10088 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND 

RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR 

part 334 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 

40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3). 

■ 2. Add § 334.405 to read as follows: 

§ 334.405 South of entrance to 

Chesapeake Bay off Camp Pendleton, 

Virginia; firing range. 

(a) The danger zone. An area directly 

from Camp Pendleton extending 

offshore as denied by lines drawn as 

follows: Beginning at latitude 36°49′00′′ 

N., longitude 75°58′04′′ W.; thence to 

latitude 36°49′19′′ N., longitude 

75°57′41′′ W.; thence to latitude 

36°49′21′′ N., longitude 75°57′32′′ W.; 

thence to latitude 36°49′13′′ N., 

longitude 75°56′44′′ W.; thence to 

latitude 36°49′22′′ N., longitude 

75°55′48′′ W.; thence to latitude 

36°49′12′′ N., longitude 75°55′46′′ W.; 

thence to latitude 36°49′02′′ N., 

longitude 75°55′45′′ W.; thence to 

latitude 36°48′52′′ N., longitude 

75°55′45′′ W.; thence to latitude 

36°48′54′′ N., longitude 75°56′42′′ W.; 

thence to latitude 36°48′41′′ N., 

longitude 75°57′28′′ W.; thence to 

latitude 36°48′41′′ N., longitude 

75°57′37′′ W.; thence to latitude 

36°48′57′′ N., longitude 75°58′04′′ W. 

The datum for these coordinates is 

WGS84. 

(b) The regulations. (1) Persons and 

vessels shall proceed through the area 

with caution and shall remain therein 

no longer than necessary for purpose of 

transit. 

(2) When firing is in progress during 

daylight hours, red flags will be 

displayed at conspicuous locations on 

the beach. No firing will be done during 

the hours of darkness or low visibility. 

(3) Firing on the ranges shall be 

suspended as long as any persons or 

vessels are within the danger zone. 

(4) Lookout posts shall be manned by 

the activity or agency operating the 

firing range State Military Reservation, 

Camp Pendleton. 

(5) There shall be no firing on the 

range during periods of low visibility 

which would prevent the recognition of 

a vessel (to a distance of 7,500 yards) 

which is property displaying navigation 

lights, or which would preclude a vessel 

from observing the red range flags or 

lights. 

(c) Enforcement. The regulations in 

this section shall be enforced by the 

Adjutant General of Virginia, and such 

agencies as he or she may designate. 

Dated: February 17, 2016. 

Edward E. Belk, Jr., 

Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division, 

Directorate of Civil Works. 

[FR Doc. 2016–04215 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0006; FRL–9942–90– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on 

behalf of the Commonwealth on July 22, 

2014. VADEQ’s submittal revises 

Virginia’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) air quality 

preconstruction permitting program to 

be consistent with the federal PSD 

regulations regarding the use of the 

significant monitoring concentration 

(SMC) and significant impact levels 

(SILs) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

emissions. EPA is approving these 

revisions in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 29, 

2016 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

March 30, 2016. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0006 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

johansen.amy@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the ‘‘For 

Further Information Contact’’ section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Himanshu Vyas, (215) 814–2112, or by 

email at vyas.himanshu@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The CAA at section 110(a)(2)(C) 

requires states to develop and submit to 

the EPA for approval into the SIP 

preconstruction review and permitting 

programs applicable to certain new and 

modified stationary sources of air 

pollutants for attainment and 

nonattainment areas that cover both 

major and minor new sources and 

modifications, collectively referred to as 

the New Source Review (NSR) SIP. The 

CAA NSR SIP program is composed of 

three separate programs: PSD, 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is 

established in part C of title I of the 

CAA and applies in areas that meet the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)—‘‘attainment areas,’’ as well 

as areas where there is insufficient 

information to determine if the area 

meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable 

areas.’’ The NNSR SIP program is 

established in part D of title I of the 

CAA and applies in areas that are not in 

attainment of the NAAQS— 

‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ The Minor NSR 

SIP program addresses construction or 

modification activities that do not emit, 

or have the potential to emit, beyond 

certain major source thresholds, and 

thus do not qualify as ‘‘major’’ and 

applies regardless of the designation of 

the area in which a source is located. 

The EPA regulations governing the 

criteria that states must satisfy for EPA 

approval of the NSR programs as part of 

the SIP are contained in 40 CFR 51.160– 

51.166. 

On October 20, 2010, EPA 

promulgated revisions to the existing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 10089 

1See ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) for Particulate Matter less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant 

Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC).’’ 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 

2010). 

2Rather than remove the PM2.5 SMC in its 

entirety, EPA revised the value to zero micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) in order to be clear that 

there is no air quality impact level below which a 

permitting authority has the discretion to exempt a 

source from PM2.5 monitoring requirements. See 78 

FR at 73699. 

requirements of the federal PSD 

permitting program as it pertains to 

emissions of PM2.5.1 As relevant here for 

this rulemaking, those revisions 

included two screening tools which 

outlined the extent to which certain 

sources were required as part of a 

permit application to demonstrate the 

impact of the proposed project on 

ambient air quality. A SMC was 

established to determine whether a PSD 

permit application may be exempted 

from the 1-year air monitoring 

requirement for PM2.5 based on the 

grounds that the increase of the 

pollutant is de minimis and would have 

a limited impact on ambient air quality. 

Additionally, SILs were established, 

below which a source was presumed to 

have met its statutory obligation to 

demonstrate that the proposed project 

would not cause or contribute to a 

violation of the NAAQS. In response to 

a request from EPA and a petition from 

a third party, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (the Court) subsequently vacated 

and remanded to the EPA the portions 

of the 2010 PSD regulations establishing 

the PM2.5 SMC and SILs. Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463–64 (D.C. Cir. 

2013). As a result of this decision, EPA 

subsequently revised its regulations to 

amend the SMC for PM2.5 and to remove 

the SILs for PM2.5 altogether. See 78 FR 

73698 (December 9, 2013).2

Prior to the Court’s decision, on 

August 25, 2011, VADEQ submitted a 

formal revision to its SIP to incorporate 

changes to its PM2.5 regulations in 

accordance with the federal PSD 

program in effect at that time. In light 

of the Court’s decision, by letter dated 

February 13, 2013, Virginia officially 

withdrew from the August 25, 2011 

submittal those portions of the Virginia 

Administrative Code (VAC) which 

pertained to the PM2.5 SILs and SMC. 

Specifically, Virginia withdrew the 

PM2.5 SIL regulation at paragraph A(2) 

of 9VAC5–80–1715 and the portion of 

paragraph E(1) of 9VAC5–80–1695 

pertaining to the PM2.5 SMC. On 

February 25, 2014, EPA approved the 

remaining portions of VADEQ’s 

submittal without addressing the PM2.5

SMC and SILs. See 79 FR 10377. 

Virginia subsequently revised the VAC 

to comport with EPA’s December 9, 

2013 rulemaking for SILs and SMC and 

submitted those amended regulations to 

EPA as a formal SIP revision on July 22, 

2014. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Virginia’s July 22, 2014 SIP submittal 

consists of revisions to Virginia’s PSD 

permitting regulations at 9VAC5–80, 

sections 1695 and 1715 to reflect federal 

requirements relating to PM2.5 SMC and 

SILs. Specifically, 9VAC5–80–1695E(1) 

establishes a SMC of 0 mg/m3 of PM2.5, 

and expressly states that no exemption 

from monitoring is available with regard 

to PM2.5. As previously discussed, 

VADEQ’s PM2.5 SILs provision, formerly 

codified at 9VAC5–80–1715A(2) was 

never approved by EPA into Virginia’s 

SIP and was subsequently removed by 

Virginia from the VAC. Therefore, this 

approval action does not include a 

substantive revision to 9VAC5–80– 

1715A. Rather, EPA’s action involves 

approval of Virginia’s administrative 

recodification, necessitated by the 

Commonwealth’s revision of state 

regulations (i.e., the removal of the SILs 

from 9VAC5–80–1715). The Virginia 

regulations, 9VAC5–80, sections 1695 

and 1715, are consistent with federal 

PSD requirements for PM2.5 in the CAA 

and its implementing regulations, 

including specifically 40 CFR 51.166, 

and were effective in Virginia on June 

4, 2014. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving VADEQ’s July 22, 

2014 SIP submittal, including revised 

provisions of the VAC, 9VAC5–80, 

sections 1695 and 1715, as a revision to 

the Virginia SIP because the revision 

meets CAA requirements in the CAA 

and its implementing regulations. EPA 

is publishing this rule without prior 

proposal because EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comment. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

SIP revision if adverse comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective on April 

29, 2016 without further notice unless 

EPA receives adverse comment by 

March 30, 2016. If EPA receives adverse 

comment, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on the proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, 

precludes granting a privilege to 

documents and information ‘‘required 

by law,’’ including documents and 

information ‘‘required by Federal law to 

maintain program delegation, 

authorization or approval,’’ since 

Virginia must ‘‘enforce Federally 

authorized environmental programs in a 

manner that is no less stringent than 

their Federal counterparts. . . .’’ The 

opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding 

§ 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or 

other information needed for civil or 

criminal enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
10090 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent 

consistent with requirements imposed 

by Federal law,’’ any person making a 

voluntary disclosure of information to a 

state agency regarding a violation of an 

environmental statute, regulation, 

permit, or administrative order is 

granted immunity from administrative 

or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s 

January 12, 1998 opinion states that the 

quoted language renders this statute 

inapplicable to enforcement of any 

federally authorized programs, since 

‘‘no immunity could be afforded from 

administrative, civil, or criminal 

penalties because granting such 

immunity would not be consistent with 

Federal law, which is one of the criteria 

for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking action, the EPA is 

finalizing regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of VADEQ 

rules regarding PM2.5 SILs and SMC 

discussed in Section III of this 

preamble. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or 

may be viewed at the appropriate EPA 

office (see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is 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.); 

• does 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); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is 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 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land as defined 

in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 April 29, 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 this 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 action. 

This action pertaining to Virginia’s 

PSD requirements for PM2.5 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, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 12, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

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: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 39 / Monday, February 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 10091 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entries 

under Chapter 80 for Sections 5–80– 

1695 and 5–80–1715 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/Subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

[former SIP citation] 

*******

9 VAC 5, Chapter 80 Permits for Stationary Sources [Part VIII] 

*******

Article 8 Permits—Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas 

*******

5–80–1695 ..................... Exemptions .................. 6/4/14 2/29/16 [Insert Federal 

Register Citation].

Revised paragraph E(1) to add value for PM2.5. 

Limited approval remains in effect. 

* * * * * * * 

5–80–1715 ..................... Source impact analysis 6/4/14 2/29/16 [Insert Federal 

Register Citation].

Revised paragraph A. Limited approval remains 

in effect. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–04245 Filed 2–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 600 

[CMS–2396–FN] 

RIN 0938–ZB21 

Basic Health Program; Federal 

Funding Methodology for Program 

Years 2017 and 2018 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final methodology. 

SUMMARY: This document provides the 

methodology and data sources necessary 

to determine Federal payment amounts 

made in program years 2017 and 2018 

to states that elect to establish a Basic 

Health Program under the Affordable 

Care Act to offer health benefits 

coverage to low-income individuals 

otherwise eligible to purchase coverage 

through Affordable Insurance Exchanges 

(hereinafter referred to as the 

Exchanges). 

DATES: These regulations are effective 

on January 1, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Truffer, (410) 786–1264; or 

Stephanie Kaminsky (410) 786–4653. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Proposed Provisions and 

Analysis of and Responses to Public 

Comments on the Proposed Methodology 

A. Background 

B. Overview of the Funding Methodology 

and Calculation of the Payment Amount 

C. Required Rate Cells 

D. Sources and State Data Considerations 

E. Discussion of Specific Variables Used in 

Payment Equations 

F. Adjustments for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives 

G. State Option To Use 2016 or 2017 QHP 

Premiums for BHP Payments 

H. State Option To Include Retrospective 

State-Specific Health Risk Adjustment in 

Certified Methodology 

III. Provisions of the Final Methodology 

A. Overview of the Funding Methodology 

and Calculation of the Payment Amount 

B. Federal BHP Payment Rate Cells 

C. Sources and State Data Considerations 

D. Discussion of Specific Variables Used in 

Payment Equations 

E. Adjustments for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives 

F. State Option To Use 2016 or 2017 QHP 

Premiums for BHP Payments 

G. State Option To Include Retrospective 

State-Specific Health Risk Adjustment in 

Certified Methodology 

IV. Collection of Information Requirements 

V. Regulatory Impact Statement 

A. Overall Impact 

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Federalism 

Acronyms 

To assist the reader, the following 

acronyms are used in this document. 

DAV Change in Actuarial Value 

APTC Advance payment of the premium 

tax credit 

ARP Adjusted reference premium 

AV Actuarial value 

BHP Basic Health Program 

CCIIO CMS’ Center for Consumer 

Information and Insurance Oversight 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

CHIP Children’s Health Insurance Program 

CPI–U Consumer price index for all urban 

consumers 

CSR Cost-sharing reduction 

EHB Essential Health Benefit 

FPL Federal poverty line 

FRAC Factor for removing administrative 

costs 

IRF Income reconciliation factor 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

IUF Induced utilization factor 

QHP Qualified health plan 

OTA Office of Tax Analysis [of the U.S. 

Department of Treasury] 

PHF Population health factor 

PTC Premium tax credit 

PTCF Premium tax credit formula 

PTF Premium trend factor 

RP Reference premium 

SBE State Based Exchange 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES