Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41633 

9Comment 20(b)–2 states that creditors ‘‘must 

look to the assuming consumer in determining 

whether a residential mortgage transaction exists.’’ 

(emphasis added.) 

10As comment 2(a)(24)–5 states, the term 

residential mortgage transaction ‘‘does not include 

a transaction involving a consumer’s principal 

dwelling if the consumer had previously purchased 

and acquired some interest to the dwelling even 

through the consumer had not acquired full legal 

title.’’ 

obligor is seeking to finance the 

acquisition of that subsequent 

consumer’s principal dwelling.9

Whether the existing extension of 

consumer credit was a residential 

mortgage transaction as to the existing 

primary obligor is immaterial. 

A residential mortgage transaction 

does not arise where a successor takes 

on the debt obligation that is secured by 

property the successor previously 

acquired.10 In these situations, 

§ 1026.20(b) does not apply when the 

successor agrees to be added as an 

obligor on an existing mortgage loan. 

Although these transactions are 

commonly referred to as assumptions, 

they are not assumptions under 

§ 1026.20(b) because the transaction is 

not a residential mortgage transaction as 

to the successor. Accordingly, the ATR 

Rule in § 1026.43 does not apply to a 

transaction in which a successor seeks 

to take on the debt secured by property 

that the successor previously acquired. 

In contrast to the successor situation 

described above, if a consumer without 

an existing interest takes on the 

obligation of the existing borrower in 

order to finance the acquisition of the 

consumer’s principal dwelling, the 

transaction is a residential mortgage 

transaction. In such a case, where the 

creditor expressly agrees in writing to 

the new primary obligor, an assumption 

has occurred under § 1026.20(b), and it 

is subject to the ability-to-repay 

requirements in § 1026.43, in addition 

to other requirements of Regulation Z. 

Moreover, where a creditor adds a 

successor as the obligor, whether that 

event is subject to § 1026.43 or not, the 

extension of credit remains a consumer 

credit transaction under Regulation Z. 

The creditor, assignee, or servicer must 

comply with any ongoing obligations 

pertaining to the extension of consumer 

credit, such as the requirement to 

provide monthly statements in 

§ 1026.41 and the requirement to notify 

the obligors of adjustments to the loan’s 

interest rate in § 1026.20(c) and (d). 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

This rule articulates the Bureau’s 

interpretation of Regulation Z, and the 

Truth-in-Lending Act. It is therefore 

exempt from the APA’s notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act does not require an 

initial or final regulatory flexibility 

analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). 

The Bureau has determined that this 

rule does not impose any new or revise 

any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or 

disclosure requirements on covered 

entities or members of the public that 

would be collections of information 

requiring OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. 

Dated: July 1, 2014. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16780 Filed 7–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0209; Special 

Conditions No. 25–559–SC] 

Special Conditions: Embraer Model 

ERJ–190 Airplane, Enhanced FlightVision System (EFVS) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Embraer Model ERJ–190 

airplane. This airplane will have a novel 

or unusual design feature associated 

with an enhanced flight-vision system. 

The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for this 

design feature. These special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by the 

existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: The effective date of these 

special conditions is July 17, 2014. We 

must receive your comments by 

September 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2014–0209 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov/, 

including any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot .gov/. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

Dunford, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew 

Interface, ANM–111, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–2239; facsimile 

425–227–1320. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

has determined that notice of, and 

opportunity for prior public comment 

on, these special conditions are 

impracticable because these procedures 

would significantly delay issuance of 

the design approval and thus delivery of 

the affected aircraft. In addition, the 

substance of these special conditions 

has been subject to the public-comment 

process in several prior instances with 

no substantive comments received. The 

FAA therefore finds that good cause 

exists for making these special 

conditions effective upon publication in 

the Federal Register. 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41634 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive by the closing date for 

comments. We may change these special 

conditions based on the comments we 

receive. 

Background 

On December 10, 2012, Embraer 

applied for a change to Type Certificate 

No. A57NM to add an enhanced flightvision system to the Embraer Model 

ERJ–190 airplane. The Embraer Model 

ERJ–190 airplane is a low-wing, 

conventional-tail, twin-turbofan, 

transport-category airplane with seating 

for up to 124 passengers. 

The EFVS uses new and novel or 

unusual technology for which the FAA 

has no certification criteria. Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

25.773 does not permit visual 

distortions and reflections that could 

interfere with the pilot’s normal duties, 

and was not written in anticipation of 

such technology. Because § 25.773 does 

not provide for any alternatives or 

considerations for such a new and novel 

system, it is necessary to establish safety 

requirements that assure an equivalent 

level of safety and effectiveness of the 

pilot-compartment view as intended by 

this rule. Other applications for 

certification of such technology are 

anticipated in the near future and 

magnify the need to establish FAA 

safety standards that can be applied 

consistently for all such approvals. 

Special conditions are therefore 

prescribed under the provisions of 

§ 21.16. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of § 21.101, 

Embraer must show that the Model ERJ– 

190 airplane, as changed, continues to 

meet the applicable provisions of the 

regulations incorporated by reference in 

Type Certificate No. A57NM or the 

applicable regulations in effect on the 

date of application for the change. The 

regulations incorporated by reference in 

the type certificate are commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘original typecertification basis.’’ The regulations 

incorporated by reference in A57NM are 

as follows: 

14 CFR part 25, Amdts. 25–1 through 

25–101 in entirety. In addition, the 

certification basis includes certain 

special conditions, exemptions, or later 

amended sections of the applicable part 

that are not relevant to these special 

conditions. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the Model ERJ–190 airplane 

must comply with the fuel-vent and 

exhaust-emission requirements of 14 

CFR part 34, and the noise-certification 

requirements of 14 CFR part 36. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for the Model ERJ–190 airplane because 

of a novel or unusual design feature, 

special conditions are prescribed under 

the provisions of § 21.16. 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same novel or unusual 

design feature, or should any other 

model already included on the same 

type certificate be modified to 

incorporate the same novel or unusual 

design feature, the special conditions 

would also apply to the other model. 

The FAA issues special conditions, as 

defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance 

with § 11.38, and they become part of 

the type-certification basis under 

§ 21.101. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The Model ERJ–190 airplane will 

incorporate the following novel or 

unusual design features: 

Installation of an enhanced flightvision system (EFVS). 

Discussion 

On January 9, 2004, the FAA 

published revisions to operational rules 

in 14 CFR parts 1, 91, 121, 125 and 135 

to allow aircraft to operate below certain 

altitudes during a straight-in instrument 

approach while using an EFVS to meet 

certain visibility requirements. 

Some Enhanced Vision Systems (EVS) 

were approved prior to this rule change 

in accordance with provisions of 

Special Conditions (re: ANM–SC–159) 

that addressed requirements for the 

pilot-compartment view and limited the 

scope of intended functions permissible 

under the operational rules at the time 

(re: § 91.175). In particular, the intended 

function of the EVS imagery was to 

present a view that aided the pilot 

during the approach, and which the 

pilot could use to detect and identify 

the visual references for the intended 

runway, as listed in 14 CFR 91.175(c)(3), 

down to 100 feet above the touchdown 

zone. However, the EVS imagery alone 

was not to be used as a means to satisfy 

visibility requirements below 100 feet, 

as a means to satisfy flight-visibility 

requirements (re: § 91.175(c)(2)), nor as 

flight guidance or as a substitute for the 

outside view for maneuvering the 

airplane. 

The operational rule change expands 

the permissible application of certain 

EVSs that are certified to meet the new 

requirements for an EFVS. The rule will 

allow the use of EFVS for operation 

between the minimum descent altitude 

(MDA) or decision height (DH) to meet 

new visibility requirements found in 

§ 91.175(l). Consequently, the intended 

function of the EFVS, unlike the 

previously approved EVS, includes the 

pilot’s use of the imagery to determine 

that the ‘‘enhanced flight visibility’’ is 

not less than the minimum visibility 

prescribed for the instrument approach, 

and may be used for maneuvering the 

airplane between MDA or DH, and 100 

feet above touchdown-zone elevation. 

See Advisory Circular (AC) 20–167 for 

a more in-depth description of the 

intended function. 

The EFVS uses new and novel or 

unusual technology that displays videoraster imagery in the field of view 

regulated by 14 CFR 25.773. This rule 

does not permit distortions and 

reflections in the pilot-compartment 

view that can interfere with normal 

duties and was not written in 

anticipation of such technology. The 

video image potentially interferes with 

the pilot’s ability to see the natural 

scene in the center of the forward field 

of view. 

Unlike the pilot’s natural forward 

vision, the EFVS image is infraredbased, monochrome, two-dimensional 

(i.e., no depth perception), and of lower 

resolution than normal human vision 

provides. While the pilot may be readily 

able to see around and through small 

individual stroke-written symbols on 

the HUD, the pilot may not be able to 

see around or through the image that 

fills the display without some 

interference of the outside view. 

Nevertheless, the EFVS may be capable 

of meeting an equivalent level of safety 

when considering the combined view of 

the image and the outside scene, which 

is visible to the pilot through the image. 

It is essential that the pilot can use this 

combination of image and natural view 

of the outside scene as safely and 

effectively as the pilot-compartment 

view currently available without the 

EFVS image. 

Because § 25.773 does not expressly 

provide for any alternatives or 

considerations for such a new and novel 

system, it is necessary to establish safety 

requirements that assure an equivalent 

level of safety and effectiveness of the 

pilot-compartment view as intended by 

that rule. The purpose of these special 

conditions is to provide the unique 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41635 

pilot-compartment view requirements 

for the EFVS installation. 

Compliance with these special 

conditions is required for the EFVS to 

be found acceptable for the following 

intended functions, in accordance with 

§ 91.175(l) and (m): 

1. Presenting an image that would aid 

the pilot during a straight-in instrument 

approach. 

2. Enable the pilot to determine the 

‘‘enhanced flight visibility,’’ as required 

by § 91.175(l)(2) for descent and 

operation below MDA/DH. 

3. Enable the pilot to use the EFVS 

imagery to detect and identify the 

‘‘visual references for the intended 

runway’’ required by § 91.175(l)(3), to 

continue the approach with vertical 

guidance to 100 feet height above 

touchdown-zone elevation. 

Note: The term ‘‘enhanced vision system 

(EVS)’’ has been commonly used to refer to 

a system comprised of a head-up display, 

imaging sensor(s), and avionics interfaces 

that display the sensor imagery on the HUD, 

and overlay that imagery with alpha-numeric 

and symbolic flight information. However, 

the term has also been commonly used in 

reference to systems that display the sensor 

imagery, with or without other flight 

information, on a head-down display. Hence, 

to avoid confusion, the FAA defined the term 

‘‘enhanced flight-vision system (EFVS)’’ to 

refer to certain EVS systems that meet the 

requirements of the new rule, in particular 

the requirement for a HUD and specified 

flight information, and can be used to 

determine ‘‘enhanced flight visibility.’’ EFVS 

can be considered a subset of systems 

otherwise labeled EVS. 

These special conditions contain the 

additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to the Embraer 

Model ERJ–190 airplane. Should 

Embraer apply at a later date for a 

change to the type certificate to include 

another model incorporating the same 

novel or unusual design feature, the 

special conditions would apply to that 

model as well. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on one model 

of airplanes. It is not a rule of general 

applicability. 

The substance of these special 

conditions has been subjected to the 

notice and comment period in several 

prior instances and has been derived 

without substantive change from those 

previously issued. It is unlikely that 

prior public comment would result in a 

significant change from the substance 

contained herein. Therefore, because a 

delay would significantly affect the 

certification of the EFVS modification to 

the Embraer Model ERJ–190 airplane, 

which is imminent, the FAA has 

determined that prior public notice and 

comment are unnecessary and 

impracticable, and good cause exists for 

adopting these special conditions upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

The FAA requests comments to allow 

interested persons to submit views that 

may not have been submitted in 

response to the prior opportunities for 

comment described above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44702, 44704. 

The Special Conditions 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the following special 

conditions are issued as part of the type 

certification basis for Embraer Model 

ERJ–190 airplane. 

1. EFVS imagery on the HUD must not 

degrade the safety of flight or interfere 

with the effective use of outside visual 

references for required pilot tasks 

during any phase of flight in which it is 

to be used. 

2. To avoid unacceptable interference 

with the safe and effective use of the 

pilot-compartment view, the EFVS 

device must meet the following 

requirements: 

a. EFVS design must minimize 

unacceptable display characteristics or 

artifacts (e.g. noise, ‘‘burlap’’ overlay, 

running water droplets) that obscure the 

desired image of the scene, impair the 

pilot’s ability to detect and identify 

visual references, mask flight hazards, 

distract the pilot, or otherwise degrade 

task performance or safety. 

b. Control of EFVS display brightness 

must be sufficiently effective, in 

dynamically changing background 

(ambient) lighting conditions, to prevent 

full or partial blooming of the display 

that would distract the pilot, impair the 

pilot’s ability to detect and identify 

visual references, mask flight hazards, 

or otherwise degrade task performance 

or safety. If automatic control for image 

brightness is not provided, it must be 

shown that a single manual setting is 

satisfactory for the range of lighting 

conditions encountered during a timecritical, high-workload phase of flight 

(e.g., low-visibility instrument 

approach). 

c. A readily accessible control must be 

provided that permits the pilot to 

immediately deactivate and reactivate 

display of the EFVS image on demand, 

without removing the pilot’s hands from 

the primary flight controls (yoke or 

equivalent) or thrust control. 

d. The EFVS image on the HUD must 

not impair the pilot’s use of guidance 

information, or degrade the presentation 

and pilot awareness of essential flight 

information displayed on the HUD, such 

as alerts, airspeed, attitude, altitude and 

direction, approach guidance, windshear guidance, TCAS resolution 

advisories, and unusual-attitude 

recovery cues. 

e. The EFVS image and the HUD 

symbols, which are spatially referenced 

to the pitch scale, outside view, and 

image, must be scaled and aligned (i.e., 

conformal) to the external scene and, 

when considered singly or in 

combination, must not be misleading, 

cause pilot confusion, or increase 

workload. There may be airplane 

attitudes or cross-wind conditions 

which cause certain symbols, such as 

the zero-pitch line or flight-path vector, 

to reach field-of-view limits such that 

they cannot be positioned conformably 

with the image and external scene. In 

such cases, these symbols may be 

displayed, but with an altered 

appearance which makes the pilot 

aware that they are no longer displayed 

conformably (for example, ‘‘ghosting’’). 

f. A HUD system used to display 

EFVS images must, if previously 

certified, continue to meet all of the 

requirements of the original approval. 

3. The safety and performance of the 

pilot tasks associated with the use of the 

pilot-compartment view must be not be 

degraded by the display of the EFVS 

image. Pilot tasks which must not be 

degraded by the EFVS image include: 

a. Detection, accurate identification, 

and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid 

traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other 

hazards of flight. 

b. Accurate identification and 

utilization of visual references required 

for every task relevant to the phase of 

flight. 

4. Appropriate limitations must be 

stated in the Operating Limitations 

section of the Airplane Flight Manual to 

prohibit the use of the EFVS for 

functions that have not been found to be 

acceptable. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19, 

2014. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16781 Filed 7–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[TD 9664] 

RIN 1545–BF80 

Section 67 Limitations on Estates or 

Trusts; Change of Effective Date 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Final regulations; amendment. 

SUMMARY: This document amends final 

regulations (TD 9664) that were 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 9, 2014. The final regulations 

provide guidance on which costs 

incurred by estates or trusts other than 

grantor trusts (non-grantor trusts) are 

subject to the 2-percent floor for 

miscellaneous itemized deductions 

under section 67(a) of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

DATES: Effective Date: This amendment 

to the final regulations published on 

May 9, 2014 (79 FR 90), is effective on 

July 17, 2014. 

Applicability Date: For date of 

applicability, see § 1.67–4(d). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer N. Keeney, (202) 317–6850 (not 

a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The final regulations that are the 

subject of these amendments are under 

section 67 of the Internal Revenue Code. 

The final regulations (TD 9664) were 

published in the Federal Register on 

Friday, May 9, 2014 (79 FR 90). The 

final regulations applied to taxable years 

beginning on or after May 9, 2014. 

Need for Amendment 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

received a comment raising concerns 

about the effective/applicability date of 

the regulations. As issued, the final 

regulations apply to taxable years 

beginning on or after May 9, 2014. 

Therefore, fiduciaries of existing trusts 

and calendar-year estates would 

implement the rules beginning January 

1, 2015. However, the rules would apply 

immediately to any non-grantor trust 

created after May 8, 2014, the estate of 

any decedent who dies after May 8, 

2014, and any existing fiscal-year estate 

with a taxable year beginning after May 

8, 2014. The commentator stated that 

the effective/applicability date in the 

regulations does not give fiduciaries of 

these trusts and estates sufficient time to 

implement the changes that are 

necessary to comply with the 

regulations. Specifically, the 

commentator is concerned about 

allowing fiduciaries sufficient time to 

design and implement the necessary 

program changes to determine the 

portion of a bundled fee that is 

attributable to costs that are subject to 

the 2-percent floor versus costs that are 

not subject to the 2-percent floor. In 

response to these comments, this 

document amends § 1.67–4(d) of the 

Final Regulations so that the regulations 

apply to taxable years beginning on or 

after January 1, 2015. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Adoption of Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

■ Par. 2. In § 1.67–4, paragraph (d) is 

revised read as follows: 

§ 1.67–4 Costs paid or incurred by estates 

or non-grantor trusts. 

* * * * * 

(d) Effective/applicability date. This 

section applies to taxable years 

beginning after December 31, 2014. 

Martin V. Franks, 

Branch Chief, Publications & Regulations 

Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel, (Procedure & Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2014–16834 Filed 7–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 199 

[DOD–2011–HA–0134] 

RIN 0720–AB55 

TRICARE Certified Mental Health 

Counselors 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing this final rule to implement 

the TRICARE Certified Mental Health 

Counselor (TCMHC) provider type as a 

qualified mental health provider 

authorized to independently diagnose 

and treat TRICARE beneficiaries and 

receive reimbursement for services. 

Additionally, we are extending the time 

frame that was mentioned in the Interim 

Final Rule for meeting certain 

education, examination, and supervised 

clinical practice criteria to be 

considered for authorization as a 

TCMHC. The time frame has been 

changed from prior to January 1, 2015, 

to prior to January 1, 2017. One final set 

of criteria shall apply for the 

authorization of the TCMHC beginning 

January 1, 2017. The supervised mental 

health counselor (SMHC) provider type, 

while previously proposed to be 

terminated under TRICARE, is now 

continued indefinitely as an 

extramedical individual provider 

practicing mental health counseling 

under the supervision of a TRICAREauthorized physician. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective August 18, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Patricia Moseley, Defense Health 

Agency, Clinical Support Division, 

Behavioral Health Branch, 703–681– 

0064. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Final Rule 

1. The Need for the Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this final rule is to 

prescribe regulations that will allow 

licensed or certified mental health 

counselors to be able to independently 

provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries 

and receive payment for those services. 

The final rule incorporates the 

recommendations of the Institute of 

Medicine (IOM) 2010 report for the 

independent practice of mental health 

counselors (MHCs) under TRICARE, 

including specific education, licensure, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES