78362 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

■ 9. Amend § 240.12g5–1 by adding 

paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 240.12g5–1 Definition of securities ‘‘held 

of record’’. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(7)(i) For purposes of determining 

whether an issuer is required to register 

a class of equity securities with the 

Commission pursuant to section 12(g)(1) 

of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78l(g)(1)), an issuer 

may exclude securities: 

(A) Held by persons who received the 

securities pursuant to an employee 

compensation plan in transactions; 

(1) Exempt from the registration 

requirements of section 5 of the 

Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77e); 

or 

(2) That did not involve a sale within 

the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the 

Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 

77b(a)(3)); and 

(B) Held by persons eligible to receive 

securities from the issuer pursuant to 

§ 230.701(c) of this chapter who 

received the securities in a transaction 

exempt from the registration 

requirements of section 5 of the 

Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77e) in 

exchange for securities excludable 

under this paragraph (a)(7). 

(ii) As a non-exclusive safe harbor 

under this paragraph (a)(7), a person 

will be deemed to have received the 

securities pursuant to an employee 

compensation plan if such person 

received the securities pursuant to a 

compensatory benefit plan in 

transactions that meet the conditions of 

§ 230.701(c) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 240.12h–3 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 240.12h–3 Suspension of duty to file 

reports under section 15(d). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Any class of securities, other than 

any class of asset-backed securities, held 

of record by: 

(i) Fewer than 300 persons; 

(ii) Fewer than 500 persons, where the 

total assets of the issuer have not 

exceeded $10 million on the last day of 

each of the issuer’s three most recent 

fiscal years; or 

(iii) In the case of a bank; a savings 

and loan holding company, as such term 

is defined in section 10 of the Home 

Owners’ Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461); or 

a bank holding company, as such term 

is defined in section 2 of the Bank 

Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 

U.S.C. 1841); fewer than 1,200 persons; 

and 

* * * * * 

By the Commission. 

Dated: December 17, 2014. 

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30136 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 199 

[DOD–2014–HA–0133] 

RIN 0720–AB62 

TRICARE; Revision of Nonparticipating 

Providers Reimbursement Rate; 

Removal of Cost Share for Dental 

Sealants; TRICARE Dental Program 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(DoD) proposes several amendments to 

the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) 

regulation. Specifically, this proposed 

rule revises the benefit payment 

provision for nonparticipating providers 

to more closely mirror industry 

practices by requiring TDP 

nonparticipating providers to be 

reimbursed (minus the appropriate costshare) at the lesser of billed charges: or 

the network maximum allowable charge 

for similar services in that same locality 

(region) or state. This rule also updates 

the regulatory provisions regarding 

dental sealants to clearly categorize 

them as a preventive service and, 

consequently, eliminate the current 20 

percent cost-share applicable to sealants 

to conform the language in the 

regulation to the statute. 

DATES: Written comments received at 

the address indicated below by March 2, 

2015 will be accepted. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

number and title, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350– 

3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Col 

Gary C. Martin, Defense Health Agency, 

telephone (703) 681–0039. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of Regulatory Actions 

a. Need for Regulatory Actions 

(1) Revision of Nonparticipating 

Providers’ Reimbursement Rate 

Prior to 2006, TRICARE Dental 

Program (TDP) participating and 

nonparticipating providers were 

reimbursed at the equivalent of not less 

than the 50th percentile of prevailing 

charges made for similar services in the 

same locality (region) or state, or the 

provider’s actual charge, whichever is 

lower, less any cost-share amount due 

for authorized services. This provision 

was included in the regulation to 

constitute a significant financial 

incentive for participation of providers 

in the contractor’s network and to 

ensure a network of quality providers 

through use of a higher reimbursement 

rate. Over time, the Department 

discovered that this provision placed an 

unnecessary burden on contractors with 

already established, high quality 

provider networks with reimbursement 

rates below the 50th percentile that 

were of sufficient size to meet the access 

requirements of the TDP. Consequently, 

the Department of Defense published a 

final rule in the Federal Register on 

January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1695), revising 

the participating provider’s 

reimbursement rate for the TDP that has 

resulted in significant cost savings to 

the TDP enrollees and the Government. 

Since over 80 percent of all TDP care 

was provided by network dentists, the 

need to also change the reimbursement 

rate for nonparticipating dentists was 

overlooked and not included in the 

2006 rule change. However, over the 

past eight years this has created an 

incentive for some network providers to 

leave the TDP network and for other 

providers not to become network 

providers. As the rule is currently 

written, depending on the geographic 

location, some non-network providers 

are actually reimbursed at a higher 

amount than they would have been had 

they been a participating provider and 

receiving the negotiated network rate. 

Specifically, the revision will require 

TDP nonparticipating providers to be 

reimbursed (minus the appropriate costshare) at the lesser of (1) billed charges: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78363 

or (2) the network maximum allowable 

charge for similar services in that same 

locality (region) or state. This revision 

will increase the number of network 

providers and provide cost savings to 

enrollees and the Government. 

(2) Removal of Cost-Share for Dental 

Sealants 

Sealants are currently separately 

defined in the TDP regulation at 

§ 199.13(b)(24), and specifically 

identified as a covered non-preventive 

service subject to a 20 percent costshare. The cost share for dental sealants 

was originally put in place when there 

was minimal evidence as to the 

effectiveness of dental sealants 

preventing tooth decay. The scientific 

evidence is now overwhelming that 

dental sealants are effective in 

preventing tooth decay and the vast 

majority of commercial dental insurance 

plans cover this procedure with no cost 

shares. Further, the American Dental 

Association’s Council on Dental Care 

Programs Code on Dental Procedures 

and Nomenclature classifies dental 

sealants as a preventive procedure. 

Additionally, the Department currently 

recognizes sealants as a preventive 

service under the TRICARE Retiree 

Dental Program per § 199.22(f)(1)(ii)(C). 

The proposed regulatory revisions 

regarding dental sealants will delete the 

separate definition of dental sealants, 

specifically include sealants as a 

category of preventive service under 

§ 199.13(e)(2)(i)(B), delete any possible 

inconsistency in the definition of 

preventive service in § 199.13(b)(20) and 

(e)(2)(i), and update the cost-share table 

in § 199.13(e)(3)(i) to delete the specific 

line item reference to sealants being 

subject to a 20 percent cost-share in 

order to conform with the requirement 

in 10 U.S.C. 1076a(e)(1)(A) that TDP 

enrollees pay no charge for preventive 

services. 

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory 

Action 

This regulation is proposed under the 

authority of 10 U.S.C. 1076a which 

authorizes the Secretary of Defense to 

establish a voluntary enrollment dental 

plan for eligible dependents of members 

of the uniformed services who are on 

active duty for a period of more than 30 

days, members of the Selected Reserve 

of the Ready Reserve, members of the 

Individual Ready Reserve, and eligible 

dependents of members of the Ready 

Reserve of the reserve components who 

are not on active duty for more than 30 

days. 

2. Summary of Major Provisions of the 

Regulatory Action 

In this rule, the proposed regulatory 

language changes nonparticipating 

provider (e.g. non-network or out-ofnetwork) reimbursement at 

§ 199.13(g)(2)(i) to be on an equivalent 

basis with network reimbursement, in 

order to serve as an incentive for both 

providers to participate in the network 

and for beneficiaries to utilize network 

providers in order to avoid additional 

out-of-pocket costs for balance billing. 

The proposed rule includes several 

technical revisions for clarification and 

consistency sake in defining beneficiary 

liability, nonparticipating provider and 

participating provider in the context of 

the TDP. The proposed rule also amends 

several provisions within § 199.13 to 

eliminate the separate definition of 

sealants, specifically include sealants as 

a covered preventive service, and 

remove beneficiary cost sharing by 

covering sealants at 100 percent of 

allowable charge as authorized by law. 

3. Summary of the Costs and Benefits 

This proposed rule is not anticipated 

to have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more, making it not 

economically significant and non-major 

under the Executive Order and the 

Congressional Review Act. The 

proposed amendment to transition 

nonparticipating provider 

reimbursement to be on an equivalent 

basis with network reimbursement, will 

result in (1) a lower allowed-to-billed 

ratio and a decrease in TDP claim 

payments, (2) premium decreases for 

beneficiaries; (3) a corresponding 

increase in enrollment by eligible 

beneficiaries as a result of these 

premium changes; (4) resultant cost 

savings to the government through 

reduced premium subsidies; and (5) 

increased out-of-pocket costs for 

beneficiaries who opt to use a 

nonparticipating provider who may 

balance bill for the difference in 

contractor payment at the current rates 

and the new, lower network agreement 

rates. While the requirements for sealant 

coverage will not change, the removal of 

beneficiary cost sharing for sealants will 

result in (1) a marginal increase in 

sealant utilization, as we anticipate 

most beneficiaries requiring sealants are 

currently receiving these services since 

they remain a relatively inexpensive 

procedure and are typically viewed as 

beneficial; (2) a minimal premium 

increase for beneficiaries; and (3) an 

increase in government costs as a result 

of both the direct effect of the waived 

cost sharing on current sealant services 

and the full cost of the additional 

utilization. We estimate that the net 

effects of the TDP provisions that would 

be implemented by this rule would 

result in a net premium decrease for 

TDP beneficiaries and corresponding 

cost savings to the government that do 

not reach the $100 million threshold to 

be deemed economically significant. 

II. Background 

The TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) 

allows the Secretary of Defense to offer 

comprehensive premium based 

indemnity dental insurance coverage to 

qualified individuals. The funds used 

by the TDP are appropriated funds 

furnished by Congress through annual 

appropriation acts and funds collected 

as premium shares from beneficiaries. 

TDP is delivered through a 

competitively procured contract 

awarded by the Director, Defense Health 

Agency, or designee. TDP enrollees are 

required to pay all or a portion of the 

premium cost depending on their status. 

For those eligible for premium sharing, 

including active duty dependents and 

certain Selected Reserve and Individual 

Reserve members, the portion of 

premium share to be paid by them is no 

more than forty (40) percent of the total 

premium. For those entitled to premium 

sharing, the Government pays the 

remaining sixty (60) percent of the 

premium. Additional information 

regarding the TDP is available at 

www.tricare.mil/tdp. 

The amendments to § 199.13 are being 

proposed with the understanding that 

the changes are being considered for 

incorporation into the next TDP 

contract. As such, the implementation 

date for any changes adopted through 

this rulemaking process is expected to 

be effective with the start health care 

delivery date (on or after February 1, 

2017) of the next awarded TDP contract. 

III. Explanation for Proposed 

Provisions 

A. Revision of Nonparticipating 

Providers Reimbursement Rate 

Currently, § 199.13(g)(2)(i) requires 

the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) 

contractor to reimburse nonparticipating 

providers at the equivalent of not less 

than the 50th percentile of prevailing 

charges made for similar services in the 

same locality (region) or state, or the 

provider’s actual charge, whichever is 

lower, less any cost-share amount due 

for authorized services. The Department 

of Defense published a final rule in the 

Federal Register on January 11, 2006 

(71 FR 1695), revising the participating 

provider’s reimbursement rate for the 

TDP that has resulted in significant cost 

savings to the TDP enrollees and the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78364 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Government. The reimbursement rates 

that have been negotiated over the life 

of the dental contract represent the 

general market rates for dental 

insurance reimbursement. Since over 80 

percent of all TDP care was provided by 

network dentists, the need to also 

change the reimbursement rate for 

nonparticipating dentists was 

overlooked at that time and not 

included in the 2006 rule change. 

However, over the past eight years this 

has created an incentive for some 

network providers to leave the TDP 

network and for other providers not to 

become network providers. While the 

contractor’s negotiated rates for network 

providers are proprietary in nature and 

vary quite a bit based on geographic 

location, an examination of the allowed 

to billed ratio for network versus nonnetwork care demonstrates that the TDP 

contractor’s network delivers 

considerably lower rates for network 

care. The revision will require TDP 

nonparticipating providers to be 

reimbursed (minus the appropriate costshare) at the lesser of (1) billed charges: 

or (2) network maximum allowable 

charge for similar services in that same 

locality (region) or state. The network 

maximum allowable charge is the 

maximum negotiated fee between the 

dental contractor and any TDP 

participating provider for similar 

services covered by the dental plan in 

that same locality (region) or state. This 

reimbursement change would only 

apply to areas where the network is 

compliant; there is no proposed change 

to the exception in § 199.13(g)(2)(i) for 

non-compliant areas subject to the 

requirements in § 199.13(e)(3)(ii). We 

believe this revision is consistent with 

current industry practice and will bring 

DoD’s TDP reimbursement provisions 

into line with the broader insurance 

market, but invite comments on any 

alternative approaches to better aligning 

TDP nonparticipating provider 

reimbursement rates with network 

negotiated rates and current industry 

practice. Elimination of the 50th 

percentile of prevailing charges 

requirement affords the Government 

and enrollees significant cost savings 

through lower provider reimbursement 

costs by the contractor. These cost 

savings are passed on in the form of 

lower premiums for all enrolled 

beneficiaries. The Department also 

anticipates the proposed change will 

increase the number of network 

providers. 

Under this proposed rule, enrollees 

maintain freedom of choice to see either 

a participating or nonparticipating 

provider. Cost shares are established by 

statute and do not vary between 

network and non-network care. 

Beneficiaries will, however, be 

incentivized to seek care from a 

participating provider who has agreed to 

not balance bill the beneficiary any 

amount in excess of the maximum 

payment allowed by the dental plan 

contractor for covered services. For 

those beneficiaries that elect to seek care 

from a nonparticipating provider, they 

may be balance-billed amounts in 

excess of the dental plan contractor’s 

network maximum allowable charge. As 

with other commercial dental plans, 

TDP enrollees and nonparticipating 

dentists can call the TDP contractor’s 

toll free customer service to inquire as 

to what the network maximum 

allowable charge is for their service in 

a specific locality (region) or state. 

This proposed rule also makes several 

technical amendments to § 199.13(b) 

and (f) for clarification and consistency 

sake in defining and discussing 

beneficiary liability, nonparticipating 

provider and participating provider in 

the context of the TDP. With the 

proposed revision to nonparticipating 

providers’ reimbursement rate, the 

definition of beneficiary liability that 

discusses the prevailing fee 

determination must be revised to 

reference the network maximum 

allowable charge. Additionally, 

revisions are required to clarify that 

participating providers are participating 

in the contractor’s network as a network 

provider and are reimbursed in 

accordance with the contractor’s 

network agreements. Nonparticipating 

providers are considered non-network, 

or out-of-network, providers. 

B. Removal of Cost-Share for Dental 

Sealants 

The cost share for dental sealants was 

originally put in place when there was 

minimal evidence as to the effectiveness 

of dental sealants preventing tooth 

decay. The scientific evidence is now 

overwhelming that dental sealants are 

effective in preventing tooth decay and 

the vast majority of commercial dental 

insurance plans cover this procedure 

with no cost shares. Further, the 

American Dental Association’s Council 

on Dental Care Programs Code on Dental 

Procedures and Nomenclature, 

recognizes dental sealants as a 

preventive service. Consequently, the 

Department believes dental sealants 

should be reclassified as a preventive 

service under the TDP. In order to do so, 

this rule proposes to eliminate the 

separate definition of sealants found at 

§ 199.13(b)(24) in favor of including it as 

a category of preventive service under 

§ 199.13(e)(2)(i)(B). Finally, as a result of 

clearly classifying dental sealants as a 

preventive service, the proposed rule 

eliminates the current 20 percent costshare to conform with the requirement 

in 10 U.S.C. 1076a(e)(1)(A) that TDP 

enrollees pay no charge for preventive 

services. As the cost share has 

prevented some beneficiaries from 

receiving this needed treatment, we also 

anticipate the oral health of TDP 

beneficiaries will improve with the 

elimination of this cost-share. 

IV. Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ and E.O. 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ 

It has been determined that his 

proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action. This rule does not: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy; a section of the economy; 

productivity; completion; jobs; the 

environment; public health or safety; or 

State, local, or tribunal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Orders. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Sec. 

202, Pub. L. 104–4) 

It has been determined that this 

proposed rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year. 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 601) 

It has been certified that this proposed 

rule is not subject to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it 

would not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. Set 

forth in this proposed rule are minor 

revisions to the existing regulation. The 

DoD does not anticipate a significant 

impact on the Program. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

It has been determined that this 

proposed rule does not impose reporting 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78365 

or recordkeeping requirements under 

the Paperwork Act of 1995. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

It has been determined that this 

proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications, as set forth in Executive 

Order 13132. This rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on: 

(1) The States; 

(2) The relationship between the 

National Government and the States; or 

(3) The distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of Government. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 199 

Claims, Dental health, Health care, 

Health insurance, Dental sealants, 

Military personnel. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 199—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 199 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 

55. 

■ 2. Section 199.13 is proposed to be 

amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (14), (17) 

and (20). 

■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(24). 

■ c. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i). 

■ d. Adding new paragraph 

(e)(2)(i)(B)(5). 

■ e. Revising the table following 

paragraph (e)(3)(i) to delete the fourth 

line item entry entitled ‘‘Sealants.’’ 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and 

(g)(2)(i). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 199.13 TRICARE Dental Program. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Beneficiary liability. The legal 

obligation of the beneficiary, his or her 

estate, or responsible family member to 

pay for the costs of dental care or 

treatment received. Specifically, for the 

purposes of services and supplies 

covered by the TDP, beneficiary liability 

including cost-sharing amounts or any 

amount above the network maximum 

allowable charge where the provider 

selected by the beneficiary is not a 

participating provider or a provider 

within an approved alternative delivery 

system. In cases where a 

nonparticipating provider does not 

accept assignment of benefits, 

* * * * * 

(14) Nonparticipating provider. A 

dentist or dental hygienist that 

furnished dental services to a TDP 

beneficiary, but who has not agreed to 

participate in the contractor’s network 

and accept reimbursement in 

accordance with the contractor’s 

network agreement. A nonparticipating 

provider looks to the beneficiary or 

active duty, Selected Reserve or 

Individual Ready Reserve member for 

final responsibility for payment of his or 

her charge, but may accept payment 

(assignment of benefits) directly from 

the insurer or assist the beneficiary in 

filing the claim for reimbursement by 

the dental plan contractor. Where the 

nonparticipating provider does not 

accept payment directly from the 

insurer, the insurer pays the beneficiary 

or active duty, Selected Reserve or 

Individual Ready Reserve member, not 

the provider. 

* * * * * 

(17) Participating provider. A dentist 

or dental hygienist who has agreed to 

participate in the contractor’s network 

and accept reimbursement in 

accordance with the contractor’s 

network agreement as the total charge 

(even though less than the actual billed 

amount), including provision for 

payment to the provider by the 

beneficiary (or active duty, Selected 

Reserve or Individual Ready Reserve 

member) or any cost-share for covered 

services. 

* * * * * 

(20) Preventive services. Traditional 

prophylaxis including scaling deposits 

from teeth, polishing teeth, and topical 

application of fluoride to teeth, as well 

as other dental services authorized in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Diagnostic and preventive services. 

Benefits may be extended for those 

dental services described as oral 

examination, diagnostic, and preventive 

services when performed directly by 

dentists and dental hygienists as 

authorized under paragraph (f) of this 

section. These include the following 

categories of service: 

* * * * * 

(B) * * * 

(5) Sealants. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(5) Participating provider. An 

authorized provider may elect to 

participate as a network provider in the 

dental plan contractor’s network and 

any such election will apply to all TDP 

beneficiaries. The authorized provider 

may not participate on a claim-by-claim 

basis. The participating provider must 

agree to accept, within one (1) day of a 

request for appointment, beneficiaries in 

need of emergency palliative treatment. 

Payment to the participating provider is 

based on the methodology specified in 

paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section. The 

fee or charge determinations are binding 

upon the provider in accordance with 

the dental plan contractor’s procedures 

for participation in the network. 

Payment is made directly to the 

participating provider, and the 

participating provider may only charge 

the beneficiary the applicable percent 

cost-share of the dental plan contractor’s 

allowable charge for those benefit 

categories as specified in paragraph (e) 

of this section, in addition to the full 

charges for any services not authorized 

as benefits. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Nonparticipating providers (or the 

Beneficiaries or active duty, Selected 

Reserve or Individual Ready Reserve 

members for unassigned claims) shall be 

reimbursed at the lesser of (1) the 

provider’s actual charge: or (2) the 

network maximum allowable charge for 

similar services for that same locality 

(region) or state, whichever is lower, 

subject to the exception listed in 

paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section, less 

any cost-share amount due for 

authorized services. The network 

maximum allowable charge is the 

maximum negotiated fee between the 

dental contractor and any TDP 

participating provider for similar 

services covered by the dental plan in 

that same locality (region) or state. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 22, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30322 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0807] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Mantua Creek, Paulsboro, NJ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the operating regulation that 

governs the Conrail railroad bridge over 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS