Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69769 

calendar month basis using the 

following formulas: 

SO2 emissions in pounds = (carbon 

ratio) × (tons of aluminum 

produced during the calendar 

month) × (% sulfur in baked 

anodes/100) × (% sulfur converted 

to SO2/100) × (2 pounds of SO2 per 

pound of sulfur) × (2000 pounds per 

ton) 

SO2 emissions in pounds per ton of 

aluminum produced = (SO2

emissions in pounds during the 

calendar month)/(tons of aluminum 

produced during the calendar 

month) 

(A) The carbon ratio is the calendar 

month average of tons of baked anodes 

consumed per ton of aluminum 

produced as determined using the baked 

anode consumption and aluminum 

production records required in 

paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

(B) The % sulfur in baked anodes is 

the calendar month average sulfur 

content as determined in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(C) The % sulfur converted to SO2 is 

90%. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–27502 Filed 11–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0337; FRL–9919–67– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS33 

Findings of Failure To Submit a 

Complete State Implementation Plan 

for Section 110(a) Pertaining to the 

2010 Nitrogen Oxide (NO2) Primary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action 

finding that the District of Columbia and 

seven states (Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, 

Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont and 

Washington) have not submitted 

complete infrastructure State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) that 

provide the basic Clean Air Act (CAA) 

program elements necessary to 

implement the 2010 nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2) primary national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). Three out of 

the seven states (Alaska, Arkansas and 

Vermont) have not made any submittals. 

The District of Columbia and the 

remaining four out of the seven states 

(Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey and 

Washington) have made submittals that 

are partially incomplete due to the lack 

of complete SIP approved Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

programs. The purpose of an 

infrastructure SIP submission is to 

assure that a state, local or tribal air 

agency’s SIP contains the necessary 

structural requirements for any new or 

revised NAAQS. The remaining 43 

states have made complete submissions. 

Each finding of failure to submit a 

complete infrastructure SIP establishes a 

24-month deadline for the EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) to address the outstanding 

SIP elements unless, prior to the EPA 

promulgating a FIP, the affected air 

agency submits, and the EPA approves, 

a revised SIP that corrects the 

deficiency. In those areas without a 

state-adopted PSD permit program, the 

FIP obligation has already been met 

through federal regulations that govern 

PSD permits issued in some cases by the 

EPA and in other cases by state or local 

agencies under delegation agreements. 

DATES: Effective date of this action is 

December 24, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General questions concerning this 

document should be addressed to Ms. 

Mia South, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Policy Division, Mail Code C504–2, 109 

TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709; telephone (919) 541– 

5550; email: south.mia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Notice and Comment Under the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 

Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), provides that, when an 

agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. The 

EPA has determined that there is good 

cause for making this rule final without 

prior proposal and opportunity for 

comment because no significant EPA 

judgment is involved in making a 

finding of failure to submit SIPs, or 

elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, 

where states have made no submissions 

or incomplete submissions, to meet the 

requirement. Thus, notice and public 

procedure are unnecessary. The EPA 

finds that this constitutes good cause 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The EPA has established a docket for 

this action under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0337. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through https://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, 

William Jefferson Clinton West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744 and 

the telephone number for the Office of 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center is (202) 566–1742. 

C. How is the preamble organized? 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Notice and Comment Under the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

C. How is the preamble organized? 

D. Where do I go if I have specific state 

questions? 

II. Background and Overview 

A. Infrastructure SIPs 

B. Mandatory Duty Suit for the EPA’s 

Failure To Make Findings of Failure To 

Submit for Areas That Did Not Submit 

Infrastructure SIPs by January 22, 2013 

C. What elements are outside the scope of 

infrastructure SIP actions? 

III. Findings of Failure To Submit for States 

That Failed To Make an Infrastructure 

SIP Submission in Whole or in Part for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low Income Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

L. Judicial Review 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
69770 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010, Primary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen 

Dioxide, Final Rule. 2Complaint, WildEarth Guardians v EPA, USDC 

Colorado, October 9, 2013, Case 1:13–cv–02748– 

RBJ. The complaint was amended on January 24, 

2014, to add Hawaii and Alaska. 

D. Where do I go if I have specific state 

questions? 

The table below lists the states and 

additional area (District of Columbia) 

that failed to make an infrastructure SIP 

submittal in whole or in part for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. For questions related 

to specific states or areas mentioned in 

this document, please contact the 

appropriate EPA Regional Office: 

Regional offices States 

EPA Region 1: Dave Conroy, Air Program Branch Manager, Air Programs Branch, EPA New England, 1 Congress 

Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02203–2211. 617–918–1661.

Vermont. 

EPA Region 2: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, 21st Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866. 212–637–4014.

New Jersey. 

EPA Region 3: Cristina Fernandez, Air Division Director, Air Quality Planning Branch, EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2187. 215–814–2178.

District of Columbia. 

EPA Region 5: John Mooney, Air Program Branch Manager, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Street, Chicago, IL 60604–3590. 312–886–6043.

Minnesota. 

EPA Region 6: Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202– 

2733. 214–665–7242.

Arkansas. 

EPA Region 9: Matt Lakin, Air Program Manager, Air Planning Office, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 415–972–3851.Hawaii. 

EPA Region 10: Debra Suzuki, Air Program Manager, Air Planning Unit, EPA Region X, Office of Air, Waste, and 

Toxics, Mail Code AWT–107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. 206–553–0985.

Alaska, Washington. 

II. Background and Overview 

A. Infrastructure SIPs 

The CAA section 110(a) imposes an 

obligation upon states to submit SIPs 

that provide for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of a new 

or revised NAAQS within 3 years 

following the promulgation of the new 

or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific requirements that states 

must meet in these SIP submissions, as 

applicable. The EPA refers to this type 

of SIP submission as the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP because the SIP 

ensures that states can implement, 

maintain and enforce the air standards. 

States are required to develop and 

maintain an air quality management 

program that meets various basic 

structural requirements, including, but 

not limited to: Enforceable emission 

limitations; an ambient air monitoring 

program; an enforcement program; air 

quality modeling capabilities; and 

adequate personnel, resources and legal 

authority. 

The contents of an infrastructure SIP 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the infrastructure SIP for a 

new or revised NAAQS necessarily 

affect the content of the submission. The 

content of such an infrastructure SIP 

submission may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. 

On January 22, 2010, the EPA 

strengthened the health-based primary 

NAAQS for NO2. The EPA set a new 1- 

hour NO2 standard at the level of 100 

parts per billion (ppb). This level 

defines the allowable concentration in a 

nonattainment area. In addition to 

establishing an averaging time and level, 

the EPA set a new ‘‘form’’ for the 

standard. The form is the air quality 

statistic used to determine if an area 

meets the standard. The form for the 1- 

hour NO2 standard is the 3-year average 

of the 98th percentile of the annual 

distribution of daily maximum 1-hour 

average concentrations. Finally, the EPA 

retained, with no change, the current 

annual average NO2 standard of 53 

ppb.1 The obligation to submit an 

infrastructure SIP was triggered with the 

revision of the NO2 NAAQS in 2010, 

and, because the EPA did not prescribe 

a shorter deadline, January 22, 2013, 

was the applicable deadline for such 

submissions. In the case of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS, the EPA believes that 

many of the states have met many of the 

program elements identified in this 

document required under section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous NAAQS. 

B. Mandatory Duty Suit for the EPA’s 

Failure To Make Findings of Failure To 

Submit for Areas That Did Not Submit 

Infrastructure SIPs by January 22, 2013 

On October 9, 2013, WildEarth 

Guardians (WEG) filed a complaint in 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Colorado to enforce the EPA’s 

mandatory duty to make findings of 

failure to submit with respect to NO2

infrastructure SIPs for the following 

states: Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington and Wyoming.2 On January 

24, 2014, Alaska and Hawaii were 

added to the complaint. These 

infrastructure SIPs were due on January 

22, 2013. Most states identified in the 

complaint have made complete 

submissions as of the date of this 

document. In response to the WEG 

complaint, the EPA is issuing a national 

finding of failure to submit certain 

elements of NO2 infrastructure SIPs for 

the requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (but not with 

respect to the permitting program 

required by CAA title I subpart D), 

(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)–(H) and (J)–(M), 

addressing all states (and the District of 

Columbia) that have not made complete 

submissions. 

C. What elements are outside the scope 

of infrastructure SIP actions? 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the 3-year 

submission deadline because SIPs 

incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area requirements are not 

due within 3 years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the time the nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due. These 

requirements are: (i) Submissions 

required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that that subsection refers to a 

nonattainment area new source review 

permit program for major sources as 

required in part D of title I of the CAA; 

and (ii) submissions required by section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA. Therefore, 

this action does not cover these specific 

SIP elements. Nonattainment area plans 

required by part D title I of the CAA for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS are generally due 

18 months after the effective date of 

designation of an area as nonattainment. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69771 

However, in the case of NO2, no area has 

been designated nonattainment. 

III. Findings of Failure To Submit for 

States That Failed To Make an 

Infrastructure SIP Submission in Whole 

or in Part for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

Forty-three states have made complete 

submittals for their respective 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. With respect to the remaining 

seven states and the District of 

Columbia, the EPA is making findings of 

failure to submit. 

Alaska, Arkansas and Vermont have 

not made any submittal, and for these 

the EPA is making a finding of failure 

to submit with respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (but not with 

respect to the permitting program 

required by CAA title I subpart D), 

(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)–(H) and (J)–(M). 

The District of Columbia, Hawaii, 

New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington 

have made complete submissions except 

with respect to the PSD-related 

requirements of section 110, and for 

these states the EPA is making a finding 

of failure to submit with respect to the 

requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii) and (J) to 

the extent these refer to PSD permitting 

programs required by part C of title I of 

the CAA. 

To summarize, the EPA is finding that 

seven states and the District of 

Columbia have not made a complete 

infrastructure SIP submission to meet 

certain requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

that are relevant to this action, as 

identified above, for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. The EPA is committed to 

working with the air agencies for these 

states and the District of Columbia to 

expedite submissions as necessary, and 

to working with all air agencies to 

review and act on their infrastructure 

SIP submissions in accordance with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

These findings establish a 24-month 

deadline for the promulgation by the 

EPA of a FIP, in accordance with section 

110(c)(1), for each of those states for 

which the EPA is making a finding 

unless the EPA has approved a SIP by 

that date. The District of Columbia, 

Hawaii, Minnesota and Washington are 

currently subject to PSD FIPs. New 

Jersey is currently subject to a 

combination of a SIP and a FIP for PSD. 

In these areas, the FIP for PSD is either 

implemented by the EPA or delegated to 

a state or local agency for 

implementation. In these areas, the PSD 

FIP obligation has already been met 

through federal regulations that govern 

PSD permits issued in some cases by the 

EPA and in other cases by state or local 

agencies under delegation agreements. 

The EPA recognizes that states may 

choose to continue to rely on the 

existing PSD FIP or a combination of 

SIP and FIP PSD programs, which will 

continue to govern the permitting of 

their sources without the need for 

further action by the state. If so, then 

this rulemaking does not require these 

areas to take further action. 

These findings of failure to submit do 

not impose sanctions, or set deadlines 

for imposing sanctions as described in 

section 179 of the CAA, because these 

findings do not pertain to the elements 

of a part D, title I plan for nonattainment 

areas as required under section 

110(a)(2)(I), and because these states 

have not failed to make submissions in 

response to a SIP call pursuant to 

section 110(k)(5). 

IV. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

This document is making a 

procedural finding that certain states 

have failed to submit a complete SIP 

that provides certain basic program 

elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary 

to implement the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

that states submit SIPs that implement, 

maintain and enforce a new or revised 

NAAQS which satisfy the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) within 3 years of 

promulgation of such standard, or such 

shorter period as the EPA may provide. 

The EPA did not conduct an 

environmental analysis for this rule 

because this rule would not directly 

affect the air emissions of particular 

sources. The EPA notes that there are no 

areas of the U.S. in nonattainment with 

the health-based NO2 NAAQS. Because 

this rule will not directly affect the air 

emissions of particular sources, it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. Therefore, this action will 

not have potential disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, lowincome or indigenous populations. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This final 

rule does not establish any new 

information collection requirement 

apart from what is already required by 

law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

This action is not subject to the RFA. 

The RFA applies only to rules subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or 

any other statute. This rule is not 

subject to notice and comment 

requirements because the agency has 

invoked the APA ‘‘good cause’’ 

exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action implements 

mandates specifically and explicitly set 

forth in the CAA under section 110(a) 

without the exercise of any policy 

discretion by the EPA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This rule responds to the 

requirement in the CAA for states to 

submit SIPs under section 110(a) to 

satisfy certain elements required under 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of 

the CAA requires that states submit SIPs 

that provide for implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of a new 

or revised NAAQS, and which satisfy 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2), within 3 years of 

promulgation of such standard, or 

within such shorter period as the EPA 

may provide. No tribe is subject to the 

requirement to submit an 

implementation plan under section 

110(a) within 3 years of promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
69772 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. The 

EPA’s evaluation of environmental 

justice considerations is contained in 

section IV of this document. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

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

L. Judicial Review 

Section 307(b)(l) of the CAA indicates 

which federal Courts of Appeal have 

venue for petitions of review of final 

agency actions by the EPA under the 

CAA. This section provides, in part, that 

petitions for review must be filed in the 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency 

action consists of ‘‘nationally applicable 

regulations promulgated, or final actions 

taken, by the Administrator,’’ or (ii) 

when such action is locally or regionally 

applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on 

a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule consisting of findings of 

failure to submit certain of the required 

infrastructure SIP provisions is 

‘‘nationally applicable’’ within the 

meaning of section 307(b)(1). This rule 

affects the District of Columbia and 

seven states across the country that are 

located in seven of the ten EPA Regions, 

five different federal circuits, and 

multiple time zones. In addition, the 

rule addresses a common core of 

knowledge and analysis involved in 

formulating the decision and a common 

interpretation of the requirements of 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V applied to 

determining the completeness of SIPs in 

states across the country. 

This determination is appropriate 

because in the 1977 CAA Amendments 

that revised CAA section 307(b)(l), 

Congress noted that the Administrator’s 

determination that an action is of 

‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ would be 

appropriate for any action that has 

‘‘scope or effect beyond a single judicial 

circuit.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323– 

324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 

1402–03. Here, the scope and effect of 

this action extends to the five judicial 

circuits that include the states across the 

country affected by this action. In these 

circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its 

legislative history authorize the 

Administrator to find the rule to be of 

‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ and thus to 

indicate that venue for challenges lies in 

the D.C. Circuit. Accordingly, the EPA 

is determining that this is a rule of 

nationwide scope or effect. 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 District of Columbia 

Circuit within 60 days from the date this 

final action is published in the Federal 

Register. Filing a petition for review by 

the Administrator of this final action 

does not affect the finality of the action 

for the purposes of judicial review nor 

does it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review must be 

filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such rule or action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Approval 

and promulgation of implementation 

plans, Administrative practice and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 14, 2014. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27679 Filed 11–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 424 

[CMS–6006–F3] 

Medicare Program; Surety Bond 

Requirement for Suppliers of Durable 

Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, 

Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS); 

Technical Amendment 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: This technical amendment 

corrects codification, terminology, and 

technical errors in the requirements for 

suppliers of durable medical equipment, 

prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies 

(DMEPOS) at 42 CFR 424.57. 

DATES: This technical amendment is 

effective November 24, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frank Whelan, (410) 786–1302. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

For purposes of the durable medical 

equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and 

supplies (DMEPOS) supplier standards, 

the term ‘‘DMEPOS supplier’’ is defined 

in § 424.57(a) as an entity or individual, 

including a physician or Part A 

provider, that sells or rents Part B 

covered DMEPOS items to Medicare 

beneficiaries and that meet the DMEPOS 

supplier standards. The term 

‘‘DMEPOS’’ encompasses the types of 

items included in the definition of 

medical equipment and supplies in 

section 1834(j)(5) of the Act. 

The term durable medical equipment 

is defined at section 1861(n) of the Act. 

Prosthetic devices are defined in section 

1861(s)(8) of the Act as ‘‘devices (other 

than dental) which replace all or part of 

an internal body organ (including 

colostomy bags and supplies directly 

related to colostomy care), including 

replacement of such devices, and 

including one pair of conventional 

eyeglasses or contact lenses furnished 

subsequent to each cataract surgery with 

insertion of an intraocular lens.’’ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES