy determination for the NOX

and VOC MVEBs for the South Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

No comments were received. The details 

of South Carolina’s submittal and the 

rationale for EPA’s actions are further 

explained in the NPR. See 80 FR 61775 

(October 14, 2015). 

II. What are the effects of these actions? 

Approval of South Carolina’s 

redesignation request changes the legal 

designation of York County in the South 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area, found at 40 CFR 81.341, from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of 

South Carolina’s associated SIP revision 

also incorporates a plan into the SIP for 

maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the York County Area 

through 2026. The maintenance plan 

establishes NOX and VOC MVEBs for 

2014 and 2026 for the York County Area 

and includes contingency measures to 

remedy any future violations of the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures 

for evaluation of potential violations. 

The MVEBs, in kilograms per day (kg/ 

day) for the South Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area along with 

the allocations from the safety margin, 

are provided in the table below.1

YORK COUNTY AREA MVEBS

[kg/day] 

2014 2026 

NOX VOC NOX VOC 

Base Emissions ............................................................................................... 9,112 3,566 3,076 1,576 

Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 6,922 1,379 

Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................ 9,112 3,566 9,998 2,955 

III. Final Actions 

EPA is taking three separate final 

actions regarding the York County 

Area’s redesignation to attainment and 

maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. First, EPA is determining that 

the bi-state Charlotte Area is continuing 

to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Second, EPA is approving and 

incorporating the maintenance plan for 

the York County Area, including the 

NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 

2026, into the South Carolina SIP. The 

maintenance plan demonstrates that the 

Area will continue to maintain the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the budgets 

meet all of the adequacy criteria 

contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5). 

Third, EPA is determining that South 

Carolina has met the criteria under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E) for the York County 

Area for redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this 

basis, EPA is approving South 

Carolina’s redesignation request for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the York 

County Area. As mentioned above, 

approval of the redesignation request 

changes the official designation of York 

County in the South Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS from 

nonattainment to attainment, as found 

at 40 CFR part 81. 

EPA is also notifying the public that 

EPA finds the newly-established NOX

and VOC MVEBs for the York County 

Area adequate for the purpose of 

transportation conformity. Within 24 

months from this final rule, the 

transportation partners will need to 

demonstrate conformity to the new NOX

and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e)(3). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act), redesignation of an area to 

attainment and the accompanying 

approval of the maintenance plan under 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions 

that affect the status of geographical area 

and do not impose any additional 

regulatory requirements on sources 

beyond those required by state law. A 

redesignation to attainment does not in 

and of itself impose any new 

requirements, but rather results in the 

application of requirements contained 

in the CAA for areas that have been 

redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 

the Administrator is required to approve 

a SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 

7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 

reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role 

is to approve state choices, provided 

that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 

Accordingly, these actions merely 

approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state or Federal law. For 

these reasons, these actions: 


tkelley on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 76867 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• will not have disproportionate 

human health or environmental effects 

under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this action for the state of 

South Carolina does not have Tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The Catawba Indian Nation 

Reservation is located within the State 

of South Carolina. Pursuant to the 

Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, 

S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state 

and local environmental laws and 

regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian 

Nation] and Reservation and are fully 

enforceable by all relevant state and 

local agencies and authorities.’’ 

However, because no tribal lands are 

located within the South Carolina 

portion of the Area, this action is not 

approving any specific state 

requirement into the SIP that would 

apply to Tribal lands. Therefore, EPA 

has determined that this rule does not 

have substantial direct effects on an 

Indian Tribe. EPA notes today’s action 

will not impose substantial direct costs 

on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

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 action 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 the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by February 9, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Dated: November 25, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry for ‘‘2008 8-hour 

ozone Maintenance Plan for the York 

County, South Carolina portion of the 

bi-state Charlotte Area’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for 

the York County, South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.

4/17/2015 12/11/2015 [Insert citation of publication] 

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 4. In § 81.341, the table entitled 

‘‘South Carolina-2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ is 

amended by revising the entries for 

‘‘Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC–SC’’, ‘‘York 

County (part)’’ and ‘‘Portion along MPO 

lines’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.341 South Carolina. 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES
76868 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

SOUTH CAROLINA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC– 

SC: 2.

This action is effective 12/

11/2015.

Attainment.

York County (part) 

Portion along MPO 

lines.

* * * * * * * 

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

3 Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information pertaining to areas of Indian country in this 

table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA 

lacks the authority to establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this table. 4 Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–30920 Filed 12–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

45 CFR Part 170 

RIN 0991–AB93 

2015 Edition Health Information 

Technology (Health IT) Certification 

Criteria, 2015 Edition Base Electronic 

Health Record (EHR) Definition, and 

ONC Health IT Certification Program 

Modifications; Corrections and 

Clarifications 

AGENCY: Office of the National 

Coordinator for Health Information 

Technology (ONC), Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Final rule; corrections and 

clarifications. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors 

and clarifies provisions of the final rule 

entitled ‘‘2015 Edition Health 

Information Technology (Health IT) 

Certification Criteria, 2015 Edition Base 

Electronic Health Record (EHR) 

Definition, and ONC Health IT 

Certification Program Modifications.’’ 

DATES: This correction is effective 

January 14, 2016. The final rule 

appeared in the Federal Register on 

October 16, 2015 (80 FR 62602), and is 

effective on January 14, 2016, except for 

§ 170.523(m) and (n), which are 

effective on April 1, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Lipinski, Office of Policy, 

National Coordinator for Health 

Information Technology, 202–690–7151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Following the publication of Federal 

Register document 2015–25597 of 

October 16, 2015 (80 FR 62602), final 

rule entitled ‘‘2015 Edition Health 

Information Technology (Health IT) 

Certification Criteria, 2015 Edition Base 

Electronic Health Record (EHR) 

Definition, and ONC Health IT 

Certification Program Modifications’’ 

(hereinafter referred to as the 2015 

Edition final rule), we identified a 

number of errors in the final rule. We 

summarize and correct these errors in 

the ‘‘Summary of Errors’’ and 

‘‘Corrections of Errors’’ sections below. 

We also clarify requirements of the 

Common Clinical Data Set (CCDS), the 

privacy and security certification 

framework, and the mandatory 

disclosures for health IT developers in 

the ‘‘Clarifications’’ section below. 

II. Summary of Errors 

A. Preamble Errors 

1. ‘‘Audit Report(s)’’ Certification 

Criterion 

We incorrectly identified the adopted 

2015 Edition ‘‘audit report(s)’’ 

certification criterion throughout the 

preamble as ‘‘unchanged’’ and eligible 

for gap certification. More specifically, 

we identified it incorrectly: 

a. On page 62609, under Table 2 

(‘‘2015 Edition Health IT Certification 

Criteria’’), as an unchanged criterion 

compared to the 2014 Edition and gap 

certification eligible. 

b. On page 62656, second column, in 

the ‘‘Response’’ under ‘‘Audit 

Report(s),’’ as adopted as proposed (i.e., 

‘‘unchanged’’). 

c. On page 62681, under Table 6 

(‘‘Gap Certification Eligibility for 2015 

Edition Health IT Certification 

Criteria’’), as eligible for gap 

certification. 

We adopted the standard at 

§ 170.210(e) as revised to include the 

auditing of changes to user privileges in 

paragraph (e)(1)(i). The adopted 2015 

Edition ‘‘audit report(s)’’ certification 

criterion references this standard. 

Therefore, it is a ‘‘revised’’ certification 

criterion as compared to the 2014 

Edition ‘‘audit report(s)’’ certification 

criterion and ineligible for gap 

certification. 

2. ‘‘Integrity’’ Certification Criterion 

On page 62657, third column, third 

paragraph, the last sentence incorrectly 

references SHA–1. The commenters’ 

statements were specific to SHA–2. 

3. ‘‘Accounting of Disclosures’’ 

Certification Criterion 

On page 62658, first column, midpage, within the 2015 Edition 

‘‘accounting of disclosures’’ certification 

criterion table, we inadvertently 

referenced the criterion as codified in 45 

CFR 170.315(d)(10), when in fact it was 

codified in 45 CFR 170.315(d)(11). We 

note that the 2015 Edition ‘‘auditing 

actions on health information’’ 

certification criterion was codified in 45 

CFR 170.315(d)(10). 

4. ‘‘Transmission to Public Health 

Agencies—Antimicrobial Use and 

Resistance Reporting’’ Certification 

Criterion 

On page 62668, third column, lines 2 

and 3, there was a parenthetical error 

stating that we adopted the 

‘‘transmission to public health 

agencies—antimicrobial use and 

resistance reporting’’ certification 

criterion as proposed (with both 

Volumes 1 and 2 of the HAI IG). The 

parenthetical is corrected to not 

reference volumes of the HL 7 

Implementation Guide for CDA®

Release 2—Level 3: Healthcare 

Associated Infection Reports, Release 1 


tkelley on DSK9F6TC42PROD with RULES